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

Dinner

Yellowsubmarine wrote: »

Not that much to be honest I'm looking more into it now on the internet because the leaflet we got in the door was a load of S*** I just don't like what i'm hearing about it so

Well a lot of work and research has occured to discover the reasons that people voted no. Based on these reasons the EU drew up the guarantees which address the concersn that people had like the Commissioner and taxation.

So with these guarantees, isn't it only fair to have another referendum and see if peoples concerns have been met?

mattman

true true..i go over the top very easy.

i was just looking over it.

In theory, i should read and understand the current law.

then try to understand the changes...

Wheres my printer!?

m.

Yellowsubmarine

Yea i suppose that is only fair but if we vote no again this time are we going to have to vote again until they get a yes or will that just be it?

Dinner

Yellowsubmarine wrote: »

Yea i suppose that is only fair but if we vote no again this time are we going to have to vote again until they get a yes or will that just be it?

It's unlikely that there would be another vote. There's no precedent for one anyway.

As you know Nice was voted on twice in Ireland and before Nice 2 we got certain assurances. Same with Denmark when they voted for a second time in Denmark on Maastricht.

So it's not new to vote on a treaty again once concerns or problems have been ironed out. I see it as democracy in action. If a problem is discovered during a referendum then both the country and the EU try to solve the problem.

meglome

mattman wrote: »

http://unrepentantcommunist.blogspot.com/2009/05/vote-for-no-to-lisbon-candidates-in-eu.html


had a read of this! crazy stuff...i ant no cummunist..but...its interesting reading..

looked up yes and no sides...
lot more no, explaned, why to vote no.

As for the yes, sounds like a hot air and bull.

Must admit i was undecided at 9pm. after on the net for last 3 hours..im def. no no no no no.

bring on the vote...

Undecided eh? So instead of reading the independent referendum commission's leaflet you read the claims of a self proclaimed 'unrepentant communist'. Now you'll forgive me but this strikes me as someone who is looking for reasons to vote No as they have already decided.

meglome

whatdoicare wrote: »

I hate to repeat myself- I already voted NO - how many more times do we have to say No until they cop on.
As far as I'm concerned something dodgy is going on that were not being told and we wont learn of it till after were all in deep doodoo.

There certainly is something dodgy going on, how many recently registered people can come in and same the exact same thing.

Scofflaw

Yellowsubmarine wrote: »

Yea i suppose that is only fair but if we vote no again this time are we going to have to vote again until they get a yes or will that just be it?

That'll be it, I'd say. For one thing, the Treaty gets kicked back to the European Council if it still isn't fully ratified two years after signing - which is in December this year. For a second, a government may be entitled to run referendums as often as they like, but there's only any point in doing so if there's some chance of an answer they like - plus each rerun costs them political capital, which the current government is a little short on.

Whatever the second result, I suspect Cowen et al will breathe a huge sigh of relief that it's effectively over, and out of their hands, with only the consequences to deal with (and spin).

cordially,
Scofflaw

50hertz

I voted no the first time and I'll vote no again...once is enough is'nt it?

SDTimeout

50hertz wrote: »

I voted no the first time and I'll vote no again...once is enough is'nt it?

Hello hertz, I am very interested in this and the last referendum. I have just entered this thread and have only read this page, so forgive me if this question has been answered,

Why, in a few words,or sentences,did you vote No last time. Having spoken to and read the words of,literally hundreds of voters ,since the last vote, i have yet to meet anyone who had a logical reason for voting No.

I would be glad to hear yours,perhaps you will be different.

Thanks SD

ranmac

SDTimeout wrote: »

Hello hertz, I am very interested in this and the last referendum. I have just entered this thread and have only read this page, so forgive me if this question has been answered,

Why, in a few words,or sentences,did you vote No last time. Having spoken to and read the words of,literally hundreds of voters ,since the last vote, i have yet to meet anyone who had a logical reason for voting No.

I would be glad to hear yours,perhaps you will be different.

Thanks SD

Quite simple.

1. Cowen is the architect of our current problems as he was 'finance' minister when the country was making money and he allowed the country to waste it. He, his party and the other parties now claim to be in a position to advise us as to how we should vote

2. Read the Treaty my friend - insertion of Article 5b

3. Think about and consider your family, children etc and all things that are important to you

3. Finally go and read our Bunreacht na hEireann - our Constitution and decide which you would prefer

Definitely a NO to the treaty

ei.sdraob

lets see ...


article 5b

In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall aim to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

whats wrong with the above? in relation to any family?? or the constitution???

/

ranmac

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lets see ...


article 5b



whats wrong with the above? in relation to any family?? or the constitution???

/

Frankly, if you can't see it then there's no use in trying to explain it to you.

Ciaran500

ranmac wrote: »

Frankly, if you can't see it then there's no use in trying to explain it to you.

What is wrong with 5b?

BlackWizard

ranmac wrote: »

Frankly, if you can't see it then there's no use in trying to explain it to you.

I can't see it either. So explain it or GTFO out this thread

marco_polo

ei.sdraob wrote: »

lets see ...


article 5b



whats wrong with the above? in relation to any family?? or the constitution???

/

The discrimination bit by the looks of it.

ranmac wrote: »

It's te "sexual orientation" inclusion that I am making reference to. Have a look at The Irish Society for Christian Civilisation wbsite which states, inter alia,

Our Lord Jesus Christ commanded: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and everything else shall be added on to you.” In contrast to the Divine commandment, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by Irish Catholics:

• The E.U. will ignore God and the Christian roots of Europe and will create a new European identity based on radical secularism and atheistic philosophies. We do not want our children to grow up in an Ireland without God!
• The E.U. will impose a relativistic and evolving idea of human rights, contrary to Catholic moral teaching. We do not want the relativisation of the principles that we will pass on to our children and grandchildren!
• The E.U. will considerably restrict the protection of human life and will facilitate abortion, euthanasia, and embryo experimentation. We do not want the mass murder of innocents being promoted throughout Europe!
• The E.U. will destroy the family by dissociating it from marriage between one man and one woman. Our children have the right to live in a normal home, in accordance with Catholic principles!
• The E.U. will impose excessive limits on the right of the parents to educate their children in accordance with their convictions. The freedom to pass on the Faith is a legacy that can never be challenged in Catholic Ireland!
• The E.U. will recognise, for the first time in the history of international treaties, “sexual orientation” as a basis for non-discrimination, opening the way for homosexual marriage and adoption of children by homosexuals. If today promiscuity and immorality already invade our homes and ruin the education of our children, what will it be like when these kinds of practices are imposed on us?

Sam Vimes

ranmac wrote: »

Frankly, if you can't see it then there's no use in trying to explain it to you.

You know that the same law is in our own Equality Act 2004 right? Is this a problem with gay marriage? Which of course isn't made legal by Lisbon, especially since that clause just reiterates a law that's already on our books

edit: it seems it is a problem with gay marriage. I'm afraid The Irish Society for Christian Civilisation website is lying to you mate

ei.sdraob

marco_polo wrote: »

The discrimination bit by the looks of it.

i see i forgot the username, he brought this up before already on this same thread

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61921734&postcount=1996


why does it feel like im repeating myself? oh wait thats what the whole NO campaign is about, tell a lie often enough and people will believe it!

@ranmac here some reading for you from this very same thread

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61921817&postcount=1998

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61921933&postcount=2001


also that the Church is not on the same side as these Coir activists, and are in support of the treaty!

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61922008&postcount=2004

that makes Coir and their loonies a "heretical" organisation, no? maybe they should be "excommunicated"

/

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

At the end of the day, this is a discussion forum, not the Oireachtas. We exist to discuss things. While I'd prefer not to have people discussing the value of other people's opinions, simply posting your opinion and stating it's beyond discussion isn't any better.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Good point ,just standing up for the oppressed:)

rumour

Good morning all, seems the barometer at the top of the thread is pointing towards a larger 'no' than in the actual referendum last year.

Why is that? Is it because over 50% of people in this thread are downright stupid and pedelling in lies?

ei.sdraob

rumour wrote: »

Good morning all, seems the barometer at the top of the thread is pointing towards a larger 'no' than in the actual referendum last year.

Why is that? Is it because over 50% of people in this thread are downright stupid and pedelling in lies?

or some No campaigners don't have better things to be doing

other than

opening new accounts and voting and then posting one liner sentences and not engaging in debate



it will certainly be interesting the results on October the 2nd

PopeBuckfastXVI

ei.sdraob wrote: »

or some No campaigners don't have better things to be doing

other than

opening new accounts and voting and then posting one liner sentences and not engaging in debate



it will certainly be interesting the results on October the 2nd

As I said before...

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I don't think there's enough of 'them' to skew the poll. I'd imagine it's a pretty accurate poll of people who come onto the EU politics forum and respond to polls.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Good morning all, seems the barometer at the top of the thread is pointing towards a larger 'no' than in the actual referendum last year.

Why is that? Is it because over 50% of people in this thread are downright stupid and pedelling in lies?

They're not all peddling in lies. The vast majority of them have had lies peddled to them and now won't believe the truth when they're told it unfortunately

ei.sdraob

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

As I said before...

maybe but unlike a referendum an internet poll is wide open to abuse

myself if i was bored could use any of the 200+ ips from my companies servers around the world to tunnel and create different accounts and skew a poll

but i have better things to do than sink to such a level (hmm like getting back to work ), and either way it would be a pointless exercise, the real referendum would show the real figures from people who can and are bothered to vote

hatrickpatrick

Now this is one big dilemma that I have... As a social libertarian, anything which goes against the fundie conservative agenda should be a good thing... But if I have to choose, for now, between social freedom and sovereignty, I'd rather wait until we can get social freedom for ourselves rather than have it forced on us... One of the very difficult issue though (for me anyway, don't know about everyone else?)

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Now this is one big dilemma that I have... As a social libertarian, anything which goes against the fundie conservative agenda should be a good thing... But if I have to choose, for now, between social freedom and sovereignty, I'd rather wait until we can get social freedom for ourselves rather than have it forced on us... One of the very difficult issue though (for me anyway, don't know about everyone else?)

I'm a social libertarian also, I am of the personal belief that without the EU this country would still be under the jackboot of the parish priest.

I'll take progressive legislation from pretty much any quarter.

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They're not all peddling in lies. The vast majority of them have had lies peddled to them and now won't believe the truth when they're told it unfortunately

Or is it because they have a deep mistrust of the yes campaign. If you examine it strategically the yes campaign is like a bunch of wild celts racing down the hill into battle with no strategy.

How is the mistruct targeted and rectified?
How are multiple messages co-ordinated into a focal message that delivers a positive outcome
How do we not alienate people.

I don't mean to blow s*** up someones ass but look at how scoffaw delivers a consistent factual message rarely does he get cought offside. Tactically he isolates all arguments into the text or not. This diffuses many concrens and fears, it also engenders trust.

On the other thread the uncordinated smug ill disciplined attitude is easy enough to pick away at all day, its entertaining if it were not so real. If Iwas campaigning for No I could if I wanted exploit all of the above continually and on my own suceed because all I have to do is encourage fear. That is enough to make anyone conseravtive and hold on to what they've got.

rumour

ei.sdraob wrote: »

or some No campaigners don't have better things to be doing

other than

opening new accounts and voting and then posting one liner sentences and not engaging in debate



it will certainly be interesting the results on October the 2nd

That would be manipulating a poll, surely not? Was the referendum rigged last year?

ei.sdraob

rumour wrote: »

That would be manipulating a poll, surely not? Was the referendum rigged last year?

erm seems you missed my point (or are trying to twist it for own aims)


1. im talking about an online poll which can be easily rigged compared to an election, im well aware of the outcome last year, 53% of electorate voted, and 53% of these who voted voted NO > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008


2. you still haven't addressed my points raised earlier in thread, avoiding tough questions are we?


3. are you aware that the people voted in predominately Pro Lisbon MEPs only few months ago

/

rumour

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm a social libertarian also, I am of the personal belief that without the EU this country would still be under the jackboot of the parish priest.

I'll take progressive legislation from pretty much any quarter.

All hail the EU, for without it right now we would be under the jackboot of the parish priest. I am curious you have identified your self as a particular type of individual a memeber of a cult perhaps in favour of progressive legislation. In this context and as a memeber of this cult what would you describe as unprogressive legislation?

rumour

ei.sdraob wrote: »

erm seems you missed my point (or are trying to twist it for own aims)


1. im talking about an online poll which can be easily rigged compared to an election, im well aware of the outcome last year, 53% of electorate voted, and 53% of these who voted voted NO > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008


2. you still haven't addressed my points raised earlier in thread, avoiding tough questions are we?


3. are you aware that the people voted in predominately Pro Lisbon MEPs only few months ago

/

Regarding your last point, did they not just vote for familiar faces. I mean I went into the booth and there were 16 faces to choose from couldn't tell one from the other and haven't a clue what any of them stand for.

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

Or is it because they have a deep mistrust of the yes campaign. If you examine it strategically the yes campaign is like a bunch of wild celts racing down the hill into battle with no strategy.

How is the mistruct targeted and rectified?
How are multiple messages co-ordinated into a focal message that delivers a positive outcome
How do we not alienate people.

I don't mean to blow s*** up someones ass but look at how scoffaw delivers a consistent factual message rarely does he get cought offside. Tactically he isolates all arguments into the text or not. This diffuses many concrens and fears, it also engenders trust.

On the other thread the uncordinated smug ill disciplined attitude is easy enough to pick away at all day, its entertaining if it were not so real. If Iwas campaigning for No I could if I wanted exploit all of the above continually and on my own suceed because all I have to do is encourage fear. That is enough to make anyone conseravtive and hold on to what they've got.

Considering you have yet to base a single argument on the contents of the treaty itself and have relied almost soley on an anti government standpoint, that is a rich.

The reason that there is no opportunity for anybody to recourse to the text of the treaty while debating with you is that you don't address any of the issues within, prefering a smoke and mirror approach.

Your kind of approach is the prime reason that there are so many irrelevant topics thrown into the debate.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

Regarding your last point, did I not just vote for familiar faces. I mean I went into the booth and there were 16 faces to choose from couldn't tell one from the other and haven't a clue what any of them stand for.

FYP

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

All hail the EU, for without it right now we would be under the jackboot of the parish priest. I am curious you have identified your self as a particular type of individual a memeber of a cult perhaps in favour of progressive legislation. In this context and as a memeber of this cult what would you describe as unprogressive legislation?

Blasphemy Law and lack of Paternal rights would be two off the top of my head.

W1ct0ry

You don't like that there is a second referendum. Don't vote in it.

ranmac wrote: »

Quite simple.

1. Cowen is the architect of our current problems as he was 'finance' minister when the country was making money and he allowed the country to waste it. He, his party and the other parties now claim to be in a position to advise us as to how we should vote

2. Read the Treaty my friend - insertion of Article 5b

3. Think about and consider your family, children etc and all things that are important to you

3. Finally go and read our Bunreacht na hEireann - our Constitution and decide which you would prefer

Definitely a NO to the treaty

1. Nothing to do with the treaty.
2. Not going to change anything.
3. Voting yes is better for Ireland and therefore better for your family.
4. Not going to replace it, so preference has nothing to do with it.

Definitely a NO to your logic.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

All hail the EU, for without it right now we would be under the jackboot of the parish priest. I am curious you have identified your self as a particular type of individual a memeber of a cult perhaps in favour of progressive legislation. In this context and as a memeber of this cult what would you describe as unprogressive legislation?

Legislation which prohibits divorce, sexual orientation or acts, blasphemy, freedom of any religion or none, the right to choose.

Also don't forget that lack of regulation can be just as unprogressive, such as legislation prohibiting excessive working hours, legislation prohibiting environmental pollution, legislation prohibiting dangerous working environments, legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex, religion, sexual orientation etc.

One doesn't need to be a member of a 'cult' to have a certain, actually extremely popular, political world view.

JohnnyDeeo

Simply for the fact that the the first vote was basically ignored. Will the Government keep ignoring our opinion, be it yes or no in the future? Will there be another vote coming up on Divorce soon ? Corrupt shower!:D

marco_polo

JohnnyDeeo wrote: »

Simply for the fact that the the first vote was basically ignored. Will the Government keep ignoring our opinion, be it yes or no in the future? Will there be another vote coming up on Divorce soon ? Corrupt shower!:D

Another new member

They did not ignore the first vote, they researched and took into consideration the reasons that some voters voted no, and went back to Europe to seek assurance from our 26 other member states.

Having secured guarantees addressing a number of the issues of concern, the government are holding another referendum on that basis.

PopeBuckfastXVI

JohnnyDeeo wrote: »

Simply for the fact that the the first vote was basically ignored. Will the Government keep ignoring our opinion, be it yes or no in the future? Will there be another vote coming up on Divorce soon ? Corrupt shower!:D

Did you vote yes or no the first time?

If you voted 'no' was the 'loss of Ireland's commissioner' one of your reasons? That has changed.

Were fears about any of military spending, abortion, taxation one of your reasons?
Have they not been addressed by the guarantees.

If you voted yes the first time, why do you deny the people who's reasons were above the opportunity to have their concerns addressed?

The Constitutional ban on Divorce was removed in this country on the second attempt, to use your own example.

Would you rather the 1986 divorce referendum result stood forever?

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Did you vote yes or no the first time?

If you voted 'no' was the 'loss of Ireland's commissioner' one of your reasons? That has changed.

Would you rather the 1986 divorce referendum result stood forever?

I have heard from several sources now that the Commissioner will only be kept for an aditional year after which its retention will be reviewed by the EU. Could someone clear this up?

The divorce referendum is a bit of a silly comparison by this stage.

The 1989 recession was caused by the divorce referendum so it was essential that a Yes vote was returned. After all, we wanted to be at the heart of Ireland. It's Simple: We are safer in Ireland.

The government has announced that the divorce referendum has been rejected. The government next announced that it would re-run the referendum as soon as possible.

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm a social libertarian also, I am of the personal belief that without the EU this country would still be under the jackboot of the parish priest.

I'll take progressive legislation from pretty much any quarter.

As nice as it is to assume the EU swept away crazy Catholicism that was imposed by Rome, it ain't the case.

The Irish supported crazy Catholicism and it was the Irish that threw it out.

Granted, the improvements to the economy caused by EU membership helped in the demise of the parish priests' jackboot, but it merely contributed to what was already an indigenous and growing trend.

A better economy seems little grounds to grant greater control of society to Brussels.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

As nice as it is to assume the EU swept away crazy Catholicism that was imposed by Rome, it ain't the case.

The Irish supported crazy Catholicism and it was the Irish that threw it out.

Granted, the improvements to the economy caused by EU membership helped in the demise of the parish priests' jackboot, but it merely contributed to what was already an indigenous and growing trend.

A better economy seems little grounds to grant greater control of society to Brussels.

First of all, I used divorce as a response to a post which posited 'another' divorce referendum, I pointed out that it was actually passed in a rerun. The rest of your post is nonsense, which I will ignore.

As for granting control of society to 'Brussels', apart from all the progressive environmental, equality and working conditions legislation that has come from the EU, I just want to point out that we are part of 'Brussels'.

Do people from Cork grant control of society to 'Dublin'?

RandomName2

marco_polo wrote: »

Blasphemy Law

Good god. I completely agree with you for once. Nice when these issues are taken out of the public's hands, and it just rushed through parliament without much discussion - huh? Not much we can do about it now!

Donagh_mc

I'll be going for a solid Yes on D-Day! Hopefully most others will too.

RandomName2

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

First of all, I used divorce as a response to a post which posited 'another' divorce referendum, I pointed out that it was actually passed in a rerun. The rest of your post is nonsense, which I will ignore.

As for granting control of society to 'Brussels', apart from all the progressive environmental, equality and working conditions legislation that has come from the EU, I just want to point out that we are part of 'Brussels'.

Do people from Cork grant control of society to 'Dublin'?

First part, true, but is a typical argument produced by the Yes side to support re-running something which was decisely rejected, merely due to an agenda exclusive to the political establishement (I didn't use the word 'elite')

The nonsense is a paraphrase of Yes side nonsense which makes Lisbon II a vote on EU membership (Yes, the rerun of Lisbon is different! It's a vote on membership!)

And, yes, people from Cork do grant control of society to a centralised government.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

First part, true, but is a typical argument produced by the Yes side to support re-running something which was decisely rejected, merely due to an agenda exclusive to the political establishement (I didn't use the word 'elite')

The nonsense is a paraphrase of Yes side nonsense which makes Lisbon II a vote on EU membership (Yes, the rerun of Lisbon is different! It's a vote on membership!)

And, yes, people from Cork do grant control of society to a centralised government.

Which includes them.

ei.sdraob

rumour wrote: »

Regarding your last point, did they not just vote for familiar faces. I mean I went into the booth and there were 16 faces to choose from couldn't tell one from the other and haven't a clue what any of them stand for.

no i voted for the people who i knew would represent me and my community best and who had a history (declan ganley had none of that btw)

you dont vote in representatives by how "pretty" they look but by how well they do their job and their policies

Cróga

marco_polo wrote: »

Another new member

They did not ignore the first vote, they researched and took into consideration the reasons that some voters voted no, and went back to Europe to seek assurance from our 26 other member states.

Having secured guarantees addressing a number of the issues of concern, the government are holding another referendum on that basis.

Are these "guarantees" written in the Lisbon Treaty or are they just political promises?

Scofflaw

Croga wrote: »

Are these "gurantees" written in the Lisbon Treaty or are they just political promises?

Neither.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

First part, true, but is a typical argument produced by the Yes side to support re-running something which was decisely rejected, merely due to an agenda exclusive to the political establishement (I didn't use the word 'elite')

Or 'elected government' as it is sometimes known.

amused,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Croga wrote: »

Are these "gurantees" written in the Lisbon Treaty or are they just political promises?

No they are not "Political Promises" they are decisions of the European Council that will be set aside as a seperate legally binding international treaty that will be registered at the same time as the Lisbon treaty. In the exact same way that the Edinburgh Agreement was for Denmark in 1992.

Read and watch this:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0617/eulisbon.html

Or read this
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jun/lisbon-ireland.pdf

or this

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0903/breaking40.htm