Which way will you vote (if at all)

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

Actually man I have to call you up on this as not technically true. The EU will be able to change votes in certain areas from unanimous to weighted majority with just the support of the government. That is a change as we would currently need a referendum. Only a small point but still rellevant.

I would disagree, since those areas are already competences of the EU, it would not affect the constitution and it could just be ratified through the Dail.

Eru

Having actually read the Lisbon treaty (a full version is painfully hard to find for some reason) i I am going yes. theres some areas Im not happy about but overall I support it and some of the no campaigns arguements are misleading or plain wrong.

Ireland has sweet FA say in europe anyway but were only noticing now because its no longer our hands out begging.

Also need to remember that we were the poor cousin in europe for many years so its about time we helped others as they helped us and the Irish people need to develop longer memories in this regards.

drunkmonkey

Xcellor wrote: »

I've seen posters of monkeys like "won't see you won't hear you"

By that definition there is a lot of monkeys here. Voting No because you can't be arsed to find out what a yes vote means is really stupid.

Europe should just kick ireland out on its arse if the vote is rejected because of ignorant people!!

What in Gods name can Europe Actually do to us?

50 lashes
Up the Price of Booze
Make Sure VRT stays for Good
Introduce Green Taxes

Europe is starting to eat itself, What started out as a good idea is slowly turning rotten, like most green things after a while......

If Europe gives us the cold shoulder we can always turn to our close Unkle Sam....

We'll let them hide a few nukes in our back garden and they'll give us the universe and jobs for generations to come....

ShooterSF

sink wrote: »

I would disagree, since those areas are already competences of the EU, it would not affect the constitution and it could just be ratified through the Dail.

Then why do they need to amend the constitution to bring this in, unless theres an ulterior motive I'd assume it was needed to change that rule.

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

Then why do they need to amend the constitution to bring this in, unless theres an ulterior motive I'd assume it was needed to change that rule.

We need to ratify it by referendum because there are new areas which become competences of the EU.

conkeroo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't accept that it's ok to do damage, just because you believe it can be repaired. This is doubly true if you're not the one that has to do the repairing. What consequences are those?

I didnt say there definitely be consequences so, and by your own admission..

What consequences are those? I'd better speak plainly again: that's a rhetorical question. You don't know the answer, any more than I do.

So if your not sure there would be any consequences, why are you voting yes? You believe things would be better for Ireland even though the treaty can be ratified at a later date (with anything for all we know) if you vote yes? Thats an enviable amount of faith you have, seriously. Fair play.

conkeroo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If Europe gives us the cold shoulder we can always turn to our close Unkle Sam....

We'll let them hide a few nukes in our back garden and they'll give us the universe and jobs for generations to come....

lol

IRLConor

Just back from voting Yes (and explaining enough of the treaty to a "Don't know, vote no" person to convince her of a yes ).

Judging by the number of lines crossed out on the sheet with my name on it, I reckon the turnout was about 20% when I voted. Unless there's a big surge in the after-work crowd, I can't see that constituency breaking 40% turnout.

oscarBravo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ohh the Sky is going to fall in......!!

Put away the straw man, good lad. I didn't predict dire consequences, I stated the simple fact that we don't know what the consequences are.

A No vote will mean we'll have to have another vote that's all.....

If you have the weekend's lotto numbers handy, I'd appreciate that.

Vote No until you understand exactly the consequences of a Yes Vote....

The consequences of a Yes vote are written down in the treaty.

Where are the consequences of a No vote written down? You seem to have read them somewhere...

conkeroo wrote: »

So if your not sure there would be any consequences, why are you voting yes?

Because there will be consequences. Every decision has consequences. It's an inescapable fact of life.

You believe things would be better for Ireland even though the treaty can be ratified at a later date (with anything for all we know) if you vote yes? Thats an enviable amount of faith you have, seriously. Fair play.

Assuming you mean "modified" (because the sentence doesn't make any sense otherwise), the terms under which it can be modified are set out in the treaty.

I'm not expressing some sort of blind faith in the goodness of our fellow man, I'm pointing out that the consequences of a "yes" vote are at least written down and can be judged on their merits. A "no" vote is more of a leap of faith, in my view.

drunkmonkey

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm pointing out that the consequences of a "yes" vote are at least written down and can be judged on their merits. A "no" vote is more of a leap of faith, in my view.

How can a No vote be a leap of faith? If we vote No everthing remains the same...except having to change the treaty until were happy with it! i.e the ordinary man in the street can understand it....

If we vote yes we've just ratified a treaty that less than 1% of the popultion understand.....that makes no sense and is a horrible reflection on our society and political system....


You have it the wrong way around, A yes vote is a leap of faith with a corrupt political system.....

Call Me Jimmy

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You have it the wrong way around, A yes vote is a leap of faith with a corrupt political

Are you talking about ireland's corrupt political system or the european union itself or all the democracies in the union?

conkeroo

I'm pointing out that the consequences of a "yes" vote are at least written down and can be judged on their merits. A "no" vote is more of a leap of faith, in my view.

And you're 100% convinced that with a yes vote there will be no detrimental effects?

Because there will be consequences. Every decision has consequences. It's an inescapable fact of life.

I'm aware of this. So in order to vote yes you're obviously convinced that a yes vote will be more positive than a no vote? Can I ask how you came to this? As far as i'm concerned anyone can have any opinion about this and though i might not agree I will not state that their wrong. I'll respect everyones views. I'm genuinely interested why you would vote yes.

Overheal

too much uncertainty. so i voted no. not that i can vote on irish law anyway

drunkmonkey

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Are you talking about ireland's corrupt political system or the european union itself or all the democracies in the union?

Our Political System trying to ram the yes vote down our throat...

Here's a flash back -

Charlie Haughey - Corrupt who was his side kick
Bertie "I won it on the horses" Ahern, who was Berties side kick Brian "I haven't read, it but Trust us Boys" Cowen...

Am i the only one that sees a pattern here...

Please not another tribunal in 6 years time..

Democracy needs a serious overhall there's not one person in the Dail qualified to run this country in the citizens best intrests...

It's all money money money, and that's why our policticans are pushing for a yes vote, I wonder what Dev would have made of another ammendment to the Constitution?

Rb

IRLConor wrote: »

Just back from voting Yes (and explaining enough of the treaty to a "Don't know, vote no" person to convince her of a yes ).

That's not something to be proud of.

conkeroo

Just as a thought, would everyone agree that the government and indeed the opposition promoting the yes vote would surely know how difficult it would be to promote this treaty seeing as it is a complicated document. If they really wanted to gain a yes vote, and i'm sure they do, then why not make it accessible and explain their stance on the different points they support. Why wasn't there any clarification? As another poster stated, he was told by a member of FF that "a No vote would be a vote for SF and he wasn't going to support those ********, was he?" This seems a very incompotent way to promote a Yes vote to those who want to know. And considering Brian Cowen himself admitted that he hasn't read it, this is at the very least extremely unprofessional. What does everyone else think?

oscarBravo

conkeroo wrote: »

And you're 100% convinced that with a yes vote there will be no detrimental effects?

Having researched the treaty and all the information I could find relating to it, I'm convinced that the likelihood of detrimental effects is minimal.

The whole point of a treaty, and - more specifically - the whole point of having a treaty written in fairly dense legal language, is that its consequences are pretty predictable.

Something a lot of "no" people seem to want to refuse to consider is that there is tremendous impetus for change in Europe. The idea that a "no" vote will mean that nothing changes; that the whole process of reform of the institutions will simply go way; this is naive in the extreme.

Both "yes" and "no" votes will have far-reaching consequences. The consequences of the "yes" vote are written down. The consequences of the "no" vote are in the realm of speculation, and very little of that speculation is positive for us.

If you haven't done so, read the thread started by The Corinthian earlier.

I'm aware of this. So in order to vote yes you're obviously convinced that a yes vote will be more positive than a no vote? Can I ask how you came to this? As far as i'm concerned anyone can have any opinion about this and though i might not agree I will not state that their wrong. I'll respect everyones views. I'm genuinely interested why you would vote yes.

There's nothing terribly radical in the treaty. It's a series of streamlining amendments designed to (a) make an enlarged EU function more effectively, and (b) further the aims of the member states acting in a concerted manner on an increasingly uncertain world stage.

Moreover, every single one of the reasons put forward by the "no" campaign has been systematically dismantled here on this forum using logic, reason and facts.

I haven't seen a single compelling reason to vote "no".

IRLConor

Rb wrote: »

That's not something to be proud of.

Yes it is.

She was uninformed before, then I informed her, answered her questions and she made up her own mind.

How is that a bad thing?

Do you think I fed her misinformation? If so, what precedent here can you show that I spread lies?

oscarBravo

Rb wrote: »

That's not something to be proud of.

It might not be something for you to be proud of. It may come as a shock, but not everybody thinks the way you do.

Rb

IRLConor wrote: »

Yes it is.

She was uninformed before, then I informed her, answered her questions and she made up her own mind.

How is that a bad thing?

Do you think I fed her misinformation? If so, what precedent here can you show that I spread lies?

No precedent, just that due to you having your own beliefs on the treaty, I doubt your "information" was unbiased.

Rb

oscarBravo wrote: »

It might not be something for you to be proud of. It may come as a shock, but not everybody thinks the way you do.

Well of course you'd say that, it benefitted your "side".

I wouldn't be impressed if Libertas had people standing at the doors trying to sway people at the last minute, so I'm equally unimpressed that someone took it upon themselves to sway someone at the last minute with what can only be biased facts in an effort to get them to vote yes.

drunkmonkey

IRLConor wrote: »

Yes it is.

She was uninformed before, then I informed her, answered her questions and she made up her own mind.

How is that a bad thing?

Do you think I fed her misinformation? If so, what precedent here can you show that I spread lies?

Conor I don't think anyone wants to say your spreding lies (cause your a moderator and that would be just silly ) but your acting like you done this woman a favour........I had a young Finna Failure try and convice me to vote yes, I said look i'll think about voting yes and off she hopped on her merry way....

maybe that woman was glad to say yes to get you to go away, It's not right that the yes vote has been shoved down our throats, I hope your on some politicans pay roll!!

cornbb

Rb wrote: »

No precedent, just that due to you having your own beliefs on the treaty, I doubt your "information" was unbiased.

How is convincing someone on the street any different than trying to:

- convince them in an online discussion?
- convince them via posters?
- convince them via door-to-door canvassing?

etc etc

Kavinsky

Voted No, mainly because it doesn't make sense to increase Ireland's military expenditure in the current economic climate. If we had domestic weapon's factories then maybe, but increasing our expenditure means importing of weapons and technologies from america/india/china/etc. In a recession, it is generally better to increase exports rather than imports.

cornbb

Rb wrote: »

I wouldn't be impressed if Libertas had people standing at the doors trying to sway people at the last minute, so I'm equally unimpressed that someone took it upon themselves to sway someone at the last minute with what can only be biased facts in an effort to get them to vote yes.

What the hell is a "biased fact"? There are facts, and then there is the stuff that Libertas tell people...

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

Actually man I have to call you up on this as not technically true. The EU will be able to change votes in certain areas from unanimous to weighted majority with just the support of the government. That is a change as we would currently need a referendum. Only a small point but still rellevant.

I would disagree, since those areas are already competences of the EU, it would not affect the constitution and it could just be ratified through the Dail.

As far as I know, the ability to move those areas to QMV is actually covered in the last clause of the amendment we're voting on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conkeroo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Having researched the treaty and all the information I could find relating to it, I'm convinced that the likelihood of detrimental effects is minimal.

Then I think it all depends on what a person believes is the right way forward. I think the problem is, and i'm not saying I have a solution, is that theres so many pros and cons within the treaty yet people have to make a broadsweeping decision to cover the entirity of the treay. Yes or No. As a No voter, from everthing i've read to day (and I have learned a lot), certain aspects I simply couldn't support. If that means, as I was saying earlier, I must accept the consequences of a No vote in the HOPE another deal (as it were) can be done, then so be it. Putting all your eggs in one basket, not knowing what's in those eggs, I wasn't prepared to do.

Call Me Jimmy

cornbb wrote: »

What the hell is a "biased fact"? There are facts, and then there is the stuff that Libertas tell people...

zing!

Rb

cornbb wrote: »

How is convincing someone on the street any different than trying to:

- convince them in an online discussion?
- convince them via posters?
- convince them via door-to-door canvassing?

etc etc

Convincing someone at a polling station on the day of the vote is entirely different to trying to convince someone many days before the vote, regardless of the medium.

Rb

cornbb wrote: »

What the hell is a "biased fact"? There are facts, and then there is the stuff that Libertas tell people...

Well obviously I meant presenting the facts in a biased way, such as the lisbontreaty2008 did on their site by simply saying "We get to keep our vetoes in certain areas".