Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The best thread(s) I've ever read on the Lisbon Treaty(Warning: Very Long)

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    moceri wrote: »
    The wall street Journal describes:"Mr. Lenihan is peddling phantom terrors to scare the Irish people into voting Yes. But in a world made skittish by last year's global credit panic, it's just possible that someone might, at least in the absence of thought, take them seriously. Preying on those fears, in fact, seems to be the chief strategy of the Yes campaign."

    You're basing you opinion on an incredibly biased opinion piece where the authors name isn't even given? I expected better.

    Oh wait, I didn't. This is exactly what I expect from the No camp.
    moceri wrote: »

    If the EU was a truly democratic institution, then there should have been an EU Wide referendum.

    Well done for not knowing how the EU works. I'll try put it as simple as i can.

    The EU has NOTHING to do with how countries ratify treaties. NOTHING!
    We have a referendum in Ireland because we are constitutionally obliged to have one.

    Spain is not having a referendum because their constitution doesn't say that they have to. Italy is not having one because referenda on international treaties are illegal there. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EU.


  • Options
    #33
    miralize
    Registered Users Posts: 6,207 ✭✭✭miralize


    This post made me understand Lisbon alot more. The wall street journal says we have nothing to fear from voting no, but as you said we have nothing to gain either..

    Thanks


  • Options
    #34
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    moceri wrote: »
    I don'T agree with the content of the message promoted by Ganley, Coir and UKIP.

    That doesn't stop me having huge concerns about the power shift when Lisbon Treaty is implemented.

    The Yes Campaign have conducted a campaign of equal mendacity.

    The wall street Journal describes:"Mr. Lenihan is peddling phantom terrors to scare the Irish people into voting Yes. But in a world made skittish by last year's global credit panic, it's just possible that someone might, at least in the absence of thought, take them seriously. Preying on those fears, in fact, seems to be the chief strategy of the Yes campaign."



    This is exactly how Hitler came to Power in the wake of the German Economy slump of the 1920's.

    I say to people unless you are crystal clear in your own mind about what you are voting for, keep the status quo - Vote NO!

    If the EU was a truly democratic institution, then there should have been an EU Wide referendum.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412641980083218.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    If you don't agree with Gantleys message then why are you quoting an editorial written by one of Gantleys mates in the European Edition of the Wall Street Journal, which is a euroskeptic conservative paper owned by Rupert Murdoch. It basically a regurgitation of an interview given by Declan himself to to the editorial page editor a week previously.

    Interview: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574404643114251588.html

    Guy who did the interview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Carney_(editorialist)

    Nameless opnion piece that appeared on the page he edits:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412641980083218.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


    The papers editor is a UK Conservative sympathiser.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patience_Wheatcroft

    and its paid circulation figures (26,000) are surpassed by the top seven Irish Irish Daily Newspapers.

    http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=43803

    Jan - June 2009
    Daily Titles: Figures:
    Irish Independent 152204
    Irish Examiner 50346
    The Irish Times 114488
    Irish Daily Star 102884
    Irish Daily Mirror 64194
    The Irish Sun 96725
    Irish Daily Mail 52144

    http://www.nni.ie/v2/broad/portal.php?content=../_includes/circulation.php


  • Options
    #35
    G_R
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,028 Mod ✭✭✭✭G_R


    Brilliant post Rb,

    Tbh i think that Scofflaw should be taking part in some debates outside of Boards. he seems to be pretty knowledgeable and would better represent the yes side than some of the eejits they have currently.


  • Options
    #36
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    dannym08 wrote: »
    Brilliant post Rb,

    Tbh i think that Scofflaw should be taking part in some debates outside of Boards. he seems to be pretty knowledgeable and would better represent the yes side than some of the eejits they have currently.
    moceri wrote:
    The Yes Campaign have conducted a campaign of equal mendacity.

    Do you really believe this? Do you really believe weak, silly slogans such as "Vote Yes for Recovery" are equal to the blatant lies posted in the aim of scaring people into voting No such as claims we'll have a €1.84 minimum wage as a result of a Yes?

    If you see the statements and their message as equal, then we have a big problem.

    Also bringing Herr Furher into things does nothing for your argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I agreed with everything that video was saying until abortion was mentioned, at which point I dismissed it and closed the window. What I don't understand is why these guys can't just use the patriotism argument and leave it at that. It's enough for me, as a nationalist, that our sovereignty will be diluted by foreign powers, without the need to add in all that untrue and ridiculous scaremongering BS. Once you do that (in my view anyway) you instantly destroy any credibility you ever had.

    Our power is not being diluted by foreign powers, it's being pooled and shared. It's a union, not an empire. And they go into the scaremongering bs because other people see the benefits of such power sharing that they don't. Their actual reason for a no vote won't convince us so they feel the need to make stuff up "for the greater good". It's called pious fraud


  • Options
    #38
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    TBH I always thought your stance on Lisbon was a bit off RB from the posts I read from you.

    They didn't really make sense to me. I think its great that you've actually posted that you've had a change of heart. I'm sure plenty of people have changed their vote and not posted here despite being vocal about voting no in the past. At least your post might convince others with similar logic to yours.

    I think Scofflaw pretty much convinced me to vote yes too from reading many threads (especially threads by no supporters) and his replies to them.

    I think I'd only ever have considered myself undecided before. I was a yes the first time because of Scofflaw but probably still a little unsure if I was doing the right thing. I think now I'm 100% certain that a yes vote is the right thing.


  • Options
    #39
    Dublin_Gunner
    Registered Users Posts: 7,692 ✭✭✭Dublin_Gunner


    Moceri - I would of the opinion, that if you are unsure, you should vote Yes, unless you can find something that really convinces you that you should vote no.

    By this, I mean you should check the actual treaty yourself, not rely on papers or biased media sources.

    It's merely selfish to possibly drag the whole country down because of ignorance.


  • Options
    #40
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Scofflaw is actually for me an example of a yes campaigner whose views pushed me further towards voting no, but I guess arguments can have different effects on people...


  • Options
    #41
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Scofflaw is actually for me an example of a yes campaigner whose views pushed me further towards voting no, but I guess arguments can have different effects on people...

    just out of curiosity what exactly about scofflaw pushes you towards no?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    BlitzKrieg wrote: »
    just out of curiosity what exactly about scofflaw pushes you towards no?

    I think it is mainly because he does not share the deeply ingrained nationalistic viewpoint that anything less than total control for Ireland over alll its affairs equals a Federal Superstate.


  • Options
    #43
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    I think if someome fails to be swayed by the arguments of Scofflaw, then the part of their brain that deals with logic and rationality performs very poorly.

    @Rb, I always found your posts on here somewhat at odds with the reasonable, logical poster I know from the Poker forum. Sometimes it's like you were on uber-tilt, or something. :) Outstanding post in any case!


  • Options
    #44
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Hitman Actual wrote: »
    I think if someome fails to be swayed by the arguments of Scofflaw, then the part of their brain that deals with logic and rationality performs very poorly.

    I'd have to agree. After Lisbon I think Scofflaw should be made emperor of the new European super state he will have helped create :pac:


  • Options
    #45
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Rb wrote: »
    Do you really believe this? Do you really believe weak, silly slogans such as "Vote Yes for Recovery" are equal to the blatant lies posted in the aim of scaring people into voting No such as claims we'll have a €1.84 minimum wage as a result of a Yes?

    If you see the statements and their message as equal, then we have a big problem.

    Wasn't I explaining this to you last week? :p


  • Options
    #46
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    nesf wrote: »
    Wasn't I explaining this to you last week? :p
    Indeed you did mention it. I still understand where I was coming from, but now see things a bit more clearly tbh.


  • Options
    #47
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Rb wrote: »
    Indeed you did mention it. I still understand where I was coming from, but now see things a bit more clearly tbh.

    You had a point, in the broad sense vague slogans and factual lies can both be false, misleading or playing loose with the truth, but in the narrow sense it's really hard to hold up a vague slogan like "Vote Yes for Jobs!" and a complete and utter fabrication like "Vote No to stop Abortion and Euthanasia being brought in!" and say they're the one and the same.


  • Options
    #48
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    nesf wrote: »
    You had a point, in the broad sense vague slogans and factual lies can both be false, misleading or playing loose with the truth, but in the narrow sense it's really hard to hold up a vague slogan like "Vote Yes for Jobs!" and a complete and utter fabrication like "Vote No to stop Abortion and Euthanasia being brought in!" and say they're the one and the same.
    I don't think I could be accused of holding the posters as equal, but I was incorrectly weighing the FF/FG posters as being of more importance and of more impact than Coir. In retrospect, the fact that FF/FG/Lab are FF/FG/Lab will sway more people on the fence to a Yes than their slogans will, however the bs scaremongering pushed by Coir & Co will sway more on the fence to a No than the organisation's place and reputation in the country.

    Overall though I think something should be done in future to prevent campaigns like we've seen in these two referendums. If either side cannot sell their opinion based on the facts of the text itself, they shouldn't be allowed advertise.


  • Options
    #49
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Rb wrote: »
    I don't think I could be accused of holding the posters as equal, but I was incorrectly weighing the FF/FG posters as being of more importance and of more impact than Coir. In retrospect, the fact that FF/FG/Lab are FF/FG/Lab will sway more people on the fence to a Yes than their slogans will, however the bs scaremongering pushed by Coir & Co will sway more on the fence to a No than the organisation's place and reputation in the country.

    Overall though I think something should be done in future to prevent campaigns like we've seen in these two referendums. If either side cannot sell their opinion based on the facts of the text itself, they shouldn't be allowed advertise.

    I agree with that. I've proposed elsewhere that campaigning on the issue be banned, and the issue put before the people solely by the Referendum Commission. Anything we put to referendum is almost by definition too important to be left to politicians.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #50
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I agree with that. I've proposed elsewhere that campaigning on the issue be banned, and the issue put before the people solely by the Referendum Commission. Anything we put to referendum is almost by definition too important to be left to politicians.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    I'm too young to remember the referendum on previous treaties, have they always been this bad with regards to campaigning/advertising?

    Has such a motion been proposed before?


  • Options
    #51
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Rb wrote: »
    I'm too young to remember the referendum on previous treaties, have they always been this bad with regards to campaigning/advertising?

    Some of them have been worse. Abortion referendums, after all, have people like COIR as the major players.
    Rb wrote: »
    Has such a motion been proposed before?

    I don't think so - or at least not seriously so. I think the government has only really come to realise gradually how tied its hands are by judgements like McKenna and Coughlan - the logical culmination of which would be exactly such a system.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Rb wrote: »
    I'm too young to remember the referendum on previous treaties, have they always been this bad with regards to campaigning/advertising?

    Has such a motion been proposed before?

    There was the infamous "Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy!"


  • Options
    #53
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    marco_polo wrote: »
    There was the infamous "Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy!"

    ...by one of COIR's "predecessors" at 60a Capel Street, as far as I recall.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #54
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Some of them have been worse. Abortion referendums, after all, have people like COIR as the major players
    Remember that "wife swapping sodomites" Mary Banger following the poll count in the divorce referendum? Most embarrassing. I was living in Australia at the time when I saw it on ABC News. :eek:


  • Options
    #55
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Rb wrote: »
    I don't think I could be accused of holding the posters as equal, but I was incorrectly weighing the FF/FG posters as being of more importance and of more impact than Coir. In retrospect, the fact that FF/FG/Lab are FF/FG/Lab will sway more people on the fence to a Yes than their slogans will, however the bs scaremongering pushed by Coir & Co will sway more on the fence to a No than the organisation's place and reputation in the country.

    Cóir posters play very well I imagine in the "anti-establishment" section of the community.


  • Options
    #56
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Justind wrote: »
    Remember that "wife swapping sodomites" Mary Banger following the poll count in the divorce referendum? Most embarrassing. I was living in Australia at the time when I saw it on ABC News. :eek:

    I remember that one all too well. Seared into my mind it is. :p


  • Options
    #57
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    nesf wrote: »
    Cóir posters play very well I imagine in the "anti-establishment" section of the community.

    They also play very well with the section of the community who unfortunately can't be bothered to read up on the lies purported. They will settle for the shock value material rather than reading the actual relevant details of the Treaty in the first place.


  • Options
    #58
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Justind wrote: »
    Remember that "wife swapping sodomites" Mary Banger following the poll count in the divorce referendum? Most embarrassing. I was living in Australia at the time when I saw it on ABC News. :eek:

    Well, you'll be delighted to know, no doubt, that the author(ess) of that phrase is back for the current COIR campaign:
    A RADICAL right-wing activist who famously branded pro-divorce campaigners "wife- swapping sodomites" in the 1990s is involved in the Coir campaign for a 'No' vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

    Una Bean Mhic Mhathuna's track record of high-profile campaigning for traditional Catholic values stretches back decades.

    The mother of four last night confirmed she was involved in Coir's 'No' campaign.

    The revelations are further evidence of the strong ties between Coir and Youth Defence as Bean Mhic Mhathuna's daughters, Niamh and Una, are reportedly founding members of the radical anti-abortion group.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #59
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Well, you'll be delighted to know, no doubt, that the author(ess) of that phrase is back for the current COIR campaign:

    Thanks for that.
    Not in the least bit surprised, I must say. Why do this campaign group maintain such lack of transparency? (thats rhetorical, by the way :D)


  • Options
    #60
    stabu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭stabu


    decent post. I thought it went overboard sometimes, (not necessarily a fault - if moderate, helps readability). Specifically, I mean the farming and ceíli comments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Some of them have been worse. Abortion referendums, after all, have people like COIR as the major players.

    I don't think so - or at least not seriously so. I think the government has only really come to realise gradually how tied its hands are by judgements like McKenna and Coughlan - the logical culmination of which would be exactly such a system.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    So is your idea something that could actually be pursued?
    nesf wrote: »
    Cóir posters play very well I imagine in the "anti-establishment" section of the community.

    Interesting thought. I'd imagine they would, however I can't imagine their organisation and its goals would fit in with such a crowd, per se. Hopefully most don't just trust the words of these shadowy and will seek to find out who they are.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Well, you'll be delighted to know, no doubt, that the author(ess) of that phrase is back for the current COIR campaign:



    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Read this today actually and was going to post it elsewhere here. The papers exposing this can only do damage to their campaign. Only a true nutjob would value the addition of such a psychopath to an already maniacal campaign.


Advertisement