I'm voting 'no' for one reason only...

StealthRolex · 11-09-2009 9:25pm

meglome wrote: »

He he he hang on now. How is suggesting that the pollsters were paid to achieve a desired result not alleging something?

They collect data. The data goes on a form. If they receive data that does not have a place on the form it goes into "Other" with a comment or a "Don't know". Difficult enough with a posted paper form and with a face-to-face a lot depends on how the question is phrased.

With a diversity of reasons they need to be collated, DE's validated, verified and eventually crunched into something meaningful.

The client will already have specified a protocol and outlined the nature of the information he wishes to collect or what he wants to find out.

It all goes into a big machine where SAS programmers and statisticians and then out comes the answer.

You get me the raw data and I'll confirm or retract.

I've enough experience with getting drugs that have marginal effect approved to know that it's all in the data and how it is presented.

Example:

Interviewee: I voted against because of "Reason A"

Interviewer: that's not on my list

Interviewee: my FF TD told me about this and said it was in the treaty and I disagreed with it.

interviewer: Hmm - it's not on my list or in the treaty text. That'll have to be a "didn't understand" so. I'll note the actual reason too.

back in the machine and a lot of legitimate reasons become a "didn't understand" because the survey protocol was flawed. Easily done. No corruption just bad planning.

IMS were just doing their job

Sam Vimes · 11-09-2009 9:27pm

edenbridge146 wrote: »

Your the one who doesn't understand.
It is a fact that abortion, neutrality and tax 'exemptions' will go ahead, once the Lisbon treaty goes ahead. All the other countries would start jumping on the wagon, stating what they want as 'exemptions' too, but they know they are not legally binding. FACT

Ah right, so you're one of the many who has no idea what the treaty's about. Right so

Btw, putting the word fact in capitals doesn't make it a fact. It being true makes it a fact and that's not

aftermn · 11-09-2009 9:28pm

Like Brian, I haven't read the complete treaty document. I read a little and found I would have to read a lot of other stuff reffered to in the treaty.

For me it isn't really about tax, or abortion, or militarism, or especially a 'job for the boys' commissioner. It's about trust. Do I trust our politicians and believe what they tell me. Do I trust the politicians of Europe and believe what they tell me? Don't know yet, but they are not doing well at the moment and O'Donoghue, FAS etc are making things worse.

Please don't vote yes out of fear. If anything threats are a good reason to vote no.

meglome · 11-09-2009 9:29pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

They collect data. The data goes on a form. If they receive data that does not have a place on the form it goes into "Other" with a comment or a "Don't know". Difficult enough with a posted paper form and with a face-to-face a lot depends on how the question is phrased.

With a diversity of reasons they need to be collated, DE's validated, verified and eventually crunched into something meaningful.

The client will already have specified a protocol and outlined the nature of the information he wishes to collect or what he wants to find out.

It all goes into a big machine where SAS programmers and statisticians and then out comes the answer.

You get me the raw data and I'll confirm or retract.

I've enough experience with getting drugs that have marginal effect approved to know that it's all in the data and how it is presented.

Example:

Interviewee: I voted against because of "Reason A"

Interviewer: that's not on my list

Interviewee: my FF TD told me about this and said it was in the treaty and I disagreed with it.

interviewer: Hmm - it's not on my list or in the treaty text. That'll have to be a "didn't understand" so. I'll note the actual reason too.

back in the machine and a lot of legitimate reasons become a "didn't understand" because the survey protocol was flawed. Easily done. No corruption just bad planning.

IMS were just doing their job

Ah so it's bad planning now. These top international pollsters obviously don't have a clue thanks for explaining that. :rolleyes:

Halla Basin · 11-09-2009 9:32pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

Agreed

I've no problem with the treaty, but the crap I see on posters especially from FG confirms my status of not voting again.

Across the N11 there is posters from FG saying "vote YES for recovery"
"Vote YES for jobs"

I bet the UK and Spain are glad they approved the treaty so they wouldnt have record unemployment........ oh wait......

Latvia must feel great approving it also so their didnt have to call in the IMF for a bailout...... hmmmm I think I did it again

Its not an economic treaty!
But FG are tying the approval of the treaty to economic recovery which wont happen.

I hate the NO side for their lies, but I hate the YES side more for theirs because these people should hold themselves to a higher standard.

uh-oh, looks like we have a retard... The Lisbon Treaty had no effect on the economies of the UK, Spain and Latvia because it hasn't been passed yet because of retarded Irish voters.

And I'll grant you that maybe a Yes vote won't be necessarily extremely good for the economy (Even though it probably will be a great help), but it's the fact that a No vote would be very, very bad indeed.

So yeah. Don't be a retard.

aftermn wrote: »

Like Brian, I haven't read the complete treaty document. I read a little and found I would have to read a lot of other stuff reffered to in the treaty.

For me it isn't really about tax, or abortion, or militarism, or especially a 'job for the boys' commissioner. It's about trust. Do I trust our politicians and believe what they tell me. Do I trust the politicians of Europe and believe what they tell me? Don't know yet, but they are not doing well at the moment and O'Donoghue, FAS etc are making things worse.

Please don't vote yes out of fear. If anything threats are a good reason to vote no.

...

...

*Reassures self that a procedure for aborting embryos with the retard gene is just around the corner*

StealthRolex · 11-09-2009 9:33pm

meglome wrote: »

Ah so it's bad planning now. These top international pollsters obviously don't have a clue thanks for explaining that. :rolleyes:

I think you missed the bit about the client's protocol.

Also the bit about the diversity of reasons not having a place on the form.

**** happens.

What did their last poll before Lisbon 1 say?

**** happens.

Sam Vimes · 11-09-2009 9:33pm

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think it is just a little naive to think that the reason people voted no the last time was because they didn't understand it. That was the reason that was presented to raise the option for a second run.

Jesus tap dancing christ man it's not naive. Two independent unbiased surveys were done and the no voters themselves overwhelmingly said they didn't understand it. Are you accusing both the independent EU survey and Milward Brown of corruption?

And could you please tell me what the government would have to gain by deliberately not addressing people's issues before running the referendum again? If no one's issues were addressed how could there possibly be anything but another no?

And what were those issues? People keep telling me their issues weren't addressed but when I ask what they are they invariably list a load of things t.au have nothing to do with the treaty and when I point that out they slink away

edenbridge146 · 11-09-2009 9:35pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah right, so you're one of the many who has no idea what the treaty's about. Right so

Btw, putting the word fact in capitals doesn't make it a fact. It being true makes it a fact and that's not

Really?? Putting letters in capitals doesn't make it a fact?
OMG. Now having a go at punctuation.

So if the Yes vote had been approved last time, (as per previous posts above, that voter's didn't know what they were voting for) we'd be given a Lisbon 2!!! Don't think so. Wake up

Sam Vimes · 11-09-2009 9:37pm

aftermn wrote: »

For me it isn't really about tax, or abortion, or militarism, or especially a 'job for the boys' commissioner. It's about trust. Do I trust our politicians and believe what they tell me. Do I trust the politicians of Europe and believe what they tell me? Don't know yet, but they are not doing well at the moment and O'Donoghue, FAS etc are making things worse.

Please don't vote yes out of fear. If anything threats are a good reason to vote no.

Surely if you're voting no because you don't trust the politicians you're voting no out of fear? Is that better?

Btw, www.lisbontreaty2009.ie, unbiased treaty information

Halla Basin · 11-09-2009 9:41pm

sdonn wrote: »

Have to say the OP has a very fair point. the government deserve to be punished for their shocking, shocking attitude to just about everything the last year. I LOL'ed when I saw the government information leaflet. One double-sided sheet of A4, half of which was Irish and half what was left were bright pictures. Laughable.

Voting No won't do punish the government though. Well, it might contribute - but anyone who thinks Cowen will just buckle straight out of office is sadly mistaken.

Punishing the government is simply not a justifiable reason for voting no.

I'm still undecided, that said. My sig was NO, then Yes, no not at all because I really don't know. We're screwed if we don't, screwed if we do. That's no way to be, and faced with that choice keeping things as we know them is marginally more attractive. I don't have ludicrous visions of us being tossed out of the EU and making a good go of it on our own, but I do think the EU as an organisation has well overstepped its original remit to a frankly ridiculous and simply moronic extent. Each country and culture is different (although we could do with aboloshing some of our own) and there are things the EU has really no bloody business in, the same things for which the EU role will only be strengthened by this treaty.

Add all this to the fact we've already been bloody well asked and said no, and our decision, accoring to the goverment (back on topic, sorry) just wasn't good enough for their stupid stubborn minds to comprehend.

I really do believe the only reason to vote yes is because if we don't we'll be ousted "to the margins" as An Taoiseach put it. And whole that scares me, and makes me want to vote yes, I object and am saddened that we are in effect being forced or pressurised to vote yes for this reason.

Now, I think you may not actually be retarded. And that's sad because the stuff you're saying is quite retarded indeed. Just goes to show how anyone can be poisoned by retarded crap.

Sam Vimes · 11-09-2009 9:42pm

edenbridge146 wrote: »

Really?? Putting letters in capitals doesn't make it a fact?
OMG. Now having a go at punctuation.

So if the Yes vote had been approved last time, (as per previous posts above, that voter's didn't know what they were voting for) we'd be given a Lisbon 2!!! Don't think so. Wake up

I was talking about the legally binding nature of the guarantees and said nothing about a second vote if yes had passed. I think you need to wake up tbh

StealthRolex · 11-09-2009 9:42pm

edenbridge146 wrote: »

So if the Yes vote had been approved last time, (as per previous posts above, that voter's didn't know what they were voting for) we'd be given a Lisbon 2!!! Don't think so. Wake up

Actually that's a really interesting point.

If all the "don't knows" last time had voted Yes because they were scared they would lose their jobs or be excluded from Europe would it have been a valid poll?

In law yes, but morally?

I like that - how may Yes votes were "don't knows" that became " I'm afraid to vote No just in case"

I guess the reason we are voting again is to be sure to be sure (groan)

FutureTaoiseach · 11-09-2009 9:46pm

sdonn wrote: »

Have to say the OP has a very fair point. the government deserve to be punished for their shocking, shocking attitude to just about everything the last year. I LOL'ed when I saw the government information leaflet. One double-sided sheet of A4, half of which was Irish and half what was left were bright pictures. Laughable.

Voting No won't do punish the government though. Well, it might contribute - but anyone who thinks Cowen will just buckle straight out of office is sadly mistaken.

Punishing the government is simply not a justifiable reason for voting no.

I'm still undecided, that said. My sig was NO, then Yes, no not at all because I really don't know. We're screwed if we don't, screwed if we do. That's no way to be, and faced with that choice keeping things as we know them is marginally more attractive. I don't have ludicrous visions of us being tossed out of the EU and making a good go of it on our own, but I do think the EU as an organisation has well overstepped its original remit to a frankly ridiculous and simply moronic extent. Each country and culture is different (although we could do with aboloshing some of our own) and there are things the EU has really no bloody business in, the same things for which the EU role will only be strengthened by this treaty.

Add all this to the fact we've already been bloody well asked and said no, and our decision, accoring to the goverment (back on topic, sorry) just wasn't good enough for their stupid stubborn minds to comprehend.

I really do believe the only reason to vote yes is because if we don't we'll be ousted "to the margins" as An Taoiseach put it. And whole that scares me, and makes me want to vote yes, I object and am saddened that we are in effect being forced or pressurised to vote yes for this reason.

Were France and Holland "pushed to the margins" after they voted no? Were Denmark and Sweden when they rejected the euro? No.

StealthRolex · 11-09-2009 10:02pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Jesus tap dancing christ man it's not naive. Two independent unbiased surveys were done and the no voters themselves overwhelmingly said they didn't understand it. Are you accusing both the independent EU survey and Milward Brown of corruption?

And could you please tell me what the government would have to gain by deliberately not addressing people's issues before running the referendum again? If no one's issues were addressed how could there possibly be anything but another no?

And what were those issues? People keep telling me their issues weren't addressed but when I ask what they are they invariably list a load of things t.au have nothing to do with the treaty and when I point that out they slink away

I am not accusing anyone of corruption. I said "maybe". How about "maybe they made some data errors" or " maybe the interviewees or a proportion of them did not actually cast a vote". However I am prepared to accuse the government of incompetence. And it is very easy to get dirty data, particulary with a treaty as complex as this.

I don't know but then again there are lots of things the government has not been addressing in recent years.

Say, for example I was a survey interviewee.

They ask me why. I say - because the text is not easily read.
They say - so you didn't understand it then.
I say - I didn't say that, I said it was not readable. I want a treaty that is readable. Could you not present the amended treaties as new treaties instead of presenting this list of amendments. Besides I don't like the bit on self amending. Or the changes in competencies. Or the High Representative.
They say. We'll put you down as a "didn't understand" then.
I say: No, put me down as "wants different treaty"
They say: sorry, not an available option.

Do you not know how these surveys are conducted?

BTW those were my hypothetical reasons then. My reasons now are based on the changes in democracy and council voting and the Yes camp lies about jobs and recovery and all the stuff the yes camp uses that is not described in the treaty.

sdanseo · 11-09-2009 10:05pm

Halla Basin wrote: »

Now, I think you may not actually be retarded. And that's sad because the stuff you're saying is quite retarded indeed. Just goes to show how anyone can be poisoned by retarded crap.

Post reported.

Care to enlighten me as to what parts are so retarded and why they are same please, and substantiate your statement rather than simply slandering me?

I react very badly to people calling names in serious forum, especially without any apparent reason.

Flamed Diving · 11-09-2009 10:14pm

I'm voting YES, just because I'm sick of being asked.

Plotician · 12-09-2009 1:14am

If the 'didn't understand it' argument is valid then surely we need another poll before the next referendum to make sure people understand it this time? else the possibility of groundhog day?

In fact does anyone want to start a thread on boards.ie - "Do you understand the Lisbon Treaty?".

Lets just have simple yes or no responses - if there are too many no's then the referendum should really be postponed.

ghost_ie · 12-09-2009 1:37am

IrishGooner83 wrote: »

Cutting your nose off to spite your face....

This is a vote thats bigger than the squabble politics of Ireland. A 'No' vote for the simple reason of just sticking it to the Govt will come back and bite this country in the proverbial ass....

There's a reason why EVERY mainstream political party and industry/trade organisation is advocating a Yes vote. EU membership has had a massive positive effect on this country. We either want to be part of Europe or we dont.... Or hey we can leave Europe and go down the route of Iceland and be a political and economic 'island' in all senses of the word.

Read the documentation. Make the effort yourself and become informed. A No vote would have hugely negative reprecussions for Ireland on the international stage.

Voting No is anyones choice. But be informed and dont just Vote No as you think your shafting the Government.... Because really you'll just end up shafting yourself and everyone else when we have to clean up the mess afterwards.

EU membership has a positive effect on this country except in the case of our fisheries industry, Spanish boats can now net more fish from our waters than we can, and we have the ludicrous policy of dumping fish which we were not allowed to catch overboard dead.

I will be voting no (again) on October 2nd not because I want to shaft the government but because I object to the way the EU is destroying our fishermen and farmers.

meglome · 12-09-2009 5:37am

ghost_ie wrote: »

EU membership has a positive effect on this country except in the case of our fisheries industry, Spanish boats can now net more fish from our waters than we can, and we have the ludicrous policy of dumping fish which we were not allowed to catch overboard dead.

I looked it up and foreign boats have taken more fish out of Irish waters than the Irish boats have. Although the share the Irish boats take has steadily risen since we joined the EU. The total value of the catch landed by the foreign boats is about 4.7 billion euro since 1973. (Click show tabular data).

And as for our farmers, the EU props them up. To suggest the EU is screwing them is bull****. Irish farmers 71% reliant on subsidies

Now the EU have given us 41 billion euro for free since 1973 (Page 19). I don't seem to be seeing the 'screwing' here.

ghost_ie wrote: »

I will be voting no (again) on October 2nd not because I want to shaft the government but because I object to the way the EU is destroying our fishermen and farmers.

So I assume you'll be voting Yes then?

FutureTaoiseach · 12-09-2009 5:51am

meglome wrote: »

I looked it up and foreign boats have taken more fish out of Irish waters than the Irish boats have. Although the share the Irish boats take has steadily risen since we joined the EU. The total value of the catch landed by the foreign boats is about 4.7 billion euro since 1973. (Click show tabular data).

The recorded catch?

The recorded and actual catch are not one and the same.

The Irish Fishermen's Organisation insists that €200 billion is the figure.

RISH-CAUGHT seafood must be labelled as such to protect the marine industry, the Irish Fishermen’s Organisation (IFO) has said.

Minister of State for Fisheries Tony Killeen must also move to “decriminalise” fishermen if the indigenous industry is to offer a viable economic alternative in the current recession, the IFO has said.

“Irish consumers have a right to choice and to buy Irish fish where possible in order to protect our industry,” said IFO representative Caitlín Uí Aodha, one of the State’s first female skippers to qualify several decades ago.

“The amount of fish now being imported through our airports is almost as big as the catch Irish boats are landing. We believe that most Irish consumers would be glad to purchase Irish fish if given the choice through proper labeling,” she has said.

The Irish fishing industry “has, over the last 36 years, been very poorly served by Irish governments and Europe,” she said, and it was time that administrative sanctions, as favoured by the EU, were initiated by the Government.

The current system of criminal sanctions was tightened by former minister for the marine Noel Dempsey.

“It is a known fact that most fish landed in La Coruna in Spain is taken from Irish waters with little or no inspections taking place, as the number of Spanish fishery officers is minimal. This compares to almost one fishery officer per boat in Ireland.

“EU member states have taken up to €200 billion worth of fish from Irish waters since accession,” Ms Uí Aodha said.

“We get only 4 per cent of Europe’s quota in our own waters while countries like France are allowed to take six to seven times that amount in quota. We now face further restrictive regulations from Europe in the guise of cod protection as they try to find ingenious ways of closing our fisheries down,” she said.

joseph brand · 12-09-2009 6:09am

I can understand users here wondering why people don't go read the treaty? But it can be tough reading for normal folks. A lot of blah blah blah, waffle waffle.

I have read the 10 'REAL' reasons to vote yes to Lisbon list compiled by Sink, thanks very much Sink.

Maybe the reason that the actual changes the Treaty of Lisbon makes garner so little attention is due to the fact that they are pretty mundane

Taken from footnote.

Absolutely correct, nothing has stood out enough to catch anyones attention and cause them to delight in voting yes for any good reason. All we hear is "Just vote YES, its good", or "Vote NO, be afraid, Woooooh".

This will confuse and then aggravate voters, some of whom will feel the need to vote NO in protest.

Maybe our politicians have let us down, but should we really be surprised??

meglome · 12-09-2009 6:33am

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The recorded catch?

The recorded and actual catch are not one and the same.

The Irish Fishermen's Organisation insists that €200 billion is the figure.

Now I'm no expert on fishing but I can use simple logic.

The Irish landed catch since 1973 is 2.4 billion and the landed catch by foreign boats is 4.7 billion.

The Spanish landed catch since 1973 is 2 billion euro and the catch landed by foreign boats is 2 billion euro.

Now the figure of 200 billion euro that's quoted is 83 times more than all Irish fishing boats have landed since 1973, which (and to put it mildly) seems unlikely. Now as I said I'm no fishing expert but this value of 200 billion seems to have no basis in any reality that I can find.

Since this figure is so often quoted maybe someone can find out where it came from?

FutureTaoiseach · 12-09-2009 6:41am

joseph brand wrote: »

I can understand users here wondering why people don't go read the treaty? But it can be tough reading for normal folks. A lot of blah blah blah, waffle waffle.

I have read the 10 'REAL' reasons to vote yes to Lisbon list compiled by Sink, thanks very much Sink.

Taken from footnote.

Absolutely correct, nothing has stood out enough to catch anyones attention and cause them to delight in voting yes for any good reason. All we hear is "Just vote YES, its good", or "Vote NO, be afraid, Woooooh".

This will confuse and then aggravate voters, some of whom will feel the need to vote NO in protest.

Maybe our politicians have let us down, but should we really be surprised??

Mundane? 50 new areas transferredto Qualified Majority Voting - including policing and asylum and immigration - and you call that "mundane"? The supremacy of the Charter of Fundamental Rights over the Constitution through Article 6 TEU saying the Charter has "the same legal value as the Treaties" and you think that's "mundane"? I strongly suggest you read the Charter and realise the potential for it to render the Irish Constitution worthless in terms of human rights, because the ECJ will have the final say in the vast area of rights covered in the Charter. My particular problems include:Article's 18 and 19 enshrine ECJ interference in our asylum-system:

COFR, Article 18 wrote:

The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.

COFR, Article 19 wrote:

1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.

2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 18 will prevent Ireland withdrawing from the Convention if we believe it is being abused for economic-migration rather than by genuine refugees. Article 19 will effectively allow the ECJ to decide what constitutes a "serious risk" to the safety of the asylum-seeker and what constitutes "inhuman and degrading treatment". Furthermore, the significance of inserting these provisions into EU law is that they come within the ECJ's jurisdiction. As such, the ECJ will be determining whether it believes we are keeping to the Convention in individual asylum-cases. In affect, for all intents and purposes, we will be adding yet another layer of asylum-appeals on top of a system that already takes years in this country. No thanks.

This is the first time the ECJ is being given jurisdiction over fundamental rights. That is a fundamental change. Effectively if we vote yes, the ECJ will be our Supreme Court, because there will be very few areas of policy where it won't have jurisdiction. And it is the first time in the history of the EU that the right to asylum - a right flagrantly abused for economic-migration and welfare-tourism - is being enshrined into EU law by a Treaty. And unlike the Irish Constitution, it will be almost impossible to change the Charter because changes would require ratification in all member states. So basically, if we vote yes, we are stuck with the Charter for perhaps generations. And if an anomalous ruling comes out from an ECJ interpretation of it (as always happens with any constitution from time to time), we will be stuck with that unless the other member states agree unanimously to change it and ratify the changes. So apart from the implications for national sovereignty, this is also a very cumbersome constitutional template to impose on Ireland, and a less democratic one.

Flamed Diving · 12-09-2009 10:18am

Plotician wrote: »

If the 'didn't understand it' argument is valid then surely we need another poll before the next referendum to make sure people understand it this time? else the possibility of groundhog day?

In fact does anyone want to start a thread on boards.ie - "Do you understand the Lisbon Treaty?".

Lets just have simple yes or no responses - if there are too many no's then the referendum should really be postponed.

It is people's responsibility to get informed. By your logic, all general elections should be postponed, because I can guarantee you that most people do not understand what each party's manifesto means.

Flamed Diving · 12-09-2009 10:21am

meglome wrote: »

Now I'm no expert on fishing but I can use simple logic.

The Irish landed catch since 1973 is 2.4 billion and the landed catch by foreign boats is 4.7 billion.

The Spanish landed catch since 1973 is 2 billion euro and the catch landed by foreign boats is 2 billion euro.

Now the figure of 200 billion euro that's quoted is 83 times more than all Irish fishing boats have landed since 1973, which (and to put it mildly) seems unlikely. Now as I said I'm no fishing expert but this value of 200 billion seems to have no basis in any reality that I can find.

Since this figure is so often quoted maybe someone can find out where it came from?

Agreed. €200bn seems to be conveniently rounded, don't you think? It sounds like a guesstimate, to me.

ei.sdraob · 12-09-2009 10:27am

Flamed Diving wrote: »

most people do not understand what each party's manifesto means.

what about "parties" like Libertas?

its been 2-3 months since elections and they still havent posted their policies or manifesto

makes you wonder what exactly the people that voted for him were voting on?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Agreed. €200bn seems to be conveniently rounded, don't you think? It sounds like a guesstimate, to me.

the 200billion figure is a clear lie

Scofflaw went to great lengths before to show that this is untrue with facts and figures

FutureTaoiseach · 12-09-2009 10:42am

The "didn't understand the Treaty" argument is reminscent of what the oligarchs of the 19th century used to say to justify not extending the franchise to the working-class. Is that the direction the pro-Lisbon people want to take us? Reminds me of Edmund Burke's language about the "swinish multitude".

ei.sdraob · 12-09-2009 10:55am

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The "didn't understand the Treaty" argument is reminscent of what the oligarchs of the 19th century used to say to justify not extending the franchise to the working-class. Is that the direction the pro-Lisbon people want to take us? Reminds me of Edmund Burke's language about the "swinish multitude".

so far the whole "didn't understand the Treaty" or "i couldn't be bothered to read it" arguments are flying from (some

on) NO side who realize well that the more people read up on it the harder it becomes to lie to people

Keewee6 · 12-09-2009 10:59am

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Read the question again, and try to answer it this time...

done next q:rolleyes::rolleyes:

ei.sdraob · 12-09-2009 11:02am

Keewee6 wrote: »

done next q:rolleyes::rolleyes:

and your answer is? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

seems you are incapable of forming anything longer than a sentence, what age are you?

I'm voting 'no' for one reason only...

Comments