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

PopeBuckfastXVI

20goto10 wrote: »

In that case, what is their purpose? It's a bit naive to think that we could still go ahead and partake in any of these issues and simply claim the decision has nothing to do with Lisbon therefore the legal guarantees have no meaning.

Hi 20Goto10,

The guarantees are guaranteeing that these things aren't in the Lisbon treaty, we are still fully free to sign up for any of the things you mention at a later date, in a later treaty, after a referendum to approve them.

Some people thought some things could be affected by Lisbon that actually couldn't the guarantees just promise that in plain English.

There's nothing to stop us agreeing further integration in another treaty, providing that further integration is approved by referendum here.

Edit:
Just want to add that I would never vote yes to a treaty that permanently blocked future integration.

marco_polo

bladespin wrote: »

Your comedy amuses but belittles the constitution we live by, mocking me and my vote or my reason for voting 'no' is lots of fun, it's also the fastest way to another rejection of the treaty.
Sitting high and mighty in the politics section of boards, tut-tuting at those that voted 'no' is fine for you, but at the moment the poll says you're the one who needs to get the joke and realise you've got to convince people to say 'yes', scoffing at them for not working that out for themselves obviously isn't working.

If I'm to vote on something then I'm entitled to be informed what it is, if anyone turns to me and says 'just vote yes' then I'm immediately going to be suspicious and default to 'no', could possibly blame the cynicism of todays society for that one

The treaty wasn't even going to be provided to us the first time around, it was up to the press to actually provide the information in the end, the 'no' camp were more than happy to give info on it BTW (correct or incorrect).

I completely agree that the Goverment failed abjectly the first time around to get the information out there. However if you are suspicious of what the government is saying then that is all the more reason to inform youself rather than default to 'No'.

Sam Vimes

marco_polo wrote: »

I completely agree that the Goverment failed abjectly the first time around to get the information out there. However if you are suspicious of what the government is saying then that is all the more reason to inform youself rather than default to 'No'.

True. I never understood the mentality of doing the opposite of what the government says, just because they didn't explain themselves. They live here too and as the leaders of the country they have to live with the consequences of the vote so what would they have to gain by telling us to vote in a way that they knew would hurt the country

Sure they should have done a better job of explaining it to people but that doesn't mean you should vote the way the extremists and naysayers are saying you should vote

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hi Bladespin,

Yep the government did a miserable job informing people about the treaty, and not for the first time.

Unfortunately though we've got the responsibility of making the decision, and we owe it to ourselves to make that decision as informed as possible.

Have a look at this post, which you may have missed, where I have given you what I humbly think is some good advice as to how to go about informing yourself on the treaty:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61254104&postcount=739

20goto10

Thanks guys. Seems I've misunderstood the meaning of the guarantees. Take a vote off the No side and add it to the Yes side in the poll

Sam Vimes

20goto10 wrote: »

Thanks guys. Seems I've misunderstood the meaning of the guarantees. Take a vote off the No side and add it to the Yes side in the poll

I can now die happy

oscarBravo

20goto10 wrote: »

Thanks guys. Seems I've misunderstood the meaning of the guarantees. Take a vote off the No side and add it to the Yes side in the poll

Done, for what it's worth.

djpbarry

bladespin wrote: »

Your comedy amuses but belittles the constitution we live by, mocking me and my vote or my reason for voting 'no' is lots of fun, it's also the fastest way to another rejection of the treaty.

Oh I’m sure you’ve already decided which way you’re going to vote and no amount of information on the treaty is going to change that.

If you do decide to engage in a discussion on the treaty’s contents, maybe you could get the ball rolling by responding to this question?

Spiritoftheseventies

small point. Green Party decided to campaign for yes vote on basis they got exactly the two thirds majority needed at a specially convened meeting recently. thats 66.666 per cent. 214 for 107 against. draw what conclusions you want from that but a bit suspicious if you ask me.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

small point. Green Party decided to campaign for yes vote on basis they got exactly the two thirds majority needed at a specially convened meeting recently. thats 66.666 per cent. 214 for 107 against. draw what conclusions you want from that but a bit suspicious if you ask me.

So the conclusion you are leading me to draw, by calling it 'suspicious', is that the vote was rigged?

Have the balls to say so, or withdraw your snide little aspersion.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

small point. Green Party decided to campaign for yes vote on basis they got exactly the two thirds majority needed at a specially convened meeting recently. thats 66.666 per cent. 214 for 107 against. draw what conclusions you want from that but a bit suspicious if you ask me.

If they were going to rig it wouldn't they pick a less suspicious figure?

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If they were going to rig it wouldn't they pick a less suspicious figure?

who said it was rigged. But a bit too close to the bone. Two thirds is two thirds but still.

P. Breathnach

bayviewclose wrote: »

who said it was rigged. But a bit too close to the bone. Two thirds is two thirds but still.

Innuendo is a particularly nasty form of argument. Take a clear position or go away.

Spiritoftheseventies

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Innuendo is a particularly nasty form of argument. Take a clear position or go away.

okay why wasnt there a second vote seeing it was so close.

oscarBravo

bayviewclose wrote: »

okay why wasnt there a second vote seeing it was so close.

Where in the party's rules does it say that a close vote requires a re-vote?

How many delegates do you feel would have changed their votes in between ballots?

Martin 2

bayviewclose wrote: »

okay why wasnt there a second vote seeing it was so close.

66.7% versus 33.3% is not a close vote, in fact it's a 2:1 majority in favour of supporting Lisbon... they probably chose such a majority requirement to get around the need for recounts.
Your point would be valid if the condition for support were anything greater than 50% (say 50.5%).

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

who said it was rigged. But a bit too close to the bone. Two thirds is two thirds but still.

So you're not saying it was rigged. What are you saying then?

Scofflaw

It wasn't particularly surprising. The previous time, the vote was 63% in favour of supporting Lisbon - the swing is about as big as the swing on our poll.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Scofflaw wrote: »

It wasn't particularly surprising. The previous time, the vote was 63% in favour of supporting Lisbon...

Yeah, but that one was rigged too; just wasn't quite rigged enough.

Spiritoftheseventies

Seems to me we have lost the run of ourselves on this thread. Question was how do you intend to vote. that is all. Think after 56 pages someone from each side should make a closing argument and leave it at that.

Iwasfrozen

bayviewclose wrote: »

Seems to me we have lost the run of ourselves on this thread. Question was how do you intend to vote. that is all. Think after 56 pages someone from each side should make a closing argument and leave it at that.

Says the guy who bumped the thread.

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why did you vote no?

for example this post. Why did you vote no. That to me seems to be bumping a thread. Question was how do you intend to vote. Yes or No.

turgon

Forgive us for wanting to discuss the contents of an EU Treaty on the EU forum. I wasnt aware that was looked down upon.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

for example this post. Why did you vote no. That to me seems to be bumping a thread. Question was how do you intend to vote. Yes or No.

Responding to a post 2 minutes later is not bumping a thread.

Posting completely unrelated and unsubstantiated innuendo about the Green party, 7 days after the last post is.

Spiritoftheseventies

skearon wrote: »

It did and carried out extensive reseach to understand the people's vote.



Wrong, the legal guarantees answer the people's concerns, and disprove once and for all the lies of the No side, especially the unelectable Libertas and the Shinners.

enough example here. Just keep putting the No side down by calling them liars and after awhile it becomes true.

Spiritoftheseventies

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Because you were wrong last time, and you should be grateful for the opportunity to redeem yourself.

And here is another example. This is not discussing the issues. Merely the Yes Side showing no respect for vote of other side.

Furious-Dave

bayviewclose wrote: »

enough example here. Just keep putting the No side down by calling them liars and after awhile it becomes true.

Libertas ARE liars. The guarantees prove this. Just keep inventing reasons for a No vote and after a while one will actually be true.

bayviewclose wrote: »

And here is another example. This is not discussing the issues. Merely the Yes Side showing no respect for vote of other side.

Very good, you have a great ability to lump all the "Yes side" into one group based on the words of one person. Must take a lot of intelligence to be able to do that. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Handbag warning...

moderately,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Handbag warning...

moderately,
Scofflaw

No. This has considerable ammusement value [perhaps the only time mentioning the Green Party has, or ever will generate such heart-felt, random and petty bickering about their support for a constiutional ammending treaty]

What is the stance of Christian Solidarity? [presumably 'no' since they aren't really a political pary]

Spiritoftheseventies

Speaking of lies.
full text in link below
http://www.lisbontreatyireland.com/

Lie #1: "Voting No Caused Our Economic Problems"
If you listen to almost any commentary by people in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, they repeat again and again something along the lines of "We have to say yes... our economic future depends on it. You only have to look at what's happened since we voted no last year to see that!"

However, Ireland's economic problems were evident long before the first Lisbon Treaty referendum. In spite of the global financial melt-down, most of our current economic problems were actually caused by the government itself, primarily it's failure to control the activities of the banks, and it's over-reliance on the construction sector (especially stamp duty) for tax revenues.

If all we had to do to avoid our economic problems was vote yes to Lisbon the first time round, just about every country within a thousand miles of the E.U. would be clamouring to join and ratify that treaty.

But they're not.

Because it's not true.

It's scare-mongering of the worst possible kind!

Lie #2: "We Owe Them!"
Another argument by those in favour of the Lisbon Treaty amounts to little more than "You ungrateful bastards. You've done well out of the E.U., so approve this treaty!"

Apart from the downright insulting nature of this line of argument, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans: Ireland has 23% of the E.U.'s fishery waters, which produces 40% of all EU fish. But our quota (the amount Brussels will allow us to catch) is: 4%. This is because, when Ireland joined the E.E.C. in the 1970s, it had to hand over it's fishing rights in perpetuity and allow other E.U. nations to fish in Irish waters. In return, Irish farming was to be saved by Brussels.

Now, both our farming and fishing industries have been decimated by E.U. policies: Incredibly, Irish fisherman are forced to throw millions of euro of dead fish back into the water, or face arrest; and we import fish caught in Irish waters, processed on the continent, and sold back to Ireland! To date, other E.U. nations have benefited from Irish fishing resources to the tune of nearly €200 billion.

Since the E.U. Commission claims Ireland has received over €61 billion since accession, this means that for every €1 we got from the E.U., we gave it €3.28 in return!
And we're the ungrateful bastards?

Lie #3: "They'll Throw Us Out If We Vote No Again!"
Even though the Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with membership of the E.U., yet another example of the kind of insane scare-mongering that gets thrown about by those in favour of it, is the notion that Ireland will be turfed out of the E.U. if we don't give 'the right answer' next time round. (Actually, they said the same thing the last time too... and also when we rejected the Nice Treaty a few years back.)

What they don't tell you is that, even though they're the only ones who ever suggest that as a possibility, the fact remains that no members of the E.U. can be thrown out unless all member states agree... and Ireland is hardly going to agree to throw itself out!