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

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

Options
1…9899101103104…127

Comments

  • Options
    #3002
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Would you like to retract your remark implying that I don't think people should be entitled to their opinions since the subject was not a matter of opinion and he was wrong on it?

    You didnt imply anything. You said some things should be decided by experts not the people. Fairly clear really.


  • Options
    #3003
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That's one of the biggest lies in this campaign. The correct figure including the Irish catch is about 8.5 billion:
    http://www.talktoeu.ie/en/Policy-Areas/Fisheries/


    You don't have to trust them, this is an EU treaty not an Irish government treaty. Get your information somewhere else, www.lisbontreaty2009.ie for example, the impartial referendum commission website


    Only 8.5 billion?

    and here was me thinking it was a lot.


  • Options
    #3004
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    No Need. Just read the article in my sig.

    Not an expert on Dutch politics unfortunatly.

    Amazing how all of your arguments have crumbled.

    Which arguments are they?

    So far you've failed to provide any actual proof that there is something in the Constitutions of France and Holland that required a referendum for the Constitution but not for Lisbon. What you have done is whenever somebody pulls you up on it, rather than actually try to do the research to backup your point with reference to both constitutions you just quote that newspaper article over and over again. As much as that lazy debating might appeal to you, it doesn't to the rest of use who actually value the truth with reference to the constitutions.

    If you cannot provide such proof then the only conclusion that I can draw is that there isn't any. Keep flogging that horse!

    Oh and by the way Here's a thread in which shows that a number of d'Estaing's quotes have frequently been quoted out of context to prop up an argument that doesn't exist.


  • Options
    #3005
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    Only 8.5 billion?

    and here was me thinking it was a lot.

    It's also worth mentioning that half of that was taken by Irish boats. And a further 4bn was taken by Irish boats in English waters so we're about even.


  • Options
    #3006
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    Only 8.5 billion?

    and here was me thinking it was a lot.

    But, but I thought it was €200 Billion.

    Good God of almighty. You will believe anything anybody tells you from the No side.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3007
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    Or we could read an article in a top newspaper below ( See sig) where he also said things.


    true he said things, and he said other things and other things. Do you notice that there seems to be a flaw basing your position on an international treaty on the opinion of one man at one time.


    and you can take the whole article rather then another article that only takes bits and pieces

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/valeacutery-giscard-destaing-the-eu-treaty-is-the-same-as-the-constitution-398286.html

    Just to get a better idea of the man at that time and his opinions rather then bits and pieces.


    Alos please if you can remember where did you get the quote for the Former German foriegn minister?


    I'm just saying, debate by quotation is not a good way of doing things.


  • Options
    #3008
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    You didnt imply anything. You said some things should be decided by experts not the people. Fairly clear really.

    Yes they should. Every other country in Europe realised that if this treaty was put to a referendum all the nut jobs and special interest groups would come out and pour lie upon lie upon lie until the people were so terrified of it that they would vote no in their droves. Unfortunately we have to have referendums on EU treaties which has resulted in a no to Nice because of lying extremists, a no to Lisbon because of those same lying extremists and might very well result in another no to Lisbon because of those same extremists. Every day a new member pops up here and says that the guarantees aren't legally binding because Sinn Fein says they're not even though the procedure the guarantees have gone through was good enough for them when the Good Friday Agreement went through the same procedure. You've just seen someone give the made up 200 billion figure from the Coir posters. You see 1.84 minimum wage posters and lies about military spending all over the country. We see the socialists saying our minimum wage is at risk even though they know for a fact that the ruling they refer to could never be made here because it was based on Sweden having no minimum wage. Take a look at this newspaper from the Maastricht referendum:
    http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZKepX8VopRQ/SkqHGwCTAAI/AAAAAAAAAc8/EMzgh3Rs0bg/s800/mastr2.jpg

    You might recognise some of the same lies that are being bandied about in this referendum. This is not a way to run a democracy. Issues should not be decided based on how convincing the extremists can make their lies. Governments make decisions every day that have ramifications a hundred times greater than this treaty, our government just borrowed 54 billion from the ECB for NAMA without a referendum. Referendums are great for things like divorce or abortion but massive international treaties full of legal jargon are why we have governments, because the average Joe doesn't have the time, the inclination or the expertise to make an informed choice. All that happens is that lies are repeated so often that people start to believe them and vote beneficial things down because of them. This is why referendums are illegal in Germany.


    It basically comes down to: If I want to sign up to a complicated contract and I want to know the best course of action, I'll ask a lawyer, not Betty from Mayo who read on a poster that the contract is bad


  • Options
    #3009
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    Only 8.5 billion?

    and here was me thinking it was a lot.

    It's 8.5 billion including the Irish catch and that's since 1973. We've received in excess of 41 billion from the EU basically for free in the meantime:
    http://www.finance.irlgov.ie/documents/publications/other/BES2008.pdf
    (Table 10, Page 19)


  • Options
    #3010
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    when the Food Friday Agreement went through the same procedure.

    Hungry?

    So am I.


  • Options
    #3011
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    That's one of the biggest lies in this campaign. The correct figure including the Irish catch is about 8.5 billion:
    http://www.talktoeu.ie/en/Policy-Areas/Fisheries/
    I would tend to trust the opinions of Irish fishermen more than these statistics . Although why any of the fishing waters of the Irish sea should have been divvied up among other EU nations (apart from the UK) is a bit beyond me, to be honest. Anyway! It's god-damn small potatoes and has noting to do with the issue at hand (okay, I know you didn't instigate the discussion on it).



    No one's saying we'll be thrown out of the EU, we're saying that voting no to an EU treaty for the third time and appearing to be so terrified of all these things that the EU are going to do with us and incorrectly believing that they've taken 200 billion worth of fish makes us look like we're euro-sceptics and when businesses are looking to locate in a country because they're in the EU, they have the choice of a lot of countries that don't appear to be fighting against and paranoid about their neighbours

    Yes, there a quite a number on the yes side who are saying that we will be thrown out of the EU. More, however, mention the hypothetical notion of a two-speed or two-tier Europe. Almost all say that we will be 'punished' by Brussels for our insolence. And absolutely all say that our economy will suffer.

    EU wants more legislative competencies. Do you approve? If you say 'no' you are euroskeptic!

    No, we are not. And no, this whole multinational myth has been spun out far enough. Goodwill will not attract multinationals. Goodwill will not get us out of recession. Goodwill is meaningless. But this has already been addressed. I am not in the least bit worried about upsetting Jose Manuel Barosso. If EU tanks start rolling down O'Connell street, I may regret voting 'no' - but I don't think this scenario is terribly likely


    You don't have to trust them, this is an EU treaty not an Irish government treaty. Get your information somewhere else, www.lisbontreaty2009.ie for example, the impartial referendum commission website

    It is a government treaty - drawn up along side other EU governments. FF has waxed lyrical over how much influence it had over the drafting of Constitution/Lisbon. It can't back out now (even if Biffo didn't bother reading it).

    We are holding back Europeans. All 7,000 of them (politicians).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3012
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    Hungry?

    So am I.

    Do you want a bite of my cheeseburger, Bobby Sands :pac:?


  • Options
    #3013
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    I would tend to trust the opinions of Irish fishermen more than these statistics .

    ok here: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/yes-best-for-industry-in-long-term-says-fishermens-group-101833.html#ixzz0S6f3iD5v

    seaarounus.org has a wonderful breakdown on who's been fishing irish waters etc.

    http://www.seaaroundus.org/TrophicLevel/EEZTaxon.aspx?eez=372&fao=27&country=Ireland&Hasnote=1&typeOut=4&Tx=1

    Its important to notice how much fishing Russia was doing in our waters until the EU stepped in.


  • Options
    #3014
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    Do you want a bite of my cheeseburger, Bobby Sands :pac:?


    pass

    gonna slip out for a roll in a minute myself...though I have developed some strange addiction to salami recently (Fresh do this brilliant salami sausages which I chow down like a pig most of the time)


  • Options
    #3015
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    That's one of the biggest lies in this campaign. The correct figure including the Irish catch is about 8.5 billion:
    http://www.talktoeu.ie/en/Policy-Areas/Fisheries/
    I would tend to trust the opinions of Irish fishermen more than these statistics . Although why any of the fishing waters of the Irish sea should have been divvied up among other EU nations (apart from the UK) is a bit beyond me, to be honest. Anyway! It's god-damn small potatoes and has noting to do with the issue at hand (okay, I know you didn't instigate the discussion on it).

    do you have any figures to backup any of your claims?

    the YES side does have figures and research (carried out by impartial Canadians)

    An independent study carried out by the Canadian University of British Columbia in Vancouver as part of the Sea Around Us project puts the total value of fish taken from Irish waters from 1974 to 2004 at €8.5bn. During this time, Irish ships took €3.9bn from the Irish waters and €3.16bn from British waters that Irish boats have access to because they are part of the EU.
    Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/yes-best-for-industry-in-long-term-says-fishermens-group-101833.html


    If Ireland was not in EU our fishermen would have not being able to catch that €3.16bn from British waters and they would have had no market to sell that €3.9bn of fish they caught from the Irish waters



    prove me wrong


    i have figures and facts to back me up you have lies and biased opinion


    /


  • Options
    #3016
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    ok here: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/yes-best-for-industry-in-long-term-says-fishermens-group-101833.html#ixzz0S6f3iD5v

    seaarounus.org has a wonderful breakdown on who's been fishing irish waters etc.

    http://www.seaaroundus.org/TrophicLevel/EEZTaxon.aspx?eez=372&fao=27&country=Ireland&Hasnote=1&typeOut=4&Tx=1

    Its important to notice how much fishing Russia was doing in our waters until the EU stepped in.



    thanks for the info!


    the fact tha tthe NO side are still spinning the fishing lie despite an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence


    puts the NO campaign up there with the Creationists and Climate Change deniers

    :(


  • Options
    #3017
    IgnatiusPop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22 ✭IgnatiusPop


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    they are as legally binding as the Good Friday Agreement


    other countries (Denmark) got agreements like this (Edinburgh agreement) in their second referendum on a EU treaty

    and these were honored and are honored to this day

    to claim that the Agreements for Lisbon 2 are not legal is a downright lie, and a bad one at that too

    /


    Actually guys - My Bad! Forget I even posted that one. I had originally spoken to the No guys in person, and had heard debates online and on radio with the Yes groups. I'v gone and spoken to the two groups today and put these questions to them, and the Yes group seem to be acknowledging what you've said, and the No side grudgingly so to a certain extent, but they reference other issues such as militarisation of the EU etc. So I'll admit that after that Im tempted to get back on the fence.

    Ok - so if the guarentees from the EU are only going to be implemented when either Croatia or Iceland join the EU, then what happens in the mean time? Either one of those countries could take another year or two to join. So if Lisbon II passes and is put into effect, and we have to wait until that happens, are we exposed to any new risks? Do they just come over to a country of their choice and sign an agreement for us, like they did in Edinburgh for Denmark?


  • Options
    #3018
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    thanks for the info!


    the fact tha tthe NO side are still spinning the fishing lie despite an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence


    puts the NO campaign up there with the Creationists and Climate Change deniers

    :(

    Travel to Burtonport, Dungloe, Killybegs where unemployment is very high and make an insulting comment like that.


  • Options
    #3019
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's 8.5 billion including the Irish catch and that's since 1973. We've received in excess of 41 billion from the EU basically for free in the meantime:
    http://www.finance.irlgov.ie/documents/publications/other/BES2008.pdf
    (Table 10, Page 19)


    Thats the value of the catch.

    Add in unemployment beneifts, costs of fishing communities that have been ruined, loss of exports through added value.


  • Options
    #3020
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    do you have any figures to backup any of your claims?






    If Ireland was not in EU our fishermen would have not being able to catch that €3.16bn from British waters and they would have had no market to sell that €3.9bn of fish they caught from the Irish waters






    /

    The british waters includes the waters off derry etc.


  • Options
    #3021
    whatisayis
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭whatisayis


    Ok guys here are some links regarding the ratification by the Dutch and the French:

    http://euobserver.com/9/24763

    "The likelihood of the Netherlands holding a referendum on the EU's Reform Treaty decreased Thursday (13 September) after the Dutch government was told by its highest advisory body that a poll is not necessary.

    A key report by the Council of State, the Dutch government's highest advisory body, says there is no legal need for a referendum since the new treaty does not include "constitutional" elements, according to Dutch media."

    http://www.france24.com/en/20080204-french-parliament-lays-groundwork-eu-treaty-eu-treaty

    "The French parliament voted Monday to revise the constitution, a key step towards adopting the new EU reform treaty, at a special congress at the Chateau de Versailles.

    French and Dutch voters rejected the European Union's draft constitution in 2005, plunging the bloc into several years of institutional gridlock.

    Signed in Lisbon last month, the new EU charter is a watered-down version of the doomed constitution, aimed at streamlining decision-making in the bloc.

    President Nicolas Sarkozy, who championed its adoption, campaigned for it to be ratified by parliament, rather than risk a second referendum as demanded by the left-wing opposition."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3022
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    [So sick of my views being misrepresented so here they are]

    In my opinion the EU has been of great benefit to Ireland. As an organisation promoting free trade it has done an excellent job.

    I do not think that the EU should have a foreign policy role at all. The internal dynamics of each european country are too different to ensure that each country has its views taken into account properly by a large suprantional organisation that will only have one official opinion.

    It adds costs to the EU bueracracy and takes away from the main goal of the EU which in my opinion should be the promotion of free trade and movement, not foreign policy or social law making.

    I am against this treaty as i believe that this treaty is another step towards creating a supranational european organisation which the French and Germans want to reassert their power on the world stage hence the foreign policy etc in this treaty.

    Comments by the architect of this treaty as in my sig also make me feel that the people at the the heart of this treaty are willing to undermine or ignore the democratic wills of the people pf europe in order to accomplish this and not engage with them on their concerns.

    I do not beleive that the yes side engages with these concerns and simply resort to petty insults and empty slogans in response.

    Therefore i am voting NO.

    I do not support (Definitly not!) Sinn Fein , coir, declan ganley and i am not a nutter/creationist/member of a cult etc.


  • Options
    #3023
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    Thats the value of the catch.

    Add in unemployment beneifts, costs of fishing communities that have been ruined, loss of exports through added value.

    Oh ffs. Just as their fishermen are allowed fish our waters, our fishermen are allowed fish theirs. As has been pointed out:
    An independent study carried out by the Canadian University of British Columbia in Vancouver as part of the Sea Around Us project puts the total value of fish taken from Irish waters from 1974 to 2004 at €8.5bn. During this time, Irish ships took €3.9bn from the Irish waters and €3.16bn from British waters that Irish boats have access to because they are part of the EU.
    Read more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/yes-best-for-industry-in-long-term-says-fishermens-group-101833.html#ixzz0S6f3iD5v
    We've almost broken even in terms of the catch and the fishermen themselves support a yes vote


  • Options
    #3024
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    The british waters includes the waters off derry etc.

    and the channel islands (http://www.seaaroundus.org/TrophicLevel/EEZPricesRV.aspx?eez=830&fao=27&country=Channel%20Islands%20%28UK%29&Hasnote=1&typeOut=4&Tx=1)


  • Options
    #3025
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    the fishermen themselves support a yes vote


    You must be joking.

    Check the election results from those areas. they will vote no.

    You definitly dont live in or near a fishing community.

    They feel dumped on and very unhappy at how they were treated.

    An very empty and silly assertion


  • Options
    #3026
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    and the channel islands (http://www.seaaroundus.org/TrophicLevel/EEZPricesRV.aspx?eez=830&fao=27&country=Channel%20Islands%20%28UK%29&Hasnote=1&typeOut=4&Tx=1)


    and scotland.....

    saying british waters makes it sound like the mainland. i tried to just correct that slightly, we have always fished british waters so what its never mattered.

    silly point.


  • Options
    #3027
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    [So sick of my views being misrepresented so here they are]

    In my opinion the EU has been of great benefit to Ireland. As an organisation promoting free trade it has done an excellent job.

    I do not think that the EU should have a foreign policy role at all. The internal dynamics of each european country are too different to ensure that each country has its views taken into account properly by a large suprantional organisation that will only have one official opinion.
    A veto on the matter ensures that each country has its views taken into account. The only foreign policy the EU has is one agreed by all member states.
    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    I am against this treaty as i believe that this treaty is another step towards creating a supranational european organisation which the French and Germans want to reassert their power on the world stage hence the foreign policy etc in this treaty.
    It's not though :confused:
    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    I do not beleive that the yes side engages with these concerns and simply resort to petty insults and empty slogans in response.
    I've engaged with your first concern by pointing out that we have a veto on all foreign policy. I don't really know what to say about your second concern. It's a bit New World Order for me and I don't think there's much I can say to convince you that the EU is a union of states cooperating for the ultimate purpose of peace and not an empire attempting to achieve control through stealth.


  • Options
    #3028
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    You must be joking.

    Check the election results from those areas. they will vote no.

    You definitly dont live in or near a fishing community.

    They feel dumped on and very unhappy at how they were treated.

    An very empty and silly assertion

    Except that they said it themselves :confused:

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/yes-best-for-industry-in-long-term-says-fishermens-group-101833.html#ixzz0S6f3iD5v

    edit: They're pissed off about the common fisheries policy but they've acknowledged that a yes vote is their best chance of getting it changed


  • Options
    #3029
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    IgnatiusPop wrote: »
    Actually guys - My Bad! Forget I even posted that one. I had originally spoken to the No guys in person, and had heard debates online and on radio with the Yes groups. I'v gone and spoken to the two groups today and put these questions to them, and the Yes group seem to be acknowledging what you've said, and the No side grudgingly so to a certain extent, but they reference other issues such as militarisation of the EU etc. So I'll admit that after that Im tempted to get back on the fence.

    Ok - so if the guarentees from the EU are only going to be implemented when either Croatia or Iceland join the EU, then what happens in the mean time? Either one of those countries could take another year or two to join. So if Lisbon II passes and is put into effect, and we have to wait until that happens, are we exposed to any new risks? Do they just come over to a country of their choice and sign an agreement for us, like they did in Edinburgh for Denmark?

    Personally I think they have to question the guarantees as it then opens up the whole Neutrality, taxation etc. arguments again.

    As Marian Harkin MEP said, Ganley relies on the Referendum Commission when it suits, so it is a reliable source.
    Really-Stressed wrote: »
    Thats the value of the catch.

    Add in unemployment beneifts, costs of fishing communities that have been ruined, loss of exports through added value.

    Then add the opening up of other markets, eg. we now do as much trade with the rest of the EU as the UK.

    Nobody can say the fisherman have done well but I'd ask whoever you got that figures from for some sources.

    Does it not make you wonder about the type of groups peddling this crap? It has been shown you have been lied to a couple of times on this thread,

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #3030
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    It adds costs to the EU bueracracy

    Actually the cost of the EU is surprisingly low for an organisation of its size, I think the figure is somewhere around 1 and a half times the cost of the irish civil service (cant remember which thread it was with the figures).

    When you consider the size of the EU it costs less to run it then to run say the UK or France both with much bigger civil services then Ireland.
    I do not beleive that the yes side engages with these concerns and simply resort to petty insults and empty slogans in response.

    I dont understand this, I've been breaking my back going over sources and material for the comments you have been making for the last 3 pages and yet you say we go for petty insults and empty slogans. You get one quote from Giscard. I got 3 and one of them was a video. I research a quote you have posted twice and cannot find the source for it, despite the Guardian keeping records from 1998. I have done alot more then insult and put out empty slogans Thank you very much.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3031
    MrMatisse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,743 ✭✭✭MrMatisse


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Oh ffs. Just as their fishermen are allowed fish our waters, our fishermen are allowed fish theirs. As has been pointed out:

    We've almost broken even in terms of the catch and the fishermen themselves support a yes vote

    We have (had) a tiny fishing fleet. The spanish have a huge one. They gained more.

    If there are any members of fishing communities reading your posts you will turn them into no voters. By arrogantly dismissing their concerns and the unemployment the eu, which we gained much from has created.


Advertisement