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
Will we be left behind if we vote No on Lisbon?
Options
Comments
-
Really? The Yes side is dodging the facts? In debate, the only side capable of using facts seems to be the Yes side because every single reason the No side can bring up is either a lie or is wrong.
Equal scare mongering? Really? You equate a statement like "Vote Yes for Jobs" with "Not on their lives" with a picture of a foetus and an elderly person, implying that voting Yes will put their lives in danger?
Do you really believe those two posters are equal? If so, we have a much, much bigger problem than people not bothering to inform themselves of the actual thing we're voting on, but a massive problem of irrationality.
Nothing the No side has brought to the table thus far has factual grounding in the text. To propose the campaigns are equal, or that the Yes campaign is actually in some way worse is just hilarious. I thought so too at one time, I must admit, but then I opened my eyes and thought for more than 2 seconds about it.
Ok so maybe I was using the "just as much scaremongering" argument a bit loosely, but the point still stands. You can't say that the No side is all unsubstantiated without accepting that the Yes side is quite unsubstantiated too which uses our current economic situation to further their argument. There are genuine arguments for the No side..they're just drowned out by all the other nutjob organisations who support a no vote0 -
Most countries have ratified and this has been done so by their democratically elected government representatives.
Yes, decided by their democratically elected government representatives, but not the people themselves.
Here in Ireland we have democratically elected government representatives who act without accountability, with little transparency, and seem pretty incompetent at what they do.
We vote them in for a set period, and after that they do whatever the hell they want without recourse.
They are after all politicians, winners of the national popularity contests.
What makes you think democratically elected government representatives in other countries are any different, and what they want is the will of the people who elected them based on lies (all campaign promises are lies).0 -
Purple Gorilla wrote: »TBH, that's a stupid argument. The Yes side is using as much scaremongering as the No Side is.
"It's simple- We need Europe"
"Yes for jobs"
etc. etc.
What has any of that to do with the Lisbon Treaty? We aren't voting on EU Membership and the treaty won't do much for jobs so the Yes Side's argument is just as unsubstantiated.
Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if the No side wins simply because of this. The No side is full of scaremongering like "Privatisation of Healthcare & Education" but whether it's true or not, if an average joe see's that, they'll think it's coming from the treaty. "We need Europe" is vague and has nothing to do with the treaty so it just looks like the Yes Side is dodging all the facts.
What actually makes it worse is the fact that all the main political parties in this country think it is perfectly fine to try and spoon feed us these lies to get us to vote Yes. We have to hold them to a higher standard than the No side because of what they represent.
If we vote Yes, we are telling them that it is fine to sell us empty rhetoric in the future, and remember, it is these guys that will be helping to run the EU. The EU isn't some mystical creature completely distinct from its member states, it is run by the same people that run the member states, the same people that didn't give their electorate a say and the same ones trying to get this pushed through by lying to us.
If we vote No, we are saying that this simply isn't good enough.0 -
Yes, if your plan is to go an tell the EU we voted against a treaty they put to us because they weren't open enough with us (about what, I do not know), then it is absolute nonsense. They will want to know what your issue with the treaty is, if you can't even find one actual thing to do with the text you shouldn't be voting on it.mangaroosh wrote: »So, telling the leaders of Europe that they are going to have to be open and honest with us from now on, that we are not just going to swallow their lies, and we won't just be bowled over because they asked us twice and gave us non-legally binding guarantees, is nonsense?
I don't know what kind of democracy you want but if what is on offer is it, then by all means vote yes.
Sidetracking with loopy nonsense, like the whole No campaign has based itself on, will lead Ireland and Europe nowhere. Failing to provide actual feedback on the treaty will be an absolute embarrassment.0 -
Well, if a No vote is returned then it may indeed be a whole lot better to tell them that than the actual truth of the situation.
Ok so I take it you can't find a legitimate reason to vote against the text?
Its kind of difficult to find fault with something when it hasn't been explained properly and subject to open discussion. Also, when those telling you to vote in favour of it are shown to be lying as to the reasons, I feel it is grounds to vote No.Most countries have ratified and this has been done so by their democratically elected government representatives.
Our democratically elected officials have been before tribunals dealing with corruption. Are you suggesting that these people should be truested unquestioningly, even when they have been shown to be liars and when they don't give their people a say on something that affects them?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Bob_Harris wrote: »Yes, decided by their democratically elected government representatives, but not the people themselves.
The people voted for the Government which most accurately represented them and their needs and wants. Voted by the people, for the people and are making decisions nationally and internationally on behalf of their people. Democracy at work.Bob_Harris wrote:Here in Ireland we have democratically elected government representatives who act without accountability, with little transparency, and seem pretty incompetent at what they do.
Then hit the streets and revolt? If you're unhappy about it, then do something about it, don't whine online about it and take your emotions out on an innocent reform treaty that the Union have asked us to vote on.Bob_Harris wrote:We vote them in for a set period, and after that they do whatever the hell they want without recourse.
Then why are you voting them in for the set period?Bob_Harris wrote:They are after all politicians, winners of the national popularity contests.
Yes, but they're generally in the position they're in for a good reason, similarly there's a good reason most of the No campaigners are in the position they're in (nutjob organisations pushing their own agendas, failed politicians, political parties with close ties to terrorist organisations etc).Bob_Harris wrote:What makes you think democratically elected government representatives in other countries are any different, and what they want is the will of the people who elected them based on lies (all campaign promises are lies).
That's not my problem. If they're unhappy with their system, they can do something about it. So far we're not seeing riots over not being able to vote, so I take it most are happy with the system they have. Although, I'm sure like here they've a few of their own nutjobs who like to drag their feet whenever they're given the chance.0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »Our democratically elected officials have been before tribunals dealing with corruption. Are you suggesting that these people should be truested unquestioningly, even when they have been shown to be liars and when they don't give their people a say on something that affects them?
And yet, they keep getting voted back in.
(Which doesn't really matter in the case of Ireland anyway, since thanks to Crotty, we need a referendum)0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »What actually makes it worse is the fact that all the main political parties in this country think it is perfectly fine to try and spoon feed us these lies to get us to vote Yes. We have to hold them to a higher standard than the No side because of what they represent.
If we vote Yes, we are telling them that it is fine to sell us empty rhetoric in the future, and remember, it is these guys that will be helping to run the EU. The EU isn't some mystical creature completely distinct from its member states, it is run by the same people that run the member states, the same people that didn't give their electorate a say and the same ones trying to get this pushed through by lying to us.
If we vote No, we are saying that this simply isn't good enough.
What isn't good enough? The treaty that you apparently have absolutely no knowledge about, bar the few lies you've been fed by fringe organisations such as Coir?
If you're not happy with the Government, refrain from voting on Lisbon and use your voice in the next GE. Or as I said, take to the streets and revolt.
"We voted No because we're not happy with Fianna Fail and the Green Party even though the treaty had nothing to do with them" - it would be justified for them to force treaties through in future if this is the best excuse we can come up with.mangaroosh wrote: »Its kind of difficult to find fault with something when it hasn't been explained properly and subject to open discussion. Also, when those telling you to vote in favour of it are shown to be lying as to the reasons, I feel it is grounds to vote No.
Explained to you properly? Sorry, you're on the internet, the IRC have a website, along with many, many other sources. The full version and the consolidated version are available. The only person to blame for you not knowing what is involved at this stage is you, and if you do not know what is involved, you shouldn't be voting on it.
The information is more than readily available, that is such a ridiculous excuse that I'm disgusted I actually acknowledged, but it's actually far more disgusting that people are actually still willing to use it. For fuck sake, people with such an attitude are exactly what is wrong with democracy.mangaroosh wrote:Our democratically elected officials have been before tribunals dealing with corruption. Are you suggesting that these people should be truested unquestioningly, even when they have been shown to be liars and when they don't give their people a say on something that affects them?
Then vote against them, you seem to be capable of voting against other things for completely spurious reasons so I would hope you're capable of voting against Fianna Fail.
I trust our elected officials over anyone on the No side and PARTICULARLY those who claim that the information isn't even available to them.0 -
Really? The Yes side is dodging the facts? In debate, the only side capable of using facts seems to be the Yes side because every single reason the No side can bring up is either a lie or is wrong.
Equal scare mongering? Really? You equate a statement like "Vote Yes for Jobs" with "Not on their lives" with a picture of a foetus and an elderly person, implying that voting Yes will put their lives in danger?
Do you really believe those two posters are equal? If so, we have a much, much bigger problem than people not bothering to inform themselves of the actual thing we're voting on, but a massive problem of irrationality.
Nothing the No side has brought to the table thus far has factual grounding in the text. To propose the campaigns are equal, or that the Yes campaign is actually in some way worse is just hilarious. I thought so too at one time, I must admit, but then I opened my eyes and thought for more than 2 seconds about it.
Nothing the Yes side has brought forwards has been factual either, and these are the guys looking for us to give them more power. These are our political leaders. I find it far more worrying that they are willing to lie to us. Plus, from what I've seen, the No campaign has told no lies, nor do I believe they would be allowed to.
What they have done is draw attention to issues that are of concern to many people.
The only side I have heard actually quote the Treaty (and I'm talking about the actual campaigners, not us on here) has been the No side, and any thime they have, the Yes side have avoided the issue, preferring instead to refer back to their fallacious argument of "we have prospered under Europe therefore we should vote yes"
You should probably think about the campaings again and see what the political leaders of this country are trying to fob you off with, and realise that your vote will send them a message as to the acceptability of this.
Also, look at how the leaders of Europe have sought to ratify a treaty that is supposed to bring more openess and transparency. It has been anything but, and is therfore tainted before it ever comes to the poll.
Ask yourself, who has more responsibility to you the political leaders of this country or Cóir? Ask yourself are you willing to accept the same type of approach adopted by Cóir, from the political leaders of this country? Ask yourself are you happy to have the leaders of Europe just foist even more, and furhter reaching legislation on you, without a say?
If you are willing to accpet all of that, then by all means, vote Yes.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have decided to vote YES this time out ........ if I am persuaded that I should.
I will vote NO by default otherwise.
So far most of those I have heard from who are voting yes refer to Jobs and potential loss of investment if we do NOT vote Yes.
This points, IMO, to a criminal misleading of the electorate by those who want a YES outcome.
Another reason I should vote NO.
I do not want to hear anything at all about reasons I should vote NO or who might be advocating such an outcome. That is not at all relevant to me.
If I am to vote to change the status-quo then I must be presented with a persuasive argument to do so.
To date all the rhetoric I have heard has not at all addressed this.
Bickering about who said what and who lied the most is absolutely pointless and a total waste of time.
Before I vote I hope to again read the text and try to imagine the WORST case scenario.
I will then make a judgement on politicians of all colours and gauge my trust in them
if I cannot trust the politicians not to take advantage of whatever may be possible and unacceptable in the 'treaty' then it must be a NO.
The YES campaigners do not seem to have any persuasive arguments why I should vote yes.
Nonetheless I will keep listening in the hope that they might eventually come up with some.
BTW, yes I am aware that SOMETHING must be done to accommodate new entrants etc etc. I am not yet convinced THIS is the best or only way to do so.
Regards.0 -
Daftendirekt wrote: »And yet, they keep getting voted back in.
(Which doesn't really matter in the case of Ireland anyway, since thanks to Crotty, we need a referendum)
Should we hand them even more power though?0 -
Ireland 0.8%, Germany 18%, UK 12%(i think)- this is true, under the lisbon treaty, our say in Europe will be cut from 2% to 0.8%, this is due to population ratio. true.
Sinn Fein forgot to mention how QMV works, thats only half the story. There are numerous threads on this very issue which go into detail ablout how this has little effect on our actual say in Europe.
By only giving half the story the paint a picture of Germany being able to steam roll us, playing into peoples fears.Voting yes will decrease wages- the lisbon treaty has provisions that support more free trade of labour and citizens being paid their native minimum wage while in other countries. This drives the value of Irish labour down and will drive down the minimum wage and other wages...
This just isn't true. Not even a little bit. Any worker in our country must be paid Irish minimum wage. There's no 2 ways about it. To say otherwise is lying.0 -
The people voted for the Government which most accurately represented them and their needs and wants. Voted by the people, for the people and are making decisions nationally and internationally on behalf of their people. Democracy at work.
Or the illusion / delusion of "Democracy at work". We vote them in, they do what they want.
Nah I'm to apathetic like the majority of the Irish.Then hit the streets and revolt? If you're unhappy about it, then do something about it, don't whine online about it and take your emotions out on an innocent reform treaty that the Union have asked us to vote on.
I don't recall there being an option on the ballot paper to enter in a time frame I wanted x candidate to be in office for.Then why are you voting them in for the set period?
I respectfully disagree.Yes, but they're generally in the position they're in for a good reason
I believe that the people of Europe don't care about Lisbon, but if force to vote, the majority would vote no.That's not my problem. If they're unhappy with their system, they can do something about it. So far we're not seeing riots over not being able to vote, so I take it most are happy with the system they have. Although, I'm sure like here they've a few of their own nutjobs who like to drag their feet whenever they're given the chance.0 -
Johnboy1951 wrote: »I have decided to vote YES this time out ........ if I am persuaded that I should.
I will vote NO by default otherwise.
So far most of those I have heard from who are voting yes refer to Jobs and potential loss of investment if we do NOT vote Yes.
This points, IMO, to a criminal misleading of the electorate by those who want a YES outcome.
Another reason I should vote NO.
I do not want to hear anything at all about reasons I should vote NO or who might be advocating such an outcome. That is not at all relevant to me.
If I am to vote to change the status-quo then I must be presented with a persuasive argument to do so.
To date all the rhetoric I have heard has not at all addressed this.
Bickering about who said what and who lied the most is absolutely pointless and a total waste of time.
Before I vote I hope to again read the text and try to imagine the WORST case scenario.
I will then make a judgement on politicians of all colours and gauge my trust in them
if I cannot trust the politicians not to take advantage of whatever may be possible and unacceptable in the 'treaty' then it must be a NO.
The YES campaigners do not seem to have any persuasive arguments why I should vote yes.
Nonetheless I will keep listening in the hope that they might eventually come up with some.
BTW, yes I am aware that SOMETHING must be done to accommodate new entrants etc etc. I am not yet convinced THIS is the best or only way to do so.
Regards.
Hi Johnboy,
Have a look at this post.
These are the 10 best reasons for a Yes vote, all completely factual, and backed up with reference to the treaty. Not waffle or slogans.
Have a read, and if you have any questions, there're plenty of people on this forum who can answer them.0 -
Sinn Fein forgot to mention how QMV works, thats only half the story. There are numerous threads on this very issue which go into detail ablout how this has little effect on our actual say in Europe.
By only giving half the story the paint a picture of Germany being able to steam roll us, playing into peoples fears.
So the Yes voters aren't lying about keeping our commissioner?
Compare Sinn Féin's campaigns to Fianna Fail's, Labour's, Fine Gael's, IrelandforEurope's etc. and you'll see who's doing the scaremongering.This just isn't true. Not even a little bit. Any worker in our country must be paid Irish minimum wage. There's no 2 ways about it. To say otherwise is lying.
See the case of Latvian workers in Sweden0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »Plus, from what I've seen, the No campaign has told no lies, nor do I believe they would be allowed to.
Well if there is a Yes vote I will look forward to dropping my daughter off at the abortion clinic and my granny off to be euthanased on my way to my €1.84 an hour job.0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »Nothing the Yes side has brought forwards has been factual either, and these are the guys looking for us to give them more power. These are our political leaders. I find it far more worrying that they are willing to lie to us. Plus, from what I've seen, the No campaign has told no lies, nor do I believe they would be allowed to.
What they have done is draw attention to issues that are of concern to many people.
The only side I have heard actually quote the Treaty (and I'm talking about the actual campaigners, not us on here) has been the No side, and any thime they have, the Yes side have avoided the issue, preferring instead to refer back to their fallacious argument of "we have prospered under Europe therefore we should vote yes"
You should probably think about the campaings again and see what the political leaders of this country are trying to fob you off with, and realise that your vote will send them a message as to the acceptability of this.
Also, look at how the leaders of Europe have sought to ratify a treaty that is supposed to bring more openess and transparency. It has been anything but, and is therfore tainted before it ever comes to the poll.
Ask yourself, who has more responsibility to you the political leaders of this country or Cóir? Ask yourself are you willing to accept the same type of approach adopted by Cóir, from the political leaders of this country? Ask yourself are you happy to have the leaders of Europe just foist even more, and furhter reaching legislation on you, without a say?
If you are willing to accpet all of that, then by all means, vote Yes.
Sorry but this either confirms that you're a troll or you've such a level of ignorance that I believe my cat is more informed about the referendum than you are, and he's probably more open to discussions on it. On that note, good luck with it, I'm not discussing the matter with you any further.0 -
So the Yes voters aren't lying about keeping our commissioner?
No they're not lying about keeping our Commissioner. A Yes vote means we will keep our Commissioner, a no vote and we still go on under Nice which requires the size of the Commission to be reduced by 2011, I think it is.See the case of Latvian workers in Sweden
The Laval case could NOT happen in Ireland. Sweden does not have a national minimum wage in place (we do) I believe they also didn't have a Collective Bargaining agreement in place either. It was for that reason that Laval could pay it's Latvian workers the Latvian minimum wage. In Ireland they would have to pay Irish minimum wage.0 -
Daftendirekt wrote: »Hi Johnboy,
Have a look at this post.
These are the 10 best reasons for a Yes vote, all completely factual, and backed up with reference to the treaty. Not waffle or slogans.
Have a read, and if you have any questions, there're plenty of people on this forum who can answer them.
I'm in a similar position to Johnboy.
By default it is a No unless there is a more than decent, multiple reasons to vote yes. I think all voters should approach it in this way when one option (Yes) will change things, and the other option (No) will not.
I've read that post and it's just not doing it for me.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well if there is a Yes vote I will look forward to dropping my daughter off at the abortion clinic and my granny off to be euthanased on my way to my €1.84 an hour job.
another quote from the non political Cóir :rolleyes:
If we vote no, we will be kicked out of Europe and although Cowen and Lenihans great expertise in economic recovery, Ireland will eventually implode in on itself0 -
No they're not lying about keeping our Commissioner. A Yes vote means we will keep our Commissioner, a no vote and we still go on under Nice which requires the size of the Commission to be reduced by 2011, I think it is.
and we lose our permanent right to a commissioner in 2014 if a yes vote comes in, there is no guarantee Ireland will lose a commissioner in 2011The Laval case could NOT happen in Ireland. Sweden does not have a national minimum wage in place (we do) I believe they also didn't have a Collective Bargaining agreement in place either. It was for that reason that Laval could pay it's Latvian workers the Latvian minimum wage. In Ireland they would have to pay Irish minimum wage.
Yes but this can happen to anyone above minimum wage, and do you really think our current government won't bring our minimum wage down? naive to think otherwise0 -
What isn't good enough? The treaty that you apparently have absolutely no knowledge about, bar the few lies you've been fed by fringe organisations such as Coir?
which lies would they be now?If you're not happy with the Government, refrain from voting on Lisbon and use your voice in the next GE. Or as I said, take to the streets and revolt.
Try reading what I've actually said. This isn't about the current government. This is about how politics is done in this country and in Europe."We voted No because we're not happy with Fianna Fail and the Green Party even though the treaty had nothing to do with them" - it would be justified for them to force treaties through in future if this is the best excuse we can come up with.
It doesn't surprise me that you haven't understood much of the No campaign, or at least the subtleties to it. I never mentioned anything about Fianna Fáil or the Greens. This seems to be some misconception held by a lot of people voting yes, about those voting No. Perhaps it is a misconception that those voting Yes have the abilitly to put such unrelated matters to one side in some level headed attempt to indpendently vett the Treaty of Lisbon.
This isn't about Fianna Fáil or the Greens, all the major political parties in this country are trying to get us to vote yes by selling us empty rhetoric and getting us worried that a no vote will be bad for the economy. This is scaremongering and is playing on the biggest fear people have at the moment. This isn't about the current incumbetn government, this is about what the major political parties of this country think is acceptible politics. Forgive me for taking the moral high ground, but frankly I want better, and the only way I can voice that opinion, in such a way as to make to all the political parties at one time, is by voting No.
Also, I don't agree with the manner in which the politicians of Europe have chosen to try and get this shadow of the EU constitution ratified. Frankly, I want better from Europe too.
I'm not convinced about the Treaty, so I am leaning more and more towards a No. On paper it looks good, but these things have to be implemented by people, and the effect they actually have is often quite different from their intended effect. The government officials (by that I meand those that make up the current government and those that will almost certainly make up the next one) have lied about the reasons to vote Yes, therefore, my rationale is that maybe voting Yes isn't in my best interests. If it was, then why was their the need to lie?Explained to you properly? Sorry, you're on the internet, the IRC have a website, along with many, many other sources. The full version and the consolidated version are available. The only person to blame for you not knowing what is involved at this stage is you, and if you do not know what is involved, you shouldn't be voting on it.
I dare say I am fairly representative of the electorate when it comes to the level of information that I have on the treaty. The IRC website? Is that the website that is pretty much the exact same as the leaflet that came through the door? Well I read the leaflet, and guess what, it wasn't that great at clarifying the ramifications, therefore I had to look to the Yes and No campaigns. Once was being run mainly by all the political parties who I thought should be more trust worthy, they weren't so my confidence was shaken.
Also, to suggest that I shoudl abstain from voting on something that affects me is silly. This affects me. I'm going to vote. Until such point as I have good enough reason to vote to change things I am going to vote to keep them as they are.
I suggest you give a little more thought to what your vote actually says, as opposed to something that on paper looks like a more efficient EU.The information is more than readily available, that is such a ridiculous excuse that I'm disgusted I actually acknowledged, but it's actually far more disgusting that people are actually still willing to use it. For fuck sake, people with such an attitude are exactly what is wrong with democracy.
Nope, all the political parties in this country using empty rhetoric and scaremongering, European governments trying to force through a piece of legislation that may not be what the people of Europe actually want, a vote not to recognise the result of the last referendum by European leaders, that my friend is precisely what is wrong with democracy.Then vote against them, you seem to be capable of voting against other things for completely spurious reasons so I would hope you're capable of voting against Fianna Fail.
I've answered this above, this isn't about the current government, this is about what is and what isn't acceptible politics in this country and in Europe, and how they have gone about ratifying this treaty most certainly is not acceptible.
What are your reasons for voting Yes, if you don't mind me asking?I trust our elected officials over anyone on the No side and PARTICULARLY those who claim that the information isn't even available to them.
By the way, I amn't part of the No campaign. I am part of the electorate, I am a voter who has not been provided with the relevant information, in an open and transparent manner.
But if you are willing to trust our political leaders (and I mean the majority of them, not just Fianna Fáil), even after they have been shown to have lied and played on our fears about economic recovery, then by all means vote Yes. But please, be equally critical when vetting the Yes campaign, and dare I say again, hold the political leaders to a higher standard of politics than Cóir.0 -
Bob_Harris wrote: »I'm in a similar position to Johnboy.
By default it is a No unless there is a more than decent, multiple reasons to vote yes. I think all voters should approach it in this way when one option (Yes) will change things, and the other option (No) will not.
I've read that post and it's just not doing it for me.
What exactly isn't doing it for you?
Are there any points in it you don't agree with? Or is there anything you need clarification on?0 -
Johnboy1951 wrote: »I have decided to vote YES this time out ........ if I am persuaded that I should.
I will vote NO by default otherwise.
So far most of those I have heard from who are voting yes refer to Jobs and potential loss of investment if we do NOT vote Yes.
This points, IMO, to a criminal misleading of the electorate by those who want a YES outcome.
Another reason I should vote NO.
I do not want to hear anything at all about reasons I should vote NO or who might be advocating such an outcome. That is not at all relevant to me.
If I am to vote to change the status-quo then I must be presented with a persuasive argument to do so.
To date all the rhetoric I have heard has not at all addressed this.
Bickering about who said what and who lied the most is absolutely pointless and a total waste of time.
Before I vote I hope to again read the text and try to imagine the WORST case scenario.
I will then make a judgement on politicians of all colours and gauge my trust in them
if I cannot trust the politicians not to take advantage of whatever may be possible and unacceptable in the 'treaty' then it must be a NO.
The YES campaigners do not seem to have any persuasive arguments why I should vote yes.
Nonetheless I will keep listening in the hope that they might eventually come up with some.
BTW, yes I am aware that SOMETHING must be done to accommodate new entrants etc etc. I am not yet convinced THIS is the best or only way to do so.
Regards.
You have pretty much summed up my own stance as well in a nutshell.
I do just want to say, as I'm sure that you will be directed to the 10 reasons to Vote Yes. Consider the fact that these all look good on paper, but question how will the be practically implemented?
Also, bear in mind that it is the same people who have not held referenda in their own countries while ratifying the treaty, and it is those those that have tried to fob us off with empty rhetoric in this country, that will be responsible in part for its implementation.
Also, if you read the White Paper on Lisbon, bear in mind that the opening reasons that try to frame the Treaty are the same fallacious arguments that becaues we have prospered under the EU we are obliged to vote Yes.
Oh, yeah, and it is also from a pro-yes government department.
The "Online resources" thread has some youtube links. A lot of them seem to be from the No side, but that is simply because the search of "lisbon referendum debates" threw them up.0 -
Sinn Fein forgot to mention how QMV works, thats only half the story. There are numerous threads on this very issue which go into detail ablout how this has little effect on our actual say in Europe.
They weren't actually wrong in what they said, and I'm sure you'll agree that a campaign poster isn't sufficient to explain the intricacies of QMV.
Also, what is the deal with the 35% population rule for vetoing decisons?
whats the deal with the 35% population rule for vetoing?By only giving half the story the paint a picture of Germany being able to steam roll us, playing into peoples fears.This just isn't true. Not even a little bit. Any worker in our country must be paid Irish minimum wage. There's no 2 ways about it. To say otherwise is lying.
if this is in reference to the "Minimum wage €1.84 after Lisbon?" poster, then I draw your attention to the fact that it is posed as a question, and while it might be interpreted to suggest that our minimum wage could be reduced, it doesn't actually state this. What it does do though is raise a very pertinent issue, that impacts on the question of the EU's bias for "profit over people". It refers to the Laval case, where the EU courts saw fit to find in favour of an employer paying latvian workers the latvian minimum wage in Sweden - a coutry with a higher cost of living. This was of course facilitated by Sweden's absence of a minimum wage, but it doesn't change the fact that the EU found in favour of the employer and deemed it fair that the employees should be paid €1.84 an hour.0 -
-
Sorry but this either confirms that you're a troll or you've such a level of ignorance that I believe my cat is more informed about the referendum than you are, and he's probably more open to discussions on it. On that note, good luck with it, I'm not discussing the matter with you any further.
my loss I guess.
put your cat on, maybe he has more of a clue.
By the way, I take no notice of who I am replying to, I reply to posts as I come across them0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »They weren't actually wrong in what they said, and I'm sure you'll agree that a campaign poster isn't sufficient to explain the intricacies of QMV.
Yes they were. They deliberately ignored the requirement for 55% of member states to approve of a proposal before the qualified majority is attained.
And they clearly had no intention of explaining anything. They just wanted to spread some fear and uncertainty about Ireland's voting weight under Lisbon.whats the deal with the 35% population rule for vetoing?
Only applies when not all members are voting.if this is in reference to the "Minimum wage €1.84 after Lisbon?" poster, then I draw your attention to the fact that it is posed as a question, and while it might be interpreted to suggest that our minimum wage could be reduced, it doesn't actually state this. What it does do though is raise a very pertinent issue, that impacts on the question of the EU's bias for "profit over people". It refers to the Laval case, where the EU courts saw fit to find in favour of an employer paying latvian workers the latvian minimum wage in Sweden - a coutry with a higher cost of living. This was of course facilitated by Sweden's absence of a minimum wage, but it doesn't change the fact that the EU found in favour of the employer and deemed it fair that the employees should be paid €1.84 an hour.
The Laval case is completely irrelevant to Ireland. What did you expect the ECJ judgement to be? That even though Laval weren't breaking any laws. they should rule against them?0 -
Advertisement
-
Daftendirekt wrote: »First of all, parliaments are appointed to speak on behalf of the people and I'm not going to get into a debate on direct democracy vs representative democracy here. But since we haven't heard any amount of dissent from the people of the other EU members, we can safely assume that either the people are happy to go ahead with Lisbon or that they just don't care.
I have personally heard more from people from other countries, asking for a No vote, than I have heard calling for a Yes Vote. It has also never been refuted that other countries would have voted no, had they been given the opportunity to do so. It has been claimed that certain political leaders have admitted that this is actually the caseDaftendirekt wrote: »Secondly, the Czech parliament have already approved Lisbon. The president is however waiting until the Irish referendum is held before signing off on it. And by the way, the fact that he won't refuse outright to complete the ratification, should tell you something.
Does the fact that he has not ratified it outright not say even more?Daftendirekt wrote: »Thirdly, if the UK hold a referendum on Lisbon, then the same reasoning will apply to them. That is however, their issue to deal with as they see fit.
The only way a referendum will be held is if we vote no, otherwise the more than likely will not get a say. Of course it would be up to them, but one cannot but help wonder, what would happen if we vote No (again) and they were to vote No, and the Czech PM doesn't ratify it. All of a sudden this supposedly necessary treaty doesn't seem like it is the will of the people any more. Indeed it is very questionable whether or not it is the will of the people at allDaftendirekt wrote: »Fourthly, I don't know about my assumptions being 'dangerous', but I think they're far more reasonable than your assumptions that the other member states parliaments' are acting against the wishes of their own people. The other member states are functioning democracies, in which the power to govern resides in the people, and is exercised by their democratically elected representatives. They are not dictatorships.
You're assumptions are as equally speculative as mine, I however felt the need to balance the claim that we will get left behind, when in actual fact we could be leading the way. If we vote No, and the Brits vote No and the Czech PM doesn't ratify it and others then choose not to, we will be leading the way, instead of being left behind.
The elected officials do indeed act on behalf of the people, but we have to be realistic and realise that they also act on behalf of themselves, as well as political interest groups, influential business men as well - and in this particular instance, they have not asked their people what they want the politicians to do on their behalf. Remember, we are only being asked because it is in our constitution.
On the one occasion that the people were asked they voted No, but the decision was taken not to recognise that vote. They then came back with guarantees that actually do not come into effect until the next new treaty is ratified, which might not be for a long time - so they are effectively meaningless.Daftendirekt wrote: »Fifthly, it is, most emphatically, not scaremongering. I have never suggested that anyone should vote Yes simply out of fear. I have however, asked that if you do intend to vote No, please look at your reasons for doing so, and ensure they're good, solid ones. If you do that, then whatever happens after the referendum, you can be happy you did the right thing.
I never accused you of scaremongering. Please tell me that you haven't made the same mistake I've seen other posters make and somehow see me and indeed themselves as part of either campaign. I don't see you as part of the Yes campaign, and I certainly hope you don't see me as a part of the No campaign. Lets be realistic here, we are putting our points of view across on a message board, we are both just parts of the electorate, that are telling it as we see it.
The claim that we will get left behind in Europe is one that has been repeatedly made by those in the actual Yes campaign, Micheál Martin being one in particular. The claim is complete and utter speculation, but does not take into account all of the ramifiications, like the possibility that we could lead the way for other countries to have a say.
Likewise, I don't want anyone to vote out of fear, quite the opposite, I think decisions based on fear are, nine times out of ten, the wrong ones. I too want people to consider their reasons for voting Yes, and to apply the same level of scrutiny to the claims made by the Yes campaign as they do the No campaign. I also encourage them to hold the political offiicials of this country to a higher standard than the likes of Cóir.
I also want people to consider everything that their vote will stand for, not just whether or not the Lisbon Treaty looks good on paper, but to look at the conduct of those people who will be responsible for implementing it, and to exercise some level of caution when voting to either change things, or keep them as they are.Daftendirekt wrote: »Sixthly, 'we have not been informed', 'we don't approve of our government', 'we don't like the Yes camp's slogans', 'our voting weight will be halved', 'our minimum wage will be reduced' - these are not good reasons to vote no. Some are just nonsense and some are outright lies. Also, I've seen so many posters responding to the points you specifically, have brought up, only for you to dismiss them with the assertion that a 'Yes to Lisbon=Yes to the way this country is run'. So I don't think it's really fair for you to assert you haven't been informed about Lisbon.
Equally, "we'll get left behind in europe", "we have prospered under Europe", "we are in a bad economic state and we need Europe", "we don't like the No camp's slogans", are not good reasons to vote Yes.
The fact that the electorate has not been properly informed, is, in my opinion a perfectly valid reason for voting No. As I have said before, if someone is looking to sign a contract on your behalf, that impacts you, and they do not inform your properly of the reasons, and the reasons they give you for signing the contract on your behalf are actually just bull****, you can be pretty damn sure you are going to try and stop them signing that contract on your behalf.
Also, the €1.84 campaing poster is actually quite subtle in what it does. It doesn't actually say that there is the possibility our minimum wage will be reduced, it poses it in the form of a question, that references the Lavan case, which is a clear example of the favouring of profit over people.
Also, the voting weight poster is not factually incorrect. We the people of Europe will actually have less power, but it uses the decrease in population voting rights, which again is factually correct to make this point. Also, from what I understand there is an 35% population quota required, as well as 4 countries, in order to veto legislation. This is clearly favourable to both Germany and France.
If I have dismissed people's claims, I have attempted to so in a reasoned and rational manner. Indeed you have misrepresented me by saying that I have claimed that a 'Yes to Lisbon=Yes to the way this country is run'. I have made no such comment. What I have said, is that voting yes sends a message that the kind of politics used in this campaing is acceptible, I made no reference to how the country was run, but some people continue to try and paint it as though I have a beef with the incumbent government. That is just a strawman.
And if you disagree that voting Yes is anything other than an endorsement for the kind of shoddy politics exhibited by the major political parties in thsi country, then explain how, when it is they that should be held to a higher standard that the likes of Cóir.Daftendirekt wrote: »Seventhly, when the Dutch and French voted down the Constitution, they were able to explain their concerns to the other member states, and have them addressed. Hence, the Lisbon Treaty. If we vote No on Lisbon becasue of the above reasons, or similar reasons, we will not be in the same position as the French or Dutch after their rejection of the Constitution.
Do you know what would have been a real acid test of this Treaty? If it was put to the Dutch and the French again. But it wasn't. You have almost blatantly admitted there that the Lisbon Treaty is just the EU constitution in disguise. The Dutch voted No on it, The French Voted No on it, We voted No on it, and for those reasons alone we should vote No on it again.
If you believe it is acceptible to take a document, remove the word constitution and then try and get it passed throught the backdoor, if this is how you want the EU to be run, then again, by all means vote Yes.
If I was in any doubt before about voting No, then the little revelation above about the fact that the Lisbon Treaty is pretty much just the EU Constitution in disguise, I'm afraid seals it for me. If the reasons of the French and the Dutch were listened to in the first place, then why weren't they given the chance to vote on it agian? What does this say for the guarantees that we received.
The fact that the Lisbon Treaty is just the EU Constitution in disguise, is a claim made by the No campaign and refuted by so many here - I won't say you refuted it, but it was refuted.
Now more than ever do I feel that a No vote is a vote for Democracy0
Advertisement