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

PopeBuckfastXVI · 08-09-2009 11:09AM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

or some No campaigners don't have better things to be doing

other than

opening new accounts and voting and then posting one liner sentences and not engaging in debate

it will certainly be interesting the results on October the 2nd

As I said before...

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I don't think there's enough of 'them' to skew the poll. I'd imagine it's a pretty accurate poll of people who come onto the EU politics forum and respond to polls.

Sam Vimes · 08-09-2009 11:19AM

rumour wrote: »

Good morning all, seems the barometer at the top of the thread is pointing towards a larger 'no' than in the actual referendum last year.

Why is that? Is it because over 50% of people in this thread are downright stupid and pedelling in lies?

They're not all peddling in lies. The vast majority of them have had lies peddled to them and now won't believe the truth when they're told it unfortunately

ei.sdraob · 08-09-2009 11:22AM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

As I said before...

maybe but unlike a referendum an internet poll is wide open to abuse

myself if i was bored could use any of the 200+ ips from my companies servers around the world to tunnel and create different accounts and skew a poll

but i have better things to do

than sink to such a level (hmm like getting back to work

), and either way it would be a pointless exercise, the real referendum would show the real figures from people who can and are bothered to vote

hatrickpatrick · 08-09-2009 12:33PM

Now this is one big dilemma that I have... As a social libertarian, anything which goes against the fundie conservative agenda should be a good thing... But if I have to choose, for now, between social freedom and sovereignty, I'd rather wait until we can get social freedom for ourselves rather than have it forced on us... One of the very difficult issue though (for me anyway, don't know about everyone else?)

PopeBuckfastXVI · 08-09-2009 01:13PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Now this is one big dilemma that I have... As a social libertarian, anything which goes against the fundie conservative agenda should be a good thing... But if I have to choose, for now, between social freedom and sovereignty, I'd rather wait until we can get social freedom for ourselves rather than have it forced on us... One of the very difficult issue though (for me anyway, don't know about everyone else?)

I'm a social libertarian also, I am of the personal belief that without the EU this country would still be under the jackboot of the parish priest.

I'll take progressive legislation from pretty much any quarter.

rumour · 08-09-2009 01:15PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They're not all peddling in lies. The vast majority of them have had lies peddled to them and now won't believe the truth when they're told it unfortunately

Or is it because they have a deep mistrust of the yes campaign. If you examine it strategically the yes campaign is like a bunch of wild celts racing down the hill into battle with no strategy.

How is the mistruct targeted and rectified?
How are multiple messages co-ordinated into a focal message that delivers a positive outcome
How do we not alienate people.

I don't mean to blow s*** up someones ass but look at how scoffaw delivers a consistent factual message rarely does he get cought offside. Tactically he isolates all arguments into the text or not. This diffuses many concrens and fears, it also engenders trust.

On the other thread the uncordinated smug ill disciplined attitude is easy enough to pick away at all day, its entertaining if it were not so real. If Iwas campaigning for No I could if I wanted exploit all of the above continually and on my own suceed because all I have to do is encourage fear. That is enough to make anyone conseravtive and hold on to what they've got.

rumour · 08-09-2009 01:17PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

or some No campaigners don't have better things to be doing

other than

opening new accounts and voting and then posting one liner sentences and not engaging in debate

it will certainly be interesting the results on October the 2nd

That would be manipulating a poll, surely not? Was the referendum rigged last year?

ei.sdraob · 08-09-2009 01:19PM

rumour wrote: »

That would be manipulating a poll, surely not? Was the referendum rigged last year?

erm seems you missed my point (or are trying to twist it for own aims)

1. im talking about an online poll which can be easily rigged compared to an election, im well aware of the outcome last year, 53% of electorate voted, and 53% of these who voted voted NO > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008

2. you still haven't addressed my points raised earlier in thread, avoiding tough questions are we?

3. are you aware that the people voted in predominately Pro Lisbon MEPs only few months ago

/

rumour · 08-09-2009 01:24PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm a social libertarian also, I am of the personal belief that without the EU this country would still be under the jackboot of the parish priest.

I'll take progressive legislation from pretty much any quarter.

All hail the EU, for without it right now we would be under the jackboot of the parish priest. I am curious you have identified your self as a particular type of individual a memeber of a cult perhaps in favour of progressive legislation. In this context and as a memeber of this cult what would you describe as unprogressive legislation?

rumour · 08-09-2009 01:26PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

erm seems you missed my point (or are trying to twist it for own aims)

1. im talking about an online poll which can be easily rigged compared to an election, im well aware of the outcome last year, 53% of electorate voted, and 53% of these who voted voted NO > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008

2. you still haven't addressed my points raised earlier in thread, avoiding tough questions are we?

3. are you aware that the people voted in predominately Pro Lisbon MEPs only few months ago

/

Regarding your last point, did they not just vote for familiar faces. I mean I went into the booth and there were 16 faces to choose from couldn't tell one from the other and haven't a clue what any of them stand for.

marco_polo · 08-09-2009 01:27PM

rumour wrote: »

Or is it because they have a deep mistrust of the yes campaign. If you examine it strategically the yes campaign is like a bunch of wild celts racing down the hill into battle with no strategy.

How is the mistruct targeted and rectified?
How are multiple messages co-ordinated into a focal message that delivers a positive outcome
How do we not alienate people.

I don't mean to blow s*** up someones ass but look at how scoffaw delivers a consistent factual message rarely does he get cought offside. Tactically he isolates all arguments into the text or not. This diffuses many concrens and fears, it also engenders trust.

On the other thread the uncordinated smug ill disciplined attitude is easy enough to pick away at all day, its entertaining if it were not so real. If Iwas campaigning for No I could if I wanted exploit all of the above continually and on my own suceed because all I have to do is encourage fear. That is enough to make anyone conseravtive and hold on to what they've got.

Considering you have yet to base a single argument on the contents of the treaty itself and have relied almost soley on an anti government standpoint, that is a rich.

The reason that there is no opportunity for anybody to recourse to the text of the treaty while debating with you is that you don't address any of the issues within, prefering a smoke and mirror approach.

Your kind of approach is the prime reason that there are so many irrelevant topics thrown into the debate.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 08-09-2009 01:27PM

rumour wrote: »

Regarding your last point, did I not just vote for familiar faces. I mean I went into the booth and there were 16 faces to choose from couldn't tell one from the other and haven't a clue what any of them stand for.

FYP

marco_polo · 08-09-2009 01:29PM

rumour wrote: »

All hail the EU, for without it right now we would be under the jackboot of the parish priest. I am curious you have identified your self as a particular type of individual a memeber of a cult perhaps in favour of progressive legislation. In this context and as a memeber of this cult what would you describe as unprogressive legislation?

Blasphemy Law and lack of Paternal rights would be two off the top of my head.

W1ct0ry · 08-09-2009 01:36PM

You don't like that there is a second referendum. Don't vote in it.

ranmac wrote: »

Quite simple.

1. Cowen is the architect of our current problems as he was 'finance' minister when the country was making money and he allowed the country to waste it. He, his party and the other parties now claim to be in a position to advise us as to how we should vote

2. Read the Treaty my friend - insertion of Article 5b

3. Think about and consider your family, children etc and all things that are important to you

3. Finally go and read our Bunreacht na hEireann - our Constitution and decide which you would prefer

Definitely a NO to the treaty

1. Nothing to do with the treaty.
2. Not going to change anything.
3. Voting yes is better for Ireland and therefore better for your family.
4. Not going to replace it, so preference has nothing to do with it.

Definitely a NO to your logic.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 08-09-2009 01:39PM

rumour wrote: »

All hail the EU, for without it right now we would be under the jackboot of the parish priest. I am curious you have identified your self as a particular type of individual a memeber of a cult perhaps in favour of progressive legislation. In this context and as a memeber of this cult what would you describe as unprogressive legislation?

Legislation which prohibits divorce, sexual orientation or acts, blasphemy, freedom of any religion or none, the right to choose.

Also don't forget that lack of regulation can be just as unprogressive, such as legislation prohibiting excessive working hours, legislation prohibiting environmental pollution, legislation prohibiting dangerous working environments, legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex, religion, sexual orientation etc.

One doesn't need to be a member of a 'cult' to have a certain, actually extremely popular, political world view.

JohnnyDeeo · 08-09-2009 03:44PM

Simply for the fact that the the first vote was basically ignored. Will the Government keep ignoring our opinion, be it yes or no in the future? Will there be another vote coming up on Divorce soon ? Corrupt shower!:D

marco_polo · 08-09-2009 03:51PM

JohnnyDeeo wrote: »

Simply for the fact that the the first vote was basically ignored. Will the Government keep ignoring our opinion, be it yes or no in the future? Will there be another vote coming up on Divorce soon ? Corrupt shower!:D

Another new member

They did not ignore the first vote, they researched and took into consideration the reasons that some voters voted no, and went back to Europe to seek assurance from our 26 other member states.

Having secured guarantees addressing a number of the issues of concern, the government are holding another referendum on that basis.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 08-09-2009 03:51PM

JohnnyDeeo wrote: »

Simply for the fact that the the first vote was basically ignored. Will the Government keep ignoring our opinion, be it yes or no in the future? Will there be another vote coming up on Divorce soon ? Corrupt shower!:D

Did you vote yes or no the first time?

If you voted 'no' was the 'loss of Ireland's commissioner' one of your reasons? That has changed.

Were fears about any of military spending, abortion, taxation one of your reasons?
Have they not been addressed by the guarantees.

If you voted yes the first time, why do you deny the people who's reasons were above the opportunity to have their concerns addressed?

The Constitutional ban on Divorce was removed in this country on the second attempt, to use your own example.

Would you rather the 1986 divorce referendum result stood forever?

RandomName2 · 08-09-2009 05:29PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Did you vote yes or no the first time?

If you voted 'no' was the 'loss of Ireland's commissioner' one of your reasons? That has changed.

Would you rather the 1986 divorce referendum result stood forever?

I have heard from several sources now that the Commissioner will only be kept for an aditional year after which its retention will be reviewed by the EU. Could someone clear this up?

The divorce referendum is a bit of a silly comparison by this stage.

The 1989 recession was caused by the divorce referendum so it was essential that a Yes vote was returned. After all, we wanted to be at the heart of Ireland. It's Simple: We are safer in Ireland.

The government has announced that the divorce referendum has been rejected. The government next announced that it would re-run the referendum as soon as possible.

RandomName2 · 08-09-2009 05:36PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm a social libertarian also, I am of the personal belief that without the EU this country would still be under the jackboot of the parish priest.

I'll take progressive legislation from pretty much any quarter.

As nice as it is to assume the EU swept away crazy Catholicism that was imposed by Rome, it ain't the case.

The Irish supported crazy Catholicism and it was the Irish that threw it out.

Granted, the improvements to the economy caused by EU membership helped in the demise of the parish priests' jackboot, but it merely contributed to what was already an indigenous and growing trend.

A better economy seems little grounds to grant greater control of society to Brussels.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 08-09-2009 05:40PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

As nice as it is to assume the EU swept away crazy Catholicism that was imposed by Rome, it ain't the case.

The Irish supported crazy Catholicism and it was the Irish that threw it out.

Granted, the improvements to the economy caused by EU membership helped in the demise of the parish priests' jackboot, but it merely contributed to what was already an indigenous and growing trend.

A better economy seems little grounds to grant greater control of society to Brussels.

First of all, I used divorce as a response to a post which posited 'another' divorce referendum, I pointed out that it was actually passed in a rerun. The rest of your post is nonsense, which I will ignore.

As for granting control of society to 'Brussels', apart from all the progressive environmental, equality and working conditions legislation that has come from the EU, I just want to point out that we are part of 'Brussels'.

Do people from Cork grant control of society to 'Dublin'?

RandomName2 · 08-09-2009 05:41PM

marco_polo wrote: »

Blasphemy Law

Good god. I completely agree with you for once. Nice when these issues are taken out of the public's hands, and it just rushed through parliament without much discussion - huh? Not much we can do about it now!

Donagh_mc · 08-09-2009 05:41PM

I'll be going for a solid Yes on D-Day! Hopefully most others will too.

RandomName2 · 08-09-2009 05:46PM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

First of all, I used divorce as a response to a post which posited 'another' divorce referendum, I pointed out that it was actually passed in a rerun. The rest of your post is nonsense, which I will ignore.

As for granting control of society to 'Brussels', apart from all the progressive environmental, equality and working conditions legislation that has come from the EU, I just want to point out that we are part of 'Brussels'.

Do people from Cork grant control of society to 'Dublin'?

First part, true, but is a typical argument produced by the Yes side to support re-running something which was decisely rejected, merely due to an agenda exclusive to the political establishement (I didn't use the word 'elite')

The nonsense is a paraphrase of Yes side nonsense which makes Lisbon II a vote on EU membership (Yes, the rerun of Lisbon is different! It's a vote on membership!)

And, yes, people from Cork do grant control of society to a centralised government.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 08-09-2009 05:48PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

First part, true, but is a typical argument produced by the Yes side to support re-running something which was decisely rejected, merely due to an agenda exclusive to the political establishement (I didn't use the word 'elite')

The nonsense is a paraphrase of Yes side nonsense which makes Lisbon II a vote on EU membership (Yes, the rerun of Lisbon is different! It's a vote on membership!)

And, yes, people from Cork do grant control of society to a centralised government.

Which includes them.

ei.sdraob · 08-09-2009 06:53PM

rumour wrote: »

Regarding your last point, did they not just vote for familiar faces. I mean I went into the booth and there were 16 faces to choose from couldn't tell one from the other and haven't a clue what any of them stand for.

no i voted for the people who i knew would represent me and my community best and who had a history (declan ganley had none of that btw)

you dont vote in representatives by how "pretty" they look but by how well they do their job and their policies

Cróga · 09-09-2009 12:13AM

marco_polo wrote: »

Another new member

They did not ignore the first vote, they researched and took into consideration the reasons that some voters voted no, and went back to Europe to seek assurance from our 26 other member states.

Having secured guarantees addressing a number of the issues of concern, the government are holding another referendum on that basis.

Are these "guarantees" written in the Lisbon Treaty or are they just political promises?

Scofflaw · 09-09-2009 12:17AM

Croga wrote: »

Are these "gurantees" written in the Lisbon Treaty or are they just political promises?

Neither.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 09-09-2009 12:19AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

First part, true, but is a typical argument produced by the Yes side to support re-running something which was decisely rejected, merely due to an agenda exclusive to the political establishement (I didn't use the word 'elite')

Or 'elected government' as it is sometimes known.

amused,
Scofflaw

marco_polo · 09-09-2009 12:21AM

Croga wrote: »

Are these "gurantees" written in the Lisbon Treaty or are they just political promises?

No they are not "Political Promises" they are decisions of the European Council that will be set aside as a seperate legally binding international treaty that will be registered at the same time as the Lisbon treaty. In the exact same way that the Edinburgh Agreement was for Denmark in 1992.

Read and watch this:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

Or read this
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/lisbon-ireland.pdf

or this

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0903/breaking40.htm

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

Comments