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

P. Breathnach

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.

It's a lovely city, and you can get some great seafood there. The 28 tram follows a great route, highly scenic. I liked to Moorish-influenced tiling on many houses. Prices are low. The people are generally pleasant to deal with.

Vote yes to Lisbon.

moondogspot

Myself & 5 family members all voted No and it feels so good. Down with this farce of a Treaty.

fligedlyflick

moondogspot wrote: »

Myself & 5 family members all voted No and it feels so good. Down with this farce of a Treaty.

i've been trying all week to urge family members, friends and work mates to use their vote regardless of yes or no inclinations, unsurprisingly several are resigned to the fact that the yes scaremongering will succeed and are tired of been asked to re-vote something the voted down the last time, they have lost all hope in irish democracy and have nothing but scorn for this treaty and all it entails but reason that even if it is voted down...again..... their vote will be ignored and ratification will go ahead anyway, i hope you yes siders are content in the biggest swindle in recent history, nice treaty aside.
traitors is too much of a strong word, any suggestions for an alternative?.

marco_polo

fligedlyflick wrote: »

i've been trying all week to urge family members, friends and work mates to use their vote regardless of yes or no inclinations, unsurprisingly several are resigned to the fact that the yes scaremongering will succeed and are tired of been asked to re-vote something the voted down the last time, they have lost all hope in irish democracy and have nothing but scorn for this treaty and all it entails but reason that even if it is voted down...again..... their vote will be ignored and ratification will go ahead anyway, i hope you yes siders are content in the biggest swindle in recent history, nice treaty aside.
traitors is too much of a strong word, any suggestions for an alternative?.

Not much of a free democracy if voting one way makes you a traitor?

I was under the impression that our constitution prohibited such a ratification attempt? But what would I know, being a traitor and all that.

xardoxify

A big orgasm is a cumming YES, YES, OH YYYYYYYYYYEEEESSSSSSSSSS!:D

Empire o de Sun

Vote yes first thing this morning before work.

Empire o de Sun

It would have been funny if the treaty was the "Dublin Treaty"

Vote Yes to DUBLIN , Vote No to DUBLIN

Funglegunk

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's a lovely city, and you can get some great seafood there. The 28 tram follows a great route, highly scenic. I liked to Moorish-influenced tiling on many houses. Prices are low. The people are generally pleasant to deal with.

Vote yes to Lisbon.

Ever try the custard pies at Belem? The recipe is so orgasmic that the employees have to sign an NDA before they get the job.

And I'm voting a resounding YES

bazkennedy

voted yes this morning! in our house: 2 yes voters, 1 no voter and 1 undecided (or at least is keeping her vote private)

fligedlyflick

marco_polo wrote: »

Not much of a free democracy if voting one way makes you a traitor?

I was under the impression that our constitution prohibited such a ratification attempt? But what would I know, being a traitor and all that.

i can recall saying, - "traitor is too strong a word", (*scrolls up),
yeah, thats what i said, funny how you chaps can read something like the lisbon threat-e and draw your own wee positives from it and someone who finds distaste with the rape of his last vote sees his sentences been concluded to the opposite. i did'nt claim voting one way makes you traitorous, crying and pushing to have the vote recast to suit your own needs is slightly contrary to a free democracy though. maybe i'm wrong, according to the yes camp i don't know whats good for myself and needed scolding post lisbon 1
is there not also something in our constitution or even our moral conscience that the majority vote stands?

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

draw your own wee positives from it and someone who finds distaste with the rape of his last vote

Do you not think the people who voted no because of the issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner should be given the opportunity to change their mind now that those issues have been addressed?

marco_polo

fligedlyflick wrote: »

i can recall saying, - "traitor is too strong a word", (*scrolls up),
yeah, thats what i said, funny how you chaps can read something like the lisbon threat-e and draw your own wee positives from it and someone who finds distaste with the rape of his last vote sees his sentences been concluded to the opposite. i did'nt claim voting one way makes you traitorous, crying and pushing to have the vote recast to suit your own needs is slightly contrary to a free democracy though. maybe i'm wrong, according to the yes camp i don't know whats good for myself and needed scolding post lisbon 1
is there not also something in our constitution or even our moral conscience that the majority vote stands?

?

johnwillnot

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

I doesn't matter what they call it, Tony Blair is the favourite for the Job. I am not conjuring up anything; I am simply making people aware of articles in the media. This is a new post!

Sam Vimes

johnwillnot wrote: »

I doesn't matter what they call it, Tony Blair is the favourite for the Job. I am not conjuring up anything; I am simply making people aware of articles in the media. This is a new post!

In the British papers he is but really nowhere else. the president will be elected by QMV so he'll have to get the heads of at least 15 governments to vote for him

fligedlyflick

marco_polo wrote: »

?

ahhh, sarcasm, the last vestige

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick, do you not think the people who voted no because of the issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner should be given the opportunity to change their mind now that those issues have been addressed?

Scofflaw

johnwillnot wrote: »

I doesn't matter what they call it, Tony Blair is the favourite for the Job. I am not conjuring up anything; I am simply making people aware of articles in the media. This is a new post!

Sorry - let me just check something here. Are you saying that this is a new post since last year? That it is separate from the President of the European Council post that was much debated last time round?

perplexed,
Scofflaw

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you not think the people who voted no because of the issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner should be given the opportunity to change their mind now that those issues have been addressed?

who says that was the reason we voted no?
a commission paid for by taxpayers money to soothe brian cowens headache?
as i stated before, nobody asked my opinion, certainly not this highly paid british "return on investment" group millward brown. they asked how many people? 4 million? or 1000?

all you lot wanted was an excuse to force through this treaty

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

who says that was the reason we voted no?
a commission paid for by taxpayers money to soothe brian cowens headache?

No, three independent survey companies which Brian Cowen has no control over. I think you should have some evidence before you accuse Millward Brown of corruption. They do this thing for a living you see.

fligedlyflick wrote: »

as i stated before, nobody asked my opinion, certainly not this highly paid british "return on investment" group millward brown. they asked how many people? 4 million? or 1000?

all you lot wanted was an excuse to force through this treaty

They asked 1600, which gives an accuracy of 2-3% with our population. Of course the government didn't ask everyone, they can't fix everyone's problems and the wonder of democracy is they don't have to. They only have to fix enough to get the vote to 49.9%.

So, why do you want to deny the people who voted on the issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner the right to change their minds? Is that not very undemocratic?

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, three independent survey companies which Brian Cowen has no control over. I think you should have some evidence before you accuse Millward Brown of corruption. They do this thing for a living you see.



They asked 1600, which gives an accuracy of 2-3% with our population. Of course the government didn't ask everyone, they can't fix everyone's problems and the wonder of democracy is they don't have to. They only have to fix enough to get the vote to 49.9%.

So, why do you want to deny the people who voted on the issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner the right to change their minds? Is that not very undemocratic?

why should we be forced to change our minds?
asking 1600 people to represent 3 million is slightly ambitious to say the least, i and many of my fellow no voters last time were not concerned with such menial issues as abortion, conscription and whatever else reasons brian cowen wanted to hear, we basically were appalled at the willingness to give unelected businessmen more power, something still not adressed, purposely not addressed as that would mean displaying the full context of the constitution/treaty preferring to rely on the auld reliables when confronting peoples concerns, neutrality? pah!, we sold that to the highest bidder years ago.
and kindly point out where i accused millward brown of corruption?

smokingman

Voting YES because I refuse to be swayed by foreign marketing teams coming onto our beloved boards.ie, creating multiple new accounts and posting lies.

I will NOT be swayed by the likes of Ganley, Coir, the communist parties and the UK nazi party.

I will NOT be swayed by the lack of any truth whatsoever in any no poster I've seen.

I will NOT be swayed by anyone telling me that the EU has been anything but good for MY country.

I will NOT be swayed by conspirary theorists sitting in their bedrooms creating some kind of EVIL EMPIRE out of the EU which we ARE a part of (does that make us evil lads? )

I will NOT be swayed by any part quotation of the Treaty that usually forgets to include the parts where we can duck out of anything proposed.

I will NOT be swayed by anyone sprouting crap suggesting we have less of a say when QM voting needs AT LEAST 15 countries AND 65% of the total population of our Europe to get something passed.

I will NOT be swayed by anyone suggesting I'm unpatriotic to support a yes vote - I love this island even with all it's problems but I also love being a European. Travelling across Europe has given me the comfortable feeling that people are mostly the same in things they want, food, love, happiness....
We are Irish citizens standing side by side with our neighbours for a common cause - the foundations the EU were built on and if the Treaty is ratified, this will include the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights - what's wrong with that?

I'm urging people to vote yes only because I believe it to be right.
Not because I'm being paid by foreign interests, not because I believe any of the lies, not because I am in any way looking out for anything but this Islands future.

I hope the future will be good - same as every European.
-Ed

fligedlyflick

smokingman wrote: »

Voting YES because I refuse to be swayed by foreign marketing teams coming onto our beloved boards.ie, creating multiple new accounts and posting lies.

I will NOT be swayed by the likes of Ganley, Coir, the communist parties and the UK nazi party.

I will NOT be swayed by the lack of any truth whatsoever in any no poster I've seen.

I will NOT be swayed by anyone telling me that the EU has been anything but good for MY country.

I will NOT be swayed by conspirary theorists sitting in their bedrooms creating some kind of EVIL EMPIRE out of the EU which we ARE a part of (does that make us evil lads? )

I will NOT be swayed by any part quotation of the Treaty that usually forgets to include the parts where we can duck out of anything proposed.

I will NOT be swayed by anyone sprouting crap suggesting we have less of a say when QM voting needs AT LEAST 15 countries AND 65% of the total population of our Europe to get something passed.

I will NOT be swayed by anyone suggesting I'm unpatriotic to support a yes vote - I love this island even with all it's problems but I also love being a European. Travelling across Europe has given me the comfortable feeling that people are mostly the same in things they want, food, love, happiness....
We are Irish citizens standing side by side with our neighbours for a common cause - the foundations the EU were built on and if the Treaty is ratified, this will include the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights - what's wrong with that?

I'm urging people to vote yes only because I believe it to be right.
Not because I'm being paid by foreign interests, not because I believe any of the lies, not because I am in any way looking out for anything but this Islands future.

I hope the future will be good - same as every European.
-Ed

or irishman or does that not fit in with the grand scheme of things?

smokingman

fligedlyflick wrote: »

or irishman or does that not fit in with the grand scheme of things?

I am both, don't try for a second to twist my words pal.

fligedlyflick

smokingman wrote: »

I am both, don't try for a second to twist my words pal.

ok........ pal?
maybe the twisting of words is reserved for yes voters.

smokingman

ok, looking at your past posts, I see nothing but subterfuge and misdirection.
Can't really blame me for insisting you don't try and twist my words when you obviously didn't read my post in the first place:

"I will NOT be swayed by anyone suggesting I'm unpatriotic to support a yes vote - I love this island even with all it's problems but I also love being a European. Travelling across Europe has given me the comfortable feeling that people are mostly the same in things they want, food, love, happiness....
We are Irish citizens standing side by side with our neighbours for a common cause - the foundations the EU were built on and if the Treaty is ratified, this will include the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights - what's wrong with that?"

fligedlyflick

smokingman wrote: »

ok, looking at your past posts, I see nothing but subterfuge and misdirection.
Can't really blame me for insisting you don't try and twist my words when you obviously didn't read my post in the first place:

"I will NOT be swayed by anyone suggesting I'm unpatriotic to support a yes vote - I love this island even with all it's problems but I also love being a European. Travelling across Europe has given me the comfortable feeling that people are mostly the same in things they want, food, love, happiness....
We are Irish citizens standing side by side with our neighbours for a common cause - the foundations the EU were built on and if the Treaty is ratified, this will include the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights - what's wrong with that?"

i read your post, you clearly set out why you intend or did vote yes, fair point. i had the misfortune of stating why i intended voting no and was condemned as some paranoid subscriber to lies, a commie, a fascist etc. even though i have made it clear that i have no political affiliation and treat the no camps arguments with as much cynicism as the yes camp.
your post also seems to imply that all arguments from the no voters are lies, i don't believe the 1.84 wage argument anymore than i believe a yes vote will create jobs and help with the recession, but it's rather indulgent to wave away genuine concerns as lies

diaduit73

don't know where else to ask this sorry.

Are you allowed to vote without having a poling card? there is 7 people living here who are eligible to vote but our poling cards (I assume that's what they are called) never came in the post, our neighbours didn't get any either. I know from previous elections our names are on a list at the local poling station, if I bring ID can I still vote without the card?

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick, why do you want to deny the people who voted on the issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner the right to change their minds? Is that not very undemocratic?

You can say that they were the majority issues all you want but you can't deny that they were significant issues for many people

smokingman

fligedlyflick wrote: »

i don't believe the 1.84 wage argument anymore than i believe a yes vote will create jobs and help with the recession, but it's rather indulgent to wave away genuine concerns as lies

If I actually heard any GENUINE concerns instead of lies, I would have loved to listen and find out actual problems experienced. Instead, all I saw on here were made up alarmist nonsense that had nothing to do with a Treaty.

You're new here yeah?
Going to any post project marketing parties after this?

akkadian

free-man wrote: »

Can I ask why?

because he's a free-man!
That is the most ethical choice - not to vote
but unfortunately people will vote.