Pro Lisbon and support for the current government.

BlitzKrieg

I just want to shoot down a misconception that keeps propping up in threads.

Far too often anyone who supports Lisbon gets bundled in with Fianna Fail and the current government's failings and we are expected to defend said government's actions.

I think you'd find that the majority of Lisbon supporters on this forum would point to the government for the failings of the first referendum, they're inability to educate voters on the treaty until it was too late and some choice PR moments led to a substantial amount of confusion.

So just so that there is something that can be pointed to in future threads and this issue pops up again. Lets hear a call out to those who support Lisbon but do not support the current government.


I support the Lisbon Treaty, I do not support the Fianna Fail party.

turgon

With the lack of Treaty reasons to vote No, it is unfortunate the No-side use FF mismanagement as a reason to vote No, or as a tool to discredit Yes side reasoning.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I want FF out of government ASAP, and I would have preferred if it happened before the Lisbon vote.

I will be voting 'yes' to Lisbon, because it's the right thing for the EU, and Ireland, in my opinion.

storinius

I concur with other posters here. FF have mismanged the economy, prioritised blasphemy legislation at a time when the Church has never been in worse standing in our country, and COMPLETELY messed up the first Lisbon campaign.

I will be voting YES in October, and campaigning for a YES vote between now and then. And all the while remaining unimpressed with FF.

Sage'sMama

What about the misconception that all no voters are stupid???

BlitzKrieg

What about the misconception that all no voters are stupid???

Well if they are able to argue the points of the treaty without issue and back up the arguments with facts then that would be a serious misconception.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sage'sMama wrote: »

What about the misconception that all no voters are stupid???

Actually I think that's a misconception about what 'yes' voters think about 'no' voters. But feel free to start a thread 'I'm voting no and I'm not stupid'.

oscarBravo

Sage'sMama wrote: »

What about the misconception that all no voters are stupid???

Who said that?

K-9

FF. FG and Labour voters did not vote along party lines in the Referendum. The only party who did was SF with about 87% voting No.

Sage'sMama

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Actually I think that's a misconception about what 'yes' voters think about 'no' voters. But feel free to start a thread 'I'm voting no and I'm not stupid'.

Where did I state i'm a no voter???

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sage'sMama wrote: »

Where did I state i'm a no voter???

You didn't, and assuming you're not, there's still nothing to prevent you starting such a thread, instead of dragging this one off topic.

oscarBravo

I'm still wondering who said that all "no" voters are stupid.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm still wondering who said that all "no" voters are stupid.

No voters did, as far as I can see, but not without help. We started with "many people voted No because they lacked information about the Treaty". That was then too often shortened to "many people voted No out of ignorance", often by Yes proponents. From there it was a short step to assuming "ignorance" meant "stupidity".

A case of handing 'professional victims' something they could easily make a stick out of. To be fair, though, there were plenty of No people who didn't need the middle step at all, and went straight from the survey findings that 'lack of information' played a big part straight to "they're calling us stupid!".

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

No voters did, as far as I can see, but not without help. We started with "many people voted No because they lacked information about the Treaty". That was then too often shortened to "many people voted No out of ignorance", often by Yes proponents. From there it was a short step to assuming "ignorance" meant "stupidity".

A case of handing 'professional victims' something they could easily make a stick out of. To be fair, though, there were plenty of No people who didn't need the middle step at all, and went straight from the survey findings that 'lack of information' played a big part straight to "they're calling us stupid!".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Think there was a survey published just after by some University boffins saying "well educated" people tended to vote Yes. The boffins of course believe people who have 3rd level qualifications are better educated. Typical!

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

No voters did, as far as I can see, but not without help. We started with "many people voted No because they lacked information about the Treaty". That was then too often shortened to "many people voted No out of ignorance", often by Yes proponents. From there it was a short step to assuming "ignorance" meant "stupidity".

A case of handing 'professional victims' something they could easily make a stick out of. To be fair, though, there were plenty of No people who didn't need the middle step at all, and went straight from the survey findings that 'lack of information' played a big part straight to "they're calling us stupid!".

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would contend that ignorance was at least as much a factor on the yes side as on the no side. In any case, the govt research coralled people into choosing certain motivations for their vote. Only 22% of no voters in the RTE exit poll from the euro-elections cited lack of information/familiarity. In general, the yes side in the media have preferred to sell Lisbon on the basis of the EU in general having been beneficial, rather than Article this or that, unlike the no side. Surely the actual contents of the Treaty is more pertinant to this debate than the benefits or otherwise of EU membership? After all, this is a referendum on a treaty, not on EU membership.

BlitzKrieg

n general, the yes side in the media have preferred to sell Lisbon on the basis of the EU in general having been beneficial, rather than Article this or that, unlike the no side.

That makes me laugh
. As stated in the op I personnally and I know a number of other posters here felt the *good for us good for europe* campaign by the governement was awful. This is the very point of this thread, we are putting a line between US and the government. Here we do discuss the treaty, and as far as I have seen everytime we discuss the details of the treaty Scafflow, myself, Pope, Sink etc tend to show again and again that we know the treaty pretty damn well.

AuRevoir

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Here we do discuss the treaty, and as far as I have seen everytime we discuss the details of the treaty Scafflow, myself, Pope, Sink etc tend to show again and again that we know the treaty pretty damn well.

From a YES point of view of course & unsurprisingly enough never seem to mention the bad parts of the treaty in any of your discussions.

BlitzKrieg

well we seem to be lacking an alternative point of view at the moment, instead its out of context quotations of politics and sabre rattling for nationalism or european democracy (sometimes both at the same time which is rather strange)

Hitman Actual

AuRevoir wrote: »

From a YES point of view of course.;)

The point is, most of the Yes-side regulars here refer to the Treaty directly in their pro-Lisbon arguments, while the majority of No arguments are based on the second referendum being an affront to democracy.

AuRevoir wrote: »

& unsurprisingly enough never seem to mention the bad parts of the treaty in any of your discussions.

What bad parts of the Treaty are you referring to? Post them up here and we'll argue them with you. Unfortunately, there have been very few Treaty-based No-side arguments on here.

BlitzKrieg

Well personnally I dislike the return of the commissioners for every state element in lisbon 2, that has disapointed me quite a bit, but I am willing to live with it if it means Lisbon 2 gets passed rather then nothing at all.

PopeBuckfastXVI

AuRevoir wrote: »

From a YES point of view of course & unsurprisingly enough never seem to mention the bad parts of the treaty in any of your discussions.

Feel free to provide an alternative viewpoint AuRevoir. I'm not here to argue against Lisbon, I want it to pass, I personally can't see too much bad in it, and certainly nothing that would make me vote 'No' or ask someone else to vote 'No'.

I am not the referendum commission, I don't have to be neutral, I just try my best to be truthful.

smithcity

It seems to me that a lot of people are taking it personally when somebody has a differing opinion on the Lisbon treaty.
Its as though many of us can't accept that other people can be on the opposite side of debate without being morally compromised in some way...
It all degenerates into, "You're calling us stupid!"...
Im guilty of it myself, taking other peoples arguements as personal attacks.

But that's mostly cos they're stupid for disagreeing with me

PopeBuckfastXVI

smithcity wrote: »

But that's mostly cos they're stupid for disagreeing with me

Lol - I find the same thing

Hitman Actual

smithcity wrote: »

It seems to me that a lot of people are taking it personally when somebody has a differing opinion on the Lisbon treaty.

It depends what you mean by differing opinions, though. For example, I have no problem with the defence implications of the Treaty, while someone else might not like that part at all. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me on that score. But all you tend to get from the No side is "democracy this" and "guarantees not legally-binding that", and I have complete contempt for that stance. People should be basing their decision on the Treaty, nothing else.

PopeBuckfastXVI

It's also quite difficult to not appear blunt when you are debunking the same myth for the nth time.

You forget that it might be the first time the poster has posted in the forum, and that they might actually be someone who has been taken in by the myth, rather than somebody perpetuating it deviously.

Scofflaw

We're wandering off-topic slightly...

moderately,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

I accept completely that you can support Lisbon and oppose the current government. But remember this - if Lisbon is carried, FF will spin it as a vote of confidence in Cowen. Chances are, elements of the media will too. Do you want that on your conscience? The sooner we rid ourselves of this indecisive, dithering leadership the better. It's noteworthy that Cowen has not given a definitive answer as to whether he would resign if Lisbon II were defeated.

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I accept completely that you can support Lisbon and oppose the current government. But remember this - if Lisbon is carried, FF will spin it as a vote of confidence in Cowen. Chances are, elements of the media will too. Do you want that on your conscience? The sooner we rid ourselves of this indecisive, dithering leadership the better. It's noteworthy that Cowen has not given a definitive answer as to whether he would resign if Lisbon II were defeated.

You have to admire the subtle little spin on this- "Vote No to keep credit away from FF". You're really pulling out all the stops.

One thing I would hope from a Yes-side perspective, though, is that FG and Labour are allowed to be at the forefront of the Yes campaign. I'd be worried that the backlash against FF hasn't been fully exhausted in the local/Euro's last month.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I accept completely that you can support Lisbon and oppose the current government. But remember this - if Lisbon is carried, FF will spin it as a vote of confidence in Cowen. Chances are, elements of the media will too. Do you want that on your conscience? The sooner we rid ourselves of this indecisive, dithering leadership the better. It's noteworthy that Cowen has not given a definitive answer as to whether he would resign if Lisbon II were defeated.

Is this the new tactic to replace Libertas?

Have to say, it is very smart. Vote No, to signal your disgust at FF.

A Yes to Lisbon is a Yes to Cowen and FF.

Love the spin.

Very clever politics. Not very democratic , but love the FF tactics.

Martin 2

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I accept completely that you can support Lisbon and oppose the current government. But remember this - if Lisbon is carried, FF will spin it as a vote of confidence in Cowen. Chances are, elements of the media will too. Do you want that on your conscience? The sooner we rid ourselves of this indecisive, dithering leadership the better. It's noteworthy that Cowen has not given a definitive answer as to whether he would resign if Lisbon II were defeated.

Future Taoiseach,
Are you seriously suggesting that we vote NO to Lisbon just to get rid of FF, if you want to get rid of FF do it DIRECTLY in a General Election, Lisbon is much too important to waste on party politics.

Your post brings to mind the expressions:
-Throwing the baby out with the bathwater
-Cutting off your nose to spite your face

For the record I am not a fan of FF and would be happy to vote them out at the next GE, however I will be voting YES, YES, YES to Lisbon (ok if I had 3 votes I would).

FutureTaoiseach

Martin 2 wrote: »

Future Taoiseach,
Are you seriously suggesting that we vote NO to Lisbon just to get rid of FF, if you want to get rid of FF do it DIRECTLY in a General Election, Lisbon is much too important to waste on party politics.

Your post brings to mind the expressions:
-Throwing the baby out with the bathwater
-Cutting off your nose to spite your face

For the record I am not a fan of FF and would be happy to vote them out at the next GE, however I will be voting YES, YES, YES to Lisbon (ok if I had 3 votes I would).

The economy cannot take another 3 years of this dithering, indecisive leadership of the present Taoiseach. I firmly believe his removal as Taoiseach would, if replaced by a more decisive figure, potentially lead us out of recession sooner than would otherwise be the case. I don't agree with you that voting no would be to cut off our nose despite our face, because I have seen no evidence that voting for Lisbon would assist the economy. Have you any such evidence? Note that since Spain voted yes to the EU Constitution in 2005, unemployment has soared to 18%.