"Yes" landslide

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
And equally you will see mis informed opinions on what a no vote would have done from no voters...
So your point is moot.

Not to the same extent or the same hysteria as the yes advocates, do you agree?

Suggesting that they are mis-informed is to attach a level of stupidity to them which is to deny the importance of their democratic right to express their opinion.

It is you that's attaching mis-informed to stupidity, not me or anyone else that was asking for a no vote.

Those advocating a no vote were clearly unable to convince the vast majority of this high 60% turnout that a yes vote was wrong...

The government was proposing this referendum, it was up to them to provide adequate reasons as to why it should be passed. This is something they did not do.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I don't want Irish people to go the way of the American-Indians.

I doubt the White Man is going to slaughter us and take our land.
What are you getting at exactly?

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
RTEs exit poll would back up this.

But, it should be rembered the magin of which the vote was carried - makes the motivations of a small group of voters which questionable motives irelevant.

Even more than that Cork, motives are irrelevant except as a possible interesting diversion on what makes people do X (or in this case what made a certain percentage place an X in a particular box). And if we're going to play guess-work like that (which as you say would be pretty irrelevant) we may as well do it with the last abortion referendum as it's much more interesting. We can have that diversion but it's going to be more guessing than even some of the "facts" we had before anyone went to vote:)



In any case, there's nothing wrong with people turning up for one of the three purposes with no intention of having (or offering) an opinion on the others. I'd love it if people were (genuinely) knowledgable about every issue put to them but unfortunately that's just not going to happen. If you really haven't a clue and you know you haven't a clue and you've got no opinion, then it's pointless throwing something down on the second of third ballot just so you can leave.

BuffyBot

Originally posted by seamus
Ugh. I can see this being a smoking ban one. People going on about for months, even though it's in and there's nothing that can be done. The difference being that the majority actually voted for it, so there can be no argument of it's rightness (I've talked about the issue of rightness before, for all intents and purposes, if it's been voted in by the people, then it can be accepted as being right for that country, disagree at will.).

In my personal opinion though, I do believe a lot of people voted the right way for the wrong reasons. I would firmly believe that a not insignificant portion of the Yes vote had xenophobic roots. Anyone who claimed/claims that a Yes vote is a rascist vote is a complete moron, but I would believe that many Oirish voted yes "cus of dem blackies cummin here takin our jobs and rapin our wimmen".

The issue of misinformation doesn't even come into it. Xenophobes will always vote in favour of more border controls regardless of the arguments put forward.

My 2c

Probably the most sensible post so far on this thread!

dudara

Look, the simple fact is the majority have spoken. The majority also voted for Mickey Joe Harte and Chris Dolan and look where that got us .

Personal view here: Just because the majority voted for it doesn't make it morally or ethically right in my eyes.

I personally just feel that this was rushed through without correct thought on both sides and that's what I regret.

pete

Originally posted by Elmolove
What about all the low paid jobs that Irish people won't do that immigrants fill - immigration is key to Ireland's economy.

Originally posted by Samson
Agreed, we do need immigrants to contribute to our economy, and a valuable contribution they can make too.
However, these must be legal immigrants who wish to come here to work, pay taxes and contribute in a meaningful way. There should be no place for hangers-on who wish to come here to suckle resources, as I already stated, we have enough of our own indigenous brand here already.

hmm i wonder how many work permits mcdonalds have applied for?

pete

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I don't want Irish people to go the way of the American-Indians.

American Indians? This guy seems to be doing ok for himself

halkar

What had this referendum got to do with immigration? It was Citizenship referendum not Immigration. Immigrants do have rights to apply for citizenship after 5 years (I think ??) I don't think this is changing. There are millions of Turks in Germany that doesn't have full German citizenship even though they were born there and been there years.
Europe needs immigrants and they are part of European growth with their contribution of billions of yoyos in her economy.

I don't understand why we didn't vote for Euro money and yet we are voting for things like divorce, abortion, citizenship

bobbyjoe

So the yes won not what I wanted but the people have spoken.

Regarding the running of the referendum I hope that the next one (and there will be more on this issue) will follow the recommendations of the Oireachtas referendum commitee such as

All party talks
A green paper
Submissions from the public or interested parties
Proper time to debate

Actualy next time I'd like to know what we were actualy voting for
There is a proposed bill but nothing concrete.
I'd like to know the extent of the problem.

How many Citizenship tourists are there if any

Maybe even into a study about the intentions of asylum seekers who give birth here such as how long they've been in Ireland or what they are doing/going after the baby is born, that would be handy?

If people don't need this information before voting thats fair enough.

Bet that in a few months time someone does a research project and finds out the actual figures.

This will make no difference to all the sh1te about maternity hospitals etc.
The Gov will probably claim that this will reduce asylum seekers even though the number has been dropping over the last few years anyway.

Wait till the next Chen case when someone does the exact same thing even after the referendum is passed.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
It is you that's attaching mis-informed to stupidity, not me or anyone else that was asking for a no vote.

Well...
You are saying they are mis informed
How would they be less well informed than you?
Other than, the implication that you are more able to interpret the available information better than the majority of this very high turn out...

Thats the implication of saying the voters are mis informed, there is no other interpretation.
To claim that voters you don't know are mis informed is actually mis information in itself
Especially when it involves effectively dismissing the democratic vote of an overwhelming majority.
You can spin it any way you like, but it still looks like you are dismissing peoples opinions or their ability to make a decision.
Your dismissal is tandamount to saying you are better than them...
I'd challenge you to clearly attempt to dismiss this majority vote without implying otherwise...
It's not possible and you should know that.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
I'd challenge you to clearly attempt to dismiss this majority vote without implying otherwise...
It's not possible and you should know that.

So are you saying that it's totally out of the question that a majority of people could have made the wrong decision?
I do not think I'm better than anyone else, I just have seen no evidence here or elsewhere from people who voted yes/said they were going to vote yes that indicated they had any understanding of what it was exactly they were voting on.
You can see it for yourself on this thread.

Elmolove

On the issue of misinformation,

The fact that Yes voters justify their vote on the grounds of immigration proves one of two things:

1) The government didn't understand their own reasons for the decision to run the referendum - i.e. Mary Hanifin & other FF TD's saying that the referendum was about citizenship and NOT immigration

2) The Yes voters wrongly interpreted (and therefore were misinformed on polling day) the referendum to be about immigration when in fact it was nothing to do with it.

Now, we all know that the referendum was to do with immigration - after all the reasons given to justify the need for change was based on immigration anecdotes. However, to this (sad) day the government or more specifically Michael McDowell failed to provide us with concrete evidence of these incidents of abuse. One need only read through threads such as this to see that people are misinformed about the nature & extent of asylum issues, immigration etc. The issue of welfare continuosly crops up and yet every time someone is challenged as to what these welfare benefits that immigrants are supposedly in receipt of are there doesn't seem to be a response. Why is that? People have opinions based on what they perceive the case to be - that of course is not always a reflection as to what actually is the case but nonetheless people make such accusations without knowing the correct information.

The same is true for this referendum result - people voted yes because they believed that our shores were being invaded by pregnant women only here to pop a sprog - the evidence fails to prove this!

arcadegame2004

people voted yes because they believed that our shores were being invaded by pregnant women only here to pop a sprog - the evidence fails to prove this!

The evidence failed to disprove this, otherwise the "No"s would have won.

Elmolove

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The evidence failed to disprove this, otherwise the "No"s would have won.

That's not true - just because the majority voted yes does not mean that the false claims of the numbers of pregnant women arriving in Ireland are true. It simply means that the majority believed the anecdotal evidence that they were presented with.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
So are you saying that it's totally out of the question that a majority of people could have made the wrong decision?

I'm saying it's highly, highly unlikely.
I'm further suggesting that to state otherwise is to belittle the votes of a vast majority of people which to be honest belittles their opinion as well as democracy given the high turn out and the overwhelming majority.

You can see it for yourself on this thread.

Really?
And just how representative do you think the members of this forum as a whole are of the voting public??
Many of the users of Boardsie haven't got a vote yet.
As well as that lots of people here have troll accounts and might even vote twice or more in the same poll.
Indeed I've yet to see a poll here that in anyway came near to what the voting public have done in the real world.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Earthman
I'm saying it's highly, highly unlikely.
I'm further suggesting that to state otherwise is to belittle the votes of a vast majority of people which to be honest belittles their opinion as well as democracy given the high turn out and the overwhelming majority.

I'm not belittling democracy. Re-running a referendum because the government didn't get the result they wanted is belittling to democracy, but that's different I guess?
I would also call putting something to a vote without any real proof/reasoning as to why it should be changed in the first place and then basically instructing people to vote yes belittling to democracy.

And just how representative do you think the members of this forum as a whole are of the voting public??

I was using it an example, not an exact cross reference of Irish society and I think you know that.

Originally posted by Frank Grimes
I'm not belittling democracy. Re-running a referendum because the government didn't get the result they wanted is belittling to democracy, but that's different I guess?

I also dealt with that earlier...
Theres a big difference between a 51% majority with a 30 or 40% turn out on an issue and what has happened in this referendum where there was a 60% turnout and an 80% vote in favour.
It's reasonable to suggest that in the former case you may get a different result because of the tightness of the result.
No government in their right mind would attempt to over turn an 80% majority decision.

I was using it an example, not an exact cross reference of Irish society and I think you know that.

And therefore it does nothing only make your point moot-especially given you are using it as an example of widespread mis information when nearly 50% of those that voted on this forums poll agreed with you...

arcadegame2004

Re-running a referendum because the government didn't get the result they wanted is belittling to democracy, but that's different I guess?

Frank, the second Nice Treaty referendum was NOT the same as the first one in content. The second referendum included the enshrining in our Constitution of a ban on Irish involvement in common EU defence policies. That WASN'T in the first referendum.

Just correcting you there!

simu

Originally posted by Elmolove
Ok, can you please please please tell me what all these "benefits" are that you speak of.

Are you familiar with a system called direct provision?

How about dispersal?

What about not being allowed to work?

How about the residency rule for the new EU states?

What about all the low paid jobs that Irish people won't do that immigrants fill - immigration is key to Ireland's economy.

You say that immigrants are abusing the system - show me your stats to prove your point.

I also asked this question but somehow, people who go on about benefits received by asylum seekers et al seem to get struck by bouts of amnesia when asked for more details. Funny that.

BuffyBot

Originally posted by simu
I also asked this question but somehow, people who go on about benefits received by asylum seekers et al seem to get struck by bouts of amnesia when asked for more details. Funny that.

Mmmm...I kinda remember someone posting up some links actually....

Rock Climber

Originally posted by simu
I also asked this question but somehow, people who go on about benefits received by asylum seekers et al seem to get struck by bouts of amnesia when asked for more details. Funny that.

Your question is similar to suggesting to someone who has never locked their house door and yet hasn't been robbed so far , that they should never lock their door when they go out...
In fact it's worse than that because, it is a fact that not all asylum seekers are granted asylum here...
many are deported...
Evidently there is and always has been, a percentage of asylum seekers who know themselves that they are chancing their arm by coming here...
Those that have babies here and are deported have gifted their children with Irish citizenship.
Those babies can come back and the problem if unresolved could grow and probably would.
Thats one big benefit.
And worse still, those fake asylum seekers are using their innocent babies as pawns in a game.

Blade

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Frank, the second Nice Treaty referendum was NOT the same as the first one in content. The second referendum included the enshrining in our Constitution of a ban on Irish involvement in common EU defence policies. That WASN'T in the first referendum.

Just correcting you there!

Didn't you already tell Frank this on page 1 of this thread? We're on page 8 now and he's still going on blatently ignoring what everyone else is saying. If he didn't bother his ar$e to read what you said the first time it's highly likely he didn't bother his ar$e reading up on what this referendum was actually about.

What's the point arguing with someone like this?

simu

Originally posted by Rock Climber
Your question is similar to suggesting to someone who has never locked their house door and yet hasn't been robbed so far , that they should never lock their door when they go out...
In fact it's worse than that because, it is a fact that not all asylum seekers are granted asylum here...
many are deported...
Evidently there is and always has been, a percentage of asylum seekers who know themselves that they are chancing their arm by coming here...
Those that have babies here and are deported have gifted their children with Irish citizenship.
Those babies can come back and the problem if unresolved could grow and probably would.
Thats one big benefit.
And worse still, those fake asylum seekers are using their innocent babies as pawns in a game.

Ok, the referendum has been passed, these babies won't become Irish citizens anymore. I'm worried more about those that go on about the benefits asylum seekers are receiving as if they were all living in the lap of luxury thanks to the Irish state because it sparks irrational fears and paranoia in many people.

There was a thread about the social welfare entitlements of asylum seekers here and if you look at the links, you'll see that they really don't do that well out of the whole thing.

Neway, I posted my question in response to Elessar's statement because what s/he said appears to contradict the info the Irish govt's site gives about what asylum seekers receive.

If the No voters crowd were to see first-hand just how much benefit immigrants are getting and how many of them are literally abusing the system, they would finally realise what utter boll**ks some of their views are.

How are immigrants abusing the system exactly? Are they claiming benefits twice or three times in different areas? Are they working illegally? Or are they lying about being in need of asylum? What have you seen at first hand, Elessar?

Trebor

everyone i know who voted yes did so because they believed that foreign people were coming here and getting free house, cars and taking jobs from irish people. when asked how do they know those people they saw in the cars and houses weren't the ones who got the jobs and are paying for the house and car just replied "nah, their spongers i know it".
when i said to them that this vote was about citizenship for kids and that voting yes would not change the level of this so called abuse they said that it would or that it's a step in the right direction. i don't think these people are racist but they are letting the government get away with this tactic of blaming other people for the state of the country.
people are left believing that:
there are no house because the asylum seekers have taken them all and not because the govnt have failed to actual build social housing of a sufficient level.
that the waiting lists are much higher because the hospitals are filled with foreign people and not because they have cut funding, fail to open wards and allow more to close.
that these foreigners are taking jobs from irish people even though we are at about full employment and actually need more people to fill the vacant places that irish people will not fill.
it has just reinforced my belief that the general public are complete morons when it comes to matters that don't directly effect them. they will believe any spurious rumour against those different from them.

of course this is just my personal experience of this referendum and has no base in fact other than my own beliefs but hey if it's good enough for the yes voters it's good enough for me.

pete

Originally posted by Trebor
i don't think these people are racist

Why not?

What else would you call having an irrational negative opinion of others based on the colour of their skin / johnny foreigner accent / perceived ethnicity?


Call a spade a spade. As it were.

arcadegame2004

What else would you call having an irrational negative opinion of others based on the colour of their skin / johnny foreigner accent / perceived ethnicity?

Pete, we who voted "Yes" took a dim view of exploitation - regardless of its scale - of our citizenship laws and asylum-laws. We do not take a dim view, however, of those non-nationals who come here legally to work to fill vacancies caused by Irish skills-shortages. How is that racism?

pete

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Pete, we who voted "Yes" took a dim view of exploitation - regardless of its scale - of our citizenship laws and asylum-laws. We do not take a dim view, however, of those non-nationals who come here legally to work to fill vacancies caused by Irish skills-shortages. How is that racism?

My question was addressed to Trebor in relation to a specific comment in his post, and not to you.

I've already addressed my view of your politics in another thread and to be frank I see no point engaging in further discourse with someone incapable of progressing past the "lalalalala, i can't hear you" school of debating.

arcadegame2004

And that was an INCORRECT caricature of my opinions. Also, you are stigmatising the entire "Yes" vote and therefore me, and as such I am entitled to respond.

bobbyjoe

Citizenship involves four things Political. Legal, psychological and sociological

Political means that the person can participate in the political life of the state in which they are a citizen, vote, join a party, protest etc.
Legal is the persons position with regard to the constitution and laws. I think this is a bit of a grey area regarding what different rights citizens and residents have. The constitution often refers to citizens only.
Psychological is how the person perceives themselves, are they a member of society or an outsider.
Sociological is how a person integrates with society and whether they belong or not.

As regards Irish citizenship you get free houses, cars, mobiles ooppps only messin.

So it looks like we'll be creating some outsiders and people who feel they don't belong great idea.

The reasons for voting yes aren't really a surprise

Trebor

Originally posted by pete
Why not?

What else would you call having an irrational negative opinion of others based on the colour of their skin / johnny foreigner accent / perceived ethnicity?


Call a spade a spade. As it were.

it's not the fact they they were foreign, it was the perceived fact that they were getting something for nothing. they feel the exact same way about irish people sponging of the state but they would never be given the option to vote in a yes/no manner about the irish ones. it stems from their belief that they are paying tax to pay for these people and because they were led to believe that voting yes would stop this "abuse" they blindly followed it. so i wouldn't call them racist i would call them stupid.