Attitude of the yes campaign

patrickthomas

oscarBravo wrote: »

Everyone: put down the handbags. Take a deep breath. Read the OP, and make sure any further contributions are on-topic.

How did you know I had a handbag?:D

Sam Vimes

skelliser wrote: »

im glad you said this, i think they are making the same mistakes again albeit being more patronising ie celebrities

You won't hear me praising the government's campaign but there are other sources of information. This idea that you should vote no because Fianna Fail aren't spoon feeding you the information is another example of a stance that I would call ignorant. Yes they should be doing more but that's a reason to vote FF out of office, not to reject the Lisbon treaty

skelliser

im goin to have to take a break from this thread, imo its gone completly of topic and heading towards a debate on the merits on of another referendum.

This thread was about the attitude and imo arrogance that is prevailing in the yes campaign as stated in my points.

AND ONCE AGAIN I VOTED YES. Seems to me that if you speak out against the yes campaign you are immedialty labelled a no voter as i have been labelled many times already.

If that isnt ignorant then i dunno what is.

I think wheeling out celebrities and remarks like o learys are patronising and arrogant. This is not the way to win people over.
If anything its the lazy way to win the agrument.

ei.sdraob

skelliser wrote: »

i dont understand this

skelliser wrote: »

Yes campaigners have been painting an image that all no voters are crazy, stupid and ignorant.

you are painting everyone on the YES side with same brush (keyword: all)

in a thread complaining about the YES side painting everyone on the no side with same brush


thats what he means

patrickthomas

skelliser wrote: »

im goin to have to take a break from this thread, imo its gone completly of topic and heading towards a debate on the merits on of another referendum.

This thread was about the attitude and imo arrogance that is prevailing in the yes campaign as stated in my points.

AND ONCE AGAIN I VOTED YES. Seems to me that if you speak out against the yes campaign you are immedialty labelled a no voter as i have been labelled many times already.

If that isnt ignorant then i dunno what is.

Yeah I am out of here as well, the yes campaign is reflective of the government we have running this country.

oscarBravo

skelliser wrote: »

no obviously i cant, im talking about attitudes, not specific statements that may have been made.

Ah, here. You said:

skelliser wrote: »

Yes campaigners have been painting an image that all no voters are crazy, stupid and ignorant.

Now you're backing away from that, and claiming that there's an attitude, not that anyone has actually said anything.

If you can't even back up the statement you opened the thread with, how is anyone supposed to discuss it in a meaningful way?

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Try to stop being such a pedant man, if you want a sweeping statement from the Yes side, just search for O Leary and Lisbon

I've read O'Leary's statement. He used a sweeping generalisation to describe those who are leading the "no" campaign.

This thread is about the alleged attitude of "yes" campaigners (which "yes" campaigners? All of them? If not, which specific campaigners?) to all "no" voters.

Now, call me a pedant for discussing the topic that was raised, if that makes you feel better. If you think a more constructive discussion can be had by vague and sweeping statements than by an actual focussed discussion, fair enough - but that would be a deeply ironic position to hold in this of all threads.

ei.sdraob

skelliser wrote: »

im goin to have to take a break from this thread, imo its gone completly of topic and heading towards a debate on the merits on of another referendum.

This thread was about the attitude and imo arrogance that is prevailing in the yes campaign as stated in my points.

we started talking about ignorance of basic democratic principles by some no voters

as demonstrated by the posts i linked to

which is right on topic and per your opening post

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Very true, and I'm rapidly being bunged in with them. And as one goes to the centre the differences dissappear.
Labour I can get, but the difference between FF and FG, dont get it.



Absolutley, they should not involve themselves in our politics, and neither should German ambassadors or French Presidents, current or former.
The last English people we ever listened to were St. Patrick and Jack Charlton.



Point taken. More than half the people who bothered their ass' and got out and voted, rejected the Lisbon Treaty.
But apathy is to the Governments advantage, thats why we never see them doing anything to improve participation.

The government have lost, and unlike Ganley, they refuse to take No for an answer

Zuiderzee, stop linking your blog. If you want advertising, you pay for it like anyone else. This is an official warning.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

patrickthomas wrote: »

At least you understand the frustration that a lot of no voters feel when having their level of education aka intelligence (which is not the same) when they ask what are the advantages of the yes vote.

That's not what's happening. People who honestly ask what are the advantages of a yes vote will be patiently and politely told. It's people who say "I'm voting no because" and then proceed to list off a catalogue of irrelevant BS and lies who have their intelligence questioned because people are sick of correcting the same tired old BS over and over again.

It reminds me of arguing with religious people, the way they talk about people respecting their beliefs as if beliefs have an automatic right to respect. My response is always "say something worth respecting and I'll respect it".

The way I see it, people who can argue their case coherently do so and people who can't complain that their views aren't being respected

Sam Vimes

skelliser wrote: »

I think wheeling out celebrities and remarks like o learys are patronising and arrogant. This is not the way to win people over.
If anything its the lazy way to win the agrument.

So what exactly do you suggest we say to and about people who keep repeating the same irrelevant BS and lies? How do we win them over without pointing out that what they're saying is irrelevant BS and lies?

edit: for example, how would you respond in this situation:

no voter: "I'm voting no because I hate Fianna Fail"

me: "Fianna Fail have nothing to do with the treaty. It's a European treaty that 26 other nations have expressed their desire for, it is an abuse of the privilege of voting to use it as a stick to beat the Irish government with and it will do more damage to the country than it will FF. It's not the rest of the EU's fault that our government are idiots".

no voter: "I don't care, I'm still voting no because I hate Fianna Fail"

me: <fill in what you would say at this point>

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not what's happening. People who honestly ask what are the advantages of a yes vote will be patiently and politely told. It's people who say "I'm voting no because" and then proceed to list off a catalogue of irrelevant BS and lies who have their intelligence questioned because people are sick of correcting the same tired old BS over and over again.

It reminds me of arguing with religious people, the way they talk about people respecting their beliefs as if beliefs have an automatic right to respect. My response is always "say something worth respecting and I'll respect it".

The way I see it, people who can argue their case coherently do so and people who can't complain that their views aren't being respected

spot on

some of the posters on here on the NO side raise some very interesting issues and are capable of forming a paragraph and backing up their claims

and these lead to interesting debates

but as i remarked earlier theres a definite trend of some new posters coming on board straight here making a 1-liner and leaving not engaging in debate

thats downright obnoxious

skelliser

its hard, i know, both sides are fairly entrenched in there views.

maybe i should have phrased my first point better. I think the other points i made are valid tho.

meglome

patrickthomas wrote: »

Now there's a point, and what if it is true? and the majority of no voters are less educated? What sort of a reflection is that on the people that have the education and influence? The people in power that do not care for the people less well off than themselves, less educated than themselves, a bit late to educate 50% of the voters to.......

I think the Yes campaigns have been fairly rubbish in general but not specifically targeted at any group. Now I don't think Fianna Fail should be allowed to run a children's party, as I think they'd **** it up. I think the No campaigners have targeted people who they believe can be lied to more easily. People who are in general less likely to read a boring legal document and who have faired less well from the so called 'celtic tiger'.

patrickthomas wrote: »

What level do you consider a person should be educated to on order to understand the treaty enough to see that it would be advantageous?

Well I don't assume anything. Anyone can probably read it of they have the patience. I would imagine the condensed version would be readable. It's a dull treaty like most treaty's.

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... but as i remarked earlier theres a definite trend of some new posters coming on board straight here making a 1-liner and leaving not engaging in debate

thats downright obnoxious

Not nearly as annoying as people who crash in here making big sweeping statements of great length, decline to back up their arguments or cite supporting material, and go on and on beating their tin drums. We have had a few like that recently.

P. Breathnach

meglome wrote: »

I think the Yes campaigns have been fairly rubbish in general ...

It's quite difficult for them to be otherwise. Lisbon is essentially a housekeeping operation, and it's not easy to make housekeeping exciting.

Trashing a room or two, on the other hand, while not a good thing, can get the adrenalin flowing.

meglome

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but as i remarked earlier theres a definite trend of some new posters coming on board straight here making a 1-liner and leaving not engaging in debate

thats downright obnoxious

There seems to be an interestingly large number of people who pop in and out, saying the same things that have been debated over and over and often debunked over and over. I want to call shenanigans.

meglome

skelliser wrote: »

AND ONCE AGAIN I VOTED YES. Seems to me that if you speak out against the yes campaign you are immedialty labelled a no voter as i have been labelled many times already.

Sorry but you say you voted Yes and I have no reason not to believe you. However you seem to be fully campaigning for a No vote so I do wonder.

Wheely

skelliser wrote: »

its hard, i know, both sides are fairly entrenched in there views.

maybe i should have phrased my first point better. I think the other points i made are valid tho.

Sorry skelliser yuo don't like the arrogance of the yes campaigners, all or some of them ok.

How do you think you're going to vote in the upcoming referendum if you don't mind me asking?

skelliser

hmm i notice a sudden change in tone in this thread.
If people have something to say then say it

Sam Vimes

skelliser wrote: »

If people have something to say then say it

PICKLES!

*phew* that's a relief :pac:

Wheely

skelliser wrote: »

hmm i notice a sudden change in tone in this thread.
If people have something to say then say it

Well i asked you a question........

oscarBravo

skelliser wrote: »

hmm i notice a sudden change in tone in this thread.

Just as well, or I'd be banning people.

If people have something to say then say it

If, of course, what they have to say happens to be, y'know, on-topic.

meglome

patrickthomas wrote: »

Yeah I am out of here as well, the yes campaign is reflective of the government we have running this country.

I think your questions have been answered carefully and thoughtfully so I'm not sure what the problem is.

marco_polo

skelliser wrote: »

hmm i notice a sudden change in tone in this thread.
If people have something to say then say it

Ok then, Why were your main reasons for voting Yes in the previous referendum?

Scofflaw

meglome wrote: »

There seems to be an interestingly large number of people who pop in and out, saying the same things that have been debated over and over and often debunked over and over. I want to call shenanigans.

The influx of which correlates exactly with the start of the campaigns. Possibly they simply weren't paying attention until the campaigns started, and then again, possibly not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

skelliser

i voted yes cause i could see no reason to vote no.

i feel that the last few posts about people suddenly arriving and saying stuff is directed towards me. This is completly off topic. I think its a deliberate attempt to bait and discredit me, i would have expected ass much from coir and there supporters but not from imo seasoned yes people, who percieve to take the high moral ground.

You dont need to support the yes campaign to vote yes, i didnt need them the last time, in fact i ignored there nonsenical rubbish, instead i informed myself.
This thread was created cause i believe that the yes campaign is once again being arrogant and making more if not the same mistakes as the last time re. see my intial posts on this thread. This is why im taking them on, am i not free to do this?!

I think that this is a very important and valid issue as the last time the yes campaign tried to fob people of with nonsenical slogans and doomsday things like there is no alternative etc. This actually imo undermines democracy.

My main gripe is this continued agenda to drum home that this treaty is a referendum on our membership, that imo is false, misleading and patronising. I would expect as much from the no side but not the yes.

That, the celebrity and the slogan issues are what i wanted to discuss instead this thread was hijacked into something about percentages and turnout! wtf!


OH AND I JUST REALISED IV PAST 1,000 POSTS! LOL!
ACTUALLY 1016POST!

Sam Vimes

skelliser wrote: »

i feel that the last few posts about people suddenly arriving and saying stuff is directed towards me.

I don't think it is tbh. Everyone has to arrive at some point, they're talking about people who drop in, give stupid one-liners and then leave

Sam Vimes

skelliser wrote: »

This thread was created cause i believe that the yes campaign is once again being arrogant and making more if not the same mistakes as the last time re. see my intial posts on this thread.

The posters from the government with snappy slogans on them are stupid but with regard to the way people on boards respond to nonsensical arguments from some no voters, it's not arrogance, the word you're looking for is "correct" :P

P. Breathnach

skelliser wrote: »

... i feel that the last few posts about people suddenly arriving and saying stuff is directed towards me. ...

Would it disappoint you greatly to learn that I was not thinking about you?

skelliser

thanks!

i just feel that if been under attack all day, like for some reason i was debating percentages and turnout, rather then any of the points i made

I wanted this debate to be specifically about the yes campaign.

Is any other yes voter not concerned about my last point, that this vote is now about our actual membership! it hasnt been explicitly stated but it is continously being hinted at. Its sneaky stuff imo.
i would particularly like Scofflaw opinion on this as believe him to have well thought out opinions.

If it is rejected again we will not be kicked out of europe. This is a fact. To insinuate that our position is in question is a lie.

Scofflaw

skelliser wrote: »

thanks!

i just feel that if been under attack all day, like for some reason i was debating percentages and turnout, rather then any of the points i made

I wanted this debate to be specifically about the yes campaign.

Is any other yes voter not concerned about my last point, that this vote is now about our actual membership! it hasnt been explicitly stated but it is continously being hinted at. Its sneaky stuff imo.
i would particularly like Scofflaw opinion on this as believe him to have well thought out opinions.

If it is rejected again we will not be kicked out of europe. This is a fact. To insinuate that our position is in question is a lie.

Kind of you to say so! You're right - the official Yes posters and the official Yes campaigns are once again something of a disappointment, although not quite as dreadful as last time. Nor does the fact that the No campaigns have little or nothing to do with the Treaty make that any more acceptable - two wrongs don't make a right.

You're also correct that we can't be thrown out of the EU - although I don't have any doubt at this stage that a second No will have a big impact on our relationship with Europe, and for the worse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

skelliser wrote: »

thanks!

i just feel that if been under attack all day, like for some reason i was debating percentages and turnout, rather then any of the points i made

I wanted this debate to be specifically about the yes campaign.

Is any other yes voter not concerned about my last point, that this vote is now about our actual membership! it hasnt been explicitly stated but it is continously being hinted at. Its sneaky stuff imo.
i would particularly like Scofflaw opinion on this as believe him to have well thought out opinions.

If it is rejected again we will not be kicked out of europe. This is a fact. To insinuate that our position is in question is a lie.

This whole thread would have went down a whole lot better if this was the first post. Can you see how starting off the a thread by stating that everybody on the Yes side thinks all NO campaigners are idiots, is not condusive to good debate and might get peoples backs up a little.

Since this thread is back on track, this is a very valid point that I will respond to later this evening.

ghost_ie

I agree that we will not (and cannot) be kicked out of the EU if we reject the Treaty again. That's simply scaremongering.

Can someone on the "yes" side tell me how voting to ratify the Treaty will be good for the economy? Personally I think we're so far down the tubes that whichever way we vote the IMF will be governing us very shortly

K-9

There probably is a certain attitude from the YES Side, just as there probably is a certain attitude from the NO side.

Scofflaw

ghost_ie wrote: »

I agree that we will not (and cannot) be kicked out of the EU if we reject the Treaty again. That's simply scaremongering.

Can someone on the "yes" side tell me how voting to ratify the Treaty will be good for the economy? Personally I think we're so far down the tubes that whichever way we vote the IMF will be governing us very shortly

First, because it will allow the EU to act more decisively - and therefore coherently - on the current recession, partly through the new decision-making arrangements, but largely because it means that the EU can stop navel-gazing about reform and get back to work.

Second, the new competences. Pan-European energy policy will help smooth out a lot of cyclical and external shocks in the European economy if it's done right, and the emphasis on renewables like wind and wave is probably an opportunity for Ireland. The new supporting competences in tourism and sport are beneficial as well, particularly the former.

Third, the new commitment to full employment means EU action aimed at that. Since we're suffering a worse 'employment shock' than most of the other EU countries, we could expect to benefit from that particularly.

Fourth, and peripherally, a Yes vote earns us continued goodwill, which will be important in the WTO and CFP negotiations coming up next year.

Fifth, and on goodwill again, the more goodwill, the more likely the other member states are to ensure that we don't fall into the hands of the IMF.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

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?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61903588&postcount=100

Het-Field wrote: »

Nutty Famer seeks to Judicially Review the decision to hold 2nd Referendum
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0901/eulisbon.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/farmer-fails-to-remove-judge--in-cruelty-case-1308894.html

Another No To Lisbon Loon seeks to become the new Ray Crotty.

Red Sleeping Beauty

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's quite difficult for them to be otherwise. Lisbon is essentially a housekeeping operation, and it's not easy to make housekeeping exciting.

The Lisbon Treaty institutionalises and legalises the European Defence Agency (or "codifies" it)and requires each member state to progress their military capabilities. Why can't a Yes campaign suggest this as a good reason to vote for the Treaty ? Why can't the Yes campaigns talk about fighting terrorism ? (Article 28b.)

Macha

Alan Rouge wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61903588&postcount=100

Um...that person was saying "another crazy No person". I'm afraid that isn't the same as saying all No voters are crazy, no matter what way you look at it.

ixtlan

skelliser wrote: »

Is any other yes voter not concerned about my last point, that this vote is now about our actual membership! it hasnt been explicitly stated but it is continously being hinted at. Its sneaky stuff imo.
i would particularly like Scofflaw opinion on this as believe him to have well thought out opinions.

If it is rejected again we will not be kicked out of europe. This is a fact. To insinuate that our position is in question is a lie.

Well, certainly we will not be kicked out of Europe, and the vote is not about our membership, but what the yes campaigns are dancing around is the idea that a second no vote will have very serious consequences for Ireland's future treaty negotiations.

Whether people agree with it or not, the other EU states choose to ratify by parliament. In those states there does not appear to be any significant number of people clamouring for a change. There are always some elements, but the turning point would be if it became a general election issue in those states. There's no indication that it will ever become so. So they will continue to ratify by parliament.

So all their governments speak for their people and ours does not speak for ours. We must approve the treaty as signed by the government.

Sure, this is good in some ways. We get to review the treaty, consider it, and make sure it's not too radical. We also get to clarify or perhaps in extreme cases change points at issue. This system works well as long as we approve by referendum, either the first time, or maybe even the second time after clarifications.

If we vote no a second time this is thrown into doubt. There are some options.

1/ We accept the EU as is and never make any more changes. This is just not acceptable. Even the No side has lots of complaints about how the EU is run. Organisations must change with the times or become obsolete.

2/ We allow the others to proceed without us in some areas. Yes, it is true we cannot be forced to do this. Any changes must be unanimous, but would we really want this attitude taken? That we will block any EU progress indefinitely?

3/ We draft a new treaty. This is what the No side wants it seems. A completely new treaty with no elements of Lisbon at all. That is a rather tall task, considering that almost a decade of discussion went into Lisbon. How can it possibly be the case that there is nothing... repeat nothing... in Lisbon worth keeping, which appears to be the view of the No side.

Continuing point 3, even if we did start negotiating a new treaty, we now have a massive massive problem. Negotiations might take another 5 years, and at the end the 26 (or more by then) states will sign up and then look nervously at Ireland knowing that all their work may once again be dismissed by the Irish electorate. This has to influence the other states in their attitude to the Irish. If I were a French diplomat I know my position would be to exclude Ireland from as many aspects of the new treaty as possibly... though the poor guy probably will realise that the Irish may vote no on the basis of getting "excluded" from anything.

I'm not saying you have to vote Yes because of this scenario. I'm just pointing out that if you vote No for valid concerns you have, you should realise that you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. So consider which is worse.


Ix.

Keewee6

[Qoute]We draft a new treaty. This is what the No side wants it seems. A completely new treaty with no elements of Lisbon at all.[/Qoute] seems like the best idea all round even if it takes 3-4 yrs

Stark

More like 10 years probably.

Also, what would people like to see in the new treaty? Will people partake in the Convention on the future of Europe process this time round instead of waiting till the treaty is finalised and put to referendum before coming out of the woodwork? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Future_of_Europe . http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN

As a point of curiosity, what do the No campaigners want to see in the new Treaty?

Keewee6

have a consultation throughout the whole of europe _ a questionnaire if you will

Keewee6

if it takes four yrs - so be it

marco_polo

Keewee6 wrote: »

[Qoute]We draft a new treaty. This is what the No side wants it seems. A completely new treaty with no elements of Lisbon at all.[/Qoute] seems like the best idea all round even if it takes 3-4 yrs

Well presumeably such a treaty would also adjust the structure of the EU institutions in some way, make changes to the competencies and voting arrangements of the EU and all the mundane stuff that EU treaties do. I haven't heard any positive suggestions from those saying this as to what any such new deal should contain. It is all vague soundbytes like making the EU more democratic and transparent, two issues that Lisbon already addresses very well IMO. What would be the starting point of the Irish negotiators if there was a blank slate?

And even at the end of all that, the majority of countries would still go ahead and ratify a new treaty without a referendum as per their usual parliamentary mechanism.

Stark

Keewee6 wrote: »

have a consultation throughout the whole of europe _ a questionnaire if you will

They already had a consultation.

You haven't answered what are your reasons for rejecting the current treaty and what your desires for a new treaty are.

Keewee6

Stark wrote: »

They already had a consultation.

You haven't answered what are your reasons for rejecting the current treaty and what your desires for a new treaty are.

it was rejected already

Stark

That's not answering the question. What do you want to see in the new treaty?

Keewee6

Stark wrote: »

That's not answering the question. What do you want to see in the new treaty?

lisbon is about making eu more efficient yea - i say leave it the way it is - ill vote no

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty institutionalises and legalises the European Defence Agency (or "codifies" it)and requires each member state to progress their military capabilities. Why can't a Yes campaign suggest this as a good reason to vote for the Treaty ? Why can't the Yes campaigns talk about fighting terrorism ? (Article 28b.)

The Treaty makes little difference to the EDA, which is already institutionalised, legalised, and codified. The "progressively improve their military capabilities" is purely aspirational, as per the Guarantees - not that military improvement has ever been a big vote-catcher in Ireland anyway.

There's no concentration on the anti-terrorism measures because we've largely opted out of them - and possibly also they sound a little bit too much like a dig at Sinn Fein.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Draft a new treaty...

Keewee6 wrote: »

seems like the best idea all round even if it takes 3-4 yrs

Can you see the problem with drafting a new treaty that MUST exclude everything that was in Lisbon?

And as for how long it will take, Lisbon took almost 10...

And when this new treaty is agreed, how do we know the Irish will approve?

So, we are back to your statement "leave it as it is"... Suppose the others do not want to? Suppose some of the states refuse to accept new members under the current rules. Are you happy that Ireland will be refusing to discuss any changes at all? And blocking the accession of new countries?

Ix.