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

free-man

marco_polo wrote: »

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

Not at all.

I was merely commenting on the fact that although the majority are on the No side - according to the poll - there seems to be very little No representation on this forum.. just found that a bit strange.

moondogspot

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.

Maybe the 'army of yes posters' here are not as influential as they would like to think.;)

K-9

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:

It's a poll on an internet site. The same applies to politics.ie.

It is funny that the most frequent posters on both sites don't tie in with the results.

I could read p.ie and get the same points here, in reverse!

PS. The "has debate on Boards changed your mind" thread is more interesting.
Very close with the Yes side winning the don't knows.

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

Not at all.

I was merely commenting on the fact that although the majority are on the No side - according to the poll - there seems to be very little No representation on this forum.. just found that a bit strange.

It's not really strange. There are an awful lot of people posting on the no side but they tend not to stick around very long because they tend not to be able to defend their points. Instead they re-reg, post the same spam and then disappear again.

free-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not really strange. There are an awful lot of people posting on the no side but they tend not to stick around very long because they tend not to be able to defend their points. Instead they re-reg, post the same spam and then disappear again.

Maybe you mean there are a lot of no posters voting for the no side and then disappearing - this is plausible.

I see very little no posters writing posts - full stop.

free-man

K-9 wrote: »

It's a poll on an internet site. The same applies to politics.ie.

It is funny that the most frequent posters on both sites don't tie in with the results.

I could read p.ie and get the same points here, in reverse!

PS. The "has debate on Boards changed your mind" thread is more interesting.
Very close with the Yes side winning the don't knows.

Fully agree with you, although there are more Yes posters on p.ie - i'd say about 25% than there are no posters here - i'd say about 5%.

The debate on has boards changed your mind sounds intriguing, have you a link?

moondogspot

K-9 wrote: »

It's a poll on an internet site. The same applies to politics.ie.

It is funny that the most frequent posters on both sites don't tie in with the results.

I could read p.ie and get the same points here, in reverse!

PS. The "has debate on Boards changed your mind" thread is more interesting.
Very close with the Yes side winning the don't knows.

That's funny because in a press release issued 30/09/09, Joe Costello TD seems to think that

a 'lionshare' of the undecided voters have joined the No side. He even gives a mention to

boards.ie.

Despite our best efforts and those of many others on the ‘Yes’ side, from recent polls and anecdotally it appears that the ‘No’ side has been picking up the lion’s share of the undecided voters in many parts of the country

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/1254317416212945.html

Sam Vimes

free-man wrote: »

Maybe you mean there are a lot of no posters voting for the no side and then disappearing - this is plausible.

I see very little no posters writing posts - full stop.

Again there are lots but it's all hit and run one line spam. Watch out for it

K-9

moondogspot wrote: »

That's funny because in a press release issued 30/09/09, Joe Costello TD seems to think that

a 'lionshare' of the undecided voters have joined the No side. He even gives a mention to

boards.ie.



http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/1254317416212945.html

Oh, Jaysus that would be pointless! It is interesting, not worthy of comment in the National Press.

The thread should be on the second or third page down.

johnwillnot

K-9 wrote: »

It's a poll on an internet site. The same applies to politics.ie.

It is funny that the most frequent posters on both sites don't tie in with the results.

I could read p.ie and get the same points here, in reverse!

PS. The "has debate on Boards changed your mind" thread is more interesting.
Very close with the Yes side winning the don't knows.

Here is another Poll to keep both sides busy and could be fun:

http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Who_will_be_the_first_President_of_Europe_1410/view

Hubdub makes news more exciting by letting you stake virtual dollars on the outcomes of real running news stories.

Plotician

No.

Scofflaw

moondogspot wrote: »

That's funny because in a press release issued 30/09/09, Joe Costello TD seems to think that a 'lionshare' of the undecided voters have joined the No side. He even gives a mention to boards.ie.

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/1254317416212945.html

You should always expect a late break for the No side, though, because someone who hasn't made their mind up until the last couple of days is more likely to vote No purely on the complexity of the question - sort of "so, what's this, then - whoa! That's pretty complicated...damn...better vote No, sure they'll ask again if it's really important".

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

You should always expect a late break for the No side, though, because someone who hasn't made their mind up until the last couple of days is more likely to vote No purely on the complexity of the question - sort of "so, what's this, then - whoa! That's pretty complicated...damn...better vote No, sure they'll ask again if it's really important".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Would completely agree and have posted similar. How much of a swing is the question.

Purely because the No campaign was so poor and over hysterical, I'd say a Yes.

This campaign was for the No side to lose.

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

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?

Confederation and Federation are two different political animals. Supporters of these two positions have fundamentally different views of how Europe should look in the (very) long term. That doesn't mean they can't work out compromises, such as Lisbon, with which both sides can live with in the short term.

By way of contrast, the "Sovereignity is a religion" brigade regard both of these positions as being absolute heresy.

RandomName2 wrote: »

To keep the status quo - vote no!

The status quo is that the EU will do treaties such as Lisbon. It is one of the objectives of the EU - objectives that we signed up to. Most of the leading No campaigners want to overturn the status quo as they do not want us to ratify EU Treaties.

dirtynosebeps

hi all
to many posts to go through, i was wondering if anyone knows the times the polling stations close at tomorrow. i do shift workand dont want to miss my chance to vote NO.

gubby

A lot of the No people are going on and on about the fact that we voted before on this... actually we didnt actually vote on this. There are changes made. and besides, with something as important as this. we have to get it right. the vote the last time was by no means a resounding no.
I am voting yes for many reasons one of which is taking look at the people who are telling us to vote no.

Rb

gubby wrote: »

A lot of the No people are going on and on about the fact that we voted before on this... actually we didnt actually vote on this. There are changes made. and besides, with something as important as this. we have to get it right. the vote the last time was by no means a resounding no.
I am voting yes for many reasons one of which is taking look at the people who are telling us to vote no.

Gubby, you'll notice the majority of the No side go on, and on and on and on and on about points that don't actually have to do with the treaty text or the guarantees secured. You'll note that the majority of the tiny minority who actually do attempt to discuss the text generally have their facts wrong and have been led by the No side lies.

More often than not though, particularly on this forum and particularly with regards to the new sign ups, they rally for reasons that they shouldn't be voting on, usually with post after post full of nonsense about nazis, 1916, super states, lizards, you name it, anything that doesn't have anything to do with the treaty but that they can vaguely link it to it.

Reason being that they just haven't a clue what they're voting against, again.

It'll be a sad day on Saturday should the ignorance of the electorate prevail again.

happymondays

gubby wrote: »

A lot of the No people are going on and on about the fact that we voted before on this... actually we didnt actually vote on this. There are changes made. and besides, with something as important as this. we have to get it right. the vote the last time was by no means a resounding no.
I am voting yes for many reasons one of which is taking look at the people who are telling us to vote no.

Well actually it is the same treaty as before. the exact same.
No changes been made to the actual treaty.

Rb

happymondays wrote: »

Well actually it is the same treaty as before. the exact same.
No changes been made to the actual treaty.

No, the text hasn't changed, not that it needed to be. However, the best possible solution has been found.

Do you realise how many countries have ratified this treaty? Do you realise how much money has been spent on this treaty? And you think that they should go back, re-draft it and make everyone else re-ratify it based on the fears of a bunch of people who've little idea what they're voting about?!

They weren't legitimate causes for a re-drafting, they could be solved by guarantees, which we have gotten now.

So, happy mondays, what part of the treaty text are you voting against?

MrMatisse

gubby wrote: »

A lot of the No people are going on and on about the fact that we voted before on this... actually we didnt actually vote on this. There are changes made. and besides, with something as important as this. we have to get it right. the vote the last time was by no means a resounding no.
I am voting yes for many reasons one of which is taking look at the people who are telling us to vote no.

There have been no changes to the text of the Lisbon Treaty.

Sam Vimes

happymondays wrote: »

Well actually it is the same treaty as before. the exact same.
No changes been made to the actual treaty.

If I had a euro for every time I posted exactly this text:

Please point out the parts of the treaty that should have been changed to address the issues of abortion, taxation, conscription, loss of neutrality and the loss of a commissioner.

you can't because none of them are in the treaty, and yet people voted no for those reasons. We now have legally binding guarantees that those issues are not effected by the treaty so those people no longer have a reason to vote no.

I hardly see how it's relevant that the treaty is the same since the Irish people voted no for reasons that had nothing to do with the treaty, such as the above red herrings and a dislike of Fianna Fail

schott

I work for a large US company.....they have about 3000 workers in Ireland alone. One of the main reasons they are here is because of tax breaks Ireland gives to these groups. if we vote yes....will this change??? will they take there factorys to china or the likes???

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

There have been no changes to the text of the Lisbon Treaty.

And yet there have been changes to its application. The Lisbon treaty provides a procedure to reduce the size of the commission which was going to be used and we now have a legally binding guarantee that it won't. We are voting on the same text but not the same plans

IF THE LISBON TREATY DOES NOT COME IN TO FORCE


The present rules provide that the number of Commissioners must be less than the number of member states once the number of member states reaches 27. There are currently 27 member states so, if the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified, then the next Commission must have less than 27 members. The current rules provide that the Council must decide, unanimously, how many Commission members there will be. The members must be chosen according to a rotation system based on the principle of equality and the Council must decide, unanimously, how exactly this is to be implemented.


IF THE LISBON TREATY DOES COME IN TO FORCE


If the Treaty comes into force then all member states will nominate a Commissioner for the period 2009 – 2014. The Lisbon Treaty provides a mechanism for the possible reduction of the size of the Commission from 2014. This mechanism, if used, would result in two-thirds of the member states, rather than all of them, nominating a Commissioner in 2014. There are 27 member states at present. So, if the number of member states remains the same, there would be 18 Commissioners in the period 2014 – 2019.


Under this mechanism the right to nominate a Commissioner would rotate among the member states on an equal basis. This means that each member state would nominate a member of the Commission for two out of every three Commissions (that is, for 10 years out of every 15 year cycle).


However, the European Council has decided that, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, it will not implement this mechanism in 2014 and will instead continue the present arrangement whereby each member state nominates a Commissioner.

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_european_commission.html

Sam Vimes

schott wrote: »

I work for a large US company.....they have about 3000 workers in Ireland alone. One of the main reasons they are here is because of tax breaks Ireland gives to these groups. if we vote yes....will this change??? will they take there factorys to china or the likes???

SECTION B: TAXATION wrote:

Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf

And don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They're either wrong or lying

Elmer Blooker

It'll be a sad day on Saturday should the ignorance of the electorate prevail again.[/QUOTE]

Yep, when it comes to sheer nihilism/ I'm all right jack/ f*** you nobody does it better than the Irish (ok not all of us!) Remember the divorce referendum in the mid 90s? Now divorce is a civil right in any civilized country but 49.9% of the electorate basically told those who wanted out of dead marriages to f*** off!
As for the argument by the NO side that we'll be throwing away our independence - what independence? This country was so economically dependent on the UK prior to EU membership that the pound sterling was legal tender in the Republic. Oh, and women had to resign from civil service jobs when they got married in the good old days when the country was ruled by the Maynooth Taliban.

RandomName2

Rb wrote: »

Gubby, you'll notice the majority of the No side go on, and on and on and on and on about points that don't actually have to do with the treaty text or the guarantees secured. You'll note that the majority of the tiny minority who actually do attempt to discuss the text generally have their facts wrong and have been led by the No side lies.

More often than not though, particularly on this forum and particularly with regards to the new sign ups, they rally for reasons that they shouldn't be voting on, usually with post after post full of nonsense about nazis, 1916, super states, lizards, you name it, anything that doesn't have anything to do with the treaty but that they can vaguely link it to it.

Reason being that they just haven't a clue what they're voting against, again.

It'll be a sad day on Saturday should the ignorance of the electorate prevail again.

I believe it will be a sad day on Saturday when threats against the electorate make them change their minds.

And there are three aspects to the debate

1) What has gone before

2) The treaty itself

3) Hypothetical scenarios following ratification or rejection.

The no side have definitively won 1) and 3) - yet there are significant problems with the nitty-gritty of the treaty.

All countries will contribute to the EDA - with respect to their states particular outlook and constitutional requirements.
So does that mean we contribute to the EDA or not...?
Short answer: It depends.
Shorter answer: look at what the overall motive is (nuts! shorter answer has more words - a bit like Sarcozy's mini-treaty)

Crux of the mattter:

The lisbon treaty gives more power to the EU. DO YOU LIKE THIS?

RandomName2

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

It'll be a sad day on Saturday should the ignorance of the electorate prevail again.

Yep, when it comes to sheer nihilism/ I'm all right jack/ f*** you nobody does it better than the Irish (ok not all of us!) Remember the divorce referendum in the mid 90s? Now divorce is a civil right in any civilized country but 49.9% of the electorate basically told those who wanted out of dead marriages to f*** off!
As for the argument by the NO side that we'll be throwing away our independence - what independence? This country was so economically dependent on the UK prior to EU membership that the pound sterling was legal tender in the Republic. Oh, and women had to resign from civil service jobs when they got married in the good old days when the country was ruled by the Maynooth Taliban.[/QUOTE]

If the electorate cannot be trusted with voting for Constitution/Lisbon how can they be trusted with voting in politicians?

Oh.

Unelected Commission

That solves that, then.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

I believe it will be a sad day on Saturday when threats against the electorate make them change their minds.

Yeah like "Irish democracy 1916-2009". If you're basing it on threats you should be undecided because both sides are at it. The difference is that the yes side's predictions are supported by economists and business people.
And there are three aspects to the debate

RandomName2 wrote: »

1) What has gone before

2) The treaty itself

3) Hypothetical scenarios following ratification or rejection.

The no side have definitively won 1) and 3) - yet there are significant problems with the nitty-gritty of the treaty.

No there aren't. The no side just keep spreading FUD to make people think there is.

RandomName2 wrote: »

The lisbon treaty gives more power to the EU. DO YOU LIKE THIS?

Yes and showing Ireland to be a country that thinks like yourself is exactly what will make businesses pick more Euro friendly countries when setting up in the EU

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

If the electorate cannot be trusted with voting for Constitution/Lisbon how can they be trusted with voting in politicians?

Because politicians are voted on every 5 years. If they make a bad decision there's only so much damage they can do

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah like "Irish democracy 1916-2009". If you're basing it on threats you should be undecided because both sides are at it. The difference is that the yes side's predictions are supported by economists and business people.
And there are three aspects to the debate


No there aren't. The no side just keep spreading FUD to make people think there is.

Yes and showing Ireland to be a country that thinks like yourself is exactly what will make businesses pick more Euro friendly countries when setting up in the EU

Saying that democracy will end isn't a threat because Libertas has no political power. At all. It is a jeremiad.

And yes, the no side do spread fud. It's a shame.

I am soooo sorry that saying that a certain bill produced by a handful of European politicians should be vetoed.

Obviously that will count for more, in terms of international invesment than
Infrastructure,
Education,
Set up costs
Market availability
Recurring tax costs
Cost of employment (in terms of minimum wage laws and cost of living)
Unionism

But voting down a bill will make all the hard nosed multinationals think that Ireland is going to secede from the Union and go on its merry way. Must be why they all fled from France and Holland.