Has Declan Ganley / Coir hired a team of shills?

vanla sighs

ei.sdraob wrote: »

weve been thru this

The people voted

The government asked for reasons

The governemtn went to other countries and got us concessions and guarantees (as happened with Dutch and French)

We are being asked to vote on Treaty + Guarantees


that my friend is democracy at work, in your world view voting is undemocratic, now thats fascism!


since when is voting undemocratic?





The political group they belong to consist almost exclusively of UKIP members > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of_Freedom_and_Democracy

and no Irish MEPs or anyone from this country for that matter

Ah, I think I see what you are saying now.....Every time we have a referendum we have to hold post-referendum polls to see whether the people understood what theyw ere voting for, or whether they were confused or voted out of fear or wahtever else? Is that correct? Hmmmm, so carrying your logic forward, if, and it's a big if, there's a yes vote this time the government then has to conduct opinion polls and focus groups and find out why exactly the Irish people voted yes and if x ammount of them say they didn't quite know or were confused or afraid or for whatever reasons that had nothing to do actually do with Lisbon, we then ahve a rerun? Is that what you are suggesting? I just want to make sure I understand you 100%.

Tarobot

vanla sighs, now you're moving into the question of why we're having a second referendum, which must also factor in that our government wants a Yes vote.

This is certainly the case but that doesn't make a second referendum undemocratic.

ei.sdraob

vanla sighs wrote: »

Ah, I think I see what you are saying now.....Every time we have a referendum we have to hold post-referendum polls to see whether the people understood what theyw ere voting for, or whether they were confused or voted out of fear or wahtever else? Is that correct? Hmmmm, so carrying your logic forward, if, and it's a big if, there's a yes vote this time the government then has to conduct opinion polls and focus groups and find out why exactly the Irish people voted yes and if x ammount of them say they didn't quite know or were confused or afraid or for whatever reasons that had nothing to do actually do with Lisbon, we then ahve a rerun? Is that what you are suggesting? I just want to make sure I understand you 100%.

you are aware that we had double referendums before in this country

such as Divorce and Nice

this aint the first


its not against the constitution which just says a referendum needs to be held

and the government and the MEPs elected by the people (MEPs only few months ago) are Pro Lisbon and Pro EU

you claim "undemocratic" but not having a referendum spits at our constitution

/

vanla sighs

Tarobot wrote: »

Your above argument that Lisbon is not good for jobs focused on our ability to create jobs in the past. Lisbon is about the future. So could you please put forward an argument based on the Treaty and the future, not the past?

It's not about jobs vs no jobs, it's about more jobs under Lisbon. Talking about what has already happened does not address the issue.

Oh, now it's not about jobs or no jobs?....lol you folks really have to make up yer minds......Yes to Jobs, hmmmm? An argument against the treaty? Fine, loss of our veto in 50 areas. So in the future what may be good for other MS may not be good for Ireland but if we can't reach a QMV threshold to block any legislation, tough luck Ireland. Imho small States need the veto to protect them within Europe. And also it is undemocratic to invalidate the democratic result of a free and fair referendum.

ei.sdraob

vanla sighs wrote: »

Oh, now it's not about jobs or no jobs?....lol you folks really have to make up yer minds......Yes to Jobs, hmmmm? An argument against the treaty? Fine, loss of our veto in 50 areas. So in the future what may be good for other MS may not be good for Ireland but if we can't reach a QMV threshold to block any legislation, tough luck Ireland. Imho small States need the veto to protect them within Europe. And also it is undemocratic to invalidate the democratic result of a free and fair referendum.

why dont you read previous threads

all your rubbish has been debunked already

or better start a new thread, with whatever reasons you think we should vote NO

and make sure to provide references no baseless lies and slogans


and considering the title of this thread and the fact that you just joined, and your posting pattern regurgitating same old lies, one has to wonder

/

vanla sighs

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you are aware that we had double referendums before in this country

such as Divorce and Nice

this aint the first


its not against the constitution which just says a referendum needs to be held

and the government and the MEPs elected by the people (MEPs only few months ago) are Pro Lisbon and Pro EU

you claim "undemocratic" but not having a referendum spits at our constitution

/

You didn't address my point, do you therefore support another referendum if Lisbon is passed this time. Should polls be carried out to find out whether x percent of those who voted did so for reasons unrelated to Lisbon or out of fear or confusion. Simple question really.

vanla sighs

ei.sdraob wrote: »

why dont you read previous threads

all your rubbish has been debunked already

or better start a new thread, with whatever reasons you think we should vote NO

and make sure to provide references no baseless lies and slogans


and considering the title of this thread and the fact that you just joined, and your posting pattern regurgitating same old lies, one has to wonder

/

As I said you consider them lies, I consider them truths And you ahven't debunked anything I've said...lol...just because you say it doesn't mean it's true!

Tarobot

vanla sighs wrote: »

Oh, now it's not about jobs or no jobs?....lol you folks really have to make up yer minds......Yes to Jobs, hmmmm?

LOL, I don't remember IBEC saying we would all be unemployed if we voted No.

vanla sighs wrote: »

An argument against the treaty? Fine, loss of our veto in 50 areas. So in the future what may be good for other MS may not be good for Ireland but if we can't reach a QMV threshold to block any legislation, tough luck Ireland. Imho small States need the veto to protect them within Europe..

Hilariously vague. Which areas are the ones that will impact on Irish jobs? And do you understand that the logic behind Double Majority is to give smaller states a larger say?

Under Doubly Majority, even if UK, Spain, France, Italy and Germany want a piece of legislation, they would still need the support of 10 other countries. It is precisely rules like this that give Ireland more bargaining power.

vanla sighs wrote: »

And also it is undemocratic to invalidate the democratic result of a free and fair referendum.

Where was the result invalidated? Last time I checked, the Lisbon Treaty hadn't been lodged with the UN.

ei.sdraob

vanla sighs wrote: »

As I said you consider them lies, I consider them truths And you ahven't debunked anything I've said...lol...just because you say it doesn't mean it's true!

all your points have laready been talked to death on this forum, since you are new i recommend reading past threads instead of regurgitating same crap

and thanks for highlighting the point made by the OP of this thread



why dont you start a thread

and put all your concerns in paragraph form with references
and people will address them

shouldn't be too hard to do for you

vanla sighs

Tarobot wrote: »

vanla sighs, now you're moving into the question of why we're having a second referendum, which must also factor in that our government wants a Yes vote.

This is certainly the case but that doesn't make a second referendum undemocratic.

So, would you support another referendum should Lisbon pass and would you support post-referendum polls to see why the majority voted the way they did, fear, confusion etc etc?

ei.sdraob

vanla sighs wrote: »

So, would you support another referendum should Lisbon pass and would you support post-referendum polls to see why the majority voted the way they did, fear, confusion etc etc?

there wont be a third referendum

theres no precedent for one either

this is it either Lisbon passes or doesnt

im still waiting on your thread, for such a concerned "citizen" shouldnt be too hard for you to start one

vanla sighs

ei.sdraob wrote: »

all your points have laready been talked to death on this forum, since you are new i recommend reading past threads instead of regurgitating same crap

and thanks for highlighting the point made by the OP of this thread



why dont you start a thread

and put all your concerns in paragraph form with references
and people will address them

shouldn't be too hard to do for you

Check back and you will see I am simply responding to questions posed to me by others......:) And retorting with my own opinions. I see you can't answer the q about holding a third referendum.

vanla sighs

ei.sdraob wrote: »

there wont be a third referendum

theres no precedent for one either

this is it either Lisbon passes or doesnt

im still waiting on your thread, for such a concerned "citizen" shouldnt be too hard for you to start one

Start a thread, what for? I know all I need to know Ah, the flyers should be hear soon enough, and then hell to leather on the campaign. And like you said the people will decide. Lol.....there doesn't need to be a precedent as the Supreme Court have already stated the government can put the same question back to the people. So, would you support that should it be a yes? :rolleyes: Anyway, gotta go generation x people, work to do.......and evil plans to hatch.....whoahahahaha!

ei.sdraob

vanla sighs wrote: »

Check back and you will see I am simply responding to questions posed to me by others......:) And retorting with my own opinions. I see you can't answer the q about holding a third referendum.

i did clearly answer the question look up above your post

if you are not a shill then it wont be too hard for you to start a thread with your "concerns" no?

Tarobot

vanla sighs wrote: »

So, would you support another referendum should Lisbon pass and would you support post-referendum polls to see why the majority voted the way they did, fear, confusion etc etc?

I wouldn't because I want a Yes vote, obviously! If you're asking me if 3rd referendum if Lisbon passes would be democratic, of course it would. You'll just have to get Sinn Fein into power because they're the only political party that would want that.

And I always support post-referenda polls. The more correct information, the better.

Sam Vimes

vanla sighs wrote: »

So, would you support another referendum should Lisbon pass and would you support post-referendum polls to see why the majority voted the way they did, fear, confusion etc etc?

It would depend on whether those fears were founded. In my opinion, the fear that a no vote will damage Ireland is well justified but the fear that Lisbon would allow abortion, higher taxation, loss of neutrality, conscription, the loss of the right to future referendums etc was never based on anything but the lies of people with hidden agendas.

Whether a no vote will be bad for Ireland is a matter of opinion, you can disagree with someone but you can't definitively say they're wrong. I can definitely say that anyone who thought that Lisbon brought in any of the above was wrong

vanla sighs

Tarobot wrote: »

I wouldn't because I want a Yes vote, obviously! If you're asking me if 3rd referendum if Lisbon passes would be democratic, of course it would. You'll just have to get Sinn Fein into power because they're the only political party that would want that.

And I always support post-referenda polls. The more correct information, the better.

Ah, I see, so it's ok to have post-referendum polls to decide whether to have another referendum on the same issue but only as long as you agree with it....lol....how nice.

vanla sighs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It would depend on whether those fears were founded. In my opinion, the fear that a no vote will damage Ireland is well justified but the fear that Lisbon would allow abortion, higher taxation, loss of neutrality, conscription, the loss of the right to future referendums etc was never based on anything but the lies of people with hidden agendas.

Whether a no vote will be bad for Ireland is a matter of opinion, you can disagree with someone but you can't definitively say they're wrong. I can definitely say that anyone who thought that Lisbon brought in any of the above was wrong

Well, I'm not too worried about any of the above so then I must be correct in campaigning for a No vote.

Tarobot

vanla sighs wrote: »

Ah, I see, so it's ok to have post-referendum polls to decide whether to have another referendum on the same issue but only as long as you agree with it....lol....how nice.

Where did I say that? I said I agree with post-referenda polls and that a third referendum would be democratic. Don't you ever get tired twisting things into lies?

I'm still waiting for a reply to my post on jobs.

ei.sdraob

Tarobot wrote: »

Where did I say that? I said I agree with post-referenda polls and that a third referendum would be democratic. Don't you ever get tired twisting things into lies?

I'm still waiting for a reply to my post on jobs.

@vanla sighs


there are several separate question


q. would a 3rd referendum be democratic?

a. yes as per definition of democracy

----

q. would a 3rd referendum have precedent?

a. no

---

q. would a 3rd ever happen?

a. very very unlikely





so quit trying to build a strawman


holding referendums is not undemocratic, is there written in the bloody constitution and is required



oh and im still waiting on your thread, so far your doing nothing but bringing up the same flawed arguments that have been dealt with over and over

Sam Vimes

vanla sighs wrote: »

Well, I'm not too worried about any of the above so then I must be correct in campaigning for a No vote.

Eh?

MikeC101

vanla sighs wrote: »

Well, I'm not too worried about any of the above so then I must be correct in campaigning for a No vote.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh?

I think you just encountered the classic "Quote post, ignore everything in it, don't address any of it's points, just restate your position" technique of debating. One that was notable for it's lack of "lols" and ":rolleyes:" though.

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes - it's slightly surprising that the judge's opinion is not more widely known:



cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes and it isn't it a shame that elections have immunity from this process? You might say an election only lasts a number of years whereas a ratification lasts more or less forever but still a democratic process is just that, a democratic process. A revote called for out of the fact that people 'didn't get it' first time around is not democracy. Europe are not doing us a favor in asking us to rethink. If the new referendum produces a yes then that does not mean that people suddenly get it (or have actually read and understood the treaty) it simply means that yes campaign was more successful. The campaigns are built more on image than on substance. A debate involving the substance of the document is complicated and advertisements simply cannot achieve complicated reasoning on a mere billboard. If the no vote uttered last time around was produced for all the wrong reasons (which I'm sure it was) then a yes vote this time around is destined for the same fate even it is the right choice. I can't believe people don't get this. Coercing a vote in a certain direction by advertisements and intellectual posturing is not a foundation for producing the right vote and it is not democracy, it's very far from it. Elections are decided on an imperfect once off vote and an elected Government has to live up to it's policies and a nation has suffer it's government. Treaties cannot forever hang suspended in the air of uncertainty while nations are educated on what their policies actually mean. There could a five year review allowing a revote, not an instant turnaround in time for the new year, no wonder the CT radar is beeping fervently. It's ok to stifle a population in order to put someone in power but when an important treaty is on the line these same idiots who could not think for themselves then are supposed to be able to think for themselves now? It's never going to happen. The worst governing powers have always been those who told the people what was good for them. What can be achieved by telling people that a yes is good for them. Nothing. The people need to understand that a yes is good for them and unfortunately we're far off this.

ei.sdraob

the guy from poland posting here earlier seems to be a libertas shill



http://niepoprawni.pl/grafika/logo-libertas
http://www.niepoprawni.pl/grafika/libertasjpg?size=thumbnail

http://www.google.ie/search?q=site:niepoprawni.pl+libertas


tsk tsk

mickoneill30

How about for this week Boards put a limit on all new registrations.

Such as, if you sign up now you can't post for 5 days.

Here's a guy who's just signed up to impart his wisdom with us.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055694473

It's getting spammy.

Sam Vimes

mickoneill30 wrote: »

How about for this week Boards put a limit on all new registrations.

Such as, if you sign up now you can't post for 5 days.

Here's a guy who's just signed up to impart his wisdom with us.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055694473

It's getting spammy.

And he's linking to the same website as the libertas shill in ei.sdraob's post. An amazing coincidence I'm sure

Scofflaw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And he's linking to the same website as the libertas shill in ei.sdraob's post. An amazing coincidence I'm sure

Heh - cheap Polish labour. The thing about outsourcing across the Internet is that you actually can pay people the minimum wage in their country.

amused,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

....the parts of the treaty that they objected to were removed and then their governments ratified the new treaty. That's how democracy works.

So can we now trust FF that the "clarifications" are sufficient - that all of our reasons for voting no are now obsolete ? I find it amazing that "none" of our concerns needed a change to the treaty, while France and UK's concerns did.

Basically, I think FF have bundled all objections together in order to push this through; just as they (lyingly) blamed all criticism of their actions on the "global downturn".

As for the veto, it is incorrect to say that Ireland will have the same power to veto as Germany, due to the the population rule. And while this is representative and should be democratic (and as such I've no real problem with it), it's bound to cause concern, but yet again the "official" literature seems to gloss over spelling out the facts, preferring to imply that there's little or no change (which I DO have a problem with).

Sam Vimes

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So can we now trust FF that the "clarifications" are sufficient - that all of our reasons for voting no are now obsolete ? I find it amazing that "none" of our concerns needed a change to the treaty, while France and UK's concerns did.

We don't have to trust FF, three independent surveys were done, unless you think all of those companies are corrupt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008#Reasons_for_rejection

You might be able to answer me a question that I have yet to get an answer to: FF wants a yes vote so what would they have to gain from making up fake concerns and pretending to address them before the second vote? How could the result be anything but another no if they deliberately didn't address anyone's concerns?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As for the veto, it is incorrect to say that Ireland will have the same power to veto as Germany, due to the the population rule. And while this is representative and should be democratic (and as such I've no real problem with it), it's bound to cause concern, but yet again the "official" literature seems to gloss over spelling out the facts, preferring to imply that there's little or no change (which I DO have a problem with).

A veto doesn't depend on population, ours carries as much weight as everyone else's. Are you talking about QMV, which isn't a veto system?

gissmoo

Cant u see that methods of EU are comunistic, totalitaristic and trockistic methods? EU in proposed by the elite of EU shape is the seconet CCCP. Are you mad?? We already tested this kind of runing a totalitaristic superstates!!

See what think polish bloggers:
http://saveeuropeireland.niepoprawni.pl/

You are a SHILL..