Can we expect a major political "spectacular" prior to the October Lisbon Referendum?

Run_to_da_hills

Not long ago we had a major Pork crisis, Our pig industry looked as if it could have been doomed. Hundreds and thousands of tonnes of pork was destroyed or put into cold storage.

The EU intervened with a wink wink nod nod and assured the Irish Government and farmers that it had nothing to worry about. What a sigh of relief. It showed both the Government and farmers what weight the EU Parlament had on descisions.

At the moment the EU politicians are very careful not to rock the boat in this country. Nothing will be put on our plate between now and October that would pi*s off the populations.

Already unemployment, downturn in economy have been put down by the cronies as excuses and a reason that we should be voting Yes. This may not be enough. Can we expect a major political spectacular just prior to the referendum to try to sway a major Yes vote landslide? Should we be prepared for such?

King Mob

Are you actually claiming the EU caused the Pork crisis?


And I like how the propaganda you used this time is for a completely different thing.

Run_to_da_hills

King Mob wrote: »

Are you actually claiming the EU caused the Pork crisis?

I never insinuated that the EU were anyway behind the pork crisis.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I never insinuated that the EU were anyway behind the pork crisis.

Then what are you insinuating?

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

Then what are you insinuating?

The pork crisis was used to show how powerful the EU can be at making decisions. The country was sh*tting itself at the time whether or not our pork export industry was doomed.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The pork crisis was used to show how powerful the EU can be at making decisions. The country was sh*tting itself at the time whether or not our pork export industry was doomed.

Oh I see... but that's not what happened. We accidentally poisoned a good chuck of our pork, a product which we export a good deal of. The government decided to recall it and the EU called for a more balanced approach since there was little actual risk.

Now that said it seems to me you're implying that the whole thing was orchestrated in some way. I'm guessing that as usual you can't back up what you're saying so I'll leave it at that.

bleg

Lovely MS paint job by the way.

Run_to_da_hills

bleg wrote: »

Lovely MS paint job by the way.

At least its original.

Heres another one.

ilivetolearn

There's such an uncomfortable air of hostility in this thread.

Can you offer an example of what you mean by 'spectacular'? Are you referring to something catastrophic whereby the government declare themselves as saviors and further subdue civil liberties or that a highly effective 'YES' campaign will be ran?

Run_to_da_hills

ilivetolearn wrote: »

There's such an uncomfortable air of hostility in this thread.

Can you offer an example of what you mean by 'spectacular'? Are you referring to something catastrophic whereby the government declare themselves as saviors and further subdue civil liberties or that a highly effective 'YES' campaign will be ran?

A "Spectacular" of such nature in my mind is when an event occurs in which the NO side is ridiculed into submersion by the Governing powers.

I gave the pork crisis just as an example of a crisis. The crisis may not have to be caused intentionally nevertheless the "Sheeple" would be led to believe they must become a part of this constitution in order to hold their head above water.

Stuxnet

if Mary Harney lost a few stone i think that would be fairly spectacular !

ilivetolearn

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A "Spectacular" of such nature in my mind is when an event occurs in which the NO side is ridiculed into submersion by the Governing powers.

I gave the pork crisis just as an example of a crisis. The crisis may not have to be caused intentionally nevertheless the "Sheeple" would be led to believe they must become a part of this constitution in order to hold their head above water.

Can you provide an example other than the pork crisis. Are you suggesting propaganda? Sheeple would be a bold word btw.

Run_to_da_hills

ilivetolearn wrote: »

Can you provide an example other than the pork crisis. Are you suggesting propaganda? Sheeple would be a bold word btw.

The economic crisis or something related to it would be another example.

ilivetolearn

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

At least its original.

Here's one for you in case you're using the images for anything...

bleg

I love the way my sig sneaks in there

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A "Spectacular" of such nature in my mind is when an event occurs in which the NO side is ridiculed into submersion by the Governing powers.

When did that happen previously? Didn't the No side tell a load of lies the last time and win?

bleg

meglome wrote: »

When did that happen previously? Didn't the No side tell a load of lies the last time and win?

Should have used moustrap pics!

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

When did that happen previously? Didn't the No side tell a load of lies the last time and win?

I'm sure the YES side are racking their brains for ideas at the moment. :rolleyes:

The reason No won the last time was not because of the handful of homemade scaremongering posters that appeared around the capital, It failed because the treaty is far too confusing for the layman, the Irish just don't like being bullied and having the wool pulled over their eyes, they have learned this from history.

Its a wonder most of the population chose no and will probably do the same again.

O'Leary joining the YES campaign is possibly about best thing that could have happened for the No group.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I'm sure the YES side are racking their brains for ideas at the moment. :rolleyes:

So is that an admission that they did lie their little heads off?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The reason No won the last time was not because of the handful of homemade scaremongering posters that appeared around the capital, It failed because the treaty is far too confusing for the layman, the Irish just don't like being bullied and having the wool pulled over their eyes, they have learned this from history.

Well you should tell that to all those people who were asked why they voted No and gave reasons that were not contained in the treaty. Reasons strangely that were on those 'handful' of 'homemade' posters.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Its a wonder most of the population chose no and will probably do the same again.

Most of the population didn't vote No as I think you are already aware. There was a 53.4% No vote but only 50% or so voted so that's something like 25% of the voting public not 'most' not even close.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

O'Leary joining the YES campaign is possibly about best thing that could have happened for the No group.

Yeah the poor No campaign, desperately fighting the man. :rolleyes:

indough

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

the Irish just don't like being bullied and having the wool pulled over their eyes, they have learned this from history.

Its a wonder most of the population chose no and will probably do the same again.

but they were bullied into voting no

ynotdu

Mary Harney wants to ban sunbeds as a recent medical report showed overwhelming evidence that they cause skin cancer,She added that she first "must consult Europe"

now there,s an endorsement of All things Europe(whats her cunning plan)

unlike McCreevy i think this time around i will read the entire Lisbon treaty!;)

bonkey

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Can we expect a major political spectacular just prior to the referendum to try to sway a major Yes vote landslide?

One can ask the same regarding a no vote, surely.

Do you not find it interesting that you only suggest the side you don't support as being capable of shenanigans?

Mahatma coat

I think most people are expectin Shenaninagans from all sides, I thought the whole point of it was who had the catchiest slogan and the news headlines in their favour the night before

nice photoshopery too lads:D

Captain Furball

bonkey wrote: »

One can ask the same regarding a no vote, surely.

Do you not find it interesting that you only suggest the side you don't support as being capable of shenanigans?

No they can't bonkers.The no side is non existent in the sad excuse we have for an government.

bonkey

Captain Furball wrote: »

No they can't bonkers.The no side is non existent in the sad excuse we have for an government.

So what you're saying is that only the government can arrrange some sort of "spectacular"...that there is absolutely no-one else capable of manipulating things to their advantage?

Makes one wonder how it was that there was a No vote at all...

meglome

Captain Furball wrote: »

No they can't bonkers.The no side is non existent in the sad excuse we have for an government.

Just a suggestion really but maybe nearly all our political parties support Lisbon because it's a good thing. I know a crazy idea.

And since the No side won the last time mostly on stuff that wasn't even in the treaty you'd have to imagine they weren't non-existent.

Captain Furball

bonkey wrote: »

So what you're saying is that only the government can arrrange some sort of "spectacular"...that there is absolutely no-one else capable of manipulating things to their advantage?

Makes one wonder how it was that there was a No vote at all...

What is the no side exactly?You suggested the no side was just as capable.That's ridiculous.The goverment run the country does it not?The media are there for what reason?To entertain us?Who uses the media to get their point of view into the public's gullible minds?What happens when you watch tv?Do alpha waves make you alert and bright eyed and bushy tailed?Your a scientist im sure you understand how the television works on the brain .

Captain Furball

meglome wrote: »

Just a suggestion really but maybe nearly all our political parties support Lisbon because it's a good thing. I know a crazy idea.

And since the No side won the last time mostly on stuff that wasn't even in the treaty you'd have to imagine they weren't non-existent.

In your own words.Why is Lisbon a good thing Meglome.

humanji

Captain Furball wrote: »

What is the no side exactly?You suggested the no side was just as capable.That's ridiculous.The goverment run the country does it not?The media are there for what reason?To entertain us?Who uses the media to get their point of view into the public's gullible minds?What happens when you watch tv?Do alpha waves make you alert and bright eyed and bushy tailed?

And yet there was a no vote last time...

Captain Furball

humanji wrote: »

And yet there was a no vote last time...

If you think the media are not pro lisbon then please be my guest and explain to everyone how that works.

humanji

The very fact that there was a no vote means that the no cmapaign got their message out there. How did they do that? Alpha waves?

There was a no campaign and they were on every media out there.

Captain Furball

humanji wrote: »

The very fact that there was a no vote means that the no cmapaign got their message out there. How did they do that? Alpha waves?

If they used the television the alpha waves is a reaction to looking into the bright light thats correct.But what did the no camp consist of?Was it friday night late late show appearances? Was it unions saying lisbon is bad on the news?Was it ministers 99% certain lisbon bad for the country?Was it some clows dressed in hippie clothes saying yes to lisbon?

humanji

Well, there were many appearances by no campaigners on tv and radio. They had newspaper and magazine ads.

They did at some points have unions behind them, but this was a case of unions telling the government that they'd vote no if their demands weren't met. And so what if 99% of ministers were for the treaty. Do you not think it possible that maybe, just maybe, they agree with it? I mean, you're allowed to have you own view and vote how you want to vote, so why shouldn't they?

And there were plenty of clowns on both sides of the discussion.

Captain Furball

humanji wrote: »

Well, there were many appearances by no campaigners on tv and radio. They had newspaper and magazine ads.

They did at some points have unions behind them, but this was a case of unions telling the government that they'd vote no if their demands weren't met. And so what if 99% of ministers were for the treaty. Do you not think it possible that maybe, just maybe, they agree with it? I mean, you're allowed to have you own view and vote how you want to vote, so why shouldn't they?

And there were plenty of clowns on both sides of the discussion.

So your saying that 99% of our politicians have the same viewpoint and persona?What country is this china?

So let me get this straight.I'm allowed to have my viewpoint and my vote.
What if my viewpoint and my vote is in line with whats best for my country?

humanji

So your saying that 99% of our politicians have the same viewpoint and persona?What country is this china?
/quote]

So it's not possible at all for anyone to agree with something? It's not possible that politicians could agree that something that Ireland has been involved in creating was good for Ireland? And remember, there were politicians who voted against it. Does there have to be a specific % of ministers for and against something, for it to be good enough? Should we force ministers to vote the opposite way, you know, to even things out?

So let me get this straight.I'm allowed to have my viewpoint and my vote.
What if my viewpoint and my vote is in line with whats best for my country?

Then good for you? You can sleep better at night.

Captain Furball

Politicians are unraveling a lot of what other people worked for in the past.
The EEC is fine, the EU constitution is a step too far.I'm Irish and I don't approve of being an official EU citizen under EU law

humanji

Lucky they're not pushing forward with the EU constitution then. I know you're going to claim it is, and go on about the "95% the same" bull that no campaigners always try to fob people off with, but we both know it's not.

nullzero

Captain Furball wrote: »

In your own words.Why is Lisbon a good thing Meglome.

I look forward to that reply.

I'll personally be voting No, simply because I don't believe that the EU needs to evolve the way it will if Lisbon is ratified.
Some people think we need a strong European government, but I think the EU can work just fine without further centralizing power within the organization.
The power brokers in the EU hierarchy have been more that a shade underhand with their attitude towards the people of the EU with regard to their European constitution which is now relabeled as the Lisbon Treaty.
Surely if the EU is going to operate as an efficient body which works for the mutual good of itself and its members, the people/electorate Europe wide should be entitled to ratify this treaty.
If the EU have nothing to hide with Lisbon then why are they trying so desperately to rush it through?
Surely we should all have a chance to have an open dialogue about such an important treaty and all of us as citizens of Europe should have our chance to vote on it's ratification.
There is a prevailing feeling amongst a lot of people that if Lisbon was subject to a EU wide referendum it would never stand a chance of being ratified.
I think away from conspiracy theories and what have you, there are serious questions to be answered by those who arrive here and tell us all to just quiet down and stop being so stupid and just vote yes because it's good for us even if we don't know why.

I’m sick of seeing such blatant intellectual snobbery from certain people here, they seem happy for there to be an open discussion as long as everyone agrees with them and see’s the error of their ways for considering voting No.

There are always going to be shady tactics from both sides of the debate but I personally don’t see how Declan Ganly being a bit of a dodgy character should affect people decision making process, and nor for that matter should the thumbs up from celebs for the treaty's ratification, most of whom couldn't tell you the first thing about the bloody treaty anyway.
The more the Yes campaign use condescending remarks towards No campaigners instead of focusing on why we should vote Yes, the more ammunition they give their opponents.

There are currently a lot of lies and dis info about Lisbon floating around on both sides but I can see the lies about Lisbon being some sort of tonic for the Irish economy having a real affect and that will probably sway the undecided voters to vote Yes, even though it has no basis in reality, it has a powerful string to it’s bow; fear. The fear of losing your job or not being able to get a job for the foreseeable future, it’s a huge issue now and the Yes campaign are playing on our emotional vulnerability in what is a time of crisis for many people in Ireland.

If a No vote is received again I can see the EU receiving a consensus from the majority of Irish politicians to hold a parliamentary referendum therefore by passing the pesky people of Ireland.

We have a long way to go yet and while a Yes vote seems likely it might be that the Yes campaigns snobbery and willy waving at this relatively early stage may backfire on them, we’ll just have to wait and see what the people of Ireland decide.

meglome

Captain Furball wrote: »

In your own words.Why is Lisbon a good thing Meglome.

I'm not an expert on the Lisbon treaty. I've read a lot about it and have decided to vote Yes for a number of reasons. What I've been doing here is checking individual issues put forward as a reason to vote No, and generally these reasons have had nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty which I think is wrong and undemocratic.

So my personal reasons, simple as they are... Lisbon makes the running of the EU more efficient and more accountable (badly needed), It brings in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EU has genuinely been very good for Ireland, and from an honesty point of view the Yes side in general has been truthful while the No side has told a lot of lies.

This however is the best list I've seen.

sink wrote: »

The Official Yes campaigns last referendum were pathetic, they relied on empty catch phrases from empty politicians who had lost public confidence long ago. The entire campaign was almost vacant of any mention of what was actually in the Treaty of Lisbon and why it is good; you know the real reasons for voting Yes! Due to this massive oversight and the utter contempt I have for the main political campaigns I decided to gather together the reasons I voted yes to Lisbon and will do so again next time. Here are my top 10.


1. Increase of power to the European Parliament

The European Parliament is the only directly elected body of the EU and as such is the most democratic; the Treaty of Lisbon will increase the power of the European Parliament. The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Treaty of Lisbon increases this to 95%; this is known as the ordinary legislative procedure.[Many Articles, TFEU] The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget; this will be increased to 100%.[Article 314, TFEU]

2. Permanent President of the European Council [Article 15, TEU]

The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the roll; this can cause the President to push his/her countries national agenda often against the will of other states. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with a more permanent position elected by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state and will act on direction from the European Council. The president has no formal powers beyond co-ordinating the affairs of the European Council.

3. The Council will meet in the open [Article 16, TEU]

At present the Council of Ministers meets behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open when deliberating on draft legislative acts providing valuable transparency. Hopefully this will have the added benefit of engaging the public conscious, giving greater insight to EU affairs and raising the level of knowledge.

4. New powers of oversight for national parliaments [Article 12, TEU]

National parliaments are to be provided with all draft legislation and other documents produced by the Commission at the same time as they are provided to the Council of ministers and the European Parliament. There will be a period of 8 weeks before any decision can be taken by the Council and EP to allow national parliaments to provide input. They must also be provided with the Councils agendas and decisions. This enables the parliamentary opposition a chance confront the government on its activities at the EU.

5. More clearly defines the competences of the Union & Enshrines the principal of subsidiarity [Article 5, TEU]

The treaty for the first time clearly defines and sets limits on the competences held by the European Union. Under the principle of conferral only those competencies explicitly conferred by the member states in the treaties can be dealt with at EU level. All other areas are off limits and remain under the sole jurisdiction of the national governments e.g. family law (abortion, divorce), direct tax (corporate tax, income tax).

The treaty introduces the principle of subsidiarity. This means that legislation which falls under the competence of both the EU and national governments will only be enacted at EU level if individual states can’t do so as efficiently or effectively on their own. The national parliaments will be able to interject if it is felt that any legislative proposal does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If 1/3 of national parliaments do so the proposal has to be reviewed (1/4 for proposals in the area of Justice & Policing).

6. Introduces simplified revision procedure [Article 47, TEU]

The treaty introduces a new simpler method of amending the treaties in areas of internal EU policy (i.e. concerning the functioning of the EU’s institutions). This method allows for individual amendments to be passed separately without the need to hold an Intergovernmental Conference and draft an entire new international treaty, which is extremely time consuming and expensive. The new procedure still requires the amendments to be ratified by each nation in accordance with their constitutional requirements, which still will require a referendum in this country if it’s not compatible with our constitution. Hopefully this will cut down the complexity of future EU referenda as rather than having to vote on a huge number of changes at once, it will enable us to vote on individual treaty amendments. The simplified revision procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the EU that will still require a entire new treaty.

7. Increase the Unions foreign policy ability

The Treaty creates a new role known as the ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs’ [Article 18, TEU]. It merges many existing positions including the 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' and the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy' into one position. This is to provide a more coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, foreign governments are confused about who to contact in regards to specific areas and the unions’ voice is disjointed and less coherent. The Lisbon treaty also creates an EU diplomatic corps know as the External Action Service to better facilitate the EU’s foreign policy.[Article 27, TEU]

8. Creates new Citizens Initiative [Article 11, TEU]

The Treaty creates a new avenue for citizens from across the EU to have their voice heard. An initiative requires one million signatures (0.2% of the EU’s population) and then the Commission will, if it is within its competence and in keeping with the treaties, draft legislation for consideration by the Council and the Parliament. The Commission can only draft legislation if the initiative is within the competence of the EU and is fully compatible with the treaties, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The legislation will then have to be passed by the ordinary legislative procedure in both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for it to become a directive.

9. Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding [Article 6, TEU]

For the first time all EU legislation will have to be legally compatible with a charter protecting the fundamental rights of EU citizens. The CFR will apply to all EU directives and national legislation which implements EU directives. It will not apply to legislation instigated by national legislatures i.e. all non-EU Irish Law. The CFR does not expand or create new areas of competencies for the EU. It only binds EU from enacting legislation which is contrary to the fundamental rights laid down.

10. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies [Article 4 & 194, TFEU]

Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own. Russia, Europe’s main gas supplier consistently takes advantage of the divided energy market, playing one country against another, cutting off supplies and effectively bullying individual states. Russia will have a much more difficult time if it faces a united EU energy policy, the EU will be the one dictating the terms. The treaty also affirms that combating climate change is a major objective of the Union, which was actually negotiated for by the Irish delegation.

Maybe the reason that the actual changes the Treaty of Lisbon makes garner so little attention is due to the fact that they are pretty mundane, but then Lisbon is a fairly tame treaty in comparison to previous ones such as Maastricht. So I guess my best advice is don’t listen to the media hype who are only interested in selling newspapers and don’t listen to the political campaigns who are only interested in promoting their own political ambitions, read the white paper on Lisbon and refer to the treaty to arbitrate on any contentious issues.

All references refer to the consolidated treaties as amended by Lisbon which can be found here.
*TEU = Treaty on European Union
*TFEU = Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

For further reading and more detailed information I recommend the 'White paper on Lisbon' prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs which can be found here.

Regards,
Sink

the_dark_side

If the EU backs NAMA and says it will succeed depending on a YES vote, but warns of spectacular failure if NO is voted in... this will be the bribe

meglome

nullzero wrote: »

I'll personally be voting No, simply because I don't believe that the EU needs to evolve the way it will if Lisbon is ratified.
Some people think we need a strong European government, but I think the EU can work just fine without further centralizing power within the organization.

And I'll be voting Yes. Lisbon improves the running of the EU and makes the EU more accountable. The amusing thing is the No side are opposing that, which is the opposite to their stated stance.

nullzero wrote: »

The power brokers in the EU hierarchy have been more that a shade underhand with their attitude towards the people of the EU with regard to their European constitution which is now relabeled as the Lisbon Treaty.

The European constitution did contain many of the reforms that Lisbon also does as they are badly needed. But no matter how many times the No side say it Lisbon is not a constitution and never will be. And I like to keep in mind that although two countries rejected the EU constitution another two approved it, even though personally I wasn't for it.

nullzero wrote: »

Surely if the EU is going to operate as an efficient body which works for the mutual good of itself and its members, the people/electorate Europe wide should be entitled to ratify this treaty.

But they did ratify the treaty. I think you mean they didn't ratify it the way you would like. I've some news for you EU countries can ratify Lisbon in any way they like and you or I have no say in it.

nullzero wrote: »

If the EU have nothing to hide with Lisbon then why are they trying so desperately to rush it through?

Yes I mean they only spent 5 years negotiating it, it was a total rush. :rolleyes:

nullzero wrote: »

Surely we should all have a chance to have an open dialogue about such an important treaty and all of us as citizens of Europe should have our chance to vote on it's ratification.

Again 5 years negotiating it so there was an awful lot of dialogue. The people of the EU voted in pro-Lisbon governments which then on behalf of the people who elected them, approved the treaty. Our laws say we need a referendum but their laws don't, you want to push our ways on them. Who gave you that right?

nullzero wrote: »

There is a prevailing feeling amongst a lot of people that if Lisbon was subject to a EU wide referendum it would never stand a chance of being ratified.

Well that may well be the case. The only country that's having a vote i.e. us mostly voted No based on things that are not even in the treaty. This is stupid but people have the right to be as stupid as they like and vote for all the wrong reasons.

nullzero wrote: »

I think away from conspiracy theories and what have you, there are serious questions to be answered by those who arrive here and tell us all to just quiet down and stop being so stupid and just vote yes because it's good for us even if we don't know why.

I'm not telling you anything other than stuff that can be argued logically and with a dose of evidence. But I am also saying that voting No on a treaty based on things that are not in that treaty is really ridiculous and terribly undemocratic

nullzero wrote: »

I’m sick of seeing such blatant intellectual snobbery from certain people here, they seem happy for there to be an open discussion as long as everyone agrees with them and see’s the error of their ways for considering voting No.

Well if you don't have rational reasons for voting No they I think people are entitled to point that out. Call it intellectual snobbery if you want, I'd call it reality, fact, logic, evidence... stuff like that.

nullzero wrote: »

There are always going to be shady tactics from both sides of the debate but I personally don’t see how Declan Ganly being a bit of a dodgy character should affect people decision making process, and nor for that matter should the thumbs up from celebs for the treaty's ratification, most of whom couldn't tell you the first thing about the bloody treaty anyway.

True, i agree.

nullzero wrote: »

The more the Yes campaign use condescending remarks towards No campaigners instead of focusing on why we should vote Yes, the more ammunition they give their opponents.

Well the No campaign are playing dirty or lying as we call it.

For example the photo I took today. Everything on this poster can easily be shown to be nonsense and yet there they are for all to see.

nullzero wrote: »

There are currently a lot of lies and dis info about Lisbon floating around on both sides but I can see the lies about Lisbon being some sort of tonic for the Irish economy having a real affect and that will probably sway the undecided voters to vote Yes, even though it has no basis in reality, it has a powerful string to it’s bow; fear. The fear of losing your job or not being able to get a job for the foreseeable future, it’s a huge issue now and the Yes campaign are playing on our emotional vulnerability in what is a time of crisis for many people in Ireland.

Yes there are a lot of lies and disinfo going around and I'd safely say that 90% of it is from the No side. Sorry but it's funny to accuse the Yes side of using fear when it's the Number 1 tactic from the No side (see picture above).

nullzero wrote: »

If a No vote is received again I can see the EU receiving a consensus from the majority of Irish politicians to hold a parliamentary referendum therefore by passing the pesky people of Ireland.

Rubbish.

nullzero wrote: »

We have a long way to go yet and while a Yes vote seems likely it might be that the Yes campaigns snobbery and willy waving at this relatively early stage may backfire on them, we’ll just have to wait and see what the people of Ireland decide.

Given the US style negative campaigning from the No side this is funny.

the_dark_side

the_dark_side wrote: »

If the EU backs NAMA and says it will succeed depending on a YES vote, but warns of spectacular failure if NO is voted in... this will be the bribe

any opinions on this?

meglome

the_dark_side wrote: »

If the EU backs NAMA and says it will succeed depending on a YES vote, but warns of spectacular failure if NO is voted in... this will be the bribe

We'll we're financially ****ed so we'll need the EU more than we have for a long time. I don't see any CT though. Other than maybe how we got into this situation.

nullzero

I understand that you always stick with you opinions but to be fair I think you took what I said out of context on more than one occassion.
The discussion about Lisbon like most things EU related is done amongst the political elites for the most part, the man on the street doesn't take an interest and isn't encouraged to. The people hardly know a bloody thing about what goes on in Brussels and that has a lot to do with media coverage as well as a largely apatethic public. People need to take initiative themselves to find out whats going on, and I think there should be more balance in the info we recive via the media on these issues.
As for your point about the No campaign using fear as a tool, well the No campaign is a small grass roots movement compared to the Yes side, its hard to turn on the radio or TV without hearing how voting Yes will rescue the country and a No vote would leave us adrift of the EU with no economic future, thats fear mongering and thats what the majority of people hear. Those of us who take an interest know both sides know what is going on the people who don't take an interest only have the Yes campaigns fear tactics to colour their opinions.

Also, is there any chance of your patented quote towers going or at least being trimmed back into something someone might actually bother to read?

meglome

nullzero wrote: »

I understand that you always stick with you opinions but to be fair I think you took what I said out of context on more than one occasion.

Well when someone is patently incorrect and can be shown to be so why would I change my opinion. I can't even figure our exactly whey your voting no, well something that's actually in the treaty.

nullzero wrote: »

The discussion about Lisbon like most things EU related is done amongst the political elites for the most part, the man on the street doesn't take an interest and isn't encouraged to. The people hardly know a bloody thing about what goes on in Brussels and that has a lot to do with media coverage as well as a largely apatethic public. People need to take initiative themselves to find out whats going on, and I think there should be more balance in the info we recive via the media on these issues.

These 'political elites' are elected every few years by the likes of you and me so if we don't like what they do we get to vote for someone else, democracy. They say you get the government you deserve and we got Fianna Fail. If the public are apathetic then the public need to take a long look at themselves. I don't see what this has to do with the Lisbon treaty.

nullzero wrote: »

As for your point about the No campaign using fear as a tool, well the No campaign is a small grass roots movement compared to the Yes side, its hard to turn on the radio or TV without hearing how voting Yes will rescue the country and a No vote would leave us adrift of the EU with no economic future, thats fear mongering and thats what the majority of people hear.

I hate to repeat this but if you look at the messages from the Yes side and the messages from the No side you'll find a some stupid but accurate catchphrases from the Yes side and a load of utter lies and misrepresentations from the No side. Find me widely distributed posters like the ones I posted above from the Yes side.

nullzero wrote: »

Those of us who take an interest know both sides know what is going on the people who don't take an interest only have the Yes campaigns fear tactics to colour their opinions.

He he he do you really believe the Yes side are using fear tactics compared to the No side. Maybe you should back that up.

nullzero wrote: »

Also, is there any chance of your patented quote towers going or at least being trimmed back into something someone might actually bother to read?

Ha ha ha ha ha now that is funny. I posted less text than you, although mine is broken up for clarity. You guys

Nehaxak

I see the bully boy "rent a yes mob" are hard at it still...

My suggestion to those that are voting no is to do so quitely and don't bother trying to argue your points against these people as there is no way for boards.ie to check up on these people to see if they have any hidden interests in either the political parties themselves who are demanding a yes vote from the people, or any of their related cronyist corrupt business interests, friends or family.

No intelligent Irish person in their right mind would vote yes for lisbon.

King Mob

Nehaxak wrote: »

I see the bully boy "rent a yes mob" are hard at it still...

My suggestion to those that are voting no is to do so quitely and don't bother trying to argue your points against these people as there is no way for boards.ie to check up on these people to see if they have any hidden interests in either the political parties themselves who are demanding a yes vote from the people, or any of their related cronyist corrupt business interests, friends or family.

No intelligent Irish person in their right mind would vote yes for lisbon.

So you're advising people not to debate their beliefs rationally and accusing people who disagree with you of working for a shadowy conspiracy?
But you say you want democracy?

Is this the crazy Democratic People's Republic of Korea kind of democracy?

Nehaxak

To put it bluntly, I don't see any reason whatsoever that the lisbon treaty is being discussed in CT at all to be perfectly honest. If I want to read politics I'll go to the politics forum.
I read CT because generally some of the stuff interests me and recently CT's had more than it's fair share of politics related Lisbon treaty threads which I can't fathom any reason for them being here in the first place, especially given they're being jumped all over by "rent a yes mob" people with undeclared interests and flippant, ignorant and abusive comments to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I suppose my comments above could be seen as back seat modding but it's not intended that way, I generally enjoy just reading CT, both the good, the bad and the outlandish - I don't want my enjoyment spoiled by having to read bollocky politics in here too.

King Mob

Nehaxak wrote: »

I read CT because generally some of the stuff interests me and recently CT's had more than it's fair share of politics related Lisbon treaty threads which I can't fathom any reason for them being here in the first place, especially given they're being jumped all over by "rent a yes mob" people with undeclared interests and flippant, ignorant and abusive comments to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

So just to be extra clear here, it's not ok to be flippant, ignorant and abusive. But it's entirely ok to accuse someone of being paid off?

nullzero

I give up, you just ake so much of what I say out of context and don't even accept that in doing so you're making sweeping statements about me because it's easy for you to do so.

The political elites are elected by people like us, that's true, I fail to see what your point is though. Did you think I don't know how the political system works? I can't say I'm wild about your condescending take on "educating" the ignorant fools who disagree with you.

As for fear tactics in relation to Lisbon, I can't believe that anyone would even think that the Yes side aren't employing them.
I'm not advocating knee jerk material from uninformed members of the No campaign, so don't force words into my mouth.
The Yes campaign would seem to be the only side getting any serious air time in the media in the lead up to the second referendum.
We're being told to buck up our ideas and vote Yes or otherwise we'll find ourselves with no economic future and we'll be outcasts in Europe, with everyone else tutting disapprovingly at our stubborn attitude.
Bear in mind that saying we have no economic future if we vote No at a time when there are vast swathes of people losing their jobs having their homes repossessed and unable to put food in the table is fear mongering of the highest order.
What the Yes campaign are doing is making voting Yes a survival mechanism for the people of Ireland.
The shenanigans of the No sides grass roots level campaign in contrast to the slick media driven Yes campaign are inconsequential at best.
The Yes side are using fear, tell me I'm wrong about that again, and then back it the **** up for once.

You're more than entitled to have your opinion, and thats fine by me, but don't you dare put words in my mouth and associate me with people and groups I have nothing to do with just becasue it's serves your little opinion pieces.
Disagree with me all you like, but stop taking what I say out of context and putting words in my mouth, a bit of basic respect wouldn't go amiss Meglome.

meglome

Nehaxak wrote: »

To put it bluntly, I don't see any reason whatsoever that the lisbon treaty is being discussed in CT at all to be perfectly honest. If I want to read politics I'll go to the politics forum.
I read CT because generally some of the stuff interests me and recently CT's had more than it's fair share of politics related Lisbon treaty threads which I can't fathom any reason for them being here in the first place, especially given they're being jumped all over by "rent a yes mob" people with undeclared interests and flippant, ignorant and abusive comments to anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I suppose my comments above could be seen as back seat modding but it's not intended that way, I generally enjoy just reading CT, both the good, the bad and the outlandish - I don't want my enjoyment spoiled by having to read bollocky politics in here too.

I can't see any reason it's a CT either as it's a legal document and anyone can read what's in it. However the standard of proof in here is between non-existent and poor so it gives people way more freedom to make claims that wouldn't be allowed in the politics forum, where proof is expected.

And just to be clear I didn't vote on Lisbon the last time as I didn't know anything about it. But I've spent a good deal of time reading about it and I'm now happy to vote Yes, based on what's actually in the treaty.

And the Yes-rent-a-mob comment is funny but I'll guess you have no evidence to back that up.