For The Love of God Educate Yourselves :(

roosh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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


/

I suggest you consider the lies coming from the Yes campaign and consider the fact that these are the people who will be running the country and indeed Europe.

It is a sad day indeed, when people are allowing their preconceived ideas of certain parties to make up their minds for them.

Have the No side actually told any lies?

the €1.84 claim wasn't a lie
the less power claim wasn't a lie - we the people will have less power, also the bigger countries will have more power to veto, we will have less


what other "lies" have the No camp told?

ei.sdraob

eightyfish wrote: »

Sounds like creationists.

sounds like the NO campaign

mangaroosh wrote: »

the €1.84 claim wasn't a lie
the less power claim wasn't a lie - we the people will have less power, also the bigger countries will have more power to veto, we will have less

:rolleyes:

/

The Volt

mangaroosh, are you going to avoid responding to my proof again?
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62281909&postcount=30

prinz

mangaroosh wrote: »

Have the No side actually told any lies?

the €1.84 claim wasn't a lie

Yes, that is a lie. The only people with the power to change our legal minimum wage is the government of Ireland. The EU has no role in, or competency to enforce a reduction in the minimum wage.

mangaroosh wrote: »

the less power claim wasn't a lie - we the people will have less power, also the bigger countries will have more power to veto, we will have less
what other "lies" have the No camp told?

Seeing as how the European Parliament seem to be the big winners on the 'power' side, how do you claim the people will have less power? The Parliament is the only body directly elected by the people themselves

eightyfish

mangaroosh wrote: »

what other "lies" have the No camp told?

How about this? :rolleyes:

turgon

mangaroosh wrote: »

Saying that we should vote yes just because we can't understand it is a very dangerous principle.

Where did I say that?

mangaroosh wrote: »

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

Are you saying I shouldn't open a bank account because I dont understand the terms and conditions?

mangaroosh wrote: »

The thing is, just because the legal document is difficult to understand, does not mean that it cannot be explained in lay mans terms.

Its even easier to create lies - example "€1.84 minimum wage after Lisbon?" But given that that poster was on the No side, you see no problem I take it.

mangaroosh wrote: »

In fact the No campaign has been a lot more honest in its claims.

I actually had a good response here but my train of thought was interrupted by a pig who just flew over the moon.

mangaroosh wrote: »

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?

So your not basing your vote on the Treaty, you basing the vote on how other people are voting on the Treaty? Once again you should really consider applying you value set consistently. Your failure to do so has eroded the amount of respect people here have for you to such an extent that if were in your position I would consider leaving, or at the very least create a new account. You really dont fathom what losing peoples respect here means. Really, you obviously dont.

K-9

mangaroosh wrote: »

the €1.84 claim wasn't a lie
the less power claim wasn't a lie - we the people will have less power, also the bigger countries will have more power to veto, we will have less

Are you seriously going to defend the minimum wage posters?

The power claim is a lie and practically, there is little change to the big countries blocking.

callig

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?

turgon

mangaroosh wrote: »

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

Absolutely. The informed persons opinion in infinitely superior to that of the uninformed persons. Although being on the side of the debate that consists principally of the latter, Im sure you will disagree.

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

Were there protests in France about this? Did a sizable amount of the population actually take an interest? I dont think they would appreciate some Irish person (you) telling other people how they feel wronged in their behlaf without said irish person not even knowing the full story.

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

But your not put off by the No side lying? Really bud the respect people have for you is just going to keep plummeting unless you stop coming out with this nonsense and start applying the value set you hold so dearly in a consistent manner.

roosh

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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


/

who do you think I am??? I am not the No campaign! I am part of the electorate. I haven't made any claims about €1.84 minimum wage or abortion. Come down of your high horse becuase if you perceive me as being part of the No campaign, then you clearly consider yourself part of the Yes campaign.

I am part of the electorate, I am part of those people who has been lied to about the reasons to Vote yes, and if you understood the subtelties of the No campaign, you would realise that the haven't actually told the lies you claim.

Now, you can drage the debate down to Nazi germany if you wish, but if you do, I suggest you consider the lies that you are being told by all the main political parties in this country, if you want to portray yourself as being fair and balanced, and having considered all the issues.


No one in the No campaign is saying that ignorance is bliss, you clearly don't uderstand what is being said, so I would seriously question your ability to rationally contemplate all the relevant information. In fact the No side is saying the complete opposite of "ignorance is bliss", what I personally saying is I want to know more before I vote Yes - knowing more about something is diametrically opposed to ignroance.


I suggest you let go of the Ego, stop making this about someone being right and someone being wrong, consider all the the issues, and I do mean all, look at both sides objectively and then make your decision. Do not base it on your disdain for Sinn Féinn or Cóir, or anyone else, just as I won't base it on my disdain for Fianna Fáil or anyone else. Look at who stands to gain the most, in real terms - in terms of actual power, and then look at their motives for asking you to vote the way they are.

Consider whether or not you think it is acceptible, for those looking to make decisions on your behalf, to lie to you about the reasons to let them do it.

Dinner

mangaroosh wrote: »

the €1.84 claim wasn't a lie

That is a lie actually. Just because you buy into it doesn't make it true.

mangaroosh wrote: »

the less power claim wasn't a lie - we the people will have less power, also the bigger countries will have more power to veto, we will have less

It paints the picture that in a vote Germany will have a 17% say and Ireland will have .8%. That is a lie

mangaroosh wrote: »

what other "lies" have the No camp told?

The self amending one is brilliant. It's so easy to disprove yet people still say it.

No campaigners also seem to have a bit of difficulty with articles that are in Lisbon and also in Nice. For example Article 311 (I think it is) is near identical to Article 269 in Nice except elaborated a bit more, yet no campaigners seem to think that 311 is new.

Since you seem to believe Coir's lies (although most no voters don't) I'll mention abortion and euthanasia as lies too.

There's also the matter of fish. The figure of 200bn is used to illustrate how much the EU has milked our fishing grounds. The only proble is that this is a lie. It's closer to 8.5bn, half of which was taken by Irish boats who also took a further ~4bn from English waters.

Some no campaigners also make arguments to say that the EU will force us to raise corporation tax. This too is a lie.

The truth isn't nearly as outrageous as lies.

turgon

mangaroosh wrote: »

the €1.84 claim wasn't a lie

Im going to do something I have only done twice on boards.ie in the last year:

:rolleyes:

Indeed, all opinions arent made equally.

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

who do you think I am??? I am not the No campaign! I am part of the electorate. I haven't made any claims about €1.84 minimum wage or abortion.

oh really


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62282007&postcount=35


/

prinz

mangaroosh wrote: »

Look at who stands to gain the most, in real terms - in terms of actual power, and then look at their motives for asking you to vote the way they are..

Declan Ganley. Why? His dream of Libertas parties being formed in all countries of the European Union, changing the EU into a carbon-copy of the U.S., and no doubt harbouring megalomaniac fantasies of himself as a George Washington-type figure being elected as the President of the United States of Europe. Not as a figure head representative, but as an actual President á la Barrack Obama with real powers.

ei.sdraob

mangaroosh wrote: »

No one in the No campaign is saying that ignorance is bliss,

Sinn Fein and others (including some members signatures here on boards)

say

"If you dont know vote no"

that glorifies ignorance and tells people how to vote in one sentence


/

The Volt

Voltwad wrote: »

mangaroosh, are you going to avoid responding to my proof again?
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62281909&postcount=30

ei.sdraob

prinz wrote: »

Declan Ganley. Why? His dream of Libertas parties being formed in all countries of the European Union, changing the EU into a carbon-copy of the U.S., and no doubt harbouring megalomaniac fantasies of himself as a George Washington-type figure being elected as the President of the United States of Europe. Not as a figure head representative, but as an actual President á la Barrack Obama with real powers.

Declan Ganley wants a United States of Europe

O'Morris

ei.sdraob wrote:

Hitler used referendums as a tool alongside with classic propaganda to gain power

That's not correct. The Nazis didn't use referendums to gain power. Hitler had already gained full power by the time he started holding referendums.

He gained dictatorial powers through the enabling act of 1933. It was passed by a vote of the German parliament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

Furious-Dave

mangaroosh is actually correct. The No campaigners don't want to promote the concept of ignorance is bliss. They absolutely do want to educate the people on the Lisbon Treaty, and more. However it's their version of it, which is actually a few versions as there is no collaborative effort, just their lies to suit their own selfish agendas.

ei.sdraob

O'Morris wrote: »

That's not correct. The Nazis didn't use referendums to gain power. Hitler had already gained full power by the time he started holding referendums.

He gained dictatorial powers through the enabling act of 1933. It was passed by a vote of the German parliament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

To gain *more* power so

and to invade a neighbor




Lets not forget how himself burned down the Reichstag and blamed it on communists, the event is seen as pivotal in the establishment of Nazi Germany



speaking of fires lookit what do we have here

Caroline Simons

Fires are dangerous things. ”

The Volt

If you don't know vote no is the biggest load of tripe. If you don't know then go out and find out ffs

BlitzKrieg

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.

Seriously do you even read the treaty or do you just repeat what someone else tells you?

the 35% (+1) rule only applies if not all member states are taking part in a vote its to counter the difficulty in getting 4 member states when the number of states taking part in the vote has decreased.

It says that in the first sentance of article 238 (3)

As from 1 November 2014 and subject to the provisions laid down in the Protocol on transitional provisions, in cases where, under the Treaties, not all the members of the Council participate in voting, a qualified majority shall be defined as follows:
(a) A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.
A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained;

That is the only time the 35% rule is brought up.

How are people seriously getting this wrong? Its the first damn sentance.

P. Breathnach

mangaroosh wrote: »

who do you think I am??? I am not the No campaign! I am part of the electorate...

Somebody who enters a discussion forum and posts frequently and at length on the no side side of the question is ipso facto part of the no campaign.

MavisDavis

Voltwad wrote: »

If you don't know vote no is the biggest load of tripe. If you don't know then go out and find out ffs

And if on Friday you still don't know what you're voting on, don't vote.

Be a responsible voter or don't bother.

K-9

MavisDavis wrote: »

And if on Friday you still don't know what you're voting on, don't vote.

Be a responsible voter or don't bother.

Surely spoiling your vote would be an option though.

dceire

I hope I'm not crashing this thread or anything but with the sheer volume of threads on Lisbon its hard to know where to go & i didn't want to start yet another thread.

Anyway, at the moment I am still unsure as to how I will vote. While I am slightly leaning towards the yes side at the moment I am still pissed that they are making us vote again as if we got it wrong the first time.

While I accept that most of the public 'No' campaign is based on scare mongering I would be inclined to vote 'No' if, as suggested in several quarters, there is a genuine threat to our constitution.

I would be grateful if someone could answer this question for me:
Would voting 'Yes' give EU law prevalence over Irish law (the constitution) in any area(s)?

Dinner

dceire wrote: »

I would be grateful if someone could answer this question for me:
Would voting 'Yes' give EU law prevalence over Irish law (the constitution) in any area(s)?

The EU has always had prevalence over Irish law in the areas in which we choose to give it to them. An article was inserted into our Constitution in 1973 that states this and it is will be amended to include Lisbon if it passes on Friday.

The Volt

dceire wrote: »

I hope I'm not crashing this thread or anything but with the sheer volume of threads on Lisbon its hard to know where to go & i didn't want to start yet another thread.

Anyway, at the moment I am still unsure as to how I will vote. While I am slightly leaning towards the yes side at the moment I am still pissed that they are making us vote again as if we got it wrong the first time.

While I accept that most of the public 'No' campaign is based on scare mongering I would be inclined to vote 'No' if, as suggested in several quarters, there is a genuine threat to our constitution.

I would be grateful if someone could answer this question for me:
Would voting 'Yes' give EU law prevalence over Irish law (the constitution) in any area(s)?

More the merrier Peeved off about why we have to vote again? Sam Vimes put it better than anyone else so I'll link you to his post.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61945811&postcount=155

ghost_ie

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* Pump out outrageous lies

* Confuse people

* Ignore rational debate

* Ignore overwhelming evidence

* Build up straw men

* Concentrate on red herrings





/

Yes - that just about sums up the Yes campaign

P. Breathnach

dceire wrote: »

... I am still pissed that they are making us vote again...

You are not being made vote again; you are being given another opportunity to vote. You are free to stay at home.

... as if we got it wrong the first time...

Consider the possibility that we did indeed get it wrong. I certainly have that opinion.