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

Sam Vimes

Barteg wrote: »

I want to express my support for those of Irish citizens who are intending to vote NO on October 2nd. Also, I'd like to encourage those who haven't made up their minds yet to reject the treaty. Take the chance we didn't get. The future of Europe is within your hands. Polish society supports you, which you can see in the link below:

http://saveeuropeireland.niepoprawni.pl/plakatp.php

Greetings from Poland

Oh ffs, would you stop pimping that site please

free-man

r_obric wrote: »

i dont see there being (m)any problems in europe that need to be addressed or changed urgently, i see problems in ireland that need to be addressed urgently, that are being put on the back burner, yet we are being made vote again on something that we have voted already on, I dont see any benefits to voting yes, and i dont see and negatives to voting No.

I do however see a positive to voting No (a kick in the hole for the gov) that outweights the negative of voting yes (having to do it a third time)

I agree, the government should be getting on with the business of fixing our economy rather than re-running the Lisbon treaty. What a waste of time and money.

Another reason to vote No in my view.

ei.sdraob

Barteg wrote: »

As you wish, though I don't really understand your avresion.

aversion?

thats what you call the antisemitic crap on the site you keep linking to?


lets not forget

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62294693&postcount=68

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I put some of the comments on that polish site into some Polish->English translators and some of them come back with references to 'reclaiming Poland from the Jew criminals who took over in 1946'.

Just to give people an idea of the mentality you are dealing with it if you try to reason with anyone associated with or supporting that site.

Post #64 for example.

żyda zbrodniarza = Jewish criminals.

and


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62287251&postcount=145


/

andrewdcs

A few pages back I said that in my opinion Europe has over the past 40 years been an advocate for workers rights and standards, yet that position seems to have developed over the past few years:

http://www.etui.org/Headline-issues/Viking-Laval-Rueffert-Luxembourg
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-07-21a.252.0

These are technical judgements allowing companies using posted workers to ignore many locally negotiated and agreed to provisions on labour (in some cases safety, generally its industrial minimum wages that are undercut), and further more, banning the unions who won these rights from protesting via striking/picketing. Also, unions may not act inter-state but businesses may?! The ECJs legal logic is flawless, clearly the balance of the laws currently enacted are business friendly.

PopeBuckfastXVI

andrewdcs wrote: »

A few pages back I said that in my opinion Europe has over the past 40 years been an advocate for workers rights and standards, yet that position seems to have developed over the past few years:

http://www.etui.org/Headline-issues/Viking-Laval-Rueffert-Luxembourg
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-07-21a.252.0

These are technical judgements allowing companies using posted workers to ignore many locally negotiated and agreed to provisions on labour (in some cases safety, generally its industrial minimum wages that are undercut), and further more, banning the unions who won these rights from protesting via striking/picketing. Also, unions may not act inter-state but businesses may?! The ECJs legal logic is flawless, clearly the balance of the laws currently enacted are business friendly.

The PWD was enacted to protect the rights of posted workers to be treated the same as local workers under national law in their posted countries. That's how the ECJ interpreted it. It's up to the national authorities to rectify any problems.

Spook_ie

prinz wrote: »

So you are prepared to ignore the fact the Ganley/Libertas want a federal Europe yet campaign against the Lisbon Treaty, which in your view is a step towards federalism?

As it is the German Constitutional Court have ruled against the federalism case, and they should know what a federal state is as they are the Constitutional Court in one.

I will be voting NO, NO and NO again, I don't care if Ganley wants a Fererated States of Europe or if he want's a No campaign. I want no further steps towards a Federated States of Europe.

Ganley's view that he want's one is of no effect on mine, and if there was a campaign being asked by Ganley to vote yes for a federated States of Europe I would be voting NO.

Despite what seems to be veiled hints to anyone voting No being some puppet of Ganley's I'm not!

prinz

You're missing the point. There are no further steps towards a federal "United States of Europe" in the Lisbon Treaty

RandomName2

prinz wrote: »

You're missing the point. There are no further steps towards a federal "United States of Europe" in the Lisbon Treaty

There are

Why, how would you defne moves towards a united states of Europe.

And how exactly would Ganley be attempting to create a confederacy by keeping the EU exactly as it is?

To keep the status quo - vote no!

P. Breathnach

Spook_ie wrote: »

I will be voting NO, NO and NO again ...

That's not allowed. One vote only.

Spook_ie

prinz wrote: »

You're missing the point. There are no further steps towards a federal "United States of Europe" in the Lisbon Treaty

I'm not missing the point, unhappily a lot of people missed the point when there was a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty which was the 1st step and since then you might notice ( if you bothered to look ) that we have been frogmarched to this point in time...

free-man

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's not allowed. One vote only.

Actually two votes are allowed.

This years No and last years No

RandomName2

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's not allowed. One vote only.

Err... no (no pun intended damn, did it again - no no no)

This is his second 'no' or is this not Lisbon II?

Free-man beat me to it!

prinz

RandomName2 wrote: »

There are

Such as?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Why, how would you defne moves towards a united states of Europe.

Read Ganley's paper. He lays out a roadmap there.

RandomName2 wrote: »

And how exactly would Ganley be attempting to create a confederacy by keeping the EU exactly as it is?

He doesn't want to keep it as it is. Ganley is against the Treaty because as Pat Cox pointed out in a video on the this forum, the Lisbon Treaty provides the framework for the workings of the EU for, in his view, at least a generation. Now a stable EU, for decades to come won't give Ganley his shot for a federal Europe will it? How will he ever achieve his dream of a USE, if under Lisbon, as is planned, it will be another generation before a similar look at the workings of the EU will have to be worked on in a similar manner?

RandomName2 wrote: »

To keep the status quo - vote no!

Er, it won't be the status quo. The EU cannot continue to operate as if there are 15 members when there are actually 27.

Spook_ie

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's not allowed. One vote only.

I voted No to the Maastricht treaty, I voted No to the Nice Treaty, I voted No to the Lisbon Treaty, I'm voting No to the Lisbon 2 treaty, sadly I wasn't able to vote in other votes but they would have been No as well

prinz

Spook_ie wrote: »

I voted No to the Maastricht treaty, I voted No to the Nice Treaty, I voted No to the Lisbon Treaty, I'm voting No to the Lisbon 2 treaty, sadly I wasn't able to vote in other votes but they would have been No as well

Well at least you're honest about it. Beats the usual line of 'I'm not anti-Europe, I am just anti-Lisbon'.

Spook_ie

prinz wrote: »

Well at least you're honest about it. Beats the usual line of 'I'm not anti-Europe, I am just anti-Lisbon'.

I'm not anti Europe, I'm anti European Union there is a substantial difference

prinz

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'm not anti Europe, I'm anti European Union there is a substantial difference

:rolleyes: You know what I mean.

free-man

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'm not anti Europe, I'm anti European Union there is a substantial difference

I'm not anti europe, i'm just anti lisbon.

I've been FOR every other european treaty in the past.

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

I'm not anti europe, i'm just anti lisbon.

I've been FOR every other european treaty in the past.

You're not really anti-Lisbon because Lisbon doesn't do any of the things you think it does. You're anti-a version of Lisbon that was made up by no campaigners and doesn't actually exist

marco_polo

free-man wrote: »

I'm not anti europe, i'm just anti lisbon.

I've been FOR every other european treaty in the past.

How could you possibly have been pro Nice, since all we got was a meaningless declaration on our neutrality, not a protocol to be seen anywhere.

Kimono-Girl

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're not really anti-Lisbon because Lisbon doesn't do any of the things you think it does. You're anti-a version of Lisbon that was made up by no campaigners and doesn't actually exist

as opposed to you, who is pro-a version of Lisbon that was made up by yes campaigners and doesn't actually exist

Sam Vimes

candlelover wrote: »

as opposed to you, who is pro-a version of Lisbon that was made up by yes campaigners and doesn't actually exist

No, I'm pro reality. I don't really pay any attention to the yes campaigners

Kev_ps3

Interesting to see that liberal middle-class boards.ie has voted No to the Treaty v2. From reading threads/posts here you would get the impression that 90% are in support of it. Conclusion, Yes side like to spam alot:pac:

8-10

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Interesting to see that liberal middle-class boards.ie has voted No to the Treaty v2. From reading threads/posts here you would get the impression that 90% are in support of it. Conclusion, Yes side like to spam alot:pac:

The only poll that matters comes from the tallies we'll see from Saturday.

meglome

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Interesting to see that liberal middle-class boards.ie has voted No to the Treaty v2. From reading threads/posts here you would get the impression that 90% are in support of it. Conclusion, Yes side like to spam alot:pac:

OR you could look at the number of people with new sign-ups with a passionate No view, with very similar reasons. Most of which don't turn out to be true.

Kev_ps3

8-10 wrote: »

The only poll that matters comes from the tallies we'll see from Saturday.

Obviously but like I said, its interesting.

johnwillnot

If you do a search on Youtube for Lisbon Treaty, I think the NO side are really ahead with regard to video content, the number of search results returned out number the yes side. I know you can't believe everything you see on Youtube but they are definately taking full adavntage on the video network and social media.

free-man

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Interesting to see that liberal middle-class boards.ie has voted No to the Treaty v2. From reading threads/posts here you would get the impression that 90% are in support of it. Conclusion, Yes side like to spam alot:pac:

A very good point.

The poll suggests a majority not in favour of the treaty but it seems there are about 5% of posters here that represent the No side.

It appears that every time a no post is made an army of yes posters descend on the thread with their 'corrections'.

Given how passionate the debate has been offline, this really isn't an accurate representation and something feels wrong.. can't place what it could be..

marco_polo

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Interesting to see that liberal middle-class boards.ie has voted No to the Treaty v2. From reading threads/posts here you would get the impression that 90% are in support of it. Conclusion, Yes side like to spam alot:pac:

Spoken like a true, die hard, Man United supporting uber-nationalist. Must protect our unique sense of Irishness and soverignty at all costs.

marco_polo

free-man wrote: »

A very good point.

The poll suggests a majority not in favour of the treaty but it seems there are about 5% of posters here that represent the No side.

It appears that every time a no post is made an army of yes posters descend on the thread with their 'corrections'.

Given how passionate the debate has been offline, this really isn't an accurate representation and something feels wrong.. can't place what it could be..

Deepest apologies if our facts, articles from the treaty and international agreements have offended you in any way.