Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

ei.sdraob · 01-09-2009 01:11AM

Dipsy wrote: »

Lies? ? ?

yep > http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/images/2009/0831/1224253511501_1.jpg

Dipsy wrote: »

do you not see something wrong with this picture?????

YES

BlitzKrieg · 01-09-2009 01:12AM

Dipsy wrote: »

Forgive me I missed both points there

Lies? ? ?

And in regards to the breakdown on the 13 facts about Lisbon Its in red, its underlined!! :eek: :eek: LOL

Read between the lines.

So its no longer about facts? Its about whats between the lines???

And what is the issue with it being red and underlined, it was written by a poster here at the forum with contributions from others here, it's still a factual response to 13 points that actual uses full extracts from the treaty.

How can someone who seeks the truth and facts frown at this?

The point I was trying to make, was, I am not proud to be part of this undemocratic re- vote, when..... we already voted. Those that think its ok for us to have to vote again.... (oooops, wrong answer kids, off you go now, go back and give us the right answer this time...) have obviously missed the point too

do you not see something wrong with this picture?????

Yeah I see it, better stop all those divorces, we had a second referendum to bring divorce in.

There is nothing undemocratic about have multiple referendums on any issue, if you have proof showing otherwise I would love to see it, cause at the moment there is nothing in the constitution or any other legal document saying this cant happen and prescedent shows that it has happened before on numerous occasions.

meglome · 01-09-2009 01:12AM

Is it just me that is extremely ****ing tired of listening to this we cannot vote again ****e.

They just keep repeating it like if it's said enough it will become true. :mad:

K-9 · 01-09-2009 01:12AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I can gather, they justify it with one of the following points:

1: It's ok to re run it since the main reason people voted no last time was that they didn't understand the treaty and now it has been explained to them.

2: The new guarantees mean that people's concerns have now been addressed. (I accept this point only if every guarantee is 100% legally binding and cannot be revoked in the future without our consent - the people's consent, not just the government's. Also, the guarantees have not addressed my own concern which is the erosion of national sovereignty.)

3: It's ok to run it, no reason needed. No one ever said you couldn't be asked the same question more than once in light of "changed circumstances" (what "changed circumstances"?)

4: A referendum shouldn't ever have been necessary and was just a formality. In a representative democracy, you hand over power to the government and they can do whatever they like until their time is up, with or without a genuine public mandate for it.

Now I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with that opinion, it's just that I'm no real fan of our form of representative democracy to begin with, I think it's a cataclysmic failure and the government should be required to serve the wishes of the people rather than the party agenda. That is my own personal opinion however and you have every right to disagree with it.

Why so dismissive of No voters?

Dipsy · 01-09-2009 01:14AM

K-9 wrote: »

Why believe them? Why decide something so important as your vote on a Internet website that is biased and is telling you what you want to hear?

Hi there,

I didnt decide this based on a website. I simply posted that link as I felt it had in someway broken the lisbon treaty down in an easy to understand way rather than amendment after amendment ....

The facts are there! Its not about believing anything, its about knowing.

And, hello there Dinner

gosh you were quick off the mark.. claws back now... ... If you have genuinely done any research you will know, and not by what the six o clock news tells you... that there have been no changes to this treaty in any way shape or form. You can believe what you need to.. keep creating your cold reality.. .. .. who are you trying to convince? Cos I dont need convincing... I know the truth.. Some people are just not ready for the truth. But dont worry everything is ok :cool:

hatrickpatrick · 01-09-2009 01:15AM

I'm not dismissive of no voters. I'm dismissive of yes campaigners on this site who in my opinion actually give me more reasons to vote no than to change my mind and vote yes. Big difference. I'm considering voting no myself to clearly I wouldn't be anti no voters. I'm not anti yes voters either, I just can't stand condescending yes campaigners who refuse to explain the points they make.

Just look through the thread, those are the reasons being given. I specifically said at the bottom of my post that I wasn't necessarily saying there was anything wrong with them. I summed up the reasons I have been given on this board many times and commented on them. Nothing more, nothing less. If I left out a reason, please feel free to add it to the list.

Dinner · 01-09-2009 01:17AM

Dipsy wrote: »

And, hello there Dinner gosh you were quick off the mark.. claws back now... ... If you have genuinely done any research you will know, and not by what the six o clock news tells you... that there have been no changes to this treaty in any way shape or form. You can believe what you need to.. keep creating your cold reality.. .. .. who are you trying to convince? Cos I dont need convincing... I know the truth.. Some people are just not ready for the truth. But dont worry everything is ok :cool:

Hi.

If you have done any research, then you would know that nobody is claiming that the treaty has changed. This seems to be a standard line that the no camp trot out. It's not a secret that it hasn't changed. It didn't need to since the major issues weren't in the treaty.

I suggest you start doing a bit of reading that isn't either made up or twisted before you come along with the condescension.;)

BlitzKrieg · 01-09-2009 01:18AM

slightly OT

hatrickpatrick have you done a thread on the issues of representative democracy elswhere on boards. I'd be interested in reading more discussion on the pro's and con's (in political theory?)

K-9 · 01-09-2009 01:21AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not dismissive of no voters. I'm dismissive of no campaigners on this site who in my opinion actually give me more reasons to vote no than to change my mind and vote yes. Big difference.

Just look through the thread, those are the reasons being given. I specifically said at the bottom of my post that I wasn't necessarily saying there was anything wrong with them. I summed up the reasons I have been given on this board many times and commented on them. Nothing more, nothing less. If I left out a reason, please feel free to add it to the list.

Some people felt taxation and the Commissioner was important. So important, they'd change their vote if those points where addressed.

No campaigners do not speak for No voters.

hatrickpatrick · 01-09-2009 01:24AM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

slightly OT

hatrickpatrick have you done a thread on the issues of representative democracy elswhere on boards. I'd be interested in reading more discussion on the pro's and con's (in political theory?)

No but that's an interesting idea and I'll certainly think about doing one of those.
I don't oppose representative democracy but I do think that the bigger a population is under the control of one government, the less democratic it becomes. That's just a basic summary of my beliefs and I'll see if I can condense them into a readable form for you

hatrickpatrick · 01-09-2009 01:26AM

K-9 wrote: »

Some people felt taxation and the Commissioner was important. So important, they'd change their vote if those points where addressed.

No campaigners do not speak for No voters.

Sorry K-9 that was a huge mistake on my part, I'm not dismissive of no campaigners at all but yes campaigners. In fact why did you ask me "why so dismissive of no voters"? Was it not obvious that I was actually arguing for the no side in that post? You've confused me slightly I have to admit...

K-9 · 01-09-2009 01:36AM

It was obvious.

What is your take on No campaigners?

I'd love an equally funny and balanced response!

marco_polo · 01-09-2009 02:00AM

Dipsy wrote: »

Hi there,

I didnt decide this based on a website. I simply posted that link as I felt it had in someway broken the lisbon treaty down in an easy to understand way rather than amendment after amendment ....

The facts are there! Its not about believing anything, its about knowing.

And, hello there Dinner gosh you were quick off the mark.. claws back now... ... If you have genuinely done any research you will know, and not by what the six o clock news tells you... that there have been no changes to this treaty in any way shape or form. You can believe what you need to.. keep creating your cold reality.. .. .. who are you trying to convince? Cos I dont need convincing... I know the truth.. Some people are just not ready for the truth. But dont worry everything is ok :cool:

Do you know Corporation Tax is a direct tax, because it appears not.

marco_polo · 01-09-2009 02:09AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I can gather, they justify it with one of the following points:

1: It's ok to re run it since the main reason people voted no last time was that they didn't understand the treaty and now it has been explained to them.

2: The new guarantees mean that people's concerns have now been addressed. (I accept this point only if every guarantee is 100% legally binding and cannot be revoked in the future without our consent - the people's consent, not just the government's. Also, the guarantees have not addressed my own concern which is the erosion of national sovereignty.)

3: It's ok to run it, no reason needed. No one ever said you couldn't be asked the same question more than once in light of "changed circumstances" (what "changed circumstances"?)

4: A referendum shouldn't ever have been necessary and was just a formality. In a representative democracy, you hand over power to the government and they can do whatever they like until their time is up, with or without a genuine public mandate for it.

Now I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with that opinion, it's just that I'm no real fan of our form of representative democracy to begin with, I think it's a cataclysmic failure and the government should be required to serve the wishes of the people rather than the party agenda. That is my own personal opinion however and you have every right to disagree with it.

The thing is that if you percieve the Lisbon treaty as a major erosion of soverignty, then you were never going to vote for the treaty anyway. Therefore there is nothing that could possibly be done to reassured you. The 'Hard Yes' or 'Hard No' voters are not the demographic that either side of campaigners are interested in.

Out of curiosity which of the new areas of pooled sovereignty / or moving to QMV are of most concern?

meglome · 01-09-2009 04:29AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I can gather, they justify it with one of the following points:

1: It's ok to re run it since the main reason people voted no last time was that they didn't understand the treaty and now it has been explained to them.

2: The new guarantees mean that people's concerns have now been addressed. (I accept this point only if every guarantee is 100% legally binding and cannot be revoked in the future without our consent - the people's consent, not just the government's. Also, the guarantees have not addressed my own concern which is the erosion of national sovereignty.)

3: It's ok to run it, no reason needed. No one ever said you couldn't be asked the same question more than once in light of "changed circumstances" (what "changed circumstances"?)

4: A referendum shouldn't ever have been necessary and was just a formality. In a representative democracy, you hand over power to the government and they can do whatever they like until their time is up, with or without a genuine public mandate for it.

Now I'm not necessarily saying there's anything wrong with that opinion, it's just that I'm no real fan of our form of representative democracy to begin with, I think it's a cataclysmic failure and the government should be required to serve the wishes of the people rather than the party agenda. That is my own personal opinion however and you have every right to disagree with it.

We have a problem in this country. We need referenda for these changes and I for one am thankful for that. Now I would love if our government ran a stellar campaign each time and made sure that these treaties were fully understood and appreciated on their merits. However our government has a habit of running very underwhelming campaigns, rubbish might be another way of describing them. All that said (and this is the problem bit) at each and every one of our referenda the loonies from left and right crawl out of the woodwork and object object object. I'm starting to wonder if the referendum was about paint drying they'd still object. This messes with the democratic process as the treaties are not being judged on their merits but often on the misleading or completely made up statements from (suspiciously well funded) fringe elements.

I have no problem with people voting any way they like for any reason they like. However any upstanding Yes or No voters should be appalled by these tactics. I'm personally really sick of the lies.

So hatrickpatrick I think from the polls that were conducted it's obvious that people were voting for things that have been addressed with the guarantees or were not in the treaty at all. So why is it undemocratic to have another vote? especially given the treaty was hijacked by our fringe elements as usual. Do you think the first Lisbon treaty was voted on it merits?

johnwillnot · 01-09-2009 04:35AM

*snip*

Don't post links to the same video across multiple threads. Also do not spam such links without discussion.

MrMicra · 01-09-2009 07:35AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't oppose representative democracy but I do think that the bigger a population is under the control of one government, the less democratic it becomes.

Not necessarily, we have a small population but a highly centralised government.

The principle of subsidiarity stresses the need to take decisions at the lowest possible level.

One could have an EU (for example) with strong village, county, provincial, all Ireland, Multinational European Region, and finally EU level bodies.

India has a population of a billion and is a democracy and in many ways more democratic than Ireland.

Regarding what you said about Switzerland. I agree the Swiss system is far better than ours and in fact would be highly suitable for Ireland, are improvements in local democracy likely to be aided or harmed by further pooling of sovereignty? I only brought up Switzerland as an example of a democratic supranational body.

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 10:04AM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Both Newstalk and Today FM are owned by the same company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicorp)

sort of defeats his point doesnt it?

Yes Greene was alluding to fact that although in same office, Newstalk and Today FM operate independently of each other.

Freeborn John · 01-09-2009 11:45AM

MrMicra wrote: »

I only brought up Switzerland as an example of a democratic supranational body.

Switzerland is not a supranational body. It is a federal nation-state and has been for over 150 years.

Freeborn John · 01-09-2009 11:47AM

MrMicra wrote: »

Belgium is arguably a supranational organisation.

Belgium is one of the few remaining multinational states in Europe; a form of state that was common in the 18th century in Europe but has largely been made obsolete by the rise of the nation-state. If Belgium continues along the current trend it is likely it will break up into separate nation-states of Flanders and Wallonia.

daisy lou · 01-09-2009 02:47PM

no no and no again how many times must i say it, once is obviously not enough

BlitzKrieg · 01-09-2009 03:00PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes Greene was alluding to fact that although in same office, Newstalk and Today FM operate independently of each other.

but they are still the same company.

xbox and windows are independent of each other but its still microsoft

miramax and beuna vista operate independently of each other but they are still disney

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 03:04PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

but they are still the same company.

xbox and windows are independent of each other but its still microsoft

miramax and beuna vista operate independently of each other but they are still disney

Well you can have two papers owned by same company but who have different Ideologies.
Only way to find out where Coir is coming from is to get a list of ALL their members.

cancelthat · 01-09-2009 03:38PM

How could any sane person vote for a change in constitution that our government does not fully understand, a government that would not accept a democratic voice the first time. Our government wants the yes vote so badly it is has made a mockery of democratic voice, it proves only one thing, we are in the throes of a fascist european regime

Martin 2 · 01-09-2009 03:44PM

Has anybody else noticed abnormal voting in our poll. In a period between 11:30pm yesterday and 12:49am this morning the No vote increased by 8 (unprecedented) and since then it's gone up by a further 11 votes, in this time the Yes vote has gone up by just 4 and the spoilt vote by just 1. The yes vote had been slowly catching up with No over the last week, but the No jump in the last 16 hours is incredible... maybe the Coir posters are working:)

.

tonycascarino · 01-09-2009 03:49PM

Martin 2 wrote: »

Has anybody else noticed abnormal voting in our poll. In a two hour period between 11:30pm yesterday and 12:49am this morning the No vote increased by 8 (unprecedented) and since then it's gone up by a further 11 votes, in this time the Yes vote has gone up by just 4 and the spoilt vote by just 1. The yes vote had been slowly catching up with No over the last week, but the No jump in the last 16 hours is incredible... maybe the Coir posters are working:)

Do you know that not everyone thinks that this treaty is the best thing since sliced bread...;)

ei.sdraob · 01-09-2009 03:51PM

Martin 2 wrote: »

Has anybody else noticed abnormal voting in our poll. In a two hour period between 11:30pm yesterday and 12:49am this morning the No vote increased by 8 (unprecedented) and since then it's gone up by a further 11 votes, in this time the Yes vote has gone up by just 4 and the spoilt vote by just 1. The yes vote had been slowly catching up with No over the last week, but the No jump in the last 16 hours is incredible... maybe the Coir posters are working:)

and an increase in new members jumping straight here

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 03:53PM

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Yes, because the claims of the yes side are backed up by evidence.

Its claimed by Yes Side that a No Vote will discourage foreign investment. Yet it actually increased after last vote while going down in Spain after they ratified the treat.

ei.sdraob · 01-09-2009 03:57PM

bayviewclose wrote: »

Its claimed by Yes Side that a No Vote will discourage foreign investment. Yet it actually increased after last vote while going down in Spain after they ratified the treat.

thats exactly what the Coir guy on claimed on todayfm yesteday :rolleyes: yet another lie/distortion developing

6000 new jobs in ireland since the No (tho no evidence to attribute this to Lisbon) due to direct investment (what is the source of this claim?)

compared to 20% unemployemnt in Span who voted Yes (on unrelated thing long before)

talk about apples and oranges

no mention of the record unemployment in Ireland since last year and still climbing

but who needs facts when you can distort statistics to suit you

Spiritoftheseventies · 01-09-2009 04:05PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

thats exactly what the Coir guy on claimed on todayfm yesteday :rolleyes: yet another lie/distortion developing

6000 new jobs in ireland since the No (tho no evidence to attribute this to Lisbon) due to direct investment (what is the source of this claim?)

compared to 20% unemployemnt in Span who voted Yes (on unrelated thing long before)

talk about apples and oranges

no mention of the record unemployment in Ireland since last year and still climbing

but who needs facts when you can distort statistics to suit you

What has rising unemployment got to do with it. Dell outsourced their operations to another country.
And then you had Waterford Crystal and many other companies
That statement Coir made was not challenged by FF speaker. Nor was the fact about Irish Fisheries being dead as an industry. And he challenged pretty much everything else.

Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Comments