Why voting no?

Stokes wrote: »

Keeping or losing a commissioner isn't too important either way. People tend to forget the commission is a supra-national entity meaning that it looks after the EU's interest as a whole. In theory a french commissioner for industry should make the same decision as a german commissioner for industry. What would be a bad thing is losing our place at the council of ministers, but thats not on the table

I agree. But the "keep our commissioner" slogan was used by the no campaign last time around, even though the Lisbon treaty had absolutely nothing to do with reducing the number of commissioners. It seemed to have some impact.

Stokes

Keeping or losing a commissioner isn't too important either way. People tend to forget the commission is a supra-national entity meaning that it looks after the EU's interest as a whole. In theory a french commissioner for industry should make the same decision as a german commissioner for industry. What would be a bad thing is losing our place at the council of ministers, but thats not on the table

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Mind you, the occasional factoid behaves (like some sub-atomic particles) in strange ways. Remember "Vote no to keep our Commissioner" with the untrue implication that the Lisbon Treaty would remove "our" Commissioner?

Well, we are getting to keep our Commissioner. If we now vote no, perhaps that will be reversed. Should those in favour of the treaty adopt the slogan "Vote yes to keep our Commissioner"?

I'm a little bit torn on that one. The false dichotomy has already been created, where the rotating Commission was described as "losing our Commissioner", and that's pretty firmly lodged in people's heads. Within that false dichotomy, voting Yes is how you "keep our Commissioner".

slightly divided,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

As opposed to factoids and truthiness?

Mind you, the occasional factoid behaves (like some sub-atomic particles) in strange ways. Remember "Vote no to keep our Commissioner" with the untrue implication that the Lisbon Treaty would remove "our" Commissioner?

Well, we are getting to keep our Commissioner. If we now vote no, perhaps that will be reversed. Should those in favour of the treaty adopt the slogan "Vote yes to keep our Commissioner"?

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have a liking for truth and truthfulness.

As opposed to factoids and truthiness?

That pretty much covers me as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AuRevoir wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder are people on this board just looking for an argument for argument's sake? :rolleyes:

I have a liking for truth and truthfulness.

BlitzKrieg

So a prominant no to lisbon campaigner who has abortion as her central argument is subject to the lies of the *yes* campaign.

Its not a matter whether you believe her or trust her, she still campaigned extensively with abortion as her central topic.

Which makes the issue more then *1 person at a rally* and not lies from the yes side.

want more?

4. Don’t lose the right to decide our values
It is up to you – and the rest of the Irish people – to decide what kind of society we want. But legal experts have warned that our wishes could be simply overruled if the Lisbon Treaty is passed.

That’s because under the Lisbon Treaty we’ll be made subject to the EU Court of Justice and the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Charter will be legally binding on Ireland and can force us to change our laws on issues as important as:
- how we raise and educate our children

- legalization of prostitution and drugs
- abortion and euthanasia

We should decide our own laws

Vote No to Lisbon

from: http://www.lisbonvote.com/

AuRevoir

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Now who's putting a spin on things?

Sometimes I wonder are people on this board just looking for an argument for argument's sake? :rolleyes:

AuRevoir wrote: »

No, I never said that so no need to put a spin on things. Let me rephrase. I would rather listen to what Kathy Sinnott says whether I agree or disagree with her, than to listen to anything that Brian Cowen & the Government say. Hope that clears it all up.;)

Now who's putting a spin on things?

AuRevoir wrote: »

No, I never said that so no need to put a spin on things. Let me rephrase. I would rather listen to what Kathy Sinnott says whether I agree or disagree with her, than to listen to anything that Brian Cowen & the Government say. Hope that clears it all up.;)

Indeed, given my own preference I'd silence both of them.

AuRevoir

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So you believe that 'The referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland poses a serious issue for Irish voters regarding abortion rights'?

No, I never said that so no need to put a spin on things. Let me rephrase. I would rather listen to what Kathy Sinnott says whether I agree or disagree with her, than to listen to anything that Brian Cowen & the Government say. Hope that clears it all up.;)

AuRevoir wrote: »

I'd trust Kathy Sinnott alot quicker than I'd trust Brian Cowen & the government.

So you believe that 'The referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland poses a serious issue for Irish voters regarding abortion rights'?

AuRevoir

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

how about one of the main anti-lisbon mep's who campaigned across south ireland for a no vote

http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/abortion-euthanasia-lisbon-treaty-ireland/article-173257

wonderful kathy Sinnott, thank the gods she is gone.

I'd trust Kathy Sinnott alot quicker than I'd trust Brian Cowen & the government.

BlitzKrieg

bill_ashmount wrote: »

My problem is with YES voters saying the NO vote won because of abortion. I am saying they are lying and they cannot provide proof.

1 person at a rally is not proof.

how about one of the main anti-lisbon mep's who campaigned across south ireland for a no vote

http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/abortion-euthanasia-lisbon-treaty-ireland/article-173257

wonderful kathy Sinnott, thank the gods she is gone.

panda100 wrote: »

Was this the 'Rally for Life' march last weekend?
Many people came down from the North and wider Europe for that rally. It was no way represntative of Irish views towards abortion,especially considering there was only around 2000 people at it.

Opinion polls suggest that the majority of Irish people are in favour of abortion. Asked in 2007: “Do you think the Government should legislate to allow abortion to take place in Ireland?,” 54 percent said Yes, 31 percent said No, 15 percent gave no opinion.
This suggests that the threat of abortion legislation wouldn't have had a negative impact on Lisbon anyway.
You can see even from threads on boards that the general consensus of younger Irish people is that of a pro choice view : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055346434

Don't think anybody is saying otherwise. Move along now, nothing to see here. Sorry for the Limerick reference!

panda100

K-9 wrote: »

Never said it was an issue for you. Touchy.

If you don't think abortion is a huge issue for many, fair enough, the rally pictures alone would suggest you are incorrect.

Was this the 'Rally for Life' march last weekend?
Many people came down from the North and wider Europe for that rally. It was no way represntative of Irish views towards abortion,especially considering there was only around 2000 people at it.

Opinion polls suggest that the majority of Irish people are in favour of abortion. Asked in 2007: “Do you think the Government should legislate to allow abortion to take place in Ireland?,” 54 percent said Yes, 31 percent said No, 15 percent gave no opinion.
This suggests that the threat of abortion legislation wouldn't have had a negative impact on Lisbon anyway.
You can see even from threads on boards that the general consensus of younger Irish people is that of a pro choice view : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055346434

bill_ashmount wrote: »

What rally pictures? I have no idea what you are talking about.

How many people were at this rally that you mention? Was there 200,000 or was there a million, perhaps more?

Can you give me a percentage figure for the number of people at the rally made up in comparison to the size of the NO vote? I assume we are talking aboout hundreds of thousands if this rally affected the size of the NO vote.

I'm stunned I didn't bump into this rally when it was taking place seen as it seems to be so big.

If you just want to take offence, fair enough.

PS. I'd recommend reading the posts before posting!

There is a video already posted.

There is research to show 2% voted on Abortion as an issue. I wouldn't say it swung the vote as these people aren't swing voters and will vote No regardless. Even if a tree stump in Limerick told them it's ok to vote Yes, they'd still vote No.!

bill_ashmount wrote: »

My problem is with YES voters saying the NO vote won because of abortion. I am saying they are lying and they cannot provide proof.

1 person at a rally is not proof.

Did you even read my post?

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

In a video of a rally on this very thread, there is a claim made by an Anti Abortion spokesman that more than 66% of the 'No' vote was due to Abortion.

I don't believe him, personally. It seems your problem is with his claim.

My problem is with YES voters saying the NO vote won because of abortion. I am saying they are lying and they cannot provide proof.

1 person at a rally is not proof.

bill_ashmount wrote: »

Rather than using rolleyes why don't you point me to your figures that show abortion won the NO vote?

In a video of a rally on this very thread, there is a claim made by an Anti Abortion spokesman that more than 66% of the 'No' vote was due to Abortion.

I don't believe him, personally. It seems your problem is with his claim.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

They're just 'yes' voters in disguise, don't you know, there to distract from the reasoned and logical 'no' voters who are voting 'no' for entirely rational things like the EU being a 'dictatorship'...

:rolleyes:

Rather than using rolleyes why don't you point me to your figures that show abortion won the NO vote?

K-9 wrote: »

Never said it was an issue for you. Touchy.

If you don't think abortion is a huge issue for many, fair enough, the rally pictures alone would suggest you are incorrect.

What rally pictures? I have no idea what you are talking about.

How many people were at this rally that you mention? Was there 200,000 or was there a million, perhaps more?

Can you give me a percentage figure for the number of people at the rally made up in comparison to the size of the NO vote? I assume we are talking aboout hundreds of thousands if this rally affected the size of the NO vote.

I'm stunned I didn't bump into this rally when it was taking place seen as it seems to be so big.

K-9 wrote: »

Never said it was an issue for you. Touchy.

If you don't think abortion is a huge issue for many, fair enough, the rally pictures alone would suggest you are incorrect.

They're just 'yes' voters in disguise, don't you know, there to distract from the reasoned and logical 'no' voters who are voting 'no' for entirely rational things like the EU being a 'dictatorship'...

:rolleyes:

bill_ashmount wrote: »

It wasn't an issue for me and I don't know anyone who voted NO who said it was an issue.

It's just a tactic used by YES campaigners to make NO voters look like religious fanatics stuck in the 18th century. Luckily the YES campaigns lies aren't working.

Never said it was an issue for you. Touchy.

If you don't think abortion is a huge issue for many, fair enough, the rally pictures alone would suggest you are incorrect.

K-9 wrote: »

There's nearly an embarassment factor in mentioning it. It was similar to Ganley and opinion polls. People will not publicly say it's an issue but it will influence their vote.

It wasn't an issue for me and I don't know anyone who voted NO who said it was an issue.

It's just a tactic used by YES campaigners to make NO voters look like religious fanatics stuck in the 18th century. Luckily the YES campaigns lies aren't working.

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I don't know, I was worried about Coir the last time, as they had brain-washed teenagers all over the place handing out leaflets. But in the end, it seems abortion and euthanasia accounted for <2% of the No vote, and I can't see it being any different this time.

There's nearly an embarassment factor in mentioning it. It was similar to Ganley and opinion polls. People will not publicly say it's an issue but it will influence their vote.