Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

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

1…7374767879…127

Comments

  • #2252
    Cróga
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭Cróga


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Neither.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Ok thanks, so this is like a politician coming to my door making political promises (we all know how worthless these are) saying he'll do this and that for me and the community but really he just wants votes but if i make him put that in writing he'd be bound to it. So what im getting at, if these are just words spoken from persons/men with status how can we be sure that they'll stick to these words when they're not bound to them? How can the men on the land of Ireland be sure that our person and our persons country known as Republic of Ireland have these guarantees?


  • #2253
    Cróga
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭Cróga


    marco_polo wrote: »
    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/...on-ireland.pdf

    or this

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking40.htm

    THanks, those last 2 links dont work though


  • #2254
    Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    The guarantees are like mini-treaties that will be lodged with the UN if Lisbon is ratified.


  • #2255
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,316 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Croga wrote: »
    Ok thanks, so this is like a politician coming to my door making political promises (we all know how worthless these are) saying he'll do this and that for me and the community but really he just wants votes but if i make him put that in writing he'd be bound to it. So what im getting at, if these are just words spoken from persons/men with status how can we be sure that they'll stick to these words when they're not bound to them? How can the men on the land of Ireland be sure that our person and our persons country known as Republic of Ireland have these guarantees?

    No, this is the EU making you a promise. They have never gone back on one yet, but yep, they possibly could this time.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #2256
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Croga wrote: »
    THanks, those last 2 links dont work though

    Fixed :)


  • Advertisement
  • #2257
    bkelly86
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 99 ✭✭bkelly86


    How can our first vote be totally ignored,i may be wrong but i believed each member state had a veto,like what good our all these guarentees if we can be just simply ignored and bullied into something we already refused.


  • #2258
    reinald
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭reinald


    The Lisbon Treaty debate seems to have been hijacked, to an extent at least, by fringe groups raising concerns regarding particular social and moral issues unique to Ireland. These concerns are understandable but may have little to do with the content of the actual treaty itself and would likely be unaffected were the Treaty to come into force. In any event, the Protocols which have been secured on these peripheral issues attach only to a future hypothetical treaty, thus if no treaty were to come into force in the near future then the Protocols will not take effect until such time as the EU deemed it necessary to conclude a new political agreement.

    The assurance that Ireland will retain its commissioner may also be an issue which is being overplayed by the Yes side. The reality is that if the Lisbon Treaty is approved, the EU will take a step closer to centralising and streamlining power between the bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels and Strasbourg. If this happens, the organs of the EU i.e. the proposed EU President, the Commission and Parliament, over time, will come to increasingly resemble the essential outline of a state power structure in their own right. The President might retain nominal but increasing control over foreign relations, advised by the Council of Ministers, while the Commission might come to resemble a cabinet government or Executive, checked perhaps by the Parliament. Even if Ireland retains its commissioner, an Irish commissioner would likely be confined to a junior commissionership or junior ministerial position answering to some more senior commissioner drawn from one of the larger EU states. Accordingly, the benefits of Ireland retaining a commissioner in the long run, if this scenario plays out, will be very limited and possibly irrelevant.

    The real problem for Ireland is, however, the fact that a second referendum on an identical text is being held at all. Whether one is for or against the aims of the Treaty, there are now serious questions over the sovereignty of the People, enshrined in the Irish Constitution and affirmed in Crotty v An Taoiseach. Asking the People to vote again on an identical text raises fundamental questions over the depth and quality of democracy in Ireland and the attitude of political leaders toward the People. Obviously it is not unheard of for referenda to be held multiple times on identical issues but rarely have they been held in such quick succession and with no alteration in the wording to the proposed provision put before the People. This might be dismissed as semantics, in light of the Protocols and 'guarantees' secured, but it cannot be ignored where the long term democratic integrity of the state is in question. If the Irish government had been serious about listening to the verdict of the People, they would not have merely looked to obtain Protocols and guarantees but would have insisted that such provisions be included in the Lisbon document itself. This failure to respect the democratic will of the People is an ominous sign of things to come when Ireland becomes a progressively smaller voice in a Europe dominated by the bigger nations, looking to impose their will upon smaller states ultimately seen as irrelevant in the overall European project of building a federalised superstate.


  • #2259
    Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    bkelly86 wrote: »
    How can our first vote be totally ignored,i may be wrong but i believed each member state had a veto,like what good our all these guarentees if we can be just simply ignored and bullied into something we already refused.

    But we haven't beeen ignored. Lisbon has not been ratified.

    What has happened is the Irish government and the EU have tried to address the concerns that the public had. Since these concerns have been satisfied it is only right to ask the people again. Is it undemocratic to address the concerns of the public?


  • #2260
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    bkelly86 wrote: »
    How can our first vote be totally ignored,i may be wrong but i believed each member state had a veto, like what good our all these guarentees if we can be just simply ignored and bullied into something we already refused.

    I disagree that it was ingnored, as there was comprehensive studies done to see why it was rrejected. Based on those findings and then we went back to our European partners and got many main concerns of the people addressed, including guarantees on the implications of the treaty in certain areas and the retention of our comissioner.

    In light of this the Government has asked the people to reconsider the treaty, which took eight years to negotiate, before consigning it to the bin.

    Your vote has not been ignored as the treaty has been ratified, and it will not be ratified if people choose to vote no again


  • #2261
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,262 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Even Indymedia of all people aren't using the "second referendum is undemocratic" argument: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/93916
    reinald wrote:
    If the Irish government had been serious about listening to the verdict of the People, they would not have merely looked to obtain Protocols and guarantees but would have insisted that such provisions be included in the Lisbon document itself.

    The guarantees are being submitted to the UN. That gives them the same status as the Lisbon treaty. It's just like Maastricht and the Edinburgh agreement with the Danes.
    reinald wrote:
    The assurance that Ireland will retain its commissioner may also be an issue which is being overplayed by the Yes side. The reality is that if the Lisbon Treaty is approved, the EU will take a step closer to centralising and streamlining power between the bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels and Strasbourg. If this happens, the organs of the EU i.e. the proposed EU President, the Commission and Parliament, over time, will come to increasingly resemble the essential outline of a state power structure in their own right. The President might retain nominal but increasing control over foreign relations, advised by the Council of Ministers, while the Commission might come to resemble a cabinet government or Executive, checked perhaps by the Parliament. Even if Ireland retains its commissioner, an Irish commissioner would likely be confined to a junior commissionership or junior ministerial position answering to some more senior commissioner drawn from one of the larger EU states. Accordingly, the benefits of Ireland retaining a commissioner in the long run, if this scenario plays out, will be very limited and possibly irrelevant.

    I don't think anyone is really playing up the benefits of the commissioner, as opposed to stating that this is something the No side wanted and something the No side received. I would say most Yes voters were happy to see a smaller commission under Lisbon I.


  • Advertisement
  • #2262
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    reinald wrote: »
    The Lisbon Treaty debate seems to have been hijacked, to an extent at least, by fringe groups raising concerns regarding particular social and moral issues unique to Ireland. These concerns are understandable but may have little to do with the content of the actual treaty itself and would likely be unaffected were the Treaty to come into force. In any event, the Protocols which have been secured on these peripheral issues attach only to a future hypothetical treaty, thus if no treaty were to come into force in the near future then the Protocols will not take effect until such time as the EU deemed it necessary to conclude a new political agreement.

    The assurance that Ireland will retain its commissioner may also be an issue which is being overplayed by the Yes side. The reality is that if the Lisbon Treaty is approved, the EU will take a step closer to centralising and streamlining power between the bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels and Strasbourg. If this happens, the organs of the EU i.e. the proposed EU President, the Commission and Parliament, over time, will come to increasingly resemble the essential outline of a state power structure in their own right. The President might retain nominal but increasing control over foreign relations, advised by the Council of Ministers, while the Commission might come to resemble a cabinet government or Executive, checked perhaps by the Parliament. Even if Ireland retains its commissioner, an Irish commissioner would likely be confined to a junior commissionership or junior ministerial position answering to some more senior commissioner drawn from one of the larger EU states. Accordingly, the benefits of Ireland retaining a commissioner in the long run, if this scenario plays out, will be very limited and possibly irrelevant.

    The real problem for Ireland is, however, the fact that a second referendum on an identical text is being held at all. Whether one is for or against the aims of the Treaty, there are now serious questions over the sovereignty of the People, enshrined in the Irish Constitution and affirmed in Crotty v An Taoiseach. Asking the People to vote again on an identical text raises fundamental questions over the depth and quality of democracy in Ireland and the attitude of political leaders toward the People. Obviously it is not unheard of for referenda to be held multiple times on identical issues but rarely have they been held in such quick succession and with no alteration in the wording to the proposed provision put before the People. This might be dismissed as semantics, in light of the Protocols and 'guarantees' secured, but it cannot be ignored where the long term democratic integrity of the state is in question. If the Irish government had been serious about listening to the verdict of the People, they would not have merely looked to obtain Protocols and guarantees but would have insisted that such provisions be included in the Lisbon document itself. This failure to respect the democratic will of the People is an ominous sign of things to come when Ireland becomes a progressively smaller voice in a Europe dominated by the bigger nations, looking to impose their will upon smaller states ultimately seen as irrelevant in the overall European project of building a federalised superstate.

    Have we met before?


  • #2263
    happyfriday74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 195 ✭✭happyfriday74


    Quick lads,

    As we're all angry lets get really irrational and vote no to absolutly everything!

    Sure it will be great craic being on the fringes of europe cutting ourselves off from any eu funds that were instrumental in building ireland a few years ago.

    Its the sensible thing to vote NO when your country is in a complete jock and put your middle finger up towards all your potentialy helpful neighbours!


  • #2264
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    happyfriday74 wrote: »
    Sure it will be great craic being on the fringes of europe cutting ourselves off from any eu funds that were instrumental in building ireland a few years ago.

    Hadn't seen this map before, but err, well, it says a lot about our position...

    http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/countries/index_en.htm


  • #2265
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Hadn't seen this map before, but err, well, it says a lot about our position...

    http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/countries/index_en.htm

    ah yes green, white and orange :D


    such a transparent bias :0


  • #2266
    whatisayis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 377 ✭✭whatisayis


    PHB wrote: »
    There is no article, the slogan is a weird one.
    I agree but it must have originated somewhere?
    PHB wrote: »
    But ask yourself this question and try answer it honestly, if the situation was reversed and it was the Czech Republic who were holding up a Treaty that the other 26 countries wanted, how do you think the Czech Republic would be treated by those countries?
    I think the Czech Republic would be treated exactly the same way France and the Netherlands were treated when they rejected the Constitution.
    PHB wrote: »
    So ask yourself again, do you honestly think, honestly, that we won't loss significant influence in Europe and perhaps even more away from Europe if we vote No?
    Yes, I honestly think that we won't lose significant influence in Europe or elsewhere if we vote No.


  • #2267
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    whatisayis wrote: »
    Yes, I honestly think that we won't lose significant influence in Europe or elsewhere if we vote No.

    Why? (genuinely curious as to your reasons for believing the above)


  • #2268
    reinald
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭reinald


    Stark wrote: »
    Even Indymedia of all people aren't using the "second referendum is undemocratic" argument: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/93916



    The guarantees are being submitted to the UN. That gives them the same status as the Lisbon treaty. It's just like Maastricht and the Edinburgh agreement with the Danes.



    I have acknowledged that the guarantees have been secured and possibly are politically, though probably not legally, relevant. History shows us that they tend to be 'feel good' concessions, useless when it really matters. The main problem with them has tended to be that they are usually rejected by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as being political agreeements having no standing in Community law. Accordingly, when either side to a action has tried to incorporate them into their arguments they are cast aside.

    My main point though is that the document put before us in the upcoming referendum is identical to the one we voted on previously. When you take feel good guarantees and Protocols attaching to an undetermined hypothetical future treaty out of the equation, the question being put to the People is identical.

    My point regarding the broader issue of the integrity of the democratic process in Ireland raised by this fact is a legitmate one which cannot be dismissed out of hand and also relates to developments more generally within the political system at this time. While, admittedly, such arguments can be overstated my main point is that the government has shown considerable disregard for the People by failing to incorporate the guarantees and Protocols into the Treaty itself rather than outside it. Additionally, the Irish government failed to insist that, according to the Union's own internal procedures laid down in previous treaties, the Lisbon Treaty should be deemed vetoed and be scrapped and re-negotiated. This is not the same manner in which the French and Dutch were treated following their verdict on the textually similar European Constitution.

    The reality is that whether Ireland votes Yes or No for the Lisbon Treaty in the upcoming referendum, it will have no effect on Ireland's membership of the European Union and will have no effect on Ireland's membership of the Eurozone area. The content of Lisbon is primarily to do with further political, and legal, streamlining to the benefit primarily of the larger European nations and to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.

    Also any argument that Ireland will lose influence in Europe with a No vote may be disingenous. The reality is that Ireland has always been politically and economically peripheral in the European project, although we have very able civil servants working in our interests in Brussels. However, we are a very small nation on the margins of Europe and have never been central to the EU. That centrality rests with France, Germany, UK, Spain and Poland and will only become stronger over time. Perhaps it is time to stop kidding ourselves over how important we are in Europe. While we may be a minor inconvenience if a No vote comes from Lisbon we will be largely ignored as we always have been and a way around it will be found, though we legally cannot be pushed from the Union either. The status quo will remain largely as it has before.


  • #2269
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    reinald wrote:
    The reality is that whether Ireland votes Yes or No for the Lisbon Treaty in the upcoming referendum, it will have no effect on Ireland's membership of the European Union and will have no effect on Ireland's membership of the Eurozone area. The content of Lisbon is primarily to do with further political, and legal, streamlining to the benefit primarily of the larger European nations and to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.

    Also any argument that Ireland will lose influence in Europe with a No vote may be disingenous. The reality is that Ireland has always been politically and economically peripheral in the European project, although we have very able civil servants working in our interests in Brussels. However, we are a very small nation on the margins of Europe and have never been central to the EU. That centrality rests with France, Germany, UK, Spain and Poland and will only become stronger over time. Perhaps it is time to stop kidding ourselves over how important we are in Europe. While we may be a minor inconvenience if a No vote comes from Lisbon we will be largely ignored as we always have been and a way around it will be found, though we legally cannot be pushed from the Union either. The status quo will remain largely as it has before.

    If anything, the reverse is probably the case. The technical details of treaties make virtually no difference to most of us, but a good relationship with the EU does. A Yes vote is a vote for a continuing good relationship and new technicalities, while a No is a vote for a diminished relationship and different technicalities anyway (Nice enlargement rules).

    A No vote really isn't a vote for the status quo, because the important status quo is a good working relationship with the rest of Europe.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #2270
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    whatisayis wrote:
    Yes, I honestly think that we won't lose significant influence in Europe or elsewhere if we vote No.

    I agree. I think we'll lose more power and influence in Europe if we vote yes than if we vote no.

    nesf wrote:
    Why? (genuinely curious as to your reasons for believing the above)

    I'm curious to know your reasons for believing otherwise.

    I think it's obvious why the EUers wouldn't want to punish Ireland for voting the wrong way. The other governments of the EU have absolutely nothing to gain by punishing or isolating Ireland for voting no to the Lisbon treaty. They do have a lot to lose from behaving spitefully towards Ireland as that will almost certainty lead to a eurosceptic backlash in Ireland and in the rest of the EU. The EUers need the goodwill of the Irish political establishment and the Irish electorate. They're not going to jeopardise that by reacting spitefully.

    As well as that, the other governments will be dealing with our government. Our government supports the Lisbon treaty and they've spent a lot of time, effort and money in trying to get this treaty passed. Why would the other governments lay the responsibility on them for the failure to ratify the treaty rather than on the people? If there was reason to believe that the other governments believe they would do a better job selling the treaty to their people than our government has done selling it to the Irish people then it might be different but there is no reason to believe the other governments would expect their own electorates to vote differently to the treaty.

    Of all the arguments put forward by the yes side, the one about Ireland losing influence or "goodwill" in Europe is probably the weakest.


  • #2271
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    O'Morris wrote: »
    I agree. I think we'll lose more power and influence in Europe if we vote yes than if we vote no.




    I'm curious to know your reasons for believing otherwise.

    I think it's obvious why the EUers wouldn't want to punish Ireland for voting the wrong way. The other governments of the EU have absolutely nothing to gain by punishing or isolating Ireland for voting no to the Lisbon treaty. They do have a lot to lose from behaving spitefully towards Ireland as that will almost certainty lead to a eurosceptic backlash in Ireland and in the rest of the EU. The EUers need the goodwill of the Irish political establishment and the Irish electorate. They're not going to jeopardise that by reacting spitefully.

    As well as that, the other governments will be dealing with our government. Our government supports the Lisbon treaty and they've spent a lot of time, effort and money in trying to get this treaty passed. Why would the other governments lay the responsibility on them for the failure to ratify the treaty rather than on the people? If there was reason to believe that the other governments believe they would do a better job selling the treaty to their people than our government has done selling it to the Irish people then it might be different but there is no reason to believe the other governments would expect their own electorates to vote differently to the treaty.

    Of all the arguments put forward by the yes side, the one about Ireland losing influence or "goodwill" in Europe is probably the weakest.

    In summation our goodwill towards other member states is critical, but that of our fellow member states towards is insignifigant?

    Now that is one of the weakest arguments yet.


  • Advertisement
  • #2272
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    marco_polo wrote: »
    In summation our goodwill towards other member states is critical, but that of our fellow member states towards is insignifigant?

    Where have I said that?

    My point is that Europe would have nothing to gain from isolating or punishing Ireland for it's refusal to vote yes to the Lisbon treaty. If you think otherwise then I'd be interested in seeing your answer to the question of what exactly Europe has to gain by isolating Ireland?


  • #2273
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Where have I said that?

    My point is that Europe would have nothing to gain from isolating or punishing Ireland for it's refusal to vote yes to the Lisbon treaty. If you think otherwise then I'd be interested in seeing your answer to the question of what exactly Europe has to gain by isolating Ireland?

    If they can find a formula of literally isolating us, then they could gain from the benefits around e.g. collective energy policy that Lisbon would implement.

    I don't think they'll find that formula any time soon, but if we vote 'no' I would expect the next treaty to include some method of having a single state, or few states stay out of areas of increased competence, where, like us, they don't want to participate.


  • #2274
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Where have I said that?

    My point is that Europe would have nothing to gain from isolating or punishing Ireland for it's refusal to vote yes to the Lisbon treaty. If you think otherwise then I'd be interested in seeing your answer to the question of what exactly Europe has to gain by isolating Ireland?

    Building up the importance of our goodwill towards the EU as a critical arguement in dismissing the importance of EU goodwill towards us, is a logical meltdown.


  • #2275
    O'Morris
    Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote:
    If they can find a formula of literally isolating us, then they could gain from the benefits around e.g. collective energy policy that Lisbon would implement.

    Let them! If they can find a way under the existing treaties to have a collective energy policy then let them go ahead and have a collective energy policy.

    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote:
    I don't think they'll find that formula any time soon, but if we vote 'no' I would expect the next treaty to include some method of having a single state, or few states stay out of areas of increased competence, where, like us, they don't want to participate.

    And what's the problem with that? What's wrong with a two-tier Europe?

    marco_polo wrote:
    Building up the importance of our goodwill towards the EU as a critical arguement in dismissing the importance of EU goodwill towards us, is a logical meltdown.

    I haven't dismissed the importance of EU goodwill towards us. I've dismissed the argument that voting no will negatively impact EU goodwill towards us.


  • #2276
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Let them! If they can find a way under the existing treaties to have a collective energy policy then let them go ahead and have a collective energy policy.

    And what's the problem with that? What's wrong with a two-tier Europe?

    You asked the question 'what would they have to gain by isolating Ireland?'.

    I merely answered it, and it seems you agree they would have much to gain.

    I have no problem with a two-tier Europe, I would just like Ireland to benefit from being in the best tier, as I'm sure, would you.


  • #2277
    Exon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 181 ✭✭Exon


    Please vote yes people if not we will be left out of Europe.

    PLEASE!:)

    Don't take your anger out on us please vote yes please please:)

    I give sexual favours for yes votes.


  • #2278
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,262 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    O'Morris wrote: »
    I haven't dismissed the importance of EU goodwill towards us. I've dismissed the argument that voting no will negatively impact EU goodwill towards us.

    It will if the feedback is "we still didn't read it" or "we're still worried about abortion or other fud" or "we're protesting against our home government" or "the yes voters on boards.ie are arrogant sons of bitches so no" or "we want you to chuck the whole thing in the bin and come up with something completely new. When you come back to us in 8 years time, we still might not read it though". Feet stamping is not going to win us goodwill. If the feedback is "we don't like articles x, y and z and we want them changed" however, then that's fair enough and I don't see how we could lose goodwill if we engage them in the process.


  • #2279
    Keewee6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 287 ✭✭Keewee6


    Exon wrote: »
    Please vote yes people if not we will be left out of Europe.

    PLEASE!:)

    Don't take your anger out on us please vote yes please please:)

    I give sexual favours for yes votes.

    thanks but im voting no


  • #2280
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Keewee6 wrote: »
    thanks but im voting no

    Well your formidable arguments almost turned me but I am sticking with a Yes myself.


  • Advertisement
  • #2281
    Keewee6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 287 ✭✭Keewee6


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Well your formidable arguments almost turned me but I am sticking with a Yes myself.

    fair enough


Advertisement