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

the-island-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not an Irish neutrality issue. Ireland is still neutral and the rest of the countries in the EU were never neutral. That is a valid issue but not the one held by the majority of people who voted no because of neutrality. I've never even heard that point being put forward before.

Thats the whole question though, what do the Ireland people think i mean you have the media putting forward quiet a few arguments and the report into the reasons why we voted no putting forward reasons which i don't even no whether it was independant or not and at the end of the day you have to ask yourself are these arguments held by the majority of irish people.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Again, that's a separate issue. All I heard throughout the campaign was "unelected president", mostly from libertas. That is a valid objection which I covered in my post by saying "Throughout the campaign the only valid objection I came across was from people who have a general objection to the way the EU is going and even that is nothing specific about the treaty"

Thats the whole thing about this treaty it is not just about the Lisbon treaty in my opinion. I think that there has been so much debate on this treaty way more than Nice anyway that people are starting to raise questions about what is happening in Europe.

PopeBuckfastXVI

the-island-man wrote: »

Thats the whole question though, what do the Ireland people think i mean you have the media putting forward quiet a few arguments and the report into the reasons why we voted no putting forward reasons which i don't even no whether it was independant or not and at the end of the day you have to ask yourself are these arguments held by the majority of irish people.

I would think the government would have wanted the research commissioned to be as accurate as possible, in order to address the actual concerns of the people who voted no. Otherwise it's a wasted exercise, as you don't address anyone's concerns and head into a spectacular second failure.

It certainly wasn't a PR exercise to give them an excuse to hold a second referendum, as that would be completely pointless, and even FF aren't that stupid.

sparklepants

Scofflaw wrote: »

If it comes right down to it, how can FF claim a Yes as any kind of vindication?

Agreed. The compelling reality however is that a NO result will lead to a change in government. This is beyond question. Therefore this very tangible consequence, as opposed to the less understandable benefits of a YES result, could swing enough voters to vote no, or to continue to vote no, to defeat the referendum. I believe as the referendum date approaches this less rational anti-government argument will become more popular among voters.

Sam Vimes

the-island-man wrote: »

Thats the whole question though, what do the Ireland people think i mean you have the media putting forward quiet a few arguments and the report into the reasons why we voted no putting forward reasons which i don't even no whether it was independant or not and at the end of the day you have to ask yourself are these arguments held by the majority of irish people.

You say you don't know if the report into the reasons for the no vote was independent. The government wants the treaty to pass so they have to find out why people voted no and address those issues. What would they have to gain by getting an inaccurate report and tackling issues that aren't going to change anyone's mind?

the-island-man wrote: »

Thats the whole thing about this treaty it is not just about the Lisbon treaty in my opinion. I think that there has been so much debate on this treaty way more than Nice anyway that people are starting to raise questions about what is happening in Europe.

Then you are one of very few people who have a valid objection to the treaty going through. Congratulations

Sam Vimes

sparklepants wrote: »

Agreed. The compelling reality however is that a NO result will lead to a change in government. This is beyond question. Therefore this very tangible consequence, as opposed to the less understandable benefits of a YES result, could swing enough voters to vote no, or to continue to vote no, to defeat the referendum. I believe as the referendum date approaches this less rational anti-government argument will become more popular among voters.

1. The first referendum didn't lead to a change in government even though this was the reason for many voting no at the time
2. Getting 12% of the vote in the local elections and a call for a vote of no confidence by Enda Kenny didn't lead to a change in government
3. Buggering up the whole country didn't lead to a change in government
4. All of their opponents except Sinn Fein support the treaty too and they're not getting into government by any stretch of the imagination. It will be equally damning for all parties if it doesn't pass
5. No government has ever fallen over a referendum result

And yet you think this European treaty will be the final straw that convinces Brian Cowen that he's not wanted

PopeBuckfastXVI

sparklepants wrote: »

Agreed. The compelling reality however is that a NO result will lead to a change in government. This is beyond question. Therefore this very tangible consequence, as opposed to the less understandable benefits of a YES result, could swing enough voters to vote no, or to continue to vote no, to defeat the referendum. I believe as the referendum date approaches this less rational anti-government argument will become more popular among voters.

That's utter BS, and you're claiming it as fact. You don't know what a 'yes' or 'no' vote will mean for the life of the Government.

If the Greens didn't pull out after getting the sh*te kicked out of them in the Local and Euro elections, why the hell would they pull out if a Referendum they are officially neutral on fails!?

You are just trying to hijack anti government sentiment to your own ends, like a dastard, that is too terrified to put forward actual arguments for their position.

If FG and Labour stand to benefit so much from a 'No' why are they asking so hard for a 'Yes'?

P. Breathnach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

... Ireland is still neutral and the rest of the countries in the EU were never neutral...

Ireland is not neutral. I wish that we were.

First, to be properly neutral, we would need it to be affirmed as a fundamental principle of the state -- that is, have it written into the constitution. As things stand, our government could (with some convolutions, admittedly) change our position.

Second, our stated position is military neutrality. To my mind, that is a position without much honour. It amounts to our being able to take a position of saying "sure, we are on your side, but if it comes to a fight we're going home".

We have partners in the EU that are more neutral than we are, and who seem not to believe that the EU compromises neutrality.

the-island-man

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say you don't know if the report into the reasons for the no vote was independent. The government wants the treaty to pass so they have to find out why people voted no and address those issues. What would they have to gain by getting an inaccurate report and tackling issues that aren't going to change anyone's mind?

What if the result showed that Ireland didn't want to be in the E.U just an example of something the goverment could not address i wonder what the goverment would do in that situation?
Would it tell the E.U to piss off, hardly!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then you are one of very few people who have a valid objection to the treaty going through. Congratulations

Yay!
whats your valid reason(s) for voting Yes?

Dr. Baltar

I shall be voting no because we have already answered the question of Lisbon.
The government doesn't like the answer we gave so are asking the question again.

Also, the "yes" side assume that the "no" side is morally and intellectually inferior to them for their own opinion and that really bugs me.

brennaldo

ok i dont know an awful lot on lisbon and truthfully, i dont care, im only 17 sure,

my question that im wondering, and i apologise if its been answered 1000 times but theres over 30 pages on this thread so.....

ok if its voted yes and "europe" goes to war, can they pick your name at random and then ya have no choise but to go ??

again im sorry if its been answered but im just curious on that because if thats true il be begging people to vote no

RandomName2

brennaldo wrote: »

ok i dont know an awful lot on lisbon and truthfully, i dont care, im only 17 sure,

my question that im wondering, and i apologise if its been answered 1000 times but theres over 30 pages on this thread so.....

ok if its voted yes and "europe" goes to war, can they pick your name at random and then ya have no choise but to go ??

again im sorry if its been answered but im just curious on that because if thats true il be begging people to vote no

This question is funny - if only because I can already see the 'yes' side spitting bullets and ranting about the absence of an EU army whilst I see the fringe elements of the 'no' side answering 'yes, randon selection'.

Unfortunately rational discussion of EU armies will be, at best, limited. As it stands there is no ostensible mention of army creation in Lisbon, although foreign policy will be unified.

Oh, what the hell... if there is an EU army created (which, yes I know, isn't mentioned in Lisbon) I would say it would snap up elements of existing state armies... a bit like the UN. So no consciption then....

I think unified European foreign policy is no good thing to come about, mind you.

sink

brennaldo wrote: »

ok if its voted yes and "europe" goes to war, can they pick your name at random and then ya have no choise but to go ??

No, Lisbon does not create a European army let alone allow for conscription.

P. Breathnach

Sir Baralot wrote: »

... Also, the "yes" side assume that the "no" side is morally and intellectually inferior to them for their own opinion and that really bugs me.

And if that perception influences your voting decision, then they might be right.

Sam Vimes

the-island-man wrote: »

What if the result showed that Ireland didn't want to be in the E.U just an example of something the goverment could not address i wonder what the goverment would do in that situation?
Would it tell the E.U to piss off, hardly!

If it showed that overwhelmingly they'd probably have to call a referendum on it

the-island-man wrote: »

Yay!
whats your valid reason(s) for voting Yes?

Without getting into too much detail, the treaty is not that exciting. The people who work in the EU say they need these structural changes to make the union work better and I see no reason not to allow them to make these changes. I don't need to be convinced to vote yes because I generally support the EU, I need to be convinced to vote no and I haven't been

Sir Baralot wrote: »

I shall be voting no because we have already answered the question of Lisbon.

As I already pointed out, no we didn't. We answered a load of questions they didn't ask like neutrality, abortion and Fianna Fail.

Sir Baralot wrote: »

Also, the "yes" side assume that the "no" side is morally and intellectually inferior to them for their own opinion and that really bugs me.

We're not assuming anything. The no side consistently give ridiculous reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty such as the bizarre idea that a no vote will get rid of Fianna Fail along with the repetition of lies. What are your morally and intellectually valid reasons for voting no?

brennaldo wrote: »

ok if its voted yes and "europe" goes to war, can they pick your name at random and then ya have no choise but to go ??

No, that was one of many lies that were perpetuated

sparklepants

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

That's utter BS, and you're claiming it as fact. You don't know what a 'yes' or 'no' vote will mean for the life of the Government.

If the Greens didn't pull out after getting the sh*te kicked out of them in the Local and Euro elections, why the hell would they pull out if a Referendum they are officially neutral on fails!?

If the referendum fails, it won't be the Greens that will bring down the government, it'll be FF. Being defeated twice on the same referendum just isn't sustainable.

You are just trying to hijack anti government sentiment to your own ends, like a dastard, that is too terrified to put forward actual arguments for their position.

As I said earlier in this thread I'll be voting Yes, as I did the last time. So what are my own ends? You appear to be so polarised in your views that you assume if someone makes a comment that is uncomfortable for you, they must be devious and malicious. I would strongly advise you to quell your anger, as your arguments are not very compelling to any floating voter reading them.

If FG and Labour stand to benefit so much from a 'No' why are they asking so hard for a 'Yes'?

What's that got to do with it? How could they justify calling for a No vote just to get the government unseated? They call for a Yes vote because they want to see the referendum being passed - seems logical to me. Or do you think that they possess the same dastardly motives that you attribute to me?

Daftendirekt

brennaldo wrote: »

ok i dont know an awful lot on lisbon and truthfully, i dont care, im only 17 sure,

my question that im wondering, and i apologise if its been answered 1000 times but theres over 30 pages on this thread so.....

ok if its voted yes and "europe" goes to war, can they pick your name at random and then ya have no choise but to go ??

again im sorry if its been answered but im just curious on that because if thats true il be begging people to vote no

No. It's blatantly untrue.

What Lisbon does do is commit member states to help each other out in the event of an attack, as long as this doesn't impact on certain member states (Ireland's in particular) policy of neutrality.

The EU won't be going to war, and no one will be drafted into the army against their will.

Sam Vimes

sparklepants wrote: »

If the referendum fails, it won't be the Greens that will bring down the government, it'll be FF. Being defeated twice on the same referendum just isn't sustainable.

This is a European referendum, not an election.

If this was the divorce referendum and Fianna Fail supported it, would you call it a Fianna Fail defeat if it was voted down?

Daftendirekt

sparklepants wrote: »

If the referendum fails, it won't be the Greens that will bring down the government, it'll be FF. Being defeated twice on the same referendum just isn't sustainable.

FF know at this stage that they don't have a mandate to govern this country, yet they have shown no inclination to step down.

Why, do you suppose, they'll suddenly see sense after a referendum that has nothing to do with this?

PopeBuckfastXVI

sparklepants wrote: »

If the referendum fails, it won't be the Greens that will bring down the government, it'll be FF. Being defeated twice on the same referendum just isn't sustainable.

As I said earlier in this thread I'll be voting Yes, as I did the last time. So what are my own ends? You appear to be so polarised in your views that you assume if someone makes a comment that is uncomfortable for you, they must be devious and malicious. I would strongly advise you to quell your anger, as your arguments are not very compelling to any floating voter reading them.
What's that got to do with it? How could they justify calling for a No vote just to get the government unseated? They call for a Yes vote because they want to see the referendum being passed - seems logical to me. Or do you think that they possess the same dastardly motives that you attribute to me?

Apologies, it looked like you were calling for a 'no' vote as a method to rid the country of the disaster that is the current FF government. It doesn't help that you are stating what is clearly your own opinion as 'fact', and claiming there is 'no question' on it, when there very much is a question whether your hypothesis is correct. I reject it because there is no evidence to support it, and anyone who acts on it is misleading themselves, or being misled, in my opinion.

Scofflaw

sparklepants wrote: »

Agreed. The compelling reality however is that a NO result will lead to a change in government. This is beyond question. Therefore this very tangible consequence, as opposed to the less understandable benefits of a YES result, could swing enough voters to vote no, or to continue to vote no, to defeat the referendum. I believe as the referendum date approaches this less rational anti-government argument will become more popular among voters.

I don't doubt that it will be a popular argument, but there's more chance of the government falling in the next few weeks after the Greens have their party discussions on the PFG than on any referendum result short of an overwhelming No vote. A result in the same ballpark as the last one simply isn't going to upset the applecart - nothing short of a landslide No vote would have any effect, and I don't see any prospect of that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sparklepants

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. The first referendum didn't lead to a change in government even though this was the reason for many voting no at the time
2. Getting 12% of the vote in the local elections and a call for a vote of no confidence by Enda Kenny didn't lead to a change in government
3. Buggering up the whole country didn't lead to a change in government
4. All of their opponents except Sinn Fein support the treaty too and they're not getting into government by any stretch of the imagination. It will be equally damning for all parties if it doesn't pass
5. No government has ever fallen over a referendum result

And yet you think this European treaty will be the final straw that convinces Brian Cowen that he's not wanted

By that logic, they'll stay in power until May 2012, yet no-one believes that.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is a European referendum, not an election.

No, it's an Irish referendum.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Apologies, it looked like you were calling for a 'no' vote as a method to rid the country of the disaster that is the current FF government. It doesn't help that you are stating what is clearly your own opinion as 'fact', and claiming there is 'no question' on it, when there very much is a question whether your hypothesis is correct. I reject it because there is no evidence to support it, and anyone who acts on it is misleading themselves, or being misled, in my opinion.

But what "evidence" could there possibly be, other than that the government would take that official position? How could this weakened, unpopular government -indeed how could the main opposition parties- admit that a No vote would lead to a fall of the government? Such a claim would guarantee a No result.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't doubt that it will be a popular argument, but there's more chance of the government falling in the next few weeks after the Greens have their party discussions on the PFG than on any referendum result short of an overwhelming No vote. A result in the same ballpark as the last one simply isn't going to upset the applecart - nothing short of a landslide No vote would have any effect, and I don't see any prospect of that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Even if the result were in the same ballpark the consequences of it certainly wouldn't be. The consequences of a No vote this time would be a lot more damaging, regardless of the margin. There would be no more time to ratify Lisbon, and the treaty would be dead. By declaring himself the front man for the Yes campaign, Cowen would have no choice but to accept responsibility for this and fall on his sword.

Sam Vimes

sparklepants wrote: »

By that logic, they'll stay in power until May 2012, yet no-one believes that.

That may well be the case unfortunately. My point is that, regardless of what the final straw turns out to be if there is one, it most certainly won't be the Lisbon treaty

sparklepants wrote: »

No, it's an Irish referendum.

It's a referendum being held in Ireland on a European treaty. It has nothing to do with Fianna Fail

sparklepants wrote: »

By declaring himself the front man for the Yes campaign, Cowen would have no choice but to accept responsibility for this and fall on his sword.

But by declaring himself the leader of the country he hasn't had to fall on his sword thus far despite catastrophic failures that were actually his fault, whereas this is a referendum to which there are valid objections that have nothing to do with him. How is it his fault if people don't like the direction the EU is going and vote no on that basis?

Scofflaw

sparklepants wrote: »

Even if the result were in the same ballpark the consequences of it certainly wouldn't be. The consequences of a No vote this time would be a lot more damaging, regardless of the margin. There would be no more time to ratify Lisbon, and the treaty would be dead. By declaring himself the front man for the Yes campaign, Cowen would have no choice but to accept responsibility for this and fall on his sword.

That last is a possibility. The rest, from my own experience of Fianna Fail, is not. Cowen might step down as leader, but Fianna Fáil would not step out of government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

sparklepants wrote: »

By that logic, they'll stay in power until May 2012, yet no-one believes that.

No, it's an Irish referendum.


But what "evidence" could there possibly be, other than that the government would take that official position? How could this weakened, unpopular government -indeed how could the main opposition parties- admit that a No vote would lead to a fall of the government? Such a claim would guarantee a No result.



Even if the result were in the same ballpark the consequences of it certainly wouldn't be. The consequences of a No vote this time would be a lot more damaging, regardless of the margin. There would be no more time to ratify Lisbon, and the treaty would be dead. By declaring himself the front man for the Yes campaign, Cowen would have no choice but to accept responsibility for this and fall on his sword.

In order for the government to fall there needs to be a vote of no confidence in the Dail. In order for that to happen several government TD's need to vote against Cowen or at least abstain. No Fianna Fail or Green Party TD is going to be willing to do so as it would almost certainly trigger a general election in which the Green Party will most likely loose most of it's seats and Fianna Fail stands to loose a significant proportion. It would be like turkey's voting for christmas, it's not going to happen.

PopeBuckfastXVI

sparklepants wrote: »

But what "evidence" could there possibly be, other than that the government would take that official position? How could this weakened, unpopular government -indeed how could the main opposition parties- admit that a No vote would lead to a fall of the government? Such a claim would guarantee a No result.

If you claim something as a fact, it's up to you to provide the evidence for it. Otherwise it simply remains an interesting theory, though one which is unlikely to be true, in my opinion.

Feel free to advocate reasons as to why you think it's likely your theory is true, but don't feel free to claim it is fact without any evidence.

sparklepants

Scofflaw wrote: »

That last is a possibility. The rest, from my own experience of Fianna Fail, is not. Cowen might step down as leader, but Fianna Fáil would not step out of government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Even the possibility of the resignation of the Taoiseach will strengthen the resolve of some to vote no.

sink wrote: »

In order for the government to fall there needs to be a vote of no confidence in the Dail. In order for that to happen several government TD's need to vote against Cowen or at least abstain. No Fianna Fail or Green Party TD is going to be willing to do so as it would almost certainly trigger a general election in which the Green Party will most likely loose most of it's seats and Fianna Fail stands to loose a significant proportion.

I understand that the Taoiseach doesn't require a vote of no confidence to dissolve the government or to resign himself. When a Taoiseach tenders his resignation he may recommend to the President that ministers be retained or dismissed. (I'm open to correction on this however).

It would be like turkey's voting for christmas, it's not going to happen.

Christmas has a delightful habit of coming around anyway, whether turkeys vote for it or not.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If you claim something as a fact, it's up to you to provide the evidence for it. Otherwise it simply remains an interesting theory, though one which is unlikely to be true, in my opinion.

It's equally impossible for you to provide evidence that the contrary is true. Your claim that the a No won't lead to a change of government is equally unsubstantiated. (Although I note that you've moved from the position of claiming that what I said was "utter BS" to "unlikely to be true, in my opinion"). A claim by the government itself that a No vote will have no consequences for it is of no value.

Feel free to advocate reasons as to why you think it's likely your theory is true, but don't feel free to claim it is fact without any evidence.

I'll feel free to say whatever I like, within the rules of this forum - thanks.

PopeBuckfastXVI

sparklepants wrote: »

Even the possibility of the resignation of the Taoiseach will strengthen the resolve of some to vote no.


I understand that the Taoiseach doesn't require a vote of no confidence to dissolve the government or to resign himself. When a Taoiseach tenders his resignation he may recommend to the President that ministers be retained or dismissed. (I'm open to correction on this however).
Christmas has a delightful habit of coming around anyway, whether turkeys vote for it or not.

It's equally impossible for you to provide evidence that the contrary is true. Your claim that the a No won't lead to a change of government is equally unsubstantiated. (Although I note that you've moved from the position of claiming that what I said was "utter BS" to "unlikely to be true, in my opinion"). A claim by the government itself that a No vote will have no consequences for it is of no value.
I'll feel free to say whatever I like, within the rules of this forum - thanks.

The claim that your theory is fact, was and remains utter BS. I consider your theory to be unlikely to be true. That's a consistent position.

It's not up to me to provide negative proof for you, and claiming personal opinion as fact is specifically against the charter of the forum, as is refusing to provide evidence for a claimed fact when asked.

Surely you understand why the burden of proof is on the claimant?

sink

sparklepants wrote: »

I understand that the Taoiseach doesn't require a vote of no confidence to dissolve the government or to resign himself. When a Taoiseach tenders his resignation he may recommend to the President that ministers be retained or dismissed. (I'm open to correction on this however).

How likely is Brian Cowen going to voluntarily step down?

sparklepants wrote: »

Christmas has a delightful habit of coming around anyway, whether turkeys vote for it or not.

So do general elections!

Sam Vimes

sink wrote: »

So do general elections!

Don't be ridiculous. The best way to get rid of them is to vote on something completely unrelated. Personally I voted for Susan Boyle in Britain's Got Talent. That showed Cowen :mad:

Rb

I already voted No, nothing has changed so I don't see why my vote would.

Quite pleased with the results in the poll so far anyway, safe to say, however I'm just looking forward to putting this behind us, regardless of the result.