Cóir actually funded by yes side

Prof.Badass

I'm not usually the conspiracy theory type but i cannot see any other rational explaination.

My theory being that the purpose of cóir is to run a ridiculous no campaign, "resorting" to blatant scaremongering and obvious false accusations in order to come across as desperate and turn people off voting no.

In effect they are acting as a strawman sockpuppet for the yes side, making voters think "god, if they're the nutcases leading the no campaign then obviously all the reasonable people are voting yes".

As for who exactly is funding them, i will leave that up for discussion......

Also, it turns out such tactics are fairly common in politics;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag#Political_campaigning

humanji

vinylmesh wrote: »

I'm not usually the conspiracy theory type but i cannot see any other rational explaination.

My theory being that the purpose of cóir is to run a ridiculous no campaign, "resorting" to blatant scaremongering and obvious false accusations in order to come across as desperate and turn people off voting no.

In effect they are acting as a strawman sockpuppet for the yes side, making voters think "god, if they're the nutcases leading the no campaign then obviously all the reasonable people are voting yes".

As for who exactly is funding them, i will leave that up for discussion......

Also, it turns out such tactics are fairly common in politics;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag#Political_campaigning

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they were. But the sad thing is that people seem to really believe everything they say and sometimes even worse.

Iwasfrozen

humanji wrote: »

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they were. But the sad thing is that people seem to really believe everything they say and sometimes even worse.

They are a sub-section of youth defence, they are located in the same building for God's sake.

meglome

vinylmesh wrote: »

I'm not usually the conspiracy theory type but i cannot see any other rational explaination.

My theory being that the purpose of cóir is to run a ridiculous no campaign, "resorting" to blatant scaremongering and obvious false accusations in order to come across as desperate and turn people off voting no.

In effect they are acting as a strawman sockpuppet for the yes side, making voters think "god, if they're the nutcases leading the no campaign then obviously all the reasonable people are voting yes".

As for who exactly is funding them, i will leave that up for discussion......

Also, it turns out such tactics are fairly common in politics;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag#Political_campaigning

They've been around for a long time. Cóir, Youth Defence, SPUC, mother and Child Campaign. They have many faces and usually the same address, 60a Capel Street.

They're very vague about where they get their money. Given that many voted No the last time based on the lies Cóir were pushing it would seem very unlikely they are funded by the Yes campaign.

profitius

It doesn't matter what the intentions are. If smart people think they'd do more harm then good ie make the no campaigners look stupid, then the smart people would fund them.

meglome

profitius wrote: »

It doesn't matter what the intentions are. If smart people think they'd do more harm then good ie make the no campaigners look stupid, then the smart people would fund them.

The problem is in the Lisbon 1 vote many of the reasons given for voting No were the ones Cóir were pushing. In Lisbon 2 they just went to too far with the lies and it was obvious to most people they were telling porkies. No one with any decency would give those headers in Cóir money.

squod

meglome wrote: »

The problem is in the Lisbon 1 vote many of the reason given for voting No were the ones Cóir were pushing. In Lisbon 2 they just went to too far with the lies and it was obvious to must people they were telling porkies. No one with any decency would give those headers in Cóir money.

So who are the headers with no decency giving their money to?

Oh wait...

meglome

squod wrote: »

So who are the headers with no decency giving their money to?

Oh wait...

All political party's have to show where the money comes from. We don't know where Cóir, Youth Defence, SPUC, Mother and Child Campaign or whatever they're called today get their money from. The rumour is it's from outside of Ireland from right wing British or American organisations.

Again I'm amazed where we might have some real conspiracy about the funding of Cóir and Declan Ganley there's not a peep out of the conspiracy theorists.

squod

meglome wrote: »

The rumour is it's from outside of Ireland from right wing British or American organisations.

Or by someone who wants a yes vote, like the OP said.

meglome

squod wrote: »

Or by someone who wants a yes vote, like the OP said.

Hang on, they were one of the main reason for the No vote the first time around.

squod

meglome wrote: »

Hang on, they were one of the main reason for the No vote the first time around.

WTF?

studiorat

meglome wrote: »

Again I'm amazed where we might have some real conspiracy about the funding of Cóir and Declan Ganley there's not a peep out of the conspiracy theorists.

Two words.. Opus Dei.
The secret societey of Irelands ruling classes, financial controllers of the National banks, academic Publishing houses. Chief executive of the Irish Management institute, even the owner of Buswells hotel across the road from Dail Eireann!!!!:eek::eek::eek:


:pac:

Dr John Roche joined Opus Dei as a numerary -- a celibate member who lives in an Opus Dei centre -- in 1959 while a graduate physics student at Galway university. In an article published after he resigned from the movement in 1972, he said: "It is easy to be impressed by Opus Dei, with its beautiful buildings, its energy, its sense of purpose, its likeable, well-dressed members and its apparent loyalty to traditional Catholicism.

"This is only one face of Opus Dei. Internally it is totalitarian and imbued with fascist ideas turned to religious purposes, ideas which were surely drawn from the Spain of its early years. It is virtually a sect or cult in spirit, a law unto itself, totally self-centred, grudgingly accepting Roman authorityNEW WORLD ORDER because it still considers Rome orthodox, and because of the vast pool of recruits accessible to it as a respected Catholic organisation.

There really is a conspiracy.:eek::eek::eek::eek: Opus Dei are trying to get us all back to medieval times by returning the Catholic Church to the centre of society,
"Opus Dei . . . is seeking to recreate an alliance between the spiritual and the secular worlds that was last attempted during the Renaissance - with catastrophic results." (Their Kingdom Come (1997; St Martin's Griffin))

:eek::eek:

/*insert picture of burning cross*/

studiorat

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

All political party's have to show where the money comes from. We don't know where Cóir, Youth Defence, SPUC, Mother and Child Campaign or whatever they're called today get their money from. The rumour is it's from outside of Ireland from right wing British or American organisations.

Again I'm amazed where we might have some real conspiracy about the funding of Cóir and Declan Ganley there's not a peep out of the conspiracy theorists.

Coir had a full page advertisement on page 11 of Alive last month looking for donations to fight the campaign.

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Coir had a full page advertisement on page 11 of Alive last month looking for donations to fight the campaign.

I'm not saying that Cóir doesn't get money from anyone in this country. I'm saying the kind of money they are spending, in the hundreds of thousands over Lisbon 1 and 2, is not coming from a few pensioners after mass.

Shouldn't we be suspicious?

Run_to_da_hills

meglome wrote: »

I'm not saying that Cóir doesn't get money from anyone in this country. I'm saying the kind of money they are spending, in the hundreds of thousands over Lisbon 1 and 2, is not coming from a few pensioners after mass.

Shouldn't we be suspicious?

Similarly one could say the same about the Yes campaign being illegally funded by US corporates with American CIA interests contary to the code of any Irish referendum and absolutly nothing was said about it because it suited those that laid down the rules. :rolleyes:

meglome

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Similarly one could say the same about the Yes campaign being illegally funded by US corporates with American CIA interests contary to the code of any Irish referendum and absolutly nothing was said about it because it suited those that laid down the rules. :rolleyes:

Was there any significant Yes groups that didn't fully show where the money came from? My understanding is they pretty much all did.

I never even said that Cóir was illegally funded, I just stated we don't know where their money is coming from. How can we honestly tell the agenda of any group that won't tell us who backs them. You're comparing apples and oranges here by bringing Intel into it. Intel employ thousands of people here in Ireland, thousands of well paid people, Intel have invested huge sums of money into Ireland. You seem to be implying that Intel want to harm their business in some way, which wouldn't make any sense.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

...interests contary to the code of any Irish referendum and absolutly nothing was said about it because it suited those that laid down the rules.

What interests and contrary to what code exactly?

Why would anyone say anything when nothing was done wrong, you haven't a shred of evidence to back this nonsense up you just want it to be true.


And again I find myself amazed that no conspiracy theorist is interested in who funds and backs the likes of Cóir and Declan Ganly, and for what reason. No instead you'd rather make up some stuff about Intel being funded by the CIA. The double standards are unbelievable.

squod

meglome wrote: »

Was there any significant Yes groups that didn't fully show where the money came from? My understanding is they pretty much all did.

I never even said that Cóir was illegally funded, I just stated we don't know where their money is coming from. How can we honestly tell the agenda of any group that won't tell us who backs them. You're comparing apples and oranges here by bringing Intel into it. Intel employ thousands of people here in Ireland, thousands of well paid people, Intel have invested huge sums of money into Ireland. You seem to be implying that Intel want to harm their business in some way, which wouldn't make any sense.



What interests and contrary to what code exactly?

Why would anyone say anything when nothing was done wrong, you haven't a shred of evidence to back this nonsense up you just want it to be true.


And again I find myself amazed that no conspiracy theorist is interested in who funds and backs the likes of Cóir and Declan Ganly, and for what reason. No instead you'd rather make up some stuff about Intel being funded by the CIA. The double standards are unbelievable.

Taking sides? So then you're saying it was fine for the major political parties to back Lisbon 1 for example. Using taxpayers money to fund a yes campaign that clearly wasn't in the interests of the public or the people who voted for them. Are you gonna be happy then if the OPs suggestions are substansiated? Wouldn't that be a double standard?

meglome

squod wrote: »

Taking sides? So then you're saying it was fine for the major political parties to back Lisbon 1 for example.

I think the major political party's in this country can decide what they want to support or not. They will have to answer to the people who elected them if they go against their wishes. They also show exactly where the money comes from.

squod wrote: »

... Using taxpayers money to fund a yes campaign ...

How much taxpayers money was used exactly?

squod wrote: »

...to fund a yes campaign that clearly wasn't in the interests of the public or the people who voted for them.

You do see that your opinion is not shared by the majority of the electorate or the many independent organisations that called for a yes vote?

squod wrote: »

Are you gonna be happy then if the OPs suggestions are substansiated? Wouldn't that be a double standard?

I'd like the truth, simple as that. That's the only side I'm on.

Saying the yes campaign funded Cóir doesn't make any sense. It really reminds of of when 'truthers' turn on the likes of Alex Jones or whoever when they go too far, suddenly they are a disinfo agent.

Do you think Cóir and Declan Ganley should be looked at?

squod

meglome wrote: »

You do see that your opinion is not shared by the majority of the electorate or the many independent organisations that called for a yes vote?

So then you are saying it was fine for the major political parties to back Lisbon 1 for example. Using taxpayers money to fund a yes campaign that clearly wasn't in the interests of the public or the people who voted for them.

meglome wrote: »

I'd like the truth, simple as that. That's the only side I'm on.

Saying the yes campaign funded Cóir doesn't make any sense. It really reminds of of when 'truthers' turn on the likes of Alex Jones or whoever when they go too far, suddenly they are a disinfo agent.

Do you think Cóir and Declan Ganley should be looked at?

The truth would be great, yes please. I think thats what everybody would like. Saying the yes campaign funded Cóir makes perfect sense, as what they have done is spread disinformation.

meglome

squod wrote: »

So then you are saying it was fine for the major political parties to back Lisbon 1 for example.

Yup that's exactly what I'm saying. If they are doing anything their supporters don't like they will suffer at the next election, exactly how representative democracy works.

squod wrote: »

Using taxpayers money to fund a yes campaign...

Your stating, as your opinion, that taxpayers money was used to fund the Yes campaign. I'm asking how much?

squod wrote: »

...that clearly wasn't in the interests of the public or the people who voted for them.

As I've already pointed out this is just your opinion. An opinion that is at odds with a large majority of the electorate and the many independent organisations that called for yes vote. I'm assuming here that you understand the difference between your opinion and provable fact.

squod wrote: »

The truth would be great, yes please. I think thats what everybody would like. Saying the yes campaign funded Cóir makes perfect sense, as what they have done is spread disinformation.

Yes they did spread disinformation and plenty of it. However some of the major reasons given for no vote in Lisbon 1 were the exact same ones that Cóir were peddling. What sense would it make for the Yes campaign to fund people who strongly helped bring about the No vote?

Also you'd then have to ask why would the people behind the Yes campaign fund all the other crap Cóir has been involved in, Youth Defence, SPUC etc etc. They have been caught associating with German fascists in the past, personally I don't know why anyone would support them. Of course all they have to do is explain where the money does come from, which they have consistently failed to do.

In Lisbon 2 they went too far with the lying and got caught out which helped the Yes vote. However pretty much everything being used by the no campaign in the two Lisbon campaigns was made up or misrepresented. Ultimately I think people realised they were being lied to bigstyle by the no campaign and that swung many undecided voters to a yes.

K-9

Its believable, until you realise that they are Catholic fundamentalists and have been at this for years.

They ran a very successful campaign last time but got carried away this time.

RangeR

meglome wrote: »

As I've already pointed out this is just your opinion. An opinion that is at odds with a large majority of the electorate and the many independent organisations that called for yes vote. I'm assuming here that you understand the difference between your opinion and provable fact.

Lurking in this thread and not contributing. However, I can't let this one slide. Lisbon didn't pass by a " large majority of the electorate" by any means. It passed with just over half of the voters.

Keep to the facts and don't embellish otherwise it will harm your argument.

bonkey

Of the 59% who voted, roughly 2/3 voted Yes.

That would be a 2-to-1 majority, which is pretty large in any political standards.

One can play the numbers game, of course, and argue that with turnout at 59%, only about 40% of the electorate actually voted to support the motion. By this standard, however, it is also the case that only about 20% voted against the motion...still a clear 2:1 majority.

Alternately, we can say that 60% of the electorate did not vote for the motion, whereas 80% did not vote against it. This makes it appear somehow narrower, but makes it clear that 40% of the populace are being counted twice in order to do so.

2:1 may be a narrow victory in soccer, but in percentage of the voting electorate, its pretty massive.

squod

meglome wrote: »

As I've already pointed out this is just your opinion. An opinion that is at odds with a large majority of the electorate and the many independent organisations that called for yes vote. I'm assuming here that you understand the difference between your opinion and provable fact.

But sure Lisbon one wasn't passed. The majority rejected it and most serious commentators recommended a no vote on the run up to it. Only the worst of ejits would have put up an argument for the yes side on that campaign. Yet money was spent by this government endorsing such a vote. A yes vote on Lisbon one wasn't in the interest of the general public, that's a fact.

I have no idea how much money was spent at the time of Lisbon one nor do I know that there is a definate link between the yes camp and Coir. But I suspect there is, as does the OP.

squod

K-9 wrote: »

Its believable, until you realise that they are Catholic fundamentalists and have been at this for years.

They ran a very successful campaign last time but got carried away this time.

Are you telling me they switched tactics or that they were 'lead' into a different campaign? I just put Coir down as a bunch of ejits. Where a bunch of ejits are meant to get a load of money from to run a disinformation campaign, well I dunno.

K-9

squod wrote: »

Are you telling me they switched tactics or that they were 'lead' into a different campaign? I just put Coir down as a bunch of ejits. Where a bunch of ejits are meant to get a load of money from to run a disinformation campaign, well I dunno.

We don't know enough about them other than they are a bit thick!

What you are ignoring is, they had plenty of money last time too. Nothing has changed in that regard, bar the result!

meglome

squod wrote: »

But sure Lisbon one wasn't passed. The majority rejected it and most serious commentators recommended a no vote on the run up to it.

Indeed there was no vote so it wouldn't be passed. But I don't know where you're getting most serious commentators recommended a no vote from. Who were these commentators?

squod wrote: »

Only the worst of ejits would have put up an argument for the yes side on that campaign.

Why would that be?

squod wrote: »

Yet money was spent by this government endorsing such a vote.

How much was spent and on what?

squod wrote: »

A yes vote on Lisbon one wasn't in the interest of the general public, that's a fact.

I assumed above you understood the difference between your opinion and provable fact. I'm not trying to insult you in any way here but your opinion is just your opinion. Where are the facts?

squod wrote: »

I have no idea how much money was spent at the time of Lisbon one...

But you keep saying money was spent so where is this information coming from? Surely the figures would be there as well?

squod wrote: »

...nor do I know that there is a definate link between the yes camp and Coir. But I suspect there is, as does the OP.

Thanks for your opinion but unless you have something (or anything) to back it up then it remains just your opinion. Look it all makes an interesting story even if it doesn't make any sense but surely you must have something to back it up?

squod wrote: »

Are you telling me they switched tactics or that they were 'lead' into a different campaign? I just put Coir down as a bunch of ejits. Where a bunch of ejits are meant to get a load of money from to run a disinformation campaign, well I dunno.

They didn't change tactics they just used different lies. Lies which were easier to spot as they went too far the second time. So you agree there is a possible conspiracy here as to where Cóir get their money from? Although pointing the finger at the yes camp without even the slightest shred of evidence and given Cóir's history I think you are way off the mark in the who.

squod

meglome wrote: »

I assumed above you understood the difference between your opinion and provable fact. I'm not trying to insult you in any way here but your opinion is just your opinion. Where are the facts?

A yes vote on Lisbon one wasn't in the interest of the general public, that's a fact. The fact remains that we gained (for now) a commissioner which we weren't offered under Lisbon one for example. It's not my opinion that Lisbon one wasn't in the interests of the people of Ireland, it is fact.

Lisbon two is a testimony to that fact. As for the ejits who recommended Lisbon one, well, it's lucky the majority didn't take their' advise.

K-9

squod wrote: »

A yes vote on Lisbon one wasn't in the interest of the general public, that's a fact. The fact remains that we gained (for now) a commissioner which we weren't offered under Lisbon one for example. It's not my opinion that Lisbon one wasn't in the interests of the people of Ireland, it is fact.

Lisbon two is a testimony to that fact. As for the ejits who recommended Lisbon one, well, it's lucky the majority didn't take their' advise.

How is it fact?

It sounds like sour grapes to me, but it isn't fact!

meglome

squod wrote: »

A yes vote on Lisbon one wasn't in the interest of the general public, that's a fact. The fact remains that we gained (for now) a commissioner which we weren't offered under Lisbon one for example. It's not my opinion that Lisbon one wasn't in the interests of the people of Ireland, it is fact.

Lisbon two is a testimony to that fact. As for the ejits who recommended Lisbon one, well, it's lucky the majority didn't take their' advise.

Okay again I don't want to sound insulting as that's not my intent. You personally are stating the Lisbon treaty is not in the best interests of the Irish people. You are saying it's a fact. Now lets assume for a moment I know nothing about the Lisbon treaty, that I haven't read it and you can convince me what you say is true. What is your reasoning for this, where are the facts?

The biggest single reason for voting against Lisbon 1 was given as not understanding what was in the treaty, not exactly a ringing endorsement of what your saying now is it?


These are the reason for voting given to the EU in a poll on Lisbon 2. Source.

TOP 5 REASONS FOR VOTING YES

• EU has been/is good for Ireland 51%
• The treaty is good for Ireland/ it was in the best interest of Ireland 44%
• It will help the economy 33%
• Maintain Irish influence in Europe 11%
• The treaty is good for the EU 17%

TOP 5 REASONS FOR VOTING NO

• To protect Irish identity 30%
• I do not trust our politicians 20%
• To protest against the Government’s policies 12%
• To safeguard Irish neutrality 11%
• Increasing unemployment 10%

So let's look at the reasons given for voting No.

1. To protect Irish identity 30% - completely irrelevant as there's nothing in the Lisbon treaty that harms it.
2. I do not trust our politicians 20% - completely irrelevant, you don't need to trust our politicians to have an informed view.
3. To protest against the Government’s policies 12% - completely irrelevant, hurting the country to get at the government is just stupid.
4. To safeguard Irish neutrality 11% - completely irrelevant, there's nothing that has any impact on Irish 'neutrality'.
5. Increasing unemployment 10% - completely irrelevant - Lisbon didn't cause the problem, the government we elected did most of that, but it is likely to make the economy better in the medium term.

So I'll sit back and wait for all the evidence based fact.

squod

meglome wrote: »

The biggest single reason for voting against Lisbon 1 was given as not understanding what was in the treaty, not exactly a ringing endorsement of what your saying now is it?

That's again untrue, as I recall the reason for the re-run were around guarantees given in light of the result of Lisbon one. Or to put it another way we were offered a better deal the second time around.

That's all I'm saying. Lisbon one was a pretty awful deal as people said at the time. We got a better deal on the basis of a majority no vote hense Lisbon one wasn't in the interest of the people.

And hey it's not sour grapes, the majority of voters though it might benefit the Irish economy, accoring to todays Indo. Whether the arguments for or against were correct well........... it's too late to worry about that now.
Seems the debate on boards.ie wasn't watched by the nation.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

That's again untrue, as I recall the reason for the re-run were around guarantees given in light of the result of Lisbon one. Or to put it another way we were offered a better deal the second time around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill,_2008_%28Ireland%29#Reasons_for_rejection

Reason for rejecting the Lisbon Treaty ↓ Percentage ↓
Don't understand /not familiar 40%
Protect Irish identity 20%
Don't trust politicians/Govt policies 17%
Protect neutrality 10%
Keep commissioner 10%
Protect tax system 8%

meglome

squod wrote: »

That's again untrue, as I recall the reason for the re-run were around guarantees given in light of the result of Lisbon one. Or to put it another way we were offered a better deal the second time around.

King Mob has already shown above the reasons people gave for voting No in Lisbon 1. Most of which have nothing to do with the actual contents of the treaty. Personally I don't see how it was a better deal even with the guarantees. All the guarantees did was calm some of the bullshít that was being spread about.

squod wrote: »

That's all I'm saying. Lisbon one was a pretty awful deal as people said at the time. We got a better deal on the basis of a majority no vote hense Lisbon one wasn't in the interest of the people.

The package we voted on in Lisbon 1 and 2 was different, with the guarantees for Lisbon 2. That said the guarantees were mostly to confirm things were not in the treaty to begin with. And the demand for the commissioner to be retained just goes to show that people don't know how the EU works. The commissioners' job is to represent the EU not the member states.

squod wrote: »

T
And hey it's not sour grapes, the majority of voters though it might benefit the Irish economy, accoring to todays Indo. Whether the arguments for or against were correct well........... it's too late to worry about that now.
Seems the debate on boards.ie wasn't watched by the nation.

I think the Yes vote might be of benefit to the Irish economy too. It wasn't a big reason for me to vote yes though. I listed the reasons above that people gave for voting yes and no to Lisbon 2.


Can I gather from this backtracking you're doing you're not going to be supplying evidence for some of your claims?

studiorat

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Coir had a full page advertisement on page 11 of Alive last month looking for donations to fight the campaign.

I serioulsy doubt they paid full whack for that. Not since Jacki Ascough a well documented No supporter writes for it. Tom Ascough her husband incidentally is a director of the Ultra Catholic Iona Institute.

To get back to the OP I really don't think Coir were funded by the Yes side. Coir were funded by the sinister force that is the Right Wing Catholic Elite here in Ireland. The likes of Legatus http://www.legatus.org/public/index.asp the Papist Taliban...

squod

meglome wrote: »

King Mob has already shown above the reasons people gave for voting No in Lisbon 1. Most of which have nothing to do with the actual contents of the treaty. Personally I don't see how it was a better deal even with the guarantees. All the guarantees did was calm some of the bullshít that was being spread about.



The package we voted on in Lisbon 1 and 2 was different, with the guarantees for Lisbon 2. That said the guarantees were mostly to confirm things were not in the treaty to begin with. And the demand for the commissioner to be retained just goes to show that people don't know how the EU works. The commissioners' job is to represent the EU not the member states.



I think the Yes vote might be of benefit to the Irish economy too. It wasn't a big reason for me to vote yes though. I listed the reasons above that people gave for voting yes and no to Lisbon 2.


Can I gather from this backtracking you're doing you're not going to be supplying evidence for some of your claims?

Who's backtracking? As you said yourself the packages we voted on in Lisbon 1 and 2 were different, QED.

Black Uhlan

meglome wrote: »

So let's look at the reasons given for voting No.

1. To protect Irish identity 30% - completely irrelevant as there's nothing in the Lisbon treaty that harms it.
2. I do not trust our politicians 20% - completely irrelevant, you don't need to trust our politicians to have an informed view.
3. To protest against the Government’s policies 12% - completely irrelevant, hurting the country to get at the government is just stupid.
4. To safeguard Irish neutrality 11% - completely irrelevant, there's nothing that has any impact on Irish 'neutrality'.
5. Increasing unemployment 10% - completely irrelevant - Lisbon didn't cause the problem, the government we elected did most of that, but it is likely to make the economy better in the medium term.

:D:D:D Nice to see you hold the opinions of others in such high regard.

Why did you vote yes? Was it for personal financial reasons by any chance? or did you vote for the good of the country and its people? Be as specific as you can, Bare in mind any opinion you give is equally "completely irrelevant" judging you by your own standards.

Oh and that (pro-Lisbon) Irish Times poll you keep referring to is a wikipedia page who's source is only available with subscription and its an unregulated online poll for fecks sake.

meglome

squod wrote: »

Who's backtracking? As you said yourself the packages we voted on in Lisbon 1 and 2 were different, QED.

Sure the packages were different. However it's my opinion that the difference in real terms was insignificant.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

[/LIST]
:D:D:D Nice to see you hold the opinions of others in such high regard.

Hey they're entitled to believe the earth is flat is they really want, and I think they are perfectly entitled to believe that. However being entitled to an opinion and that opinion being factual are two very different things. I took the trouble to read the condensed version of the Lisbon treaty and I saw nothing that does what the people polled think it does. So calling these things completely irrelevant is not a personal attack on the people themselves. It's simply a reflection of them being misinformed and stating things that are completely irrelevant and completely untrue.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Why did you vote yes? Was it for personal financial reasons by any chance? or did you vote for the good of the country and its people? Be as specific as you can, Bare in mind any opinion you give is equally "completely irrelevant" judging you by your own standards.

Well I voted Yes mostly due to the reforms of the EU which are in the Lisbon treaty, most of which are listed here. I really like that the EU will be more accountable to it's citizens. I also voted Yes because I thought it would be in the best interests of the country, hopefully it will bring in more investment and jobs.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Oh and that (pro-Lisbon) Irish Times poll you keep referring to is a wikipedia page who's source is only available with subscription and its an unregulated online poll for fecks sake.

I didn't refer to any Irish times poll that was King Mob. The poll I referred to was done by the EU in the aftermath of Lisbon 2 and reported in the Irish Times. Don't know if the full result are available yet. I suppose you don't believe the polls that were done by respected international pollsters after Lisbon 1?