Thanks Alive for helping me make my mind up

ilovelamp2000

P. Breathnach wrote: »

At this stage, putting distance between myself and Cóir, Sinn Féin, Joe Higgins & Co, People Before Profit, Alive, UKIP, Patricia McKenna, and the other lunatic fringe people seems to be a sufficient reason to vote yes.

The fact that Lisbon is some fairly unexciting but useful housekeeping has become a secondary reason.

I think it's a little bit of an understatement to call it "housekeeping".

And I see where you're coming from with regard to the lunatic fringe, it's a pity there are no credible candidates/ groups calling for a no vote, because there are plenty of good reasons to do so.

jhegarty

P. Breathnach wrote: »

At this stage, putting distance between myself and Cóir, Sinn Féin, Joe Higgins & Co, People Before Profit, Alive, UKIP, Patricia McKenna, and the other lunatic fringe people seems to be a sufficient reason to vote yes.

The fact that Lisbon is some fairly unexciting but useful housekeeping has become a secondary reason.

Whatever you think about those groups , they have done far less damage to the county then TD's who are telling you to vote yes.

Either way, your option of the campaigners on either side should not influence your decision. This is not an election , the "winning side" won't be be running the country after the vote.

eightyfish

oscarBravo wrote: »

More so xenophobia, in fairness.

Fair enough.

Orion

Rosco1982 wrote: »

And that means it's something he believes ?

I thought it was just a "thanks" thing.

Yes and no. Belief is nothing to do with it - belief is in untangibles. Agreement would be more appropriate. But the thanks was mainly for a clear and concise summary of some of the major yse arguments for the Treaty. If someone did an equally concise summary of the arguments against I'd thank that too.

Rosco1982 wrote: »

It looks to me that the OP is making a decision based on a whim, because one group of idiots annoyed him a bit. I think it's a shame someone would make an important decision based on that.

As I said I voted no last time and still believe I was right then. However, things have moved on since then. I still don't believe that Lisbon in perfect - there are still things that concern me. I don't agree with certain aspects of the treaty or the political statements concerning them - e.g. the EDF.

However I had already been leaning towards the opinion that the good outweighs the bad in the treaty. The ad in Alive was just confirmation of an pre-existing suspicion that most of the No side can't actually find substantive arguments against the treaty and therefore have to resort to lies about things that the treaty has nothing to do with. Coir are another perfect example of that. Others have rational arguments and that is welcome - e.g. CAUEC. Brendan Young of CAEUC has even been a visitor in my home and his arguments against Lisbon are based on interpretations and facts within the treaty rather than emotive bull**** like Alive and Eire go Brach (for example, CAUEC have a statement on their website titled: "Immigration and abortion not part of Lisbon debate"). But the bad eggs are in the majority in the no campaign.

Anyway - my decision is not a whim. It is based on my understanding of the treaty and the arguments for and against - but I only accept rational arguments. Ads like that one count against a campaign in my book. My decision may change but I've yet to see a good reason to vote against it again this time. If I do then who knows.

nesf

Macros42 wrote: »

However I had already been leaning towards the opinion that the good outweighs the bad in the treaty.

This is a crucial point in the debate. Some on the No side would have you think that if there's any bad in a Treaty that you must vote No when in reality no Treaty is going to be uniformly good for every person and we must come to a personal judgement on whether the Treaty is on balance rather than in its totality good for the country.

Orion

I've mentioned a couple of times that there are things I don't agree with still and that there are good points so perhaps I should clarify to avoid similar misunderstanding of my op.

Bad:
1. Permanent President. I don't necessarily trust politicians to not prioritise their own countries concerns even as president of the EU. There is also no clearly defined mechanism for selecting a president or clear definitions of the roles and powers of the position. These should be crystal clear imo.
2. Self-amendment. It is, in certain circumstances, self-amending. While these amendments cannot increase the competencies of the EU despite some arguments to the contrary it is still a concern that a treaty would have a clause allowing it to be amended without a new treaty.
3. Military: I don't accept our own govts statements that this means a triple lock mechanism. It is a military intervention agreement which does not require UN approval. I do believe it increases links between the EU and NATO which I do not believe is a good thing.

Good:
1. Public voting in the Council. About time. This will finally mean that Ministers are accountable to their own citizens.
2. Parliament: Increased power is only right as it is the only democratically elected body in the EU.
3. Fundamental Rights. These will now be legally binding.
4. High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs. We need one. When the next Henry Kissinger asks "Who do I ring to speak to Europe?" we'd have an answer.

This is just a summary of my opinions cos I'm heading to the pub now and don't want to waste any more valuable drinking time But it might clarify some of my earlier posts.

Orion

nesf wrote: »

This is a crucial point in the debate. Some on the No side would have you think that if there's any bad in a Treaty that you must vote No when in reality no Treaty is going to be uniformly good for every person and we must come to a personal judgement on whether the Treaty is on balance rather than in its totality good for the country.

Absolutely. It's thicker than the New York white pages - no way it's going to keep everyone happy It has to be judged whether, on balance, it more good than bad or vice versa.

ilovelamp2000

If your decision is based on your understanding of the treaty, how have Alive helped you make up your mind ?

That seems contradictory to me.

Surely the contents of the Treaty are what matter, not some propaganda from either side. Let's face it, both sides are full of **** and don't bother setting out the reasons for a yes or no vote in any meaningful way. The No campaign is embarrassing, but the Yes campaign is nothing but banal platitudes.

The more I think about it, the more I don't actually think I'll vote. The country is ****ed regardless of which way we vote.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rosco1982 wrote: »

If your decision is based on your understanding of the treaty, how have Alive helped you make up your mind ?

That seems contradictory to me.

Surely the contents of the Treaty are what matter, not some propaganda from either side. Let's face it, both sides are full of **** and don't bother setting out the reasons for a yes or no vote in any meaningful way. The No campaign is embarrassing, but the Yes campaign is nothing but banal platitudes.

The more I think about it, the more I don't actually think I'll vote. The country is ****ed regardless of which way we vote.

If you don't vote you allow someone else to speak for you, get informed, form an opinion and vote, every vote really does count!

nesf

Rosco1982 wrote: »

If your decision is based on your understanding of the treaty, how have Alive helped you make up your mind ?

I think he meant it more that it was the straw that broke the camel's back rather than the Alive ad being the main reason he's planning on voting Yes.

ilovelamp2000

Macros42 wrote: »

I've mentioned a couple of times that there are things I don't agree with still and that there are good points so perhaps I should clarify to avoid similar misunderstanding of my op.

Bad:
1. Permanent President. I don't necessarily trust politicians to not prioritise their own countries concerns even as president of the EU. There is also no clearly defined mechanism for selecting a president or clear definitions of the roles and powers of the position. These should be crystal clear imo.
2. Self-amendment. It is, in certain circumstances, self-amending. While these amendments cannot increase the competencies of the EU despite some arguments to the contrary it is still a concern that a treaty would have a clause allowing it to be amended without a new treaty.
3. Military: I don't accept our own govts statements that this means a triple lock mechanism. It is a military intervention agreement which does not require UN approval. I do believe it increases links between the EU and NATO which I do not believe is a good thing.

Good:
1. Public voting in the Council. About time. This will finally mean that Ministers are accountable to their own citizens.
2. Parliament: Increased power is only right as it is the only democratically elected body in the EU.
3. Fundamental Rights. These will now be legally binding.
4. High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs. We need one. When the next Henry Kissinger asks "Who do I ring to speak to Europe?" we'd have an answer.

This is just a summary of my opinions cos I'm heading to the pub now and don't want to waste any more valuable drinking time But it might clarify some of my earlier posts.

This is my main issue.

You say it's a good thing that the Parliament's power is increased, which in fairness it is but I think it's too little.

The only democratically elected body in the EU is the one with the least power. That's a farce.

ilovelamp2000

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If you don't vote you allow someone else to speak for you, get informed, form an opinion and vote, every vote really does count!

I've studied this nonsense for quite a while. I'm just tired of it all.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rosco1982 wrote: »

This is my main issue.

You say it's a good thing that the Parliament's power is increased, which in fairness it is but I think it's too little.

The only democratically elected body in the EU is the one with the least power. That's a farce.

A step in the right direction is still in the right direction.

If you say no you are saying yes to the Nice rules, which are worse.

ei.sdraob

Rosco1982 wrote: »

I've studied this nonsense for quite a while. I'm just tired of it all.

well if you think Lisbon, EU and European politics is nonsense

then

1. why are you posting in this forum?

2. maybe you should go on extended holidays to North Korea, people really need to learn to appreciate what they have


it takes the whole of a teabreak for anyone to readup on the treaty and make up a mind and then go and vote

Orion

Rosco1982 wrote: »

If your decision is based on your understanding of the treaty, how have Alive helped you make up your mind ?

That seems contradictory to me.

Because my understanding of the treaty makes me realise just how full of crap that ad is. And if they don't have a reasoned argument then I will listen to the people who do. Not contradictory at all I don't think.

And do vote. I'm firmly of the opinion that if you don't vote you lost the right to complain about the result.


[edit]I'm not stalling - the people I'm going to the pub with are still working :rolleyes: ... oh here they come now

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... maybe you should go on extended holidays to North Korea, people really need to learn to appreciate what they have ...

That's a bit too close to the "America: love it or leave it" sentiment for my liking.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's a bit too close to the "America: love it or leave it" sentiment for my liking.

its the only sentiment far right groups understand

Sam Vimes

Rosco1982 wrote: »

I think it's a little bit of an understatement to call it "housekeeping".

And I see where you're coming from with regard to the lunatic fringe, it's a pity there are no credible candidates/ groups calling for a no vote, because there are plenty of good reasons to do so.

The way I see it, if there were plenty of good reasons to vote no, there would be plenty of credible groups calling for a no vote. Since the groups that are most against the treaty can't give me a reason to vote against it that's true, it screams to me that there's nothing wrong with this treaty. I doubt they would feel the need to lie if there was something genuinely bad in the treaty

P. Breathnach

Macros42 wrote: »

... 2. Self-amendment. It is, in certain circumstances, self-amending. While these amendments cannot increase the competencies of the EU despite some arguments to the contrary it is still a concern that a treaty would have a clause allowing it to be amended without a new treaty...

The treaty is not self-amending. Somebody came up with a catchy term for the purposes of negative campaigning. Any amendment must be fully agreed between the members in the same way as any other international agreement. All that is involved is a simpler procedure for some classes of amendment: it is intended to make tidying-up a bit easier, should that prove necessary or desirable.

For Ireland, any amendment that would require a referendum under existing procedures would still require a referendum. A point that has not often been mentioned is that under Nice and precursor treaties, the government has a right to assent to some types of change without needing a referendum -- if the change does not involve a sovereignty issue. Much of what is in Lisbon could be put through without a referendum.

irish_bob

oscarBravo wrote: »

We need a head-to-head debate between Alive and Joe Higgins.

crazy and crazier

seriously though , ive read ALIVE once or twice , it is a scurrilous publication and stuffed with propoganda of the kind you witness on american bible tv channells , anyone dumb enough to be influenced by alive when it comes to lisbon isnt capable of voting

Daftendirekt

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

http://www.alive.ie/archives/Alive!%20Sept%2009.pdf

Page 14

That was terrifying.

On the bright side though, I learned that I don't have to be a bully! (page 6)

meglome

irish_bob wrote: »

crazy and crazier

seriously though , ive read ALIVE once or twice , it is a scurrilous publication and stuffed with propoganda of the kind you witness on american bible tv channells , anyone dumb enough to be influenced by alive when it comes to lisbon isnt capable of voting

Unfortunately they are capable and entitled, they just shouldn't.

ilovelamp2000

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The way I see it, if there were plenty of good reasons to vote no, there would be plenty of credible groups calling for a no vote. Since the groups that are most against the treaty can't give me a reason to vote against it that's true, it screams to me that there's nothing wrong with this treaty. I doubt they would feel the need to lie if there was something genuinely bad in the treaty

That's a disappointingly simple approach.

And probably a popular one too.

Scofflaw

Rosco1982 wrote: »

That's a disappointingly simple approach.

And probably a popular one too.

It's not a particularly insane one, though, if you follow all the logic of it.

If the EU has been good for Ireland, then it's unlikely (probabilistically) that this Treaty turns it into an evil empire. Instead, it probably allows the EU to do more of the same OK things.

If there were serious gotchas in the Treaty, then they'd be identified by this stage, and people would be pointing them out. Instead, the No side are making fewer claims about the Treaty this time round, and many of those are palpably insane - plus, many of the claims made at the first vote are now known to be false, and they were by the same people.

All of that suggests that the Treaty contains only stuff that allows the EU to go on pretty much as before, which is something the majority of people agree is OK. Nothing unreasonable about voting Yes on that basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw