Sam Vimes wrote: » That's not an Irish neutrality issue. Ireland is still neutral and the rest of the countries in the EU were never neutral. That is a valid issue but not the one held by the majority of people who voted no because of neutrality. I've never even heard that point being put forward before.
Sam Vimes wrote: » Again, that's a separate issue. All I heard throughout the campaign was "unelected president", mostly from libertas. That is a valid objection which I covered in my post by saying "Throughout the campaign the only valid objection I came across was from people who have a general objection to the way the EU is going and even that is nothing specific about the treaty"
the-island-man wrote: » Thats the whole question though, what do the Ireland people think i mean you have the media putting forward quiet a few arguments and the report into the reasons why we voted no putting forward reasons which i don't even no whether it was independant or not and at the end of the day you have to ask yourself are these arguments held by the majority of irish people.
Scofflaw wrote: » If it comes right down to it, how can FF claim a Yes as any kind of vindication?
the-island-man wrote: » Thats the whole thing about this treaty it is not just about the Lisbon treaty in my opinion. I think that there has been so much debate on this treaty way more than Nice anyway that people are starting to raise questions about what is happening in Europe.
sparklepants wrote: » Agreed. The compelling reality however is that a NO result will lead to a change in government. This is beyond question. Therefore this very tangible consequence, as opposed to the less understandable benefits of a YES result, could swing enough voters to vote no, or to continue to vote no, to defeat the referendum. I believe as the referendum date approaches this less rational anti-government argument will become more popular among voters.
Sam Vimes wrote: » ... Ireland is still neutral and the rest of the countries in the EU were never neutral...
Sam Vimes wrote: » You say you don't know if the report into the reasons for the no vote was independent. The government wants the treaty to pass so they have to find out why people voted no and address those issues. What would they have to gain by getting an inaccurate report and tackling issues that aren't going to change anyone's mind?
Sam Vimes wrote: » Then you are one of very few people who have a valid objection to the treaty going through. Congratulations
brennaldo wrote: » ok i dont know an awful lot on lisbon and truthfully, i dont care, im only 17 sure, my question that im wondering, and i apologise if its been answered 1000 times but theres over 30 pages on this thread so..... ok if its voted yes and "europe" goes to war, can they pick your name at random and then ya have no choise but to go ?? again im sorry if its been answered but im just curious on that because if thats true il be begging people to vote no
brennaldo wrote: » ok if its voted yes and "europe" goes to war, can they pick your name at random and then ya have no choise but to go ??
Sir Baralot wrote: » ... Also, the "yes" side assume that the "no" side is morally and intellectually inferior to them for their own opinion and that really bugs me.
the-island-man wrote: » What if the result showed that Ireland didn't want to be in the E.U just an example of something the goverment could not address i wonder what the goverment would do in that situation? Would it tell the E.U to piss off, hardly!
the-island-man wrote: » Yay! whats your valid reason(s) for voting Yes?
Sir Baralot wrote: » I shall be voting no because we have already answered the question of Lisbon.
Sir Baralot wrote: » Also, the "yes" side assume that the "no" side is morally and intellectually inferior to them for their own opinion and that really bugs me.
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: » That's utter BS, and you're claiming it as fact. You don't know what a 'yes' or 'no' vote will mean for the life of the Government. If the Greens didn't pull out after getting the sh*te kicked out of them in the Local and Euro elections, why the hell would they pull out if a Referendum they are officially neutral on fails!?
You are just trying to hijack anti government sentiment to your own ends, like a dastard, that is too terrified to put forward actual arguments for their position.
If FG and Labour stand to benefit so much from a 'No' why are they asking so hard for a 'Yes'?
sparklepants wrote: » If the referendum fails, it won't be the Greens that will bring down the government, it'll be FF. Being defeated twice on the same referendum just isn't sustainable.
sparklepants wrote: » If the referendum fails, it won't be the Greens that will bring down the government, it'll be FF. Being defeated twice on the same referendum just isn't sustainable. As I said earlier in this thread I'll be voting Yes, as I did the last time. So what are my own ends? You appear to be so polarised in your views that you assume if someone makes a comment that is uncomfortable for you, they must be devious and malicious. I would strongly advise you to quell your anger, as your arguments are not very compelling to any floating voter reading them. What's that got to do with it? How could they justify calling for a No vote just to get the government unseated? They call for a Yes vote because they want to see the referendum being passed - seems logical to me. Or do you think that they possess the same dastardly motives that you attribute to me?
Sam Vimes wrote: » The first referendum didn't lead to a change in government even though this was the reason for many voting no at the time Getting 12% of the vote in the local elections and a call for a vote of no confidence by Enda Kenny didn't lead to a change in government Buggering up the whole country didn't lead to a change in government All of their opponents except Sinn Fein support the treaty too and they're not getting into government by any stretch of the imagination. It will be equally damning for all parties if it doesn't pass No government has ever fallen over a referendum result And yet you think this European treaty will be the final straw that convinces Brian Cowen that he's not wanted
Sam Vimes wrote: » This is a European referendum, not an election.
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: » Apologies, it looked like you were calling for a 'no' vote as a method to rid the country of the disaster that is the current FF government. It doesn't help that you are stating what is clearly your own opinion as 'fact', and claiming there is 'no question' on it, when there very much is a question whether your hypothesis is correct. I reject it because there is no evidence to support it, and anyone who acts on it is misleading themselves, or being misled, in my opinion.
Scofflaw wrote: » I don't doubt that it will be a popular argument, but there's more chance of the government falling in the next few weeks after the Greens have their party discussions on the PFG than on any referendum result short of an overwhelming No vote. A result in the same ballpark as the last one simply isn't going to upset the applecart - nothing short of a landslide No vote would have any effect, and I don't see any prospect of that. cordially, Scofflaw
sparklepants wrote: » By that logic, they'll stay in power until May 2012, yet no-one believes that.
sparklepants wrote: » No, it's an Irish referendum.
sparklepants wrote: » By declaring himself the front man for the Yes campaign, Cowen would have no choice but to accept responsibility for this and fall on his sword.
sparklepants wrote: » Even if the result were in the same ballpark the consequences of it certainly wouldn't be. The consequences of a No vote this time would be a lot more damaging, regardless of the margin. There would be no more time to ratify Lisbon, and the treaty would be dead. By declaring himself the front man for the Yes campaign, Cowen would have no choice but to accept responsibility for this and fall on his sword.
sparklepants wrote: » By that logic, they'll stay in power until May 2012, yet no-one believes that. No, it's an Irish referendum. But what "evidence" could there possibly be, other than that the government would take that official position? How could this weakened, unpopular government -indeed how could the main opposition parties- admit that a No vote would lead to a fall of the government? Such a claim would guarantee a No result. Even if the result were in the same ballpark the consequences of it certainly wouldn't be. The consequences of a No vote this time would be a lot more damaging, regardless of the margin. There would be no more time to ratify Lisbon, and the treaty would be dead. By declaring himself the front man for the Yes campaign, Cowen would have no choice but to accept responsibility for this and fall on his sword.
sparklepants wrote: » But what "evidence" could there possibly be, other than that the government would take that official position? How could this weakened, unpopular government -indeed how could the main opposition parties- admit that a No vote would lead to a fall of the government? Such a claim would guarantee a No result.
Scofflaw wrote: » That last is a possibility. The rest, from my own experience of Fianna Fail, is not. Cowen might step down as leader, but Fianna Fáil would not step out of government. cordially, Scofflaw
sink wrote: » In order for the government to fall there needs to be a vote of no confidence in the Dail. In order for that to happen several government TD's need to vote against Cowen or at least abstain. No Fianna Fail or Green Party TD is going to be willing to do so as it would almost certainly trigger a general election in which the Green Party will most likely loose most of it's seats and Fianna Fail stands to loose a significant proportion.
It would be like turkey's voting for christmas, it's not going to happen.
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: » If you claim something as a fact, it's up to you to provide the evidence for it. Otherwise it simply remains an interesting theory, though one which is unlikely to be true, in my opinion.
Feel free to advocate reasons as to why you think it's likely your theory is true, but don't feel free to claim it is fact without any evidence.
sparklepants wrote: » Even the possibility of the resignation of the Taoiseach will strengthen the resolve of some to vote no. I understand that the Taoiseach doesn't require a vote of no confidence to dissolve the government or to resign himself. When a Taoiseach tenders his resignation he may recommend to the President that ministers be retained or dismissed. (I'm open to correction on this however). Christmas has a delightful habit of coming around anyway, whether turkeys vote for it or not. It's equally impossible for you to provide evidence that the contrary is true. Your claim that the a No won't lead to a change of government is equally unsubstantiated. (Although I note that you've moved from the position of claiming that what I said was "utter BS" to "unlikely to be true, in my opinion"). A claim by the government itself that a No vote will have no consequences for it is of no value. I'll feel free to say whatever I like, within the rules of this forum - thanks.
sparklepants wrote: » I understand that the Taoiseach doesn't require a vote of no confidence to dissolve the government or to resign himself. When a Taoiseach tenders his resignation he may recommend to the President that ministers be retained or dismissed. (I'm open to correction on this however).
sparklepants wrote: » Christmas has a delightful habit of coming around anyway, whether turkeys vote for it or not.
sink wrote: » So do general elections!
