I'm voting 'no' for one reason only...

StealthRolex

havingfun247 wrote: »

Why ****ing bother at all? It's going to happen just get on the train or keep the hell out of the way (as in move to america!)

If you want to get on a train that's going the wrong way at speed and heading for a wreck be my guest.

How can you see where the train is going of you keep your head in the sand?

I'm still trying to figure out why we're having this referendum - maybe Crotty should have kept his mouth shut and just got with the program.

But given that Crotty is the reason we have this procedure why do people get upset when someone wants to say No?

meglome

StealthRolex wrote: »

Position statement - I'm voting No because I object to Political Union.

If it's about Economics make it an economic treaty. BTW this is a political board and I felt like just chucking out some political rhetoric. Put me on your Ignore list if it bothers you.

So, if you think this is not about Political Union and that a Yes vote is not for political union leading to the United States of Europe with one person Obama or Clinton can call to mobilize Europe in a crisis feel free to discuss.

There probably isn't one reason within this particular treaty. There might be one reason within the amended treaties but is one reason enough to vote No?

That all depends on where you stand and what you stand for.

My reason is taken from the Big Picture - what the sum of the parts becomes. Taking individual bits and pieces out is giving me a headache.
From that perspective there's an overwhelming number of reasons to vote No and three or four to vote Yes.

On balance I'll vote No for the greater good and common interest. Not everyone will be happy but that's democracy. QMV in action.

If I thought this was about political union I'd vote No in a heartbeat. But it isn't and I'll be voting Yes. Are the EU perfect, NO they're not. But have the EU been great for Ireland, yes they have. Do I trust the EU, well on the whole yes as they've never tried to steer us wrong. Would I trust the EU over a lot of our own politicians, yes I would.

The problem, as I see it, you're having with the nitty gritty is it doesn't back up what you see as the 'bigger picture'. I see this all the time with conspiracy theory's, it's always about the 'bigger picture' because the theory's start falling down as soon as you look at the minute details. Most of this Lisbon stuff from the No side is exactly the same. It misinformation, lies, misrepresentations, misquoting just like most of the CT sites.

I ask myself a simple question here, why do the No campaign need to consistently lie to me to make me believe this treaty is so bad?

hurleronditch

ei.sdraob wrote: »

let me get this straight you dont want to participate in the democratic process as set out by our constitution

voting NO does not lead to a status quo

if you are unaware of the issues then read up on them

if you dont know still after reading up then abstain


do you have a problem with the irish constitution and political system?

Intrinsically i dont have a problem with our constitution, but this part of it does annoy me somewhat. why ask the people for an answer if the only answer you will listen to is the one you want.

I am aware of what the crux of the issues are, i have read a summary of the main points covered, and voted yes first time round. I believe the people of this country spoke and spoke with a no answer, and that is what should have been accepted. for that reason i am voting this time as a no so that the true will of the people will be respected. abstaining helps noone. You can make all the off the wall points you want about the russians not putting any more 50p's in the meter but it wont change my vote or why im voting. and i know a lot more like me.

Max Power1

im voting no because we will lose our Veto in certain issues. At the moment we can block issues. Theoretically if this treaty passes, in the future a minimum of 4 countries is needed to veto an issue. No thankyou.

StealthRolex

meglome wrote: »

If I thought this was about political union I'd vote No in a heartbeat. But it isn't and I'll be voting Yes. Are the EU perfect, NO they're not. But have the EU been great for Ireland, yes they have. Do I trust the EU, well on the whole yes as they've never tried to steer us wrong. Would I trust the EU over a lot of our own politicians, yes I would.

The problem, as I see it, you're having with the nitty gritty is it doesn't back up what you see as the 'bigger picture'. I see this all the time with conspiracy theory's, it's always about the 'bigger picture' because the theory's start falling down as soon as you look at the minute details. Most of this Lisbon stuff from the No side is exactly the same. It misinformation, lies, misrepresentations, misquoting just like most of the CT sites.

I ask myself a simple question here, why do the No campaign need to consistently lie to me to make me believe this treaty is so bad?

Would you care to explain why it's not about political union? How it is not about centralizing more power? If we were not losing powers or sovereign control we would not be having this referendum.
If the UN decided to go from veto to QVM what would that be called?

The way I see you are reading far too many conspiracy websites and everything you see that is in opposition to your rosy tinted view of the EU must ipso facto be a conspiracy.

I don't believe the Yes side lies anymore than I believe the No side lies.
I've made my own mind up by reading the treaty.

There is no need for anyone to lie to you - you can find out for yourself.

Anyway it is general rule that politicians tend to represent the truth as they see it for a living so when they all gang up together to request my Yes vote have to consider the fact that they might be lying and so the obvious answer is to do the opposite of what they want.

Government say NAMA is good

Opposition say NAMA is bad

One of them is right and the debate becomes a political discourse.

Government say Lisbon is good

Opposition say Lisbon is good

They can't both be right and they are not going to debate it in the house.

A lot of the time someone somewhere plays devils advocate just so that all angles have been looked at. In any debate there must be an opposing view otherwise it is not a debate.

In your view in this debate all the Yes campaigners are good and "most" of the No campaigners are conspiracy theorists relying on misinformation. That implies then that some of the No stuff is correct.

So there might be business people voting Yes because they believe the minimum wage is going to be 1.84. Who knows? Do you trust all businesses knowing that they are all driven by profit and little else?

So I ask myself why do the Yes campaign avoid both the nitty gritty of the treaty as much as they avoid the substance of the whole?
Because if you look too closely you might see the emperors hole.

Furious-Dave

hurleronditch wrote: »

Intrinsically i dont have a problem with our constitution, but this part of it does annoy me somewhat. why ask the people for an answer if the only answer you will listen to is the one you want.

I am aware of what the crux of the issues are, i have read a summary of the main points covered, and voted yes first time round. I believe the people of this country spoke and spoke with a no answer, and that is what should have been accepted. for that reason i am voting this time as a no so that the true will of the people will be respected. abstaining helps noone. You can make all the off the wall points you want about the russians not putting any more 50p's in the meter but it wont change my vote or why im voting. and i know a lot more like me.

Only something like 28% of the total population electorate voted No. That is far from "the will of the people". As others have tried to point out, that if No is truly the "will of the people" then the result of Lisbon II should surly still be No. Some of the No campaigners seem to not care that a lot of the No votes in Lisbon I were either based on lies or misinformation. But hey, as long as they get the result they want, what does it matter? I have respect for the No votes that were cast based on facts about the treaty. I have no respect for those that were cast based on the crap that Libertas, Cóir and Sinn Féin were coming out with. I also believe that this should never have gone to referendum. Direct Democracy simply doesn't work. This is unfortunate for the level headed No voters who have valid reasons, but as will always happen with Direct Democracy, the religious/political extremists and basic paranoid nutjobs ruin it for everyone.

P. Breathnach

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Only something like 28% of the total population voted No ...

Just a nit-pick for the sake of accuracy: of the electorate.

Furious-Dave

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Just a nit-pick for the sake of accuracy: of the electorate.

Ye, sorry. Thanks for the correction. *Fixed*

Plotician

FD - but would you apply the same rules to general and local elections?

Furious-Dave

Plotician wrote: »

FD - but would you apply the same rules to general and local elections?

Ok that's a very good question. I suppose in those cases direct democracy is best (unless someone knows of a better way to do it). But that is as far as direct democracy should be allowed to go. This also creates problems though, as a lot of people seem to vote based on election promises as opposed to the core beliefs of the party they are voting for.

I stand by my belief that direct democracy is dangerous when deciding on complex matters like international treaties.

On an unrelated topic I have a question for the politically enlightened. Can one actually be a socialist-totalitarian-democrat? :p

StealthRolex

Furious-Dave wrote: »

On an unrelated topic I have a question for the politically enlightened. Can one actually be a socialist-totalitarian-democrat? :p

Don't know yet. Suggest you vote Yes to find out. Or No. That's an expansive question

ei.sdraob

StealthRolex wrote: »

Don't know yet. Suggest you vote Yes to find out.

is that a threat or scaremongering i hear from NOooooer

StealthRolex

ei.sdraob wrote: »

is that a threat or scaremongering i hear from NOooooer

Quality your accusation Yes sir, three bags full sir.

nesf

StealthRolex wrote: »

Position statement - I'm voting No because I object to Political Union.

If it's about Economics make it an economic treaty. BTW this is a political board and I felt like just chucking out some political rhetoric. Put me on your Ignore list if it bothers you.

This is a discussion forum not a place for soapboxing. Please don't just post political rhetoric, argue your points, back them with some evidence etc.

meglome

StealthRolex wrote: »

Would you care to explain why it's not about political union? How it is not about centralizing more power? If we were not losing powers or sovereign control we would not be having this referendum.
If the UN decided to go from veto to QVM what would that be called?

It's not about political union because the Irish people will not accept that. The EU has never tried to make any EU country do anything. So if (or when) things go too far we will vote No and hopefully we'll vote No for reason that are in that treaty.

You think the veto makes the UN work better?

StealthRolex wrote: »

The way I see you are reading far too many conspiracy websites and everything you see that is in opposition to your rosy tinted view of the EU must ipso facto be a conspiracy.

I know the EU isn't perfect. But so far the EU has done everything through negotiation so there is no reason not to trust them, within reason. I keep hearing the EU are bad and all I need to do is assume they are suddenly going to turn into a totalitarian state. So for me it's just another conspiracy theory.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I don't believe the Yes side lies anymore than I believe the No side lies.
I've made my own mind up by reading the treaty.

There is no need for anyone to lie to you - you can find out for yourself.

What Yes side lies, the Yes side are pushing things that could happen. I disagree with the tactics but there you go. However I hate blatant lies like the No campaign are pushing.

I did find out for myself and I can't find reason to agree with you.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Anyway it is general rule that politicians tend to represent the truth as they see it for a living so when they all gang up together to request my Yes vote have to consider the fact that they might be lying and so the obvious answer is to do the opposite of what they want.

But it's not just politicians is it? So are all the many other diverse groups lying too? Seem rather unlikely they'd all be lying.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Government say NAMA is good

Opposition say NAMA is bad

One of them is right and the debate becomes a political discourse.

Government say Lisbon is good

Opposition say Lisbon is good

They can't both be right and they are not going to debate it in the house.

So there can't be both good and bad points to NAMA? That's some interesting logic. The whole thing is a nightmare, but one we made ourselves.

StealthRolex wrote: »

A lot of the time someone somewhere plays devils advocate just so that all angles have been looked at. In any debate there must be an opposing view otherwise it is not a debate.

In your view in this debate all the Yes campaigners are good and "most" of the No campaigners are conspiracy theorists relying on misinformation. That implies then that some of the No stuff is correct.

I think there are liars and manipulators on both sides. But I've gone off referendums for life after what I've seen from the No campaign. That same No campaign that has rejected every single EU treaty even when we joined. These people need to learn a new song. Ian Paisley would have been proud.

StealthRolex wrote: »

So there might be business people voting Yes because they believe the minimum wage is going to be 1.84. Who knows? Do you trust all businesses knowing that they are all driven by profit and little else?

Anyone with a brain should know that 1.84 figure is total ****e. I don't need to trust businessmen, I read what was in the treaty.

StealthRolex wrote: »

So I ask myself why do the Yes campaign avoid both the nitty gritty of the treaty as much as they avoid the substance of the whole?
Because if you look too closely you might see the emperors hole.

he he he he what? The Yes campaign are the ones using the contents of the treaty to argue their position. I think you believe what you want to believe fact be damned.

walrusgumble

Daftendirekt wrote: »

A No to Lisbon will not force a general election. I don't know where people are getting this idea from.

NAMA hasn't forced a general election. Being murdered in the local and European elections hasn't forced one. Presiding over the worst credit crisis to hit Ireland in years hasn't forced one. Enda Kenny calling for a vote of no confidence hasn't forced one.

This.

true and

not to mention previous eu treaty / referendum debacles like SEA, Crotty & McKenna judgements or Nice - neither of them were the sole point of government falling

correct me if i am wrong but isn't each members states responsibilty to sort out its own affairs and economy? surely the eu itself can't mammy everyone on how to implement domestic policies, laws and fisical matters and domestic budgets, particularily where the EU has no direct or indirect competence?

Plotician

Hope this point is worthy of debate....

lisbontreaty.ie is seen as the official treaty site, and the one most recommended for reference material.

I just noticed a statement on the legal assurances page that raised an eyebrow:

"If a second referendum is successful..."

I see the website as informative and supposedly unbiased. However this statement infers a 'yes' result as successful, and a 'no' as failure. Surely a referendum is successful simply by invoking a democratic decision on a particular issue.

Should this not state:
"If a second referendum results in approval of the treaty...

Nitpicking? or do a multitude of little things like this add up and have an impact on the democratic process?

StealthRolex

Plotician wrote: »

Hope this point is worthy of debate....

lisbontreaty.ie is seen as the official treaty site, and the one most recommended for reference material.

I just noticed a statement on the legal assurances page that raised an eyebrow:

"If a second referendum is successful..."

I see the website as informative and supposedly unbiased. However this statement infers a 'yes' result as successful, and a 'no' as failure. Surely a referendum is successful simply by invoking a democratic decision on a particular issue.

Should this not state:
"If a second referendum results in approval of the treaty...

Nitpicking? or do a multitude of little things like this add up and have an impact on the democratic process?

Could it be considered a form of neuro linguistic programming?

meglome

Plotician wrote: »

Hope this point is worthy of debate....

lisbontreaty.ie is seen as the official treaty site, and the one most recommended for reference material.

I just noticed a statement on the legal assurances page that raised an eyebrow:

"If a second referendum is successful..."

I see the website as informative and supposedly unbiased. However this statement infers a 'yes' result as successful, and a 'no' as failure. Surely a referendum is successful simply by invoking a democratic decision on a particular issue.

Should this not state:
"If a second referendum results in approval of the treaty...

Nitpicking? or do a multitude of little things like this add up and have an impact on the democratic process?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Could it be considered a form of neuro linguistic programming?

I'd laugh but I think you're serious.

StealthRolex

meglome wrote: »

I'd laugh but I think you're serious.

laugh away. I think Derren Brown is too busy trying to figure out how to deal with the accusations of lying after that waste of time he broadcast last night.

Plotician

Not sure what you'd call it, but I'm pretty sure pages like this have a lot of thought put into them and are intentionally crafted - it isn't just some 18 year old website builder chucking something up there!

askatasuna

What about Norway? They have a booming economy, and they are not in the EU, they held on to their resources. A protest against "our" government for ignoring our democratic decision and attempting to scare us into saving them from embarasment in Brussels. We should vote No regardless of our opinions on the treaty or how we feel about it. This is the only way to stand up for our democracy and that of the Dutch and French. After this the government should be impeached for treason. Sounds extreme, but that is absolutely what they've committed in their desperation.

hatrickpatrick

IrishGooner83 wrote: »

There's a reason why EVERY mainstream political party and industry/trade organisation is advocating a Yes vote. EU membership has had a massive positive effect on this country. We either want to be part of Europe or we dont....

Think you have the wrong thread. We're discussing a referendum on whether to change the EU system via the Lisbon Treaty. You obviously mistook it for a referendum on EU membership, which is a completely separate issue.

I'm afraid I don't think such a referendum has been proposed yet though... I'm sure you could ask someone to inform you when it does, that way you can use this argument in that debate instead of this debate in which it bears no relevance to the issue being discussed.

ei.sdraob

askatasuna wrote: »

What about Norway? They have a booming economy, and they are not in the EU, they held on to their resources. A protest against "our" government for ignoring our democratic decision and attempting to scare us into saving them from embarasment in Brussels. We should vote No regardless of our opinions on the treaty or how we feel about it. This is the only way to stand up for our democracy and that of the Dutch and French. After this the government should be impeached for treason. Sounds extreme, but that is absolutely what they've committed in their desperation.

does Ireland have the same oil and gas reserves?

does Ireland have most of the country covered in forests?

does Ireland have high mountains that allow for alot of hydro power?

does Ireland have the same mineral and metal reserves?

does Ireland have as large coastline and sea area for fishing?



maybe you should go and read up on Norway before sprouting such nonsense, they are very very resource rich with huge proven oil reserves

also Norway have to implement all of the EU directives/laws but have no say in their making

and finally they have to pay 240 million a year for the above privilege



oh and welcome to boards

K-9

Max Power1 wrote: »

im voting no because we will lose our Veto in certain issues. At the moment we can block issues. Theoretically if this treaty passes, in the future a minimum of 4 countries is needed to veto an issue. No thankyou.

How did you vote on Nice because the same issue was involved then?

realismpol

Plotician wrote: »

I'm tired of public representatives who are supposed to act in the interests of the people but fail to provide the full picture.

Give me the facts and i'll make a balanced and educated choice based on that information. Give me the positives AND the negatives and don't be afraid to do so. Try to influence me with biased arguments and your own agenda then you'll get a protest vote.

A protest at what...?

A protest at a political system that endemically serves it's own purpose.
A protest at a political system that fails to fully inform the electorate.
A protest at a political system that is rife with internal agendas.
A protest at a political system that puts power before people.

Learn to trust me with the facts, and you'll get my trust in return. Until then any little act that helps provoke some self-examination is far more appealing.

And for those who say that's naieve and a 'no' for the wrong reasons - i don't care. There's a bigger picture here - it's called the true preservation of democracy.

(Guess i'm just tired of all the shyte!)

Whilst i respect your viewpoint and understand your points well i have an even better suggestion. What i suggest is in fact that you vote yes...wait hear me out.

The way i see it is bascially if a country says no once and the political leaders don't listen to them and tell them they are too stupid to know what they are voting for and then to top this off the people listen to them and actually put out a majority in favor of the same thing being asked a second time round then they deserve all the reprecussions of what they are voting for.

I think its the best solution. It just means that you get to sit back and watch as they get the smug smiles wiped off their faces after the inevitable few weeks of gloating over victory when they finally realise the consequences of what they have done. Just a suggestion.

meglome

realismpol wrote: »

Whilst i respect your viewpoint and understand your points well i have an even better suggestion. What i suggest is in fact that you vote yes...wait hear me out.

The way i see it is bascially if a country says no once and the political leaders don't listen to them and tell them they are too stupid to know what they are voting for and then to top this off the people listen to them and actually put out a majority in favor of the same thing being asked a second time round then they deserve all the reprecussions of what they are voting for.

I think its the best solution. It just means that you get to sit back and watch as they get the smug smiles wiped off their faces after the inevitable few weeks of gloating over victory when they finally realise the consequences of what they have done. Just a suggestion.

Maybe you should explain the consequences as you see them, using things that are in the treaty.

Max Power1

K-9 wrote: »

How did you vote on Nice because the same issue was involved then?

I wasnt eligible to vote but would have voted no.

meglome

Max Power1 wrote: »

I wasnt eligible to vote but would have voted no.

Have any of the bad things promised after Nice actually happened?

ei.sdraob

meglome wrote: »

Have any of the bad things promised after Nice actually happened?

http://www.sinnfein.org/releases/01/nicemanifesto.html