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

Scofflaw

johnwillnot wrote: »

Here is a quote from Bertie Ahern on the 28/02/09

He said he "passionately hopes" Ireland will ratify the treaty, and stressed the importance of establishing a president of the EU. "Europe has to be seen to be a coherent voice and that needs a president in office -- not [a new president] every six months, when somebody different comes around with a different set of priorities".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-im-not-eyeing-eu-job-1301216.html

The job does not exist until the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. No treaty, no job. The evidence is overwhelming and the Irish people will decide on Friday whether they would like to see Tony Blair representing them abroad.

Not that I'm not happy for you that you believe you're settling the referendum by conjuring up the awful spectre of Tony Blair, but it would sound better if you were able to actually get the title of the position right. You should really go and read the Treaty you're voting on. It creates the position of 'President of the European Council' - neither more, nor less.

regards,
Scofflaw

speaktofrank

the Irish people will decide on Friday whether they would like to see Tony Blair representing them abroad.

Are you one of those boys who went around hanging up posters about the minimum wage being reduced to €1.84? :rolleyes:

Even if I didn't understand anything about the treaty, the fact that it is being endorsed by all main stream political parties and major trade unions is good enough for me.

akkadian

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oddly enough, I have a post from last May outlining all the duties of the position.



You see the "" there? That's because they're not using the proper title.

regards,
Scofflaw

Crispin Odey who funded Ganley (of her majesty's hedge funds?) and other investment bankers seem to have a vested interest. That's the same investment banker that short sold Anglo Irish shares. In other words a British investor based in London made hundreds of millions short selling Irish banks because he's part of a team of people that are euro-sceptics.

When you look at who's doing the pushing it's not the EU, it's the monarchies of Europe.I'm not saying the EU is perfect, it's not. Far from it. I used to be a 'no' but unfortunately we live in a different world with different powerful groups now.

This is more than just a treaty. It makes Ireland closer to the UK, France, Germany and all the other European countries. That's a good thing. A 'no' means more power and influence for the eurosceptics that have an agenda of their own, and are very well funded.

I honestly don't know what's best, but I do think the world of nation state sovereignty is ending. Europe could be weaker if we are not
together. We could be left behind by China, India and other emerging blocks, if we don't stick together. A 'no' to this treaty would be a big morale blow for Europe, regardless of what the treaty actually means. It still effects markets.


Also, the way the guarantees work if they're respected is that Ireland may actually lose more power by voting no. We could become less sovereign by voting 'no', ironically. So far the EU has respected Ireland's requests.

All I request - treat this very seriously, but not too seriously!


And for those of you voting to vote against FF:
That's childish. Every political party bar SF are pro-lisbon so voting 'no' to vote against the government is technically anarchism as you would be voting against every party bar SF, not just FF

vanla sighs

akkadian wrote: »

I used to be a 'no' but unfortunately we live in a different world with different powerful groups now

So, you mean in approx the last 16 months strange, secretive, poweful new groups have emerged from the undergrowth? Are they lizard people? :rolleyes: Vote No!

Spook_ie

Simple thing is if you want a "de facto" president representing the EU and therefore Ireland vote Yes, if you don't want a "de facto" president then vote No....

I'm a No because a "De facto" president is yet another step towards an EU Federated State

free-man

meglome wrote: »

You do know there's no such thing as EU president right?

Here's another angle..

We know that it's not an EU President now right? All sounds very innocuous, a figurehead position will be created with no powers etc.

Fast forward 6 months, the EU decides the President of the European Council should have more power's and responsibilities... like a real president.

What's to stop this happening under Article 48 the "self amending" article?

It won't need a referendum in Ireland, but please tell me there's something to stop this scenario occurring?

TestTransmission

I wont be voting today so theres one less yes vote

free-man

jackncoke wrote: »

I wont be voting today so theres one less yes vote

Can I ask why?

Spook_ie

jackncoke wrote: »

I wont be voting today so theres one less yes vote

but if you vote no that would be like 2 less yes votes

goldnoil

I woke up this morning all prepared to go out and vote yes, fired up my pc and no Broadband:

Well f*** the b*******, I'm going out and voting no it seems to be the only thing the occupants of Leinster Hose understand. Ryan on his first day in office could have said to his lawyers "ok boys, how do we change the regs,
law, constitution so that we can force eircom to recapitalise so that they will invest in the infrastructure needed to provide world class communications?" If that would have been done we would be on our way to better broadband instead of the s*** we have to put up with day in day out. :mad:

zenno

ahhhhh. that felt good putting a big dirty black X on NO for the second time. stable at 56% no

Chardee MacDennis

goldnoil wrote: »

I woke up this morning all prepared to go out and vote yes, fired up my pc and no Broadband:

Well f*** the b*******, I'm going out and voting no it seems to be the only thing the occupants of Leinster Hose understand. Ryan on his first day in office could have said to his lawyers "ok boys, how do we change the regs,
law, constitution so that we can force eircom to recapitalise so that they will invest in the infrastructure needed to provide world class communications?" If that would have been done we would be on our way to better broadband instead of the s*** we have to put up with day in day out. :mad:

you vote on the basis of the treaty and not on the gov. you shouldnt be allowed to vote...

Blazer

Goign to vote later on today but hearing Cowen spreading fears about a two tier Europe yesterday evening pisses me off...
Government should stick to facts and not scaremongering.
God knows they're giving the NO camp enough grief over their tactics.

Johnnnybravo

BastardPrince wrote: »

you vote on the basis of the treaty and not on the gov. you shouldnt be allowed to vote...

hes as entitled as you are:mad: nice big fat no lovely job. f*kn hell the yesmen here would wanna mind thereself getting down off their high horse to go over to the polling station.

jenzz

I have one biggy that I need answered which will probably sway my vote. How is our neutrality affected? Can our little Irish lads be enlisted & dragged into a war lets say ??

ei.sdraob

jenzz wrote: »

I have one biggy that I need answered which will probably sway my vote. How is our neutrality affected? Can our little Irish lads be enlisted & dragged into a war lets say ??

no they can not "be enlisted & dragged into a war", our neutrality is not affected in any way or manner

conscription is yet another lie in a big line of lies to influence people to vote on something thats completely irrelevant to Lisbon

theres a thread here on subject, please do read it


/

Johnnnybravo

jenzz wrote: »

I have one biggy that I need answered which will probably sway my vote. How is our neutrality affected? Can our little Irish lads be enlisted & dragged into a war lets say ??

In reality who knows. Decisions will be made on behalf of Irelan if this is passed. Itl be out of our hands.

ei.sdraob

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

In reality who knows. Decisions will be made on behalf of Irelan if this is passed. Itl be out of our hands.

For ****s sake

theres lying and then theres malicious lying

go on backup your statement with any facts, im waiting

:rolleyes:

Scofflaw

jenzz wrote: »

I have one biggy that I need answered which will probably sway my vote. How is our neutrality affected? Can our little Irish lads be enlisted & dragged into a war lets say ??

No - again, as per the guarantees:

The Treaty of Lisbon does not provide for the creation of a European army or for conscription to any military formation.

It does not affect the right of Ireland or any other Member State to determine the nature and volume of its defence and security expenditure and the nature of its defence capabilities.

It will be a matter for Ireland or any other Member State, to decide, in accordance with any domestic legal requirements, whether or not to participate in any military operation.

Conscript armies, by the way, went out 50 years ago.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

jenzz wrote: »

I have one biggy that I need answered which will probably sway my vote. How is our neutrality affected? Can our little Irish lads be enlisted & dragged into a war lets say ??

You are only asking this now?

dogbert27

Voted YES and feel great about it! Man I love Fridays

the_syco

[sarcasm] Vote no, or you'll goto hell! [/sarcasm]

=-=

Jenzz: no, unless our government sends them in, on peacekeeping meetings, such as Congo, Lebanon, etc.

RandomName2

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055695799

yozzie

jenzz wrote: »

I have one biggy that I need answered which will probably sway my vote. How is our neutrality affected? Can our little Irish lads be enlisted & dragged into a war lets say ??

Paragraph 27 of Lisbon states: “The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.” Not only that, but according to Paragraph 50, Irish embassies around the world would be obliged to propagate the official EU line. “The diplomatic missions of Member States ... in third countries and international organisations shall cooperate and shall contribute to formulating and implementing the common approach.”

The supporters of the Treaty try to cover this up by insisting that the Treaty recognises the right of ‘neutral’ countries to opt out of any military campaign. This is true but they refuse to confirm that Ireland would be obliged to give political, moral and propaganda support. Of course the word ‘neutral’ is utterly debased and meaningless in the context of the Irish government’s logistical support to the US Army at Shannon Airport in the criminal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Lisbon, in fact, carefully creates the structures for armed intervention abroad. It demands increased military spending, and organises an EU armaments industry under the newly formed European Defence Agency. It also allows groups of the more powerful military powers within the Union to form military alliances among themselves which may then be authorised to act abroad on behalf of the EU. This would be an official EU operation and no matter what, Lisbon obliges all Member States to support it.

So, the answer is not a simple yes/no.

If after reading the above, you still believe the 'neutrality' is kept, then I guess you'll vote YES.

However, I would strongly suggest that whilst the 'boys' won't be sent 'to man the frontline', given that obligation to support the militarisation in various means, the 'neutrality' label is a fallacy anyway.

For me, your question and its FULL answer [not the simplistic, misleading answer] demands an emphatic NO vote.

smokingman

yozzie wrote: »

So, the answer is not a simple yes/no.

Wow, look at that, another "new" poster arrives....how's all in the marketing office today chap? What's the weather like over there?

yozzie

smokingman wrote: »

Wow, look at that, another "new" poster arrives....how's all in the marketing office today chap? What's the weather like over there?

If you have an accusation to make; make it.
Yes - I'm a new member of the forum.
Is that not allowed?
'Marketing office'? Which marketing office?

Please be clear with your accusations ... like much of the gob****e used in the YES campaign, the snide remarks, inferences, implied meanings, obfuscation, lies and disinformation just becomes so damn tiring.

If you have something to say; say it.

BlackWizard

I'm voting NO to Lisbon. I've never been there and I don't see why we should let them into the EU.

Bobeagleburger

voted No

yozzie

BlackWizard wrote: »

I'm voting NO to Lisbon. I've never been there and I don't see why we should let them into the EU.

He he he ... nice.

Still got humour on a tense day of voting.

the_syco

yozzie wrote: »

Please be clear with your accusations ... like much of the gob****e used in the YES campaign, the snide remarks, inferences, implied meanings, obfuscation, lies and disinformation just becomes so damn tiring.

If you have something to say; say it.

Like all new users who claim not to have a bias, who support the NO vote, and keep repeating the NO lies, disinformation.

The army thing has been around since Nice, and we still are not contributing to it.