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

ixtlan

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.

Replaced by who? What EU mandate would Enda Kenny or Eamon Gilmore have after failing to get Lisbon passed despite their own efforts.

There may be an election soon anyhow with the budget. Lisbon will not trigger one. I'm sure Enda Kenny would be horrified at the prospect of taking over and having to waste huge amounts of time trying to sort out a solution to the impasse.

Ix.

ixtlan

And I have to make a comment about NAMA.

I don't know whether it's a good deal or not. What I do know is that the national fixation on it to the exclusion of the public finances deficit is ridiculous.

People are saying we will be paying for NAMA for generations... nonsense.

If a nightmare scenario develops and it loses say 10 billion... that is just 6 months worth of the deficit which has been running for many months, and will continue running for years...

That deficit is going to dwarf any NAMA loss, possibly by an order of magnitude, ie maybe 10 times. Certainly it will be at least 5 times bigger than any realistic NAMA loss.

That is what we will be re-paying for generations.

Ix.

Hobo Sapiens

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.

We voted last year. Where is the respect for the vote?

Our own government disrespected that vote.

Dinner

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

We voted last year. Where is the respect for the vote?

Lisbon was not ratified. There is the respect for that vote.

The government and the EU then sorted out the issues that the public had. That's democracy isn't it?

Hobo Sapiens

Dinner wrote: »

I was very surprised when he survived an awful European and local election result. But he did....
....As I said before, anybody who thinks a no vote will force a general election is kidding themselves.

Try this: Write to your local TDs to inform them that you and your family are considering voting No to Lisbon unless the Government stops NAMA.

What do you imagine will happen?

Dinner

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

Try this: Write to your local TDs to inform them that you and your family are considering voting No to Lisbon unless the Government stops NAMA.

What do you imagine will happen?

I would imagine that they would tell me that we have are having a referendum on Lisbon, not NAMA or the government.

I would like it if they went on to tell me that one of the fundemental principals of democracy is an informed electorate. And that is in the best interests of mine, the country and democracy if I read up on the treaty and came to an informed decision based on the contents of the treaty rather than slogans on signposts.

But I don't think they'd say that.

Scofflaw

There are essentially two options here:

1. you're opposed to NAMA, and want to use an entirely unrelated matter to mark some kind of 'opposition', which somehow the planned protests and the opposition in the Dáil won't achieve,

2. or you're opposed to Lisbon, and trying to capitalise on any anti-NAMA feeling in order to bolster a No position which has otherwise run out of arguments.

The second is dishonest, the former is just silly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hobo Sapiens

chatterpillar wrote: »

.... 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.

It's hard to tell if you're genuine or disingenuous because the treaty is merely a revamped version of the 2004 EU constitution. That document was presented in clear language but Lisbon uses convoluted language. Why? Consider this quote from former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, who was Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution:

“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception... Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”
(CER meeting, 12 July 2007)" http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/591536/brownie-no2-the-lisbon-treaty.thtml

chatterpillar wrote: »

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.

You've read the treaty yet, surprisingly, you failed to notice:

Art. 17: "... the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States ...". (This is the first time that an EU treaty has explicitly drawn attention to the principle of the primacy or superiority of EU law over national law, according to people.ie.)

Furthermore, Lisbon "... is a self-amending Treaty which permits EU law-making to be shifted from unanimity to majority voting without the need of new Treaties or referendums (Art.48 TEU)." http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/Coughlan6.htm

chatterpillar wrote: »

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. 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.)....

I've no inherent opposition to FF or anyone else as a political party, per se. It's their subservience to bankers, developers, and the EU that aggravates me. When in government, their duty must be to the citizen, and not any of those groups.

As to the referendum, we already had a vote on Lisbon but, only a year later, we're asked to vote on precisely the same treaty.

To use this unnecessary referendum to damage the government seems to me to be a good strategy to achieve the aim, much more likely than you think, to collapse this government.

The main point of this thread is that NAMA would be a disaster for Ireland and we must stop it. Possibly the best means to do that is to vote No.

Scofflaw

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

It's hard to tell if you're genuine or disingenuous because the treaty is merely a revamped version of the 2004 EU constitution. That document was presented in clear language but Lisbon uses convoluted language. Why? Consider this quote from former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato, who was Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution:

“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception... Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”
(CER meeting, 12 July 2007)" http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/591536/brownie-no2-the-lisbon-treaty.thtml

You've read the treaty yet, surprisingly, you failed to notice:

Art. 17: "... the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States ...". (This is the first time that an EU treaty has explicitly drawn attention to the principle of the primacy or superiority of EU law over national law, according to people.ie.)

You quote the Treaty, but fail to quote this:

17. Declaration concerning primacy

The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law. The Conference has also decided to attach as an Annex to this Final Act the Opinion of the Council Legal Service on the primacy of EC law as set out in 11197/07 (JUR 260): "Opinion of the Council Legal Service of 22 June 2007 It results from the case-law of the Court of Justice that primacy of EC law is a cornerstone principle of Community law. According to the Court, this principle is inherent to the specific nature of the European Community. At the time of the first judgment of this established case law (Costa/ENEL,15 July 1964, Case 6/6411) there was no mention of primacy in the treaty. It is still the case today. The fact that the principle of primacy will not be included in the future treaty shall not in any way change the existence of the principle and the existing case-law of the Court of Justice."

You've also failed to point out that the text you cite is part of a Declaration, not a Protocol or Treaty text. The primacy of EU law has been settled since the 1960s, and is a very straightforward and obvious outcome of joint legislation. EU legislation made by the member states in common must of necessity take primacy over conflicting legislation made by the member states, since otherwise there would be no point whatsoever in making common legislation.

Hobo Sapiens wrote: »

As to the referendum, we already had a vote on Lisbon but, only a year later, we're asked to vote on precisely the same treaty.

To use this unnecessary referendum to damage the government seems to me to be a good strategy to achieve the aim, much more likely than you think, to collapse this government.

The main point of this thread is that NAMA would be a disaster for Ireland and we must stop it. Possibly the best means to do that is to vote No.

No, it's an entirely irrelevant tactic.

regards,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

It's hard to tell if you're genuine or disingenuous because the treaty is merely a revamped version of the 2004 EU constitution. That document was presented in clear language but Lisbon uses convoluted language. Why?

because its an amendment treaty is the actual answer and needs to work within the confines of the prior treaties, while the EU constitution was a whole new document with no ties to any of the treaties.

Kama

Scofflaw wrote:

There are essentially two options here:

1. you're opposed to NAMA, and want to use an entirely unrelated matter to mark some kind of 'opposition', which somehow the planned protests and the opposition in the Dáil won't achieve

1. you're opposed to NAMA, and consider any available means to express this opposition to be pragmatically viable as a political method. Those marvellous formal-democratic windows of opportunity for expressing an opinion have to be made use of.

2. or you're opposed to Lisbon, and trying to capitalise on any anti-NAMA feeling in order to bolster a No position which has otherwise run out of arguments.

2. or you're opposed to Lisbon, and form relations of equivalence between one 'elite policy' and another. It's not polite, it may not be accurate, but that's politics, it's not a realm of 'beautiful souls' and cordial discussion

The second is dishonest, the former is just silly.

The second is cynically realist, while 'silly' is just name-calling.

Scofflaw

Kama wrote: »

1. you're opposed to NAMA, and consider any available means to express this opposition to be pragmatically viable as a political method. Those marvellous formal-democratic windows of opportunity for expressing an opinion have to be made use of.

If there was space for marking your reasons on the ballot paper, that might work. Regrettably, there isn't. You're asked Yes or No to Lisbon, and you answer No. That's it. Assuming there's a post-vote survey done, "voted No because of NAMA" might feature, but that doesn't make the vote on Lisbon into a vote on NAMA - it remains, as it was, a vote on Lisbon.

Kama wrote: »

2. or you're opposed to Lisbon, and form relations of equivalence between one 'elite policy' and another. It's not polite, it may not be accurate, but that's politics, it's not a realm of 'beautiful souls' and cordial discussion

The second is cynically realist, while 'silly' is just name-calling.

I'm afraid I still see the former as silly (you may substitute 'pointless waste of a vote' if you prefer), but having seen your reasoning for the second, I have to put that one down as sillier.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Kama wrote: »

The second is cynically realist, while 'silly' is just name-calling.

It's not it's underhanded dishonesty of the most blatant sort. Justifying it as cynically realistic is rather Machiavellian.

Kama

Scofflaw wrote:

If there was space for marking your reasons on the ballot paper, that might work. Regrettably, there isn't.

There may not be, but a proportion of No votes, inevitably, would translate as expressed displeasure with the government. This was sufficiently obvious that to attempt to mitigate the effect, it was necessary to state publicly that it wouldn't work, and he would not resign over it.

The apparent denial here that a No would be damaging to the already-scant credibility of the government seems, perhaps, also somewhat politically motivated. I'll presume for the sake of politeness you are against protest votes in any and all situations, rather than merely in this specific; nevertheless protest voting is an established political phenomenon.

You're asked Yes or No to Lisbon, and you answer No. That's it. Assuming there's a post-vote survey done, "voted No because of NAMA" might feature, but that doesn't make the vote on Lisbon into a vote on NAMA - it remains, as it was, a vote on Lisbon.

Formally, sure! Informally and more realistically, other factors will inevitably enter. Until some mechanism is devised which filters the decision-making of an electorate so as to exclude such 'inappropriate' behaviors, you'll get contagion, as here. As I said, people will use what means they see as available to accomplish ends they desire; I can't call its pragmatic efficacy, thats proof of the pudding stuff.

I'm afraid I still see the former as silly (you may substitute 'pointless waste of a vote' if you prefer), but having seen your reasoning for the second, I have to put that one down as sillier.

The only waste of a vote in my books is not casting one, anything else is utilizing your democratic franchise, whether that 'wasted' vote is a protest, for a minority party with no realistic chance, or for Dustin the Turkey. You may neither like nor approve of the manner in which this is done, but that's a different matter entirely.

As to my 'silly reasoning', I'm speaking descriptively, or at least attempting to, hence the scare quotes. Resistance to Lisbon is in a generally populist register, and the unity of mainstream political 'great-and-good' makes it all the easier for an 'elite conspiracy' narrative to be plausible to people. Hence, 'well fed Euro gravy train politicians' and so on. If you would prefer I use a word other than 'elite' as an axis-opposite to populist, suggest one. Otherwise I'll just keep the scare quotes.

nesf wrote:

It's not it's underhanded dishonesty of the most blatant sort. Justifying it as cynically realistic is rather Machiavellian.

I didn't say I like it, or that I consider it a good thing, I just happen to be of the opinion that politics is not a clean, rational affair which maps neatly onto elegant formal models of how people should behave, nor that the people who run campaigns think of electorates in this manner. I see it far more in terms of narrative, framing, dirty tricks, oppo-research and hatchet-jobs; as a map, it seems to correlate to the territory better. So Generation Yes doctor pictures of Trotsky to do some nice ad-homs on socialists, and Coir lie about the minimum wage.

If that makes me Machiavellian, I guess I'm guilty.

bonkey

Kama wrote: »

1. you're opposed to NAMA, and consider any available means to express this opposition to be pragmatically viable as a political method. Those marvellous formal-democratic windows of opportunity for expressing an opinion have to be made use of.

2. or you're opposed to Lisbon, and form relations of equivalence between one 'elite policy' and another. It's not polite, it may not be accurate, but that's politics, it's not a realm of 'beautiful souls' and cordial discussion

The second is cynically realist, while 'silly' is just name-calling.

It seems to me that you're arguing the perspective of why someone might choose to vote no to Lisbon, whereas Scofflaw was arguing the perspective of why someone might exhort others to do so.

An individual can choose to vote yes or no for any reason they like.

Arguing that it is fair game, however, to hijack an issue to promote a second one...or to try and promote one issue by leveraging an unrelated one...that is basically saying that "dirty tactics are fair game".

Funnily, I don't see any side in the debate actually trying to argue that stance. Each want to complain about the other using such tactics...so while it may be reality that they are used, that doesn't make it an acceptable practice.

By arguing that its legitimate, you would be - in effect - saying that "anything which increases my chances of winning is fine". The problem is that this would hold true for both sides. Would you accept that anything that increases your chance of losing would also be fair game....this being the inextricable implication of such a position on a level playing field.

Sam Vimes

Kama wrote: »

I'll presume for the sake of politeness you are against protest votes in any and all situations, rather than merely in this specific; nevertheless protest voting is an established political phenomenon.

I wouldn't be against the entire idea of protest votes but a no vote to Lisbon will do far more damage to the country than it will to FF. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot. Besides which, they have nothing to do with this treaty. On the upcoming children's rights referendum will you vote no just to piss off the government?

me_right_one

I have been thinking about this for a while. I am now solidly convinced that right to vote should be soely based on intelligence.

Anyone who openly advocates a no vote to Lisbon should be banned from voting in anything for the rest of their lives, starting from before the Lisbon date. They obviously havent the capacity to make simple right v wrong or good v bad decisions. Then the ones who go on with this "dont know, vote no" crap or any other type of protest vote or "punish FF" sh1te should be psychiatrically evaluated and placed in a playschool or primary school suitable to their level to be "re-intelligized". Lesson 1: If you dont know, go and read the fcuking thing. For homework, start reading lord of the rings. You'll be finished Lisbon quicker.

someoneok

Forget about the figures which have been put out by all those liars and think about how much this farce NAMA is going to cost to administer. It's like a new money bubble for those rich types to have nice office jobs. They will all be on about 5k a week and to do what? Screw us over! Lisbon is very dangerous in it's own right. If ratified those legal guarantees mean nothing and many of the euro leaders have said this. The treaty we will be voting on is identical to the one we voted on last time.

These nice folk in the dail are and will never give you any kind of real truth as we just wouldn't understand. They do know best don't they! Do they work in their capacity as our representatives or are we working at their convenience? I fear it has become the latter! I have many question though. If No was not good enough the first time in this democratically due process under our constitution, why are we voting on this again. Is democracy dead? If so what can we look forward to in the future? Ferderal governance? Here is an interesting quote from wiki on states rights in regard to the American model which we will become akin to if ratified;There is a continuing debate over "states' rights", which concerns the extent and nature of the states' powers and sovereignty in relation to that of the federal government and their power over individuals.

Continuing debate sounds,in real terms to me like the people are pissed off that the federal government pokes it's nose into every aspect of citizens lives and there aint nothing they can do about it. It's enough with these muppets doing it but to have another group of vultures on top of that sound like a depression sentance I never ever want to see come to this pretty little island. I personally believe if we give away our sovereignty and the irish constitution which is one of the best globally, we are bringing headaches which will become irremovable forever for the future generations yet to come. These are the ones we have to think about, our progeny. Be brave and vote no. Don't be bullied.

They are also using Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) in those yes signs we see everywhere and if your not sure of what that is I recommend you get familiar with it. Many marketing businesses use this form of mind alteration to get victims to use their products and services they push onto the public.

someoneok

me_right_one wrote: »

I have been thinking about this for a while. I am now solidly convinced that right to vote should be soely based on intelligence.

Anyone who openly advocates a no vote to Lisbon should be banned from voting in anything for the rest of their lives, starting from before the Lisbon date. They obviously havent the capacity to make simple right v wrong or good v bad decisions. Then the ones who go on with this "dont know, vote no" crap or any other type of protest vote or "punish FF" sh1te should be psychiatrically evaluated and placed in a playschool or primary school suitable to their level to be "re-intelligized". Lesson 1: If you dont know, go and read the fcuking thing. For homework, start reading lord of the rings. You'll be finished Lisbon quicker.

My man Stalin,Hitler,Mao,Pol Pot and that gang of nastys would be so proud of you. So you probably believe in freedoms like Gulags and torture prisons. I'd say you had a happy childhood!

me_right_one

See above post. The arguement for right to vote based on intelligence just keeps getting stronger and stronger:rolleyes:

Mrmoe

me_right_one wrote: »

I have been thinking about this for a while. I am now solidly convinced that right to vote should be soely based on intelligence.

Anyone who openly advocates a no vote to Lisbon should be banned from voting in anything for the rest of their lives, starting from before the Lisbon date. They obviously havent the capacity to make simple right v wrong or good v bad decisions. Then the ones who go on with this "dont know, vote no" crap or any other type of protest vote or "punish FF" sh1te should be psychiatrically evaluated and placed in a playschool or primary school suitable to their level to be "re-intelligized". Lesson 1: If you dont know, go and read the fcuking thing. For homework, start reading lord of the rings. You'll be finished Lisbon quicker.

If it is that obvious then why should we have a No option on the ballot paper at all, in fact scrap that why should we even have a vote at all.Maybe we could put the No voters in concentration camps so that we can get them to concentrate and become "re-intelligized". Possibly we can get them to wear an arm band with 12 gold stars on a blue background so that we can easily identify them.

me_right_one

Mrmoe wrote: »

If it is that obvious then why should we have a No option on the ballot paper at all, in fact scrap that why should we even have a vote at all.Maybe we could put the No voters in concentration camps so that we can get them to concentrate and become "re-intelligized". Possibly we can get them to wear an arm band with 12 gold stars on a blue background so that we can easily identify them.

Keep talking. Good man

Mrmoe

me_right_one wrote: »

Keep talking. Good man

Can you elaborate a bit more, I do not comprehend (oh no, a 3 syllable word, my head hurts now, I better get some rest) :rolleyes:

Kama

Anyone who openly advocates a no vote to Lisbon should be banned from voting in anything for the rest of their lives, starting from before the Lisbon date.

Anti-democrats worldwide would, indeed, be proud of you. Lets put a property qualification in there too, perhaps Jim Crow had the right idea. As an aside, the main development for me from the entire Lisbon affair has been the upshot in support for anti-democratic rhetorics like this; much as the 'lies' keep Yessers 'hard', these attitudes keep me leaning No tbqfh.

SamVimes wrote:

I wouldn't be against the entire idea of protest votes but a no vote to Lisbon will do far more damage to the country than it will to FF.

Which is more of a tactical, cost-benefit approach than the principled objection I'm attributing to Scoff. As said, I'm unsure of its pragmatic efficacy, but neither am I convinced by the outright denial of the same.

Bonkey wrote:

Arguing that it is fair game, however, to hijack an issue to promote a second one...or to try and promote one issue by leveraging an unrelated one...that is basically saying that "dirty tactics are fair game".

Funnily, I don't see any side in the debate actually trying to argue that stance.

Theres the danger with realist thought of carrying a normative supplement, hence the demonization of Machiavelli for exposing the underbelly of politics as damaging to public morality. But Machiavelli's sin was not the techniques, but to have spoken of them 'openly'; like early atheism, it's important not to tell 'the help' so as to keep them 'honest'. So Irish Times push-polling is acceptable and unquestioned; as with Coir, or the pragmatic question here, the good ends is seen to hallow any means.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

I didn't say I like it, or that I consider it a good thing, I just happen to be of the opinion that politics is not a clean, rational affair which maps neatly onto elegant formal models of how people should behave, nor that the people who run campaigns think of electorates in this manner. I see it far more in terms of narrative, framing, dirty tricks, oppo-research and hatchet-jobs; as a map, it seems to correlate to the territory better. So Generation Yes doctor pictures of Trotsky to do some nice ad-homs on socialists, and Coir lie about the minimum wage.

If that makes me Machiavellian, I guess I'm guilty.

Eh, but we do have Trotsky "disciples" telling us how to vote but NAMA has absolutely nothing to do with Lisbon. Utterly different ballgames here, the former is a cheap slur against a minority opinion because holders of that opinion are trying to convince the majority to vote a particular way the latter is a complete fabrication.

me_right_one

Kama wrote: »

Anti-democrats worldwide would, indeed, be proud of you. Lets put a property qualification in there too, perhaps Jim Crow had the right idea. As an aside, the main development for me from the entire Lisbon affair has been the upshot in support for anti-democratic rhetorics like this; much as the 'lies' keep Yessers 'hard', these attitudes keep me leaning No tbqfh.

See? This is what I'm talking about. With an average to reasonable level of intelligence, one can sense "sarcasm". You know, that communicative tool people use to demonstrate a point using reverse psychology? If you didnt sense the sarcasm in that post (post 78), dont bother reading the rest of this one. Dont. Just, just move on.

Anyone who took from my post that I seriously meant we should remove the right to vote from certain, life challenged people, and then send them back to school, must themselves be so challenged. If thats you, should you be voting on something so important? Do you really feel you have the capacity to comprehend what you're voting on, and the outcomes of a Y or N vote?

If you took from my post that there are some gobsh1tes out there that havent a clue, and think its ok to vote no to Lisbon for any reason OTHER than whats in the treaty, eg. voting no because of abortion, losing soverignty, taxes, a euro-army, (none of which is ever mentiomed in the treaty, for those who didnt read it), or comparing Yes advocaters to hitler, voting no to stop NAMA, to punish the government etc., well then you understood what I said. How irresponsible for anyone to vote against Lisbon:mad:

Kama

nesf wrote:

Utterly different ballgames here, the former is a cheap slur against a minority opinion because holders of that opinion are trying to convince the majority to vote a particular way the latter is a complete fabrication.

The difference seems to me more of scale than type; assuming cynicism rather than honest mistake, we are talking about organized attempts to deceive a public, for political-pragmatic effect; to use the pejorative, Machiavellian propaganda, or to use the current nomenclature, public relations.

It's quite possible the photo is an honestly amateurish bungle rather than a 'complete fabrication' used to attempt to discredit a political tendency; similarly the 1.84 could be a cynical attempt at a 'big lie', or an honest misinterpretation of the minimum wage law and the extent of the ECJ's freedom of action. Scale, not substance.

me_right_one wrote:

Dont. Just, just move on.

Given that the tone and content in your 'sarcastic' and more recent posts appear identical, I think I will.

me_right_one

Kama wrote: »

Given that the tone and content in your 'sarcastic' and more recent posts appear identical, I think I will.

Good. They are identical because its still retarded to use your Lisbon vote to try put a stop to NAMA.

nesf

Kama wrote: »

The difference seems to me more of scale than type; assuming cynicism rather than honest mistake, we are talking about organized attempts to deceive a public, for political-pragmatic effect; to use the pejorative, Machiavellian propaganda, or to use the current nomenclature, public relations.

It's quite possible the photo is an honestly amateurish bungle rather than a 'complete fabrication' used to attempt to discredit a political tendency; similarly the 1.84 could be a cynical attempt at a 'big lie', or an honest misinterpretation of the minimum wage law and the extent of the ECJ's freedom of action. Scale, not substance.

If the 1.84 was an honest mistake would we not have a statement from Cóir explaining how that poster is wrong? Joe Higgins I believe made an honest mistake, or at least had the class to withdraw the claims after the typo was discovered.

Any linking of NAMA to Lisbon is deceiving the public, pure and simple. Exactly the same can be said for anyone telling people to vote No to get FF kicked out of Government. It's either due to incompetence or a willingness to use any **** or dirt possible to bring down a document. Either is something we could do without in Irish Politics.

SkepticOne

There seems to be two objections to the proposal that voting one way or the other can bring about political change other than merely the ratification or non-ratification of the treaty.

The first is that you should vote on the treaty alone as that is what you are being asked to do. The second is objection is not that it is wrong morally but that it is unlikely to bring about those changes.

I think the first objection we can thow out since most of the arguments one way or another all along have involved matters outside the immediate text of the treaty. For example, very few Yes advocates would argue that a rejection of the treaty will simply mean that the treaty not ratified.