Attitude of the yes campaign

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

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.

Values:

Article 2
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

Article 3
1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.

3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance. It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child. It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States. It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.

5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties.

Sam Vimes

Just to try to consolidate your issues rumour, they seem to me to be (correct me if I'm wrong):

1. You don't trust Fianna Fail
2. You don't trust the other country's motives for not having referendums

I'm now going to do my best to sort those issues out so please tell me where I'm going wrong.

On point 1: you don't have to trust Fianna Fail. There are dozens of sources out there for unbiased information or you can read the treaty for yourself. There is absolutely no need to mention Fianna Fail in your opposition to the treaty. I hate them just as much as you.

On point 2: Firstly, I refer you to this post. Now, those countries generally don't have referendums on these issues. The only reason we're having one is because of the Crotty judgement. The governments of Europe, including Ireland, make decisions every day that have implications far greater than the Lisbon treaty, that's what governments do.
You are suspicious of the motives of these countries for not having referendums, you think it's because the treaty would be voted down and I think you're right, but for different reasons. You think that people will see that it's bad for them and rightly reject it but the reality is that this treaty is so big that, as you know yourself, it's far too easy for extremists to spread lies about it and almost impossible for people to prove them wrong.

It's not that the governments want to ignore the will of the people, it's that the governments know that if it's put to a referendum the extremists will get their way by burying this benign and beneficial treaty under a massive pile of bullsh!t. It will be rejected not because it is damaging but because the extremists will lie so persistently as to trick people into thinking that it's damaging. This is exactly the reason that referendums are illegal in Germany. Referendums are good for social issues like divorce and abortion where there is no right and wrong but with issues like the Lisbon treaty it will inevitably result in the mess of lies, misinformation and mudslinging that has happened in Ireland. I would rather it wasn't put to a referendum here.

And finally I would point out that neither of your issues are with the treaty itself and neither the government nor the EU have the power to make countries have referendums so there was nothing that could be renegotiated based on your objections

Comments?
Questions?
Corrections?

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Comments?

imho there is nothing wrong with having referenda per se

it is a form of democracy (direct democracy) but it relies on the populace knowing what they are voting on

the problem is lack of knowledge/education in the issues relevant to the referendum

the same can be said of any TDs or other who spend their time in a pub instead of looking over any legislation the day before they have to vote, lisbon treaty would be like half of the representatives showing up in the morning to vote on important legislation and out of the ones that voted NO majority didnt know why they voted in that manner or voted for reasons that had nothing to do with the bill, a complete disgrace that would be! and there be outrage from the people at the incompetence of the representatives!!


anyways i would have alot more respect for NO side if they didnt resolve to blatant lies and mudslinging and were not composed of parties on the fringes of politics with questionable connections/backgrounds

Spiritoftheseventies

oscarBravo wrote: »

I think that's patently untrue. What has actually happened is that "no" campaigners have claimed that "yes" campaigners have claimed this.

Can you actually provide a link to any "yes" campaigner ever claiming that all "no" voters are crazy, stupid and ignorant? Or have you just made a sweeping and unjustifiable claim?

Obviously this one.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055677049

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

Obviously this one.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055677049

That post is addressed to the people who use the "If you dont know, vote NO" slogan. If you don't use that slogan he's not talking about you

ei.sdraob

bayviewclose wrote: »

Obviously this one.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055677049

obviously you cant read or comprehend

or maybe you can but you are trying to twist something into something that its clearly not, thats further highlights the manipulation that some NO campaigners are resorting to

shame on you!

if you read it again, then you would see the post is aimed at one particular poster here on boards who tried to start up the whole "if you dont know vote no" nonsense, and its aimed at anyone else who has same undemocratic sentiment

btw the word "all" doesnt even exist in my post

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That post is addressed to the people who use the "If you dont know, vote NO" slogan. If you don't use that slogan he's not talking about you

To quote from that link posted about these the exact words
"A question to the NO side? why are yee insulting people and want to keep them in dark
Ok I about had it enough with the whole

"If you dont know, vote NO" business


as constantly being trotted out by the NO side and Sinn Fein


Why are yee so afraid of people reading up on the treaty and gathering information?

Are yee afraid that someone who is undecided might take a few minutes to read up on the treaty at a neutral source > Referendum Commissions > lisbontreaty2009.ie site

and come to the conclusion that claims made by the NO side are not grounded in facts, are based on lies or worse have absolutely nothing to do with the Treaty



Why are yee continuing to insult the intelligence of the voters by trotting out such rubbish??


The very foundation of democracy is built on people making informed decisions about issues that affect them and voting on them

Why are yee so against these very basic principles of democracy?



Only conclusion I can see is a deliberate smear tactics and mass disinformation campaign (Hello 1.84 minimum wage posters) in order to scare and confuse people and deny them the right to make a decision thats based on facts not lies


Im sickened and im sick of hearing nonsense like that, are yee not capable of a civilized debate?


bleh"

Think post from link is pretty much conclusive. Was addressed to everyone on the No side and as such calls everyone on the No side liars who trot out rubbish. No attempt made to name the liars just put everyone in No campaign in the same boat.

ei.sdraob

bayviewclose wrote: »

Think post from link is pretty much conclusive. Was addressed to everyone on the No side and as such calls everyone on the No side liars who trot out rubbish. No attempt made to name the liars just put everyone in No campaign in the same boat.

ffs

once ****ing again so

that post was aimed directly at people who say

"if you dont know vote no"


which part of the bolded sentence above do you not understand?

that does not include all NO campaigners, just the ones who have no grasp of how democracy operates, and who are trying to keep people in the dark and lie to them

once again what are you trying to achieve by twisting my post into something that its not?

Sam Vimes

One of the most annoying things in any debate is when someone is addressing a particular claim make by some of his opponents and instead of the debate being about the claim, it becomes about the fact that only 76.4% of his opponents make that claim so he shouldn't tar them all with the same brush. That's why I put the word some in bold and it's why I always do it when addressing such issues (when I remember), to stop the debate being sidetracked into the numbers of people who make the claim instead of the claim itself.

As soon as I read that post I knew it would be dragged off topic because he didn't emphasise that not every single person on the no side says "if you don't know, vote no". If you don't say that, fantastic, you can safely assume he's not talking about you and is not tarring you with that brush

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ffs

once ****ing again so

that post was aimed directly at people who say

"if you dont know vote no"


which part of the bolded sentence above do you not understand?

that does not include all NO campaigners, just the ones who have no grasp of how democracy operates, and who are trying to keep people in the dark and lie to them

once again what are you trying to achieve by twisting my post into something that its not?

glad you are finally responding to this as you didnt on thread you started on despite requests from myself and another poster. In that thread you refer to the No Campaign as a collective unit. Which for a start is totally misleading. Higgins for a start is not linked with Coir. Can you go back to your original post from that thread and clarify this so it is not open to any further misinterpretation.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

glad you are finally responding to this as you didnt on thread you started on despite requests from myself and another poster. In that thread you refer to the No Campaign as a collective unit. Which for a start is totally misleading. Higgins for a start is not linked with Coir. Can you go back to your original post from that thread and clarify this so it is not open to any further misinterpretation.

Instead could we use a bit of common sense and realise that assuming that every single no voter thinks exactly the same way about every issue is retarded and that ei.sdraob was most likely referring only to the people who use the slogan "if you don't know, vote no", as he said in his post?

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Instead could we use a bit of common sense and realise that assuming that every single no voter thinks exactly the same way about every issue is retarded and that ei.sdraob was most likely referring only to the people who use the slogan "if you don't know, vote no", as he said in his post?

Again thread says otherwise. That line you keep quoting was only part of his argument. Thread title says it all for me. Have asked that it be re worded now. Its a simple enough request and will clear up a lot of confusion. And re that post. One poster whom he referred to simply he said that he did not trust a digest of treaty as it was clearly bias. That poster stated intention to vote No. Thats his choice. That poster doesn't speak for me and Im sure for a lot of others. End of the day we are ending last three weeks of campaign. Threads are going to go up (Declan Ganley returning being one) which are clearly misleading. But I strongly object to this personalizing. Yes OP was objecting to a yes thread put up but that was put up because of the continued branding of No voters as liars. Its all shadow boxing at the end of the day. We have three weeks to make a case. I suggest we get back to the nitty gritty here in the short time we have.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

I suggest we get back to the nitty gritty here in the short time we have.

Exactly. Lets stop making an issue of the fact that he didn't put the word "some" bolded, italicised, underlined and in size 15 font in the thread. He was referring only to people who say "if you don't know vote no". you know that, I know that, the cup of coffee sitting in front of me knows that. There is no confusion on this matter. You're making an issue out of nothing.

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Exactly. Lets stop making an issue of the fact that he didn't put the word "some" bolded, italicised, underlined and in size 15 font in the thread. He was referring only to people who say "if you don't know vote no". you know that, I know that, the cup of coffee sitting in front of me knows that. There is no confusion on this matter. You're making an issue out of nothing.

Fair enough. But thread title is misleading. All Im asking is that it be re worded to rebut "if you don't know vote no" argument.

Sam Vimes

ei.sdraob, could you please add this to your post to end this issue:

SOME

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

ei.sdraob, could you please add this to your post to end this issue:

SOME

Just change the thread title.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Just change the thread title.

Only a Mod can do that.

I must have missed the posts where you got just so exercised about the title of this very thread we're in now...

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Only a Mod can do that.

I must have missed the posts where you got just so exercised about the title of this very thread we're in now...

So the confusion continues. We will leave it anyway. Like I said three weeks left of debate.

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Only a Mod can do that.

No he can change it. I've changed thread titles of mine

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I must have missed the posts where you got just so exercised about the title of this very thread we're in now...

Yeah it's odd. He's so against tarring with the same brush he must have hundreds of posts demanding this title be changed. Odd that I missed them

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No he can change it. I've changed thread titles of mine


Yeah it's odd. He's so against tarring with the same brush he must have hundreds of posts demanding this title be changed. Odd that I missed them

Okay to clear this up. This is thread title I am talking about.
A question to the NO side? why are yee insulting people and want to keep them in dark


And why I am discussing on this was that poster asked were all No campaigners being called stupid and asked for example. So i quoted this thread. Were there was an insinuation, without being implicit, that lies were being made up by the No campaign. As if there was not one valid argument being made. So again Ill ask that for the sake of a bit of balance that this thread is merely changed so as not to suggest that OP is dealing in absolutes here.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Okay to clear this up. This is thread title I am talking about.
A question to the NO side? why are yee insulting people and want to keep them in dark


And why I am discussing on this was that poster asked were all No campaigners being called stupid and asked for example. So i quoted this thread. Were there was an insinuation, without being implicit, that lies were being made up by the No campaign. As if there was not one valid argument being made. So again Ill ask that for the sake of a bit of balance that this thread is merely changed so as not to suggest that OP is dealing in absolutes here.

You mean both threads, or only the 'A question to the NO side?' should be changed?

And if both threads, why did it take you a week to raise an objection to this 'Attitude of the yes campaign' thread title, if you're so sensitive to it?

Alternatively you could accept that people occasionally use synecdoche inappropriately when referring to a subsection of a particular campaign, and move on with your life.

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You mean both threads, or only the 'A question to the NO side?' should be changed?

And if both threads, why did it take you a week to raise an objection to this 'Attitude of the yes campaign' thread title, if you're so sensitive to it?

Alternatively you could accept that people occasionally use synecdoche inappropriately when referring to a subsection of a particular campaign, and move on with your life.

Sorry its not just me. this the last board from that thread. And what OP had a problem with this thread he should have asked it to be re worded. i

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62057251&postcount=64

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

Okay to clear this up. This is thread title I am talking about.
A question to the NO side? why are yee insulting people and want to keep them in dark

I know you are, and we're pointing out that you don't seem to have a problem with a thread titled "Attitude of the yes campaign".

bayviewclose wrote: »

And why I am discussing on this was that poster asked were all No campaigners being called stupid and asked for example

No they weren't, ones who use the slogan "if you don't know vote no" were being called stupid. This was clear in the OP.

bayviewclose wrote: »

So i quoted this thread. Were there was an insinuation, without being implicit, that lies were being made up by the No campaign.

There are lies being made up by the no campaign. That does not mean that every single person in the no campaign is deliberately lying, it means that as a part of the no campaign, lies have been made up. We all know the majority of people on the no side are repeating lies they have heard which they believe to be true, as opposed to deliberately lying themselves.

bayviewclose wrote: »

As if there was not one valid argument being made.

Lies are being made up =/= Not one valid argument is being made. If I say something valid and someone else tells a lie, that does not stop my statement being valid and the thread did not suggest otherwise. It was referring only to the slogan "if you don't know vote no"

bayviewclose wrote: »

So again Ill ask that for the sake of a bit of balance that this thread is merely changed so as not to suggest that OP is dealing in absolutes here.

Is it really balance when you have been fine with posting in a thread called " Attitude of the yes campaign" and felt no need to point out that it was tarring the entire campaign with the same brush?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Could somebody please point out to me usage of the word 'stupid' in this post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62026924&postcount=1

You are all talking about it, but I seem to have missed it in my reading, help please...

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Okay to clear this up. This is thread title I am talking about.
A question to the NO side? why are yee insulting people and want to keep them in dark


And why I am discussing on this was that poster asked were all No campaigners being called stupid and asked for example. So i quoted this thread. Were there was an insinuation, without being implicit, that lies were being made up by the No campaign. As if there was not one valid argument being made. So again Ill ask that for the sake of a bit of balance that this thread is merely changed so as not to suggest that OP is dealing in absolutes here.

Why are you far more concerned with discussing the title of this thread rather than backing up the assertion of Referendum Commission bias that you made an hour ago?

ei.sdraob

marco_polo wrote: »

Why are you far more concerned with discussing the title of this thread rather than backing up the assertion of Referendum Commission bias that you made an hour ago?

deflection and avoidance


instead of discussing lisbon issues we get a thread full of "hey look at that pretty title"


by his reasoning the title of *this* thread should be changed so?

Spiritoftheseventies

marco_polo wrote: »

Why are you far more concerned with discussing the title of this thread rather than backing up the assertion of Referendum Commission bias that you made an hour ago?

Compare
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61932415&postcount=1





to
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62026924&postcount=1

Line about the 1.84 poster from Coir. Again it was a bad poster from them. Not because of the fact that it highlighted cases of companies who paid some workers pittances but merely because it put the question mark at the end.

"and come to the conclusion that claims made by the NO side are not grounded in facts, are based on lies or worse have absolutely nothing to do with the Treaty"

Poster says claims made by the No side are based on lies or worse and have absolutely nothing to with the treaty. Again Higgins said he would be not aligning himself with Coir so straight away that line is badly worded.


"Why are yee continuing to insult the intelligence of the voters by trotting out such rubbish??"
Who is Yee (and why does poster keep using this word repeatedly, and what rubbish is he referring to.

Now to OP from this thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61932415&postcount=1

"Yes campaigners have been painting an image that all no voters are crazy, stupid and ignorant.
Okay that line is a bit weak. But there have been veiled inferences of it from some quarters.


"They seem to think that coir and the shinners and other minority parties represent every single no voter."
Would replace "they seem to thing" with "some would think" but yes would go along with that for most part. (shinners and Minority parties do have councillors in the republic so they do have some mandate but they don't represent every single no voter"


"The use of celebrities to further the cause is not only patroninsing but a real concern, this is not the x factor!"
Absolutely. Heard a bit from Denis Hickie who was linked to one of Yes Campaign vote and he pretty much said what was already said about the guarantees. Not sure if they should be used to sell an entire treaty like that. Haven't heard much from Robbie Keane on matter and sure if he went in with Higgins tomorrow in a debate he would struggle. Really its not good enough to use sports people like this. Fine if they want to go into politics but not this way.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Compare
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61932415&postcount=1





to
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62026924&postcount=1

Line about the 1.84 poster from Coir. Again it was a bad poster from them. Not because of the fact that it highlighted cases of companies who paid some workers pittances but merely because it put the question mark at the end.

"and come to the conclusion that claims made by the NO side are not grounded in facts, are based on lies or worse have absolutely nothing to do with the Treaty"

Poster says claims made by the No side are based on lies or worse and have absolutely nothing to with the treaty. Again Higgins said he would be not aligning himself with Coir so straight away that line is badly worded.


"Why are yee continuing to insult the intelligence of the voters by trotting out such rubbish??"
Who is Yee (and why does poster keep using this word repeatedly, and what rubbish is he referring to.

Now to OP from this thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61932415&postcount=1

"Yes campaigners have been painting an image that all no voters are crazy, stupid and ignorant.
Okay that line is a bit weak. But there have been veiled inferences of it from some quarters.


"They seem to think that coir and the shinners and other minority parties represent every single no voter."
Would replace "they seem to thing" with "some would think" but yes would go along with that for most part. (shinners and Minority parties do have councillors in the republic so they do have some mandate but they don't represent every single no voter"


"The use of celebrities to further the cause is not only patroninsing but a real concern, this is not the x factor!"
Absolutely. Heard a bit from Denis Hickie who was linked to one of Yes Campaign vote and he pretty much said what was already said about the guarantees. Not sure if they should be used to sell an entire treaty like that. Haven't heard much from Robbie Keane on matter and sure if he went in with Higgins tomorrow in a debate he would struggle. Really its not good enough to use sports people like this. Fine if they want to go into politics but not this way.

Your previously stated problem is with the title, the act of referring to a subsection of a campaign as the whole campaign occurs in both titles.

This is boring me now, again I can merely advise you to be aware that these things happen, pick up the pieces and try to move on with your life...

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

"They seem to think that coir and the shinners and other minority parties represent every single no voter."
Would replace "they seem to thing" with "some would think" but yes would go along with that for most part. (shinners and Minority parties do have councillors in the republic so they do have some mandate but they don't represent every single no voter"

So the reason you didn't protest about the OP of this thread tarring the entire yes campaign with the same brush is that you agree with him for the most part. Fair enough

Well I agree with ei.sdraob for the most part. Can we both just acknowledge that when someone talks about "the yes campaign" and "the no campaign" they are not talking about every single person in that campaign but are only talking about the particular subset who are engaged in the thing that we are talking about? And get back to something that actually matters?

marco_polo

bayviewclose wrote: »

Compare
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61932415&postcount=1





to
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62026924&postcount=1

Line about the 1.84 poster from Coir. Again it was a bad poster from them. Not because of the fact that it highlighted cases of companies who paid some workers pittances but merely because it put the question mark at the end. "and come to the conclusion that claims made by the NO side are not grounded in facts, are based on lies or worse have absolutely nothing to do with the Treaty"

Poster says claims made by the No side are based on lies or worse and have absolutely nothing to with the treaty. Again Higgins said he would be not aligning himself with Coir so straight away that line is badly worded.


"Why are yee continuing to insult the intelligence of the voters by trotting out such rubbish??"
Who is Yee (and why does poster keep using this word repeatedly, and what rubbish is he referring to.

Now to OP from this thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61932415&postcount=1

"Yes campaigners have been painting an image that all no voters are crazy, stupid and ignorant.
Okay that line is a bit weak. But there have been veiled inferences of it from some quarters.


"They seem to think that coir and the shinners and other minority parties represent every single no voter."
Would replace "they seem to thing" with "some would think" but yes would go along with that for most part. (shinners and Minority parties do have councillors in the republic so they do have some mandate but they don't represent every single no voter"


"The use of celebrities to further the cause is not only patroninsing but a real concern, this is not the x factor!"
Absolutely. Heard a bit from Denis Hickie who was linked to one of Yes Campaign vote and he pretty much said what was already said about the guarantees. Not sure if they should be used to sell an entire treaty like that. Haven't heard much from Robbie Keane on matter and sure if he went in with Higgins tomorrow in a debate he would struggle. Really its not good enough to use sports people like this. Fine if they want to go into politics but not this way.

I don't care which side is the best at making sweeping generalisations. I would like to discuss the important issues for example per my last post. Last post in here, I'll be in the bias thread if you are looking for me.