Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

Sand

humanji wrote: »

Do I have to have voted a particular way to be disgusted by scaremongering?

No you don't. I voted No, despite the scaremongering that wed be thrown out of the Euro, or that future budgets would be harsher and so on.

But am I right though? Based on what you stated about what you knew, you voted Yes?

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

"People" is but one interpretation or definition. In addition to "masses" it can also mean multitude or rabble. Depending on the context it can also mean country or "land".

No, you're just wrong, and incapable of admitting it.

StealthRolex wrote: »

It would seem I would have been more correct to describe democracy as rabble rule. It also illiterates, which is nice.

It "illiterates"...? Possibly, possibly. It also alliterates.

StealthRolex wrote: »

and it's masculine - does this imply that democracy should be a male preserve?

If noun genders meant much, which they don't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

humanji

Sand wrote: »

No you don't. I voted No, despite the scaremongering that wed be thrown out of the Euro, or that future budgets would be harsher and so on.

But am I right though? Based on what you stated about what you knew, you voted Yes?

Weighing up the pros and cons, I decided that Yes was the better option. Not by a huge amount, though. They weren't great choices. What didn't help was that very few of the people campaigning tried to debate the treaty and instead did the usually "who can be the scariest" dance.

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, you're just wrong, and incapable of admitting it.

Actually, I'm right. But you wouldn't admit that.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It "illiterates"...? Possibly, possibly. It also alliterates.

That too, but you're missing the irony. Or you have no sense of humour.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If noun genders meant much, which they don't.

a linguist would disagree

Scofflaw wrote: »

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's a laugh! are you sure you don't really mean sarcastically

---

source - one of many - for the record


démos: a district or country, the common people, esp. the people assembled
Original Word: δῆμος, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: démos
Phonetic Spelling: (day'-mos)
Short Definition: the people, multitude, rabble
Definition: properly: the people, especially citizens of a Greek city in popular assembly, but in NT, multitude, rabble.

porsche boy

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is why the etymology of democracy is, ahem, ... mob rule

What the hell are you talking about?

Just a Plinker

Well I stuck to what I stated and voted no. But democracy sided against me. I just feel it was a bad choice but there you go. It looks like what could not be achieved by an EU country in 1914 and 1939 has been achieved by the ballot box

Good luck all I honestly feel we will need it

Amtmann

Just a Plinker wrote: »

Well I stuck to what I stated and voted no. But democracy sided against me. I just feel it was a bad choice but there you go. It looks like what could not be achieved by an EU country in 1914 and 1939 has been achieved by the ballot box

Nice soundbite! Whence did you imbibe it? I've been hearing it uttered of late by the half-educated from many a bar stool. Would you care to back it up with some facts, or are lazy slurs all you can muster?

Hotblack Desiato

That sort of ignorant xenophobia has been an unwelcome development in this campaign.

Stuck Cone

Ah lads how did we vote yes?

puzzle factory

im still not too sure, im thinking no so i probably will.

meglome

Stuck Cone wrote: »

Ah lads how did we vote yes?

I got the pencil in my stubby* fingers and put an X in the box. Seemed pretty easy.


* May not be stubby.

meglome

Stuck Cone wrote: »

You do realise that the vote is over and we lost as a nation, stupid blackrock mofos voted us away the ignorami

There were only three constituencies what had a no vote, in the entire country.

Ozymandius2011

The banks are doing what the tanks could not.

[MOD]Referendum's over - save this kind of rubbish for AH or politics.ie.[/MOD]

Dublin Red Devil

I don't think anyone could say that they fully understood what they were actually voting for or against

Hotblack Desiato

I fully understood what I was voting for. So you're wrong.

molloyjh

Just a Plinker wrote: »

Well I stuck to what I stated and voted no. But democracy sided against me. I just feel it was a bad choice but there you go. It looks like what could not be achieved by an EU country in 1914 and 1939 has been achieved by the ballot box

Good luck all I honestly feel we will need it

I know, I know. You'll never guess who I just saw strolling through the streets of Dublin tonight laughing at us. Yeah it was Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler both. Back from the dead. Now that we voted Yes there's nothing stopping them.

I figured we may as well play out this little fantasy properly, no half measures. There's as much a basis in reality for this post as the quoted one.....

femur61

Villain wrote: »

I voted NO this morning, first to vote in my Polling station, I know a NO vote is a gamble but I think we hold enough cards to say No and then tell the Germans write off some of that debt and come back to us. A simplistic view and perhaps a dangerous one but we have done all that has been asked of us and in return we have no growth and no hope that I can see.

I know this is an old thread and the dye has been cast but completely makes no difference to Europe if it hadn't been passed. Whey would you think they would come back to us by reducing off our debt. The Fiscal treaty only needs 12 members to be passed.

FreudianSlippers

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

I don't think anyone could say that they fully understood what they were actually voting for or against

Funny, I knew exactly what I was voting on and it had been clearly set out a number of times in this thread. Also, simply reading the 30th amendment bill would have answered that question.

Happyman42

The headline in this newspaper tells me that I was right to vote No, because everything has become wrong with Europe.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0602/breaking16.html
Why in a Union of equals would it be headline making or a big deal that he had asked Merkel? Doesn't it belie the fact that everybody knows who the real boss is? If the balance was correct, shouldn't that read, 'he asked the EU for a deal on Bank Debt?
Despite more spin and lipservice from Enda and his soldiers of austerity, we have really sent the 'message' that 'we are happy with austerity, give us some more'!

FreudianSlippers

Happyman42 wrote: »

The headline in this newspaper tells me that I was right to vote No, because everything has become wrong with Europe.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0602/breaking16.html
Why in a Union of equals would it be headline making or a big deal that he had asked Merkel? Doesn't it belie the fact that everybody knows who the real boss is? If the balance was correct, shouldn't that read, 'he asked the EU for a deal on Bank Debt?
Despite more spin and lipservice from Enda and his soldiers of austerity, we have really sent the 'message' that 'we are happy with austerity, give us some more'!

Perhaps try reading the article and not just the headline (designed to grab attention). FTA:

[...] Dr Merkel was one of a number of European leaders with whom the Taoiseach had a phone conversation yesterday when it became clear that the electorate had delivered a decisive Yes to the treaty. [...]

One must also remember that Germany is the main opponent to restructuring of banking debts, so if we need to convince anyone it is them. If we can convince Dr Merkel to consider backing such a move, it is likely that we would be more likely to secure a restructuring because of their support. They are not, however, the be all and end all of European decisions.

Happyman42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Perhaps try reading the article and not just the headline (designed to grab attention). FTA:



One must also remember that Germany is the main opponent to restructuring of banking debts, so if we need to convince anyone it is them. If we can convince Dr Merkel to consider backing such a move, it is likely that we would be more likely to secure a restructuring because of their support. They are not, however, the be all and end all of European decisions.

Who's shifting goalposts now.....my post clearly asked about what the 'headline' revealed.
On a further read of the papers ths morning, it is clear that the government will spin any Irish benefit from a deal on the Spanish banks being recapitalised by the ESM as something they have achieved, when it is patently the case that Europe can change tack when one of the 'big boys' is going down. Imbalance is our problem in Europe, the concious or unconcious phrasing of that Irish Times headline underlines that.

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who's shifting goalposts now.....my post clearly asked about what the 'headline' revealed .

But the headline didn't 'reveal' anything really.

On reading the full article, do you still think it tells you that you were right to vote No?

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

But the headline didn't 'reveal' anything really.

On reading the full article, do you still think it tells you that you were right to vote No?

So why did the newspaper phrase it in that way?
We voted Yes, it's over, yada yada.
Try and step outside the particular and look at our relationship with Europe and what is inherently wrong with it and why we will always be consigned to being it's whipping boy/girl.

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

So why did the newspaper phrase it in that way?
.

Do you think that the headline (most likely written by a sub editor) was accurate and the body of the article wasn't?

They write those headlines to draw the reader in. You're not supposed to form opinions on the headlines alone.

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

Do you think that the headline (most likely written by a sub editor) was accurate and the body of the article wasn't?

They write those headlines to draw the reader in. You're not supposed to form opinions on the headlines alone.

You do realise your refusal to analyse this 'headline' excuses all the posters of the campaign. 'Sure, they too, where only written to draw the reader in'.

Try and analyse what the sub editor was unconciously or consciously confirming. Don't be afraid, the referendum result won't be reversed. :rolleyes:

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

You do realise your refusal to analyse this 'headline' excuses all the posters of the campaign. 'Sure, they too, where only written to draw the reader in'.

Try and analyse what the sub editor was unconciously or consciously confirming. Don't be afraid, the referendum result won't be reversed. :rolleyes:

My analysis if the headline tells me that editors want to draw readers into reading the full article - something he failed to do in your case.
Why would anyone care what some headline writer unconciously or consciously thinks about anything?

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

My analysis if the headline tells me that editors want to draw readers into reading the full article - something he failed to do in your case.
Why would anyone care what some headline writer unconciously or consciously thinks about anything?

I care, because I care about the wider implications of where we are headed in the long term as do a large majority of the 40% who voted NO. You can't just keep trying to drown out that debate by 'not caring' when it suits you.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

You do realise your refusal to analyse this 'headline' excuses all the posters of the campaign. 'Sure, they too, where only written to draw the reader in'.

Try and analyse what the sub editor was unconciously or consciously confirming. Don't be afraid, the referendum result won't be reversed. :rolleyes:

“Without going into technicalities, yes, I did raise directly the issue with the chancellor,” Mr Kenny told journalists."

Seems he was asked a question, he answered yes, the Times ran with the headline and now you are making a huge big deal about a newspaper headline. Do you think a deal on bank debt can be changed just by Merkel agreeing?

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

I care, because I care about the wider implications of where we are headed in the long term as do a large majority of the 40% who voted NO.

What has a headline that badly represents a news story (that you couldn't be bothered to read, but you still felt able to post here in support of a position that the story didn't support) to do with ' the wider implications of where we are headed' ?

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can't just keep trying to drown out that debate by 'not caring' when it suits you.

I can find no words.

Censorship

Here's a very informative video on the treaty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC65JMHLVxY