Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Reasons to vote NO to Lisbon

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Tarobot wrote: »
    1. Why? It isn't unconstitutional and it has happened 3 times already in the history of the Irish state.

    2. Well look, it isn't as if you haven't had enough time to look it up. The Referendum Commission website has a 30-minute guide. Go there now. And if at the end of the day you don't feel you understand it, PLEASE don't vote.

    3. None of the money spent on posters was public money. I'm sure the Irish poster industry and their employees are very happy about it.

    I don't believe this statement to be true. I read that European money was used for posters for the YES side. Where did the YES side get the money for their posters??
    I mean, I've heard enough accusations as to the illegitimate sources of funds for NO posters. Anyone know??


    Vote NO to Lisbon, and YES to Jobs. :)



    All my friends are voting NO. A BIG FAT NO!!!!!!!


  • Options
    #63
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    joseph brand wrote: »
    I don't believe this statement to be true.
    That would be illegal


  • Options
    #64
    Mikefitzs
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Mikefitzs


    Mikefitzs wrote: »
    Did our commisioner do anything to help keep Dell jobs in Limerick from moving to Poland?
    We need to get our farmers and fishermen back to work and not have them getting payments to park their tractors and boats. Can voting yes do this?
    How will jobs be created if we vote yes?

    I put these in here as reasons to vote no.
    Our commisioner has done nothing for the mid west where I live.
    A yes vote will keep our farmers parked and our fishermen docked.
    We are already in the EU, Most our manufacturing jobs were created back in the 50's and 60's by US companies before we joined the EU.
    Vote NO to ensure that Irelands future is not further undermined by the selfishness of the big powers in Europe.

    Just a passenger



  • Options
    #65
    sirmoff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22 ✭sirmoff


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    A last minute convert \o/

    Not converted yet, but your helping things! ;)


  • Options
    #66
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    sirmoff wrote: »
    Not converted yet, but your helping things! ;)

    Then keep them coming. What else is troubling you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    A last minute convert \o/

    Sam really has been doing his upmost in thread hopping to sway voters. Seems a bit suspect to me. He must have the most posts per Lisbon thread on boards. Is Sam really Brian Cowen??? :rolleyes:

    Big deal, I'll just drive my 2 people who dont wanna walk to polling station, in my car, and make them vote NO. (Democracry Arab style) :D


    NO NO,
    NO NO NO NO,
    THERES'S NO LISBON!!! (2 Unlimited)


  • Options
    #68
    Nulty
    Registered Users Posts: 7,838 ✭✭✭Nulty


    If he's not our commisioner, why is it a reason to vote yes to keep 'him' if he is not acting on our behalf? Thats been a staple arguement from the yes side


  • Options
    #69
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That would be illegal


    Doesn't mean it didnt happen. Oh wait, illegal business never happens. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #70
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Mikefitzs wrote: »
    I put these in here as reasons to vote no.
    Our commisioner has done nothing for the mid west where I live.
    A yes vote will keep our farmers parked and our fishermen docked.
    We are already in the EU, Most our manufacturing jobs were created back in the 50's and 60's by US companies before we joined the EU.
    Vote NO to ensure that Irelands future is not further undermined by the selfishness of the big powers in Europe.


    And don't give that little creep Sarkozy a chance to undermine the tax relief Ireland uses to attract business.


  • Options
    #71
    Mikefitzs
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Mikefitzs


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Again, he's not our commissioner, he's one of many EU commissioners. It's up to our government and our MEPs to represent us.

    I don't know but I know that voting no can't


    It's only an opinion but a yes vote creates confidence and a no vote creates uncertainty about the future of Europe. Recovery is built on confidence and recessions are built on uncertainty

    If he's not our commisioner why are the yes side insisting that we have a commisioner? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    If you don't know then you can't give an answer.

    I was full sure we had loads of confidence all the way along to 2008 and then suddenly Recession, so over confidence can also cause recession.

    We joined the EEC in the 70's and had a massive recession 10 years later. Going forward with this treaty will not secure Irelands future.
    Only the Irish government can do that by looking at ways of getting the Irish economy moving locally not just by waiting for multi nationals to run up to the front door offering jobs.

    Just a passenger



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    sirmoff
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22 ✭sirmoff


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Then keep them coming. What else is troubling you?

    Im just going to sit back and observe the comments on here! :cool:
    The government in my opinion went the wrong way about getting us to vote yes! The people's current confidence problem with the government is not helping things on their part. That is they're problem.
    However,
    The no side dont seem to have a legitimate arguement. Libertas are not transparent.
    With most parties involved in the no campaign there appears to be a hidden agenda or its just that they are saying no to rebel against the establishment!


  • Options
    #73
    akaredtop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 182 ✭✭akaredtop


    BRIAN COWEN, RODDY MOLLOY, SEAN FITZPATRICK. NEED I GO ON?


  • Options
    #74
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Nulty wrote: »
    If he's not our commisioner, why is it a reason to vote yes to keep 'him' if he is not acting on our behalf? Thats been a staple arguement from the yes side

    There is the argument that even though commissioners aren't meant to represent their country, they kind of do anyway which makes sense. An awful lot of people think this way and it was a big reason for the last no vote so this change that they got will hopefully sway those who voted on that issue the last time.


    The other issues that have been addressed: abortion, corporate tax, neutrality, conscription and workers rights were never actually effected by the treaty but a lot of people thought they were because of a few determined groups who kept lying about those issues. So the government got legally binding guarantees that those issues weren't effected by the treaty in the hopes of swaying those people. Unfortunately the same liars who said that the treaty effected those things are now saying the guarantees aren't binding when they quite clearly are :(

    Also, if any of these issues are effecting your vote, they're lies too:
    €200 billion in fisheries
    €1.84 minimum wage
    Forcing us to engage in military action in a terrorist attack
    European superstate
    Abortion
    gay marriage
    EUthanasia
    Death penalty
    Massive conspiracy to pretend the guarantees are binding
    Treaty is unreadable
    Treaty is designed to be unreadable
    Corrupt surveys to make up fake issues and pretend to address them
    Ratification through parliament in other countries is somehow undemocratic or unusual
    EU "didn't allow" other countres to have referendums
    Keep voting until you give the right answer
    Ryanair allowed buy Aer Lingus in exchange for the campaign
    Rigged polls to make it look like the yes side are ahead
    Lisbon allows Turkish accession (with fake video)
    Lisbon makes EU law superior to Irish law
    Losing the right to referendums
    We will no longer have a constitution in Ireland
    Self-amending and escalator clause
    Privatisation of healthcare and education
    More military spending
    Lavelle case could happen here
    Charter of human rights allows the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
    Voting weight halved
    QMV is brand new
    Loss of veto in all areas
    Allows EU to raise our corporation tax
    Conscription into a non-existent EU army
    EU commission diverted €10 million to yes campaign
    Treaty is the same as the constitution dressed up to avoid referendums
    Fake polls made up by Coir
    2nd vote undemocratic. (The reasons that many people voted no have been addressed and the supreme court has ruled that it's not)


  • Options
    #75
    Mikefitzs
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Mikefitzs


    Nulty wrote: »
    If he's not our commisioner, why is it a reason to vote yes to keep 'him' if he is not acting on our behalf? Thats been a staple arguement from the yes side

    Good man Nulty we have them now:D

    Just a passenger



  • Options
    #76
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    akaredtop wrote: »
    BRIAN COWEN, RODDY MOLLOY, SEAN FITZPATRICK. NEED I GO ON?

    Yes we need a general election right now! Do you have an opinion on the lisbon treaty?


  • Options
    #77
    Thanos
    Registered Users Posts: 1,389 ✭✭✭Thanos


    Interesting read this thread.

    There seems a lot of negativity towards Europe but being part of Europe over the past number of years has helped Ireland no end.
    We have got a lot in the way of grants and I believe it has helped us attract foreign investment.

    The more i read the more i think it pushes me towards a YES!


  • Options
    #78
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    sirmoff wrote: »
    Im just going to sit back and observe the comments on here! :cool:
    The government in my opinion went the wrong way about getting us to vote yes! The people's current confidence problem with the government is not helping things on their part. That is they're problem.
    However,
    That's totally true. I ignore the government, they're as useless at this as they are at everything else.
    sirmoff wrote: »
    The no side dont seem to have a legitimate arguement. Libertas are not transparent.
    With most parties involved in the no campaign there appears to be a hidden agenda or its just that they are saying no to rebel against the establishment!
    Also true. Take a look at the voting history of the main no campaigners:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61254481&postcount=740


  • Options
    #79
    Nulty
    Registered Users Posts: 7,838 ✭✭✭Nulty


    Sam, can you think of ANY reason to vote no? Is there ANYTHING in the treaty you disagree with or have reservations about?


  • Options
    #80
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm not sure if it would be the commission, the European council, the council of ministers or the parliament tbh. Probably a mixture of all four depending on the issue. Only the commission is unelected btw



    The Nice treaty states that the size of the commission must be "less than the number of member states". Lisbon defined this as a rotating system of 18 commissioners but they have agreed not to do that if we vote yes (because the guarantees only apply if we vote yes). The size of the commission must reduce by at least one.

    They're reducing the size because the commission is bloated and ineffective. He's not "our" commissioner, the commissioners represent EU interests, not their country's. This concession we got because of Libertas lying to us to say that it was Lisbon that reduced the size of the commission is kind of a step back

    ...well, if the size of the Commission has to be reduced, surely the best thing would be a smaller commission that is elected by the EU people - such a commission could still have a president (maybe a rotating one every year - eligibility for president would be based on popular vote at the time of the previous commissioner elections). Eligibility for commission candidates could be rotational for all countries. One way to reduce localised politics would be to disallow any elector from choosing a candidate from his/her own country - each candidate would get an equal allocation from the EU for campaigning purposes - no other donations (even in kind donations) would be allowed. Breaches of such rules (on donations) in any capacity should be punishable with a 10 year prison sentence - no ifs or buts. Also, a straight past the post system of election should be used instead of proportional representation.

    Regards!


  • Options
    #81
    smokingman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,747 ✭✭✭smokingman


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Sam really has been doing his upmost in thread hopping to sway voters. Seems a bit suspect to me. He must have the most posts per Lisbon thread on boards. Is Sam really Brian Cowen??? :rolleyes:

    Actually, he's been a shining light in exposing the lies posted here by ignorant scaremongers and foreign marketing teams.

    I salute you Sam! :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Nulty wrote: »
    Sam, can you think of ANY reason to vote no? Is there ANYTHING in the treaty you disagree with or have reservations about?

    I have reservations about the increased move to QMV because not having a veto is kind of scary but I looked into it and I think overall QMV is more democratic, more efficient and is specifically designed to prevent a few big countries overpowering the small ones. Basically it's fine. I wrote a big post about it here:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62307115&postcount=3171

    The top half is about something else, read from "Now onto QMV :)"


  • Options
    #83
    --Kaiser--
    Registered Users Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭--Kaiser--


    I like the way most of the people here on the 'Yes' side seem to say 'If you don't know, don't vote', whereas what I've heard from a lot of 'No' campaigners is 'If you don't no, vote no!'


  • Options
    #84
    Mikefitzs
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Mikefitzs


    I think I've changed my mind.
    Maybe if I vote yes I will be able to protect myself in my own home, just a thought. Maybe going forward with Europe would be a good thing. If we are governed by outsiders surely we will be better off that with our own government.

    What do you think Sam, you might have a convert but not on the way the treaty is written.

    Just a passenger



  • Options
    #85
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    ...well, if the size of the Commission has to be reduced, surely the best thing would be a smaller commission that is elected by the EU people - such a commission could still have a president (maybe a rotating one every year - eligibility for president would be based on popular vote at the time of the previous commissioner elections). Eligibility for commission candidates could be rotational for all countries. One way to reduce localised politics would be to disallow any elector from choosing a candidate from his/her own country - each candidate would get an equal allocation from the EU for campaigning purposes - no other donations (even in kind donations) would be allowed. Breaches of such rules (on donations) in any capacity should be punishable with a 10 year prison sentence - no ifs or buts. Also, a straight past the post system of election should be used instead of proportional representation.

    Regards!

    The councils and the parliament are elected. The commission are not elected specifically so they can be impartial and look after EU interests. If they were elected by the Irish people they would have to serve the Irish people over all others and that's not their job


  • Options
    #86
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Mikefitzs wrote: »
    I think I've changed my mind.
    Maybe if I vote yes I will be able to protect myself in my own home, just a thought. Maybe going forward with Europe would be a good thing. If we are governed by outsiders surely we will be better off that with our own government.

    What do you think Sam, you might have a convert but not on the way the treaty is written.

    We won't be governed by outsiders though. Some of our decisions are made in cooperation with other countries. We still have a say


  • Options
    #87
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    Nulty wrote: »
    Sam, can you think of ANY reason to vote no? Is there ANYTHING in the treaty you disagree with or have reservations about?

    ...well yes, there are no guarantees as we were promised - there are only clarifications on a treaty which I heard is subject to change - like a self amending treaty? (anyone with further info on this?). Also, read the constitutional amendment itself - it has two re-assertions of Irish neutrality, but between such, there is Subsection 6 - Section 4 - Article 29 which states that no provision of our constitution can prevent any part of any EU treaty becoming law in this country - well, at least that is what I understand - can anyone clarify this?

    Regards!


  • Options
    #88
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    ...well yes, there are no guarantees as we were promised
    Not true
    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    - there are only clarifications on a treaty which I heard is subject to change -
    Not true
    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    like a self amending treaty?
    Not true
    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    Also, read the constitutional amendment itself - it has two re-assertions of Irish neutrality, but between such, there is Subsection 6 - Section 4 - Article 29 which states that no provision of our constitution can prevent any part of any EU treaty becoming law in this country - well, at least that is what I understand - can anyone clarify this?

    Regards!
    Firstly it's been there since 1973 and was a requirement of us joining because there's no point signing a treaty if we can make laws and cancel it out and secondly it doesn't mean we don't have any say, it just means that once we agree to something we've agreed to it and can't make a law on our own to overrule it. Basically we can't go back on our word

    Read more here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland


  • Options
    #89
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    ...well yes, there are no guarantees as we were promised - there are only clarifications on a treaty which I heard is subject to change - like a self amending treaty? (anyone with further info on this?). Also, read the constitutional amendment itself - it has two re-assertions of Irish neutrality, but between such, there is Subsection 6 - Section 4 - Article 29 which states that no provision of our constitution can prevent any part of any EU treaty becoming law in this country - well, at least that is what I understand - can anyone clarify this?

    Regards!

    Hi there,

    On self-amendment:
    This is referring to Article 48 which allows a mechanism for the treaties to be changed without convening an intergovernmental conference and writing a formal new treaty. Where any changes come through this mechanism they must be ratified by every member state 'in accordance with their constitutional requirements. In Ireland this means that if the EU is granted any new power by the member states, or any increase in existing power our constitution demands we have a referendum.

    On the primacy of EU law:
    Here is the existing article 29.4.10°:
    No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.
    http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm

    Look familiar? It's been there since 1973.


  • Options
    #90
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    Protect ourselves from the forced vaccinations and cumpulsory H1N1 / virus implantible microchips. :eek:

    he he he. This cheered me up. Those EU feckers always implanting someone.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Gone Drinking
    Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭Gone Drinking


    Someone in work told me this morning, the reason he's voting No is because if it went ahead, it would mean companies in Poland (just an example he gave) could open operations here, and pay their staff here what they are paid in Poland. Meaning they could undercut Irish companys in tenders and what not..

    Any truth in this?


Advertisement