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; } } }

Child Item

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

darkman2

October 2nd is the date - how do you intend to vote?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

meglome

Rb wrote: »

I'm not voting based on "scaremongering bs", I'm just disgusted that our Government are putting up such posters. It's one thing for crazies like Coir to do it, but it's another thing for FF to.

Ah right it's just that's what you said you were doing.

Anyway you trust Fianna Fail? And these Cóir crazies have a suspiciously large amount of money to fund a large posters campaign, they even put the posters up earlier than legally they should have.

In fairness the Yes posters may be pathetic and full of fairly meaningless slogans but they are not actually telling any direct lies. So I don't understand your righteous indignation about the Yes posters and not a peep about the No posters.

Rb wrote: »

Those posters also nullify the "Don't vote for non-document reasons" mantra of the "Yes" side that we've been hearing since Lisbon 1, which is great.

Hang on do you think it's a good idea for people to vote on a treaty for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty? Should we all just vote Fianna Fail back in as well? Sure better the devil you know an' all that.

Look I haven't yet seen one single No poster that was accurate or didn't contain a direct lie, not a single one. It's disgusting to be honest, very American style campaigning.

Stark

Rb wrote: »

I'm not voting based on "scaremongering bs", I'm just disgusted that our Government are putting up such posters. It's one thing for crazies like Coir to do it, but it's another thing for FF to.

I merely said that it's simply another thing that will be in my mind as I strike the "No" box with a smile.

Those posters also nullify the "Don't vote for non-document reasons" mantra of the "Yes" side that we've been hearing since Lisbon 1, which is great.

It's unqualified aspirational statements vs unqualified bald faced lies. "Vote yes for recovery" may not mean much but "Vote yes for a more streamlined EU" just makes the average punter say "Huh? I don't give a toss about that. I'm voting No". Of course a debate on such a complex treaty shouldn't be taking place on billboards in the first place. Fact is the Yes side just isn't going to be able to come out with snappy one-liners like "Vote no for unmolested children" or whatever.

meglome wrote: »

Ah right it's just that's what you said you were doing.

Anyway you trust Fianna Fail? And these Cóir crazies have a suspiciously large amount of money to fund a large posters campaign, they even put the posters up earlier than legally they should have.

In fairness the Yes posters may be pathetic and full of fairly meaningless slogans but they are not actually telling any direct lies. So I don't understand your righteous indignation about the Yes posters and not a peep about the No posters.

I wouldn't really call it a "meaningless slogan" when it's implying that voting No will see our relationship with Europe come to a halt and our economy go deeper down the toilet, when in fact noone can really make such a claim.

I don't hold much regard for the No posters and think Coir publishing such crap does more damage to the No side than had nothing been published at all so don't really see the point in discussing them, only an idiot would back such an organisation. I want a No result, however I don't want Coir to claim the victory for themselves. The Government, the shady behaviour by the EU, parts of the treaty itself and the attitude of the Yes side push more people to a No than some religious fringe group who somehow got the money to publish retarded posters.

Hang on do you think it's a good idea for people to vote on a treaty for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty? Should we all just vote Fianna Fail back in as well? Sure better the devil you know an' all that.

People on both sides of the fence are going to vote for non-document reasons, it's just surprising/disgusting to see our Government pushing people to do so, when so many of their little comrades have lambasted the "No" voters for having done so in the previous referendum.

The side who claim to be the intellectual superiors in the debate and who dismiss people's votes as "ignorant and misinformed" or "protest", yet never concede that many, if not a majority, of their own voted in favour merely to keep the tongue in the derrier or because they didn't want to vote "with" Sinn Fein or some of the other opposition groups.

Yet, when they come to publish posters in an effort to get people to vote on this fantastic treaty, the best they can come up with is reasons that have fuck all do to do with the treaty itself? Bravo.

Look I haven't yet seen one single No poster that was accurate or didn't contain a direct lie, not a single one. It's disgusting to be honest, very American style campaigning.

Those who are voting No in an effort to block a larger, more political union are going to do so regardless. The posters aren't targetting these people, they're targetting those on the fence over the issue so although I hate them, it's no worse than what our own Government are doing, at the end of the day. My point being that it's far worse for our own Government to be doing it.

Stark wrote:

It's unqualified aspirational statements vs unqualified bald faced lies. "Vote yes for recovery" may not mean much but "Vote yes for a more streamlined EU" just makes the average punter say "Huh? I don't give a toss about that. I'm voting No". Of course a debate on such a complex treaty shouldn't be taking place on billboards in the first place. Fact is the Yes side just isn't going to be able to come out with snappy one-liners like "Vote no for unmolested children" or whatever.

I don't really see them as aspirational statements though. An example being "Ireland is better with Europe. Vote Yes", a current one. Ireland is better with Europe, we're still going to be in Europe after Lisbon, regardless of the outcome. It's implying that voting No will see us booted out into wild country to fend for ourselves, which it certainly will not. Cowen, on the Late Late, said it's important for us to vote Yes to send a message of support to our fellow EU members. Wtf? This is our Taoiseach, the leader of our Government, and THAT is why we should vote Yes?

At least "Vote No to protect our grannies from teh aliens" can be dismissed as looney crap, people wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the messages from our own Government.

Stark

People weren't so quick to dismiss the looney crap that the lives of our unborn children were at risk if we voted Yes. The Government is pushing for a Yes vote because it believes the treaty is in the best interests of the country. After learning all I can about the treaty, this is one issue I trust them on. And sending out the right message is as valid a reason as any for someone on the fence. If you've no objections to the treaty, then there's little point in voting No out of spite or apathy. That undermines the goodwill Ireland has built at the EU negotiating table and weakens our position in future negotiations. At least voting No and being able to offer constructive criticism on the treaty allows everyone to go forward.

sub-x

Am I the only one that thinks its strange that when it comes to Lisbon,FF,FG and Labour collectively agree whats good not only for Ireland but the other 26 states but when it comes to our own domestic problems,they just can't seem to agree on anything ???

Or is it just that European issues take precedence over domestic issues ???

Freaky ???

Stark

Well Labour wants the increased support for trade unions offered by Lisbon (something I'd prefer to do without, but you can't have everything your way). FF and FG have been known to co-operate "for the good of the national interest" in the past.

sub-x

Stark wrote: »

Well Labour wants the increased support for trade unions offered by Lisbon (something I'd prefer to do without, but you can't have everything your way). FF and FG have been known to co-operate "for the good of the national interest" in the past.

Excellent point,I'm glad somebody else recognizes the BS left-right paradigm(for want of a better term)when FF go,our next coalition will f**k us up royaly on par or greater than this one has.

Oh we are in so much s**t its not even funny.

marco_polo

sub-x wrote: »

Am I the only one that thinks its strange that when it comes to Lisbon,FF,FG and Labour collectively agree whats good not only for Ireland but the other 26 states but when it comes to our own domestic problems,they just can't seem to agree on anything ???

Or is it just that European issues take precedence over domestic issues ???

Freaky ???

You could also suggest that it is freaky that two parties that are so similar in ideology as Fianna Fail and Fine Geal have probably rarely agreed on any domestic issue in the history of the state.

I think the answer is that all three parties are very pro european, and that European issues are via gentlemans agreement considered off limits for political football.

The above is not quite always true true though, the petty sniping that took between FF and FG the last time around was viewed as a hinderance to the last Yes campaign.

Stark

sub-x wrote: »

Excellent point,I'm glad somebody else recognizes the BS left-right paradigm(for want of a better term)when FF go,our next coalition will f**k us up royaly on par or greater than this one has.

Oh we are in so much s**t its not even funny.

The second coalition will have some Labour in the mix, so whatever money is left over from FG's answer to NAMA can go towards inflated salaries for union workers

sub-x

marco_polo wrote: »

You could also suggest that it is freaky that two parties that are so similar in ideology as Fianna Fail and Fine Geal have probably rarely agreed on any domestic issue in the history of the state.

I think the answer is that all three parties are very pro european, and that European issues are via gentlemans agreement considered off limits for political football.

The above is not quite always true true though, the petty sniping that took between FF and FG the last time around was viewed as a hinderance to the last Yes campaign.

When the play begins the actors play there parts to perfection,so many times Kenny had Cowen on the ropes and never went for the kill,either because he didn't have the balls or the intelligence.

I am voting No on Lisbon as I did last time but I would like to make it clear that voting No to bring down the government is pointless,firstly because its never happened before but more importantly,I am under no illusions,FG would as soon sell the people of this country out to bankers and property developers as quick as FF did.

K-9

OK, FF put up a poster "Vote Yes for the economy". Stupid poster at the best of times but given the current situation, what genius approved this?

So people on this thread seem to be assuming from a stupid poster that Voting No means you are voting to wreck the economy?

That seems to be the point? Am I anywhere near the point here?

I have seen points repeatedly that voting Yes is treason to 1916 and our independence. Does that mean voting No means you are Garda McCabe murdering sympathiser?

They are posters, PR, Eye catching posters and COIR are far better at them than FF/FG/Labour.

ei.sdraob

K-9 wrote: »

OK, FF put up a poster "Vote Yes for the economy". Stupid poster at the best of times but given the current situation, what genius approved this?

So people on this thread seem to be assuming from a stupid poster that Voting No means you are voting to wreck the economy?

That seems to be the point? Am I anywhere near the point here?

I have seen points repeatedly that voting Yes is treason to 1916 and our independence. Does that mean voting No means you are Garda McCabe murdering sympathiser?

They are posters, PR, Eye catching posters and COIR are far better at them than FF/FG/Labour.

as i worried, FF are the black sheep of the yes campaign, they should have done the right thing and stayed out, bleh

tho there is a sort of sweet irony there

most people would trust the EU when it comes to economy than the government, one has history of delivering the other has history of ****ing up

our membership of the euro has already helped within last year to hold the economy together compared to other basket cases like Iceland

so i suppose yes there is evidence that EU is "better" for the economy, and god knows i would trust the more prudent Germans and other eu members whos economies were either barely scratched or now recovering any time over the FF developer led cartel

oscarBravo

Rb wrote: »

...the shady behaviour by the EU...

What shady behaviour by the EU?

I don't really see them as aspirational statements though. An example being "Ireland is better with Europe. Vote Yes", a current one. Ireland is better with Europe, we're still going to be in Europe after Lisbon, regardless of the outcome. It's implying that voting No will see us booted out into wild country to fend for ourselves, which it certainly will not.

Is it your view that, if we fail to ratify Lisbon, Ireland's position in the EU will be precisely the same as before? That we will lose no goodwill in negotiations? That we can call a screeching halt to the reform of the EU that all 27 member states have agreed is required, for no clear reason, without any semblance of repercussion?

I haven't heard anyone from the "yes" campaign claim that we will be kicked out of the EU if we vote "no". That claim, like so many other straw men, has it's origin firmly in the "no" camp.

Zenemy

I just read the Referendum Commission's Lisbon Treaty Extended Guide.
Seems to me that all the talk of human rights being improved is just wrong.
Quote (page14)"The rights set out in the charter are not absolute..." - so what are rights then if not absolute? Optional? There are no new rights that aren't already covered in either european law or Irish law, so to me, that argument is waffle.

Also, to quote the booklet (page3), "The European Council has also issued a solemn declaration on social issues including workers' rights. This is a political statement and is not legally binding" Guarantee? LMAO

Also, it says that the Irish Gov has given assurances that it will review our 'Opt-out' system within three years of ratification of the treaty? Does this mean what I think it means?

Most worrying is the Mutual Assistance clause, it states that members have an obligation to aid and assist another member state that is the victim of armed aggression & or terrorist attack. We all know what can be constituted as Terror attacks so I wont even go there but let's imagine the scenario a couple of years ago when Georgia and Russia started fighting, would we have been drawn in? Would the other member states have frowned upon us for not helping? Of coarse they would. Judging by the way Brian Cowan is defiantly fighting his people for Namma to be set up to save his bank buddies I wouldn't be surprised to find that in a couple of years we (irish people) are being given the guilt trip for not helping other euro states at war.

Imo, there are too many issues lumped together in one document. I'm sure there are some good people behind the scenes but there are a number of issues here that, on their own, could justify a referendum, not to mention the numerous use of the phrase" to be decided" and " has not yet been decided". Have you ever signed a contract with the words 'to be decided" on it?

So why are we being forced to vote on this particular document?
Is it because it will ultimately give the euro politicians more power to act without consent?
Is the USA view the right one? Are the leaders of Europe trying to make a super state to match the power of the US ( as stated by Sarkozy)? What then? What if Europe and the US fall out? Are we going to fight the Americans?

Why can't we say NO and start to look at all our options as a country?
Did our ancestors fight for our freedom from dominion so that we can give it away again? I don't think so.

Im sure there are some good things in the treaty ( I cant see them so Id love someone to point them out) but to me it just stinks of imperialism.
I mean, there's big yellow posters hanging on lamp posts outside my house (not for long mind) that say...."Yes to Jobs, Yes to Europe" - Did I miss something? WHAT JOBS???

I believe we should take this opportunity to shape our own destiny as a people, instead of buying into the belief that we will be the black sheep of europe if we don't. LOL. We have nothing that Europe needs, especially not the referendum clause.

passive

Zenemy wrote: »

repeat ad nauseum

lol, welcome to boards, you're clearly new and just a genuine person looking to join this forum.

hatrickpatrick

Zenemy wrote: »

Imo, there are too many issues lumped together in one document. I'm sure there are some good people behind the scenes but there are a number of issues here that, on their own, could justify a referendum, not to mention the numerous use of the phrase" to be decided" and " has not yet been decided". Have you ever signed a contract with the words 'to be decided" on it?

This x10000000. It is probably the truest thing anyone on either side has said in this debate. The Lisbon treaty is far too big and there are too many different issues to simply be "for it" or "against it". You could approve of half of it and detest the other half. Could it be compared to the system in the US where it's possible to slip in "provisions" completely unrelated to the bill in question in order to pass laws through the backdoor? Like that example a few months ago when an administrative piece of legislation about how to store school records or something like that ended up having a provision about gun rights attached to it?

I'm not saying the EU has done this on purpose at all, just saying that's in effect what the Lisbon treaty is - it's saying "you're either in favour of all of it or in favour of none of it". For something which covers such a huge range of issues, this seems utterly ridiculous.

the_syco

sub-x wrote: »

so many times Kenny had Cowen on the ropes and never went for the kill,either because he didn't have the balls or the intelligence.

He never had the balls. If he had the balls, he would most likely be president now. Hopefully someone with balls replaces him soon.

sub-x wrote: »

I am under no illusions,FG would as soon sell the people of this country out to bankers and property developers as quick as FF did.

So would the rest of them. Except SF. SF would raise the corpo tax so high that every foreign business would leave, and we'd be well f**ked then.

meglome

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This x10000000. It is probably the truest thing anyone on either side has said in this debate. The Lisbon treaty is far too big and there are too many different issues to simply be "for it" or "against it". You could approve of half of it and detest the other half.

This is ridiculous. It's a complex international treaty because it deals with complex international issues. You seem to think it's possible to reform the EU and make it ten pages long, those two things are mutually exclusive.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Could it be compared to the system in the US where it's possible to slip in "provisions" completely unrelated to the bill in question in order to pass laws through the backdoor? Like that example a few months ago when an administrative piece of legislation about how to store school records or something like that ended up having a provision about gun rights attached to it?

marco_polo

Zenemy wrote: »

I just read the Referendum Commission's Lisbon Treaty Extended Guide.
Seems to me that all the talk of human rights being improved is just wrong.
Quote (page14)"The rights set out in the charter are not absolute..." - so what are rights then if not absolute? Optional? There are no new rights that aren't already covered in either european law or Irish law, so to me, that argument is waffle.

That is simply pretty well stating that the rights on an individual must be balanced against the common good of society and so are subject to certain restrictions, as it the case in all societies. The COFR is being given a legal basis for the first time and has nothing equivelant under current EU law.

Also, to quote the booklet (page3), "The European Council has also issued a solemn declaration on social issues including workers' rights. This is a political statement and is not legally binding" Guarantee? LMAO

True in the instance of the Social declaration it is only a political statement. This is not true of the decisions though.

Also, it says that the Irish Gov has given assurances that it will review our 'Opt-out' system within three years of ratification of the treaty? Does this mean what I think it means?

Originaly we had agreed to partake in these areas under the orignal EU Constitution, but once Britain opted out we decided to follow suit.
All the government is saying is that it will review this decision after a period of three years.

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/EU%20Division/irish%20times%20article%20on%20jha.doc.

Most worrying is the Mutual Assistance clause, it states that members have an obligation to aid and assist another member state that is the victim of armed aggression & or terrorist attack. We all know what can be constituted as Terror attacks so I wont even go there but let's imagine the scenario a couple of years ago when Georgia and Russia started fighting, would we have been drawn in? Would the other member states have frowned upon us for not helping? Of coarse they would. Judging by the way Brian Cowan is defiantly fighting his people for Namma to be set up to save his bank buddies I wouldn't be surprised to find that in a couple of years we (irish people) are being given the guilt trip for not helping other euro states at war.

Presumeably nothing since neither Russia or Georgia are EU states. Would you be deeply opposed to sending in principal to sending emergency service workers or Aid to a fellow EU member state in the event of a disaster? Because we are precluded from military action as a result of our neutrality, and safeguards have been built in to the decision making process that applies to the solidarity clause (Article 31.1).

Imo, there are too many issues lumped together in one document. I'm sure there are some good people behind the scenes but there are a number of issues here that, on their own, could justify a referendum, not to mention the numerous use of the phrase" to be decided" and " has not yet been decided". Have you ever signed a contract with the words 'to be decided" on it?

The only thing that I am aware of that has to be decided upon is the implementation of the Citizens Initative? I would presume that this would be in dealing with issues such as acceptable methods for submitting 1,000,000 signatures etc. All other EU treaties have been large documents as well so it is not like a preceedent is being set in any way.

So why are we being forced to vote on this particular document?
Is it because it will ultimately give the euro politicians more power to act without consent?

Is the USA view the right one? Are the leaders of Europe trying to make a super state to match the power of the US ( as stated by Sarkozy)? What then? What if Europe and the US fall out? Are we going to fight the Americans?

How does it give euro politicians more power to act without consent? Lisbon certainly does not move the EU in the direction of a federal state since the fundamental structures of the EU will change very little with the exception some areas of the decision making structure. The German constitutional court has agreed likewise.

Why can't we say NO and start to look at all our options as a country?
Did our ancestors fight for our freedom from dominion so that we can give it away again? I don't think so.

Im sure there are some good things in the treaty ( I cant see them so Id love someone to point them out) but to me it just stinks of imperialism.
I mean, there's big yellow posters hanging on lamp posts outside my house (not for long mind) that say...."Yes to Jobs, Yes to Europe" - Did I miss something? WHAT JOBS???

I believe we should take this opportunity to shape our own destiny as a people, instead of buying into the belief that we will be the black sheep of europe if we don't. LOL. We have nothing that Europe needs, especially not the referendum clause.

What are you suggesting as alternatives? It certainly seems that you are advocating an isolationist position for Ireland?

CliodhnaB

Its good for the government and bad for us. I hope its not passed cause thats when the hard times will come.

VOTE NO!

PopeBuckfastXVI

CliodhnaB wrote: »

Its good for the government and bad for us. I hope its not passed cause thats when the hard times will come.

VOTE NO!

Explain please?

passive

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Explain please?

And why should she have to do a thing like that? It's her opinion, don't ya know!

meglome

CliodhnaB wrote: »

Its good for the government and bad for us. I hope its not passed cause thats when the hard times will come.

VOTE NO!

GO SOXS

Maybe you should say how? Since you're so sure like, might convert the rest of us.

CliodhnaB

it'll bail out the bankers. great for the government make them look like they did something.. yet we will have to pay money for owning a house? Property market wil fall jobs will be lost. We might as well start drawning the dole now cause in a few years those who have a job wont be afford milk. Simple as its good for ireland but bad for the people. any body who votes yes is obviously a fan of banana f**kn republic. its a disgrace.

PopeBuckfastXVI

passive wrote: »

And why should she have to do a thing like that? It's her opinion, don't ya know!

Sorry, I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum, not a blog.

I want to know how Lisbon is 'good for the government, but bad for us'.

I also want to know what disaster will befall Ireland, should we vote yes.

PopeBuckfastXVI

CliodhnaB wrote: »

it'll bail out the bankers. great for the government make them look like they did something.. yet we will have to pay money for owning a house? Property market wil fall jobs will be lost. We might as well start drawning the dole now cause in a few years those who have a job wont be afford milk. Simple as its good for ireland but bad for the people. any body who votes yes is obviously a fan of banana f**kn republic. its a disgrace.

None of this is anything to do with Lisbon, what you need is a General Election, where you can change the Government, which retains control of these policies.

passive

CliodhnaB wrote: »

it'll bail out the bankers. great for the government make them look like they did something.. yet we will have to pay money for owning a house? Property market wil fall jobs will be lost. We might as well start drawning the dole now cause in a few years those who have a job wont be afford milk. Simple as its good for ireland but bad for the people. any body who votes yes is obviously a fan of banana f**kn republic. its a disgrace.

You know that nothing you're saying has anything whatsoever to do with Lisbon, right? Like, you're taking the piss? Please say you're taking the piss. By being in this forum you are surrounded by thousands and thousands of posts explaining what Lisbon is about, and what it ISN'T about (e.g. the crap you've just posted here. Bailing out the bankers? What!?)

You've basically gone really far out of your way to come stand on top of a mountain and say "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A MOUNTAIN IS."

Argh...

CliodhnaB

passive wrote: »

And why should she have to do a thing like that? It's her opinion, don't ya know!

ha exactly but sure clearly they dont have a brain asking to explain what good it will do to us.

explain what good it will do for us?
and remember i sed us as people, not as ireland!

CliodhnaB

expressing my opinion.

Moriarty

CliodhnaB wrote: »

expressing my opinion.

Opinions are quite often demonstrably wrong.