Which way will you vote (if at all)

Call Me Jimmy

Bacchus wrote: »

My first post on the Lisbon treaty. Totally agree with the above. Both sides have been scaremongering and I think it's a shame. Why can't they trust to public to listen to the facts and make up their own minds instead of coming out with the likes of "Vote Yes or Europe will get pissy with us" and "Vote No because they took yer commissioner!!"

Well in fairness, people in europe have already began to get pissy with us over the possibility of us rejecting this. The thing is, I firmly believe there is no "better deal" and that to think so is arrogant at worst and naive at best. In that case, we are stuck in this exact setup of the EU for how long?

Unless we get a 'better deal' we won't pass it a second time if we fail now, so the rest of europe wants to get on with this but they can't without us. Does that not create a messy situation?

I'm not saying we'll be excommunicated or that our trading will suffer at all but the point is for me that the uncertainty is not good. Alternatively a yes vote is a lot more predictable imo as at this stage all the lies have been refuted so there is very little to argue about.

Scofflaw

Hermy wrote: »

I fully accept that it is not necessary for every country to have a referendum on the Treaty but I dare say that many more countries might reject the Treaty if it were put to the people.

Well, I think you're entitled to that belief. I'd prefer if those countries that don't have referendums got used to having them first, though. Otherwise, you're really just deciding the future of Europe by shouting match.

We're a relatively sophisticated electorate. We read more newspapers than most other countries. We have a complex and subtle voting system. We're used to divisive and emotional referendums ('Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy' and the like). Yet still this one has many voters simply baffled. How would it be in countries where they're not used to the level of lies and distortion involved?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hermy

Indeed Scofflaw.

So now I need a new reason for voting no.
Terrorism, neutrality, militarisation, scaremongering on both sides...the list goes on!

Call Me Jimmy

Hermy wrote: »

I fully accept that it is not necessary for every country to have a referendum on the Treaty but I dare say that many more countries might reject the Treaty if it were put to the people.

If that were true I think the reason would be the ignorance of a lot of people and the fact that they, like many here, are sticking it to the man, 'fighting for freedom' and not understanding the issues. "UNELECTED PRESIDENT OMG!!" would sway a lot of voters alone because they take it at face value.

EDIT: Just in case anyone misunderstands, I'm saying a sizable number of voters are completely ignorant and that that effects the vote. If it was a parliamentary vote everyone would have an understanding of all the issues. Like someone said, a parliamentary vote on something like this is the wiser choice imo.

AtomicHorror

Hermy wrote: »

I fully accept that it is not necessary for every country to have a referendum on the Treaty but I dare say that many more countries might reject the Treaty if it were put to the people.

They might well, though it's speculative. I don't think treaties like this should really go to referendum even in Ireland. The people have a responsibility to choose a government that reflects their ideals and views. Last year we had an opportunity to do just that and we chose to change little. On some significant divisive cultural issues I can see why a referendum is desirable. However, to expect the people to assess a vast and intricate legal document seems silly, especially when we are already employing a government (who we have chosen ourselves) to do that job for us.

DeVore

URK?!

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

DeV.

Call Me Jimmy

Hermy wrote: »

Indeed Scofflaw.

So now I need a new reason for voting no.
scaremongering on both sides...the list goes on!

I know you're probably joking but I don't why's that a reason to vote no.

Call Me Jimmy

DeVore wrote: »

URK?!

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

DeV.

As someone said, on these sorts of treaties where people complain they don't understand every word of the document etc. I don't think it's a problem having a parliamentary vote. We don't have a referendum on nearly every other thing and it works for us (unless you think it is appalling that politicians make decisions without our direct say).

molloyjh

Hermy wrote: »

Indeed Scofflaw.

So now I need a new reason for voting no.
Terrorism, neutrality, militarisation, scaremongering on both sides...the list goes on!

Terrorism: I presume you mean the use of the word without definition of what it is? Well I'm pretty sure the word has already been defined in EU law and that definition would therefore apply.

Neutrality: We were never strictly nuetral anyway, more pacifly aligned. We currently operate with the UN and we mantain the right to opt out of any military action.

Militarisation: Its not like the Treaty is asking us to start an arms race. It is just trying to ensure that we each focus somewhat on imporving our defense forces, which is a on going thing currently anyway.

Scaremongering - this has nothing to do with the Treaty itself and is solely to do with the campaigns. It should not affect your vote. Even if it did you say both sides are guilty so why is that a reason for voting no?

AtomicHorror

DeVore wrote: »

URK?!

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

DeV.

Was that directed at me? I'm certainly not suggesting that the people are incapable of making an informed decision, nor that they should not be allowed to vote based on their capacity to understand the document. What I'm saying is that putting such a document directly to the people is cumbersome and unnecessary. It is wasteful of time, taxes and resources and is a job that they typically would not be expected to have to do in most democracies.

nesf

DeVore wrote: »

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

What about electing a group to deal with such matters on our behalf? It's pretty much what we do with law etc in this country already for the most part. Direct democracy doesn't work very well if the issue at hand isn't easily understood and relatively clear cut. The vast majority of people just won't be willing to put the time in to fully understand anything complicated or legalistic, so we end up with a plebiscite which isn't informed or cogent of the issue at hand. This isn't exactly a good thing.

The key term isn't that the electorate won't understand it, it's that there's little incentive for the electorate to put in the large level of work needed to understand many issues. You'll get a handful who will do it but by and large people want to vote based on bullet point lists and broad principles not interpretations of complicated legalistic documents. They simply don't have the time or the inclination to do things differently, the vast majority of people ignore politics 99% of the time outside of elections and news headlines outside of possibly one pet topic close to their heart that they follow more closely. It isn't a criticism of them or anything, but we should design political systems that don't deny this very strong tendency of human nature.

sink

DeVore wrote: »

URK?!

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

DeV.

It's not that they don't understand it, it's that they make no attempt to inform themselves. Now there are many people commenting here on boards that have read up on the issues and seem to have well formed arguments upon which to base their opinion. Unfortunately if you expand that to the wider populace you will get a lot of ignorance and those people are happy to be ignorant, how can direct democracy work when people are voting on issues they are clueless about? What would make more sense is if those people to lazy to find out for themselves elected a person to research the issues and vote on their behalf, that is basically what parliamentary democracy is about. That is why I believe we should entrust the parliamentarians to sort these issues out for us, obviously this requires a lot of trust and that trust has been eroded because of the tribunals, which has lead to democracy suffering.

My most ideal society would be true, direct democracy were anybody can get involved in the decision making process, but they would have to inform themselves thoroughly on the issues. This is however in reality is impractical because society as a whole is not bothered. I myself am a political junkie and I will spend 2-4 hours a day reading news websites and another 2 hours commenting, there are not many people that interested in politics.

AtomicHorror

I accept that I'm playing the man and not the ball.
However we were told that if we rejected Nice the sky would fall down.
It didn't.
Instead we were made to do it all over again until we got the right answer.
The Dutch rejected the E.U. Constitution and the sky didn't fall down.
Ditto the French.
Now we are being told to vote Yes on Lisbon or else.
I decided to vote No because of the dreadful campaigning on both sides which left me baffled.
Why did the government who insist that this Treaty is vital for Irelands future not present the facts to us as per some of the informed and considered responses I've read here today which have me reconsidering my vote.
It wasn't until last weekends poll that the government got the finger out.
It is my view that this government has nothing but contempt for the electorate and as long as this remains the case they will always struggle to convince me that their policies are best.

A perfect argument for voting the government out of power in the next round of local and general elections. Your discontent would go to much better use there. For the record, I'll be right there with you. Don't take it out on Europe.

molloyjh

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A perfect argument for voting the government out of power in the next round of local and general elections. Your discontent would go to much better use there. For the record, I'll be right there with you. Don't take it out on Europe.

Additionally the Referendum Commission sent on details of the Treaty from a non-biased point of view. This went to everyone on the register so noone can say not enough was done to clarify the thing.

dlofnep

I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.

Ant the no side aren't?

AtomicHorror

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.

If you reckoned they were trying to scare you into accepting a free holiday in the sun would you fall for that? Or would you defy them because of their rather misplaced tactics?

Both sides are trying to scare you. They're trying to scare the people who aren't willing to do the research. The tactics of neither side reflect the truth of the Treaty. Do a bit of reading, make your mind up based on that. Don't vote as some kind of act of defiance. Save that for when it counts.

molloyjh

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.

Both sides are doing that. Ignore them both, spend some time looking at the threads here (Scofflaw and sink are pretty well up on the holw thing) and make up your own mind independant from the noisemakers.

Hermy

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The people have a responsibility to choose a government that reflects their ideals and views.

Since getting into government the Green Party don't appear to have the same views and ideals.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

If it was a parliamentary vote everyone would have an understanding of all the issues.

If it was a parliamentary vote, then the voters would be doing what their party whip instructed them to do.

DeVore wrote: »

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.
DeV.

Here, here.

molloyjh wrote: »

Terrorism: I presume you mean the use of the word without definition of what it is? Well I'm pretty sure the word has already been defined in EU law and that definition would therefore apply.

Does it apply?

Neutrality: We were never strictly nuetral anyway, more pacifly aligned. We currently operate with the UN and we mantain the right to opt out of any military action.

As long as the U.S. military are using Shannon as a stop off we are not neutral.

Scaremongering - this has nothing to do with the Treaty itself and is solely to do with the campaigns. It should not affect your vote. Even if it did you say both sides are guilty so why is that a reason for voting no?

I cannot surely agree to something that I do not understand. It was the task of the government, the opposition, the Yes campaign, the No campaign, the Referendum Commission and other interested parties to inform me.
They didn't!
Ergo, I reject the Treaty because of a lack of understanding and a belief that thing's will carry on as normal if the Treaty is rejected.

AtomicHorror

Hermy wrote: »

AtomicHorror:
The people have a responsibility to choose a government that reflects their ideals and views.
Hermy:
Since getting into government the Green Party don't appear to have the same views and ideals.

That suggests a logical course of action that has nothing at all to do with the Lisbon Treaty. My point holds.

AtomicHorror

Hermy wrote: »

I cannot surely agree to something that I do not understand. It was the task of the government, the opposition, the Yes campaign, the No campaign, the Referendum Commission and other interested parties to inform me.
They didn't!
Ergo, I reject the Treaty because of a lack of understanding and a belief that thing's will carry on as normal if the Treaty is rejected.

You've debated it extensively here and the literature is widely available. The campaigns have let us down but that's no excuse for ignorance. If you can't understand what is available to you then that is unfortunate, do your best to make an informed vote either way.

sink

Hermy wrote: »

Since getting into government the Green Party don't appear to have the same views and ideals.

I was never a fan of the GP, I always thought they were to motivated by ideology and were not interested in practicable way of addressing the issues. Now that I have seem them in office and they show willing to compromise ideology to reflect reality I would be more inclined to vote for them in a future election.

Hermy wrote: »

If it was a parliamentary vote, then the voters would be doing what their party whip instructed them to do.

That's how parliamentary parties have always worked in every parliament in the world. Party backbenchers can still rebel if they're so inclined.

Hermy wrote: »

As long as the U.S. military are using Shannon as a stop off we are not neutral.

And what exactly has that to do with Lisbon? How is voting one way or the other in this referendum going to change that?

Hermy wrote: »

I cannot surely agree to something that I do not understand. It was the task of the government, the opposition, the Yes campaign, the No campaign, the Referendum Commission and other interested parties to inform me.
They didn't!
Ergo, I reject the Treaty because of a lack of understanding and a belief that thing's will carry on as normal if the Treaty is rejected.

That is the failing of direct democracy, that is the reason people who don't know shouldn't vote. The information is everywhere, there are about a hundred threads in this forum alone. There have been debates on tv and debates in the newspapers and debates in the streets, cafes, bars restaurants, workplace I even had a debate with a guy in the toilet. If you don't know the issues by now you should do society a favour and not vote.

molloyjh

Hermy wrote: »

I cannot surely agree to something that I do not understand. It was the task of the government, the opposition, the Yes campaign, the No campaign, the Referendum Commission and other interested parties to inform me.
They didn't!
Ergo, I reject the Treaty because of a lack of understanding and a belief that thing's will carry on as normal if the Treaty is rejected.

I'm pretty sure about what the Treaty means and says, I really don't see any reason why you can't be just as well informed.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html

Its not rocket science. Take the time to read this page and you'll be in a far bette position to judge what the best course of action is. The information is out there and as a voter it is your responsibility to make yourself suitable familiar with it to make an informed decision.

Khannie

Hermy wrote: »

Khannie,
It is my humble opinion that this referendum is not being put to the people, especially the French and Dutch, because the governments believe it would be rejected.

Possibly. Anyone seen any opinion polls on how a vote in these countries would go?

Gross generalisation coming up: I couldn't see the French putting up with that though. They're pretty quick to take to the streets when they're unhappy with government decisions.

calahans

If the treaty is renegotiated 100 times it will never be understandable to the average person. Its a complicated document between 27 countries and it is bound to be technical.

This does not make it a bad in itself.

Dont be fooled by the extreme elements of society.

mcaul

How about an eve of Lisbon poll?

See if the trend has changed in the past 2 days after the Q&A & Primetime debates along with the debate here.?

Just be interesting to see if there is much of a swing.

Hermy

O.K. I'm beginning to get out of my depth here.
Thanks for your considered responses - they are certainly food for thought.
As for tomorrow may the best side win.

BlitzKrieg

mcaul wrote: »

How about an eve of Lisbon poll?

See if the trend has changed in the past 2 days after the Q&A & Primetime debates along with the debate here.?

Just be interesting to see if there is much of a swing.

compared to an earlier poll done in AH it does appear as the Yes vote has closed the gap a small bit.

but not by a substantial amount

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055308262

Rb

Its saddening to see so many people won't bother voting at all. This is more important than the General elections yet people will still sit at home and not bother (and then complain about the result afterwards :rolleyes:) I can understand if your polling station is literally hundreds of miles away, but ffs if it's just down the road get off your arse and go vote.

BlitzKrieg

I can understand if your polling station is literally hundreds of miles away, but ffs if it's just down the road get off your arse and go vote.

Actually I have to travel down by train tonight to my home town to vote tomorrow morning and get the train back up for work


Now before anyone shouts at me, I am just curious on this and I am not accusing either side of anything.

But I wonder how many of the votes in the poll are from one post accounts, seeing as more so then any other forum Politics attracts quick sign up soapbox posters.

ruskin

Rb wrote: »

Its saddening to see so many people won't bother voting at all. This is more important than the General elections yet people will still sit at home and not bother (and then complain about the result afterwards :rolleyes:) I can understand if your polling station is literally hundreds of miles away, but ffs if it's just down the road get off your arse and go vote.

+1



Vote NO

thebaldsoprano

Actually, really quite annoyed at this reply and way too busy to reply, but I should reply to the full post before saying bye bye...

Deleted User wrote: »

You were asked to provide text actually and you didn't why was that?
Again you were asked to support your arguments-OB does when asked.

As I mentioned earlier, there's a difference between a request and an order, and btw he still hasn't replied for my request for info.

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol theres an inherent contradiction there.
You cannot pass a law either in Europe or here that covers Ireland if it conflicts with Bunracht na hEireann.

This is pointedly correct, but quite misleading, if the amendment on Thursday goes through the Irish Constitution won't ever conflict with laws dictated to us from Europe ever again. We won't get a referendum on these laws and we'll have to trust our politicians to use their ever diminishing veto powers.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't trust our politicians a hell of a lot...

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats why we have referenda. All Previous treaties have already been passed via referendum so they aren't in question here.

The question was on why not if this has been the case, but I'll take it that at least acknowledging the fact that we and not the politicians passed changes to our constitution means you disagree with OB's assertion that:

"The EU has primacy over national constitutions. That's true of all member states, and it has been true for us since 1973."

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd advise doing a search of scofflaws posts and read the last couple of hundred of them.

Good advice, these're actually good posts.

Deleted User wrote: »

That won't take too long and it will give you a feel for how unfounded a lot of the No campaign points are.

Running into quite a few unfounded yes campaign points on this and other boards already. Can you recommend a poster here of equivalent calibre to scofflaw voting no, or is this recommendation more selective use of information?

Deleted User wrote: »

If you still want to vote no after that exercise,I'll be baffled to be honest.

If you really want to be baffled, try and decipher the Treaty

BlitzKrieg

Can you recommend a poster here of equivalent calibre to scofflaw voting no, or is this recommendation more selective use of information?

I can recommend Johnnyq as the best I have read from the *no* side of the argument on here.

I am still voting yes though but I wont deny that he has been the most consistent no voter and a pleasure to debate with.

molloyjh

Dont have time to reply in full but if ever an amendment to the Treaty conflicts with our Constitution then we will have a referendum. It can't get into the Treaty without being passed first.

See http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html for a more detailed explanation. There is a potential back door where current policy areas that require unanimous support can be switche to QMV, but that change alone also requires unanimous support. The link explains it properly.

IRLConor

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

if the amendment on Thursday goes through the Irish Constitution won't ever conflict with laws dictated to us from Europe ever again.

That doesn't change anything. The substance of the declaration has not changed. The wording has changed slightly, to take into account the different nature of the European Union post-Lisbon.

Here's the change (deletions in red, insertions in green):

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State whichthat are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communitiesreferred to in subsection 10° of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communitiestreaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.

There's no real change there.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

We won't get a referendum on these laws and we'll have to trust our politicians to use their ever diminishing veto powers.

That's not true. The Crotty judgement still applies. Since the Crotty judgement post-dates the insertion of the clause mentioned above I can't see how it will change anything.

We will still need a referendum for any transfer of power to which the Crotty judgement applies. Someone recently posted or linked to an explanation of the nature of the Crotty judgement.

thebaldsoprano

IRLConor, Thanks!

That's a hell of a post, if only the campaigns where that clear!

Still weighted towards *no* but I'll definitely look this stuff up before I vote.

BlitzKrieg, thanks for that recommendation aswell,

ye've potentially got yerselves a new yes voter

IRLConor

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

IRLConor, Thanks!

That's a hell of a post, if only the campaigns where that clear!

Still weighted towards *no* but I'll definitely look this stuff up before I vote.

BlitzKrieg, thanks for that recommendation aswell,

ye've potentially got yerselves a new yes voter

Great! Glad to be a help.

If there's anything else at all that you're unsure of, please do ask either on-thread or via PM. I've spent a lot of time learning about the treaty, I'm only too happy to spread the knowledge.

DeVore

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Actually I have to travel down by train tonight to my home town to vote tomorrow morning and get the train back up for work


Now before anyone shouts at me, I am just curious on this and I am not accusing either side of anything.

But I wonder how many of the votes in the poll are from one post accounts, seeing as more so then any other forum Politics attracts quick sign up soapbox posters.

I kept a close eye on it actually, that ratio has been almost (and spookily) static since the poll hit 100 votes in total. I'll look into it and see if anyone was being "naughty".


I love it when people get naughty and think we wont notice

DeV.

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

I kept a close eye on it actually, that ratio has been almost (and spookily) static since the poll hit 100 votes in total. I'll look into it and see if anyone was being "naughty".


I love it when people get naughty and think we wont notice

DeV.

Cult is great, everyone should have one.

10 people signed up and voted in the past 2 days. Thats not statistically strange and wont impact a dataset of 1000+

They didnt all vote the same way (at least 3 voted to say they wont be voting.... )

Seems clean... its going to be interesting to see how closely Boards compares with the national vote.

DeV.

shinny

They should do what they do in Australia, fine you if you don't vote.

I will be voting and I will be voting No.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

I see.
Could you explain then why french voters brought in a new right wing government after that referendum by a landslide on a mandate to impliment the improved version?

You can't say that they elected any government to do any specific thing and you well know it! In fact, I thnk it's fair to say that when we (and I preume the french and dutch) go to the national polls we are generally thinking much more of domestic issues and NOT European ones!

I believe (and it was reported as a possible reason) the dutch voted NO to the constitution as they feared further EU expansion especially Turkish accession given they are a liberal democracy and had recently had an openly homosexual politician murdered by islamic extremists whom he had condemned for being anti-dutch with their ultra-religious way of life. The dutch simply didn't want more muslims coming into their liberal country telling them what to do and that their liberal practices were 'wrong'.

So it's hardly surprising that they elected a 'right wing' government at all. They probably didn't think a right wing government would pass this treaty either.

irishtoffee

A 100% NO.

DeVore

User Onegin deleted, along with his nasty crap. Thread cleaned.

DeV.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

You can't say that they elected any government to do any specific thing and you well know it! In fact, I thnk it's fair to say that when we (and I preume the french and dutch) go to the national polls we are generally thinking much more of domestic issues and NOT European ones!

So you are saying the issue wasn't important enough for them then?
I'll disagree with you regarding this wholesale giving out about other countries not having a referendum on this treaty.

Thats direct democracy where like the Swiss,you vote on many major laws and can get a referendum whose result if passed is binding by having enough signitures.

Mary Harney made a good point yesterday on the news at one iirc.
She gave the interviewer a copy of the finance act that brought in the low corporation tax in this country.
It was as full of legalese and more than the lisbon treaty.

If you had to put every contentious piece of legislation to a referendum,the country would soon grind to a halt.
If you used the quantity of legalese in every statute in bill form as a reason to reject it without a referendum,we'd be in a right state.

johnnyq

Deleted User wrote: »

So you are saying the issue wasn't important enough for them then?
I'll disagree with you regarding this wholesale giving out about other countries not having a referendum on this treaty.

Thats direct democracy where like the Swiss,you vote on many major laws and can get a referendum whose result if passed is binding by having enough signitures.

Mary Harney made a good point yesterday on the news at one iirc.
She gave the interviewer a copy of the finance act that brought in the low corporation tax in this country.
It was as full of legalese and more than the lisbon treaty.

If you had to put every contentious piece of legislation to a referendum,the country would soon grind to a halt.
If you used the quantity of legalese in every statute in bill form as a reason to reject it without a referendum,we'd be in a right state.

The Finance act argument is really rubbish.

What guides the Finance Act? The constitution we voted on.

What guides the Treaty? Nothing!!!! That's why we're voting on it ffs!

turgon

All I can say to Black Briar: See wikipedia article on "Switzerland", especially direct democracy there.

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

The Finance act argument is really rubbish.

What guides the Finance Act? The constitution we voted on.

What guides the Treaty? Nothing!!!! That's why we're voting on it ffs!

Actually, what guides the Treaty is the existing Treaties that Lisbon amends, the accumulated body of European and international law, which limits the likely interpretation of the Treaty, and, of course, the constitutions and policies of all the member states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Although a Swiss style system would not work on and EU scale.

cm2000

I've now read all the objective material I could find and have come to a decision. I will be voting yes as I think it helps Europe move forward more efficiently while protecting our vital national interests. Secondly an awful lot of people spent 7 years of painstaking negotiations coming up with this treaty and to vote no because I heard some false rumour about losing control of taxes would lead to a situation I suspect where we would piss off alot of people and lose a fair bit of political capital in the process. I don't think either side has launched a good campaign. I saw a labour councillor's campaign poster in Dublin 15 the other day with a giant picture of him with his name in giant letters and "Vote Yes" in size 12 font in the corner. I think a yes vote is a vote for hope, not a vote for fear. I feel the no side lack credibility. 160/166 TD's support this treaty. These people by-in-large are dedicated to public service, are democratically elected by the Irish people and represent the views of the vast majority of the electorate. They have the best interests of our coutry at heart. A yes is the only positive vote in this treaty.

PrivateEye

If you're worried about 'pissing people off'

theres a few MILLION Europeans who voted down the vast majority of this Treaty already, and are now being denied a vote.

Imagine we'll be the toast of democraticly minded people all over Europe Friday night if we vote No.

We may well piss a few of them off by passing this Treaty. Not alone are we damaging our own interests, we're giving two fingers to 450 MILLION E.U citizens who didn't get a ballot in the post like we did.

Votez Non :pac: