A question to the NO side? why are yee insulting people and want to keep them in dark

ei.sdraob

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 :mad:

meglome

You know this post says so much for me. The No campaign has objected to very single EU treaty, even the one joining the EU. And often, even when their concerns are met, they still object. It's like groundhog day.

I'm not political usually, it's the lies from the No campaign that have made me so active for the Yes campaign.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is a good point. When making my own decision I had very little interest in what the yes side were saying because, as bladespin pointed out, the yes campaign was a shambles run by idiots. If I wanted to find out if there was anything wrong with the treaty I needed to look at what its opponents were saying and so I did and I found that everything they were saying was one of the following:

1. A lie
2. An exaggeration
3. Taken from something that was already in force and misinterpreted (because most of Lisbon is just Nice, Amsterdam and Rome put together)
4. A red herring

And then I learned the voting pattern of the main proponents of the no side (table shamelessly stolen from Scofflaw )

Group | Accession | SEA | Maastricht | Amsterdam | Nice | Lisbon
| | | | | |
Sinn Fein | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
P McKenna | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
Anthony Coughlan/National Platform | - | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
COIR/YD/SPUC | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
PANA | - | - | - | NO | NO | NO


And I realised the entire no campaign was a pack of naysayers trying to trick people into rejecting the treaty by telling lies about it because they know that the rest of the country doesn't hate Europe like they do

And Europe has every right to ask us to reconsider when our vote was manipulated by liars with ulterior motives

ei.sdraob

You know there are some posters here who have read the treaty and have came to the conclusion that they want to vote NO or YES

and thats great! they are being a responsible citizen

hell some of them even engage in some very interesting debates here on boards, and ive respect for them

but the whole

"keep the people dump, and spoon feed them nonsense" in order to get them to vote is insulting and downright wrong TM

The reason i started this thread is as counterbalance to this thread
Attitude of the yes campaign

and after seeing yet another member trot out the same nonsense in a parallel thread

it is sickening that the NO campaign would sink so low

and their attitude and view of voters, basic principles of constitution and democracy is downright wrong

O'Morris

People should only vote yes to the treaty if they are convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs. If they're not convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs then they should vote no. The consequences for Ireland of an uninformed yes vote will be worse than the consequences of an uninformed no vote.

We might lose influence in power in Europe if we vote no. We will lose influence and power in Europe if we vote yes. We will recover from any negative consequences of a no vote but the negative consequences of a yes vote will be permanent.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

People should only vote yes to the treaty if they are convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs. If they're not convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs then they should vote no. The consequences for Ireland of an uninformed yes vote will be worse than the consequences of an uninformed no vote.

We might lose influence in power in Europe if we vote no. We will lose influence and power in Europe if we vote yes. We will recover from any negative consequences of a no vote but the negative consequences of a yes vote will be permanent.

That's a particular viewpoint, though. All you're saying is that people who don't know should choose No because the consequences of voting Yes are actually worse - according to you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

eightyfish

O'Morris wrote: »

We will lose influence and power in Europe if we vote yes.

Why would our government (and opposition) want us all to vote for ourselves to loose influence and power in Europe?

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

That's a particular viewpoint, though. All you're saying is that people who don't know should choose No because the consequences of voting Yes are actually worse - according to you.

That's correct. It's not just according to me though. It's a fact admitted by both sides that Lisbon will lead to a reduction in Ireland's voting weight while the influence of the bigger countries will be increased.

It's a fact that we will lose influence and power in the EU if we vote yes. It's not a fact that we'll lose influence and power if we vote no.

PopeBuckfastXVI

O'Morris wrote: »

That's correct. It's not just according to me though. It's a fact admitted by both sides that Lisbon will lead to a reduction in Ireland's voting weight while the influence of the bigger countries will be increased.

It's a fact that we will lose influence and power in the EU if we vote yes. It's not a fact that we'll lose influence and power if we vote no.

In an EU governed for the most part by consensus, i.e. the EU of the real world, not the CT world government world, then I believe we would gain influence with a 'yes', and influence leads to power.

Ironically, I think we would gain more influence with a 'yes' now, after the first 'no', than if we had just voted 'yes' to begin with!

How does the population voting weight fit into the double majority mechanism whereby a majority of states is also required.

Answer directly:
Could France, Britain, Germany and Italy all working together pass legislation the rest of Europe didn't want?

ixtlan

O'Morris wrote: »

That's correct. It's not just according to me though. It's a fact admitted by both sides that Lisbon will lead to a reduction in Ireland's voting weight while the influence of the bigger countries will be increased.

Can you provide any quote from the Yes side that they said this?

I don't think anybody had said that other than the No side. You may believe it and it can be argued, but it will be argued. It is not a fact admitted by both sides.

We move from a complicated algorithm granting us approx 2% in a single vote, to a double vote where we have 3.75% in the first and 0.8% in the second. The net result of which appears to be not much (if any) of a change.

Ix.

ShooterSF

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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?

Since when does "if you don't know" mean don't bother informing yourself? By all means please read up on the treaty. A no vote which carries a large group of people who were unsure leaves things open for another. It says "I wasn't sure so I erred on the side of caution". A decided no vote is much MUCH more preferable from a no point of view. It says "We are decided. We are against this treaty. Now drop it."
Can I ask how you connect "if you don't know" to an effort to keep the public uneducated?

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

That's correct. It's not just according to me though. It's a fact admitted by both sides that Lisbon will lead to a reduction in Ireland's voting weight while the influence of the bigger countries will be increased.

It's a fact that we will lose influence and power in the EU if we vote yes. It's not a fact that we'll lose influence and power if we vote no.

As ixtlan says, that's a No campaign claim, not some kind of generally agreed "fact". As far as I've seen analyses, Ireland both gains and loses from the changes, and the gains and losses are almost exactly balanced. That's true for nearly every country, because the main aim of the change is not to reweight the countries, but to have the system automatically adjust under enlargement. Currently, the system of votes on the Council means that every new entrant to the EU (or any withdrawal) requires a round of horse-trading - the new system means that they're automatically included.

People like COIR, who are claiming this reduction, are deliberately only considering one half of Ireland's voting weight. Again, as ixtlan says, there's two criteria, not just the one that appears on posters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Since when does "if you don't know" mean don't bother informing yourself? By all means please read up on the treaty. A no vote which carries a large group of people who were unsure leaves things open for another. It says "I wasn't sure so I erred on the side of caution". A decided no vote is much MUCH more preferable from a no point of view. It says "We are decided. We are against this treaty. Now drop it."
Can I ask how you connect "if you don't know" to an effort to keep the public uneducated?

Permission, essentially. It's a way of saying "it's OK not to educate yourself, because this treaty is really complex - so just vote No".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Stark

O'Morris wrote: »

People should only vote yes to the treaty if they are convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs. If they're not convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs then they should vote no. The consequences for Ireland of an uninformed yes vote will be worse than the consequences of an uninformed no vote.

Likewise they should only vote No if the costs outweigh the benefits. No-one is being forced to vote Yes or No, people can always choose not to vote if they don't hold an opinion either way.

norrie rugger

O'Morris wrote: »

That's correct. It's not just according to me though. It's a fact admitted by both sides that Lisbon will lead to a reduction in Ireland's voting weight while the influence of the bigger countries will be increased.

It's a fact that we will lose influence and power in the EU if we vote yes. It's not a fact that we'll lose influence and power if we vote no.

I don't know that you are telling the truth so I should vote "YES" so?

Spiritoftheseventies

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You know there are some posters here who have read the treaty and have came to the conclusion that they want to vote NO or YES

and thats great! they are being a responsible citizen

hell some of them even engage in some very interesting debates here on boards, and ive respect for them

but the whole

"keep the people dump, and spoon feed them nonsense" in order to get them to vote is insulting and downright wrong TM

The reason i started this thread is as counterbalance to this thread
Attitude of the yes campaign

and after seeing yet another member trot out the same nonsense in a parallel thread

it is sickening that the NO campaign would sink so low

and their attitude and view of voters, basic principles of constitution and democracy is downright wrong

Dont tar every no campaigner with same brush. This thread is complete nonsense. talk about the issues.

BlitzKrieg

is it any worse then the thread about yes campaigners hating democracy

Spiritoftheseventies

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

is it any worse then the thread about yes campaigners hating democracy

Lets be honest. Plenty of anti no campaign threads up here. Coir what is it good for is one a good example Thread title alone speaks for itself. But why have this thread. All of a sudden someone from the yes side is whinging. You have enough facts at your disposals without looking for the sympathy vote.
End of the day, If no vote goes through, it wont be down to Coir or any "headbanger" element.. People are not that stupid to believe some silly posters or half baked truths.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Lets be honest. Plenty of anti no campaign threads up here. Coir what is it good for is one a good example Thread title alone speaks for itself. But why have this thread. All of a sudden someone from the yes side is whinging. You have enough facts at your disposals without looking for the sympathy vote.
End of the day, If no vote goes through, it wont be down to Coir or any "headbanger" element.. People are not that stupid to believe some silly posters or half baked truths.

Aside, some people actually are, believe it or not.

I think the OP stems from an argument about claims that the treaty is 'too complicated' and 'if you don't know, vote no' being a wise course of action on another thread.

If you disagree with the threads existence, you might be better served letting it die, rather than bumping it to the top after several hours of inactivity.

mikemac

So where's the conscription to an European army? Where is the obligation to send our Defense forces to conflicts despite the triple lock mechanism?
Did you manage to prevent it? Wow, ye must be so proud

As I certainly remember signs and scare stories about conscription and about neutrality. Not that we are a neutral country.
If we were truely neutral we'd be capable of defending ourselves. All credit to the PDF and RDF but they'd need to be expanded.

By staying neutral means more defense spending, not less!

I remember being told for the Masstricht treay Irish unemployed would be bungled into a European army if we voted yes. Lol, that was over 15 years ago.
And the same stories still going around........

Spiritoftheseventies

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Aside, some people actually are, believe it or not.

I think the OP stems from an argument about claims that the treaty is 'too complicated' and 'if you don't know, vote no' being a wise course of action on another thread.

If you disagree with the threads existence, you might be better served letting it die, rather than bumping it to the top after several hours of inactivity.

Like I said you guys are smart enough to shout down any lies without having to resort to threads like this. End of the day thread line is badly worded. It implies that everyone on no side is insulting people and keeping them in dark. All OP has to do is reword the thread.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

Like I said you guys are smart enough to shout down any lies without having to resort to threads like this. End of the day thread line is badly worded. It implies that everyone on no side is insulting people and keeping them in dark. All OP has to do is reword the thread.

I agree, it's the sort of synecdoche that gets on my wick when I'm on the receiving end, so I can see your point of view.

Spiritoftheseventies

Yes i can understand OP frustration with poster whom he linked and while that poster was right to challenge that information that was being given to him via a synopsis (it was up to said poster to further explore the issues. To vote no is wrong in that context. OP was wrong to talk about democracy and discussion however in his original post as it was Taoiseach' s decision to close down forum on Europe thereby ruling out a proper debate on Europe.

dresden8

I used to be a No voter until I was persuaded by

"I feel safer in Europe"

"Vote Yes for Jobs"

"Vote Yes for the Economy"

"We Belong at the heart of Europe"

All compelling arguements in their own right.

Those crazy "No" types, voting on stuff that isn't in the treaty.

Like all the sh1t above.

Spiritoftheseventies

A bit off topic re the thread but end of the day those are all throw away lines. End of the day vote yes for jobs does not take away from fact that our production costs are driving companies away.
Vote yes for the economy is just a throwaway line. Under the governments watch, everything from port tunnel, to widening of m50 has gone over budget. Wage costs have rocketed. And then there is the NAMA situation which unless FF take on Greens proposals by introducing some sort of risk equalisation on behalf of banks, may not pass and as such bring down govt.
And given that FF probably wont be doing that much door to door canvassing given what happened during euro elections, its now up to FG and Labour to sell it. End of the day any poster with a FF logo on it doesn't hold much weight IMO.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

Lets be honest. Plenty of anti no campaign threads up here. Coir what is it good for is one a good example Thread title alone speaks for itself. But why have this thread. All of a sudden someone from the yes side is whinging. You have enough facts at your disposals without looking for the sympathy vote.
End of the day, If no vote goes through, it wont be down to Coir or any "headbanger" element.. People are not that stupid to believe some silly posters or half baked truths.

You might call me arrogant for saying this but if that was true we wouldn't be having this debate because the treaty would have been passed last time

Sam Vimes

dresden8 wrote: »

I used to be a No voter until I was persuaded by

"I feel safer in Europe"

"Vote Yes for Jobs"

"Vote Yes for the Economy"

"We Belong at the heart of Europe"

All compelling arguements in their own right.

Those crazy "No" types, voting on stuff that isn't in the treaty.

Like all the sh1t above.

Not in the treaty =/= irrelevant

The difference is that the claims on the yes posters could quite easily come about as a result of a yes vote, where the no posters are for the most part scaremongering and lies that are never going to happen

Having said that, I think the yes campaign's posters are stupid because, while they're possibly accurate, they're not going to convince a single person to vote yes and will probably entice people to vote no. I would prefer if it was illegal to put up posters about Lisbon tbh. The implications of a 300 page document can't be condensed onto a porter

ghost_ie

Scofflaw wrote: »

Permission, essentially. It's a way of saying "it's OK not to educate yourself, because this treaty is really complex - so just vote No".

cordially,
Scofflaw

"European Commissioner Charlie McCreevy has said that no "sane person" would want to read the European Union's Lisbon Treaty, the Irish Independent reported Saturday, May 24.
The former Irish finance minister admitted he hasn't read the entire treaty himself and said he doesn't expect "any sane and sensible person" to read it from cover to cover."

Looks like our very own Eu Commissioner doesn't expect voters to educate themselveson the Treaty, but just to vote "yes" like we are told to do. And I seem to remember Brian Cowen hadn't read the Treaty last time out either

Scofflaw

ghost_ie wrote: »

"European Commissioner Charlie McCreevy has said that no "sane person" would want to read the European Union's Lisbon Treaty, the Irish Independent reported Saturday, May 24.
The former Irish finance minister admitted he hasn't read the entire treaty himself and said he doesn't expect "any sane and sensible person" to read it from cover to cover."

Looks like our very own Eu Commissioner doesn't expect voters to educate themselveson the Treaty, but just to vote "yes" like we are told to do. And I seem to remember Brian Cowen hadn't read the Treaty last time out either

When it comes to reading Lisbon itself, rather than the consolidated version, they're probably right - reading the former is frankly a way of confusing yourself. However, those still aren't the same as arguing that people shouldn't educate themselves on the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Answer directly:
Could France, Britain, Germany and Italy all working together pass legislation the rest of Europe didn't want?

Anybody answer this? Add Poland and Spain (As if that would happen!), Hell, make it the 13 biggest countries.

Even if the 13 biggest did agree, it still can't be passed.

Is it a throwback to Empire days that we see losing our vetoe as big countries over ruling us?

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

Anybody answer this? Add Poland and Spain (As if that would happen!), Hell, make it the 13 biggest countries.

Even if the 13 biggest did agree, it still can't be passed.

Is it a throwback to Empire days that we see losing our vetoe as big countries over ruling us?

I think it's easy enough to make anyone feel they're in danger of being ruled over by other countries (the converse is never mentioned), or otherwise outvoted. At heart the objection is a sovereigntist one, and applies to any form of supranational decision-making. It's anathema to sovereigntists in principle, full stop - the details are unimportant, which is why they can't answer detailed questions about it, and why this argument comes up every single time, despite being relatively unimportant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think it's easy enough to make anyone feel they're in danger of being ruled over by other countries (the converse is never mentioned), or otherwise outvoted. At heart the objection is a sovereigntist one, and applies to any form of supranational decision-making. It's anathema to sovereigntists in principle, full stop - the details are unimportant, which is why they can't answer detailed questions about it, and why this argument comes up every single time, despite being relatively unimportant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I see your point. It doesn't matter that we can block the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain, it is irrelevant.