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

Scofflaw

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes some very interesting points from that poll. And the 22 per cent is a very telling statistic. Clearly people are still unhappy how this treaty is being presented. And what can we expect from the Yes Vote. More posters with their faces on it. Think it was greeted with a fair degree of cynicism last time round. I would also hope that when debate hits the airwaves it will not be with like two weeks ago. All that happens there is politicians and lobbyists from the yes and no factions just continually shout over each other which achieves nothing.
I would like to see maybe four or five debates (which are well publicised) where seperate issues are discussed in a Questions and Answers type forum.

I think we'd all like to see that!

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Encouraging that in polls conducted for the yes camp has the no vote rising to 35%. Apparently, 35% are determined to vote no, with slightly more determined to vote yes, and the remaining 25% persuadable. We are making progress with our message that Lisbon is bad for Ireland and bad for Europe. This is not going to be the slam-dunk the political elites think.

RandomName2

I'm just waiting to see the PDs' campaign for Lisbon get started.

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'm just waiting to see the PDs' campaign for Lisbon get started.

Coming to a phone box near you! Sorry, couldn't resist!

Lockstep

I'm probably the only person I know who's going from a No in Lisbon I to a Yes in Lisbon II.

darkman2

Im staying with a "no" because im pissed off with all of them. The Government for fcuking us up and the EU for ignoring us.

Scofflaw

darkman2 wrote: »

Im staying with a "no" because im pissed off with all of them. The Government for fcuking us up and the EU for ignoring us.

Presuming by the second that you're referring to holding a second referendum, you're actually talking about the government again. The EU cannot dictate how or whether Ireland ratifies Lisbon - that is entirely between us and our government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Presuming by the second that you're referring to holding a second referendum, you're actually talking about the government again. The EU cannot dictate how or whether Ireland ratifies Lisbon - that is entirely between us and our government.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Are we not being pressured by the EU though?

ei.sdraob

darkman2 wrote: »

Im staying with a "no" because im pissed off with all of them. The Government for fcuking us up and the EU for ignoring us.

ignoring us to the tune of 450 million a week to keep the gravy train rolling :rolleyes:

i wish they "ignored" my bank account so

as for the rest of your rant, are you actually gonna vote on anything that has anything to do with the treaty? i dont like the government either but what you are doing is downright foolish, but then again its your vote :cool:

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Are we not being pressured by the EU though?

There's a certain amount of pressure from the other member states, sure. Which is understandable: if you and 26 of your mates had spent ages making plans, and you suddenly changed your mind - wouldn't you expect them to try to persuade you?

ei.sdraob

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a certain amount of pressure from the other member states, sure. Which is understandable: if you and 26 of your mates had spent ages making plans, and you suddenly changed your mind - wouldn't you expect them to try to persuade you?

working on the plans for the better part of a decade with you (ireland) taking a big part in the drafting in those plans ...

a better example would be 27 students living in a big dorm, with one fat slob (previously slim and athletic) being slow in helping clean the place and implement the plans to paint the rooms

tolosenc

ei.sdraob wrote: »

working on the plans for the better part of a decade with you (ireland) taking a big part in the drafting in those plans ...

a better example would be 27 students living in a big dorm, with one fat slob (previously slim and athletic) being slow in helping clean the place and implement the plans to paint the rooms

Except it's not cleaning or painting, it's converting it into a conscription office/abortionists surgery/tax policy changing office/<insert place where non-sensical argument would occur>

O'Morris

working on the plans for the better part of a decade with you (ireland) taking a big part in the drafting in those plans ...

a better example would be 27 students living in a big dorm, with one fat slob (previously slim and athletic) being slow in helping clean the place and implement the plans to paint the rooms

It's not that we're being slow in cleaning the place, it's that we refuse to clean the place.

And not all of the 27 students were asked if they wanted to clean the place. Of the students who were asked, three of them said no. There's reason to believe that many of the other students would have given the same answer if they too had been asked.

Freeborn John

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well played that man, 'some good things in Lisbon', but voting 'no' for 3 reasons that are nothing to do with it. One of which (#2) is factually incorrect. Another of which (#3) Lisbon would actually help by increasing democratic accountability in decision making.

Lisbon is the direction that federalists wish to take the EU in. If you don't like that direction then it is logical to vote against Lisbon.

Lisbon makes the EU less democratic by taking powers from democratic national institutions and giving them to undemocratic institutions in Brussels (including the EU Parliament) which represent no interest except their own in acquiring more power and will not accept NO for an answer.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Freeborn John wrote: »

Lisbon is the direction that federalists wish to take the EU in. If you don't like that direction then it is logical to vote against Lisbon.

Lisbon makes the EU less democratic by taking powers from democratic national institutions and giving them to undemocratic institutions in Brussels (including the EU Parliament) which represent no interest except their own in acquiring more power and will not accept NO for an answer.

The EP is undemocratic eh?

Dictionary for Freeborn John please...

worldrepublic

27 white middle-class students want to 'paint house'... but some of the white middle-class students smell a rat. One little student starts thinking about the Arabian and Iraqi students in the flat down the hall (the one with all the oil underneath it). Hey! [says the little student] we need to stop pretending we are just planning to 'paint house', and own up to the fact that we need to keep raiding the other apartments for oil so we can all eat more, have nice cars, and central heating of course. [Bleep] this [bleep] about a little 'paint job'.

the-island-man

The true test of our democracy will be whether the goverment even bother doing a report after the second referendum if Ireland vote yes to see why we did so!
A lot of talk i've heard recently suggests that people will vote yes because they believe our economy will improve if we do! Nobody can prove that this is correct and if it isn't does anybody believe that the goverment will run another referendum?!
Not a chance!
Anybody that believes that this whole process is fair and democratic is kidding themselves in my opinion!

PopeBuckfastXVI

worldrepublic wrote: »

27 white middle-class students want to 'paint house'... but some of the white middle-class students smell a rat. One little student starts thinking about the Arabian and Iraqi students in the flat down the hall (the one with all the oil underneath it). Hey! [says the little student] we need to stop pretending we are just planning to 'paint house', and own up to the fact that we need to keep raiding the other apartments for oil so we can all eat more, have nice cars, and central heating of course. [Bleep] this [bleep] about a little 'paint job'.

If I'm reading you correctly, you think that Ireland voted 'No' to Lisbon the first time because we don't want the EU exploiting Iraqi, or other middle eastern oil?

If so, then that's the very first time I've heard that being claimed by anyone, 'yes', 'no' or indifferent...

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

It's not that we're being slow in cleaning the place, it's that we refuse to clean the place.

...having already agreed to clean it.

And not all of the 27 students were asked if they wanted to clean the place. Of the students who were asked, three of them said no. There's reason to believe that many of the other students would have given the same answer if they too had been asked.

Now look what you did: you broke the analogy.

The EU is an organisation of member states. The member states, through their elected governments, agreed on the Lisbon treaty. All the member states but one have ratified the treaty through their respective ratification processes.

There are 27 members of the EU, not 500 million.

Freeborn John wrote: »

Lisbon is the direction that federalists wish to take the EU in. If you don't like that direction then it is logical to vote against Lisbon.

It's the direction lots of people want to take the EU, including those of us who are not federalists. Voting against something just because some of the people who agree with it have an agenda you disagree with is far from logical.

Lisbon makes the EU less democratic by taking powers from democratic national institutions and giving them to undemocratic institutions in Brussels (including the EU Parliament) which represent no interest except their own in acquiring more power and will not accept NO for an answer.

That's just a bog-standard Torygraph-inspired caricature of the EU. If that's how you see the EU, then we shouldn't be a member of it at all.

PopeBuckfastXVI

the-island-man wrote: »

Anybody that believes that this whole process is fair and democratic is kidding themselves in my opinion!

What's undemocratic about it? The fact that some people might vote for reasons that aren't directly related to the treaty, and may well be unaffected by a 'yes' or 'no' to Lisbon?

Funnily enough, all I heard the last time that happened was that it was a 'victory for democracy'...

Sam Vimes

the-island-man wrote: »

The true test of our democracy will be whether the goverment even bother doing a report after the second referendum if Ireland vote yes to see why we did so!
A lot of talk i've heard recently suggests that people will vote yes because they believe our economy will improve if we do! Nobody can prove that this is correct and if it isn't does anybody believe that the goverment will run another referendum?!
Not a chance!

I've been listening to people who work in Brussels and they've been saying that the opinion of Ireland in the EU was badly damaged by the last no vote. Not because we voted no but because we voted no for mostly BS reasons that had nothing to do with the treaty. Another no vote without good reason will damage our reputation further. Business is all about perception and a reputation as the people who keep voting down treaties because they're too lazy to read them is not one that is conducive to investment

the-island-man wrote: »

Anybody that believes that this whole process is fair and democratic is kidding themselves in my opinion!

Why's that?

Ireland had two divorce referendums, the first one was almost completely rejected and the second passed with 50.28%. Was it undemocratic to run the second one and was it undemocratic not to run a third one when the vote was so close?

Freeborn John

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The EP is undemocratic eh?

Dictionary for Freeborn John please...

A basic lesson in democracy for PopeBuckfastXVI seems in order.

Democracy requires a united people, who will agree to live under their majority and this does not exist across Europe. Indeed the Irish state was created to assert that the Irish people would not agree to live under the majority in the Westminster parliament. That does not mean that Westminster was or is undemocratic but it showed that the Irish were not part of a united British people that would agree to live under the majority in Westminster. The same is still true today across Europe.

International organisations cannot take serious political decisions binding on their membership by majority vote, because if they do they will be forcing the nations in the outvoted minority to do things that the majority of their national electorate is against, which is undemocratic. That is why international organisation (with the exception of the EU) always use unanimity and why none of them have run into the same crisis of democratic legitimacy that the EU is experiencing.

If giving the EU Parliament more power would make the EU more democratic then the EU 'demoartic deficit' would have been solved by now, because the powers of the EU Parliament have been steadily increased since 1979. However the opposite has happened, with the EU haveing become widely viewed as increasingly undemoratic over this period.

Lisbon perpetrtautes this failed policy in giving the EU Parliament even more power but a policy that has failed to make the EU democratic for 30 years will not work suddenly work now. The EU is becoming less democratic because powers given to Brussels can only come from national parliaments which are the only true democratic institutions in Europe or the world.

oscarBravo

the-island-man wrote: »

The true test of our democracy will be whether the goverment even bother doing a report after the second referendum if Ireland vote yes to see why we did so!

That wouldn't be a test of any definition of "democracy" that I'm aware of.

It would really, really help if people stopped inventing their own definitions of words to suit their arguments.

A lot of talk i've heard recently suggests that people will vote yes because they believe our economy will improve if we do!

I've heard the argument that it could hurt our prospects of economic recovery to vote no. There's a reasonable case to be made for this argument.

Nobody can prove that this is correct and if it isn't does anybody believe that the goverment will run another referendum?!
Not a chance!

You seem to completely misunderstand the reason why the government holds a referendum. It's not a glorified opinion poll. The government holds a referendum in order to allow the constitution to be changed so as to implement their policies.

Anybody that believes that this whole process is fair and democratic is kidding themselves in my opinion!

It's democratic, in that we get to vote for it. I'm not sure where "fair" comes into it.

Sam Vimes

Freeborn John wrote: »

International organisations cannot take serious political decisions binding on their membership by majority vote, because if they do they will be forcing the nations in the outvoted minority to do things that their national majority is opposed to. That is why international organisation (with the exception of the EU) always use unanimity and why none of them (except the EU) have run into the same crisis of democratic legitimacy that the EU is experiencing.

Did you go to Hollywood Upstairs political college?

oscarBravo

Freeborn John wrote: »

Democracy requires a united people, who will agree to live under their majority...

Let me stop you right there.

By your definition, it's completely impossible for the EU to be democratic until such time as it has been totally federalised, and is ruled by the European Parliament in the same manner as a national parliament.

You're taking an absolutist position on this, and saying "either we have perfect democracy or we have no democracy whatsoever", rejecting the idea that there can be democratic aspects to the way something is run, without it being an actual democracy per se.

So, which is it: are you arguing for a completely federal Europe, or for the abolition of the EU?

ei.sdraob

Freeborn John wrote: »

Lisbon is the direction that federalists wish to take the EU in. If you don't like that direction then it is logical to vote against Lisbon.

Lisbon makes the EU less democratic by taking powers from democratic national institutions and giving them to undemocratic institutions in Brussels (including the EU Parliament) which represent no interest except their own in acquiring more power and will not accept NO for an answer.

EU Parliament is undemocratic?!!!

whoa now I heard it all

I guess the elections few months ago for MEPs by the people for the people was undemocratic too


I love how the NO side are making complete mockery of democracy :eek: by not even understanding what the word means

Freeborn John

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Did you go to Hollywood Upstairs political college?

Can you give me one example (other than the EU) of an international organisation taking 'serious' political decisions binding on their membership by majority vote?

The WTO and NATO are examples of bodies taking serious decisions, binding on their membership which use unanimity.

The UN General Assembly is an example of an international organisation using majority votes, but that is why its powers must be so limited to prevent it imposing 'serious' decisions on its membership.

The EU crisis of democratic legitimacy only began in the early 1990s when majority voting was intrdouced. It has grown and grown and grown since then, and would get worse under Lisbon which simply perpetuates the same old policies that created the current mess.

Freeborn John

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, which is it: are you arguing for a completely federal Europe, or for the abolition of the EU?

The powers of the EU should be reduced until they no longer overload its legitimacy base.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Freeborn John wrote: »

A basic lesson in democracy for PopeBuckfastXVI seems in order.

Democracy requires a united people, who will agree to live under their majority and this does not exist across Europe.

Doesn't it? I had thought that the EU represented exactly a people united, and agreeing to live under the majority will in those areas which the EU has authority.

Freeborn John wrote: »

International organisations cannot take serious political decisions binding on their membership by majority vote, because if they do they will be forcing the nations in the outvoted minority to do things that their national majority is opposed to. That is why international organisation (with the exception of the EU) always use unanimity and why none of them (except the EU) have run into the same crisis of democratic legitimacy that the EU is experiencing.

See now you're just defining the terms to suit your argument, tut tut.

Would you say that National organisations cannot take serious political decisions binding on counties, because if they do they will be forcing the counties in the outvoted minority to do things that their county majority is opposed to?

No you wouldn't because you have placed the 'Nation' on a pedestal above all others, however this is just your own personal value system, and doesn't necessarily objectively apply to others, even though you speak as if it does.

Freeborn John wrote: »

If giving the EU Parliament more power would make the EU more democratic then the EU 'demoartic deficit' would have been solved by now, because the powers of the EU Parliament have been steadily increased since 1979. However the opposite has happened, with the EU haveing become widely viewed as increasingly undemoratic over this period.

Hang on... the 'democratic deficit' would have been solved by now, because the EP has increased in powers. But the EP hasn't reached the end of the road in how much power could be given to it, so you are saying because something hasn't completely happened, it doesn't mean it has improved, vis-a-vis what has gone before. This is a logical fallacy.

Would you say that we should currently be witnessing the end of the universe, because we have advanced in time every year since the beginning? No you wouldn't, because that would be ridiculous, just like your 'argument' that the 'democratic deficit' should already be solved.

The EU is widely viewed as increasingly undemocratic? By whom? By ultra-nationalists like you perhaps? I'd accept that, but then I don't project my opinion onto everyone, like you do.

Freeborn John wrote: »

Lisbon perpetrtautes this failed policy in giving the EU Parliament even more power but a policy that has failed to make the EU democratic for 30 years will not work suddenly work now. The EU is becoming less democratic because powers given to Brussels can only come from national parliaments which are the only true democratic institutions in Europe or the world.

In your opinion it has failed to make the EU democratic. But then I would expect that from someone who confuses 'Democratic' with 'National'.

FYI:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy wrote:

de⋅moc⋅ra⋅cy
  /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/
–noun, plural -cies.
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Nothing about Democracy being the exclusive reserve of a Nation, or National People there...

Spiritoftheseventies

Freeborn John wrote: »

Can you give me one example (other than the EU) of an international organisation taking 'serious' political decisions binding on their membership by majority vote?

The WTO and NATO are examples of bodies taking serious decisions, binding on their membership which use unanimity.

The UN General Assembly is an example of an international organisation using majority votes, but that is why its powers must be so limited to prevent it imposing 'serious' decisions on its membership.

The EU crisis of democratic legitimacy only began in the early 1990s when majority voting was intrdouced. It has grown and grown and grown since then, and would get worse under Lisbon which simply perpetuates the same old policies that created the current mess.

How seriously can we take NATO. How big is their muscle given its a year since the conflict in Ossetta.