Will the Yes side follow through on its claims?

Fuhrer

My name is URL wrote: »

They didn't mislead me, I voted No.

They did manage to mislead a sizable number of people who I've spoken to.. alot of whom say that they expected a direct positive impact of a Yes vote, regardless of there been no mention of it in the treaty..

You dont think a more improved and streamlined deciscion making process is a direct postive impact of a yes vote?

My name is URL

Fuhrer wrote: »

You dont think a more improved and streamlined deciscion making process is a direct postive impact of a yes vote?

There is absolutely no evidence to say that Ireland will benefit economically from it.. let alone be dragged out of recession because of it.

Yes to Recovery = No to Ruin.. that is preying on the fears of people

PaulieD

Rb wrote: »

It seems the same, idiotic crap is being said as after the Nice referendum, yet none of it came through.

Wanna hear the Nice lies? Here ya go.


It is a disgraceful xenophobic myth that there will be a threat of a flood of migrant workers coming to Ireland. A wilful effort has been made by the National Platform and the No to Nice Campaign organisation to raise the spectre of a wave of immigrants coming to our shores. This is the worst and most unworthy objection I have heard to the Nice treaty; it is most "un-Irish" and speaks volumes about the level at which some are willing to conduct political debate. It is a shameful and distasteful piece of propaganda.
Xenophobic fears have been raised before. When Ireland was joining the EEC in 1973, the same National Platform warned of foreign skilled workers taking Irish jobs. False fears of mass movements of people at the time of previous enlargements were also raised, but, as we know from the Spanish and Portuguese enlargement, these fears did not materialise. There is no credible reason to believe enlargement will be accompanied by large movements of people. All the evidence points in the opposite direction.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. Roche); 12th September 2002

There is no reason to believe... that large numbers of workers will wish to come"
[Minister for Europe Dick Roche, I.T. Letters, 12/7/2002].

"Ireland will be in precisely the same position as all other member states on the question of free movement following any enlargement of the Community".
[Dick Roche, as reported in the Irish Times, September 2002].

"It is the view of the Irish Government and a number of other governments that this idea that there is going to be a huge influx of immigrants is just not supported. The evidence is just not there for it. They are not going to flood to the west. The same rules are going to apply in all 15 states. There is no evidence to suggest that the people of the Czech Republic or Poland are less anxious to stay in their home as we are.
[Dick Roche, transcript of interview with The Irish Catholic, 19/9/2002].

"It is a deliberate misrepresentation to suggest that tens of thousands will suddenly descend en masse on Ireland."
[Proinsias De Rossa, I.T. Letters, 28/8/2002].

"I estimate that fewer than 2,000 will choose our distant shores each year".
[P. De Rossa, I. T. Letters, 20/8/2002].

"There is no evidence there would be a problem with free movement of workers on accession".. (Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Dail Eireann, 10/9/2002].

"Efforts have been made to foment fears that migrants from the new member states could flock to Ireland. This is not only unpleasant but plainly wrong."
[Brian Cowen, Sunday Business Post, 7/7/2000].

"Ireland is already benefiting from the skills and energy of workers from the applicant states, about 7,000 of whom received work permits last year. There is no basis whatever for expecting a huge upsurge in these numbers."
[Brian Cowen, Sunday Business Post, 7/7/2000].

"The second myth is that the Nice Treaty will mean mass immigration from the new EU member countries in Eastern Europe. This is probably the most odious of the myths propagated by some in the "No" campaign."
[Minister Willie O'Dea, Sunday Independent, Summer 2002].

Oh and here's another little nugget:

'Last week, ICTU general secretary Mr David Beggs said central and eastern European workers wanted to work in Germany and Austria, and not in Ireland.'

Irish Times 7 August 2002

me_right_one

My name is URL wrote: »

They didn't mislead me, I voted No.

They did manage to mislead a sizable number of people who I've spoken to.. alot of whom say that they expected a direct positive impact of a Yes vote, regardless of there been no mention of it in the treaty..

and considering that the Yes side were seemingly all in favor of people making a decision based on what was in the treaty, it seems extremely hypocritical of them to prey on peoples economic situations to gain support

Fair enough, you voted no, so elaborate on how you think they mislead those who voted Yes! Even if the probable economic kick-start doesnt happen, what exactly is in the treaty that you are so against?

Personally, no govt people ever tried to convince me of a "direct positive impact" from a yes result. I didnt see it on any posters either. I was fully aware of what was in the treaty before I voted, having read it start-to-finish before I made up my mind.

From what I'd read, I drew my own conclusions that less wastage in decision making, making the charter of human rights law, more transparency etc. were actually good things,and would naturally promote job growth, among other things, for Ireland. It just makes sense. Which is why, coir bullsh1t aside, I cannot understand why anybody would vote no! So enlighten me!

me_right_one

My name is URL wrote: »

There is absolutely no evidence to say that Ireland will benefit economically from it.. let alone be dragged out of recession because of it.

Yes to Recovery = No to Ruin.. that is preying on the fears of people

But no-one PROMISED an economic benefit; Its just more likley to happen with a Yes result. What TD said Yes to Recovery = No to Ruin..? And so what if they did, do you not think people can make up their own minds?

PaulieD

me_right_one wrote: »

But no-one PROMISED an economic benefit; Its just more likley to happen with a Yes result.

Yes for Jobs. Seems like a promise to me.

No backing down now, my boy. Your side made promises that they simply cannot cash.

me_right_one

PaulieD wrote: »

Yes for Jobs. Seems like a promise to me.

No backing down now, my boy. Your side made promises that they simply cannot cash.

If you take that as a promise, you must have your heart broken a lot.

My name is URL

me_right_one wrote: »

But no-one PROMISED an economic benefit; Its just more likley to happen with a Yes result. What TD said Yes to Recovery = No to Ruin..? And so what if they did, do you not think people can make up their own minds?

I'd like to think that people could make up their own minds, but the fact that we had to vote twice on this suggests that ones own decision is only acceptable when it's the right decision.

I don't know who produced the Ruin/Recover posters btw

Fuhrer

My name is URL wrote: »

There is absolutely no evidence to say that Ireland will benefit economically from it.. let alone be dragged out of recession because of it.

Yes to Recovery = No to Ruin.. that is preying on the fears of people

Really, there is no evidence at all?

Apart from the 500 million EU investment this week alone?

Apart from the evidence, there is no evidence?

Run_to_da_hills

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Yes im currently researching RFID technologies

http://i36.tinypic.com/2ah85tt.jpg



anyways the EU handed over 500 million only a few days ago for greencolar jobs and renewable investment

alot more to come

I wouldn't put a pass on it, implants have now got their justifying uses. :eek:

http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSTRE58K4BZ20090921

My name is URL

Fuhrer wrote: »

Really, there is no evidence at all?

Apart from the 500 million EU investment this week alone?

Apart from the evidence, there is no evidence?

Do you have evidence to support the idea that Ireland would not have gotten that loan if the treaty of Lisbon did not exist?

ei.sdraob

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I wouldn't put a pass on it, implants have now got their justifying uses. :eek:

http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSTRE58K4BZ20090921

its ok ill make sure your the first one to be chipped

Fuhrer

My name is URL wrote: »

Do you have evidence to support the idea that Ireland would not have gotten that loan if the treaty of Lisbon did not exist?

Unfortunetly im unable to travel between parrallel worlds where opposite decisions were taken but seen as you are, maybe you can tell us all whats going to happen.

My name is URL

Fuhrer wrote: »

Unfortunetly im unable to travel between parrallel worlds where opposite decisions were taken but seen as you are, maybe you can tell us all whats going to happen.

I'm not claiming to know what would happen.

You're the ones throwing up that loan as a positive about the treaty been ratified here, even though it happened days before the poll.

PaulieD

me_right_one wrote: »

If you take that as a promise, you must have your heart broken a lot.

I didnt. Some of the Yes voters did.

ei.sdraob

PaulieD wrote: »

I didnt. Some of the Yes voters did.

[citation needed]

Fuhrer

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not claiming to know what would happen.

You're the ones throwing up that loan as a positive about the treaty been ratified here, even though it happened days before the poll.

No, I was using the investment as an example of the continued benefit we get from membership in Europe and that we have just made the decision process for approving such investment that much easier, we are likely to get such investment in a much more timely and direct manner.

Heroditas

Fuhrer wrote: »

Really, there is no evidence at all?

Apart from the 500 million EU investment this week alone?

Apart from the evidence, there is no evidence?

This €500m is a LOAN from a European investment bank for Eirgrid and the ESB. It'll have to be paid back. It has absolutely nothing to do with EU membership or Lisbon.

me_right_one

My name is URL wrote: »

I'd like to think that people could make up their own minds, but the fact that we had to vote twice on this suggests that ones own decision is only acceptable when it's the right decision.

I don't know who produced the Ruin/Recover posters btw

Ok, so apart from the coir crap, the fact that some people are gullable enought to vote without reading the fcuking thing, and the wierd moral principle of "Oh well, I dont like the way the govt. do things, so I'm cutting my nose off to spite the faces of the entire Irish people", what exactly is there not to like about the Lisbon treaty?

me_right_one

PaulieD wrote: »

I didnt. Some of the Yes voters did.

http://arikia.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/facepalm1.jpg

Fuhrer

Heroditas wrote: »

This €500m is a LOAN from a European investment bank for Eirgrid and the ESB. It'll have to be paid back. It has absolutely nothing to do with EU membership or Lisbon.

Oh good god, its like arguining with a wall...


Ok, ill explain this to you but im probably gonna regret doing this as its a waste of time.

Lets ignore the fact that you dont seem to understand what an investment is and get on to your final point.

The investment has nothing to do with EU membership?

"A policy-driven bank, the EIB supports the EU’s priority objectives, especially European integration and the development of economically weak regions."

The investment only has to do with EU membership.

My name is URL

me_right_one wrote: »

Ok, so apart from the coir crap, the fact that some people are gullable enought to vote without reading the fcuking thing, and the wierd moral principle of "Oh well, I dont like the way the govt. do things, so I'm cutting my nose off to spite the faces of the entire Irish people", what exactly is there not to like about the Lisbon treaty?

Not very much =p

It's unfortunate that so many good aspects of it were lumped in with, what is in my view, the questionable parts about QMVs.

It needlessly unsettles things imo, I don't see any real positives about that bit.

I'm all for most of the rest of the treaty though.

I'd have been alot happier if we had the chance to vote on the individual clauses of the treaty rather than the whole thing in it's entirety

Fuhrer

My name is URL wrote: »

the questionable parts about QMVs.

Whats questionable about QMV?

PaulieD

ei.sdraob wrote: »

[citation needed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sED3iApAvE

me_right_one

My name is URL wrote: »

Not very much =p

It's unfortunate that so many good aspects of it were lumped in with, what is in my view, the questionable parts about QMVs.

It needlessly unsettles things imo, I don't see any real positives about that bit.

I'm all for most of the rest of the treaty though.

I'd have been alot happier if we had the chance to vote on the individual clauses of the treaty rather than the whole thing in it's entirety

So you mostly liked it, but you voted no because.........??????

My name is URL

Fuhrer wrote: »

Whats questionable about QMV?

The fact that it may take a countrys decision on something out of the equation.

I prefer the unanimous vote method, because it means concerns will be addressed and a decision won't be taken regardless of any nations concerns

Fuhrer

My name is URL wrote: »

The fact that it may take a countrys decision on something out of the equation.

So does any a general election for normal citizens. How is it democratic to make every single decision to the smallest minority to the detrement of the majority of the population?

My name is URL

Fuhrer wrote: »

So does any a general election for normal citizens. How is it democratic to make every single decision to the smallest minority to the detrement of the majority of the population?

I'm not saying it's wholly democratic, it certainly adds a reassurance to those against any decision though. It means that fears can be put to rest and discussions and agreements can be made to allay the concerns of people

QMV means there'll always be someone left in the cold, and over time the minorities will become the majority.

I just think it's a dangerous route to take

ei.sdraob

PaulieD wrote: »

video

first fix your video tag (just put in the id )

secondly where is the evidence that people bought that? there have been no independent polls yet

by your line of thinking i can say that some people who voted NO bought the Coir crap

/

Fuhrer

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm not saying it's wholly democratic, it certainly adds a reassurance to those against any decision though. It means that fears can be put to rest and discussions and agreements can be made to allay the concerns of people

QMV means there'll always be someone left in the cold, and over time the minorities will become the majority.

I just think it's a dangerous route to take

What if all decisions were taken without QMV?

Any time any decision to invest or do something positive for Ireland came up, Poland could simply say, No, We want that investment or at least an equal amount of investment or we'll vote against it.

QMV is simply the best way of doing business.