The YES side

maglite

Before people rush in with answers, slow down and really think.


Have the YES side actually come out with a reason to vote yes?


I have heard plenty of opinions why we should not vote no and discrediting the rubbish from the NO side. But what reasons are given to support the YES vote.

I have read that our future in Europe is on this vote but as far as I could tell from the quick glance I had though it, its not like a software agreement that if you don't click yes nothing works.

Have the EU not come out and said there will be no negative repercussions to a negative vote? DID the countries that voted against the last treaty get slapped with a big stick?

So to recap. Reasons to vote yes?

oscarBravo

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1

Scofflaw

Are you asking whether people here have good reasons for voting Yes, or whether people here consider the reasons given by the most prominent Yes campaigns to be good reasons?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

My top 3 reasons for voting yes:

1. Lisbon will make fighting global warming an objective of the EU.
2. Energy becomes a competency of the EU, hopefully leading to collective negotiation on prices, cheaper gas and oil, and greener energy in accordance with point 1. Ireland has a unique chance to benefit from this given our propensity for wind (and I don't just mean hot air!).
3. Common foreign policy. Gives us a chance to speak collectively to the world when we agree a common policy platform. Will allow us to push our values of dignity for the person, human rights and peace louder and stronger then before. Gives Ireland a global voice, as part of this, we don't already have.

maglite

The latter Scoff,

All I see are reasons not to vote No.


I can and do understand people see reasons to vote YES and while I disagree with it, I do respect it. But the YES campain seem not to be hilighting any of those reasons outlined in post #2.

Now it maybe I am not seeing them.

PopeBuckfastXVI

maglite wrote: »

The latter Scoff,

All I see are reasons not to vote No.


I can and do understand people see reasons to vote YES and while I disagree with it, I do respect it. But the YES campain seem not to be hilighting any of those reasons outlined in post #2.

Now it maybe I am not seeing them.

The yes campaign is terrible, just like the first time!

Labour have highlighted on some posters that I saw that Lisbon makes for a greener EU. That's about it from the official campaigns, that I can see.

To be fair though, I think Generation Yes have been running plenty of articles on their website with treaty related reasons to vote yes.

Sam Vimes

maglite wrote: »

The latter Scoff,

All I see are reasons not to vote No.


I can and do understand people see reasons to vote YES and while I disagree with it, I do respect it. But the YES campain seem not to be hilighting any of those reasons outlined in post #2.

Now it maybe I am not seeing them.

The yes campaign are pretty much useless. I nearly jumped for joy yesterday when I saw two posters, one from the green party saying that Europe has been good for women, workers rights, Ireland in general and something else I can't remember and another poster saying "vote yes to keep our commissioner". They're the first two yes posters I've seen with actual issues on them.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Also, it's unfortunate for everyone that some very loud campaigns on the 'No' side are based on lies, meaning a lot of 'yes' time is taken up with trying to fight those lies.

maglite

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Europe has been good for women, workers rights, Ireland in general and something else

But that is already the case, what will Lisbon do to change that? Its not as if we vote No and all the positives of the EU are diminished.

What do you mean lies? You mean the minimum wage will not be .00000001323c :eek::eek::eek::eek:  From what I can see that is only Cóir, and lets be fair with our getting into it... well they are tit faces.. There ends my discussion on their level

Stainless_Steel

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

My top 3 reasons for voting yes:

1. Lisbon will make fighting global warming an objective of the EU.
2. Energy becomes a competency of the EU, hopefully leading to collective negotiation on prices, cheaper gas and oil, and greener energy in accordance with point 1. Ireland has a unique chance to benefit from this given our propensity for wind (and I don't just mean hot air!).
3. Common foreign policy. Gives us a chance to speak collectively to the world when we agree a common policy platform. Will allow us to push our values of dignity for the person, human rights and peace louder and stronger then before. Gives Ireland a global voice, as part of this, we don't already have.

Ha that's funny - number 1 and 3 would be reasons to vote NO for me :pac:
Number 1 - I believe global warming is bull, there was no cars or industry around during the Earth's other climate fluctuations.
Number 3 - Basically your saying Ireland will be agreeing to the EUs foreign policy whether we like it or not.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The yes campaign are pretty much useless. I nearly jumped for joy yesterday when I saw two posters, one from the green party saying that Europe has been good for women, workers rights, Ireland in general and something else I can't remember and another poster saying "vote yes to keep our commissioner". They're the first two yes posters I've seen with actual issues on them.

Are you saying we will lose or commissioner if we vote no? Otherwise I don't see why you nearly jumped for joy...

Sam Vimes

maglite wrote: »

But that is already the case, what will Lisbon do to change that? Its not as if we vote No and all the positives of the EU are diminished.

It's a response to the arguments that Lisbon is bad for workers rights and women. It won't necessarily make a massive positive difference to them but nor is it the "race to the bottom" suggested by the socialist party. Most of our progressive legislation has originated in the EU. There could be issues more directly related to the treaty but things like "It will bring in the simplified revision procedure which will increase efficiency and allow better decision making" don't fit easily on a poster. Better arguments are being made, just not on the posters.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Are you saying we will lose or commissioner if we vote no? Otherwise I don't see why you nearly jumped for joy...

Yes that's what I'm saying. Under Nice rules the size of the commission will be reduced in 2014. Lisbon defined exactly how that would be done but if Lisbon is not passed, something will have to be done then to reduce its size in 2014. Not everyone will have a permanent commissioner if Lisbon is not passed. The Irish government negotiated this change to Lisbon so now voting yes is the only way to keep the commission as it is

PopeBuckfastXVI

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Ha that's funny - number 1 and 3 would be reasons to vote NO for me :pac:
Number 1 - I believe global warming is bull, there was no cars or industry around during the Earth's other climate fluctuations.

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it disagrees with Scientific consensus.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Number 3 - Basically your saying Ireland will be agreeing to the EUs foreign policy whether we like it or not.

That's basically not what I'm saying at all.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Are you saying we will lose or commissioner if we vote no? Otherwise I don't see why you nearly jumped for joy...

Yes, we lose the permanent right of nomination/proposition of a commissioner if we vote no.

Scofflaw

maglite wrote: »

The latter Scoff,

All I see are reasons not to vote No.


I can and do understand people see reasons to vote YES and while I disagree with it, I do respect it. But the YES campain seem not to be hilighting any of those reasons outlined in post #2.

Now it maybe I am not seeing them.

The pro-Lisbon political parties ran abysmal, self-defeating campaigns last time - they've upped their game this time, but I don't think there's any Yes poster on these forums who would claim that they're highlighting the right things.

Mind you, since a large part of what's good in Lisbon relates to transparency, democracy, and effectiveness, you can see how that might be a hard sell for our political parties. Their inability to articulate these complex concepts, however, doesn't change the fact that they're in the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Stainless_Steel

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it disagrees with Scientific consensus...

There scientist on both sides of the fence friend....

And you don't need a scientist to tell you there was no combustion engine during the ice age :pac:

oscarBravo

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

There scientist on both sides of the fence friend....

True, but there's scientific consensus on only one.

And you don't need a scientist to tell you there was no combustion engine during the ice age :pac:

There's a Green Issues forum where you can discuss the reality or otherwise of AGW.

DHFrame

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Ha that's funny - number 1 and 3 would be reasons to vote NO for me :pac:
Number 1 - I believe global warming is bull, there was no cars or industry around during the Earth's other climate fluctuations.
Number 3 - Basically your saying Ireland will be agreeing to the EUs foreign policy whether we like it or not.

Number 1 - Global Warming is bull? The natural course for the next global change is not due for another 25,000 years. We are speeding up the process by about 25,000% For every climate warming fart out of cows ass we make 1000 cars.

Number 3 - Yeah cos our foreign policy is bloody great isnt it. Its the worst in europe. Ireland is still in 1983 because it could'nt be assed to get with the times when it was making loads of moola. Now its ****ting itself because the bubble has burst. It's been listing to Mills and Boon all its life and now it has to listen to Rave music. Ireland thinks it is more powerful than it actually is, it thinks its England. We are tiny. We only have 4 million people, we need more, wether they are foriegn or not. There are more people in Yorkshire, and we dont have the capability of coping as a closed nation in Europe anymore. Ireland is on a knife edge, and we are riding it with our ass cheeks wide open. We are not special, we need help because lets face it, our government a making a meal of it. Our export industry has cancer, it costs too much to run companies here and they are leaving, quickly! Wages are too high! Prices need to come down for everything, in line with wages, our export industry needs revamping, and no one will allow it to happen because of fear. Everything is broken here because no one will allow things to move forward. No one will allow change. Look at the Garda as an example, it's a joke, we need action, we need to move forward and get with the times. Turf, potato's, houses and cars will not see us through. Lets stay as we are. Let Apple leave, let Dell go home, let Aerlingus move to the UK where it stands a better chance.... do you care? I do.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

There scientist on both sides of the fence friend....

And you don't need a scientist to tell you there was no combustion engine during the ice age :pac:

Matches didn't exist during the last ice age either but that doesn't mean there was no such thing as fire. And the existence of fire before matches does not preclude matches from being the cause of every subsequent fire

DHFrame

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Matches didn't exist during the last ice age either but that doesn't mean there was no such thing as fire. And the existence of fire before matches does not preclude matches from being the cause of every subsequent fire

I dont get it?

PopeBuckfastXVI

DHFrame wrote: »

I dont get it?

A. Matches can cause fire.
B. Fires existed before matches.

A+B -> C. Not all fires were caused by Matches.

However C cannot infer D. a given fire was not caused by Matches, due to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Likewise.

A. Man can cause climate change.
B. Climate change existed before man.

A+B -> C. Not all climate change was caused by Man.

However C cannot infer D. the current climate change was not caused by Man, due to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Sam Vimes

DHFrame wrote: »

I dont get it?

He's implying that because there were no cars during the last ice age that they're not the cause of global warming. I'm pointing out that global temperature fluctuations can have several causes, just like fire can have several causes, and just because cars weren't the cause of the last fluctuation doesn't mean they're not the cause of this one.

For example the last ice age might have been brought to an end by a massive volcano filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, thereby warming it up through the greenhouse effect. But all that means is that the greenhouse effect can occur naturally, not that it is always naturally caused. Whether the carbon dioxide comes from a volcano or a million car exhausts the result is the same.

edit: or to put it another way (from the affirming the consequent wiki page), his argument is of this form:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

and is invalid because owning fort knox is not the only way to be rich

PopeBuckfastXVI

Because I love it so I'm going to do up another one!

A. It was not raining yesterday.
B. I was wet yesterday.

I am wet today, it was not raining yesterday when I was wet, therefore, it is not raining today.

is the exact same as

A. There was no man during the last ice age.
B. There was climate change during the last ice age.

There is currently climate change, there was no man during the last ice age when there was climate change, therefore, man is not causing the current climate change.

oscarBravo

There's still a Green Issues forum for this stuff.

meglome

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's still a Green Issues forum for this stuff.

Now now oscarbravo we all know there is no such thing as green issues. That's just 'the man' trying to enslave us so his robots can penetrate us... or something.

Daftendirekt

@ the OP:

I agree with you completely that the campaign by the Yes side has been piss-poor.

I also haven't seen or heard a single good reason to vote Yes put forward by any of the main political parties; all I've seen are vague slogans about how great the EU is. Which is a real shame, because there are good reasons to vote Yes, but none of the official campaigners seem to be capitalising on this.

But the same is true of the No campaign, except to an even greater extent. While the Yes campaign has resorted to waffle, the No campaign has resorted to outright, disprovable lies about the Treaty.

It's also very telling, that there hasn't been a post on this forum equivalent to the one linked above from a No voter yet.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's an extraordinarily kind view of the matter!

amused,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And therein lies one of the main reasons I'm on the no side. All I ever hear from the yes campaign is this insufferable condescending "we're better than you". And I certainly don't want anything to do with that type of campaign.

Seriously, that's a huge reason I'm voting no. In a democracy, your elected public servants shouldn't tell you you're stupid for voting in X direction. It's an absolute disgrace.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sam Vimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And therein lies one of the main reasons I'm on the no side. All I ever hear from the yes campaign is this insufferable condescending "we're better than you". And I certainly don't want anything to do with that type of campaign.

Seriously, that's a huge reason I'm voting no. In a democracy, your elected public servants shouldn't tell you you're stupid for voting in X direction. It's an absolute disgrace.

This is the same thing that happens with atheists all the time. They get called arrogant and condescending and told they "think they're smarter than everyone else" and get dismissed accordingly. But all that's actually happening is they're able to form logical and rational arguments and their opponents aren't, so instead they get angry and search for insults to throw. You see it with creationists who think they're being discriminated against and that everyone else is biased when in reality it's just that their claims have no scientific validity.

So I'll say they same thing to you that I say to religious people. Those who can argue a point do so and those who can't get angry and call their opponents arrogant. Instead of dismissing us as having an "I'm better than you" attitude because we say certain reasons for voting no are stupid (note, not simply the act of voting no is stupid), maybe you should take a good look at these arguments and realise that they are stupid. They're paranoid and ridiculous and have no basis in reality. They are nonsense. The only argument I've seen from the no side that carries any validity is the objection to the increased move to QMV but when I point out its benefits and how it gives Ireland power over the others just as it gives them power over us, they invariably slink away. Some people just have this idea that power sharing is self evidently bad and they can rarely back it up.

As Jimmy Carr says, it's not arrogance, the word you're looking for is 'correct'

humanji

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And therein lies one of the main reasons I'm on the no side. All I ever hear from the yes campaign is this insufferable condescending "we're better than you". And I certainly don't want anything to do with that type of campaign.

Seriously, that's a huge reason I'm voting no. In a democracy, your elected public servants shouldn't tell you you're stupid for voting in X direction. It's an absolute disgrace.

Hell I feel our entire government is a bunch of corrupt, condecending f*ckwits, but that's hardly a reason to vote No.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.