Lisbon - a fraudulent referendum?

derry

Petition to have the Lisbon results removed due to rigging the vote and they have applied to make criminal case

http://www.gopetition.com/online/31224.html a petition has been set up, if you suspect lisbon was rigged please sign it.

They outline all the ways the yes vote was done with all methods of stuffing the ballot boxxes with yes votes

Derry

<MOD>This thread has been reopened as a thread for claims that the Lisbon Treaty vote was rigged - include your petitions, Youtube videos, etc here.</MOD>

Scofflaw

Read the Forum Charter, please - this isn't a noticeboard for petitions.

moderately,
Scofflaw

samson09

Why the Lisbon Treaty must NOT be ratified.

Under Irish law, ballot boxes are required to be delivered by members of the Gardai to the polling stations at 7:00 am on the date the election takes place.

This legal requirement applies to ALL polling in Ireland, whether elections or referendums.

On this occasion, however, the ballot boxes were delivered to the private residences of the polling/Returning Officers, 48 hours prior to the Referendum.

A number of honest Returning Officers formally objected to this BREACH OF PROCEDURE, and to the concomitant prospective breach of security, let alone of the electoral legislation.

We understand that such objections were officially dismissed out of hand on the spurious and diversionary grounds that the ballot boxes possessed no commercial value, so it would be in nobody’s commercial interest to steal them.

The central issue – that since the Irish ballot boxes were delivered 48 hours early they could be ‘stuffed’ with YES votes by returning officers, as routinely happens in places like the former Soviet Republic of Georgia – was of course not addressed.

The Irish voters were given pencils to make their mark on the ballot, even though all Irish electoral ballots are supposed to be filled with black pen.

Almost nobody was asked for any form of ID or information at the polling stations.

The ballot boxes were left unattended and moved about by many people without question.

At least one box in Cork was removed from the count centre by an unknown individual as shown in the attached video.

Many foreign nationals and others who were not legally entitled to vote voted in this Referendum. Irish Times article “Gardai to investigate suspected vote fraud”, shows seven voters registered to an empty house.

It follows that, given that the local electoral law was flouted, THE OUTCOME OF THE IRISH REFERENDUM IS FRAUDULENT AND MUST IMMEDIATELY BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.

II.

1) The intervention of the European Commission, entailing massive expenditure of money to influence Irish opinion towards a Yes, the running of a web-site and the issuing of statements that sought to counter No-side arguments, and the advocacy of a Yes vote by Commission President Barroso and other Commissioners and their staffs during visits to Ireland. This is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

2) The part funding of the posters and press advertising of most of Ireland’s Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and even though, under European law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid partisan advocacy;

3) The Irish Government’s unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called “assurances” of the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as other material - steps that were in breach of the 1995 Irish Supreme Court judgment in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public funds to seek to obtain a particular result in a referendum;

4) The failure of the country’s statutory Referendum Commission to carry out its function under the Referendum Act that established it of explaining to citizens how the proposed constitutional amendment and its text would affect the Irish Constitution. Instead the Commission’s Chairman, Judge Frank Clarke, turned the Commission into an arm of Government propaganda, while the judge indulged himself in various “solo-runs” on radio and in the newspapers, giving several erroneous explanations of provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, even though this was quite beyond his powers under the Act;

5) Huge expenditure of money by private companies such as Intel and Ryanair to advocate a Yes vote, without any statutory limit, in possible breach of Irish company and tax law, and undoubtedly constituting a major democratic abuse.

6) Breaches by the Irish broadcast media of their obligation under the Broadcasting Acts to be fair to all interests concerned in their coverage of issues of public controversy and debate. Newstalk 106, owned by Mr Denis O’Brien, a committed supporter of the Yes side, was quite shameless in its partisanship on its current affairs programmes.

Source: http://info-wars.org/2009/10/06/criminal-complaint-against-the-referendum-commission-returning-officers-jose-manuel-barroso-the-european-commission-brian-cowen-and-subsequent-persons-involved-in-the-lisbon-treaty-campaign/


Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to all of this?

Iwasfrozen

The referendum is over, stop complaining about the result.

Sam Vimes

samson09 wrote: »

Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to all of this?

Yes, the same way we turn a blind eye to 9/11 truthers, UFO enthusiasts, NWO enthusiasts etc

humanji

Do you have any evidence for this other than a conspiracy website?

jhegarty

The people have voted , it's time to give up.

If we go on objecting we risk look like the yes camp did last time.

Sam Vimes

humanji wrote: »

Do you have any evidence for this other than a conspiracy website?

Evidence is overrated :rolleyes:

turgon

samson09 wrote: »

We understand that such objections were officially dismissed out of hand on the spurious and diversionary grounds that the ballot boxes possessed no commercial value, so it would be in nobody’s commercial interest to steal them.

Are you suggesting the Yes side sprayed the boxes with a special chemical that erased all No votes and replaced them with Yes votes the night before?

samson09 wrote: »

The central issue – that since the Irish ballot boxes were delivered 48 hours early they could be ‘stuffed’ with YES votes by returning officers, as routinely happens in places like the former Soviet Republic of Georgia – was of course not addressed.

You do realize that EVERY box has an "attendance list" associated with it. Someones name is ticked off when they arrive, and the number of ballots must correspond to this list. So they couldn't add ballots before the vote. Of course your going to state that they ticked for people who never showed up, after the vote ended. "They" being the electoral workers who are just making a days wage. A big conspiracy indeed.

samson09 wrote: »

The Irish voters were given pencils to make their mark on the ballot, even though all Irish electoral ballots are supposed to be filled with black pen

Ive voted 3 times and every time its been pencil. What difference does it make?

samson09 wrote: »

Almost nobody was asked for any form of ID or information at the polling stations.

Ive voted 3 times and Ive never been asked. What difference does it make?

samson09 wrote: »

It follows that, given that the local electoral law was flouted, THE OUTCOME OF THE IRISH REFERENDUM IS FRAUDULENT AND MUST IMMEDIATELY BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.

Out of curiosity, would you be saying this if it was a No?

Elba101

samson09 wrote: »

Why the Lisbon Treaty must NOT be ratified.

Under Irish law, ballot boxes are required to be delivered by members of the Gardai to the polling stations at 7:00 am on the date the election takes place.

This legal requirement applies to ALL polling in Ireland, whether elections or referendums.

On this occasion, however, the ballot boxes were delivered to the private residences of the polling/Returning Officers, 48 hours prior to the Referendum.

A number of honest Returning Officers formally objected to this BREACH OF PROCEDURE, and to the concomitant prospective breach of security, let alone of the electoral legislation.

We understand that such objections were officially dismissed out of hand on the spurious and diversionary grounds that the ballot boxes possessed no commercial value, so it would be in nobody’s commercial interest to steal them.

The central issue – that since the Irish ballot boxes were delivered 48 hours early they could be ‘stuffed’ with YES votes by returning officers, as routinely happens in places like the former Soviet Republic of Georgia – was of course not addressed.

The Irish voters were given pencils to make their mark on the ballot, even though all Irish electoral ballots are supposed to be filled with black pen.

Almost nobody was asked for any form of ID or information at the polling stations.

The ballot boxes were left unattended and moved about by many people without question.

At least one box in Cork was removed from the count centre by an unknown individual as shown in the attached video.

Many foreign nationals and others who were not legally entitled to vote voted in this Referendum. Irish Times article “Gardai to investigate suspected vote fraud”, shows seven voters registered to an empty house.

It follows that, given that the local electoral law was flouted, THE OUTCOME OF THE IRISH REFERENDUM IS FRAUDULENT AND MUST IMMEDIATELY BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.

II.

1) The intervention of the European Commission, entailing massive expenditure of money to influence Irish opinion towards a Yes, the running of a web-site and the issuing of statements that sought to counter No-side arguments, and the advocacy of a Yes vote by Commission President Barroso and other Commissioners and their staffs during visits to Ireland. This is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

2) The part funding of the posters and press advertising of most of Ireland’s Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and even though, under European law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid partisan advocacy;

3) The Irish Government’s unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called “assurances” of the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as other material - steps that were in breach of the 1995 Irish Supreme Court judgment in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public funds to seek to obtain a particular result in a referendum;

4) The failure of the country’s statutory Referendum Commission to carry out its function under the Referendum Act that established it of explaining to citizens how the proposed constitutional amendment and its text would affect the Irish Constitution. Instead the Commission’s Chairman, Judge Frank Clarke, turned the Commission into an arm of Government propaganda, while the judge indulged himself in various “solo-runs” on radio and in the newspapers, giving several erroneous explanations of provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, even though this was quite beyond his powers under the Act;

5) Huge expenditure of money by private companies such as Intel and Ryanair to advocate a Yes vote, without any statutory limit, in possible breach of Irish company and tax law, and undoubtedly constituting a major democratic abuse.

6) Breaches by the Irish broadcast media of their obligation under the Broadcasting Acts to be fair to all interests concerned in their coverage of issues of public controversy and debate. Newstalk 106, owned by Mr Denis O’Brien, a committed supporter of the Yes side, was quite shameless in its partisanship on its current affairs programmes.

Source: http://info-wars.org/2009/10/06/criminal-complaint-against-the-referendum-commission-returning-officers-jose-manuel-barroso-the-european-commission-brian-cowen-and-subsequent-persons-involved-in-the-lisbon-treaty-campaign/


Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to all of this?

BOOOOR-RING!

Oafley Jones

You are of course taking into account the boxes that are always dispatched early to the islands?

Epic Tissue

The video is a bit of a wtf alright.

In my polling station, there was a Garda but I was there about 25 seconds so dunno if he was just there then or what. I wasn't asked for ID though which is a but crazy because that means you could potentially vote loads of times if you got peoples cards.

Stark

Michael Jackon's also alive btw:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCDZKXtStJ0

Maybe the same guy who took the ballot box is driving the van?

Sam Vimes

Epic Tissue wrote: »

I wasn't asked for ID though which is a but crazy because that means you could potentially vote loads of times if you got peoples cards.

I've never been asked for ID, most people aren't. It only becomes an issue when the vote doesn't go the way certain people want

Dinner

samson09 wrote: »

On this occasion, however, the ballot boxes were delivered to the private residences of the polling/Returning Officers, 48 hours prior to the Referendum.

Well done for showing a complete lack of understanding of voting procedure in Ireland. For somebody who seems to love the 'truth' you don't have the knowledge to back it up.

The ballot boxes could not, did you read that, could NOT have been stuffed the night before, on the day or indeed after the vote.

When the ballot boxes arrive at the polling station they are not sealed and they are not empty. They contain a number of items including 1) Ballot papers (500 was in my box, not sure if thats standard or not) 2) Envelopes and packaging to contain all the relevent documentation that ensures accountability. 3) The register of electors for that polling box 4) Posters that state the text of the amendment that would be inserted into the Constitution and information about the constituency including returning officer.

The Presiding Officer and/or the Poll Clerk open the box and remove these items. The box is now empty. The box is then sealed with 3 cable ties. At the end of the day the slot where ballot papers are put is then closed and sealed with a cable tie. All relevant documents including the ballot paper stubs, marked register of electors, unused ballot papers, a form that states how many people voted in that room etc. These are then put into their respective envelopes and sealed, usually with either tape or wax to ensue that they are not opened. All items are then parceled up in brown paper and sealed with tape. The station I was in this parcel was then tied to the top of the box, but that doesn't seem to happen in all stations.


ID checks are random. I think the guideline is every 5 or so people, but it usually slips a bit. Just because you've never been asked for ID doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Frankly, I don't buy the video at all. I'll just quote one of my other posts.

Dinner wrote: »

I love the fact that this guy just 'happened' to be recording the people carrying in the ballot boxes and when he spotted somebody carrying a box out of the count centre and he stood well back and made his little video while muttering to himself.

He was so outraged at this subversion of democracy that he stood still before going inside to have a look around.

He had 3 options:

1) Follow the guy and see where he was going or get a reg plate if he got into a car.
2) Stop the guy and ask him what was he doing
3) Do nothing, record it, speak in hushed tones and put the video up on youtube asap.

He went for 3. The guy did the least useful thing possible in the situation. He could have sorted the issue out very quickly by using option 1 or 2. But no, that wouldn't have made a good youtube video would it? That wouldn't add fuel to the fire of a conspiracy now would it?

Which begs the question, why did he do nothing?

Also, on the pencil thing. I've always voted with a pencil. And anybody who has ever used a pencil will know that you can erase the mark if you want, but an imprint will still be there. Anyone with a resonably functional brain will be able to spot it.

samson09

jhegarty wrote: »

The people have voted , it's time to give up.

If we go on objecting we risk look like the yes camp did last time.

Major democratic abuses have occured, with numerous European and Irish laws getting broken in the process. I don't accept the result of this referendum, it stinks of corruption and the political bullying and scaremongering was blatant from the start.

MarkR

derry wrote: »

Petition to have the Lisbon results removed due to rigging the vote and they have applied to make criminal case

http://www.gopetition.com/online/31224.html a petition has been set up, if you suspect lisbon was rigged please sign it.

They outline all the ways the yes vote was done with all methods of stuffing the ballot boxxes with yes votes

Derry

<MOD>This thread has been reopened as a thread for claims that the Lisbon Treaty vote was rigged - include your petitions, Youtube videos, etc here.</MOD>

I'd believe it was possible if you can show me one case where there was two voting cards for the same person in the box. You'd have to stuff the box with names from the area. And then somehow prevent those people from casting their legitimate votes.

Scofflaw

Epic Tissue wrote: »

The video is a bit of a wtf alright.

In my polling station, there was a Garda but I was there about 25 seconds so dunno if he was just there then or what. I wasn't asked for ID though which is a but crazy because that means you could potentially vote loads of times if you got peoples cards.

Except that it's the same people manning the polling stations all day. Indeed, it's usually the same people manning the posting stations every time - my wife used to do it, and her mother still does. The guys manning my polling station have been the same for the last 4 votes now, so I no longer need to show ID.

The scale of the fraud necessary to produce a result like that of the referendum would require the involvement of hundreds, if not thousands of people, as well as incredible organisation, planning, and logistics...of course, that's true of the 9/11 conspiracy theory, the Moon hoax conspiracy, the AGW conspiracy, the fluoridation conspiracy...so I confidently expect this one to run and run.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

I heard Brian Cowen personally voted in hundreds of polling stations each time wearing a different mask :eek:

samson09

I noticed that the title of the thread has been changed to "Lisbon-voting fraud?"

Could I just remind people this isnt only about the the ballot boxes, its also about the following, which no one seems to be addressing:


1) The intervention of the European Commission, entailing massive expenditure of money to influence Irish opinion towards a Yes, the running of a web-site and the issuing of statements that sought to counter No-side arguments, and the advocacy of a Yes vote by Commission President Barroso and other Commissioners and their staffs during visits to Ireland. This is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

2) The part funding of the posters and press advertising of most of Ireland’s Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and even though, under European law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid partisan advocacy;

3) The Irish Government’s unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called “assurances” of the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as other material - steps that were in breach of the 1995 Irish Supreme Court judgment in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public funds to seek to obtain a particular result in a referendum;

4) The failure of the country’s statutory Referendum Commission to carry out its function under the Referendum Act that established it of explaining to citizens how the proposed constitutional amendment and its text would affect the Irish Constitution. Instead the Commission’s Chairman, Judge Frank Clarke, turned the Commission into an arm of Government propaganda, while the judge indulged himself in various “solo-runs” on radio and in the newspapers, giving several erroneous explanations of provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, even though this was quite beyond his powers under the Act;

5) Huge expenditure of money by private companies such as Intel and Ryanair to advocate a Yes vote, without any statutory limit, in possible breach of Irish company and tax law, and undoubtedly constituting a major democratic abuse.

6) Breaches by the Irish broadcast media of their obligation under the Broadcasting Acts to be fair to all interests concerned in their coverage of issues of public controversy and debate. Newstalk 106, owned by Mr Denis O’Brien, a committed supporter of the Yes side, was quite shameless in its partisanship on its current affairs programmes.

samson09

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I heard Brian Cowen personally voted in hundreds of polling stations each time wearing a different mask :eek:

Brian Cowen would never wear a mask, it would get in the way of eating.

Scofflaw

samson09 wrote: »

I noticed that the title of the thread has been changed to "Lisbon-voting fraud?"

Could I just remind people this isnt only about the the ballot boxes, its also about the following, which no one seems to be addressing:


1) The intervention of the European Commission, entailing massive expenditure of money to influence Irish opinion towards a Yes, the running of a web-site and the issuing of statements that sought to counter No-side arguments, and the advocacy of a Yes vote by Commission President Barroso and other Commissioners and their staffs during visits to Ireland. This is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

2) The part funding of the posters and press advertising of most of Ireland’s Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament, even though it is illegal under Irish law to receive donations from sources outside the country in a referendum and even though, under European law, money provided by the European Parliament to cross-national political parties is supposed to be confined to informational-type material and to avoid partisan advocacy;

3) The Irish Government’s unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called “assurances” of the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as other material - steps that were in breach of the 1995 Irish Supreme Court judgment in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public funds to seek to obtain a particular result in a referendum;

4) The failure of the country’s statutory Referendum Commission to carry out its function under the Referendum Act that established it of explaining to citizens how the proposed constitutional amendment and its text would affect the Irish Constitution. Instead the Commission’s Chairman, Judge Frank Clarke, turned the Commission into an arm of Government propaganda, while the judge indulged himself in various “solo-runs” on radio and in the newspapers, giving several erroneous explanations of provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, even though this was quite beyond his powers under the Act;

5) Huge expenditure of money by private companies such as Intel and Ryanair to advocate a Yes vote, without any statutory limit, in possible breach of Irish company and tax law, and undoubtedly constituting a major democratic abuse.

6) Breaches by the Irish broadcast media of their obligation under the Broadcasting Acts to be fair to all interests concerned in their coverage of issues of public controversy and debate. Newstalk 106, owned by Mr Denis O’Brien, a committed supporter of the Yes side, was quite shameless in its partisanship on its current affairs programmes.

Changed the thread title to "Lisbon - a fraudulent referendum?" to cover those claims.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Rb

Yeah, sure why rig it so that it's a win on 52-48 when you can rig it to be 67-33!?

Now that you mention it, I did notice a peculiar amount of lizards lingering around the voting centre that day, those conniving little bastards must have been taking an eraser to everyone's "No" votes and changing them to a Yes.

turgon

samson09 wrote: »

This is unlawful under European law, as the Commission has no function in relation to the ratification of new Treaties, something that is exclusively a matter for the Member States under their own constitutional procedures;

Why are you bitching to us? If its such a travesty why dont you bring them to court?

samson09 wrote: »

2) The part funding of the posters and press advertising of most of Ireland’s Yes-side political parties by their sister parties in the European Parliament,

The No side did this as well. VOTE NO - SINN FEIN GUE/NGL

samson09 wrote: »

3) The Irish Government’s unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called “assurances” of the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as other material

Were these document biased?

samson09 wrote: »

4) The failure of the country’s statutory Referendum Commission to carry out its function under the Referendum Act

I dont care about your woolly statements, I want to hear of specific cases where this happened.

samson09 wrote: »

5) Huge expenditure of money by private companies such as Intel and Ryanair to advocate a Yes vote, without any statutory limit, in possible breach of Irish company and tax law, and undoubtedly constituting a major democratic abuse.

Possibly?? How so? Are you making up law as you go?

seamus

3) The Irish Government’s unlawful use of public funds in circulating to voters a postcard with details of the so-called “assurances” of the European Council, followed by a brochure some time later containing a tendentious summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as other material - steps that were in breach of the 1995 Irish Supreme Court judgment in McKenna that it is unconstitutional of the Government to use public funds to seek to obtain a particular result in a referendum;

Evidence? Are you talking about the informational documents which didn't "seek" any particular result in any way?

4) The failure of the country’s statutory Referendum Commission to carry out its function under the Referendum Act that established it of explaining to citizens how the proposed constitutional amendment and its text would affect the Irish Constitution. Instead the Commission’s Chairman, Judge Frank Clarke, turned the Commission into an arm of Government propaganda, while the judge indulged himself in various “solo-runs” on radio and in the newspapers, giving several erroneous explanations of provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, even though this was quite beyond his powers under the Act;

Complete nonsense. Refcom carried out a perfectly unbiased and comprehensive job in accordance with their obligations. Twice. Funny how the text of refcom's information was identical to that at the first referendum (except for the legal guarantees), yet you didn't make this claim after the first referendum.

5) Huge expenditure of money by private companies such as Intel and Ryanair to advocate a Yes vote, without any statutory limit, in possible breach of Irish company and tax law, and undoubtedly constituting a major democratic abuse.

Issues for the companies involved, maybe, if you can prove so. But it doesn't make the referendum any less legal or democratic.

6) Breaches by the Irish broadcast media of their obligation under the Broadcasting Acts to be fair to all interests concerned in their coverage of issues of public controversy and debate. Newstalk 106, owned by Mr Denis O’Brien, a committed supporter of the Yes side, was quite shameless in its partisanship on its current affairs programmes.

That's funny, because i distinctly got the impression that Newstalk were being very lenient on the No side, to the point where I was convinced they were biased towards the No side. Funny how you sometimes only hear what you want to hear, isn't it?

All of your accusations are based on the fact that nobody seem to be biased towards the No side, while simultaneously ignoring that they were equally unbiased towards the Yes side. "If they're not with us, they're against us", right?
:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

seamus wrote: »

That's funny, because i distinctly got the impression that Newstalk were being very lenient on the No side, to the point where I was convinced they were biased towards the No side. Funny how you sometimes only hear what you want to hear, isn't it?

you might be thinking of Tom Dunne, who was quite the no voter. Ivan Yates and George Hook would both be yes voters and weren't afraid to hide it. They weren't being fed what to say by management of course, they were yes voters of their own accord and are allowed voice their opinions

When people find themselves in a situation where everyone seems to be biased against them there are two possibilities that stand out. Which do you think is most likely?

1. No one supports them because everyone is corrupt, everyone is being bribed, everyone is getting something out of it, everyone is "toeing the line", be it in a company or political party, basically the whole world is corrupt
2. No one supports them because their position is ridiculous and everyone but them can see that

So which do you think it is?

Steviemak

The claims above could be subscribed to the no side as well.

European Party involvement

UKIP - Europe of Freedom and Democracy Party

Private money

COIR, Ganley, Hedge Funds

Media Bias

TV3 - barely a night went past without Vincent telling us to vote no.

The internet really does give conspiracy nuts way too big a forum.

Furious-Dave

samson09 wrote: »

Major democratic abuses have occurred, with numerous European and Irish laws getting broken in the process.

I assume you have sources to prove that the "numerous European and Irish laws" that you claim have been broken actually have been?

samson09 wrote: »

I don't accept the result of this referendum, it stinks of corruption and the political bullying and scaremongering was blatant from the start.

It does alright, but I suppose that's why people decided to vote Yes this time around.

Here, have another sour grape.

My name is URL

Whether or not any conspiracy exists, some aspects of it were clearly carried out in an illegal way, and should be dealt with in a way which reflects that

Only a fool would say otherwise, or try to defend the illegality

humanji

Which aspects?

dresden8

I'm a solid no and I was asked for ID.

Much ado about nothing.

And while it's true the electoral register is a mess, it's generally always a mess.

Kama

Surge in postal vote registration without requests, inappropriate issuing of voting cards, ballot boxes walking out of Cork Town Hall, and unsealed boxes are the main ones I've heard thrown around.

The critical point, hardly helped by the tinfoil-and-lizards and continued bitter partisanship, is that without confidence in the voting system, chain of custody etc, democracy loses what scant legitimacy it currently appears to enjoy.

Certainty that each vote counts (as opposed to the Garda statement to Fiachra O'Luain) is indispensible. Given our standards of political corruption in this country, ballot fraud doesn't seem that unbelievable to many.

Epic Tissue

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've never been asked for ID, most people aren't. It only becomes an issue when the vote doesn't go the way certain people want

It went the way I wanted. There is room for discussion here you know, it's not after hours.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

I'm a solid no and I was asked for ID.

Much ado about nothing.

And while it's true the electoral register is a mess, it's generally always a mess.

It was certainly a mess at the general election in 2007, although I seem to recall there were plans to tidy it up.

Of course, any such mess would have been far more important in the first referendum, given the much narrower margin. I don't recall all these concerns getting such an airing at the time, but perhaps "respect the vote" means different things to different people.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Kama wrote: »

ballot boxes walking out of Cork Town Hall

In fairness all we seem to have for this is a Youtube video and a poor one at that.

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

It was certainly a mess at the general election in 2007, although I seem to recall there were plans to tidy it up.

Of course, any such mess would have been far more important in the first referendum, given the much narrower margin. I don't recall all these concerns getting such an airing at the time, but perhaps "respect the vote" means different things to different people.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agreed.

While we're diametrically opposed on Lisbon I don't think there's any reason to suggest it was a crooked count.

As to why people voted differently I'm sure we'll never agree, but I'm sure we can agree that they did indeed vote differently.

Odilon Redon

The result of a referendum can only be overturned by a successful petition to the High Court under the Referendum Act 1994 made within 7 days of publication of the result in Iris Oifiguil. The grounds are set out in section 42: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0012/sec0042.html#zza12y1994s42

An online petition won't have any legal effect whatsoever. Objectors should follow the legal procedures or else fold their tents.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Agreed.

While we're diametrically opposed on Lisbon I don't think there's any reason to suggest it was a crooked count.

As to why people voted differently I'm sure we'll never agree, but I'm sure we can agree that they did indeed vote differently.

Yes - the problem is, I think, that some people on the No side had really convinced themselves that a second No was the inevitable and correct outcome.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kama

To clarify: I think the vote, without much of a doubt, was a Yes.

I also consider that a degree of fraud is almost inevitable; I've never known a game where people didn't try and cheat. All the more reason to be assured of proper procedure and oversight. If any complaints are thrown off as 'tinfoil lunatic', it doesn't give me much confidence tbqfh, we're hardly devoid of corruption as a country.

As to the youtube, I've yet to hear a good reason for ballotboxes wandering off.

K-9

Kama wrote: »

As to the youtube, I've yet to hear a good reason for ballotboxes wandering off.

But it's Youtube. Come on!

The Electoral list needs to be cleaned up.

Think we all agree on that, Yes or No voters, Yes vote this time, No vote last time.

Scofflaw

Kama wrote: »

To clarify: I think the vote, without much of a doubt, was a Yes.

I also consider that a degree of fraud is almost inevitable; I've never known a game where people didn't try and cheat. All the more reason to be assured of proper procedure and oversight. If any complaints are thrown off as 'tinfoil lunatic', it doesn't give me much confidence tbqfh, we're hardly devoid of corruption as a country.

As to the youtube, I've yet to hear a good reason for ballotboxes wandering off.

Ad I've yet to see any proof that the video is even what it purports to be, and taken at the time it claims to have been taken. One man comes out with one box, empty by the look of it, no attempt at concealment, not in any more hurry than any of the other people also leaving the count centre. On top of this piece of non-evidence a positive mountain of supposition is being constructed.

I'm sorry, but in the week before the vote too many people on the No side were clearly pre-charting the idea of voting fraud as a compensatory mechanism for adjusting to a defeat they weren't prepared to admit to at that point. This video is being neatly slotted into the necessary psychological space, in exactly the same way as other CT evidence is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ad I've yet to see any proof that the video is even what it purports to be, and taken at the time it claims to have been taken. One man comes out with one box, empty by the look of it, no attempt at concealment, not in any more hurry than any of the other people also leaving the count centre. On top of this piece of non-evidence a positive mountain of supposition is being constructed.

I'm sorry, but in the week before the vote too many people on the No side were clearly pre-charting the idea of voting fraud as a compensatory mechanism for adjusting to a defeat they weren't prepared to admit to at that point. This video is being neatly slotted into the necessary psychological space, in exactly the same way as other CT evidence is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree the idea of fraud has been brewing in the conspiracy theory's forum for a bit now. Initially it was pure speculation until the mysterious box carrying video appeared on youtube. While it would be impossible to swear the vote is 100% legitimate the level of fraud needed to swing the vote by such a margin would make it utterly implausible for it to happen.

seamus

Kama wrote: »

As to the youtube, I've yet to hear a good reason for ballotboxes wandering off.

If the video is exactly what it purports to be Kama, then why has not a single major media outlet picked up on it and published it? The media are in no way biased - they just love a scandal, regardless of what it may or may not do. So if there was any credibility in this at all, do you not think the british rags at least would be plastering it up everywhere?

Irish and Proud

derry wrote: »

Petition to have the Lisbon results removed due to rigging the vote and they have applied to make criminal case

http://www.gopetition.com/online/31224.html a petition has been set up, if you suspect lisbon was rigged please sign it.

They outline all the ways the yes vote was done with all methods of stuffing the ballot boxxes with yes votes

Derry

<MOD>This thread has been reopened as a thread for claims that the Lisbon Treaty vote was rigged - include your petitions, Youtube videos, etc here.</MOD>

I signed the petition a few days ago amid concerns relating to the scale of the YES victory - it was a lot more than the 60-40% predicted outcome, in fact, it was enough to secure a 7% swing which would overturn the NO vote had people voted the same way as in the first referendum.

Now, I only saw the video yesterday and was quite shocked! OK, the video proves nothing in relation to actual rigging taking place, but what it seems to prove is that there was a total lack of security in the counting centre in Cork. It seems clear that a rigging operation was quite possible there. Also, no one knows what was in the box that the guy went off with - it could be totally innocent for all we know. However, the point is that if the guy could go off with a box in the absence of any restriction (or so it seems anyway), what would stop anyone from taking boxes away for fraudulent purposes? Again, the video wasn't crisp clear, but to me, it showed enough to raise serious concerns.

About the papers not capitalising on the video - was it not the papers that were screaming for a YES vote in the hours running up to the referendum. Whatever opinion people may have, in light of the above this referendum may be illegal - even if the YES vote was 67%.

Regards!

Sam Vimes

Irish and Proud wrote: »

I sign the petition a few days ago amid concerns relating to the scale of the YES victory - it was a lot more than the 60-40% predicted outcome, in fact, it was enough to secure a 7% swing which would overturn the NO vote had people voted the same way as in the first referendum.

Now, I only saw the video yesterday and was quite shocked! OK, the video proves nothing in relation to actual rigging taking place, but what it seems to prove is that there was a total lack of security in the counting centre in Cork. It seems clear that a rigging operation was quite possible there. Also, no one knows what was in the box that the guy went off with - it could be totally innocent for all we know. However, the point is that if the guy could go off with a box in the absence of any restriction (or so it seems anyway), what would stop anyone from taking boxes away for fraudulent purposes? Again, the video wasn't crisp clear, but to me, it showed enough to raise serious concerns.

About the papers not capitalising on the video - was it not the papers that were screaming for a YES vote in the hours running up to the referendum. Whatever opinion people may have, in light of the above this referendum may be illegal - even if the YES vote was 67%.

Regards!

Right so your basis for claiming that it's an illegal referendum is a single video of a guy unknown doing something unknown with a ballet box which indicates that security was low in one counting centre. I'd be more than prepared to accept that security was low in most counting centres as I'm sure it has been in every counting centre in the history of the Irish state. Do you have anything more than "security appears to have been low" to suggest that there was massive nationwide rigging going on?

edit: and since security was almost certainly just as low for the last referendum should we investigate that too or is that ok because that one got the result you wanted?

Irish and Proud

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so your basis for claiming that it's an illegal referendum is a single video of a guy unknown doing something unknown with a ballet box which indicates that security was low in one counting centre. I'd be more than prepared to accept that security was low in most counting centres as I'm sure it has been in every counting centre in the history of the Irish state. Do you have anything more than "security appears to have been low" to suggest that there was massive nationwide rigging going on?

edit: and since security was almost certainly just as low for the last referendum should we investigate that too or is that ok because that one got the result you wanted?

OK Mate, can you say right here, right now, that the referendum was carried out in accordance with the Law - including the Law of both this state and the EU???

I'm waiting!

Sam Vimes

Irish and Proud wrote: »

OK Mate, can you say right here, right now, that the referendum was carried out in accordance with the Law - including the Law of both this state and the EU???

I'm waiting!

I'm not making any claim. You're trying to suggest that it was illegal so the burden of proof is on you. Can you say right here, right now, that the referendum was not carried out in accordance with the Law - including the Law of both this state and the EU???

No, of course you can't you're just spreading FUD

seamus

Irish and Proud wrote: »

OK Mate, can you say right here, right now, that the referendum was carried out in accordance with the Law - including the Law of both this state and the EU???

Can you say with certainty, right here, right now, that the referendum which established the constitution of Ireland in 1937 was carried out in full accordance with the law? Quickly, before I go and declare 70 years of legislation and referenda null and void!

Neamhshuntasach

One thing which was a load of bollix was me and a shít load of people being sent to Swords to vote when i live in Finglas South. It would have been big no area the last time and most of the people i talked to didn't vote because they had no car and there isn't any direct buses. Not to mention our regular polling station is less than 5 minutes walk away. I made a complaint and told it seems to be a mix up all right. Not to mention i got my polling card the day before so it was too late to change. Wonder if that was just my area or how many places that happened to. Not creating a conspiracy of it. Just stating that if they want people to vote they sure made it difficult for some people.

meglome

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

One thing which was a load of bollix was me and a shít load of people being sent to Swords to vote when i live in Finglas South. It would have been big no area the last time and most of the people i talked to didn't vote because they had no car and there isn't any direct buses. Not to mention our regular polling station is less than 5 minutes walk away. I made a complaint and told it seems to be a mix up all right. Not to mention i got my polling card the day before so it was too late to change. Wonder if that was just my area or how many places that happened to. Not creating a conspiracy of it. Just stating that if they want people to vote they sure made it difficult for some people.

You probably also should have complained when the Government had the last genaral election on a Thursday to make sure as many students as possible wouldn't be able to vote against them. Very working class areas of Dublin tend to have low turn-outs no matter what, people love to complain but can't be bothered to do anything about it.

[Edit:]

There was a guy on boards who's polling station was a long distance away so instead of saying I can't vote as I can't get there he rang up all the political party's and got one of them to drive him to the polling station. He's not the only person I've seen do this on boards either. There is always a way.

Scofflaw

A minor point to add to the debate here - is the level of the No vote in the second referendum credible? I would say yes - here's the proportion of the electorate that votes No, for each EU referendum:

Treaty|Year|Electorate|No vote|No as % of electorate
Accession|1973|1,783,604|211,891| 11.88%
SEA|1987|2,461,790|324,977| 13.2%
Maastricht|1992|2,542,840|448,655| 17.64%
Amsterdam|1998|2,747,088|578,070| 21.04%
Nice 1|2001|2,867,960|529,478| 18.46%
Nice 2|2002|2,923,918|534,887| 18.29%
Lisbon 1|2008|3,051,278|862,415| 28.26%
Lisbon 2|2009|3,078,132|594,606| 19.32%

What's historically unusual is not the second vote, but the first - the No side picked up a soft No half the size of the usual No brigade. The second referendum, on the other hand, represents simply the usual position - with a No vote of c. 20% of the electorate, and the result dependent almost entirely on how motivated the Yes vote is.

Another interesting point from that, by the way, is that the core No vote doesn't appear to have changed that much over the last 20 years - the initial rise in opposition took place around the end of the Eighties.

In case of confusion, note that the % given is the No vote as a percentage of the total electorate - that is, of everyone who was entitled to vote in the referendum, whether they voted or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw