nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Stop NAMA by voting No to Lisbon

Hobo Sapiens

The only practical way to stop Grand Theft NAMA is to force a general election after which a new coalition will adopt some hybrid of the FG/Labour proposals. Whatever the hybrid, it can hardly be as bad as NAMA, the FF plan to rob the PAYE taxpayer while bailing out the bankers and developers.

To force a general election, FF must lose the Lisbon vote. I am calling on Don't Knows to put the future well-being of this country before the demands of Eurocrats. The EU can continue as it is without Lisbon. But NAMA would destroy this country for generations.

Stop NAMA - vote No to Lisbon.

Find more posts tagged with

lisbon

nama

Quick Links

Comments

Kama

Agree. A % of No will inevitably be against Cowen, whether thats right or wrong is irrelevant, politics is dirty and contagious stuff. Formally, there's no reason I know of for it to affect him, but I doubt he'd survive it myself.

Dinner

I was very surprised when he survived an awful European and local election result. But he did.

And after that result there was no one to shift the blame on to and no reason which would be valid explanation for the performance. But he's still there.

You honestly think that if a no vote is returned that Cowen will step down?
Not a chance. All he has to is to say what some of us have been saying for a long time; It was a referendum on Lisbon, not the government. He will point to FG and Labour and say that they were in favour of it too, therefore it must have been a problem with Lisbon rather than his government.

As I said before, anybody who thinks a no vote will force a general election is kidding themselves.

SkepticOne

Dinner wrote: »

Not a chance. All he has to is to say what some of us have been saying for a long time; It was a referendum on Lisbon, not the government.

The first referendum was a referendum on Lisbon. What you've got to remember is that Cowen chose not to respect that.

Daftendirekt

SkepticOne wrote: »

The first referendum was a referendum on Lisbon. What you've got to remember is that Cowen chose not to respect that.

Last time I checked, Lisbon hadn't been ratified.

SkepticOne

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Last time I checked, Lisbon hadn't been ratified.

That's because he doesn't have the legal power to do.

BlitzKrieg

What you've got to remember is that Cowen chose not to respect that.

So you expect the man who didnt respect the first lisbon referendum (in your opinion) to willingly end this government?

SkepticOne

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

So you expect the man who didnt respect the first lisbon referendum (in your opinion) to willingly end this government?

No, I was saying that I didn't believe his position would be tenable after a second Lisbon rejection.

Dinner

SkepticOne wrote: »

No, I was saying that I didn't believe his position would be tenable after a second Lisbon rejection.

How tenable was his position after the local elections?

SkepticOne

Dinner wrote: »

How tenable was his position after the local elections?

Obviously it did not affect him sufficiently to threaten his position but then again I would not have expected it to. A second No in Lisbon would be different. As I have pointed out, he chose not to respect the first vote.

marco_polo

Yes with both parties popularity ratings gone through the floor, and facing electoral meltdown, I am sure they will be rushing out to the electorate straight after a Lisbon defeat. :rolleyes:

This thread is starting to make me question the value of holding referendums at all. If some of the electorate here have so little respect for their vote.

Dinner

SkepticOne wrote: »

Obviously it did not affect him sufficiently to threaten his position but then again I would not have expected it to. A second No in Lisbon would be different. As I have pointed out, he chose not to respect the first vote.

So, an election where his party were being voted on (and were punished) didn't 'sufficiently' affect him. But a no vote in referendum on a treaty where all but 1 party in the dail support it would 'sufficiently affect him'?

I don't see any world where that make sense.

SkepticOne

marco_polo wrote: »

Yes with both parties popularity ratings gone through the floor, and facing electoral meltdown, I am sure they will be rushing out to the electorate straight after a Lisbon defeat. :rolleyes:

This thread is starting to make me question the value of holding referendums at all. If some of the electorate here have so little respect for their vote.

You think Cowen would survive a second Lisbon No?

marco_polo

SkepticOne wrote: »

You think Cowen would survive a second Lisbon No?

Considering they still have a comfortable majority. Which one do you think would voluntarily jump, the party on 17% or the one on 2%?

thebman

Pfft lock the topic TBH. No discussion possible. Its a stupid idea and won't achieve anything.

Even if it did cause the government to fall (which it may not as all major parties are pushing yes except SF) then what? What about Lisbon itself, you know the thing we were actually supposed to vote on?

It would be irresponsible to vote for these reasons and its irresponsible to push the agenda IMO which is why I think the topic should be locked. Not a mod obviously though

SkepticOne

Dinner wrote: »

So, an election where his party were being voted on (and were punished) didn't 'sufficiently' affect him. But a no vote in referendum on a treaty where all but 1 party in the dail support it would 'sufficiently affect him'?

I don't see any world where that make sense.

Let me ask you this: in what sense could he be seen to be representing Ireland in Europe after a second no result? His mandate would effectively be gone even if technically it is still there on paper. Moves would have to be made to have him replaced.

squod

I don't get it either OP. In fairness there's plenty of reasons to vote no. This isn't one of them.
You do now have a golden opportunity to campaign against FF's re-election between now and the next general election though.

SkepticOne

thebman wrote: »

Even if it did cause the government to fall (which it may not as all major parties are pushing yes except SF) then what? What about Lisbon itself, you know the thing we were actually supposed to vote on?

But it is important to consider the wider political consequences of the vote. There are plenty of other threads discussing the possible fallout of a particular Lisbon result on this forum.

Edit: Here's one:
"McCreevy: Treaty rejection could hurt nation’s image"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055686422

K-9

SkepticOne wrote: »

Moves would have to be made to have him replaced.

This could happen with a No, by another FF'er though!

marco_polo

SkepticOne wrote: »

Let me ask you this: in what sense could he be seen to be representing Ireland in Europe after a second no result? His mandate would effectively be gone even if technically it is still there on paper. Moves would have to be made to have him replaced.

So when shall we actually have a referendum on Lisbon then? Considering half the country hadn't a notion the last time, and there is a serious push on now to try to make this one a proxy vote on the Government.

Do you want me to give you a cookie for sticking your two fingers up to your duty to vote on the issue at hand? Considering half the no campaign is whinging about the poor disenfranchised souls in the other 26 member states, this is mind boggling hypocrisy.

SkepticOne

K-9 wrote: »

This could happen with a No, by another FF'er though!

And I think it is there that the government itself could find itself in difficulty though I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that they would fall.

BlitzKrieg

SkepticOne wrote: »

in what sense could he be seen to be representing Ireland in Europe after a second no result? His mandate would effectively be gone even if technically it is still there on paper. Moves would have to be made to have him replaced.

by who?

if you mean the government then it'll still be the same government just with someone instead of Cowen at the top. I know he's a right old twerp, but may I remind you we all cheered when bertie was replaced by him and we still have the same old sh*t from the same old party.

Are you satisfied to vote no to have the only thing changed is the face on the can?

SkepticOne

marco_polo wrote: »

So when shall we actually have a referendum on Lisbon then? Considering half the country hadn't a notion the last time, and there is a serious push on now to try to make this one a proxy vote on the Government.

Do you want me to give you a cookie for sticking your two fingers up to your duty to vote on the issue at hand? Considering half the no campaign is whinging about the poor disenfranchised souls in the other 26 member states, this is mind boggling hypocrisy.

I don't think there is a serious push to make it so among the campaigners (at least I haven't come across it), and I think such a push would backfire on any party that tries to do so. I'm not myself suggesting that you should vote primarily along these lines.

marco_polo

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think there is a serious push to make it so among the campaigners (at least I haven't come across it), and I think such a push would backfire on any party that tries to do so. I'm not myself suggesting that you should vote primarily along these lines.

I have genuinely tried to imagine such a circumstance, but I just cannot see it considering the low opnion poll ratings, the fact that the opposition are also advocating a yes vote, and the fact the second the referendum is over all eyes will be back to Nama.

squod

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

by who?

if you mean the government then it'll still be the same government just with someone instead of Cowen at the top. I know he's a right old twerp, but may I remind you we all cheered when bertie was replaced by him and we still have the same old sh*t from the same old party.

Are you satisfied to vote no to have the only thing changed is the face on the can?

In fairness to the poster, FF has had some great people work for them. I honestly don't go along with the OPs idea, however if i thought for one minute it might work.........

Lisbon is important enough, but do you know what's more important. The economy. A new leader might just help that.

The Big Red Button

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

This thread is not particularly aimed at the unquestioning Yessir who cannot fathom why anybody would vote No.

Up to about a month ago, I wasn't all that arsed educating myself about the Lisbon Treaty - in fact, I wasn't in the country last time round so I didn't even vote. However if I had to choose, I'd have been leaning more towards the "no" side - admittedly based mostly on the propaganda (lies) put forward. But I wouldn't vote at all this time round if I wasn't certain, so I decided to spend a few days researching the whole thing to see what it was all about.

I still know a hell of a lot less about the Treaty than a lot of the more educated posters here, and you should really read a few of the other threads with an open mind and see what they have to say. However I'll give you my own opinion on some of your concerns.

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

It makes sense to vote No to Lisbon because it's such an obscure document.

Of course it is! It's a complex, detailed legal document, dealing mainly with boring menial administrative matters that don't even affect us. It's not a basic simple "Do you want divorce in Ireland to be legalised - yes or no?" sort of question, it deals with a whole lot more than that. In my opinion, it seems to be making the whole EU thing less bureaucratic and much more transparent, which can only be a good thing.

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

It makes even more sense to vote No because it's an obscure document yet one that,when you scan its content, reduces Ireland to being a mere outpost of a new EU state.

I haven't just scanned its content, I've read it, and I've honestly seen nothing in it anywhere that suggests the creation of a new EU state - let alone making Ireland a mere outpost of same.

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

If you have any doubts about the actual treaty (and who wouldn't, considering that it is precisely the same treaty that we voted on in 2008), then you might already be inclined to vote No.

As I said, I was quite inclined to - but then I made the effort to educate myself.

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

If you believe that NAMA is a bad deal for the ordinary PAYE taxpayer or pensioner, then voting No to Lisbon is probably the only way to stop the government from putting the country into harm's way.

I have my own mixed opinions on NAMA. I am firmly opposed to Fianna Fail as a political party, I'd be delighted if a GE was called in the morning and Fianna Fail were booted out. However, the Lisbon Treaty has absolutely nothing to do with either NAMA or Fianna Fail. And, as outlined already by other posters, even if Lisbon II doesn't go through, the chances of a general election being called are extremely low.

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

Stop NAMA and Vote No.

As above. We're not voting on NAMA at all. We're voting on the Lisbon Treaty (as created by all EU states including Ireland - not created by Fianna Fail.)

OP, there is a link in my signature. Please read it with an open mind. Also instead of automatically arguing with the other posters on this thread, please consider their opinions with an open mind. I understand you're unhappy with Fianna Fail's performance, as am I, but the Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with that and it is genuinely the best way forward for Ireland with relation to crime prevention, economic growth and job creation.

Again, I am speaking as a normal Irish citizen with no political allegiances or agendas.

thebman

SkepticOne wrote: »

But it is important to consider the wider political consequences of the vote. There are plenty of other threads discussing the possible fallout of a particular Lisbon result on this forum.

Edit: Here's one:
"McCreevy: Treaty rejection could hurt nation’s image"
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055686422

Yes your advocating voting a particular way to get that side effect though.

There is a difference between saying voting one way may cause something and saying vote this way as it may cause this consequene.

One person is saying this may be a consequence and your advocating voting that way in the hope to cause your consequence which has nothing to do with the treaty which is what people are being asked to vote on.

See the difference?

OldJay

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

The only practical way to stop Grand Theft NAMA is to force a general election after which a new coalition will adopt some hybrid of the FG/Labour proposals. Whatever the hybrid, it can hardly be as bad as NAMA, the FF plan to rob the PAYE taxpayer while bailing out the bankers and developers.

To force a general election, FF must lose the Lisbon vote. I am calling on Don't Knows to put the future well-being of this country before the demands of Eurocrats. The EU can continue as it is without Lisbon. But NAMA would destroy this country for generations.

Stop NAMA - vote No to Lisbon.

The more desperation (to put it kindly) like this I see, the more certain my 'yes' vote is as the basis for a 'no' is as solid as water.

BlitzKrieg

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't think there is a serious push to make it so among the campaigners (at least I haven't come across it), and I think such a push would backfire on any party that tries to do so. I'm not myself suggesting that you should vote primarily along these lines.

lets see if you are right

And we should mobilise the vote against Lisbon. The government has deliberately postponed the vote on NAMA until after Lisbon, as a deliberate manoeuvre. But that can backfire if we vote NO – because they will then be forced out of office.

Such an action is perfectly justified because we have been insulted by being asked to vote again until the political elite get their ‘right’ answer.

We should therefore return their contempt, by voting NO again to get rid of them.

from: http://www.swp.ie/index.php?page=387&dept=News

Max Power1

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

The only practical way to stop Grand Theft NAMA is to force a general election after which a new coalition will adopt some hybrid of the FG/Labour proposals. Whatever the hybrid, it can hardly be as bad as NAMA, the FF plan to rob the PAYE taxpayer while bailing out the bankers and developers.

To force a general election, FF must lose the Lisbon vote. I am calling on Don't Knows to put the future well-being of this country before the demands of Eurocrats. The EU can continue as it is without Lisbon. But NAMA would destroy this country for generations.

Stop NAMA - vote No to Lisbon.

Apart from the ludicrous notion ( and I am strongly against lisbon btw) that voting no to lisbon will stop NAMA, where is the alternative to NAMA? Something needs to be done to ensure that the economy doesnt remain stagnant when the period of recession is over (which it is looking like will happen soon. The shoots of recovery are starting to grow in the US and europe) What is the other viable alternative to NAMA.

People need to stop protesting, accept that somethomg needs to be done, and either come up witha viable alternative or stop protesting.

marco_polo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

lets see if you are right

from: http://www.swp.ie/index.php?page=387&dept=News

I think the Libertas posters, "The only job you will save is his" under a picture of Cowen are clear enough in their intentions as well.