Maybe we won't be voting on Lisbon

PopeBuckfastXVI

I don't think it's unfair to call into question the effect of the lies, half truths and innuendo from some sectors of the No camp such as Libertas and Coir.

If people feel they were fooled by these campaigns then they should absolutely have a right to change their minds.

I wish there was some way of legally restricting people from outright false claims about what is or isn't in the treaty.

I don't mind things like 'vote NO to Lisbon to keep Irish jobs' so much, but I detest things like 'vote NO to Lisbon to keep our corporation tax'.

CiaranC

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I don't think it's unfair to call into question the effect of the lies, half truths and innuendo from some sectors of the No camp such as Libertas and Coir.

If people feel they were fooled by these campaigns then they should absolutely have a right to change their minds.

I wish there was some way of legally restricting people from outright false claims about what is or isn't in the treaty.

I don't mind things like 'vote NO to Lisbon to keep Irish jobs' so much, but I detest things like 'vote NO to Lisbon to keep our corporation tax'.

Presumably under these restrictions wed have to publish the fact that lisbon is just the EU constitution that failed to pass muster in France and the Netherlands in a new form.

There is no end to yes supporters reasons why the treaty has to be run again (No voters are stupid, they didnt do enough research, something about abortion, times have changed, SF/Libertas broke into peoples houses and whispered "vote no" into their ears over and over while they slept etc), but at the end of the day its being rerun because the Irish people gave the wrong answer, and it will be rerun with more propaganda to ensure that the right one is given this time. End of discussion.

PopeBuckfastXVI

CiaranC wrote: »

Presumably under these restrictions wed have to publish the fact that lisbon is just the EU constitution that failed to pass muster in France and the Netherlands in a new form

The institutional reform elements of the Constitution forming the bulk of Lisbon is no secret?

If by 'we' you mean the 'No' camp then by all means you can publish that factual statement.

Calling Lisbon the constitution, or saying it had been voted down in France or the Netherlands would be a lie.

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I don't think it's unfair to call into question the effect of the lies, half truths and innuendo from some sectors of the No camp such as Libertas and Coir.

If people feel they were fooled by these campaigns then they should absolutely have a right to change their minds.

I wish there was some way of legally restricting people from outright false claims about what is or isn't in the treaty.

I don't mind things like 'vote NO to Lisbon to keep Irish jobs' so much, but I detest things like 'vote NO to Lisbon to keep our corporation tax'.

I'd accept that but I'd suggest the Yes side while maybe not making up outright lies used a fair touch of scaremongering rather than attempting to educate the electorate.
At the end of the day these people are politicians/business men/pressure groups and one has to realise they will all have thier own agendas and do some research for yourself. I doubt any vote will be done with a completely educated electorate unfortunately.
However, and this a big point to me, people aren't out on the streets of Ireland outraged and demanding another referendum. They never were.

CiaranC wrote: »

Presumably under these restrictions wed have to publish the fact that lisbon is just the EU constitution that failed to pass muster in France and the Netherlands in a new form.

There is no end to yes supporters reasons why the treaty has to be run again (No voters are stupid, they didnt do enough research, something about abortion, times have changed, SF/Libertas broke into peoples houses and whispered "vote no" into their ears over and over while they slept etc), but at the end of the day its being rerun because the Irish people gave the wrong answer, and it will be rerun with more propaganda to ensure that the right one is given this time. End of discussion.

I loled quite hard at his

conchubhar1

ShooterSF wrote: »

However, and this a big point to me, people aren't out on the streets of Ireland outraged and demanding another referendum. They never were.

I loled quite hard at his

thats a good point - they never did and when they did have to vote they made their choice.

haha at the other point :pac:

conchubhar1

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I don't think it's unfair to call into question the effect of the lies, half truths and innuendo from some sectors of the No camp such as Libertas and Coir.

If people feel they were fooled by these campaigns then they should absolutely have a right to change their minds.

I wish there was some way of legally restricting people from outright false claims about what is or isn't in the treaty.

I don't mind things like 'vote NO to Lisbon to keep Irish jobs' so much, but I detest things like 'vote NO to Lisbon to keep our corporation tax'.

i agree, this should be in every aspect of politics - repsponsibility.

the yes campaign should be bound by this too. with libertas not handling the no vote - there lies wont be as big an issue in this vote

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'd accept that but I'd suggest the Yes side while maybe not making up outright lies used a fair touch of scaremongering rather than attempting to educate the electorate.
At the end of the day these people are politicians/business men/pressure groups and one has to realise they will all have thier own agendas and do some research for yourself. I doubt any vote will be done with a completely educated electorate unfortunately.
However, and this a big point to me, people aren't out on the streets of Ireland outraged and demanding another referendum. They never were.

Fully agree about the 'yes' side using scaremongering, and believe me I've no love for them for it.

I'm of the opinion that given all the facts the treaty can stand on it's merit, so I'm not afraid of getting the truth out there.

Ok, so I wasn't on the streets, but I did b*tch and moan a lot on the interweb

sceptre

ShooterSF wrote: »

However, and this a big point to me, people aren't out on the streets of Ireland outraged and demanding another referendum. They never were.

I sort of assumed there was going to be another one anyway. As opposed to the last time I think you'll find some people out on the streets campaigning in favour of the thing when it's re-run.

conchubhar1

molloyjh wrote: »

For as long as these levels of ignorance remain we can't be sure about the referenda results either way.

how about stating to people where they can read it online for one?
both sides....

i had to trace it up - on this forum but nonetheless. (if it wasnt for the great people here...)

conchubhar1

sceptre wrote: »

I sort of assumed there was going to be another one anyway. As opposed to the last time I think you'll find some people out on the streets campaigning in favour of the thing when it's re-run.

i hope if i ask them questions they can answer - yes or no.

im still undecided as are a lot of people. i want refrences to the treaty.
i accept most people only want a is it good or bad spin and then they vote - but i want and need some hard facts and examples

Affable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKt4oLVxIoU&feature=related

THIS really shocked me. This is a 'centre/leftist' outfit like CNN.

We'd never dream of having this arrogance. To dictate to them. Every so often their conceit just reminds me-why the **** are we going along with them?

'European leaders want to sent their own agenda, apart from American policy'. Wow, shock horror, how dare they have the audacity not to do as we're told.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Affable wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKt4oLVxIoU&feature=related

THIS really shocked me. This is a 'centre/leftist' outfit like CNN.

We'd never dream of having this arrogance. To dictate to them. It just seems like they really do belief they can meddle in our affairs.

'European leaders want to sent their own agenda, apart from American policy'. Wow, shock horror, how dare they have the audacity.'

lol... I don't think I'll be taking my political advice from people who don't know the difference between 'too' and 'to'.

Affable

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

lol... I don't think I'll be taking my political advice from people who don't know the difference between 'too' and 'to'.

Hold on, you sure about that?

PopeBuckfastXVI

From the video...

The Video wrote:

The Lisbon Treaty states all countrys have too give up all their sovrengity

insert your own [sic]'s

ionix5891

CNN just joined that list of mine previously shared for FOX and SKY news

i dont even know where to start with that video so ill just go back to celebration drinking

evercloserunion

See if Cameron still has his balls when faced with economic and political reality. Just like Maggie Thatcher, famous for her supposed "standing up to Brussels", who then turned around and ratified the SEA. IIRC it was also the Conservatives who ratified Maastricht.

That said, you can't put it past a populist fool like Cameron to do something like this. TBH a new government reneging on its strongest promise would NOT go down well with the British electorate so his hand might be forced. If there is a referendum in Britain I would consider going over there to campaign for a Yes, but in all honesty it would very likely fail.

Affable

ionix5891 wrote: »

CNN just joined that list of mine previously shared for FOX and SKY news

i dont even know where to start with that video so ill just go back to celebration drinking

It's hard to smile though. I'm really fed up of the cowtowing to them. Arrogant does not do it justice, it's not just CNN, like I say that's a moderate outfit. It's the whole psyche. The further we move towards Europe and get them out of our affairs the better, we have been too spineless.

jhegarty

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I believe people are entitled to change their minds.

It's quite clear the people have changed their mind on last general election.

I hope the government are as quick to give us another go on that one.

oscarBravo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

lol... I don't think I'll be taking my political advice from people who don't know the difference between 'too' and 'to'.

Hell, they can't even spell their own organisation's name correctly in the opening seconds of the video.

conchubhar1

any new news on that email that was to be sent to brown?

if that gets signatures they will surely be forced to hold a general election - just hope that bnp dont get mps aswel

BlitzKrieg

Only glanced at a tabloid cover while in a shop earlier today but it announced they had chickend out.

make of that what you will, but I assume it means labour wont be collapsing just yet.


And on a personal curiosity

If the tories have *rejecting lisbon* as their party policy (only going from a quick wikipedia glance and memory) then why is there talk of them putting it to a referendum at all?

Its a reverse of the Irish governments current position correct? We have a government that wants Lisbon pass, but our constitution requires a referendum.

With Lisbon the British government doesnt need a referendum, if they do go through a general election in the coming months and the tories are elected, what is the actual point of putting the country through a referendum as well, seeing as with the current european elections result and the possible result from the upcoming general election they would have all the mandate they need to simply reject the treaty.

Beyond stroking some desire for democratic showboating* to state an answer they will have confirmed twice already before hand, why the waste of time and money for everyone?




*that is not an attack on democratic rights, but if you get elected on a specific mandate (say: building a bridge) and then within months of being elected having a referendum asking people do they want the bridge built. defeats the notion of representative democracy. I understand the importance of having referendums on issues that will result in a permanent change to the nation (constitution changes etc) and so on.

conchubhar1

yes, it wont collapse if that letter doesnt emerge. unless several more people pull out/reseign

because people there might like to vote on the changing of the political union they are in?

people dont vote on single issues, i was anti lisbon (now undecided) and i gave a vote or too to labour and gael.... they had other issues and policies i liked

they arent running on that issue alone

BlitzKrieg

because people there might like to vote on the changing of the political union they are in?

people dont vote on single issues, i was anti lisbon (now undecided) and i gave a vote or too to labour and gael.... they had other issues and policies i liked

they arent running on that issue alone

True, but it still doesnt change the issue that technically if the tories got elected they can simply reject lisbon, they dont need a referendum and that they have enough precedent with landslide European elections victory, unlike here were the number of anti lisbon mep's elected is 1 while two of the three pro lisbon parties came out very strong.

Combine that with the other party results, the only pro lisbon parties in the UK suffered greatly, while all the anti lisbon (or anti EU) parties are on the up.


Yes there are numerous issues in a General election and in our last one, Lisbon was not even an issue (despite being a year before the referendum) but the conservatives have made their opposition to lisbon as a core issue that makes them stand out against labour (compared to our election where all the major parties except sinn fein have mostly the same position on the EU.)

conchubhar1

true

but they had other issues - so while they could just reject it outright and more than likely not face any or no opposistion from angry mobs or individuals they obviously prefer to give people a vote.


for example. i would vote a pro lisbon candidate and have, when they are a good candidate and have other issues which merit a vote. despite my anti lisbon stance (now undecided stance)

BlitzKrieg

but they had other issues - so while they could just reject it outright and more than likely not face any or no opposistion from angry mobs or individuals they obviously prefer to give people a vote.

And I'm asking why? Maybe I have grown up expecting to scrutinize every political decision and understand the two most important elements in any political action (especially with Europe) necessity and gain.

here there is no necessity with there being no requirement to have a referendum and the gain is a big old PR back scratch for the conservatives, I would think at the moment they wouldnt need a pr back scratch because with labour doing so badly they cant be inflated any higher in the public's eyes. They could delay any decision on Lisbon until that good will runs out and use it as a saving grace, but how long can they hold the hot potatoe?

If I start scrutinize it any further I'd be going into territory that would encoruge calls of bias and large amounts of flaming, so I rather before I go down that route, here some other opinions on it before I convince myself into an almost conspiracy theory type delusion (that being that they dont want to turn down Lisbon for practical reasons, but need to for political reasons and a referendum promised in a general election, free's them from any guilt if the decision turns out to be a really bad one.)

conchubhar1

they prefer to give it to the people who will most likely reject it - maybe not.
but a result will be there are seen as champions of the people, who gave them a say on the big matters and look out for their interests... etc


pr probaly is a big factor.

fear of anti eu nutjobs (seperate things usually but not with the bnp - ukip isnt that bad)

democracy is another

----

altho a post in the other thread made me remember - the amount of votes given to ukip and other parties like it justifies a vote on eu membership.

as soon as possible. then followed by one on lisbon - if needs be