Attitude of the yes campaign

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

Vote yes for Jobs

What jobs is Lisbon providing for Ireland??

Before we all run off chasing the shiny ball you have thrown, you have a few points to address

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I did? Where?

Now answer the question.

In your opinion were the polls corrupt? Yes or No?

ixtlan wrote: »

??? A very strange comment???

I think your view is that acceptable=final?

If you think no should be a final answer, then that is what makes reasons for voting no irrelevant, since you are not going to bother working on the thing at issue (in this case Lisbon) anymore.

If people's reasons for voting no are to be relevant then you find out what they are and try to address them.

The starting point is that no means no to the current situation. How can we resolve peoples concerns so that the new situation would be acceptable.

Ix.

marco_polo wrote: »

Since you are backtracking furiously can I then take it that you accept that the poll is a valid reflection of the reasons of people for voting no?

Bearing in mind that a poll with a sample size of 1000 is statistically just as valid as a poll of 1,000,000 people?

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Vote yes for Jobs

What jobs is Lisbon providing for Ireland??

Lisbon will help restore Ireland's reputation after the rejection of a treaty due to fear whipped up by extremists. Businesses don't want to invest in a country that is seen to be fighting against the neighbours that are trying to help it for no good reason. Since our banks are about to go and get ~€50 billion from the ECB we are biting the hand that feeds us.

They're not just going to completely drop their plans because a few hundred thousand people in one country have been tricked into rejecting them. We won't be kicked out of the EU but we will be left behind. Lots of the Lisbon treaty can go ahead without us.

A yes vote will also show businesses that we want to be fully involved in the European project going into the future. If the other 26 countries are pulling one way and we're pulling another, it's better to set your business up in one of the other 26.

And the new energy policies will create green jobs.

ei.sdraob

rumour wrote: »

Vote yes for Jobs

What jobs is Lisbon providing for Ireland??

you'll find out in ~5 years when foreign investment dries up

as a business owner myself a negative outcome to Lisbon would be yet another reason to close shop asap and move

And the new energy policies will create green jobs.

yep as i keep reiterating over and over, but it falls on deaf ears

Stark

marco_polo wrote: »

I know you can do it all day. So can Sinn Fein.

We can get a better deal.

What is it?

*Shrug*

Sinn Féin have been looking for that "better deal" since 1973. Doubt we're going to get it any time soon. Unless they invent an EU that's full of happy joyful republicans.

eightyfish

As an aside: In terms of the things the no campaign are saying, it might be worth having a look at this.

ei.sdraob

eightyfish wrote: »

As an aside: In terms of the things the no campaign are saying, it might be worth having a look at this.

or how about the one with a child being microchiped? i cant find it, was very funny

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The failure of the yes campaign is down to a mistrust of Fianna Fail coupled with a dedicated campaign of lies from the no side. No one believes me because Fianna Fail is on my side. The only thing I can do short of going to people's houses and shoving the treaty down their throats is to present the facts in a well backed up manner and I have done that consistently for two years now. People just don't want to hear it because the facts don't match with their preconceived notions of the treaty as the harbinger of doom

For example, I say that the second vote is reasonable because the biggest reason for rejection was lack of understanding followed closely by a number of issues that weren't in the treaty, that this is the reason for the guarantees and why the treaty wasn't changed. To back up my position I pointed to two independent surveys and you said they were deliberately doctored by the government and avoided the question when I pointed out that they would have nothing to gain from a doctored survey. What exactly do you expect me to say? I have presented the facts and you have dismissed them. I can't provide more supporting evidence because you'll just dismiss that too. Am I supposed to beg you to accept the facts? Massage your ego maybe? Do you want me to suck your c*ck to make you accept that the surveys were fair?


Also, you said that your concerns with the treaty were not addressed by the guarantees and in response I asked you which parts of the treaty you objected to. At first you didn't answer, then you gave a concern that's not a part of the treaty (referendums in other countries) and now you have again not answered the question. Since you say that the parts of the treaty that you object to were not addressed, please tell me what those parts are

I accept what you say, but your starting point is that people didn't understand the treaty, ok. The time to rectify that was last year. There was a vote and it was rejected. Suspicion is now compounded by telling people that they didn't understand what they were doing. You personally are not guilty of this, but the primary message is coming from characters that have mismanged(understatement) the wealth of the nation and are openly not trusted.

If the yes campaign suceeds it will be a miracle considering all the factors that are playing against it least of all being championed by idiots telling people they didn't know what they were doing.

If you don't appreciate/consider the condecension of this stance it will be difficult and almost impossible to move the electorate in your favour. I am beginning to believe it is destined to fail on this issue alone. The timing, political circumstances and lack of strategy are just so messed up.

eightyfish

ei.sdraob wrote: »

or how about the one with a child being microchiped? i cant find it, was very funny

Also found another good reson to vote no.

eightyfish

rumour wrote: »

Suspicion is now compounded by telling people that they didn't understand what they were doing.

I've been reading some of your comments before I got into the thread (thanks marco_polo) and have to say that firstly you argue eloquently and secondly I agree with some of your earlier points.

But as to the above - again it needs to be said - the people said themselves that they didn't understand the treaty. 22% of the no voters in fact.

rumour

marco_polo wrote: »

No is not an acceptable answer.

a) No but we would like X,Y,Z addressed is a valid answer.

b) No, and there is nothing that can be done to address our concerns about this treaty, but thanks all the same. Is a valid answer.

It is not yet obvious if a or b is the answer of the Irish People. We are holding the second referendum in the hope that a is the answer. If it is b then we have alot of hard questions to address as to what it is we want out of Europe.

I guess and my hypothesis is good so far, B is the likely outcome and we will be faced with difficult questions. But that is where we were this time last year.

rumour

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you'll find out in ~5 years when foreign investment dries up

as a business owner myself a negative outcome to Lisbon would be yet another reason to close shop asap and move





yep as i keep reiterating over and over, but it falls on deaf ears

Is any of that in the text? Goodness what are you not telling people?

Joking aside I am in a similar position but my decision will be determined by Tax more than anything to do with Lisbon.

ei.sdraob

rumour wrote: »

Is any of that in the text? Goodness what are you not telling people?

Joking aside I am in a similar position but my decision will be determined by Tax more than anything to do with Lisbon.

the common energy policy of Lisbon will directly affect my business in a positive way

thats reason enough to vote for me for whats in the treaty

EU has and will not have any say in direct taxation, that bloody corporation tax i have to pay, so no need to scaremonger

skelliser

the reason people wont invest in this country and thus create jobs is because they have no confidence in this current government.
Moodys of london said this when they reduced our credit ratings nearer the begining of the year.
to say that lisbon will create jobs is misleading.

ei.sdraob

skelliser wrote: »

to say that lisbon will create jobs is misleading.

once again the Common Energy point of the treaty and all the Global Warming/Green agenda sections

will create jobs directly

indirectly goodwill and confidence in a country and people will also create job


voting NO takes the above 2 away

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

I guess and my hypothesis is good so far, B is the likely outcome and we will be faced with difficult questions. But that is where we were this time last year.

rumour wrote: »

Is any of that in the text? Goodness what are you not telling people?

Joking aside I am in a similar position but my decision will be determined by Tax more than anything to do with Lisbon.

So because you are voting no for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. You are presuming that everyone else has done the same and that nothing could be done to address their concerns about the treaty?

The research carried out indicates that many people had concerns which are indeed addressed by the guarantees, indeed the were negotiated on that basis.

I am presuming by your silence on the issues that you now accept the research as a valid reflection on the concerns of voters?

rumour

eightyfish wrote: »

I've been reading some of your comments before I got into the thread (thanks marco_polo) and have to say that firstly you argue eloquently and secondly I agree with some of your earlier points.

But as to the above - again it needs to be said - the people said themselves that they didn't understand the treaty. 22% of the no voters in fact.

Add that to the amount of people on the yes side who hadn't a monkeys either and the whole thing becomes laughable.

However the polls that were conducted does anyone know where I can get a copy or link to these. A link was provided but it won't work on my computer.:mad:

I bet I could spend the whole afternoon being enlightened on the wording of the questions.

rumour

marco_polo wrote: »

So because you are voting no for reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. You are presuming that everyone else has done the same and that nothing could be done to address their concerns about the treaty?

The research carried out indicates that many people had concerns which are indeed addressed by the guarantees, indeed the were negotiated on that basis.

I am presuming by your silence on the issues that you now accept the research as a valid reflection on the concerns of voters?

Your need to vindicate yourself is, well its a need. However and I have repeatedly said this I have not made up my mind which way to vote and I will not be announcing here in any event. I will challenge any point of view until I am satisfied, on this particular thread there are a pack of fundamentalists who decend on anyone who dares questions them. This I am quite enjoying.

oscarBravo

rumour wrote: »

I will challenge any point of view until I am satisfied...

But will refuse to respond when challenged on your points of view.

You have implied that the polls were rigged, but have refused to either come out and say it, or retract it; you won't even admit that you implied it, when you clearly did.

eightyfish

rumour wrote: »

However the polls that were conducted does anyone know where I can get a copy or link to these. A link was provided but it won't work on my computer.:mad:

Attached.

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

Add that to the amount of people on the yes side who hadn't a monkeys either and the whole thing becomes laughable.

However the polls that were conducted does anyone know where I can get a copy or link to these. A link was provided but it won't work on my computer.:mad:

I bet I could spend the whole afternoon being enlightened on the wording of the questions.

Since you have already determined that they are incorrect and the question wordings are loaded I don't really see the point. However here you are

http://geary.ucd.ie/images/Publications/Media/ucd_geary_institute_report.pdf

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/post%20lisbon%20treaty%20referendum%20research%20findings_sept08.pdf

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I accept what you say, but your starting point is that people didn't understand the treaty, ok. The time to rectify that was last year. There was a vote and it was rejected. Suspicion is now compounded by telling people that they didn't understand what they were doing. You personally are not guilty of this, but the primary message is coming from characters that have mismanged(understatement) the wealth of the nation and are openly not trusted.

Look mate, I'm not telling them they didn't understand the treaty, they overwhelmingly told the pollsters that they didn't understand it. We're only repeating back to them what they told us.

You're basically saying that the treaty is going to be rejected because people don't trust Fianna Fail. My response to this is always that there are dozens of unbiased and truthful sources of information on the treaty that are completely separate to Fianna Fail. Why can't they look to them? Why can't people accept the treaty in spite of Fianna Fail instead of rejecting it just because they're one of dozens of organisations and individuals who support it?

Also, this is the fourth time I am asking you to clarify which parts of the treaty you object to since you said that the parts you object to were not addressed. Please either tell me which parts they are or retract your claim.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I bet I could spend the whole afternoon being enlightened on the wording of the questions.

You still haven't explained to us why the government would deliberately skew the poll to make it look like people had different concerns to the ones they actually did (not to mention how they would skew an EU run poll which they had no control over). What would the have to gain from not addressing anyone's issues before running the referendum again?

And if, as you seem to be implying, the main objection is that people don't trust Fianna Fail, what exactly do you expect the EU to do about that in terms of changing articles of the treaty? It's neither their fault nor any of their business that our government is useless. That problem is a separate issue to the Lisbon treaty

eightyfish

Sam Vimes wrote: »

clarify which parts of the treaty you

+1

Please. Genuinely interested to know.

rumour

oscarBravo wrote: »

But will refuse to respond when challenged on your points of view.

You have implied that the polls were rigged, but have refused to either come out and say it, or retract it; you won't even admit that you implied it, when you clearly did.

I'm becoming a politician I don't have to do what you want just as you don't have to respect the result of a referendum.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

I'm becoming a politician I don't have to do what you want just as you don't have to respect the result of a referendum.

Way to throw all your credibility as a poster out the window on the back of not being able to back down on a very small, very simple incorrect point.

You're telling this forum that you won't ever, ever admit your position is wrong, and you'll ignore anyone who refutes you.

I'm not putting a question mark at the end of that, as you'll likely just ignore that too.

This being the case there's absolutely no point, whatsoever, in ever discussing anything with you.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I'm becoming a politician I don't have to do what you want just as you don't have to respect the result of a referendum.

We have explained to you many times in this thread alone why it was perfectly reasonable and democratic to run a second referendum. We have not arrogantly dismissed you or called you stupid. We have explained that:

1. In a democracy you don't just throw out a 300 page document because a few people have problems with a few paragraphs. You find out which paragraphs they have problems with and renegotiate them
2. Two (or more) surveys were done and they found the reasons for rejection were mostly lack of understanding along with several issues which weren't actually in the treaty and the commissioner issue
3. The government got guarantees that the issues that weren't in the treaty actually weren't, they got the EU to allow us to keep our commissioner and they gave people a year to increase their understanding.
4. They are now running it again in the hopes that the above changes will be enough to swing the vote

And you still come back with a remark about nor respecting the result of the referendum. Could you please point out the flaw in my reasoning above?


Tell me honestly, are we dancing around the issue that you won't accept the treaty as long as Fianna Fail are for it and no amount of clarification or convincing on our part will change that?

edit: or changes to the treaty for that matter

eightyfish

1. We're going around in circles.
2. See point 1.

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Look mate, I'm not telling them they didn't understand the treaty, they overwhelmingly told the pollsters that they didn't understand it. We're only repeating back to them what they told us.

You're basically saying that the treaty is going to be rejected because people don't trust Fianna Fail. My response to this is always that there are dozens of unbiased and truthful sources of information on the treaty that are completely separate to Fianna Fail. Why can't they look to them? Why can't people accept the treaty in spite of Fianna Fail instead of rejecting it just because they're one of dozens of organisations and individuals who support it?

Also, this is the fourth time I am asking you to clarify which parts of the treaty you object to since you said that the parts you object to were not addressed. Please either tell me which parts they are or retract your claim.

Regarding Fianna Fail yes they will have alot to do with it as do FG labour the unions etc.
Regarding my specific objections, I don't have specific objections other than at the centre of this rebranded constitution the value system is not clear. I went to great lengths to explain why this concerns me some weeks ago and I'm not doing it again.

It may be considered old fashioned to rate a value system as important but what vlaues are at the core of europe. The easiest tangible example is the refusal by European politicians to put this before the electorate of europe as a whole. Why is that?

More importantly if that is what they do now, what will they do in the future. What is the base line against which right and wrong can be judged and what ideology will control this. I have had many assurances that there is nothing malign in the treaty, well it is certainly not benign to refuse the elctorate of europe the chance to vote.

It does park a problem for the future on the democratic legitimacy of the whole european project. I do not consider any of this anti-european and I have many Spanish German Italian and French friends who are of a similar mind. These are big questions for the whole of Europe. My European friends would be very annoyed with a yes vote. But that will not sway my decision.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

The easiest tangible example is the refusal by European politicians to put this before the electorate of europe as a whole. Why is that?

You make me want to cry, you really do. Did you read this post?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61995680&postcount=350

What do you have to say about it?

oscarBravo

rumour wrote: »

I'm becoming a politician I don't have to do what you want just as you don't have to respect the result of a referendum.

No, you don't - but you've just tacitly confirmed that you can't support your position.

eta: I respect the result of the referendum. I would be deeply pissed off if the government had ratified the Lisbon Treaty after the "no" result. But that doesn't mean I don't think there should be another referendum.