nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Which way will you vote (if at all)

DeVore

This is just for my curiousity and general interest. Please be honest if you are or arent going to vote....

DeV.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

ruskin

Rb wrote: »

Its saddening to see so many people won't bother voting at all. This is more important than the General elections yet people will still sit at home and not bother (and then complain about the result afterwards :rolleyes:) I can understand if your polling station is literally hundreds of miles away, but ffs if it's just down the road get off your arse and go vote.

+1

Vote NO

thebaldsoprano

Actually, really quite annoyed at this reply and way too busy to reply, but I should reply to the full post before saying bye bye...

Deleted User wrote: »

You were asked to provide text actually and you didn't why was that?
Again you were asked to support your arguments-OB does when asked.

As I mentioned earlier, there's a difference between a request and an order, and btw he still hasn't replied for my request for info.

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol theres an inherent contradiction there.
You cannot pass a law either in Europe or here that covers Ireland if it conflicts with Bunracht na hEireann.

This is pointedly correct, but quite misleading, if the amendment on Thursday goes through the Irish Constitution won't ever conflict with laws dictated to us from Europe ever again. We won't get a referendum on these laws and we'll have to trust our politicians to use their ever diminishing veto powers.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't trust our politicians a hell of a lot...

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats why we have referenda. All Previous treaties have already been passed via referendum so they aren't in question here.

The question was on why not if this has been the case, but I'll take it that at least acknowledging the fact that we and not the politicians passed changes to our constitution means you disagree with OB's assertion that:

"The EU has primacy over national constitutions. That's true of all member states, and it has been true for us since 1973."

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd advise doing a search of scofflaws posts and read the last couple of hundred of them.

Good advice, these're actually good posts.

Deleted User wrote: »

That won't take too long and it will give you a feel for how unfounded a lot of the No campaign points are.

Running into quite a few unfounded yes campaign points on this and other boards already. Can you recommend a poster here of equivalent calibre to scofflaw voting no, or is this recommendation more selective use of information?

Deleted User wrote: »

If you still want to vote no after that exercise,I'll be baffled to be honest.

If you really want to be baffled, try and decipher the Treaty

BlitzKrieg

Can you recommend a poster here of equivalent calibre to scofflaw voting no, or is this recommendation more selective use of information?

I can recommend Johnnyq as the best I have read from the *no* side of the argument on here.

I am still voting yes though but I wont deny that he has been the most consistent no voter and a pleasure to debate with.

molloyjh

Dont have time to reply in full but if ever an amendment to the Treaty conflicts with our Constitution then we will have a referendum. It can't get into the Treaty without being passed first.

See http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html for a more detailed explanation. There is a potential back door where current policy areas that require unanimous support can be switche to QMV, but that change alone also requires unanimous support. The link explains it properly.

IRLConor

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

if the amendment on Thursday goes through the Irish Constitution won't ever conflict with laws dictated to us from Europe ever again.

That doesn't change anything. The substance of the declaration has not changed. The wording has changed slightly, to take into account the different nature of the European Union post-Lisbon.

Here's the change (deletions in red, insertions in green):

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State whichthat are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communitiesreferred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communitiestreaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

There's no real change there.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

We won't get a referendum on these laws and we'll have to trust our politicians to use their ever diminishing veto powers.

That's not true. The Crotty judgement still applies. Since the Crotty judgement post-dates the insertion of the clause mentioned above I can't see how it will change anything.

We will still need a referendum for any transfer of power to which the Crotty judgement applies. Someone recently posted or linked to an explanation of the nature of the Crotty judgement.

thebaldsoprano

IRLConor, Thanks!

That's a hell of a post, if only the campaigns where that clear!

Still weighted towards *no* but I'll definitely look this stuff up before I vote.

BlitzKrieg, thanks for that recommendation aswell,

ye've potentially got yerselves a new yes voter

IRLConor

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

IRLConor, Thanks!

That's a hell of a post, if only the campaigns where that clear!

Still weighted towards *no* but I'll definitely look this stuff up before I vote.

BlitzKrieg, thanks for that recommendation aswell,

ye've potentially got yerselves a new yes voter

Great! Glad to be a help.

If there's anything else at all that you're unsure of, please do ask either on-thread or via PM. I've spent a lot of time learning about the treaty, I'm only too happy to spread the knowledge.

DeVore

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Actually I have to travel down by train tonight to my home town to vote tomorrow morning and get the train back up for work

Now before anyone shouts at me, I am just curious on this and I am not accusing either side of anything.

But I wonder how many of the votes in the poll are from one post accounts, seeing as more so then any other forum Politics attracts quick sign up soapbox posters.

I kept a close eye on it actually, that ratio has been almost (and spookily) static since the poll hit 100 votes in total. I'll look into it and see if anyone was being "naughty".

I love it when people get naughty and think we wont notice

DeV.

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

I kept a close eye on it actually, that ratio has been almost (and spookily) static since the poll hit 100 votes in total. I'll look into it and see if anyone was being "naughty".

I love it when people get naughty and think we wont notice

DeV.

Cult is great, everyone should have one.

10 people signed up and voted in the past 2 days. Thats not statistically strange and wont impact a dataset of 1000+

They didnt all vote the same way (at least 3 voted to say they wont be voting....

)

Seems clean... its going to be interesting to see how closely Boards compares with the national vote.

DeV.

shinny

They should do what they do in Australia, fine you if you don't vote.

I will be voting and I will be voting No.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

I see.
Could you explain then why french voters brought in a new right wing government after that referendum by a landslide on a mandate to impliment the improved version?

You can't say that they elected any government to do any specific thing and you well know it! In fact, I thnk it's fair to say that when we (and I preume the french and dutch) go to the national polls we are generally thinking much more of domestic issues and NOT European ones!

I believe (and it was reported as a possible reason) the dutch voted NO to the constitution as they feared further EU expansion especially Turkish accession given they are a liberal democracy and had recently had an openly homosexual politician murdered by islamic extremists whom he had condemned for being anti-dutch with their ultra-religious way of life. The dutch simply didn't want more muslims coming into their liberal country telling them what to do and that their liberal practices were 'wrong'.

So it's hardly surprising that they elected a 'right wing' government at all. They probably didn't think a right wing government would pass this treaty either.

irishtoffee

A 100% NO.

DeVore

User Onegin deleted, along with his nasty crap. Thread cleaned.

DeV.

[Deleted User]

murphaph wrote: »

You can't say that they elected any government to do any specific thing and you well know it! In fact, I thnk it's fair to say that when we (and I preume the french and dutch) go to the national polls we are generally thinking much more of domestic issues and NOT European ones!

So you are saying the issue wasn't important enough for them then?
I'll disagree with you regarding this wholesale giving out about other countries not having a referendum on this treaty.

Thats direct democracy where like the Swiss,you vote on many major laws and can get a referendum whose result if passed is binding by having enough signitures.

Mary Harney made a good point yesterday on the news at one iirc.
She gave the interviewer a copy of the finance act that brought in the low corporation tax in this country.
It was as full of legalese and more than the lisbon treaty.

If you had to put every contentious piece of legislation to a referendum,the country would soon grind to a halt.
If you used the quantity of legalese in every statute in bill form as a reason to reject it without a referendum,we'd be in a right state.

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

So you are saying the issue wasn't important enough for them then?
I'll disagree with you regarding this wholesale giving out about other countries not having a referendum on this treaty.

Thats direct democracy where like the Swiss,you vote on many major laws and can get a referendum whose result if passed is binding by having enough signitures.

Mary Harney made a good point yesterday on the news at one iirc.
She gave the interviewer a copy of the finance act that brought in the low corporation tax in this country.
It was as full of legalese and more than the lisbon treaty.

If you had to put every contentious piece of legislation to a referendum,the country would soon grind to a halt.
If you used the quantity of legalese in every statute in bill form as a reason to reject it without a referendum,we'd be in a right state.

The Finance act argument is really rubbish.

What guides the Finance Act? The constitution we voted on.

What guides the Treaty? Nothing!!!! That's why we're voting on it ffs!

turgon

All I can say to Black Briar: See wikipedia article on "Switzerland", especially direct democracy there.

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

The Finance act argument is really rubbish.

What guides the Finance Act? The constitution we voted on.

What guides the Treaty? Nothing!!!! That's why we're voting on it ffs!

Actually, what guides the Treaty is the existing Treaties that Lisbon amends, the accumulated body of European and international law, which limits the likely interpretation of the Treaty, and, of course, the constitutions and policies of all the member states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Although a Swiss style system would not work on and EU scale.

cm2000

I've now read all the objective material I could find and have come to a decision. I will be voting yes as I think it helps Europe move forward more efficiently while protecting our vital national interests. Secondly an awful lot of people spent 7 years of painstaking negotiations coming up with this treaty and to vote no because I heard some false rumour about losing control of taxes would lead to a situation I suspect where we would piss off alot of people and lose a fair bit of political capital in the process. I don't think either side has launched a good campaign. I saw a labour councillor's campaign poster in Dublin 15 the other day with a giant picture of him with his name in giant letters and "Vote Yes" in size 12 font in the corner. I think a yes vote is a vote for hope, not a vote for fear. I feel the no side lack credibility. 160/166 TD's support this treaty. These people by-in-large are dedicated to public service, are democratically elected by the Irish people and represent the views of the vast majority of the electorate. They have the best interests of our coutry at heart. A yes is the only positive vote in this treaty.

PrivateEye

If you're worried about 'pissing people off'

theres a few MILLION Europeans who voted down the vast majority of this Treaty already, and are now being denied a vote.

Imagine we'll be the toast of democraticly minded people all over Europe Friday night if we vote No.

We may well piss a few of them off by passing this Treaty. Not alone are we damaging our own interests, we're giving two fingers to 450 MILLION E.U citizens who didn't get a ballot in the post like we did.

Votez Non :pac:

johnnyq

cm2000 wrote:

I don't think either side has launched a good campaign. I saw a labour councillor's campaign poster in Dublin 15 the other day with a giant picture of him with his name in giant letters and "Vote Yes" in size 12 font in the corner

Well as a Labour supporter I'm certainly voting no since this treaty doesn't sit well with the fundamentals of transparency and accountability, workers rights and militarisation for starters crucial for labour supporters

Transparency... I mean really using the bait of having meetings in public for a yes vote. C'mon!! I guess if we vote no, they'll never tell us what's going on :rolleyes:

I'm not really surprised that the Labour campaign has been half hearted, it doesn't really have the party support behind it. Unlike FF which operates more on a "You do what I say" basis. I'm sure "They" have your best interests at heart!

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, what guides the Treaty is the existing Treaties that Lisbon amends, the accumulated body of European and international law, which limits the likely interpretation of the Treaty, and, of course, the constitutions and policies of all the member states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ok True, but those documents too had to be endorsed by Irish voters

cm2000

well that's an inadequacy in their own constitutions, not a valid reason for voting on the treaty. in any case, the interests of the french and dutch are not and should not be paramount. it is their elected officials who negotiated this treaty and it is them who we deal with in Europe.

PrivateEye wrote: »

If you're worried about 'pissing people off'

theres a few MILLION Europeans who voted down the vast majority of this Treaty already, and are now being denied a vote.

Imagine we'll be the toast of democraticly minded people all over Europe Friday night if we vote No.

We may well piss a few of them off by passing this Treaty. Not alone are we damaging our own interests, we're giving two fingers to 450 MILLION E.U citizens who didn't get a ballot in the post like we did.

Votez Non :pac:

bogwalrus

Rb wrote: »

Very true

I'd mainly be speaking to college students, or those around the same age (18-24ish) but even those I worked with up until recently (some aged 50+) were aimed at a No.

thats cause college students dont know whats good for them, only want to rebel against the man cause of years of supression from their parents and basically are dumbasses

i am going to be so embarressed if it goes the no way. More embarrassed then when we sent dustin in for the Euro vision.

cm2000

johnnyq wrote: »

Well as a Labour supporter I'm certainly voting no since this treaty doesn't sit well with the fundamentals of transparency and accountability, workers rights and militarisation for starters crucial for labour supporters

Transparency... I mean really using the bait of having meetings in public for a yes vote. C'mon!! I guess if we vote no, they'll never tell us what's going on :rolleyes:

I'm not really surprised that the Labour campaign has been half hearted, it doesn't really have the party support behind it. Unlike FF which operates more on a "You do what I say" basis. I'm sure "They" have your best interests at heart!

well there is something to be said about voting along party lines. if you feel your party doesnt represent your views then you should question whether they should be your party.

PrivateEye

Sure I'd vote Fianna Fail in an election tomorrow, and I'm firmly in the No camp. To say 'let the politicians decide for their people' is unkust here. I wouldn't trust Sinn Fein or a looper like Patricia McKenna to walk my dog. They're not the reason I'm voting no...... Party politics don't apply here.

As for Dustin, mentioned above...
The EU dont want our turkeys, and we don't want theirs.
Lisbon Null Points hopefully.

ShooterSF

One stat to take from this at current 94 and 85 respectively the no voters that wont bother voting does not hugely outweigh those "heavily mobilzed" yes voters who wont with only about a 10% difference in them. And the yes vote is still below the no's intending to vote!

johnnyq

bogwalrus wrote: »

i am going to be so embarressed if it goes the no way. More embarrassed then when we sent dustin in for the Euro vision.

Why? Do you think that dustin is the reason we'll vote no or something

I'd at least like to think my contributions have shown a validity to the no vote - that it will not destroy Ireland as has been threatened, that for voters with passionate views on workers rights and militarisation this treaty is not for them and for overall accountability which is sorely lacking in the creation of figureheads that are not directly elected.

johnnyq

cm2000 wrote: »

well there is something to be said about voting along party lines. if you feel your party doesnt represent your views then you should question whether they should be your party.

:eek: OMG I mean really :eek:

So if Biffo told you it was vital for you to run in front of a train would you do so for party lines? I really really hope not.

I am very happy in the party I support but with everything there are differences in opinions which should be put to a free public vote and not somehow railroaded into a certain side yes/no like sheep because we're told to.

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

One stat to take from this at current 94 and 85 respectively the no voters that wont bother voting does not hugely outweigh those "heavily mobilzed" yes voters who wont with only about a 10% difference in them. And the yes vote is still below the no's intending to vote!

But you have to take into account two factors, 1. this is a internet forum and you tend to get more of a concentration of extreme views on the internet than you do in reality. 2. It takes absolutely no effort to vote online, how many people will not be bothered get off their backsides and going to the polls tomorrow?