Will we be left behind if we vote No on Lisbon?

Scofflaw

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 case

It's never been refuted, because it's never been proved. If you have some form of proof, you'll be the first.

regards,
Scofflaw

roosh

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's never been refuted, because it's never been proved. If you have some form of proof, you'll be the first.

regards,
Scofflaw

It was a statement made on TV that has never been refuted i.e. it has never been denied. It doesn't need to be proven, in order to be refuted.

Also, in order to prove it, there would have had to be a referendum, but unfortunately there wasn't.

It doesn't change the fact that the statement was never denied.

None of the really matters anyway, when the Lisbon Treaty is pretty much just the EU constitution, which the Dutch and the French rejected. If it was worth ratifying then they would have been asked to vote on it again, they weren't.

Hell we even rejected it once, and that was the watered down version.

The Volt

mangaroosh wrote: »

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 case



Does the fact that he has not ratified it outright not say even more?



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 all



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.



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.



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.



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 Democracy

For you to justify the 1.84 posters in anyway just shows yout level of common sense when many of the no side posters on here have infact dismissed them and distanced themselves from them completely.

Scofflaw

mangaroosh wrote: »

It was a statement made on TV that has never been refuted i.e. it has never been denied. It doesn't need to be proven, in order to be refuted.

Also, in order to prove it, there would have had to be a referendum, but unfortunately there wasn't.

It doesn't change the fact that the statement was never denied.

That certainly makes everything much easier - so everything that's said on TV, and not denied (to your knowledge, or perhaps immediately) is true? That would be hilarious if it weren't so obvious, and downright sad if I thought you really believed it.

mangaroosh wrote: »

None of the really matters anyway, when the Lisbon Treaty is pretty much just the EU constitution, which the Dutch and the French rejected. If it was worth ratifying then they would have been asked to vote on it again, they weren't.

Hell we even rejected it once, and that was the watered down version.

I'm glad you've finally stopped pretending you're anything other than a No proponent, I have to say.

amused,
Scofflaw

Johnboy1951

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.

Thank you for posting the link.
Yes I had previously accessed that post while reading on boards.
It does nicely lay out some of the things the treaty does. As such it is valuable.

Notwithstanding those 'facts', the YES campaigners -- government and opposition politicians -- have not PERSUADED me that Yes is the best or only reasonable option to implement the enlargement of the EU.

I do hope you understand what I mean .... for me to vote YES the official campaigners must persuade me to vote Yes. Threats and silly sound bites will not do it.

To address another one of those 'scare-mongering' tactics I have read on boards ..... that we would embarrass ourselves by voting No without being able to give exact reasons why ...

Should we vote No again, I would be quite comfortable in stating my reason clearly for voting No, to any EU enquiry who may wish to ask ........ that I was not persuaded that a change from the status-quo to Lisbon was the best or only option for the EU to move forward.

If the Yes campaigners had been honest and persuasive in their arguments the decision process for me would have been so much easier. Second time around it could seem that the Yes side have deliberately muddied the waters, which raises huge concerns of believability.

So I remain on the No side, although quite close to the fence , and if the Yes campaign does not do what it needs to do in the next few days then that is where I will stay.

Regarding the discussions held on boards.ie ...... these equate to discussions in say a pub, where everybody has opinions and a few have facts.
Neither the pub nor boards.is is the place I expect to receive any persuasive arguments from. Those arguments must issue from the 'official' campaign if I am to vote Yes. Presently, of necessity, they must also overcome my negative reaction to being lied to by those same campaigners. That will not be an easy task.

Thank you to all who take the time to post on the subject.

Regards.

ei.sdraob

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Thank you for posting the link.
Yes I had previously accessed that post while reading on boards.
It does nicely lay out some of the things the treaty does. As such it is valuable.

Notwithstanding those 'facts', the YES campaigners -- government and opposition politicians -- have not PERSUADED me that Yes is the best or only reasonable option to implement the enlargement of the EU.

I do hope you understand what I mean .... for me to vote YES the official campaigners must persuade me to vote Yes. Threats and silly sound bites will not do it.

To address another one of those 'scare-mongering' tactics I have read on boards ..... that we would embarrass ourselves by voting No without being able to give exact reasons why ...

Should we vote No again, I would be quite comfortable in stating my reason clearly for voting No, to any EU enquiry who may wish to ask ........ that I was not persuaded that a change from the status-quo to Lisbon was the best or only option for the EU to move forward.

If the Yes campaigners had been honest and persuasive in their arguments the decision process for me would have been so much easier. Second time around it could seem that the Yes side have deliberately muddied the waters, which raises huge concerns of believability.

So I remain on the No side, although quite close to the fence , and if the Yes campaign does not do what it needs to do in the next few days then that is where I will stay.

Regarding the discussions held on boards.ie ...... these equate to discussions in say a pub, where everybody has opinions and a few have facts.
Neither the pub nor boards.is is the place I expect to receive any persuasive arguments from. Those arguments must issue from the 'official' campaign if I am to vote Yes. Presently, of necessity, they must also overcome my negative reaction to being lied to by those same campaigners. That will not be an easy task.

Thank you to all who take the time to post on the subject.

Regards.

Good you have read and understood the issues and you came to a NO conclusion

despite sitting on the other side of fence, i respect that you have done that, thats more than can be said of some of the NO posters here

you keep referring to being lied to by the YES side, are you ignoring the obvious and clear lies from the NO side? how do you feel about them??

and finally why are you depending on someone to tell you how to vote? would reading and understanding the issues yourself be enough, cause you are contradicting yourself there a bit

cheerio
and im delighted to finally read a sane post here this morning


/

The Volt

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Thank you for posting the link.
Yes I had previously accessed that post while reading on boards.
It does nicely lay out some of the things the treaty does. As such it is valuable.

Notwithstanding those 'facts', the YES campaigners -- government and opposition politicians -- have not PERSUADED me that Yes is the best or only reasonable option to implement the enlargement of the EU.

I do hope you understand what I mean .... for me to vote YES the official campaigners must persuade me to vote Yes. Threats and silly sound bites will not do it.

To address another one of those 'scare-mongering' tactics I have read on boards ..... that we would embarrass ourselves by voting No without being able to give exact reasons why ...

Should we vote No again, I would be quite comfortable in stating my reason clearly for voting No, to any EU enquiry who may wish to ask ........ that I was not persuaded that a change from the status-quo to Lisbon was the best or only option for the EU to move forward.

If the Yes campaigners had been honest and persuasive in their arguments the decision process for me would have been so much easier. Second time around it could seem that the Yes side have deliberately muddied the waters, which raises huge concerns of believability.

So I remain on the No side, although quite close to the fence , and if the Yes campaign does not do what it needs to do in the next few days then that is where I will stay.

Regarding the discussions held on boards.ie ...... these equate to discussions in say a pub, where everybody has opinions and a few have facts.
Neither the pub nor boards.is is the place I expect to receive any persuasive arguments from. Those arguments must issue from the 'official' campaign if I am to vote Yes. Presently, of necessity, they must also overcome my negative reaction to being lied to by those same campaigners. That will not be an easy task.

Thank you to all who take the time to post on the subject.

Regards.

Hi Johnboy. not being smart or anything but are you at all irritated by lies being told by the no side? I would be of the opinion that 'If you don't know, don't vote' is a better option than ''If you don't know, vote no' as voting no has ramifications as well.

Daftendirekt

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Thank you for posting the link.
Yes I had previously accessed that post while reading on boards.
It does nicely lay out some of the things the treaty does. As such it is valuable.

Notwithstanding those 'facts', the YES campaigners -- government and opposition politicians -- have not PERSUADED me that Yes is the best or only reasonable option to implement the enlargement of the EU.

I do hope you understand what I mean .... for me to vote YES the official campaigners must persuade me to vote Yes. Threats and silly sound bites will not do it.

To address another one of those 'scare-mongering' tactics I have read on boards ..... that we would embarrass ourselves by voting No without being able to give exact reasons why ...

Should we vote No again, I would be quite comfortable in stating my reason clearly for voting No, to any EU enquiry who may wish to ask ........ that I was not persuaded that a change from the status-quo to Lisbon was the best or only option for the EU to move forward.

If the Yes campaigners had been honest and persuasive in their arguments the decision process for me would have been so much easier. Second time around it could seem that the Yes side have deliberately muddied the waters, which raises huge concerns of believability.

So I remain on the No side, although quite close to the fence , and if the Yes campaign does not do what it needs to do in the next few days then that is where I will stay.

Regarding the discussions held on boards.ie ...... these equate to discussions in say a pub, where everybody has opinions and a few have facts.
Neither the pub nor boards.is is the place I expect to receive any persuasive arguments from. Those arguments must issue from the 'official' campaign if I am to vote Yes. Presently, of necessity, they must also overcome my negative reaction to being lied to by those same campaigners. That will not be an easy task.

Thank you to all who take the time to post on the subject.

Regards.

Fair enough. But since you won't be persuaded by anything other than official Yes campaigners, is there any point in my posting a reply to this?

Johnboy1951

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Fair enough. But since you won't be persuaded by anything other than official Yes campaigners, is there any point in my posting a reply to this?

Not if you wish to try to persuade me to vote either way.

I do not mean to come across as sounding dismissive or such, but if my government seriously wish me to vote to change something then it needs to be they who present the arguments to persuade me to do so. To my way of thinking that is not an unreasonable stance to take.

Regards.

The Volt

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Not if you wish to try to persuade me to vote either way.

I do not mean to come across as sounding dismissive or such, but if my government seriously wish me to vote to change something then it needs to be they who present the arguments to persuade me to do so. To my way of thinking that is not an unreasonable stance to take.

Regards.

Are you aware of the idiots that be in our current government? I beg of you to realize that this thing needs to be taken seriously, above personal pride and above the failures of the government to educate you.

Johnboy1951

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Good you have read and understood the issues and you came to a NO conclusion

despite sitting on the other side of fence, i respect that you have done that, thats more than can be said of some of the NO posters here

you keep referring to being lied to by the YES side, are you ignoring the obvious and clear lies from the NO side? how do you feel about them??

and finally why are you depending on someone to tell you how to vote? would reading and understanding the issues yourself be enough, cause you are contradicting yourself there a bit

cheerio
and im delighted to finally read a sane post here this morning
/

As I mentioned I think ...... I am being asked to approve a change by voting Yes.
I need no reason at all to vote No which is really a vote for the status-quo. Maybe it is my conservative side .. but I will not vote for change just because it is change.

That the yes side would seek to persuade me to vote for a change based on lies is upsetting and causes an adverse reaction in me to just about everything they say. I feel I have to closely examine everything they say looking for the lies and obfuscations. That is no way to persuade me to do anything.
The lies from the No side have very little effect on me, because I am not actually voting No on anything, but am, in my opinion refusing the presented change to the present system. This probably reads like semantic juggling, but I am finding it difficult to express my feelings exactly.
In short if my government had presented me with facts and reasons only, I would maybe now be on the Yes side of the fence. At minimum there might be some reasoned debate about the real issues and effects of adopting Lisbon.

Regards.

Bob_Harris

Voltwad wrote: »

Are you aware of the idiots that be in our current government? I beg of you to realize that this thing needs to be taken seriously, above personal pride and above the failures of the government to educate you.

The idiots who ask us to vote again?

How can Lisbon 2 be taken seriously if they are the ones who are makings vote again?

If they are asking us to vote Yes, they should come up with good reasons, and not hollow misinformative slogans.

ei.sdraob

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

As I mentioned I think ...... I am being asked to approve a change by voting Yes.
I need no reason at all to vote No which is really a vote for the status-quo. Maybe it is my conservative side .. but I will not vote for change just because it is change.

That the yes side would seek to persuade me to vote for a change based on lies is upsetting and causes an adverse reaction in me to just about everything they say. I feel I have to closely examine everything they say looking for the lies and obfuscations. That is no way to persuade me to do anything.
The lies from the No side have very little effect on me, because I am not actually voting No on anything, but am, in my opinion refusing the presented change to the present system. This probably reads like semantic juggling, but I am finding it difficult to express my feelings exactly.
In short if my government had presented me with facts and reasons only, I would maybe now be on the Yes side of the fence. At minimum there might be some reasoned debate about the real issues and effects of adopting Lisbon.

Regards.

cool

Thats quite a large misconception by some people unfortunately

Voting NO does not lead to a status quo

this has been discussed in depth before here so ill let you search for past threads

/

Johnboy1951

Voltwad wrote: »

Hi Johnboy. not being smart or anything but are you at all irritated by lies being told by the no side? I would be of the opinion that 'If you don't know, don't vote' is a better option than ''If you don't know, vote no' as voting no has ramifications as well.

Irritated ... yes a bit.
I disagree completely with your idea of not voting at all.
I will vote No (maybe) to ensure that a change is not made by default.
If the vote was set up in a manner that required a % of the total 'adult' population (not just those who vote) to carry it then I might be more inclined to agree.

A no vote retains the present status along with the logistical problems that now exist.

Regards.

dresden8

Voltwad wrote: »

Are you aware of the idiots that be in our current government? I beg of you to realize that this thing needs to be taken seriously, above personal pride and above the failures of the government to educate you.

Those idiots who a lot of posters on this forum think should have the freedom to ratify changes to the constitution without consulting us?

Because they're the "experts".

Johnboy1951

Voltwad wrote: »

Are you aware of the idiots that be in our current government? I beg of you to realize that this thing needs to be taken seriously, above personal pride and above the failures of the government to educate you.

You have just presented me with a very compelling reason to vote No.

Following your logic it would appear that it is a bunch of idiots who want me to vote Yes.
It was a bunch of idiots who drew up the document.

I would think the sensible thing to do would be to take the opposite view point to any bunch of idiots ...... I would have a better chance of being right it seems.

That is of course if one was to follow that line of reasoning ....:)

Johnboy1951

ei.sdraob wrote: »

cool

Thats quite a large misconception by some people unfortunately

Voting NO does not lead to a status quo

this has been discussed in depth before here so ill let you search for past threads

/

I would think that voting to not make a change leaves everything as it was before the vote.
Voting No does not bring in anything that is not there at present.

It is illogical to suggest otherwise, IMO.

The Volt

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

You have just presented me with a very compelling reason to vote No.

Following your logic it would appear that it is a bunch of idiots who want me to vote Yes.
It was a bunch of idiots who drew up the document.

I would think the sensible thing to do would be to take the opposite view point to any bunch of idiots ...... I would have a better chance of being right it seems.

That is of course if one was to follow that line of reasoning ....:)

They were idiotic enough to be complacent in the Lisbon I.

They've been idiotic enough to make a poor effort to educate the people the second time around.

Yes they are idiots.

However, the Lisbon treaty is nothing to do with the government nor will voting no get rid of them. Perhaps I approached that arguement in the wrong manner but I thought the point I was making was clear.

You stated that you will not vote yes unless government representatives actually come to you and persuade you to do so. A poor attitude to have, here's what I said in a different thread:

I think it is embarrassing at this stage that people are using a lack of understanding on the Treaty as reasons for voting a certain way. Your average referendum in this country (Take the death penalty or abortion as examples) leave the voter with an option of keeping things the way they are or changing them. However, anyone that thinks a no vote will keep things the way they are is mistaken.

Every household in the country has been sent simplified, impartial information that a 12 year old could read.The vast amount of information available is more than enough to come to an informed decision and with less than a week to go now it appears that there are still plenty of people that believe it is someone else's job to educate them on the matter. This poxy, laxidasical attitude is exactly what is wrong with democracy.

Yes our current government are incompetent on pretty much every subject but contrary to Ganley propaganda, a yes vote will not save Cowen's job. It will not affect it in any way because it is simply nothing to do with the matter. On your logic that you'll vote no because a bunch of idiots want you to vote yes then I present you with this counter-arguement:

There are a whole mass of idiots who want you to vote no. Worker's rights will suffer they say yet ICTU and IBEC both are pro-Treaty. Coír's posters advertise that it's bad for farmers but the IFA are pro-Lisbon. They also blab on about religious matters when the Archbishop of Dublin has stated that a yes vote is not a vote for a abortion.

Infact, a whole load of organisations that genuinely have the interests of the people that they represent at heart are pushing for a yes vote.
Don't vote yes or no because the idiots that run this country can barely inform anyone of anything.

If you choose to vote no for your current reasoning then you are no better than the people who are voting no just to 'stick it to the government'

The Volt

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I would think that voting to not make a change leaves everything as it was before the vote.
Voting No does not bring in anything that is not there at present.

It is illogical to suggest otherwise, IMO.

I'm going to link you to Daftendirekt's post that will answer this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62235279&postcount=13

ei.sdraob

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I would think that voting to not make a change leaves everything as it was before the vote.
Voting No does not bring in anything that is not there at present.

It is illogical to suggest otherwise, IMO.

Voting NO means that issues that would have been resolved by Lisbon stay unresolved, such as:

* Human trafficking in EU
* Cross border crime
* High energy prices
* Meetings being held behind closed doors
* citizens initiative
* consensus on job creation
* efforts to fight climate change
* human rights
* workers right
etc etc


Voting NO means you are happy with how the above (and more) issues are being dealt (or not being dealt for that matter)


Voting NO while most of the other countries have ratified, sends a signal that Ireland is out of whack with the rest of EU, and in affect is a vote against EU


/

Johnboy1951

Voltwad wrote: »

They were idiotic enough to be complacent in the Lisbon I.

They've been idiotic enough to make a poor effort to educate the people the second time around.

Yes they are idiots.

However, the Lisbon treaty is nothing to do with the government nor will voting no get rid of them. Perhaps I approached that arguement in the wrong manner but I thought the point I was making was clear.

You stated that you will not vote yes unless government representatives actually come to you and persuade you to do so. A poor attitude to have, here's what I said in a different thread:

I think it is embarrassing at this stage that people are using a lack of understanding on the Treaty as reasons for voting a certain way. Your average referendum in this country (Take the death penalty or abortion as examples) leave the voter with an option of keeping things the way they are or changing them. However, anyone that thinks a no vote will keep things the way they are is mistaken.

Every household in the country has been sent simplified, impartial information that a 12 year old could read.The vast amount of information available is more than enough to come to an informed decision and with less than a week to go now it appears that there are still plenty of people that believe it is someone else's job to educate them on the matter. This poxy, laxidasical attitude is exactly what is wrong with democracy.

Yes our current government are incompetent on pretty much every subject but contrary to Ganley propaganda, a yes vote will not save Cowen's job. It will not affect it in any way because it is simply nothing to do with the matter. On your logic that you'll vote no because a bunch of idiots want you to vote yes then I present you with this counter-arguement:

There are a whole mass of idiots who want you to vote no. Worker's rights will suffer they say yet ICTU and IBEC both are pro-Treaty. Coír's posters advertise that it's bad for farmers but the IFA are pro-Lisbon. They also blab on about religious matters when the Archbishop of Dublin has stated that a yes vote is not a vote for a abortion.

Infact, a whole load of organisations that genuinely have the interests of the people that they represent at heart are pushing for a yes vote.
Don't vote yes or no because the idiots that run this country can barely inform anyone of anything.

If you choose to vote no for your current reasoning then you are no better than the people who are voting no just to 'stick it to the government'

Drivel!
Misrepresentation
Lies
and finishing with a personal attack.

Thank you for your contribution.

The Volt

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Drivel!
Misrepresentation
Lies
and finishing with a personal attack.

Thank you for your contribution.

Drivel? Mispresentation? Lies? Elaborate please
Dismissing a post like that isn't much of a contribution being honest.

If you choose to vote no for your current reasoning then you are no better than the people who are voting no just to 'stick it to the government'

You consider this to be a personal attack?

Johnboy1951

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Voting NO means that issues that would have been resolved by Lisbon stay unresolved,

Yes .. no change. Exactly what I said.

Voting NO means you are happy with how the above (and more) issues are being dealt (or not being dealt for that matter)

Not true .... it means that I am not happy with the proposed alternative to the present status .. e.g. Lisbon.
It does not mean that I am happy with the present status or that I am unhappy with it either. In fact it means nothing more than the presented document is unacceptable.

Voting NO while most of the other countries have ratified, sends a signal that Ireland is out of whack with the rest of EU, and in affect is a vote against EU

/

Total nonsense IMO.
Voting No means that the document as presented is unacceptable.
That is what it means.

What you are attempting to do is to put some unknown and unspecified persons interpretation on that vote.

That is FUD and fear-mongering.

Back to the same-ole same-ole .....

.

Scofflaw

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I would think that voting to not make a change leaves everything as it was before the vote.
Voting No does not bring in anything that is not there at present.

It is illogical to suggest otherwise, IMO.

It doesn't in fact leave everything the way it was before the vote. For one thing, it's the Nice enlargement rules that will apply, not the current set. More importantly, it doesn't leave our relationship with Europe the same as before (and before I have to explain this, no, I'm not referring to our membership).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Johnboy1951

Voltwad wrote: »

Drivel? Mispresentation? Lies? Elaborate please
Dismissing a post like that isn't much of a contribution being honest.

It didn't even deserve that much.

You stated that you will not vote yes unless government representatives actually come to you and persuade you to do so.

A lie

On your logic that you'll vote no because a bunch of idiots want you to vote yes ....

Call it a misrepresentation or a lie, I don't care.
It was your (not mine) reasoning that introduced idiot politicians.

You consider this to be a personal attack?

Yes I did read your parting shot as a personal attack.
Would you like to try to persuade me it was a compliment?

Oh yes the drivel ....... a long and rambling quote of another post which was not at all relevant to anything I posted.

I will have nothing further to say about this.

.

The Volt

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I will have nothing further to say about this.

.

That's fine by me

Johnboy1951

Scofflaw wrote: »

It doesn't in fact leave everything the way it was before the vote. For one thing, it's the Nice enlargement rules that will apply, not the current set. More importantly, it doesn't leave our relationship with Europe the same as before (and before I have to explain this, no, I'm not referring to our membership).

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am unsure what you are trying to imply here ...... that making no change to the present situation actually changes the present situation?

ei.sdraob

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I am unsure what you are trying to imply here ...... that making no change to the present situation actually changes the present situation?

http://i38.tinypic.com/5ydw21.jpg

ParkRunner

I find it ironic that if we vote yes we will probably deny English people their vote on Lisbon. It will also wipe out the previous referendum result. If we vote no then a newly drafted similar document will probably be put to us in a few years time to debate on again.

Johnboy1951

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://i38.tinypic.com/5ydw21.jpg

Thank you for that contribution.