Did you pause before casting your vote today ?

fifth

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I didn't hesitate at all, once i saw the sign that said
"A Yes vote is a vote for abortion, VOTE NO"
I couldn't wait to vote yes

Where in the Treaty does it say this?

We can retain our legal status on the rights of unborn children if we vote yes.

dearg lady

dogbert27 wrote: »

I don't think people are voting yes out of fear that these groups will be in power. They may be voting yes against the lack of integrity that these groups have shown through out the campaign.

Someone posted exactly that on the previous page of this thread!

Ok, maybe my wording was bad, my point being that we shouldn't be looking to outside groups or political parties and basing our decision on whether they're showing integrity, it should only be on the facts of the treaty.

robindch

brianthebard wrote: »

Its amazingly conceited of you to suggest that the majority of no voters are being swayed by 'lying extremists'- you know feck all about why or how people arrived at their decision to vote but you're still willing to sell them all down the river anyways in a Coir shaped boat manned by Declan Ganley.

Given that this is exactly what informal research suggests, I think it's less "conceited" than "probably entirely correct":

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1001/1224255613292.html

Lone Stone

I did take a moment before i ticked the box.

FruitLover

brianthebard wrote: »

Its amazingly conceited of you to suggest that the majority of no voters are being swayed by 'lying extremists'

Going by these forums, I'd say it's pretty accurate.

Fighting Irish

funkyflea wrote: »

Where in the Treaty does it say this?

We can retain our legal status on the rights of unborn children if we vote yes.

I saw it on a sign

and gay marriage

brianthebard

robindch wrote: »

Given that this is exactly what informal research suggests, I think it's less "conceited" than "probably entirely correct":

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1001/1224255613292.html

250 homes visited??? a sample group of 30??? Well that is clearly a large majority of the population who voted no last time, I'm convinced.

fifth

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I saw it on a sign

and gay marriage

Ahh.. well that's alright then. :rolleyes:

Elba101

I took great pride in voting YES and doing the right thing for the country:D

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

250 homes visited??? a sample group of 30??? Well that is clearly a large majority of the population who voted no last time, I'm convinced.

Ok Brian, not necessarily your reasons but what in your opinion were the majority treaty based reasons for rejection?

seandeb

smokingman wrote: »

Voting this evening and not going to pause in the slightest - my mind is solid on this one. I've already posted the below on another thread - seems to work for the no side to repeat ad nausium - and apologies to the mods for the effective double post.


Voting YES because I refuse to be swayed by foreign marketing teams coming onto our beloved boards.ie, creating multiple new accounts and posting lies.

I will NOT be swayed by the likes of Ganley, Coir, the communist parties and the UK nazi party.

I will NOT be swayed by the lack of any truth whatsoever in any no poster I've seen.

I will NOT be swayed by anyone telling me that the EU has been anything but good for MY country.

I will NOT be swayed by conspirary theorists sitting in their bedrooms creating some kind of EVIL EMPIRE out of the EU which we ARE a part of (does that make us evil lads? )

I will NOT be swayed by any part quotation of the Treaty that usually forgets to include the parts where we can duck out of anything proposed.

I will NOT be swayed by anyone sprouting crap suggesting we have less of a say when QM voting needs AT LEAST 15 countries AND 65% of the total population of our Europe to get something passed.

I will NOT be swayed by anyone suggesting I'm unpatriotic to support a yes vote - I love this island even with all it's problems but I also love being a European. Travelling across Europe has given me the comfortable feeling that people are mostly the same in things they want, food, love, happiness....
We are Irish citizens standing side by side with our neighbours for a common cause - the foundations the EU were built on and if the Treaty is ratified, this will include the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights - what's wrong with that?

I'm urging people to vote yes only because I believe it to be right.
Not because I'm being paid by foreign interests, not because I believe any of the lies, not because I am in any way looking out for anything but this Islands future.

I hope the future will be good - same as every European.
-Ed

Brilliant clear insite into the NO SHAMpaign. The No sham is insulting to people who can think and see clearly as to how this vote will concern us all. Along with their outright lies and sly backers who are set to make hundreds of millions off the back of a no vote. See straight, why do you think these english backers are spending millions on the no side? Wake up!! YES

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ok Brian, not necessarily your reasons but what in your opinion were the majority treaty based reasons for rejection?

I believe that a large portion of the population simply do not want closer EU integration.

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

I believe that a large portion of the population simply do not want closer EU integration.

The evidence suggests otherwise. "Loss of sovereignty" came in at 12% iirc, although I'd be of the opinion that most people who said that were just using it as a buzz word and didn't understand QMV. According to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008#Reasons_for_rejection

"protect Irish Identity" was 20% but, again, the treaty doesn't change Irish identity. The biggest reason by far in every survey was lack of understanding, a lack of understanding that was deliberately cultivated by a number of groups consistently spreading FUD. Most people in this country are pro-EU and most people would have no issue with this treaty if it was properly explained to him. A prime example of how someone becomes a no voter is this guy:

johnathan woss wrote: »

I'm 99% sure I'm going to vote YES tomorrow, but 1% of me still has a nagging doubt.

So here's your chance ..... give me some reasons (backed up with actual LOGIC and FACTS) to vote NO.......

That 1% is "maybe there's some kind of validity in what these groups are saying", when in reality there isn't and that 1% made the people vote no in their droves the last time

pipeliner

i hesitated alright as my mind changed like the weather. I went for no but am secretly hoping yes is passed.
I now wish i could go back and change my vote.

Sam Vimes

pipeliner wrote: »

i hesitated alright as my mind changed like the weather. I went for no but am secretly hoping yes is passed.
I now wish i could go back and change my vote.

Ya can't do that, that would be undemocratic. It's undemocratic to change your mind, didn't you know that

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The evidence suggests otherwise. "Loss of sovereignty" came in at 12% iirc, although I'd be of the opinion that most people who said that were just using it as a buzz word and didn't understand QMV. According to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008#Reasons_for_rejection

"protect Irish Identity" was 20% but, again, the treaty doesn't change Irish identity.

Its not that hard to see loss of sovereignty and protecting Irish identity as two sides of the same coin, nor is it that hard to realise the identity issue did not just mean a cultural identity, but a political social and cultural identity/sovereignty which would be diminished in a more integrated Europe. I would suggest that the percentage who voted no to further integration was thus at least 32% going on your figures.

The biggest reason by far in every survey was lack of understanding, a lack of understanding that was deliberately cultivated by a number of groups consistently spreading FUD. Most people in this country are pro-EU and most people would have no issue with this treaty if it was properly explained to him. A prime example of how someone becomes a no voter is this guy:

Yes people are pro-EU but that does not necessarily mean they want closer integration. Furthermore why was this lack of understanding not countered by the Yes side?

That 1% is "maybe there's some kind of validity in what these groups are saying", when in reality there isn't and that 1% made the people vote no in their droves the last time

I think this is again rather condescending and dismissive to say that all people and organisations against ratifying the treaty doesn't have any validity and effectively shouldn't be there. What you're calling for is an unopposed referendum-it simply doesn't work that way.

c0rk3r

There was a poll on boards somewhere undertaken by large number of people. The result of which was a No majority. I honestly cant understand this on any level whatsoever. I also saw that paddypower has a 8-1 for a NO vote and 1-25 for a yes vote.

Im going to stick €100 on the No vote and vote Yes. Might aswell get something out of the No vote. Ill be doing the right thing but getting rewarded for the wrong outcome...

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

Its not that hard to see loss of sovereignty and protecting Irish identity as two sides of the same coin, nor is it that hard to realise the identity issue did not just mean a cultural identity, but a political social and cultural identity/sovereignty which would be diminished in a more integrated Europe. I would suggest that the percentage who voted no to further integration was thus at least 32% going on your figures.

You can't just add them, that's not how it works. There would be a huge amount of overlap between those two groups. Realistically 20% is most likely as high as it went. What makes you think that Irish identity will be effected in some way and what specific aspects of the treaty do you think would do this?

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes people are pro-EU but that does not necessarily mean they want closer integration.

True but it doesn't mean they don't either.

brianthebard wrote: »

Furthermore why was this lack of understanding not countered by the Yes side?

Because they were useless and they thought it was in the bag. Then the lies started and they were caught off guard and spent the whole campaign countering them

brianthebard wrote: »

I think this is again rather condescending and dismissive to say that all people and organisations against ratifying the treaty doesn't have any validity and effectively shouldn't be there. What you're calling for is an unopposed referendum-it simply doesn't work that way.

No that's something I can confidently say. I have not seen a single campaigner on the no side who has been 100% honest. Even Joe Higgins who I used to have great respect for until he misquoted two articles and raised the red herring of the privatisation of health and education. Maybe he really believes those things can happen from the treaty but I don't see how that can be because, for example, he said something would effect health and education even though the next paragraph explicitly excluded them
http://ww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62246848&postcount=28

bladespin

Voting later and still very conflicted on this, no amount of information is making this thing any clearer.

Sick to vote yes for the scaremongers, jeez you'd think it was a vote on us leaving Europe rather than a beaurocratic paperwork saver,but I don't like the fact that they're throwing a treaty in front of us again that hasn't been changed at all, not very democratic IMO.

BUT Europe is good for us as far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer the parliament had more power than the unelected comission, think the treaty does this

TBH I think our government has droppeed the ball, they could've won a lot more than just guarantees but that's a different issue.

Rb

I don't blame No voters for pausing really, since they've apparently no idea what it is they're voting on:)

I'm off to vote now and I certainly will not need a moment before ticking the box beside Yes, as I know I'm doing the right thing for Ireland and for the European Union that we're so happy to be a part of.

Rb

bladespin wrote: »

Voting later and still very conflicted on this, no amount of information is making this thing any clearer.

Sick to vote yes for the scaremongers, jeez you'd think it was a vote on us leaving Europe rather than a beaurocratic paperwork saver,but I don't like the fact that they're throwing a treaty in front of us again that hasn't been changed at all, not very democratic IMO.

BUT Europe is good for us as far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer the parliament had more power than the unelected comission, think the treaty does this

TBH I think our government has droppeed the ball, they could've won a lot more than just guarantees but that's a different issue.

Read Sam Vimes' list of people/organisations for and against the treaty. It says it all really when you just consider who is actually looking out for the good of the country.

Sam Vimes

bladespin wrote: »

Sick to vote yes for the scaremongers, jeez you'd think it was a vote on us leaving Europe rather than a beaurocratic paperwork saver,but I don't like the fact that they're throwing a treaty in front of us again that hasn't been changed at all, not very democratic IMO.

It has been changed. They have agreed a legally binding decision that one of the provisions of the treaty will not be enacted, the one to reduce the size of the commission

robindch

brianthebard wrote: »

I think this is again rather condescending and dismissive to say that all people and organisations against ratifying the treaty doesn't have any validity [...]

Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but I've yet to see a No-side ad that is legal, decent, honest and truthful.

Has anybody else seen one? There must be at least one...!

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You can't just add them, that's not how it works. There would be a huge amount of overlap between those two groups. Realistically 20% is most likely as high as it went. What makes you think that Irish identity will be effected in some way and what specific aspects of the treaty do you think would do this?


True but it doesn't mean they don't either.

Is it undemocratic of me to add them? If there was such a massive overlap why did you suggest they were separate units to begin with?

No that's something I can confidently say. I have not seen a single campaigner on the no side who has been 100% honest. Even Joe Higgins who I used to have great respect for until he misquoted two articles and raised the red herring of the privatisation of health and education. Maybe he really believes those things can happen from the treaty but I don't see how that can be because, for example, he said something would effect health and education even though the next paragraph explicitly excluded them
http://ww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62246848&postcount=28

I'd trust Joe Higgins over you tbh and I think the people who voted for him might too.

brianthebard

robindch wrote: »

Well, I can't speak for anybody else, but I've yet to see a No-side ad that is legal, decent, honest and truthful.

Has anybody else seen one? There must be at least one...!

Which ads are illegal? did you report them to the relevant authorities?

seamus

brianthebard wrote: »

Furthermore why was this lack of understanding not countered by the Yes side?

Cockiness and unpreparedness. It was April 2008, recession was starting to bite but it hadn't really struck heavily, the government had a relatively strong approval rating and everyone loved the EU. So the government saw the battle as won.
Libertas appeared out of nowhere with a very strong voice and US-style tactics of lying, misleading and misdirecting, which we hadn't really dealt with in this country before and immediately led the electorate to believe that Lisbon may not be all it was cracked up to be. We expect SF and the rest to be anti-EU, but no-one knew of libertas and so it gave their claims some grounding.

The government were concerned, but still confident that the electorate love of Europe would win out and even went so far as to make stupid statements such as, "Of course I haven't read the text". As the campaign progressed, refcom were painfully slow to produce any information and it turned out that aside from a few key posters here on boards defending the "yes" side, very few people had actually read the treaty at all and despite Libertas's lies, nobody in Government had the information to expose them as such.

By the time they got their asses in gear it was about 2 weeks before the vote, but by then it was too late and the worsening economic situation, coupled with the complete confusion on the treaty led people to be downright angry with any government talk on the topic.

The overriding emergence from the last vote was that confusion reigned at the time of voting and a massive number of the people who voted had no idea what they were voting on, or why.

killeoin

Jesus...For some reason I had it in my mind that the Yes side was going to win easily enough this time. I wasn't even going to bother voting! However having read this i'm just gonna run over to the polling station quickly and cast my yes vote!

robindch

brianthebard wrote: »

Which ads are illegal? did you report them to the relevant authorities?

Read what I said:

robindch wrote:

legal, decent, honest and truthful.

The word you missed is "and".

And as it's come up, the Advertizing Standards Authority and the relevant advertizing legislation specifically exempt election posters from any requirement to be truthful, so complaining is not an option.

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

Is it undemocratic of me to add them? If there was such a massive overlap why did you suggest they were separate units to begin with?

It's mathematically incorrect to add them. The figures were from separate surveys.

brianthebard wrote: »

I'd trust Joe Higgins over you tbh and I think the people who voted for him might too.

You don't have to trust me, go and read the article he was talking about and you can see for yourself. I don't trust anyone in this campaign who doesn't provide evidence.

P. Breathnach

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I didn't hesitate at all, once i saw the sign that said
"A Yes vote is a vote for abortion, VOTE NO"
I couldn't wait to vote yes

I'm curious: why did you want to vote for abortion?

pipeliner wrote: »

i hesitated alright as my mind changed like the weather. I went for no but am secretly hoping yes is passed.
I now wish i could go back and change my vote.

God, you're going to feel bad if the referendum question is defeated by one vote.