The YES side

O'Morris

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'm surprised to see you complaining about people being anti-EU. Didn't I once read a thread where you said you wanted to see a conservative party set up that had our secession from the EU as one of it's policies? What made you change your mind about the EU?

ShooterSF

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And the Yes campaign ain't much better, scaremongering and paranoia too. I do kind of agree with you on what the yes side is doing. Though I disagree with your sweeping generalisation of no voters.
There was definite proof last time that some voters voted based on lies and scaremongering. I'd say there were four camps (excluding undecided for ease):
1. Yes voters based on the treaty
2. No voters based on the treaty
3. Yes voters who voted on scaremongering (We'll be shunned/ job loss/ better off in europe etc.)
4. No voters who voted on lies (Abortion/Neutrality/Conscription etc.)

I believe the Yes campaign believes if it can win the battle for groups 3 and 4 it can win the vote. Most in groups 1 and 2 are decided and unlikely to change so they adapted their tactics to what persuaded groups 3 and 4 to vote last time. For want of a better phrase (though none worse than yours) they are chasing the idiot vote. Both sides are. After all a vote is a vote.

thebman

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.

I'd just thought I'd put forward that even if you believe global warming being mostly a man made problem is bull, there are other reasons why its agenda will be positive.

For example, cleaner air in general if we move away from petrol and diesel cars. Cleaner environment in general.

Cheaper energy costs and energy from renewable sources decreasing the likelyhood of another energy crisis about oil.

Oil is running out so we have to make the changes anyway, whether this is under the guise of saving the planet or not is really rather irrelevant. I don't believe politicians care much about long term events really. They are more worried about the energy crisis thing.

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

And the Yes campaign ain't much better, scaremongering and paranoia too. I do kind of agree with you on what the yes side is doing. Though I disagree with your sweeping generalisation of no voters.
There was definite proof last time that some voters voted based on lies and scaremongering. I'd say there were four camps (excluding undecided for ease):
1. Yes voters based on the treaty
2. No voters based on the treaty
3. Yes voters who voted on scaremongering (We'll be shunned/ job loss/ better off in europe etc.)
4. No voters who voted on lies (Abortion/Neutrality/Conscription etc.)

I believe the Yes campaign believes if it can win the battle for groups 3 and 4 it can win the vote. Most in groups 1 and 2 are decided and unlikely to change so they adapted their tactics to what persuaded groups 3 and 4 to vote last time. For want of a better phrase (though none worse than yours) they are chasing the idiot vote. Both sides are. After all a vote is a vote.

Again ShooterSF, just because something is scary does not mean it's scaremongering. A previous post of mine to you on this very issue:

Sam Vimes wrote:

The no posters makes specific claims directly by the treaty, eg that it will make EU law superior to Irish law, that the guarantees are not really legally binding, that our corporation tax can be effected after Lisbon or that it will remove our right to future referendums. Such claims are provably false. This, however, is a matter of opinion. It is to do with confidence in Ireland as a business location and as a fully fledged EU member going into the future. We already pay more interest than our neighbours because the central bank does not have the same confidence in us as it does Germany.

Confidence and uncertainty are not written down in a treaty, there is no clause that says "Confidence in Ireland in the mind of the CEO of AMD will be set at 94% and uncertainty at 3.6% and this will cause him to create 147 new jobs here through a research project". But just because it's not written down in the treaty does not mean that it should be ignored or that pointing it out is scaremongering. You and I both know that this treaty and Ireland's acceptance or rejection of it will have implications far beyond the text written in it and pretending otherwise and insisting on a treaty article that legally sets confidence levels is disingenuous.

Here's an extract from an article in the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1224254135032.html

Mr Cowen said all the main business groupings and the Irish heads of several multi-national firms were “crystal clear” in their view that reluctance to endorse the treaty, together with the resulting perception that “we are somewhat a-la-carte in terms of our commitment to Europe”, would make it more difficult to attract and secure inward investment.

“Those who argue otherwise would do well to listen to the employers’ representative groups, to the exporters of Ireland, to the farmers’ representative groups and to the employers themselves.

“Those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs.”

As I'm sure you know both Intel and Ryanair have started campaigns for a yes vote. What do all these businesses, employers groups, multi-national firms, exporters and economists have to gain from pretending that a yes vote to Lisbon will help the economy?

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Again ShooterSF, just because something is scary does not mean it's scaremongering. A previous post of mine to you on this very issue:

I agree that one does not always mean the other. However the yes campaign (as I was referring to) do use scaremongering such as associating a treaty on the restructuring of the EU to our membership. The economy issue should not have came into though. Voting for a treaty because you don't want a CEO of AMD to lose confidence in your country is a crap reason to pass it. Anywho that's way off topic (how many threads do we derail a week at this point ). Would you agree that both campaigns are using the tactics I listed above with regards to the OP's curiosity to the yes campaigns actions so far?

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

I agree that one does not always mean the other. However the yes campaign (as I was referring to) do use scaremongering such as associating a treaty on the restructuring of the EU to our membership.

Can you be certain that the other 26 nations that want these changes will not go ahead with them and give Ireland opts outs of the parts we don't want (or that we think we don't want)? And why shouldn't they?

ShooterSF wrote: »

The economy issue should not have came into though. Voting for a treaty because you don't want a CEO of AMD to lose confidence in your country is a crap reason to pass it.

But it's a very good response to "if you don't know vote no". It shows that voting no is not the "safe" option, that voting either way has potential consequences

ShooterSF wrote: »

Anywho that's way off topic (how many threads do we derail a week at this point )

I will keep bringing it until you stop trying to pretend that it's irrelevant scaremongering

ShooterSF wrote: »

. Would you agree that both campaigns are using the tactics I listed above with regards to the OP's curiosity to the yes campaigns actions so far?

I agree that some people in the yes campaign have engaged in scaremongering but none of the above issues are scaremongering, they're legitimate possible consequences of a no vote

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can you be certain that the other 26 nations that want these changes will not go ahead with them and give Ireland opts outs of the parts we don't want (or that we think we don't want)? And why shouldn't they?

That's a bit of a loaded question. How could I be certain of what someone else would or wouldn't do? I'm confident it won't happen but I'll ask you how would you see the voting working with us using one system and the others using another? Though to be honest I'd have no problem with a two-tier Europe with us staying at the level we are at now.

But it's a very good response to "if you don't know vote no". It shows that voting no is not the "safe" option, that voting either way has potential consequences

Possible consequences. Though that example would require the CEO of AMD to be thick enough to think we were looking to leave the EU, something no poll has shown. After all if we can still export into the EU and still have a low corp. tax what should he care about our opinion on this suggested restructuring of the EU?

I will keep bringing it until you stop trying to pretend that it's irrelevant scaremongering

Well at least it's only a couple more weeks. Then we can go back to debunking religious beliefs

I agree that some people in the yes campaign have engaged in scaremongering but none of the above issues are scaremongering, they're legitimate possible consequences of a no vote

So let me get this straight we are now allowed to second guess other peoples actions after our vote (two-tier Europe) and offer it as a legit possible consequence?

FoxT

Arrgh what a horrible and uninforming campaign....

The No side are basically Shinners looking for free publicity + Coir & other fundamentalists of one flavour or another. They are lying about virtually every issue. Evil.

The YES side consist of the political & industrial 'establishment'. They have failed to produce a convincing argument to vote yes. None of them are saying why YES is good, they are focused on why NO is bad. They are trying to use fear to get their way. Evil.

I plan to vote YES this time, because I am in favour of an enlarged EU, and Lisbon will make the bigger EU more manageable. I think the EU has many flaws (lack of democracy/accountability, the demise of the Irish fishing industry, the clandestine free trade with Israel, the abject failure to respond in a meaningful way to the balkan war, etc etc), but by God we are better off with it than without it.

I would love to vote no, as a protest vote against Eurocrats/NAMA/Fianna Fail/property developers/etc., but I basically see this treaty as constructive.

my 2c

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

That's a bit of a loaded question. How could I be certain of what someone else would or wouldn't do? I'm confident it won't happen but I'll ask you how would you see the voting working with us using one system and the others using another? Though to be honest I'd have no problem with a two-tier Europe with us staying at the level we are at now.

Possible consequences. Though that example would require the CEO of AMD to be thick enough to think we were looking to leave the EU, something no poll has shown. After all if we can still export into the EU and still have a low corp. tax what should he care about our opinion on this suggested restructuring of the EU?

I never said the voting system would change, I said that the EU would move on. There are already a few tiers in Europe: the Shengen countries, the countries not in the Euro, the countries with other various opt outs. There's plenty of precedent for Europe making changes and leaving out the countries that don't want them. No one's suggesting that we're looking to leave the EU, we're talking about this two tier Europe that you say you're perfectly fine with. All the CEO of AMD has to do is look at us on the tier on our own and then look at all the other countries that are cheaper to operate in and which give easier access to the rest of the EU because they're all operating under the same rules and have expressed a desire to do so going into the future. It won't necessarily be the biggest factor but it will be a factor that can't be ignored.

ShooterSF wrote: »

So let me get this straight we are now allowed to second guess other peoples actions after our vote (two-tier Europe) and offer it as a legit possible consequence?

Yes of course we are, I don't really see how we can have a Lisbon debate without talking about people's possible future actions

We are not, though, allowed to talk about consequences that aren't possible, such as raising our corporation tax

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well at least it's only a couple more weeks. Then we can go back to debunking religious beliefs

I hope so

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I never said the voting system would change, I said that the EU would move on. There are already a few tiers in Europe: the Shengen countries, the countries not in the Euro, the countries with other various opt outs. There's plenty of precedent for Europe making changes and leaving out the countries that don't want them. No one's suggesting that we're looking to leave the EU, we're talking about this two tier Europe that you say you're perfectly fine with. All the CEO of AMD has to do is look at us on the tier on our own and then look at all the other countries that are cheaper to operate in and which give easier access to the rest of the EU because they're all operating under the same rules and have expressed a desire to do so going into the future. It won't necessarily be the biggest factor but it will be a factor that can't be ignored.

Fair enough. Well we'll never be cheaper to operate in if we're talking wages, that would be a tax issue which we can both agree has nothing to do with the EU and while other countries would be operating under the same rules as each other we could decide our own to suit a situation. We would still be in the Euro zone and still be able to export freely. Hell AMD might be able to get better rules off us than a large group. Sometimes when a group are playing by one rules and the other it's own it can be to your advantage. Just an example in the EU would be the UK's ability to sink their currency to make their exports cheaper and imports dearer. Of course I'm not suggesting one side is exclusively positive.

Yes of course we are, I don't really see how we can have a Lisbon debate without talking about people's possible future actions

We are not, though, allowed to talk about consequences that aren't possible, such as raising our corporation tax

And where does that speculation end? Can I go through every veto we give up in the QMV and look at worst case scenarios of things voted in and offer it as a reason to vote no? In case?

I hope so

Oh I'll need it.:pac:

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough. Well we'll never be cheaper to operate in if we're talking wages, that would be a tax issue which we can both agree has nothing to do with the EU and while other countries would be operating under the same rules as each other we could decide our own to suit a situation. We would still be in the Euro zone and still be able to export freely. Hell AMD might be able to get better rules off us than a large group. Sometimes when a group are playing by one rules and the other it's own it can be to your advantage. Just an example in the EU would be the UK's ability to sink their currency to make their exports cheaper and imports dearer. Of course I'm not suggesting one side is exclusively positive.

Yeah we would still be in the eurozone as it is for the moment but as more and more changes are made there's no guarantee of that or at least that it'll be as easy to get access to the rest of Europe as it is now. It's a possibility that businesses have to consider before investing heavily in this country. It might not happen but it cannot be ignored and completely invalidates "if you don't know vote no".

ShooterSF wrote: »

And where does that speculation end? Can I go through every veto we give up in the QMV and look at worst case scenarios of things voted in and offer it as a reason to vote no? In case?

It ends when your arguments become ridiculous and will clearly never happen. If a case can be made then make it but engaging in whataboutery doesn't help anyone

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

major bill

The yes side argument pisses me off. ive yet to see a poster that would make me think and say wait i dint know that maybe they are right.

some of the yes side slogans

''we need europe'' ok so if we no the other nations aint gona offer us any of their chips:rolleyes: if thats the case then we dont live in the so called democratic world we think.simple thing is we just continue in europe on the basis of the nice treaty if we reject it.

''more jobs with lisbon'' ask any politician and ask him to point out where the jobs will come from and he wouldnt be to tell you.france,germany and what could be soon enough britain are all out of recession and thats without lisbon been passed funny how the government fail to tell the people this.

''a greener eu'' yes which brings more taxes more restrictions, man made global warming the biggest money making/people controlling scam.

the yes side reminds me of that type of person that is always worried what other people think. if we vote no who cares what other countries think it annoys me when brian cowen or whoever says we wont look good to europe if we vote no!!

the yes side really turned me off

Sam Vimes

major bill wrote: »

The yes side argument pisses me off. ive yet to see a poster that would make me think and say wait i dint know that maybe they are right.

You're looking in the wrong place mate, you can't fit the Lisbon treaty on a poster
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm
http://www.lisbonexposed.org/

Scofflaw

major bill wrote: »

The yes side argument pisses me off. ive yet to see a poster that would make me think and say wait i dint know that maybe they are right.

some of the yes side slogans

''we need europe'' ok so if we no the other nations aint gona offer us any of their chips:rolleyes: if thats the case then we dont live in the so called democratic world we think.simple thing is we just continue in europe on the basis of the nice treaty if we reject it.

''more jobs with lisbon'' ask any politician and ask him to point out where the jobs will come from and he wouldnt be to tell you.france,germany and what could be soon enough britain are all out of recession and thats without lisbon been passed funny how the government fail to tell the people this.

''a greener eu'' yes which brings more taxes more restrictions, man made global warming the biggest money making/people controlling scam.

the yes side reminds me of that type of person that is always worried what other people think. if we vote no who cares what other countries think it annoys me when brian cowen or whoever says we wont look good to europe if we vote no!!

the yes side really turned me off

Certainly, the contrast between the Yes campaigns and the Sovereign Independent you like would be quite striking.

amused,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yeah we would still be in the eurozone as it is for the moment but as more and more changes are made there's no guarantee of that or at least that it'll be as easy to get access to the rest of Europe as it is now. It's a possibility that businesses have to consider before investing heavily in this country. It might not happen but it cannot be ignored and completely invalidates "if you don't know vote no".

How so? Is there a method to kick a country out of the euro zone or has any EU country in any tier been restricted to exporting into the EU?

It ends when your arguments become ridiculous and will clearly never happen. If a case can be made then make it but engaging in whataboutery doesn't help anyone

Fair enough, leave it with me I'll try and come up with something that could possibly happen and stick it in the sig.

EDIT:
By the way Sam in regards to your two tier Europe fears: (taken from the neo nazi thread)

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt – who's country currently holds the rotating EU Council Presidency – said some days ago, following a a meeting with the EU parliament President Jerzy Buzek in Stockholm, about the Irish vote on October 2nd “If if is a No, then we continue as before, wit the Nice treaty as the basis” He envisaged no reason for a “Plan B”.

So at least one head of state sees no reason for a plan B and says we can continue as is with Nice. That should be a relief right?

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

How so? Is there a method to kick a country out of the euro zone or has any EU country in any tier been restricted to exporting into the EU?

It's not that we'll be kicked out, it's that the Eurozone that we're in won't exist anymore because it will move on and we'll be opted out because a lie on a poster convinced us it would eat our babies

And this doesn't even have to happen. All it takes is a perception in the minds of businessmen that it or something like it might happen and suddenly other countries look like a better option for that investment they're planning. This is not something I can say will happen but neither is it something you can say won't happen. It's not just scaremongering, it's warning of a possible consequence of a no vote so show that it's not the 'safe' option your sig says it is. The only safe action for those who don't know is not to vote. And to leave the decision to those who do know, whichever way they may vote.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough, leave it with me I'll try and come up with something that could possibly happen and stick it in the sig.

EDIT:
By the way Sam in regards to your two tier Europe fears: (taken from the neo nazi thread)

So at least one head of state sees no reason for a plan B and says we can continue as is with Nice. That should be a relief right?

If there was no reason we couldn't continue with Nice they wouldn't have spent five years and millions writing Lisbon, which is another point missed by your 'if you don't know vote no' slogan. It's sticking two fingers up at all those people in all those countries who put so much work in

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If there was no reason we couldn't continue with Nice they wouldn't have spent five years and millions writing Lisbon, which is another point missed by your 'if you don't know vote no' slogan. It's sticking two fingers up at all those people in all those countries who put so much work in

If the head of one of the countries that are so desperate to move on seems to think we can continue under nice then he must see it as doable.
As for the whole people put so much work into it, I built a super ray gun that gives you super powers, well it might (positives of the treaty) or it might kill you (negatives of the treaty) can I shoot ya with it? Oh by the way I spent years on it (timeline having an effect on your decision?) so you can't really say no. Go on?

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

If the head of one of the countries that are so desperate to move on seems to think we can continue under nice then he must see it as doable.
As for the whole people put so much work into it, I built a super ray gun that gives you super powers, well it might (positives of the treaty) or it might kill you (negatives of the treaty) can I shoot ya with it? Oh by the way I spent years on it (timeline having an effect on your decision?) so you can't really say no. Go on?

Well firstly I think you're drastically exaggerating the possible impacts of the treaty and secondly, no one said you can't say no, just that saying no to something that 26 other nations want and that years of work was put into because you can't make up your mind is insulting. If you can't make up your mind then don't make up your mind. Voting no is making up your mind

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well firstly I think you're drastically exaggerating the possible impacts of the treaty and secondly, no one said you can't say no, just that saying no to something that 26 other nations want and that years of work was put into because you can't make up your mind is insulting. If you can't make up your mind then don't make up your mind. Voting no is making up your mind

Why are we having a second referendum so?

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

Why are we having a second referendum so?

I'm actually not going to answer that question because you already know the answer.

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm actually not going to answer that question because you already know the answer.

Fair enough. Would you at least like to edit your post to change that sentence to something more factual like erm,
"Voting no is making up your mind as long as you are not undecided or voting on non-issues"?

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough. Would you at least like to edit your post to change that sentence to something more factual like erm,
"Voting no is making up your mind as long as you are not undecided or voting on non-issues"?

No it is making up your mind but if the circumstances that caused you to make up your mind change or the basis for making up your mind is shown to be invalid then you might just...........change your mind :eek: