For The Love of God Educate Yourselves :(

The Volt

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.

ei.sdraob

Confused about Lisbon?

checkout The Lisbon Treaty 2009 Referendum Commission's Official Site

for impartial and clear information


.

turgon

Indeed. The whole institution of direct democracy is a great ideal but when it comes to complex international agreements like EU Treaties is falls flat on its feet. The Treaty is too complex for the average Joe Soap to decide on, and whatever side of the debate you fall on you cant avoid that fact. People have shown a willingness to be taken in by lies, and other people have shown a vast willingness to spread these lies.

This referendum campaign is not primarily about Lisbon, and anyone who thinks that is being naive. Its more about secret agendas, people wanting to feel cool and anti-establishment, lies, scaremongering, misunderstanding about how the EU works, and issues totally unaffected by the actual Treaty. I used to be a big proponent of direct democracy but two Lisbon referenda have knocked that ideal out of me completely.

ei.sdraob

turgon wrote: »

People have shown a willingness to be taken in by lies, and other people have shown a vast willingness to spread these lies.

This referendum campaign is not primarily about Lisbon, and anyone who thinks that is being naive. Its more about secret agendas, people wanting to feel cool and anti-establishment, lies, scaremongering, misunderstanding about how the EU works, and issues totally unaffected by the actual Treaty. I used to be a big proponent of direct democracy but two Lisbon referenda have knocked that ideal out of me completely.

and thats exactly why national referendums are banned in some other countries like Germany

they were used by the likes of Hitler to gain power

by spreading lies and populist crap at a very tough time for the people

Furious-Dave

The only time that direct democracy should ever be used is when elections. After that it should be illegal. Can you imagine the kinds groups that would be slithering out of their holes in Europe if everyone had a vote on the Lisbon Treaty?

The Volt

Bingo, the nail on the head as to why we shouldn't need a referendum in the first place, I'd burn this part of the constitution if I could (cue mass 'omgs' from no-siders).

The Treaty in most EU countries is a thing of triviality whereas for us it is a hassle that gives window of oppertunity to the people who are EU skeptics and have been against the EU since day one

roosh

Voltwad wrote: »

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.

For such fair and impartial information that has come through out letterbox, there appears to be some fairly glaring omissions, such as the reference toe the 35% population quota required, in order to block legislation. A provision which in effect weakens our power to veto and strenghthens that of Germany and France - these implications are also not spelled out.

You also fail to recognise that this constitutes educating the electorate, on the Treaty. Ask yourself, how do you expect the electorate to educate themselves on a complex legal document? Unfortunately we don't all have the resources to go out and hire a lawyer to read through it and give us a break down. The majority of people in this country are reliant on the main stream media and our political representatives to tell us what this will mean to us. Now, the political representatives have been shown to have resorted to trying to play on peoples fears of economic recovery to persuade them to vote Yes, when the Lisbon Treaty has no bearing on economic recovery. Also, what we are not told in the handy little information booklet, is that the Lisbon Treaty is pretty much just the response to the French and Dutch voters decision to reject the EU constitution. It also doesn't spell out the fact that these countries were not, and will not be given the opportunity to vote on this - strange when one considers this is supposed to be the response to the concerns they voiced. Surely if these concerns had been sufficiently tackled, we could trust the French and the Dutch to judge for themselves. The political leaders of Europe don't seem to think so.

Also, the booklet doesn't inform us adequately about the guarantees that Ireland received after our last No vote, and the fact that they don't become legally binding until the next new treaty is ratified, which may not be for quite some time, due to the powers that Lisbon gives the EU. One would also question how reliable these guarantees are, when the concerns of the French and the Dutch were "listened" to, yet the treaty was ratified behind their backs the next time.


If indeed you believe that the IRC booklet and website (which is pretty much just the booklet online) is sufficient information on which to base your decision, then I suggest your further educate yourself as to what your vote actually says, and who it says it to.

I suggest you consider the fact that the French and Dutch voted No to almost the exact same document already; that that they were not given the opportunity to vote on a document that was supposed to be in direct response to their concerns; that no other country was given the opportunity to vote on this; that this would be ratified by the governments by now, wihtout consulting the people of Europe, if it wasn't for the fact that we have to be given a referendum because of our constitution; the fact that all the political parties in this country see fit to lie to us and try and scare us into voting yes, by playing on our fears for economic recovery, when they know Lisbon will have no effect on that.


If you are also considering the track record of the EU when voting, and how we have prospered in Europe, consider the EU's track record in trying to ratify this treaty behind the backs of the people of Europe, and ask yourself is this how you want your life to be governed? Also, consider the EU's track record on such things as profit vs people. For example the Laval case where the EU overturned the decision of the Swedish courts in favour of a Latvian company, who saw fit to pay their workers €1.84 an hour. This doesn't mean that the minimum wage in Ireland is in danger, what it does mean is that the EU has a track record of favouring profit over people. The reason being that its primary conern is with the common market, not the people of europe, as has been displayed by the attempt to ratify this treaty behind the backs of the European people.

roosh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Confused about Lisbon?

checkout The Lisbon Treaty 2009 Referendum Commission's Official Site

for impartial and clear information


.

Is this the information that you are basing your decision on?

seclachi

Voltwad wrote: »

Bingo, the nail on the head as to why we shouldn't need a referendum in the first place, I'd burn this part of the constitution if I could (cue mass 'omgs' from no-siders).

The Treaty in most EU countries is a thing of triviality whereas for us it is a hassle that gives window of oppertunity to the people who are EU skeptics and have been against the EU since day one

So we should discard all referendums because you argue Lisbon is to consfusing for the average punter. This is flawed for two reasons, firstly what about referendums like divorce, where the public must really decide. Secondly, the public should be asked about lisbon, it really does determine the future of the EU.

Moreover, the future EU institution could be a completely different beast to the current and past EU which has done so well for us, saying yes could have some adverse as well as benifical effects for us in the future. Finally, if referedums were thrown out, would you really trust the likes of biffo to say no to an EU army in the future ?

and thats exactly why national referendums are banned in some other countries like Germany

they were used by the likes of Hitler to gain power

Huh ? Im no expert but I believe hitler rose to power on a tide of nationalism after the crippling treaty of Versailles. Just because democracy can be manipulated doesnt mean it should be thrown out for some form of despotism.


I have to say, im pretty disgusted at Lisbon, its once again a complete circus sideshow, any valid arguements by the no side seem to be downed out by a tide of looneys, who slap up posters saying "1.84 future minimum wage" and "our fathers died for freedom" etc. Not to mention how they think proportional representation is somehow a bad thing.

Edit: I see the reasoning behind the min wage now, but I still think its unlikely

turgon

Voltwad raises a good point - why is the Treaty such a trivial matter in other countries and yet in Ireland it has enough support to be voted down? Could the very existence of a referendum give rise to objection with the proposal?

To back up my declaration of triviality it seems that no one is making a huge deal of Lisbon not being put to public vote anywhere but Ireland. When I was in Berlin I witnessed a public protest complaining that they had no vote (unsurprisingly they were waving Irish flags). There were about 100 people at this protest. Earlier in the day I saw an anti-Nuclear power march attended by tens of thousands.

Contrast this with Ireland. We have a plethora of interest and agenda driven groups pushing for a No vote. The willingness for a Mo is so high that over 50% desired it last time around. 50% No voters in Ireland compared to a tiny percent in Europe even demanding a vote on it, never mind a No vote. Would the conclusion be that the very existence of a referendum encourages opposition perhaps by making a bigger deal out of something than it really is?



As a former No voter myself I feel I have a bit more psychological insight into this issue than a lot of Yes voters. Why are people promoting No? And it isn't an issue with the Treaty, it isn't a political matter. In my opinion it is a psychological matter. There is some aspect of the human psyche that makes being on the No side attractive. Why is this?

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

Is this the information that you are basing your decision on?

yep the referendum commission are neutral and its their job to educate the population by providing impartial information

but of course some on the NO side accuse them of doing their job and accuse them of bias



since its in the best interest of Religious Fundamentalists, Communists, Fascists and all other Nutcases that compromises an unhealthy proportion of the NO campaign (im talking about Coir, Communists, SF, Socialists, Libertas, UKIP and certain members of the conspiracy theories subforum)

to ensure that the people dont know the facts behind the Treaty and to continue telling lies

not only that buy some yee, even go as far as glorifying ignorance by saying things such as "if you dont know vote no"



/

turgon

seclachi wrote: »

So we should discard all referendums because you argue Lisbon is to consfusing for the average punter.

Of course not. The difference between a divorce referendum and a Lisbon referendum is that the latter is far more complex. A divorce referendum at the end comes down to ideology: do you agree with divorce or not? The Lisbon Treaty is a very complex document and is as such unsuited to a popular vote.

@mangaroosh: Im getting pretty tired of the nonsense that you are throwing out, principally that the ineffectiveness of the Yes side is a valid reason to vote No. Not that you apply that same rationale to the No side, of course. That would be called being consistent.

Also, people here have thrown a plethora of links and information at you but you have ignored them all. Why? because of the post I made above. Before you even considered anything your human psyche was attracted by the No side and you went for it without reason. The reasons/excuses came next. I know this because the exact same thing happened to me last year.

The Volt

turgon wrote: »

Voltwad raises a good point - why is the Treaty such a trivial matter in other countries and yet in Ireland it has enough support to be voted down? Could the very existence of a referendum give rise to objection with the proposal?

To back up my declaration of triviality it seems that no one is making a huge deal of Lisbon not being put to public vote anywhere but Ireland. When I was in Berlin I witnessed a public protest complaining that they had no vote (unsurprisingly they were waving Irish flags). There were about 100 people at this protest. Earlier in the day I saw an anti-Nuclear power march attended by tens of thousands.

Contrast this with Ireland. We have a plethora of interest and agenda driven groups pushing for a No vote. The willingness for a Mo is so high that over 50% desired it last time around. 50% No voters in Ireland compared to a tiny percent in Europe even demanding a vote on it, never mind a No vote. Would the conclusion be that the very existence of a referendum encourages opposition perhaps by making a bigger deal out of something than it really is?



As a former No voter myself I feel I have a bit more psychological insight into this issue than a lot of Yes voters. Why are people promoting No? And it isn't an issue with the Treaty, it isn't a political matter. In my opinion it is a psychological matter. There is some aspect of the human psyche that makes being on the No side attractive. Why is this?

Mangaroosh, If you read back through my older posts on this forum you will see that I am basing my decision on much more than impartial information but unfortunately it would be too late now for a lot of people to do that/people wont bother. The impartial, simplified information is in my opinion fine now for people to make up their minds on if nothing else. See Turgon's post on triviality of our vote as a response to you bit about lawyers helpin us understand etc

ei.sdraob

turgon wrote: »

@mangaroosh: Im getting pretty tired of the nonsense that you are throwing out, principally that the ineffectiveness of the Yes side is a valid reason to vote No. Not that you apply that same rationale to the No side, of course. That would be called being consistent.

Also, people here have thrown a plethora of links and information at you but you have ignored them all. W.

Thats not the first time himself and others on the NO side avoid difficult questions with references posed to them

That pretty much sums up the NO campaign

* Pump out outrageous lies

* Confuse people

* Ignore rational debate

* Ignore overwhelming evidence

* Build up straw men

* Concentrate on red herrings



It will be a sad day in the history of this country when the people agree with the likes of Coir, UKIP, SF and Libertas etc etc

whats worse is the above have told so many lies that they manage to contradict each other at every step


/

roosh

turgon wrote: »

Indeed. The whole institution of direct democracy is a great ideal but when it comes to complex international agreements like EU Treaties is falls flat on its feet. The Treaty is too complex for the average Joe Soap to decide on, and whatever side of the debate you fall on you cant avoid that fact. People have shown a willingness to be taken in by lies, and other people have shown a vast willingness to spread these lies.

what about the document, that even a 12 yr old could understand that was pushed through our doors? Saying that we should vote yes just because we can't understand it is a very dangerous principle. In fact, if we are being asked to vote on something we cannot understand it is almost our duty to vote NO. The thing is, just because the legal document is difficult to understand, does not mean that it cannot be explained in lay mans terms.

Will you give me power of attorney over your estate? I have a number of very good reasons why you should, but you won't understand them.

You are very correct in saying people have shown a willingness to be taken in by lies, not least the lies told by the Yes campaign. In fact the No campaign has been a lot more honest in its claims. And those lying to get us to vote Yes are the ones that are going to be running the country and indeed having our say in Europe! It is nonsensical to suggest that this it is perfectly fine for these people to lie?

turgon wrote: »

This referendum campaign is not primarily about Lisbon, and anyone who thinks that is being naive. Its more about secret agendas, people wanting to feel cool and anti-establishment, lies, scaremongering, misunderstanding about how the EU works, and issues totally unaffected by the actual Treaty. I used to be a big proponent of direct democracy but two Lisbon referenda have knocked that ideal out of me completely.

You are very much correct this is about more than just the Lisbon Treaty. It is about agendas, but if you are thinking it is anything to do with being cool and anti-establishment then I suggest you don't fully understand what it is actually about. It would be like saying that it is about an ego fuelled desire to appear educated on the actual text of the Lisbon Treaty - it most certainly isn't.

What this is about, is about whether or not you accept the behaviour of all the major political parties in Ireland and indeed Europe. It is a question of whether or not you think it is acceptible for these people to lie about the issues at hand, and to play on our fears in order to get us to do what they want. It is a question of whether or not you think it is acceptible to take a legal document (that was once called the EU constitution) that was rejected by two countries, to strip out a couple of things (supposedly in response to their concerns) and to then not give them the opportunity to vote on it, to verify that their concerns have been met. It is a question of whether or not you think it is acceptible that we should be asked to vote again, on the exact same document, when we have already rejected it. If you think it is OK that we should be provided with guarantees that are supposed to tackle our concerns, that don't actually come into law until the next new treaty is ratified - which might not be for a long time - especially after seeing how the French and Dutch concerns were treated.


If you think that this is going to lead to a more open and transparent Europe, then ask yourself who is going to be implementing these changes? Is it the same peolpe that have seen fit to lie to us about the reason for ratifying the treaty? Is it the same people who tried to get this ratified behind the backs of their citzens, even after they voted No on it? Is it the same people who tried to get this ratified behind the backs of their people?

roosh

Furious-Dave wrote: »

The only time that direct democracy should ever be used is when elections. After that it should be illegal. Can you imagine the kinds groups that would be slithering out of their holes in Europe if everyone had a vote on the Lisbon Treaty?

are you suggesting that some people's views are not as equal as others?

LookingFor

turgon wrote: »

This referendum campaign is not primarily about Lisbon, and anyone who thinks that is being naive.

Too true. This is my strongest impression since I started trying to look into this 'properly' in the last few days.

Reading the referendum commissions website and then seeing the campaigning...it's like, why the big deal? So much stuff is getting roped into this that has nothing to do with Lisbon just to try and tap the 'zeitgeist'.

roosh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and thats exactly why national referendums are banned in some other countries like Germany

they were used by the likes of Hitler to gain power

by spreading lies and populist crap at a very tough time for the people

How was it that the Nazi party sought to gain favour in Germany? Was it by playing on peoples fears of economic recovery, after a global economic downturn?

What approach have all our political parties used this time? :eek:


Thoe in the No campaign aren't looking to for power, those advocating the Yes vote are!

The Volt

mangaroosh wrote: »

How was it that the Nazi party sought to gain favour in Germany? Was it by playing on peoples fears of economic recovery, after a global economic downturn?

What approach have all our political parties used this time? :eek:


Thoe in the No campaign aren't looking to for power, those advocating the Yes vote are!

The people on the no side have no chance of ever being in power by themselves in Ireland but trust me, they do want it

roosh

Voltwad wrote: »

Bingo, the nail on the head as to why we shouldn't need a referendum in the first place, I'd burn this part of the constitution if I could (cue mass 'omgs' from no-siders).

The Treaty in most EU countries is a thing of triviality whereas for us it is a hassle that gives window of oppertunity to the people who are EU skeptics and have been against the EU since day one

I have been pro-europe from day one, but that doesn't mean that I agree with everything that comes from Europe.

There is reason to be skeptical about this, not least because those telling us to vote Yes are lying about the reasons to do so.

LookingFor

edit - oops, DP! Thought my last post didn't get through.

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

are you suggesting that some people's views are not as equal as others?

what if that somones view is based on lies?


Hitler used referendums as a tool alongside with classic propaganda to gain power (and the rest is history as they say)


does that mean the view that he pushed of starting wars and killing jews is equal to the view of someone who could see right thru the lies and bull****



people are entitled to whatever view they have
but
the very foundation of democracy is making decisions and voting based on informed choice


we have people in the NO campaign advocating that ignorance is bliss by saying things like "if you dont know vote no"

have you seen a single NO poster here on boards ever post a link to the referendum commissions site in order to get people to read up on the treaty? no?? why??? are yee afraid people might see thru your bull**** about 1.84 wage or abortion


/

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

How was it that the Nazi party sought to gain favour in Germany? Was it by playing on peoples fears of economic recovery, after a global economic downturn?

What approach have all our political parties used this time? :eek:


Thoe in the No campaign aren't looking to for power, those advocating the Yes vote are!

spreading nationalism and racism, have you looked at Sinn Fein's and UKIP's literature lately?

roosh

turgon wrote: »

Voltwad raises a good point - why is the Treaty such a trivial matter in other countries and yet in Ireland it has enough support to be voted down? Could the very existence of a referendum give rise to objection with the proposal?

The French and the Dutch voted no to the EU constitution, the Lisbon Treaty was drafted in order to handle some of their concerns. They were never given the opportunity to verify if those concerns were handled.

You seem to think we live in a very undeducated country, despite one of our main drawing powers for FDI being an educated population. Could the very fact that the debate has been anything but fair, open and transparent, have anything to do with it? Could the fact that something just doesn't sit right, when all the major political parties of this country see fit to lie about the reasons to vote Yes, and think it is perfectly fine to play on our fears of economic recovery in order to get us to do what they want? Have you actually seriously considered this? I think it is quite worrying actually.

turgon wrote: »

To back up my declaration of triviality it seems that no one is making a huge deal of Lisbon not being put to public vote anywhere but Ireland. When I was in Berlin I witnessed a public protest complaining that they had no vote (unsurprisingly they were waving Irish flags). There were about 100 people at this protest. Earlier in the day I saw an anti-Nuclear power march attended by tens of thousands.

Protests against nuclear power have been going on for years and have gathered support incrementally - I wonder how big the first anti-nuclear power rallies were?

Does this make it acceptible for all the political parties in this country to lie to us, and play on our fears in order to get us to vote the way they want?

turgon wrote: »

Contrast this with Ireland. We have a plethora of interest and agenda driven groups pushing for a No vote. The willingness for a Mo is so high that over 50% desired it last time around. 50% No voters in Ireland compared to a tiny percent in Europe even demanding a vote on it, never mind a No vote. Would the conclusion be that the very existence of a referendum encourages opposition perhaps by making a bigger deal out of something than it really is?

How about we educate people on it and then let them decide for themselves?

turgon wrote: »

As a former No voter myself I feel I have a bit more psychological insight into this issue than a lot of Yes voters. Why are people promoting No? And it isn't an issue with the Treaty, it isn't a political matter. In my opinion it is a psychological matter. There is some aspect of the human psyche that makes being on the No side attractive. Why is this?

Will I tell you why? Becaues when people are asking for you to do something, and they lie to you about why you should do it, the natural disposition is one of distrust.

FruitLover

mangaroosh wrote: »

Saying that we should vote yes just because we can't understand it

I don't see anyone saying that. Can you please point out who said that? The point of the thread was that the public should educate themselves on the issue, then vote (whichever way) in an informed manner.

mangaroosh wrote: »

In fact, if we are being asked to vote on something we cannot understand it is almost our duty to vote NO.

Wrong. Your duty is to either a) educate yourself on the issue at hand or b) abstain from voting and let those with valid opinions decide the outcome.

mangaroosh wrote: »

are you suggesting that some people's views are not as equal as others?

An ill-informed opinion is not equal to an informed opinion, if that's what you're asking.

mangaroosh wrote: »

not least because those telling us to vote Yes are lying about the reasons to do so.

By this logic, I should vote Yes because of the nonsense the No side is pasting all over my city. You might want to try thinking on your own there, Ted.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Becaues when people are asking for you to do something, and they lie to you about why you should do it, the natural disposition is one of distrust.

This is the attitude one would expect of a spoilt teenager rebelling against mummy and daddy. A grown adult should be able to discard this 'distrust' and decide for themselves with a clear head. This is not a valid reason to vote one way or the other.

roosh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yep the referendum commission are neutral and its their job to educate the population by providing impartial information

but of course some on the NO side accuse them of doing their job and accuse them of bias

Then I suggest you consider the wider issues at hand.

Also, we won't bother getting into the big 'Y' on the front of the booklet. How about the ommission of key information on QMV such as the 35% population requirement to veto decisions.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

since its in the best interest of Religious Fundamentalists, Communists, Fascists and all other Nutcases that compromises an unhealthy proportion of the NO campaign (im talking about Coir, Communists, SF, Socialists, Libertas, UKIP and certain members of the conspiracy theories subforum)

to ensure that the people dont know the facts behind the Treaty and to continue telling lies

But its OK for those that stand to actually gain the most, in terms of real power, to lie to us and play on our fears?

Yes to Jobs
Yes to Europe
Its simple, I want a strong voice in Europe
Yes to Recovery

All but one of those have nothing to do with Lisbon. The one that does is a lie, because we won't have strong voice in Europe if we vote Yes. It will be weaker than it is now.

Try not basing this on your pre-conceptions of certain groups, rather the actions of those groups with regard to this referendum. And don't bother suggesting the No side has lied unless you are going to back it up.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

not only that buy some yee, even go as far as glorifying ignorance by saying things such as "if you dont know vote no"
/

so suggesting that we want to know more is glorifying ignorance?

I put it to you, that the only ones glorifying ignorance are those not looking rationally at both sides of the debate, and basing their decision on incomplete infromation, from supposedly independent booklets. That its those that fail to acknowledge the fact that our political parties have lied to us to try and get us to vote yes, that they have played on our fears. It is those that have failed to consider the wider implications of what this vote actually means, it is they that are glorifying ignorance.

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

Then I suggest you consider the wider issues at hand.

Also, we won't bother getting into the big 'Y' on the front of the booklet. How about the ommission of key information on QMV such as the 35% population requirement to veto decisions.

.

are you seriously accusing the Referendum Commission of being impartial?

go on spell it out

mangaroosh wrote: »

But its OK for those that stand to actually gain the most, in terms of real power, to lie to us and play on our fears?

Yes to Jobs
Yes to Europe
Its simple, I want a strong voice in Europe
Yes to Recovery
.

Lisbon does set out:
* workers rights
* human rights
* aim towards full employment and job creation
* commitment to green energy and jobs

mangaroosh wrote: »

All but one of those have nothing to do with Lisbon. The one that does is a lie, because we won't have strong voice in Europe if we vote Yes. It will be weaker than it is now.

exactly how? are you gonna tell us the infamous lie about Ireland having less of a vote in EU? how about you backup your ramblings with facts and references

mangaroosh wrote: »

Try not basing this on your pre-conceptions of certain groups, rather the actions of those groups with regard to this referendum. And don't bother suggesting the No side has lied unless you are going to back it up.

so its ok to base a decision on the actions of:

* Declan Ganley / Libertas
* Sinn Fein
* Coir
?

mangaroosh wrote: »

. And don't bother suggesting the No side has lied unless you are going to back it up.

woa are you seriously telling us the NO side has not told a single lie? :eek:

mangaroosh wrote: »

so suggesting that we want to know more is glorifying ignorance?
.

if you dont know, vote no


how does that suggest you want to know more? :eek:

this NO slogan used by Sinn Fein tells people that its ok to be ignorant and tells them how to vote


/

Furious-Dave

mangaroosh wrote: »

are you suggesting that some people's views are not as equal as others?

No I'm saying that it's dangerous to put a part of the decision making power on whether to pass complex treaties or not in the hands of groups that have their own selfish religious and political agendas just for the sake of upholding the principles democracy, or rather people's perception of democracy.

roosh

turgon wrote: »

@mangaroosh: Im getting pretty tired of the nonsense that you are throwing out, principally that the ineffectiveness of the Yes side is a valid reason to vote No. Not that you apply that same rationale to the No side, of course. That would be called being consistent.

It bothers me not how weary you are growing of it. Nice of you to put it euphemistically, to suggest that I am saying it is because the Yes side are ineffective, that that is why I advocate a No vote.

What I am saying, is that the Yes side, who are made up of the major political parties, who will be running this country after the next general election, are lying to us, and are playing on our fears for economic recovery to get us to vote Yes.

I am also suggesting that these people be held to a higher standard than those who are not representing all the major political parties in thsi country. I am saying I do not accept this approach from our political leaders, and frankly it reflects badly on the Treaty itself.


You don't seem to recognise that there are actaully unequal sides in this debate. It isn't like the flip of a coin to see which side is best. As it stands, a No vote will maintain the status quo, while a yes will change it, irreversibly. Therefore the default position of every voter is No, because if there was no attempt to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, the actual effect would be almost identical to a No vote. Therefore, if I am to let somone sign a document on my behalf, the onus is on them to tell me why I should let them. I am largely unconcerned with the reasons those people telling me not to give them authority, provide, becuase my default position is No anyway. When I realise that those asking me to give them more power are lying as to why I should give it to them, it makes me suspicious and makes me question why I should.

If you were to apply the same level of scrutiny to the Yes side, as you try to maintain you have done for the No side you would realise this. You would also realise that the No side hasn't actually really told any lies. They have cleverly used their rhetoric to draw attention to certain issues, that are real an pertinent to the way the EU is ran, and will be run in the future.

turgon wrote: »

Also, people here have thrown a plethora of links and information at you but you have ignored them all. Why? because of the post I made above. Before you even considered anything your human psyche was attracted by the No side and you went for it without reason. The reasons/excuses came next. I know this because the exact same thing happened to me last year.

Of course my human psyche was attracted to the No side, you don't seem to understand why though. It was attracted to the No side for the reason I layed out above - completely rational and completely logical.

As for the information that people have given me, it has amounted to little more that an attack on the approach of the No side (with no consideration given to the approach of the Yes side). Also, those presenting the information in favour of a Yes have clearly not considered the wider implications of their vote.

The 10 real reasons to vote yes thread, while it looks pretty good on paper, we have to remember, that it is those same people that saw fit to lie to us, and play on our fears of economic recovery, as well as those that have failed to give their people the opportunity to vote, that will be implementing those changes. This is the practicality of the matter, so forgive me for opting for practicality over 10 reasons that look good on paper

The Volt

mangaroosh wrote: »

And don't bother suggesting the No side has lied unless you are going to back it up.

Here's your back up.:mad:

WORSE THAN A LIE
The best thing for workers would be the introduction of this social chapter surely? Add to this that John Monks, General Secretary of ETUC actually recommended a yes vote to all of the trade union officials as well. He did of course say he had a few issues with it, overall he was satisfied but nothing is perfect. Of course the 'no' campaigners picked these problems he had with it out of his report, highlighted these and ignored the fact that he supported it overall.
http://www.ictu.ie/press/2009/07/10/...ecretary-etuc/

This is exactly the kind of shenanigans that the no side has carried out in this campaign and in previous ones. Mangaroosh in particular, I would love to hear your take on this seeing as how you're so quick to point out that the yes side is full of lies, manipulation and scaremongering. I'm dying to hear your justification for things like this.

eightyfish

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* Pump out outrageous lies

* Confuse people

* Ignore rational debate

* Ignore overwhelming evidence

* Build up straw men

* Concentrate on red herrings

Sounds like creationists.