Who to believe?

mandysmithers

I've read up on the Lisbon treaty, and I still can't decide which way to vote. Each side just contradicts the other, and says the other side are lying - that's not much help! So who do you believe?

And also, I can't see what significant changes the Lisbon Treaty will bring about. What's the whole point of it? Will we really notice any difference in our lives if it's ratified - besides the whole 'Ireland will just be a small island at the edge of Europe (geographically and metaphorically), we need Europe for jobs and economic recovery etc.' Where in the treaty is all this stated?

If the bureaucrats in Brussels decide to marginalise us just because we didn't vote as they want, they why would we want to belong to such an organisation? I know we've greatly benefitted from EU membership, and I am pro-EU on the whole, but I don't like the idea that we will be somehow 'punished' for a democratically decided result. Is that just scare-mongering on the part of the Yes side?

It's all very confusing. I'm considering not voting at all, although I hate the idea of not exercising my right to vote.

PopeBuckfastXVI

First of all, nobody but us will be marginalising us. If the other nations of the EU want to proceed with enhanced cooperation in areas like Space, Tourism, Sport, Energy and Climate Change, then who are we to stop them? Voting 'No' to Lisbon is saying we don't want to cooperate in these areas, but that doesn't mean that they can't go ahead in these areas without us. A bit like how we are in the Euro but the UK still has the pound, because it said 'no' to the Euro.

When it comes to trust, I personally believe you should find out about the treaty from impartial sources like the following:

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm
http://www.lisbonexposed.org/

And you can ask questions in this forum, where people will be more than willing to help you.

If you want to know where some of the people in the campaign calling for 'No' are coming from then you might want to check this link out:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61254481&postcount=740

It shows that all these groups have been saying 'No' to every European treaty since we joined. Do you really think they weren't going to say 'No' to this one?

stevoman

personally i wouldnt beleive a word coming from our goverments mouths.

i voted no last time and i will vote no this time again as a matter of principle. once again the irish goverment will insult all of us and democracy by holding an election for a treaty that we have already objected to, stataing that if we dont vote yes this time we must be prepared to be shunned from europe. How is this democracy??? we will be shunned from using our right as a democratic society to a vote!

they did the same with the nice referendum and there excuse that time was that they didnt put enough yes posters up and do a good yes campaign. its a bloody farce it is. that refernedum opened up borders and now we have 80,000 foreign nationals on our live registar along with family supplement payments being shippied off to familys who are not even living in this country. im not a "racist" before the PC's get to me but this is the facts.

as a citizen of this country i actually feel insulted that our goverment cannot take the vote of the irish people and swallow it, instead of being puppets to some people in brussells.

is this really the Ireland that men and women gave their lives for????

Sam Vimes

stevoman wrote: »

personally i wouldnt beleive a word coming from our goverments mouths.

Which is why PopeBuckfastXVI linked to four websites that are not influenced by the government.

stevoman wrote: »

i voted no last time and i will vote no this time again as a matter of principle. once again the irish goverment will insult all of us and democracy by holding an election for a treaty that we have already objected to, stataing that if we dont vote yes this time we must be prepared to be shunned from europe. How is this democracy??? we will be shunned from using our right as a democratic society to a vote!

We voted no, the major issues were addressed, we were asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

stevoman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We voted no, the major issues were addressed, we were asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

my problems are all my reasons which i stated. thats why im voting NO..... again.

Sam Vimes

stevoman wrote: »

my problems are all my reasons which i stated. thats why im voting NO..... again.

You say that being asked to vote again is insulting
I point out how it makes perfect sense because the major issues with the treaty were addressed and ask you what the problem is
You restate that your reason for voting no is that being asked to vote again is insulting


Could you please answer my question:

We voted no, the major issues were addressed, we were asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

stevoman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We voted no, the major issues were addressed, we were asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

my problems are all my reasons which i stated. thats why im voting NO..... again.

Sam Vimes

stevoman wrote: »

my problems are all my reasons which i stated. thats why im voting NO..... again.

An analogy:
Someone comes to your door and offers you a rotten looking smelly old backpack. You say no and slam the door on him

He rings the doorbell again but this time he opens the bag and shows you the €1 million inside it.

You were offered the same thing both times but the first time you weren't fully aware of all the facts. Would you again slam the door in his face simply for having the cheek to ask you again?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say that being asked to vote again is insulting
I point out how it makes perfect sense and ask you what the problem is
You restate that your reason for voting no is that being asked to vote again is insulting


Could you please answer my question:

We voted no, the major issues were addressed, we were asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

Can this be taken to another thread? Nothing to do with OP's question.

OP asked who to trust, second reply I suppose said 'I wouldn't trust the government' without really giving any reasons, not that helpful, but at least on topic.

There's a million other threads for arguing about the democratic nature of votes.

meglome

mandysmithers wrote: »

I've read up on the Lisbon treaty, and I still can't decide which way to vote. Each side just contradicts the other, and says the other side are lying - that's not much help! So who do you believe?

And also, I can't see what significant changes the Lisbon Treaty will bring about. What's the whole point of it? Will we really notice any difference in our lives if it's ratified - besides the whole 'Ireland will just be a small island at the edge of Europe (geographically and metaphorically), we need Europe for jobs and economic recovery etc.' Where in the treaty is all this stated?

If the bureaucrats in Brussels decide to marginalise us just because we didn't vote as they want, they why would we want to belong to such an organisation? I know we've greatly benefitted from EU membership, and I am pro-EU on the whole, but I don't like the idea that we will be somehow 'punished' for a democratically decided result. Is that just scare-mongering on the part of the Yes side?

It's all very confusing. I'm considering not voting at all, although I hate the idea of not exercising my right to vote.

I started by reading the things the No campaigners were saying, some of which seemed very far fetched to me. I very quickly realised most of what they were saying was made up. It was then I started actively campaigning for a Yes vote.

The main thing the Lisbon treaty does is make the EU more efficient, it's not very exciting but there you go.

As other's have said read the impartial guides and you won't go too far wrong.

turgon

This is the second time in as many hours I have shamelessly linked to this post, but the major reasons to vote Yes are summed up in sinks (a poster here) post "10 Reasons to Vote Yes to Lisbon."

I hope he will excuse my constant linking to that post, but it really does give 10 Treaty related reasons as to why Lisbon is good for Ireland. He gives numbers to articles in the Treaty so you can confirm what hes saying, if you dont (understandably) take his word as that of God.

As an aside, I have never seen the No side here compile 10 Treaty related reasons to Vote No that weren't disproved in the subsequent thread.


I understand its very hard to wade through the amount of crap put forward by both sides, which is why I think sinks post is so helpful: it talks only of things that will be changed by Lisbon. Its not speculating that Lisbon will bring more jobs (FG) or that Lisbon will cut jobs (Sinn Fein etal). Its limited by the realm of fact.


EDIT: If you want to confirm anything said by sink, or anyone else, the website that PopeBuckfastXVI linked to http://www.lisbonexposed.org/ provides easy access to the Treaties.

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An analogy:
Someone comes to your door and offers you a rotten looking smelly old backpack. You say no and slam the door on him

He rings the doorbell again but this time he opens the bag and shows you the €1 million inside it.

You were offered the same thing both times but the first time you weren't fully aware of all the facts. Would you again slam the door in his face simply for having the cheek to ask you again?

Very bad analogy.
The facts: The Irish people were able to read the treaty, they voted no (for whatever reasons, personal and common good), yet they are being asked to re-vote.

Do you honestly believe Cowen et al weren't given a bollickin and asked to go get a yes vote this time?

Seing as though your argument is that its ok to address the no voter issues and ask for a re-vote, can you please post quotes of the lisbon 1 treaty and then their ammendments for lisbon 2 that addressed our issues? Thanks coz I'm struggling to find them.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Very bad analogy.
The facts: The Irish people were able to read the treaty, they voted no (for whatever reasons, personal and common good), yet they are being asked to re-vote.

Do you honestly believe Cowen et al weren't given a bollickin and asked to go get a yes vote this time?

Seing as though your argument is that its ok to address the no voter issues and ask for a re-vote, can you please post quotes of the lisbon 1 treaty and then their ammendments for lisbon 2 that addressed our issues? Thanks coz I'm struggling to find them.

Can you please point out the articles of the treaty that could have been changed to address the issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner? Before you go and look I'll tell you that you can't because none of them except the commissioner issue were ever in the treaty and that could be changed using an existing rule without changing the text of the treaty.

That's why my analogy said "You were offered the same thing both times but the first time you weren't fully aware of all the facts". The Irish people were lied to and rejected the treaty because of those lies. We have now been guaranteed that our fears were unfounded and granted the change on the commissioner issue so we've been asked if we've changed our minds. Perfectly reasonable

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can you please point out the articles of the treaty that could have been changed to address the issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner? Before you go and look I'll tell you that you can't because none of them except the commissioner issue were ever in the treaty and that could be changed using an existing rule without changing the text of the treaty.

Fair enough but your assuming what the no voters issues were.

How many Lisbon 1 no voters on here were asked for their issues? Anybody?

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Fair enough but your assuming what the no voters issues were.

How many Lisbon 1 no voters on here were asked for their issues? Anybody?

Two independent polls were done, one by a polling company called Millward Brown and one by the EU themselves. The results were similar for both. I'm sure someone can link you to them, they've been linked to often enough

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Two independent polls were done, one by a polling company called Millward Brown and one by the EU themselves. The results were similar for both. I'm sure someone can link you to them, they've been linked to often enough

Thanks I haven't seen them.

I don't know anyone that was asked their opinion for these polls. Interesting to see how many people voted no because they are anti-EU.

mandysmithers

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The Irish people were lied to and rejected the treaty because of those lies. We have now been guaranteed that our fears were unfounded and granted the change on the commissioner issue so we've been asked if we've changed our minds. Perfectly reasonable

I presume you mean we were lied to by the No side? My question is, did they believe that they were telling the truth? Or are they just anti-EU, no matter what, and will do anything to ensure we're not part of it, so decided to just make up lies? Or did they totally misinterpret the treaty? Is there no grain of truth whatsoever in what they are saying?

humanji

mandysmithers wrote: »

I've read up on the Lisbon treaty, and I still can't decide which way to vote. Each side just contradicts the other, and says the other side are lying - that's not much help! So who do you believe?

And also, I can't see what significant changes the Lisbon Treaty will bring about. What's the whole point of it? Will we really notice any difference in our lives if it's ratified - besides the whole 'Ireland will just be a small island at the edge of Europe (geographically and metaphorically), we need Europe for jobs and economic recovery etc.' Where in the treaty is all this stated?

If the bureaucrats in Brussels decide to marginalise us just because we didn't vote as they want, they why would we want to belong to such an organisation? I know we've greatly benefitted from EU membership, and I am pro-EU on the whole, but I don't like the idea that we will be somehow 'punished' for a democratically decided result. Is that just scare-mongering on the part of the Yes side?

It's all very confusing. I'm considering not voting at all, although I hate the idea of not exercising my right to vote.

There's a nasty rumour going around that this treaty is the most important thing int he history of the universe and no matter which way we vote, our lives will never be the same again. The way I see it is that the treaty really will do sweet f*ck all to change our lives. The whole point of it seems to be to cut down the beurocracy a little and make life easier for the various EU politicians who have to keep the EU running and to tighten up a few areas that might make life a little easier for the rest of us.

Sadly the two sides of the argument aren't really helping. You've got out and out lies from the No campaign, and utter condecension and vague warnings about future possibilities from the Yes side. It's best to ignore both.

The links that PopeBuckfastXVI gave are a good starting point. They'll tell you what the treaty entails in simple terms and as he said, you can ask any question you want here as well. And don't feel bad about feeling a little lost because of all this. You can be happy that you've at least made an effort to find out for yourself here. Many people will vote simply because someone else told them to.

super_furry

My position is that I believe both sides are lying and exagerating and I won't be voting.

Sam Vimes

Here are some results from it:

http://euobserver.com/9/26729

42% lack of undersanding - Nothing to change there. Just educate them and ask again when they understand better

Neutrality and taxation - doesn't give percentage but non-issues. No change there.

33% - Conscription - Non -issue. No change there.

40% corporate tax - Non-issue. No change there.

Ireland's place in the EU - Vague. No way to know what to change if anything

13% Domination by larger countries - We won't be

5% loss of sovereignty - This is often touted as the top reason by no campaigners. It could be considered valid but I don't think it's a reason to vote no. Some people see the transfer to QMV as automatically bad but I don't see the EU as an adversary whose trying to force things on us

4% loss of a commissioner - Fixed

8% "bad deal for Ireland" - Meaningless Sinn Fein slogan. They just don't like the EU

6% lack of confidence in the Irish government - Non-issue

Sam Vimes

mandysmithers wrote: »

I presume you mean we were lied to by the No side? My question is, did they believe that they were telling the truth? Or are they just anti-EU, no matter what, and will do anything to ensure we're not part of it, so decided to just make up lies? Or did they totally misinterpret the treaty? Is there no grain of truth whatsoever in what they are saying?

The yes side engaged in vague slogans that some people say are lies but the no side are engaged in deliberate lies. They will say whatever it takes to get people to vote no to this treaty because they all have their own agendas. As with all good BS there is a grain of truth. They take articles of the treaty and misrepresent their meaning to make them look bad.

A great example is the whole €1.84 minimum wage thing. It's a complete fabrication but one of the people from that group was on Newstalk saying it and he said that the labour court agrees with them. This prompted the chairman of the labour court to call into the show and say he was lying

meglome

mandysmithers wrote: »

I presume you mean we were lied to by the No side? My question is, did they believe that they were telling the truth? Or are they just anti-EU, no matter what, and will do anything to ensure we're not part of it, so decided to just make up lies? Or did they totally misinterpret the treaty? Is there no grain of truth whatsoever in what they are saying?

The campaign from both sides has been terrible. But like others have said it's one thing to use vague slogans like the Yes side are doing and a completely different thing to make it up as you go along like the No side are doing.

As far as I can see a lot of No campaigners use the idea that we lose sovereignty as the reason they are voting No. They see the EU as taking more control or 'our' affairs. The problem I have with that is Ireland is a small country at the edge of Europe that needs to export most of our goods to survive, so I don't think it's possible to have the type of sovereignty they are looking for. They seem to want all the good things from the EU without doing anything in return.

I haven't seen one poster from the No campaign that was fully truthful.

Stainless_Steel

meglome wrote: »

The campaign from both sides has been terrible. But like others have said it's one thing to use vague slogans like the Yes side are doing and a completely different thing to make it up as you go along like the No side are doing.

Agree, both campaigns are shocking.

I'm actually starting to despise the Lisbon treaty and all the bull its stirring up.

I'm was a no voter, and have nothing to change my mind.

To all the yes people, I believe there will be a yes vote, and if I was a gambling man that's where my money would be. But please don't kid yourselves into thinking the Irish people are now voting yes because the 'issues of concern were adddressed'.

PopeBuckfastXVI

mandysmithers wrote: »

I presume you mean we were lied to by the No side? My question is, did they believe that they were telling the truth? Or are they just anti-EU, no matter what, and will do anything to ensure we're not part of it, so decided to just make up lies? Or did they totally misinterpret the treaty? Is there no grain of truth whatsoever in what they are saying?

It's hard to tell. Coir definitely knew they were lying about the 1.84 minimum wage thing, that's why they put the ? at the end of it, they thought that absolved them of their lie, in my opinion a lie is a lie, question mark or not, what do you think? Others are leaving out stuff, for instance the Sinn Féin and Coir posters that talk about voting weights only include the population requirement and not the number of countries requirement, it's hard to believe they don't know better and aren't purposefully distorting the truth. Others like PANA change the wording of the text when supposedly quoting the treaty to make it sound worse, again it's hard to think they aren't doing this on purpose, they've obviously read the original and decided to alter it, hard to believe that could be an accident.

Others may be genuine confusion, like I'm sure at least *some* people who say that Article 48 means there'll never be another referendum (it doesn't mean it, by the way) actually believe it themselves. Coir might actually believe we have given away 200bn euros worth of fish (we haven't).

It is true that at least PANA, Coir and Sinn Féin are purposefully distorting the truth to some degree in some of their statements and posters, now you have to ask yourself, why do this? Could it be they are just against the existence of the EU, or at the very least they are against Ireland being part of it, and because Lisbon isn't actually a bad treaty they *have* to lie about it and distort it to fool people into voting against something they actually might support?

And what makes me think they might be just against the EU, or Ireland's membership? Again I'll point you to their record where they called for a 'No' to every single other EU referendum:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61254481&postcount=740

Here's a little article pointing out the tricks and falsehoods in just one PANA interview, but these tricks are reused and recycled (but unfortunately not reduced!) all over the 'No' campaign:
http://www.bloggersforeurope.ie/?p=152

Anyway again I recommend you view the impartial links I provided before, they just say what the treaty does, no nonsense, no judgement on whether it's good or bad, just the facts.

marco_polo

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Agree, both campaigns are shocking.

I'm actually starting to despise the Lisbon treaty and all the bull its stirring up.

I'm was a no voter, and have nothing to change my mind.

To all the yes people, I believe there will be a yes vote, and if I was a gambling man that's where my money would be. But please don't kid yourselves into thinking the Irish people are now voting yes because the 'issues of concern were adddressed'.

What in your opnion were the main issues of concern for the majority of people and how could they have been addressed?

Stainless_Steel

marco_polo wrote: »

What in your opnion were the main issues of concern for the majority of people and how could they have been addressed?

I am semi-anti-EU....if that makes sense. I agree with helping each other (free trade etc.) but don't think the EU should have a parliament, courts, laws etc. So I vote no on anything that strengthens the EU's position in partially governing our country, and am sorry if you don't share my view but thats the way I am.

IF I was to finally agree to the direction of the EU, the bare minumum requirement I would want would be for Ireland to have a veto on all decisions, which Lisbon doesn't give us.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I am semi-anti-EU....if that makes sense. I agree with helping each other (free trade etc.) but don't think the EU should have a parliament, courts, laws etc. So I vote no on anything that strengthens the EU's position in partially governing our country, and am sorry if you don't share my view but thats the way I am.

IF I was to finally agree to the direction of the EU, the bare minumum requirement I would want would be for Ireland to have a veto on all decisions, which Lisbon doesn't give us.

Most of the world wants to lift the embargo on Cuba but they can't because the US vetoes it every time at the UN. They also veto sanctions against Israel that most other countries want. Sanctions against Sudan are vetoed by China who have business interests there.

Do you think that is a good situation?

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Most of the world wants to lift the embargo on Cuba but they can't because the US vetoes it every time at the UN. They also veto sanctions against Israel that most other countries want. Sanctions against Sudan are vetoed by China who have business interests there.

Do you think that is a good situation?

Nope, as I said I don't believe in the EU. BUT IF I had no choice (which I dont as the majority do believe in it), then I would want our country to veto anything not in our best interests. That's why their OUR elected representatives and not the EU's.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Nope, as I said I don't believe in the EU. BUT IF I had no choice (which I dont as the majority do believe in it), then I would want our country to veto anything not in our best interests. That's why their OUR elected representatives and not the EU's.

Do you realise that the EU consists of three bodies, one of which is appointed by OUR elected representatives, one of which is made up of OUR elected heads of state and one of which is made up of OUR elected MEPs?

Also, why must democracy end at the national border? Why can't it extend to sharing decisions between countries, with notable exceptions?

Or why don't we give each county in Ireland a veto so we can only make a change if it's as good for Donegal as it is for Leitrim?

marco_polo

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I am semi-anti-EU....if that makes sense. I agree with helping each other (free trade etc.) but don't think the EU should have a parliament, courts, laws etc. So I vote no on anything that strengthens the EU's position in partially governing our country, and am sorry if you don't share my view but thats the way I am.

IF I was to finally agree to the direction of the EU, the bare minumum requirement I would want would be for Ireland to have a veto on all decisions, which Lisbon doesn't give us.

So you are anti pretty much the whole concept the EU as it stands, and nothing in the lisbon treaty in particular, which is an important distinction.

It does not leave you in a position to suggest that this is the general feelings of the population at large or that the guarantees do not address at least a number of the concerns that the people had about the potential interpretation of the treaty.

Stainless_Steel

:pac:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you realise that the EU consists of three bodies, one of which is appointed by OUR elected representatives, one of which is made up of OUR elected heads of state and one of which is made up of OUR elected MEPs?

Also, why must democracy end at the national border? Why can't it extend to sharing decisions between countries, with notable exceptions?

Or why don't we give each county in Ireland a veto so we can only make a change if it's as good for Donegal as it is for Leitrim?

Yes I realise that, and that doesnt instill any faith in Lisbon for me. I didnt vote in our EU representatives so therefore have a right to call them idiots.

Democracy doesn't have to end at the border, sure let's have a one world government, with GW Bush as the president and Tony Blair as his Sexcetary of State! :pac:

Joking aside, democracy needs some borders/limitations as there are many different cultures and beliefs throughout Europe.