Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

FutureTaoiseach

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I assume they believe that not only is it a good deal for Ireland, it's also the best deal we're likely to get. Why do you ask, have you got some outlandish claim of there being some invisible forces in Europe bullying our TD's into ratifying Lisbon? Considering everything else you're getting pulled up on here, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

I think patronage and the prospect of patronage plays a huge role.

Hitman Actual

AuRevoir wrote: »

It does nothing for my credibility says the bluffer behind a computer screen.

And I've been bluffing... when? And you don't strike me as someone who would know when someone is bluffing as regards the EU. You have yet to offer one rational argument on voting No to Lisbon, and clearly haven't a clue on either it's contents or on the functioning of the EU, so I think I'm justified in questioning your credibility.

AuRevoir wrote: »

The only one worth listening to on the YES side is Scofflaw.

That's still one more than the sum total of people worth listening to on the NO side.

Hitman Actual

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I think patronage and the prospect of patronage plays a huge role.

Is this leading back to your notion of "those EU elites"? And our TD's are only interested in a Yes vote so that it gives them greater political opportunities later in life?

AuRevoir

Hitman Actual wrote: »

And I've been bluffing... when? And you don't strike me as someone who would know when someone is bluffing as regards the EU. You have yet to offer one rational argument on voting No to Lisbon, and clearly haven't a clue on either it's contents or on the functioning of the EU, so I think I'm justified in questioning your credibility.


That's still one more than the sum total of people worth listening to on the NO side.

It's the same old rubbish over and over again from you and the same thing you say to all NO siders. You're like a broken record. Like I said Scofflaw is the only one worth listening to in the yes camp. Your self-righteousness is laughable.

FutureTaoiseach

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Is this leading back to your notion of "those EU elites"? And our TD's are only interested in a Yes vote so that it gives them greater political opportunities later in life?

I think it's a factor for many of them. They won't get anywhere in Brussels if they're seen to be making enemies there by opposing European integration.

EmeraldDragon

At the end of the day the treaty and the amendment to our constitution that we need to bring about to put it into force open up countless possibilities for abuse. As bad as it is now with backroom deals and hiding information from the public until its too late it will only get worse.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Is there not a difference though, considering the recentness of Laval relative to Crotty?

Not really - and one can cite any other Supreme Court judgement similarly.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And don't forget that the current Commission tried to foist the Services Directive on us. Granted, the European Parliament stymied the plan somewhat by removing the country of origin principle in its original form. But still, it seems a reasonable supposition that workers-rights was a very major influence on voting-intentions last year, something confirmed by the govt's own reseatch.

If it's a major issue, then the recently elected Parliament will reflect that. The incoming Commiccion will also have a different makeup.

And none of that has relevance to the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I think it's a factor for many of them. They won't get anywhere in Brussels if they're seen to be making enemies there by opposing European integration.

This is another ridiculously far-fetched conspiracy theory. How many TDs "get anywhere in Brussels"? How many even show any signs of wanting to?

Let's be clear - this forum is not going to descend to the farcical levels of politics.ie, to which I believe you are a regular contributor. If you cannot debate politics, go elsewhere.

annoyed,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really - and one can cite any other Supreme Court judgement similarly.



If it's a major issue, then the recently elected Parliament will reflect that. The incoming Commiccion will also have a different makeup.

And none of that has relevance to the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If it has no relevance to the Treaty then why did the European Council feel the need to issue a statement on workers' rights?

This is another ridiculously far-fetched conspiracy theory. How many TDs "get anywhere in Brussels"?

I would compare it to FF backbenchers who would have hoped to get junior ministries and eventually Cabinet ministries by being lobby-fodder for Cowen. Career-advancement is a human instinct, particularly in the political-field. They know what side their bread is buttered.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

If it has no relevance to the Treaty then why did the European Council feel the need to issue a statement on workers' rights?

As a result of the claims that Lisbon would usher in a new era of right-wing oppression of workers, and the destruction of public services. That doesn't make the Laval judgement relevant.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I would compare it to FF backbenchers who would have hoped to get junior ministries and eventually Cabinet ministries by being lobby-fodder for Cowen. Career-advancement is a human instinct, particularly in the political-field. They know what side their bread is buttered.

Would you now? How many TDs advance to Brussels?

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

As a result of the claims that Lisbon would usher in a new era of right-wing oppression of workers, and the destruction of public services. That doesn't make the Laval judgement relevant.



Would you now? How many TDs advance to Brussels?

Scofflaw

It's not about how many will, so much as how many might. They improve their chances by supporting Lisbon and other Eurofederalist (imho) treaties. Pat Cox is headed for the Commissionership it would seem. He is a former TD and MEP. Ray McSharry supported the Single European Act and went there in the 1980's. It's hard to find Eurosceptics in positions of authority in Brussels.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It's not about how many will, so much as how many might. They improve their chances by supporting Lisbon and other Eurofederalist (imho) treaties. Pat Cox is headed for the Commissionership it would seem. He is a former TD and MEP. Ray McSharry supported the Single European Act and went there in the 1980's. It's hard to find Eurosceptics in positions of authority in Brussels.

I support the Lisbon treaty, I'm not a TD, where's my cushy job in Europe?

Don't be bitter because the people of NW didn't send your false prophet off on a crusade to prostrate us down in front of the god of the US security industry.

Not all politicians are in it for the money.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It's not about how many will, so much as how many might. They improve their chances by supporting Lisbon and other Eurofederalist (imho) treaties. Pat Cox is headed for the Commissionership it would seem. He is a former TD and MEP. Ray McSharry supported the Single European Act and went there in the 1980's. It's hard to find Eurosceptics in positions of authority in Brussels.

No. If you're going to make the claim that 160 TDs are motivated by a career path that leads to Brussels, you need to demonstrate that their career paths either do include Brussels, or could feasibly include Brussels. The fact of the matter is that you can't, because there are nowhere near enough Brussels jobs to give even a fraction of the TDs any possibility of a post, whereas there are umpteen Ministries, junior Ministries, and quango posts here in Ireland, and there are virtually no Brussels political posts that pay better than Irish ones. Not only that, but there is a great big heap of evidence that Irish politicians go to Brussels only when they are forced out of Irish politics.

That's why I say this is a conspiracy theory - because there is no evidence whatsoever for it, and a good deal of evidence against it. And, unlike politics.ie, we actually have a Conspiracy Theory forum, which is where this kind of rubbish belongs.

Scofflaw

EmeraldDragon

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Don't be bitter because the people of NW didn't send your false prophet off on a crusade to prostrate us down in front of the god of the US security industry.

Not all politicians are in it for the money.

Oh please stop that crap against Ganley. I will admit that he hurt the No side more than he helped it but a lot of the stuff put forth about him was just propaganda rubbish engineered by the government. Especially in regards to the funding issues they government was always harping on about which SIPO sat on for ages before slipping it in under the table saying things were fine and there was no impropriety

PopeBuckfastXVI

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

Oh please stop that crap against Ganley. I will admit that he hurt the No side more than he helped it but a lot of the stuff put forth about him was just propaganda rubbish engineered by the government. Especially in regards to the funding issues they government was always harping on about which SIPO sat on for ages before slipping it in under the table saying things were fine and there was no impropriety

Funny, I thought every drop of poison that passed his lips was propaganda...

He made lots of money on contracts with the US Security industry, that's a fact.

So you can't sit around and accuse all other politicians of being effectively on the take from their 'patrons' in Brussels, and not expect a bit of scrutiny of your own chosen one.

Hitman Actual

AuRevoir wrote: »

It's the same old rubbish over and over again from you and the same thing you say to all NO siders. You're like a broken record. Like I said Scofflaw is the only one worth listening to. Your self-righteousness is laughable.

I have no respect for anyone who bases their No vote on the illogical reasons of punishing FF/protecting democracy/Europe was denied a vote, etc. If that comes across as self-righteousness, then so be it. And while I might get a ban at some stage in the next few months for abusing someone, you're definitely not worthy of it. GL.

EmeraldDragon

Did I not say I dont like Ganley? Funny I thought I did. Oh well.

The thing is while the No side attacked the treaty the Yes side attacked only the No side. They didnt attack their arguments but the people themselves.

PopeBuckfastXVI

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

Did I not say I dont like Ganley? Funny I thought I did. Oh well.

The thing is while the No side attacked the treaty the Yes side attacked only the No side. They didnt attack their arguments but the people themselves.

I know you don't ED... I wasn't talking about you

So you think claims that TD's only support the treaty in order to advance their political career in 'Brussels' is attacking the treaty?

Get real, people get down in the mud from both sides, many of the claims of the 'No' side are outright lies, and should be roundly refuted.

I'm sure you don't believe nonsense about Article 48 meaning 'no more referenda', or that we'll be *forced* to increase our military spending. But many people do. And more to the point, many people don't even believe it themselves, but spread it anyway to encourage fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Now what should you do, when you've debunked something for the umpteenth time, and someone comes on and stills wears blind that black is white?

What would you do?

AuRevoir

Hitman Actual wrote: »

And while I might get a ban at some stage in the next few months for abusing someone, you're definitely not worthy of it. GL.

Likewise...

Scofflaw

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

Did I not say I dont like Ganley? Funny I thought I did. Oh well.

The thing is while the No side attacked the treaty the Yes side attacked only the No side. They didnt attack their arguments but the people themselves.

Regrettably, there's a large element of truth in that. Nor, unless Ganley decides to intervene in Lisbon II, is he relevant any more - and there were always plenty of people on the No side who disliked him.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EmeraldDragon

What we need is a debate that doesnt end up as a shouting match with insults being hurled from one side to the other without anyone getting a fair say which is unfortunately all we seem to get at the moment.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hopefully when the debate kicks off properly, people on both sides will limit themselves to truth and civility.

I won't be holding my breath though...

P. Breathnach

AuRevoir wrote: »

Our NO vote was blatantly ignored. ...

No, it was not. Repeating a falsehood does not make it a truth.

P. Breathnach

jabbertalky wrote: »

I will be voting NO, and NO, and NO again until the voice of the Irish people is heard ...

You are Violet Elizabeth Bott, and I claim my £5.00.

Scofflaw

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

What we need is a debate that doesnt end up as a shouting match with insults being hurled from one side to the other without anyone getting a fair say which is unfortunately all we seem to get at the moment.

Can't vouch for the wider public debate, but we'll try and keep things civil and factual here...and I'm sure all our posters will do their best to assist.

moderately,
Scofflaw

EmeraldDragon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Can't vouch for the wider public debate, but we'll try and keep things civil and factual here...and I'm sure all our posters will do their best to assist.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Nice to know but as you guessed I was refering more to the political parties and groups actively campaigning.

Scofflaw

EmeraldDragon wrote: »

Nice to know but as you guessed I was refering more to the political parties and groups actively campaigning.

Nothing I can do about them, I'm sorry to say. About all that can be said is that they tend to conduct the Lisbon debate at the same level as they conduct their other 'political' debates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

turgon wrote: »

And of course voting No will change that. Your doing your 1916 forefathers proud with the amount of respect you hold for the democratic rights they fought so dearly for.

RandomName2

Hitman Actual wrote: »

I have no respect for anyone who bases their No vote on the illogical reasons of punishing FF/protecting democracy/Europe was denied a vote, etc.

Oh. That's a shame . Oh well...

turgon

AuRevoir wrote: »

Yes our forefathers would have been proud of the respect we have for the democratic rights that they fought for, a democratic right that the majority of Irish people used to say NO to the Lisbon Treaty when it was put to us, but was ignored by Europe and our own government.

And voting No will change that?

In the case of a No vote will the government enter the Dail time machine, go back, and cancel the referendum? I dont think so. So I dont see why you are voting No when your No vote will change absolutely nothing. Seriously, what do you hope to achieve?

Oh and just because they are wrong doesnt make you right; it simply makes you slightly less wrong, at the very least.