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

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 10:47AM

RandomName2 wrote: »

The political YES-men have claimed that we cannot be forced out of the EU (which legally seems to be the case) and, yet, have simultaneously launched a campaign based upon this very idea 'It's Simple, I'm Safer in Europe' (okay - it's insinuation, but it's paper-thin).

I suspect that the parties such as Fianna Fail are just plain lieing about being chucked out of Europe. But, if the EU is such an organisation to throw out a member out for being democratic - is it REALLY something you want to be part of?

Deutchland uber alles - for the autobahn, jobs and security, of course.

It's not an insinuation at all. "It's Simple, I'm Safer in Europe" =/= "We'll be kicked out if we vote no". No one has ever claimed that we'll be kicked out but Europe wants to move on and a few hundred thousand misinformed people on the peripheries can't stop them forever. They will, and are perfectly entitled to, rewrite the treaty to exclude Ireland, only enacting the changes that Ireland can opt out of. That way they get most of the changes they want and we get to stay where we are, all on our own.

That and Ireland will have voted no to EU treaties three time if it gets voted down again. Businesses looking to locate in the EU to get access to the common market will have a choice of a country that's very expensive to do business in, has very little value other than as a jumping off point to the rest of the EU and has three times said that they don't share the same vision of Europe as the rest of the EU. That's a big risk to take when there are cheaper countries that have all the advantages of being in the EU and aren't fighting them every step of the way.

So, in short, no one's saying we're getting kicked out of the EU but that's not the only way Ireland can be negatively effected

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 10:48AM

Rb wrote: »

Oh how cute, comparing voting No to telling the EU to go f**k themselves.

So in the same line, is voting Yes giving the EU a giant BJ?

Voting no for the ridiculous and irrelevant reasons given by significant numbers of voters leaving no room for further negotiation is certainly telling the EU to go f**K themselves.

Rb · 14-09-2009 11:05AM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yep

Well it would be if they had gone out of their way to not address our concerns, and we still voted yes...

So a BJ with a condom on?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not an insinuation at all. "It's Simple, I'm Safer in Europe" =/= "We'll be kicked out if we vote no". No one has ever claimed that we'll be kicked out but Europe wants to move on and a few hundred thousand misinformed people on the peripheries can't stop them forever. They will, and are perfectly entitled to, rewrite the treaty to exclude Ireland, only enacting the changes that Ireland can opt out of. That way they get most of the changes they want and we get to stay where we are, all on our own.

That and Ireland will have voted no to EU treaties three time if it gets voted down again. Businesses looking to locate in the EU to get access to the common market will have a choice of a country that's very expensive to do business in, has very little value other than as a jumping off point to the rest of the EU and has three times said that they don't share the same vision of Europe as the rest of the EU. That's a big risk to take when there are cheaper countries that have all the advantages of being in the EU and aren't fighting them every step of the way.

So, in short, no one's saying we're getting kicked out of the EU but that's not the only way Ireland can be negatively effected

What's wrong with not sharing the same vision with Europe with regards to political/social/cultural integration? Or are the EU some form of borg, where everyone has to have the same f**king aspirations for the thing?

We joined the economic union, which is now pushing to become something that we didn't really sign up for in the first place. There's no real problem with saying no to that.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Voting no for the ridiculous and irrelevant reasons given by significant numbers of voters leaving no room for further negotiation is certainly telling the EU to go f**K themselves.

An equal amount of people voted Yes for irrelevant, stupid reasons (such as "Sinn Fein are voting No so I'm gonna vote yes hurrrr hurrrr" followed by the furious wiping of the drool off their chin by their caretaker), personally I'd deem that far more reckless.

I mean, if people want to claim a vote for No is a vote for Sinn Fein/Coir/Libertas, then a vote for Yes is a vote for FF, which is far more destructive. Anyway, that's not worth discussing atm.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 14-09-2009 11:12AM

Rb wrote: »

So a BJ with a condom on?

What's wrong with not sharing the same vision with Europe with regards to political/social/cultural integration? Or are the EU some form of borg, where everyone has to have the same f**king aspirations for the thing?

We joined the economic union, which is now pushing to become something that we didn't really sign up for in the first place. There's no real problem with saying no to that.

An equal amount of people voted Yes for irrelevant, stupid reasons (such as "Sinn Fein are voting No so I'm gonna vote yes hurrrr hurrrr" followed by the furious wiping of the drool off their chin by their caretaker), personally I'd deem that far more reckless.

I mean, if people want to claim a vote for No is a vote for Sinn Fein/Coir/Libertas, then a vote for Yes is a vote for FF, which is far more destructive. Anyway, that's not worth discussing atm.

Or FG or Labour.

Which is quite likely the case, if you look at the percentages...

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 11:14AM

Rb wrote: »

What's wrong with not sharing the same vision with Europe with regards to political/social/cultural integration? Or are the EU some form of borg, where everyone has to have the same f**king aspirations for the thing?

We joined the economic union, which is now pushing to become something that we didn't really sign up for in the first place. There's no real problem with saying no to that.

Legally and morally there's nothing wrong with it but Ireland wants and needs direct foreign investment and a significant factor in the decision to locate here is our membership of the EU. If we're seen to be fighting against the rest of the EU there are 26 other countries these businesses can locate in. The rest of the EU is going this direction and if Ireland wants to be left behind they're perfectly entitled to do that but personally I'd rather not.

Rb wrote: »

An equal amount of people voted Yes for irrelevant, stupid reasons (such as "Sinn Fein are voting No so I'm gonna vote yes hurrrr hurrrr" followed by the furious wiping of the drool off their chin by their caretaker), personally I'd deem that far more reckless.

I mean, if people want to claim a vote for No is a vote for Sinn Fein/Coir/Libertas, then a vote for Yes is a vote for FF, which is far more destructive. Anyway, that's not worth discussing atm.

Which doesn't change the fact that significant numbers voted no for irrelevant, stupid reasons thereby telling the EU to go f**k themselves.

Rb · 14-09-2009 11:24AM

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Or FG or Labour.

Which is quite likely the case, if you look at the percentages...

Indeed, it is more than likely that a lot would be labour or FG supporters, however in voting Yes you're effectively giving FF support that actually isn't there.

When I say the above, I mean only on a basis of voting in either direction is supporting one or the other political party. Unfortunately a lot will be voting in protest of one or the other, but I don't think at this stage anything can be done about that.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Legally and morally there's nothing wrong with it but Ireland wants and needs direct foreign investment and a significant factor in the decision to locate here is our membership of the EU. If we're seen to be fighting against the rest of the EU there are 26 other countries these businesses can locate in. The rest of the EU is going this direction and if Ireland wants to be left behind they're perfectly entitled to do that but personally I'd rather not.

The MNC's are going to set up in the other countries one way or another. We've a plethora of issues that will currently put people off investing here, being the only country to be vocally against the direction the EU is pushing in is just one, the fact that labour is much more expensive here, coupled with the fact that a lot of our skilled labour is now moving overseas, would be much more of a deterrant tbh.

Which doesn't change the fact that significant numbers voted no for irrelevant, stupid reasons thereby telling the EU to go f**k themselves.

If the EU took it that way, then that's their problem. I didn't see it as people telling the EU to go f**k themselves, if anything some people were telling FF to go f**k themselves.

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 11:28AM

Rb wrote: »

The MNC's are going to set up in the other countries one way or another. We've a plethora of issues that will currently put people off investing here, being the only country to be vocally against the direction the EU is pushing in is just one, the fact that labour is much more expensive here, coupled with the fact that a lot of our skilled labour is now moving overseas, would be much more of a deterrant tbh.

So because Ireland is already unattractive it's fine to heap on something that makes it even more unattractive? Should we hike up wages and give our skilled labour incentives to leave while we're at it?

Rb wrote: »

If the EU took it that way, then that's their problem. I didn't see it as people telling the EU to go f**k themselves, if anything some people were telling FF to go f**k themselves.

Denying 26 other countries a treaty they have ratified to piss off FF is telling the EU to go f**k themselves. We don't give a sh!t that they all want this treaty, they can't have it because we don't like Brian Cowen. Madness!

Rb · 14-09-2009 11:44AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So because Ireland is already unattractive it's fine to heap on something that makes it even more unattractive? Should we hike up wages and give our skilled labour incentives to leave while we're at it?

Oh please. I don't want to turn this into an AH-esque debate but that warrants a huge, capitalised "lol" at best. We shouldn't be voting yes just to make Ireland look attractive, regardless. Similarly, if some nutjob was anti-investment they shouldn't be using Lisbon in an effort to achieve their aims.

How our country looks is entirely irrelevant, is it not? I thought we were voting on a treaty, not on the dress Ireland is wearing in Europe? The Yes side have told us to vote based on the treaty itself over and over, so why are you proposing that we vote in an effort to make Ireland look better in the eyes of investors?

Again, Ireland already looks like sh1t. Unless we can get the cost of living down (to bring the cost of labour down) and other costs associated with running a business here, as well as maintain a highly skilled workforce here, we won't be getting any investment here regardless.

They came because we had a relatively cheap, highly skilled, fluent English workforce on the doorstep of Europe. How many companies were put off coming here based on our reaction to the Nice treaty?

Denying 26 other countries a treaty they have ratified to piss off FF is telling the EU to go f**k themselves. We don't give a sh!t that they all want this treaty, they can't have it because we don't like Brian Cowen. Madness!

If Ireland votes No again this time around, it will be clear that the Irish do not want the Lisbon Treaty. It was clear last time that it was not wanted.

However, if it were merely put to the Government, it would be ratified already.

So there is certainly a difference between what the people want, and what the Government want and I'd imagine that Ireland is not alone in having this difference.

But then, there's no real point in going into that. I mean, the fact that the UK would vote No to it is relatively irrelevant as they have been denied the opportunity.

Would you agree that there's nothing wrong with voting no if you just aren't happy with the direction the EU is going in?

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 11:53AM

Rb wrote: »

Oh please. I don't want to turn this into an AH-esque debate but that warrants a huge, capitalised "lol" at best. We shouldn't be voting yes just to make Ireland look attractive, regardless. Similarly, if some nutjob was anti-investment they shouldn't be using Lisbon in an effort to achieve their aims.

No we should not be voting yes just to make Ireland look attractive but nor can we ignore the reality that a no vote will make us look unattractive. Voting no is not consequence free. And in the absence of a good true reason to vote no, it's enough of a reason to vote yes

Rb wrote: »

How our country looks is entirely irrelevant, is it not? I thought we were voting on a treaty, not on the dress Ireland is wearing in Europe? The Yes side have told us to vote based on the treaty itself over and over, so why are you proposing that we vote in an effort to make Ireland look better in the eyes of investors?

The difference is that the things coming from the no side are simply lies that are never going to happen or diversionary tactics like the idea that it is somehow acceptable or wise to use a no vote to punish FF. voting no for these reasons will damage the country. Voting either way will have consequences and they can't be ignored, except the ones that are made up, the ones that have absolutely nothing to do with the treaty (ie will not be effected by it at all) or the ones that will do more harm than good.

Rb wrote: »

Again, Ireland already looks like sh1t. Unless we can get the cost of living down (to bring the cost of labour down) and other costs associated with running a business here, as well as maintain a highly skilled workforce here, we won't be getting any investment here regardless.

Yes, these are issues along with a necessity to be seen to be on the same page as our neighbours.

Rb wrote: »

If Ireland votes No again this time around, it will be clear that the Irish do not want the Lisbon Treaty. It was clear last time that it was not wanted.

It really wasn't. It was clear that we didn't want taxation, abortion, loss of neutrality and conscription but none of that was in the treaty. The only thing that was in the treaty was the commissioner issue (sort of) and we got that changed.

Rb wrote: »

Would you agree that there's nothing wrong with voting no if you just aren't happy with the direction the EU is going in?

That's a fine reason to vote no but I think that doing so will damage the country. Full sovereignty is great and all that but it's no good while all the MNC's pull out to countries that are happy with the EU

ei.sdraob · 14-09-2009 11:56AM

Rb wrote: »

Oh how cute, comparing voting No to telling the EU to go f**k themselves.

with UKIP entering the NO campaign

and their main policy being "telling the EU to go and f**k themselves"

it becomes very hard for NO campaigners no to claim that they are "Pro EU" without a smell coming out of the backside

Rb · 14-09-2009 12:15PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No we should not be voting yes just to make Ireland look attractive but nor can we ignore the reality that a no vote will make us look unattractive. Voting no is not consequence free. And in the absence of a good true reason to vote no, it's enough of a reason to vote yes

The "image" of our country has already been smudged with the first referendum though, if you want to go by that, I don't think a second No will do anything other than, if anything, show that the country is capable of standing strong on an issue, particularly after Nice.

That in itself may inspire confidence in the country and its people, I suppose. Particularly from the Japs I would imagine.

The difference is that the things coming from the no side are simply lies that are never going to happen or diversionary tactics like the idea that it is somehow acceptable or wise to use a no vote to punish FF. voting no for these reasons will damage the country. Voting either way will have consequences and they can't be ignored, except the ones that are made up or the ones that will do more harm than good.

Indeed, voting either way is going to have consequences that none of us can really imagine as of yet. Both have the possibility of very negative consequences. I cannot reasonably foresee any positive consequences for Ireland that arise from the Lisbon Treaty though, I must say. I also cannot foresee any positive consequences that arise from voting No though either, apart from possibly retaining the current state and demolishing the treaty.

There really is no telling but I don't think we should be voting in fear of the consequences either result may bring, to be honest.

Yes, these are issues along with a necessity to be seen to be on the same page as our neighbours.

Indeed but Ireland being seen as on the same page as their neighbours is probably quite far down on the list of reasons to invest or to not invest here. In fact, you could go so far as to say in saying that we're making something out of nothing.

Again, how many companies were put off investing here because of our actions regarding the Nice Treaty? Did our country not prosper and continue to attract an unbelievable amount of investment in that period and the years afterwards?

They came for the reasons I listed in the previous post and weren't put off by Ireland's vote on the Nice Treaty, nor will they be with our vote on the Lisbon Treaty. To say they will is merely scare-mongering.

That's a fine reason to vote no but I think that doing so will damage the country. Full sovereignty is great and all that but it's no good while all the MNC's pull out to countries that are happy with the EU

Lol, they're pulling out to other countries for a plethora of reasons, none of which are to do with the attitude of the voters there to the EU.

Dell left Limerick for Poland, was that because Poland is happier with the EU than those in Limerick? I don't think so.

Again, you're making something out of nothing and are proposing consequences that do not exist and historically have not ever come to fruition.

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 12:50PM

Rb wrote: »

The "image" of our country has already been smudged with the first referendum though, if you want to go by that, I don't think a second No will do anything other than, if anything, show that the country is capable of standing strong on an issue, particularly after Nice.

That in itself may inspire confidence in the country and its people, I suppose. Particularly from the Japs I would imagine.

All it shows is that the Irish people rejected something out of ignorance and fear and threw a hissy fit when they were asked to reconsider.

And again, standing strong out on our own is no good when the EU moves on without us, or when there's perception that the EU will move on without us because we're fighting them every step of the way.

Rb wrote: »

Indeed, voting either way is going to have consequences that none of us can really imagine as of yet. Both have the possibility of very negative consequences. I cannot reasonably foresee any positive consequences for Ireland that arise from the Lisbon Treaty though, I must say. I also cannot foresee any positive consequences that arise from voting No though either, apart from possibly retaining the current state and demolishing the treaty.

There really is no telling but I don't think we should be voting in fear of the consequences either result may bring, to be honest.

I wouldn't go as far as to say none of us can imagine the possible consequences. Ryainair and Intel are campaigning for a yes vote because they think they can imagine the consequences.

Rb wrote: »

They came for the reasons I listed in the previous post and weren't put off by Ireland's vote on the Nice Treaty, nor will they be with our vote on the Lisbon Treaty. To say they will is merely scare-mongering.

Lol, they're pulling out to other countries for a plethora of reasons, none of which are to do with the attitude of the voters there to the EU.

The Nice treaty was rejected because of a low turn out and we then accepted it. A second Lisbon vote cements Ireland as a country that doesn't want to go where the rest of the EU are going. They're not going to force us to go with them but neither are they going to throw their plans in the bin. I'm not saying they will be turned off Ireland because of a no vote but it is a possibility that can't be ignored.

There are a plethora of reasons why those companies pulled out. We haven't yet rejected the treaty so our rejection of the changes wanted by the EU probably haven't been a factor yet but you can't say it won't be in the future. There is no way you can deny that EU membership was a major factor in the decision of all these companies to locate here and as we get more and more distant from the EU as they make changes and we get opt outs, we lose that advantage

Rb · 14-09-2009 01:15PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

All it shows is that the Irish people rejected something out of ignorance and fear and threw a hissy fit when they were asked to reconsider.

In your opinion and only because you've been in the centre of the debate for quite some time and have been exposed to the "We were asked once, we shouldn't be asked twice and since we are, I'm voting no as a result" reaction/reasoning. I doubt it looks like that to the outsiders.

Who knows, it may actually strengthen our relationship with our European counterparts who didn't get a chance to vote on the Treaty. Particularly Britain.

I must stress the "who knows" part, we're in a quarry of speculation with very little grounding for either foot and to be honest, the entire thing has distracted the debate, along with people's reasons from voting, from the actual treaty itself. This is true of both sides for whatever it's worth.

And again, standing strong out on our own is no good when the EU moves on without us, or when there's perception that the EU will move on without us because we're fighting them every step of the way.

It's unfair to say "on our own" when it's obvious some countries, such as the Czech's, share feelings quite close to our own.

To be quite honest, I'm more fearful of the image we will give our country by voting Yes than voting No, but at the same time again it's mere speculation and shouldn't be worth considering when going to the polls, as is the fear that we'll be alienating ourselves by voting No.

I wouldn't go as far as to say none of us can imagine the possible consequences. Ryainair and Intel are campaigning for a yes vote because they think they can imagine the consequences.

Isn't imagination such a wonderful trait? Coir are campaigning for a no because they can imagine the consequences too

The Nice treaty was rejected because of a low turn out and we then accepted it.

Turnout shouldn't be used as an excuse. If 10 people turned up and voted and 6 of them said No, then it's No and those who didn't bother turning up can't complain.

A second Lisbon vote cements Ireland as a country that doesn't want to go where the rest of the EU are going. They're not going to force us to go with them but neither are they going to throw their plans in the bin. I'm not saying they will be turned off Ireland because of a no vote but it is a possibility that can't be ignored.

There are a plethora of reasons why those companies pulled out. We haven't yet rejected the treaty so our rejection of the changes wanted by the EU probably haven't been a factor yet but you can't say it won't be in the future. There is no way you can deny that EU membership was a major factor in the decision of all these companies to locate here and as we get more and more distant from the EU as they make changes and we get opt outs, we lose that advantage

Sam, you're stressing yourself over nothing and are making a big deal out of very, very minute possibilities. If we go No and a few months down the line a large MNC pulls out, will it be because we voted No? No, it will be because our minimum wage is still through the roof (as it needs to be to meet the cost of living) and we've an awful infrastructure, amongst many other more valid reasons than us voting No to an EU treaty.

It is, after all, just an amending treaty. It will have consequences, however I believe that they will be absolutely minor and that life will go on as per usual after October 2nd if we vote No. Life would indeed go on if we vote Yes also, however I do not like the direction it is trying to go in and will vote every time I get a chance to in an aim to prevent it.

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 01:25PM

Rb wrote: »

In your opinion and only because you've been in the centre of the debate for quite some time and have been exposed to the "We were asked once, we shouldn't be asked twice and since we are, I'm voting no as a result" reaction/reasoning. I doubt it looks like that to the outsiders.

It will look like that as soon as the survey is done. My current opinion comes from the survey that was done last time.

Rb wrote: »

It's unfair to say "on our own" when it's obvious some countries, such as the Czech's, share feelings quite close to our own.

The Czechs haven't ratified it because we haven't. They will as soon as we do

Rb wrote: »

Turnout shouldn't be used as an excuse. If 10 people turned up and voted and 6 of them said No, then it's No and those who didn't bother turning up can't complain.

Turnout was used as an excuse. It's why we had a second Nice vote

Rb wrote: »

Who knows, it may actually strengthen our relationship with our European counterparts who didn't get a chance to vote on the Treaty. Particularly Britain.

I must stress the "who knows" part, we're in a quarry of speculation with very little grounding for either foot and to be honest, the entire thing has distracted the debate, along with people's reasons from voting, from the actual treaty itself. This is true of both sides for whatever it's worth.

To be quite honest, I'm more fearful of the image we will give our country by voting Yes than voting No, but at the same time again it's mere speculation and shouldn't be worth considering when going to the polls, as is the fear that we'll be alienating ourselves by voting No.

Isn't imagination such a wonderful trait? Coir are campaigning for a no because they can imagine the consequences too

Sam, you're stressing yourself over nothing and are making a big deal out of very, very minute possibilities. If we go No and a few months down the line a large MNC pulls out, will it be because we voted No? No, it will be because our minimum wage is still through the roof (as it needs to be to meet the cost of living) and we've an awful infrastructure, amongst many other more valid reasons than us voting No to an EU treaty.

It is, after all, just an amending treaty. It will have consequences, however I believe that they will be absolutely minor and that life will go on as per usual after October 2nd if we vote No. Life would indeed go on if we vote Yes also, however I do not like the direction it is trying to go in and will vote every time I get a chance to in an aim to prevent it.

It's easy to say we should ignore the possible consequences of a no vote when you're campaigning for a no vote. You can play them down all you want but from where I'm sitting Ireland needs to be fully involved in the European project going forward unless there is some compelling reason not to be. I see nothing I object to in this treaty so I see no reason to risk Ireland's position and standing in the world. Making out that a no vote will have no consequences or that we shouldn't even consider the possibility of consequences because we can't be sure what they will be is disingenuous

Rb · 14-09-2009 01:45PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It will look like that as soon as the survey is done. My current opinion comes from the survey that was done last time.

Well we'll have to wait and see. I can understand people voting no out of principle though, but hopefully there'll be a good spread of reasons.

Unfortunately the Yes get the easy answers of "I voted Yes because I think it's best for Europe" without ever having to quantify the statement whatsoever.

The Czechs haven't ratified it because we haven't. They will as soon as we do

And if we don't...?

If they haven't ratified it because we haven't, and if we don't, what do you think the chances of them ratifying are? Slim?

Turnout was used as an excuse. It's why we had a second Nice vote

Indeed, an excuse to have a second vote and "get it right". Pretty tragic that it comes to that really.

It's easy to say we should ignore the possible consequences of a no vote when you're campaigning for a no vote. You can play them down all you want but from where I'm sitting Ireland needs to be fully involved in the European project going forward unless there is some compelling reason not to be. I see nothing I object to in this treaty so I see no reason to risk Ireland's position and standing in the world. Making out that a no vote will have no consequences or that we shouldn't even consider the possibility of consequences because we can't be sure what they will be is disingenuous

There are consequences but you're blowing them way out of proportion. You're making out as though companies that are thinking of investing will go "Oh helll no" and then put the money into another country merely because we voted no and I've shown that historically this did not happen. You can exaggerate possibilities all day long, but they remain that, exaggerated possibilities.

Companies will not invest here for many, many better reasons than us not voting Yes on this. Many, and I don't blame them either, we've a lot of work to do to make this country look attractive to MNC's again.

That, however, does not include dressing Ireland up in the pretty dress that is voting Yes for the sake of making us look more appealing to some dimwits who are basing their decision of whether to invest or not purely on the dress we're wearing.

A No vote will have consequence, a Yes vote will have consequences. I don't like the direction the EU is heading and the image us suddenly changing our opinion on this when we're put under pressure and threats will give us. You don't like the possibility that it might give us a bad image. We can disagree on these things and we will disagree on these things.

I'm not downplaying the consequence you're talking about, you're exaggerating it.

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 01:55PM

Rb wrote: »

Well we'll have to wait and see. I can understand people voting no out of principle though, but hopefully there'll be a good spread of reasons.

The lack of a single good reason in the two years since I heard of this treaty doesn't fill me with confidence.

Rb wrote: »

And if we don't...?

If they haven't ratified it because we haven't, and if we don't, what do you think the chances of them ratifying are? Slim?

What would be the point?

It can't come into force unless everyone ratifies it....

Rb wrote: »

Indeed, and excuse to have a second vote and "get it right". Pretty tragic that it comes to that really.

No, it wasn't and the ad nauseum repetition of that particular misconception is one of the many things that will make Ireland look like a pack of retards when that survey comes out

Rb wrote: »

There are consequences but you're blowing them way out of proportion. You're making out as though companies that are thinking of investing will go "Oh helll no" and then put the money into another country merely because we voted no and I've shown that historically this did not happen. You can exaggerate possibilities all day long, but they remain that, exaggerated possibilities.

Companies will not invest here for many, many better reasons than us not voting Yes on this. Many, and I don't blame them either, we've a lot of work to do to make this country look attractive to MNC's again.

It's not a matter of "hell no". A company will be making a decision on which country to invest in and our unwillingness to play ball with our neighbours will be a factor, just like our high wages etc. It won't be a reason on its own but it could well be a clincher.

Rb wrote: »

That, however, does not include dressing Ireland up in the pretty dress that is voting Yes for the sake of making us look more appealing to some dimwits who are basing their decision of whether to invest or not purely on the dress we're wearing.

A No vote will have consequence, a Yes vote will have consequences. I don't like the direction the EU is heading and the image us suddenly changing our opinion on this when we're put under pressure and threats will give us. You don't like the possibility that it might give us a bad image. We can disagree on these things and we will disagree on these things.

I'm now downplaying the consequence you're talking about, you're exaggerating it.

In your opinion I'm exaggerating it but all I'm saying is its a possibility that should be considered so are you saying it's not a possibility at all?

Also, membership of an organisation that gives us access to a common market of 500 million people is not a "pretty dress" and pulling away from that organisation that gives us a major advantage is not the same as wearing a particular dress

Rb · 14-09-2009 02:08PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What would be the point? It can't come into force unless everyone ratifies it....

Lol, I forgot about that, whoops.

Well, anywho, it's quite obvious that if we ratify, they will merely ratify to play along. They're quite clearly not pushed about the treaty. It would be quite funny if we ratified and they said no though, I must admit. Sarkozy's face would be priceless.

No, it wasn't and the ad nauseum repetition of that particular misconception is one of the many things that will make Ireland look like a pack of retards when that survey comes out

You're so concerned about how we look, Sam, such insecurity in hardly an attractive quality to all these masculine MNC's who want to come and sweep us off our feet with their multi-billion euro investments :pac:

It's not a matter of "hell no". A company will be making a decision on which country to invest in and our unwillingness to play ball with our neighbours will be a factor, just like our high wages etc. It won't be a reason on its own but it could well be a clincher.

Do you think a company considering investing in Spain considers siestas a major decision point?

In your opinion I'm exaggerating it but all I'm saying is its a possibility that should be considered so are you saying it's not a possibility at all?

Also, membership of an organisation that gives us access to a common market of 500 million people is not a "pretty dress" and pulling away from that organisation that gives us a major advantage is not the same as wearing a particular dress

I don't think I've said it's not a possibility, sure we might not look like we're going to play ball on everything, some might criticize us for that (like the droolers who come out with lines such as "You owe it to Europe, how ungrateful after all the money you've got from them") and others might applaud us for it. There's no telling, it is a possibility and sure, it might be worth considering a little bit but it shouldn't be a major decision point at all.

If one were on the fence over voting yes or no, our image should not be a consideration that sways the vote. Similarly, if one were thinking of investing here, the way we voted on a treaty shouldn't be the deciding point. There's far more important things to consider would be my point I suppose.

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 02:17PM

Rb wrote: »

Lol, I forgot about that, whoops.

Well, anywho, it's quite obvious that if we ratify, they will merely ratify to play along. They're quite clearly not pushed about the treaty. It would be quite funny if we ratified and they said no though, I must admit. Sarkozy's face would be priceless.

I don't think that's obvious at all. They didn't ratify to show solidarity with Ireland. They had every intention of ratifying it unless we voted no.

Rb wrote: »

Do you think a company considering investing in Spain considers siestas a major decision point?

No but siestas do not give them access to a market of 500 million people

Rb wrote: »

I don't think I've said it's not a possibility, sure we might not look like we're going to play ball on everything, some might criticize us for that (like the droolers who come out with lines such as "You owe it to Europe, how ungrateful after all the money you've got from them") and others might applaud us for it. There's no telling, it is a possibility and sure, it might be worth considering a little bit but it shouldn't be a major decision point at all.

If one were on the fence over voting yes or no, our image should not be a consideration that sways the vote. Similarly, if one were thinking of investing here, the way we voted on a treaty shouldn't be the deciding point. There's far more important things to consider would be my point I suppose.

That's exactly the time I think it should be considered. If you have reasons to vote no that are based on the treaty itself then fair enough but if you don't have any real problem with the treaty and you're humming and hawing over it, that's when Ireland's reputation and standing should become a factor. You have to ask yourself why you should risk that over something that you don't really object to.

All I'm doing here is trying to correct the misconception that people who aren't sure should vote no because it's the "safe" option and the misconception that the slogans like "We're stronger with Europe" means we'll be kicked out if we vote no. It means we'll lose goodwill and influence and make ourselves less attractive to businesses if we vote no for no good reason and leave ourselves nothing to negotiate because "I HATE BRIAN COWEN" is not an article of the treaty and neither is "I THINK OTHER COUNTRIES SHOULD RATIFY TREATIES THE WAY WE DO"

RandomName2 · 14-09-2009 02:21PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That and Ireland will have voted no to EU treaties three time if it gets voted down again. Businesses looking to locate in the EU to get access to the common market will have a choice of a country that's very expensive to do business in, has very little value other than as a jumping off point to the rest of the EU and has three times said that they don't share the same vision of Europe as the rest of the EU. That's a big risk to take when there are cheaper countries that have all the advantages of being in the EU and aren't fighting them every step of the way.

That's 'same vision' as the other EU politicans. And our politicans do have the same 'vision' as the other EU politicans. The political approval of Lisbon was essentially unaminous.

That said, vote for vote, there are STILL more no votes than yes votes. So a million Irish people keeping back Europe? What about a thousand beuocrats forcing Europeans forward. The Europen Union was not made to shepherd its folk, but is meant, rather to be an extnetion of its citizenry. In this guise it is meant to respect Ireland's position as if it were as large and as strong as France or Germany.

The French didn't get much of an opportunity to rejct Constitution twice. The country is a bit too large to be given the heave-ho. Can you imagine posters going up in Britain, if they ever get to vote, 'Vote Yes, We need Europe'

The heads of the European Church of Progress urge an acceptance of the Edict of Lisbon by the Irish flock, or God's fury will result.

Don't get me wrong, there are... some positive things about the changes to the European Constitution vis-a-vis Lisbon. Things just seemed to have moved past that now to ultimatum on one side, and scare-mongering on the other. As inaccurate as the scare-mongering is - by God its not unreasonable to get the heeby-jeebies when presented with demands backed up by warnings concerning our membership of the EU; presented by our government, and given the imprimater of the other EU leaders.

The very fact that the political proponents of the treaty are using this method to 'argue' in favour of ratification would seem to suggest we should do anything but. But to do what is right sometimes has risks attached, and there is sometimes a momentum of events that no one group of people can ever hope to resist. And, now isolated in this manner of ratification, and with the implication that even our rejection would be discarded, or that we would be collectively punished, is likely to be the deciding factor for a country wracked by global recession and fiscal mismanagement that happens to be very dependent on access to an open market for its exports. So, the threats of exclusions or punsihment may be a bluff, to one extent or other, but it is one that is likely to work, in the short term at least.

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 02:29PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

That's 'same vision' as the other EU politicans. And our politicans do have the same 'vision' as the other EU politicans. The political approval of Lisbon was essentially unaminous.

That said, vote for vote, there are STILL more no votes than yes votes. So a million Irish people keeping back Europe? What about a thousand beuocrats forcing Europeans forward. The Europen Union was not made to shepherd its folk, but is meant, rather to be an extnetion of its citizenry. In this guise it is meant to respect Ireland's position as if it were as large and as strong as France or Germany.

In reality it doesn't really matter what you think the people of those countries would have said in a referendum. The legal situation in those countries is moving on and that's all that matters to businesses.

RandomName2 wrote: »

But to do what is right sometimes has risks attached, and there is sometimes a momentum of events that no one group of people can ever hope to resist

If it was the right thing to do I'd be shipping all my friends and relatives down to vote no but it's not. We've been scared into voting down a benign and beneficial treaty by extremists who've been against the EU since its inception and who have propagated a myth that the treaty is impossible to understand so they can make up lies about it secure in the knowledge that the average joe won't know enough to call them on it, because they've been tricked into thinking they couldn't understand it if they tried. The Irish people are getting the impression that they're being duped but unfortunately they think it's the EU that are trying to dupe them when in reality it's the extremists and naysayers

KrustyJay · 14-09-2009 02:34PM

Hi all, I for one will most definitely being voting 'No' again in the upcoming referendum.

It's your europe - Take it back!

ei.sdraob · 14-09-2009 02:39PM

KrustyJay wrote: »

Hi all, I for one will most definitely being voting 'No' again in the upcoming referendum.

It's your europe - Take it back!

take it back?

what sort of a nonsense slogan is that??

since you are new please do provide on reason thats in the treaty to vote NO, so many new members lately who post nothing but slogans

hatrickpatrick · 14-09-2009 02:45PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

take it back?

what sort of a nonsense slogan is that??

since you are new please do provide on reason thats in the treaty to vote NO, so many new members lately who post nothing but slogans

Not wanting to interrupt your debate, but

A Yes Campaign Poster wrote:

It's simple. Ireland needs Europe. Vote Yes.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 02:48PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not wanting to interrupt your debate, but

Pot. Kettle. Black.

If you were reading the debate you'd see that it's about clarifying the meaning of that particular slogan.

Orlee · 14-09-2009 02:51PM

I don't know how to vote - I have genuinely tried on numerous occasions to do my own research into the Lisbon Treaty and figure out exactly what is being proposed but I'm getting no where. I don't see the government doing much to help explain it other than saying it's the only way Ireland is going to pull out of this recession. That's all well and good but HOW is it going to do that?

And as for the "What's this EU Thingy doing for me?" ads .... cheaper roaming charges aren't going to be the thing that sways me into voting yes

I'm all for voting yes if I know exactly what I'm voting for and why - If anyone has a good linky for me to point me in the right direction I'd really appreciate it - I've looked through Wiki, www.lisbontreaty.ie and europa.eu/lisbon_treaty but I always come away more confused than when I began!

Rb · 14-09-2009 03:00PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you were reading the debate you'd see that it's about clarifying the meaning of that particular slogan.

Er, I think he was pointing out that the new poster was asked for a treaty based reason to vote no when all the yes crew do now is push people to vote Yes for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty.

Which, in fairness, is true. The Yes side cannot condemn the no side for voting on non-treaty reasons anymore.

ei.sdraob · 14-09-2009 03:03PM

Orlee wrote: »

I don't know how to vote - I have genuinely tried on numerous occasions to do my own research into the Lisbon Treaty and figure out exactly what is being proposed but I'm getting no where. I don't see the government doing much to help explain it other than saying it's the only way Ireland is going to pull out of this recession. That's all well and good but HOW is it going to do that?

And as for the "What's this EU Thingy doing for me?" ads .... cheaper roaming charges aren't going to be the thing that sways me into voting yes

I'm all for voting yes if I know exactly what I'm voting for and why - If anyone has a good linky for me to point me in the right direction I'd really appreciate it - I've looked through Wiki, www.lisbontreaty.ie and europa.eu/lisbon_treaty but I always come away more confused than when I began!

in that case then maybe start a thread about issue that bother you most within Lisbon

and have the 2 sides present their opinions on these issues

and then you decide?

ei.sdraob · 14-09-2009 03:05PM

Rb wrote: »

Er, I think he was pointing out that the new poster was asked for a treaty based reason to vote no when all the yes crew do now is push people to vote Yes for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty.

Which, in fairness, is true. The Yes side cannot condemn the no side for voting on non-treaty reasons anymore.

I was pointing at the number of new users who register

and post their first posts right in this forum (of all the forums)

and usually a sentence thats not particularly long

im not talking about "posters" on poles, if you want to go that way then let me point at the posters from Coir or Socialists that i have seen on poles

that are downright lies or have nothing to do with treaty

PopeBuckfastXVI · 14-09-2009 03:06PM

Rb wrote: »

Er, I think he was pointing out that the new poster was asked for a treaty based reason to vote no when all the yes crew do now is push people to vote Yes for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty.

Which, in fairness, is true. The Yes side cannot condemn the no side for voting on non-treaty reasons anymore.

The yes 'crew', is that the 'crew' on boards?

Perhaps you could provide examples to prove your claim? Boards is very searchable...

Sam Vimes · 14-09-2009 03:20PM

Rb wrote: »

Er, I think he was pointing out that the new poster was asked for a treaty based reason to vote no when all the yes crew do now is push people to vote Yes for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty.

Which, in fairness, is true. The Yes side cannot condemn the no side for voting on non-treaty reasons anymore.

"It's simple. Ireland needs Europe. Vote Yes." is not a "nonsense slogan", which is the point I have been making these past few pages. As we have both been saying, both a yes and a no vote will have consequences but "taking back our Europe" is not a consequence of a no vote. It's nonsense

The yes side can indeed condemn the no side for non-treaty reasons because they're not simply non-treaty reasons, they're non-reality reasons, they're fantasy reasons. Talking about the consequences of a vote is fine but making up consequences is not so much

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

Comments