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

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

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

Indeed. For sovereigntists, the mere existence of a binding vote is the problem.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

No I think Yes vote went down last time because Yes campaign didn't do their home work. The guarantees that we have this time round should have been there last time. And what is noticeable with near three weeks to go is all we have been getting through the postboxes so far are a "postcard" and a booklet. Not good. Was up to current adminstration to get proper literature to everyone ie a condensed version to folks. Instead they cut the forum on Europe because of "cuts in expenditure".
As for OP's original statement (and assume OP will contribute a bit more on the thread OP started), the poster who was linked in original post was obviously not sold on the digest or didn't like angle of it.
Just as its up to the No side to present a good case, its up to the yes Campaign to do the same. Some of the posters I have seen are just so general and sweeping that there is no point to them.
Yes to the Economy is making the assumption that Lisbon is going to sort the huge mess we are in.
And that cant be so. The Nama leglislation as it stands will surely fail if it heaps all the responsibility on the taxpayer.
And from what I understand, these "valuations" are not based on any real figures as such. Banks will be wanting to get as much back on their losses.
What lisbon does here is merely in terms of the economy is put some wrapping paper on a big box that really doesn't have much in it as things stand.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

No I think Yes vote went down last time because Yes campaign didn't do their home work. The guarantees that we have this time round should have been there last time..

I unfortunately agree, they should be copy/pasted into every future treaty, embarrassing as that would be, for us as a nation.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

No I think Yes vote went down last time because Yes campaign didn't do their home work. The guarantees that we have this time round should have been there last time.

I know the yes campaign was useless. They didn't sell the treaty properly and they were fighting against a campaign of lies. When you say the guarantees should have been there last time, they were there last time, except for the change about the commissioner all they do is confirm what's already in the treaty to counter the lies about it. And now there's a new lie that the guarantees aren't really guarantees and people are believing that lie

The biggest reason given last time for the no vote was lack of understanding but all of the major treaty issues were out there and well publicised and I'm sure most people knew what they were. The problem was there was so much misinformation that people didn't know who to believe so they opted for what they considered to be the safer option and voted no. Personally I see the safe option as going with the organisation that has helped us so massively over the last 36 years instead of the naysayers who've been against every treaty since we joined the EU but unfortunately people didn't agree.

Ironically the problem of the treaty being "too big and complicated" is actually addressed in the treaty by the introduction of the simplified revision procedure so by voting no because it's too complicated people are dooming themselves to complicated treaties going into the future

bayviewclose wrote: »

And what is noticeable with near three weeks to go is all we have been getting through the postboxes so far are a "postcard" and a booklet. Not good. Was up to current adminstration to get proper literature to everyone ie a condensed version to folks. Instead they cut the forum on Europe because of "cuts in expenditure".

www.lisbontreaty2009.ie, it's all there. Besides which the booklet I got mentioned the major issues of the treaty and there is an extended version. People seem to have an impression that the booklets are lacking because they don't include all the things they've been hearing about in the campaign. They don't seem to realise that they're not included because they're not true

bayviewclose wrote: »

As for OP's original statement (and assume OP will contribute a bit more on the thread OP started), the poster who was linked in original post was obviously not sold on the digest or didn't like angle of it.
Just as its up to the No side to present a good case, its up to the yes Campaign to do the same. Some of the posters I have seen are just so general and sweeping that there is no point to them.

It is not up to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael to sell the treaty. Honestly I wish they would stay out of it because they're doing more harm than good. It is the democratic responsibility of the people to educate themselves on this issue before casting their vote. The information is out there, it just can't be condensed on a poster. A major problem for the yes campaign is that this treaty isn't very exciting. No one cares about the ins and outs of the simplified revision procedure versus the ordinary revision procedure but "THEY FOUGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM. DON'T THROW IT AWAY!!!!" fits nicely on a poster and is vague and scary enough to convince people.

Anyone who wants to find out what's in this treaty can do so and it is their duty to do so. It's no one else's responsibility to spoon feed it to them. It's just childish to sit there waiting for Brian Cowen to go through the treaty word for word with you and reject it until he does. This treaty has nothing to do with Brian Cowen and through his continued involvement he's going to bring down the treaty along with his government

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes to the Economy is making the assumption that Lisbon is going to sort the huge mess we are in.
And that cant be so.

Why not? This and this are why I think it might improve the economy. Do you know that it won't? Btw I wish people would apply your "that can't be so" logic to the vast majority of the no campaign, which actually isn't so. I can say definitively that those things won't happen and have done but people believe them anyway and call me arrogant for saying they won't

hobochris

I will be voting NO because I don't like QMF, I don't feel its in our best interests as a country(If this was taken out the treaty Id be a YES voter).

I love that fact that because of this I must be Sinn feinn supporter according to those voting yes... Threads like this actually diminish the yes campaign IMO, As do those on the No side.

I feel like people on both sides who do this slanderous tarnishing with a wide brush of the other side need to have their heads collectively smacked together.

I have respect for anyone on either side that has done their own research on the matter and has a valid reason for how they are voting, Not those who jump on the bandwagon of what their peer's tell them.

People who vote yes to "stay in the heart of Europe"(Convenient phrase with little to back it up, the fact is we are in Europe already and favoritism of one country over another would be against what the EU is about) or "Vote yes to improve the economy"(This is bull****, Unless the government/the EU want to admit to some dodgy dealing they have going on pending a yes vote, the economy wont change because of Lisbon, it will change when the rest of the world picks up) or "vote no to spite the government" Have zero respect with me, I think they are all idiots, The first two statements reasons are invalid and the last one is moronic(Yes the government need to be reshuffled, but Lisbon isn't going to do it).

hobochris

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why not? This and this are why I think it might improve the economy. Do you know that it won't? Btw I wish people would apply your "that can't be so" logic to the vast majority of the no campaign, which actually isn't so. I can say definitively that those things won't happen and have done but people believe them anyway and call me arrogant for saying they won't

Because as our TD's remind us so often(when trying to dodge blame for their part of this economic mess) we are in a global recession, we are so tied into foreign industry that we wont recover until they do And even then forget about the boom years times like those are gone. There is precisely zero Lisbon can do to make these mostly American companies in Ireland start pumping money into Ireland again anytime soon.

As far as your links, which to refer to as if facts the first is speculation at best and the second is no more then an opinion of the situation at hand(do you know what way other countries would vote if they could? most would vote the same we did last time).

Sam Vimes

hobochris wrote: »

Because as our TD's remind us so often(when trying to dodge blame for their part of this economic mess) we are in a global recession, we are so tied into foreign industry that we wont recover until they do

They're already recovering, we're not.

hobochris wrote: »

And even then forget about the boom years times like those are gone. Their is precisely zero Lisbon can do to make these mostly American companies in Ireland start pumping money into Ireland again.

I never said anything about boom times, I'm talking about recovery. And my post suggests that it's might not be the case that "There is precisely zero Lisbon can do to make these mostly American companies in Ireland start pumping money into Ireland again" and you haven't really addressed that

hobochris wrote: »

As far as your links, which to refer to as if facts the first is speculation at best

Yes of course it's speculation,all I can do about future events is speculate but what it's not is "bull****, Unless the government/the EU want to admit to some dodgy dealing they have going on pending a yes vote"

hobochris wrote: »

and the second is no more then an opinion of the situation at hand(do you know what way other countries would vote if they could? most would vote the same we did last time).

What way those countries would have voted is entirely irrelevant, I'm talking about the political and legal situation in those countries going forward and the only thing that effects that is whether or not their country accepted the treaty and whether it's likely to accept future ones

ixtlan

hobochris wrote: »

As far as your links, which to refer to as if facts the first is speculation at best and the second is no more then an opinion of the situation at hand(do you know what way other countries would vote if they could? most would vote the same we did last time).

I note with amusment that you make a somewhat valid point that we cannot know what way other countries would vote... then add that they would vote as we did... invalidating your own point...

I would add that what we do know is that the electorates in the other states do not consider voting on treaties an important enough issue to bother demanding a vote.

ix.

Sam Vimes

Put simply hobochris, the rest of the countries in Europe seem to have one vision of where the EU should be going into the future* and this tiny little country out on the peripheries whose only real value comes in allowing access to the others seems to have another vision. It's fighting against change but one small country can't fight 26 forever. They can't force us to make the changes but they can exclude us and make them without us. Do you not think that can have any effect on a businessman's decision to invest here?

*Not necessarily the people although I'd be of the opinion that they would accept the treaty if there weren't so many lies being spread about it, it's really not that drastic or exciting. We can't know for sure either way. The governments have accepted the treaty and that's what matters because they're the ones making the decisions

O'Morris

Sam Vimes wrote:

Put simply hobochris, the rest of the countries in Europe seem to have one vision of where the EU should be going into the future

That's not correct. All the countries of Europe have the same vision of where the EU should be going. All the governments want the Lisbon treaty to be passed.

Spiritoftheseventies

I see where you are coming from but what Im saying that linking lisbon treaty to economy and jobs is misleading. Facts are that if companies are moving operations to low cost economies, Lisbon treaty is not going to sort that out. Its a free market where profit is still the motivating factor.
Lisbon while noble in its aspirations is up against the big MNC's who are prepared to take them on at every juncture as we saw with Intel in that recent court case.
So the laws the of the jungle still apply.

Sam Vimes

O'Morris wrote: »

That's not correct. All the countries of Europe have the same vision of where the EU should be going. All the governments want the Lisbon treaty to be passed.

Yes, all of the governments in Europe want the Lisbon treaty to be passed and Ireland doesn't. We also rejected the Nice treaty so it look like Ireland is going to become the only country to have voted no to European treaties three times. Not a good image to present to companies that want to locate here because of the EU.

bayviewclose wrote: »

I see where you are coming from but what Im saying that linking lisbon treaty to economy and jobs is misleading. Facts are that if companies are moving operations to low cost economies, Lisbon treaty is not going to sort that out. Its a free market where profit is still the motivating factor.
Lisbon while noble in its aspirations is up against the big MNC's who are prepared to take them on at every juncture as we saw with Intel in that recent court case.
So the laws the of the jungle still apply.

Yes there are other factors to be considered and Lisbon won't stop companies moving to lower cost economies if that's their biggest concern. But EU membership is one of the major reasons all those companies located in Ireland, we give them access to the common market without having to pay additional taxes. They can get that in any EU country and if it's looking like we're going to be left behind by the rest of Euope they can just as easily set up in another country. Our high cost base just compounds the problem

marco_polo

hobochris wrote: »

I will be voting NO because I don't like QMF, I don't feel its in our best interests as a country(If this was taken out the treaty Id be a YES voter).

But QMV is already used extensively within the EU. If you investigate further you will find that of number of areas moving to QMV, only about two thirds apply to Ireland once our opt outs are taken into consideration. Of the remaining ones a large number of these could not really be described as being of great signifigance to the national interest.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I look at it in this way, taking the law of the jungle very much into account:

Imagine I'm an MD of an Irish subsidiary of ABC Inc. We make high tech widgets.

Ireland votes 'No' to Lisbon:
I go seeking an investment to create 30 new R&D positions on an internal project, I go to the VP of my division based in San Francisco and I say hey, John, we are good to go with this research, we have skillset, we just need to get approval and hire people. He's not sure, Ireland has always been a rock solid stable member of the EU, but now there's a degree of uncertainty, how can I be sure, he asks, that you guys will be in the EU, or something won't happen with your relationship with the EU, didn't you guys vote against them?
I tell him no, no, no, we voted against Lisbon, and the new rules etc. but here's the rub, in his other ear he's got Johan running the Austrian subsidiary, pushing to get this project moved over there, he's got a similar skillset and cost base, and he's rubbing in the fact that you can count on Austria being an influential central member of the EU, whereas Ireland is the black sheep and who knows what's going to happen there, etc.

It's not that 'Lisbon will create jobs' so much as rejecting Lisbon will create uncertainty, and where there is uncertainty, there is less investment.

People are free to agree or disagree, or even agree but still think the 'cons' of Lisbon outweigh the costs of rejection.

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

People are free to agree or disagree, or even agree but still think the 'cons' of Lisbon outweigh the costs of rejection.

Absoutely if people think that the cons of Lisbon outweigh the costs of rejection they should vote no but it blows out of the water the "if you don't know vote no" argument because it only works if voting no has no consequences. When either a yes vote or a no vote has potential consequences there is no "safe" option, you have to educate yourself and make an informed decision

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Absoutely if people think that the cons of Lisbon outweigh the costs of rejection they should vote no but it blows out of the water the "if you don't know vote no" argument because it only works if voting no has no consequences. When either a yes vote or a no vote has potential consequences there is no "safe" option, you have to educate yourself and make an informed decision

I asked this in another thread but humour me because no one answered it for me. What were the consequences of the last no vote? (Also lisbon not being passed is not a consequence even if you think it is )

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

I asked this in another thread but humour me because no one answered it for me. What were the consequences of the last no vote? (Also lisbon not being passed is not a consequence even if you think it is )

Any potential consequences may well have been mitigated by the fact that we almost immediately declared we will go again.

Unfortunately the consequences I describe will never be visible, there might just be a few less '50 jobs to be created here' announcements than there might have been otherwise. People aren't going to advertise their failures to secure investment.

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

I asked this in another thread but humour me because no one answered it for me. What were the consequences of the last no vote? (Also lisbon not being passed is not a consequence even if you think it is )

It's hard to say what the consequences were because I don't know what would have happened had it passed. I would say though that any consequences were lessened by the fact that were having a second vote. If we vote it down again that cements us as a country that's going against the grain in Europe even though being in Europe is one of our most important advantages and creates uncertainty about our future as the EU moves on and we try to fight them every step of the way. I can't say for sure what the consequences of a second no will be but neither can you say that there will be no consequences and it's the "safe" option

As I said on another thread, Ireland is becoming unpredictable and unreliable. There is now pretty much no point in having any future treaties because the Irish people didn't even read this one, they rejected it for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. They can't address our problems because they're imaginary and/or irrelevant. We're not technically breaking the rules but we're making life extremely difficult for our neighbours because we're too lazy to read the treaty and would rather get our opinion from a lie on a poster. Even if they only include things that Ireland can opt out of in future treaties they're not sure to pass because some group could easily tell us that they're not really allowing us to opt out and we might believe them as we've believed all the other lies. Besides which they don't want to limit themselves to only changes that countries can opt out of. Really the only way to have any confidence of getting a treaty passed in future is for Ireland to be excluded entirely.

So that's the consequence of a no vote. Ireland becomes the only country that has voted down three EU treaties and is putting the entire future of the EU in jeopardy because we can stall progress all we want and we're impossible to negotiate with because our objections have little or nothing to do with the treaties we're voting down. And that situation can only go on so long before the other 500 million people tell us to fcuk off and let them get on with their plans

Sam Vimes

On a side note ShooterSF, I'm sure you've been called on it but about this is your sig:

"If you don't know vote no, if passed, a treaty can not be repealed however if rejected you will have longer to make up your mind and then we can have another referendum!"

but I thought I'd mention it anyway. I hope that's supposed to be a joke because:

1. We're not going to have another referendum on Lisbon
2. How long can people possibly need to make up their minds? If they can't decide in 2 years they won't decide in 20
3. A treaty cannot be repealed but further amendments can be made to change articles if they turn out to be bad. Lisbon makes it easier to do that as a matter of fact.

So is it meant to be serious?

Spiritoftheseventies

Yes we can vote Lisbon and all our problems will go away. Really what kind of talk is this. Exclude us from further treaties. We are looking for a better treaty thats all. And anyone kick up a fuss when England didnt enter the euro market. Which impacts on our economy. Far easier to pick on small little Ireland. Its not the people who are the problem. Its the government running the country.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes we can vote Lisbon and all our problems will go away. Really what kind of talk is this. Exclude us from further treaties. We are looking for a better treaty thats all.

If that was the case there would be no problem but we've already had to get guarantees that a load of stuff we thought was in the treaty actually wasn't, lots of people now don't believe the guarantees are actually guarantees and there are a whole host of new lies to contend with this time around. Not to mention all the people who are voting no to punish FF or because other countries are having referendums, which the EU has no control over and which is irrelevant and misunderstands how those countries are run as I've explained before

We can't get a better treaty because none of our objections are in the feckin thing

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If that was the case there would be no problem but we've already had to get guarantees that a load of stuff we thought was in the treaty actually wasn't, lots of people now don't believe the guarantees are actually guarantees and there are a whole host of new lies to contend with this time around. Not to mention all the people who are voting no to punish FF or because other countries are having referendums, which the EU has no control over and which is irrelevant and misunderstands how those countries are run as I've explained before

We can't get a better treaty because none of our objections are in the feckin thing

Well I say we can. Some fishermen are obviously unhappy about having to put their catches back into the sea. So their lot can be improved.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

Well I say we can. Some fishermen are obviously unhappy about having to put their catches back into the sea. So their lot can be improved.

Do you not think the time to raise these issues was while the treaty was being negotiated so they'd be in there in the first place?

Is there anything stopping the farmers lobbying for quotas to be changed separately to Lisbon?

Do you think negotiations to increase fishing quotas are a realistic outcome of a no vote, especially since it's one of hundreds of issues people are trying to tack on? I doubt it's ever going to be the clinching issue that will make the Irish as a whole accept the treaty. Even if the government did spend months negotiating all these side issues I think it would get voted down again anyway on some other irrelevant issue

Spiritoftheseventies

Some fishermen are clearly unhappy about this. And from what i read of Mairtin's comments awhile back (ie they're better off in 1972, fleet has been updated), there does not seem to be a will to address their concerns.
Another amendment I think that should have been introduced is to compensate Irish over losses in cross border shopping due to sterling rate aligned with Britains decision to change their vat rates.
Cowen mentioned that when vat rates were increased in Ireland they were increased with the knowledge that UK vat rates would stay stable.
In terms of Britain and Ireland there needs to a common currency especially near the border towns. They chose to remain out of the Euro market but as this directly affects us, I think this needs to be addressed.
If EU are saying we should sign this treaty should Britain be made to sign up to the Euro thereby cutting down on Cross border shopping.

Sam Vimes

bayviewclose wrote: »

Some fishermen are clearly unhappy about this. And from what i read of Mairtin's comments awhile back (ie they're better off in 1972, fleet has been updated), there does not seem to be a will to address their concerns.
Another amendment I think that should have been introduced is to compensate Irish over losses in cross border shopping due to sterling rate aligned with Britains decision to change their vat rates.
Cowen mentioned that when vat rates were increased in Ireland they were increased with the knowledge that UK vat rates would stay stable.
In terms of Britain and Ireland there needs to a common currency especially near the border towns. They chose to remain out of the Euro market but as this directly affects us, I think this needs to be addressed.
If EU are saying we should sign this treaty should Britain be made to sign up to the Euro thereby cutting down on Cross border shopping.

Firstly I think it's ridiculous that you think we should be compensated because our neighbour has a different currency. But anyway, these are all issues that have nothing to do with the treaty. The time to lobby for these is when the treaties are being written, not as a side issue two years later. We're being asked to vote on the content of the Lisbon treaty, not every pet peeve we might have with the EU and the Irish government.

You say there's no political will to help the farmers. Well that most likely won't change if that's one issue that a few people give for voting no. When the surveys are done it will be listed under "other". The government will always rightly address the biggest concerns first and that's never going to be the biggest concern. It will alway be one of hundreds of minority side issues and the time to voice your opinion on that is during a general election when you can directly lobby your TD and vote him out if he doesn't do anything.

Also, if the farmers want changes the simplified revision procedure will make them easier to get

Spiritoftheseventies

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly I think it's ridiculous that you think we should be compensated because our neighbour has a different currency. But anyway, these are all issues that have nothing to do with the treaty. The time to lobby for these is when the treaties are being written, not as a side issue two years later. We're being asked to vote on the content of the Lisbon treaty, not every pet peeve we might have with the EU and the Irish government.

You say there's no political will to help the farmers. Well that most likely won't change if that's one issue that a few people give for voting no. When the surveys are done it will be listed under "other". The government will always rightly address the biggest concerns first and that's never going to be the biggest concern. It will alway be one of hundreds of minority side issues and the time to voice your opinion on that is during a general election when you can directly lobby your TD and vote him out if he doesn't do anything.

Also, if the farmers want changes the simplified revision procedure will make them easier to get

No I said there doesn't seem to be a political will to help a certain group of fishermen. And as far as the Sterling goes, I think there is a case for something to be done to on the Cross border situation re Sterling. How much are we losing on it every week. Obviously it must be looked into it. Wouldn't call it a pet peeve at all. Jobs will ultimately end up being lost if situation continues.

PopeBuckfastXVI

bayviewclose wrote: »

No I said there doesn't seem to be a political will to help a certain group of fishermen. And as far as the Sterling goes, I think there is a case for something to be done to on the Cross border situation re Sterling. How much are we losing on it every week. Obviously it must be looked into it. Wouldn't call it a pet peeve at all. Jobs will ultimately end up being lost if situation continues.

Swings and roundabouts on the border, always has been, we don't complain when it goes our way and we shouldn't when it doesn't, in my opinion.

The fisherman, unfortunately for them, have participated in overfishing the waters, if they want to have any fish to go after in 30 years they need to chill out now. Now you can argue the toss about the proportion taken by our EU patner fishermen, but the fact remains that it's nothing to do with Lisbon, and the time to make it part of Lisbon was 2 years ago and before.

Alternatively you can use the simplified amendment procedure of Lisbon to change the rules later.

ei.sdraob

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Swings and roundabouts on the border, always has been, we don't complain when it goes our way and we shouldn't when it doesn't, in my opinion.

The fisherman, unfortunately for them, have participated in overfishing the waters, if they want to have any fish to go after in 30 years they need to chill out now. Now you can argue the toss about the proportion taken by our EU patner fishermen, but the fact remains that it's nothing to do with Lisbon, and the time to make it part of Lisbon was 2 years ago and before.

Alternatively you can use the simplified amendment procedure of Lisbon to change the rules later.

ah jebus

let them fish all they want

and sure if there no fish left can always blame it on the spaniards

theres no need to be sensible or responsible or think of the future

anyways dont mind me, fishing has feck all to do with Lisbon, Coir and their 200billion fantasy is just that a fantasy and a lie

Dyr

Note to the OP: you stated that the NO side (there's a unified side now?) have insulted people, care to point out examples where people have been insulted by NO campaigners?

meglome

Bambi wrote: »

Note to the OP: you stated that the NO side (there's a unified side now?) have insulted people, care to point out examples where people have been insulted by NO campaigners?

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/1685/89257.jpg

OR how about...

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...

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


...

You gonna tell me that all of these treaty's were so bad?

Maybe it's time for some honesty from the No side.