Which way will you vote (if at all)

AtomicHorror

Irish and Proud wrote: »

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

- V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007


"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."

- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007

Yes, it's all a big sinister conspiracy. You can tell because they announced it in two newspapers.

Are these quotes in the Treaty? Are we voting on them?

Mark200

I voted at 11.30 this morning and I voted YES

PrivateEye

My family voted No, at 9 this morning.

This treaty is a bad deal for workers, and a bad deal for Europe. We are strong in Europe. PLEASE get out and vote today. Moaning is sadly a great Irish tradition, but if you allow Lisbon to pass you have no right to complain of its outcomes.

Yes to Europe, No to Lisbon, and protect the Bunreacht, workers rights- and the rights of HALF A BILLION Europeans....please

Don't be influenced by the money-minded likes of Declan Ganley, there are real reasons to vote No here. We're not going to be flooded with abortions, gay marriges or war missions if we vote Yes...WE will face increased military spending (why bother?), the 'liberalisation' of public services (IBEC themselves said this- see their NCOE submission) and a further race to the bottom.

GET OUT AND VÓTÁIL NIL
Its not anti-European, it protects democracy.

molloyjh

Irish and Proud wrote: »

Also, to the Yes camp, stop deceiving to people of Ireland - you are a total disgrace to this country, to the people who died for our republic, to the European people, and most importantly, to the principles of democracy.

You are SICK!!! :mad:

Please vote no to Lisbon!

Look just because you haven't put the effort in does not mean you can be abusive to those who have. You obviously do not know what you are talking about as we will still be a free, independant and soverign nation if Lisbon is passed. I am as poud an Irishman as you'll meet and until you know a bit more about me and other posters here please kindly keep this kind of thing to yourself. One of the great things about the boards site is the fact that we are pretty much free from this sort of behaviour. Its the kind of thing I've gotten used to seeing from ignorant American extreme right-wingers on other boards and I think I can safely speek for everyone when I say its not welcome here. There's a politics section on imdb.com that has loads of this kind of thing. You want to act like that then go there! Otherwise respect our democratic right, the same democratic right that the people you refer to fought and died to provide us with. Debate with us yes, disagree with us by all means, but keep it civil!

VoidStarNull

Irish and Proud wrote: »

No matter what the Yes camp say, they have yet to explain the following - something which I've never seen challenged:


"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."

- V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

This quote has always puzzled me also, since it always appears out of context. I've spent a while searching around for the original french article. I've found a blog entry in Giscard D'Estaing's blog which may shed some light. It is a reprint of Le Monde artilce from June 15 2007. It doesn't seem to contain the above quote, but it does illiustrate what Giscard D'Estaing was bangng on about at the time.

The article is very long (and of course in French). At this time, Nicholas Sarkozy had just got underway with Angela Merkel to devise a mini-treaty to replace the constitution. Giscard D'Estaing was one of the authors of the Constitution. In the article, he expresses worries about the new Sarkozy initiative. He makes the point that the Consitution is a coherent document which has been ratified democratically in numerous countries, including by referenda in some. Is it the case, he asks, that France has the right to modify tthe Constitution just because it was rejected in France? He suggests that if the new treaty is just a simplifcation of the Constitution, and remains a coherent document, then he will support it. But if it is a complicated document intended for the consumption of jurists and diplomats, then he thinks it will be a sham and that the Constitution is far superior.

That is my summary, so read it yourself if you suspect I could be wrong.

So there you have it. He's basically defending his baby (the Constituion) and complaining that Sarkozy's replacement will probably be inferior.

miju

All 7 members of the family voted No this morning

VoidStarNull

miju wrote: »

All 7 members of the family voted No this morning

How do you know, the ballot is secret :-)

partholon

voted no.

i'd explain why but theres too many nutters here.

dee8839

Forgive me if this has been pointed out already, but having the referendum on a Thursday is unfair. What about any college students (like myself) or short term workers who are unable to make it across the country from their term time or work time address to their constituency? I passionately believe that each citizen should exercise their right to vote, but I feel this is hindered by badly organised referendum/election dates. It's not sensible.

I wish I could vote. Although if I could make it home to do so, I still don't know what way I would go. Unfortunately.

VoidStarNull

partholon wrote: »

voted no.

i'd explain why but theres too many nutters here.

Given that the primary reason to vote no seems to be paranoia, that is the most hilarious post I have seen today.

ShooterSF

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Given that the primary reason to vote no seems to be paranoia, that is the most hilarious post I have seen today.

And the primary reason for voting yes is irrational fear of being outcast or snubbed by the E.U who are suddenly going to turn into a bunch of kids cause they don't get their way?

MikeHoncho

Voted yes. Did'nt see any argument from the no camp that could'nt be instantly debunked by someone who had actually read the thing. All the credible political parties in the country backing it too. I did hours of reading up on it and at the end of the day I am sticking to my initial feeling - Europe has been VERY good for us and there is no reason it shouldnt be in the future.

conkeroo

partholon wrote: »

voted no.

i'd explain why but theres too many nutters here.

+1

ShooterSF wrote: »

And the primary reason for voting yes is irrational fear of being outcast or snubbed by the E.U who are suddenly going to turn into a bunch of kids cause they don't get their way?

+1

MikeHoncho

ShooterSF wrote: »

And the primary reason for voting yes is irrational fear of being outcast or snubbed by the E.U who are suddenly going to turn into a bunch of kids cause they don't get their way?

No the primary reason for voting yes is so that Europe can be run better. Thats the whole bloody point of this thing. No camp just does not get this.

sink

Just back from voting myself, I voted yes and so did the rest of my family (5 memebrs). However I don't think that would suprise anyone.

ShooterSF

MikeHoncho wrote: »

No the primary reason for voting yes is so that Europe can be run better. Thats the whole bloody point of this thing. No camp just does not get this.

Or maybe, god help us, just doesn't agree with you. I know it's easier just to call them dumb! By the way my comment was only in reply to a yes voter doing the same thing to the no side. I actually realize both sides have points unlike yourself.

molloyjh

partholon wrote: »

voted no.

i'd explain why but theres too many nutters here.

Actually I've found most people on both sides of the "divide" (with a small few exceptions) here to be very reasonable regardless of their intention today. Most posts involve logical and reasoned argument, putting forward points of fact or matters of opinion followed by pretty respectful responses of either agreement or disagreement. Its exactly how a board like this should be. I have seen to date 1 nutter (will not mention who) on the Lisbon threads. I'd be curious to hear why you would class many of us in such a way?

MikeHoncho

ShooterSF wrote: »

Or maybe, god help us, just doesn't agree with you. I know it's easier just to call them dumb! By the way my comment was only in reply to a yes voter doing the same thing to the no side. I actually realize both sides have points unlike yourself.

When did I call anyone dumb. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. There are plenty of intelligent people voting no.

I just disagreed with your statement about the primary reason for voting yes being an irational fear of being outcast by Europe which I dont think is the case.

miju

VoidStarNull wrote: »

How do you know, the ballot is secret :-)

because we discuss things in our family :D:D:D

conkeroo

molloyjh wrote: »

Actually I've found most people on both sides of the "divide" (with a small few exceptions) here to be very reasonable regardless of their intention today. Most posts involve logical and reasoned argument, putting forward points of fact or matters of opinion followed by pretty respectful responses of either agreement or disagreement. Its exactly how a board like this should be. I have seen to date 1 nutter (will not mention who) on the Lisbon threads. I'd be curious to hear why you would class many of us in such a way?

Oh go on, tell us. Whos the nutter? I know myself that yesterday i might have been a bit abrupt but that was purely because i tried to put a point accross and was promptly rounded on by a few yes voters because I disagreed with them. I'll admit that there is arguement, and good arguement from both sides but most people are still in the dark about ALL implications. Thats what I have a problem with. The ambiguity of the entire document.

miju

dee8839 wrote: »

I wish I could vote. Although if I could make it home to do so, I still don't know what way I would go. Unfortunately.

with all due respect, if you were THAT determined to vote and it irked so much you would have found out that you can vote by post without having to travel to your constintuency

first result in Google

www.citizensinformation.ie/.../government-in-ireland/ elections-and-referenda/voting/registering-to-vote wrote:

You will normally be required to vote in person at an official voting centre but you may be eligible for a postal vote if you are a member of the Defence Forces, a member of the Garda Síochána or an Irish diplomat posted abroad or his/her spouse. You may also be eligible for a postal vote if you cannot go to a polling station because:
of a physical illness or disability
you are studying full time at an educational institution away from your home address where you are registered
you are unable to vote at your polling station because of your occupation
you are unable to vote at your polling station because you are in prison as a result of an order of a court.


[snip-dates are out]

If you are registered as a postal voter, you may vote by post only. You may not vote at a polling station.

so no excuse really to get out there and exercise your right to vote

VoidStarNull

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Given that the primary reason to vote no seems to be paranoia, that is the most hilarious post I have seen today.

I apologize for this post Parholon. I was out of order. Please tell the rest of the Boards why you voted NO, and I will hold my tongue.

molloyjh

conkeroo wrote: »

Oh go on, tell us. Whos the nutter? I know myself that yesterday i might have been a bit abrupt but that was purely because i tried to put a point accross and was promptly rounded on by a few yes voters because I disagreed with them. I'll admit that there is arguement, and good arguement from both sides but most people are still in the dark about ALL implications. Thats what I have a problem with. The ambiguity of the entire document.

I don't think its right or proper to say who the nutter in question is (I sound ike yer man Raef from the Apprentice!), but I will say it isn't you. That being said I reckon if you review my recent posts you'll spot who it is straight away.

conkeroo

molloyjh wrote: »

I don't think its right or proper to say who the nutter in question is (I sound ike yer man Raef from the Apprentice!), but I will say it isn't you. That being said I reckon if you review my recent posts you'll spot who it is straight away.

lol I wasnt even implying that but thanks for the clarification! To be honest though and just to add, ive pretty much spent most of today reading through all the various Lisbon threads here on boards and there has been pro and anti arguements being put forward yet no real clarification on the points being argued. Its by no means clear cut.

molloyjh

conkeroo wrote: »

lol I wasnt even implying that but thanks for the clarification! To be honest though and just to add, ive pretty much spent most of today reading through all the various Lisbon threads here on boards and there has been pro and anti arguements being put forward yet no real clarification on the points being argued. Its by no means clear cut.

I disagree. I think these threads have explained the Treaty well. Anyone who has posted something inaccurate has been corrected. I think coming up with a consensus of opinion about whether the impacts are worth it or not is a matter of personal opinion. Either way www.lisbontreaty2008.ie gives a very good summary of the whole thing, particularly http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html

ShooterSF

MikeHoncho wrote: »

When did I call anyone dumb. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. There are plenty of intelligent people voting no.

I just disagreed with your statement about the primary reason for voting yes being an irational fear of being outcast by Europe which I dont think is the case.

Sorry man think it was a simple mix up I made that statement as a dig at a previous equally ridiculous statement " Given that the primary reason to vote no seems to be paranoia" You took me literal when i was just pointing out that both sides can make ludicrously broad and unsupported statements.
Sorry man.

conkeroo

molloyjh wrote: »

...I think coming up with a consensus of opinion about whether the impacts are worth it or not is a matter of personal opinion...

And I totally agree, I think it does boil down to personal opinion on what people would like to see within the EU. But I wouldnt agree that all No voters have all been fully corrected. There is weight to their arguements too.

Edit: For example, from my point of view, I dont believe we should make our military available to the EU for reasons defined by the council. But before anyone lambasts me, this is my opinion. Thats all. As valid as anyone elses.

molloyjh

conkeroo wrote: »

And I totally agree, I think it does boil down to personal opinion on what people would like to see within the EU. But I wouldnt agree that all No voters have all been fully corrected. There is weight to their arguements too.

Edit: For example, from my point of view, I dont believe we should make our military available to the EU for reasons defined by the council. But before anyone lambasts me, this is my opinion. Thats all. As valid as anyone elses.

I never meant to suggest anything regarding No voters being corrected specifically, just that any misunderstandings have been regardless of the "side" or by who. And there have been a few on both sides for numerous reasons, terrible campaigning probably being to the fore there.

MikeHoncho

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sorry man think it was a simple mix up I made that statement as a dig at a previous equally ridiculous statement " Given that the primary reason to vote no seems to be paranoia" You took me literal when i was just pointing out that both sides can make ludicrously broad and unsupported statements.
Sorry man.

My apologies for taking that up wrong in the first place.

conkeroo

molloyjh wrote: »

...And there have been a few on both sides for numerous reasons, terrible campaigning probably being to the fore there.

Again I agree, a point I made yesterday. On both sides of the campaign there has been no transparency or reasoning to the claims they make. And this is true from both sides. I personally am not voting No because of the claims made by Libertas or Sinn Fein (as someone alluded to yesterday). Im voting no because of whats important to me, what takes priority for me. I honestly don't believe that if it is a No vote it will do irreperable damage so thats how I can come to my decision.