Will the Yes side follow through on its claims?

me_right_one

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

But unanimity is whats wasting the resources, QMV is the efficiency.

My name is URL

I'm sure it will improve efficiency, but at what cost?

The best way of doing business doesn't always mean that the best wishes of the people are are taken into account on any decisions made.

That's my opinion of it, and it's my reason for voting No.

*No scare tactics were used in the making of this decision

:P

kerchow

I voted No and not because I fell for any crap from either side which used a lot of scare tactics and empty promises ("yes to jobs" sounds like a pretty clear promise to me and no I don't get my heart broken. )
I voted no because I really don't believe that there is enough cop on in the Europe parliment right now to lead us out of a paper bag and our government is a clear indication of it albeit a really really bad one.
Yes without Europe we would not be where we are now but we would not be in the dark ages either. Change when it happens comes to everyone and it does come faster when you are part of a large group and the money given has been a huge benefit and boost to our small nation. But until I see some decent leadership I would rather vote no. Just my own humble opinion! everyone to their own and no one should be attacked for that. I used my vote, as always and voted the same this time as I did the last time.:)

Fuhrer

My name is URL wrote: »

The best way of doing business doesn't always mean that the best wishes of the people are are taken into account on any decisions made.

Well no, either does unanimity decision. The best wishes of the people can be held back by one lunatic fringe group that make sure no one gets anything unless they get everything they want.

This is the basis of democracy, the best decision is the one that benefits the majority of the people, thats what QMV hopes to do.

spongeman

kryogen wrote: »

Just wanna get a poll going here, doing a little piece and would like to get some opinions, basically, the question is, the slogans such as Yes for recovery and Yes for jobs etc. were a big influence on alot of voters in how they voted, do you think these claims will be backed up? if so, how and if they are not upheld then what do people think should be done, eg, resignations, holding another referendum, absolutely nothing, etc.

any replies appreciated but please keep it civil, i would really like to get a good sample here for my research


argh! forgot to add a poll, so lets just make it a discussion thread please! all thoughts welcome


EDIT: i reckon i should clarify a couple of things so here is exactly what i want

1. Do you think the yes side will follow through on claims such as speedy economic recovery and jobs being created in a speedy fashion as was implied
2. If they fail in these areas what should happen then

1) No.

You cant follow through on lies.

me_right_one

kerchow wrote: »

"yes to jobs" sounds like a pretty clear promise to me and no I don't get my heart broken.

Well it isnt. Its an election jingle. The assumption behind it is that you have read the treaty, are confident enough in your own intelligence to decipher what a yes or a no outcome may deliver, and are able to put together in your head that with Europe, it is more likely that our economy will be looked favourably upon by foreign investors, as opposed to without Europe. Common sense lads.

Heroditas

Fuhrer wrote: »

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

The term investment means that there will be a return on it for profit. To claim otherwise would be spurious.
Also, if it is for the benefit of the country, how does the fact that the ESB is getting a preferential donation from the EIB sit with the European Community Competition Law?
Eamon Ryan claims it will reduce electricity prices yet ESB Customer Supply's price is set by the Regulator at a level that encourages competition. There seem to be a few contradictions in this.

Anyway, my main point in my initial post was that I feel the ESB would have got that money whether or not Lisbon had been passed.

kryogen

Rb wrote: »

Why aren't you asking when the abortions, conscription and €1.84 minimum wage will be coming in?

They are claims of the consequences of a Yes vote afterall.

cause they were the claims of the no side, and slightly absurd, didnt think they warrant a place, also, the yes side claimed that they will do these things if people vote yes, they didnt claim there will be a ludicrous 1.84 minimum wage or anything like that so why would i invclude that!

meglome

kryogen wrote: »

1. Do you think the yes side will follow through on claims such as speedy economic recovery and jobs being created in a speedy fashion as was implied
2. If they fail in these areas what should happen then

1. As others have said by voting Yes we giving ourselves a better chance of getting inward investment and getting out of recession. Plus we will save ourselves hundreds of millions in interest payments as our borrowing is going to be cheaper. That said there was no promise of jobs and this has been discussed in here since Friday at considerable length. You'll also find in the many discussion in the run up to the vote no one from the Yes side said it would definitely create jobs, it just improved the chance of this happening. I'm surprised given the number of these discussions people seem to have completely forgotten that no one in here ever promised jobs.

2. Seeing as these were not promises but aspirations I can't see what your point would be.

Greaney wrote: »

"People in the West believe politicians have been speaking out both sides of their mouth, on the one hand they say that Europe is so good for country however, when policies are brought into practice that do not suit the economies of the west and rural areas, they shrug and say it's Europes fault. Our government are signing off on European legislation they don't know of the consequenses of, and cannot change".

The politicians here often blame Europe. But therein lies the problem, all the good things the EU does our local politicians try to take credit for it and when something is wrong they try to blame the EU for it. Basically his point is rubbish.

meglome

kryogen wrote: »

cause they were the claims of the no side, and slightly absurd, didnt think they warrant a place, also, the yes side claimed that they will do these things if people vote yes, they didnt claim there will be a ludicrous 1.84 minimum wage or anything like that so why would i invclude that!

And yet when the polls were done they were some of the major reasons people voted no.

bauderline

I didn't take the campaign posters too seriously, just like I don't take the vast majority of advertising too seriously as it intends to embellish the truth..

If I had taken the "YES for Jobs" and "YES for Economic Recovery" posters seriously not only would I be expecting jobs and a speedy recovery to the economy, but I would also be expecting a minimum wage of 1.84 to be brought in, large soviet style tanks rumbling around our streets, a giant foot squashing every tractor in sight (on my daily commute this might be no bad thing) ....

There were a few more but I fear my brain has filed them in the "bin" tray...

Liam Byrne

meglome wrote: »

You'll also find in the many discussion in the run up to the vote no one from the Yes side said it would definitely create jobs, it just improved the chance of this happening. I'm surprised given the number of these discussions people seem to have completely forgotten that no one in here ever promised jobs.

2. Seeing as these were not promises but aspirations I can't see what your point would be.

So I take it that you'd therefore assume that the No side weren't promising that there'd be a €1.84 minimum wage ?

Imagine that; because loads of the Yes side went ballistic when some of the idiots in the No side claimed that.

meglome

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So I take it that you'd therefore assume that the No side weren't promising that there'd be a €1.84 minimum wage ?

Imagine that; because loads of the Yes side went ballistic when some of the idiots in the No side claimed that.

The Yes side implied that we would get jobs and recovery from voting Yes. And we all hope that aspiration will turn out to be true (and there are reasons to believe it will). The No side implied (seeing as there is a question mark) that the minimum wage would be 1.84 after Lisbon. Legally there is no way this could ever be true. See the difference?

kryogen

me_right_one wrote: »

Well it isnt. Its an election jingle. The assumption behind it is that you have read the treaty, are confident enough in your own intelligence to decipher what a yes or a no outcome may deliver, and are able to put together in your head that with Europe, it is more likely that our economy will be looked favourably upon by foreign investors, as opposed to without Europe. Common sense lads.

come off it, you know as well as i do that the treaty is not meant to be easily readable for the average person, its was written in a complicated manner, by design. i just do not accept your point there. alot of people in this country unfortunatly look to the politicians for guidance and listen to what they say rather then go and look into things themselves, this of course is disappointing but undeniably true. the assumption behind it i would venture was that people would see the yes to recovery and yes to jobs and we are better together (even though we couldnt be evicted!) signs and since "all the major parties agree" it must be right thing to do

kryogen

meglome wrote: »

And yet when the polls were done they were some of the major reasons people voted no.

we have not had any independant polls to say why the public voted the way they did as far as i know so where do you get the idea that these were the major reasons? they were certainly not why i voted no nor why anyone else i know voted no. i do not align myself with any of the no campaigns

meglome

kryogen wrote: »

we have not had any independant polls to say why the public voted the way they did as far as i know so where do you get the idea that these were the major reasons? they were certainly not why i voted no nor why anyone else i know voted no. i do not align myself with any of the no campaigns

I'm talking about Lisbon 1. No idea why anyone voted No now.

kryogen

kryogen wrote: »

cause they were the claims of the no side, and slightly absurd, didnt think they warrant a place, also, the yes side claimed that they will do these things if people vote yes, they didnt claim there will be a ludicrous 1.84 minimum wage or anything like that so why would i invclude that!

meglome wrote: »

And yet when the polls were done they were some of the major reasons people voted no.[/QUOTE]

meglome wrote: »

I'm talking about Lisbon 1. No idea why anyone voted No now.

clearly something is wrong with what you just said pal

me_right_one

kryogen wrote: »

come off it, you know as well as i do that the treaty is not meant to be easily readable for the average person, its was written in a complicated manner, by design. i just do not accept your point there. alot of people in this country unfortunatly look to the politicians for guidance and listen to what they say rather then go and look into things themselves, this of course is disappointing but undeniably true. the assumption behind it i would venture was that people would see the yes to recovery and yes to jobs and we are better together (even though we couldnt be evicted!) signs and since "all the major parties agree" it must be right thing to do

YOU come off it! If you finish primary school, you can read. Thats why its written down! Its there for people to read. Only a complete and utter fool would vote on something based on hearsay, nevermind on what a vested interest might tell you, whatever side they're on! Only a fool, fool, FOOL

kryogen

me_right_one wrote: »

YOU come off it! If you finish primary school, you can read. Thats why its written down! Its there for people to read. Only a complete and utter fool would vote on something based on hearsay, nevermind on what a vested interest might tell you, whatever side they're on! Only a fool, fool, FOOL

i agree with you, which i was i said its disappointing, but only a fool would believe that every citizen who voted in this referendum has read the whole treaty, and only a fool fool FOOL as you put it would believe that the people do not listen to what the campaigners say on both sides. a complete and utter fool

have you read the treaty?

meglome

kryogen wrote: »

[/B]

meglome wrote: »

And yet when the polls were done they were some of the major reasons people voted no.[/QUOTE]


clearly something is wrong with what you just said pal

There were independent polls done on Lisbon 1. Since there have been none conducted about Lisbon 2 (to my knowledge) I assumed it was obvious it was Lisbon 1.

Liam Byrne

meglome wrote: »

The Yes side implied that we would get jobs and recovery from voting Yes. And we all hope that aspiration will turn out to be true (and there are reasons to believe it will). The No side implied (seeing as there is a question mark) that the minimum wage would be 1.84 after Lisbon. Legally there is no way this could ever be true. See the difference?

Yup. There's a difference; as you said yourself - they implied something they could not guarantee (and might not happen - probably won't if the government keep on bolloxing up and making it less worthwhile for non-con-men and millionaires to work), while the No side implied something that won't happen. So yes, there's a difference.

But let's look at the other fallacy that was touted; "Yes for Europe" and the scaremongering that we could somehow be turfed out of the EU on some level.

As part of the EU, we would have had to have a say in that; Lisbon was not a vote for "staying in the current EU", and "legally there was no way this could ever be true".

Your opinions on that one, please ?

kryogen

meglome wrote: »

kryogen wrote: »

[/B]


There were independent polls done on Lisbon 1. Since there have been none conducted about Lisbon 2 (to my knowledge) I assumed it was obvious it was Lisbon 1.

was there stupid talk about a 1.84 minimum wage during lisbon 1? didnt think there was?

this is why i assumed you must be talking about lisbon 2 tbh

me_right_one

kryogen wrote: »

i agree with you, which i was i said its disappointing, but only a fool would believe that every citizen who voted in this referendum has read the whole treaty, and only a fool fool FOOL as you put it would believe that the people do not listen to what the campaigners say on both sides. a complete and utter fool

have you read the treaty?

I have indeed, every last bit of it. So have most of my family, friends, and colleauges. I'd say most people have. The ones that havent, and anyone who believes a scrap of what any campaigners say, are bottom of the barrell fools. Have you?

meglome

kryogen wrote: »

meglome wrote: »

was there stupid talk about a 1.84 minimum wage during lisbon 1? didnt think there was?

this is why i assumed you must be talking about lisbon 2 tbh

Sorry Kryogen, a bit wrecked today you're absolutely correct. It's times like this I wish I drank coffee.

turgon

Liam Byrne wrote: »

As part of the EU, we would have had to have a say in that; Lisbon was not a vote for "staying in the current EU", and "legally there was no way this could ever be true".

Your opinions on that one, please ?

The problem wasnt being "kicked out" from the current EU. The problem was being excluded from further EU intergration. The other 26 states, particularly those heavily in favour of further EU integration, may have gone on without us. Not only would this mean we would not have a say in these further area, it would also give us less of an influence elsewhere becuse we werent tecnically "fully commited members." Metaphorically, the 26 other states represent people who constantly turn up to their sports clubs monthly commitee meeting. Mr Ireland only turns up 50% of the time. Even when Mr Ireland is there he is less liable to be paid attention to. Simply a matter of confidence.

kryogen

meglome wrote: »

kryogen wrote: »

Sorry Kryogen, a bit wrecked today you're absolutely correct. It's times like this I wish I drank coffee.

lol no worries mate, bit wrecked myself!

kryogen

me_right_one wrote: »

I have indeed, every last bit of it. So have most of my family, friends, and colleauges. I'd say most people have. The ones that havent, and anyone who believes a scrap of what any campaigners say, are bottom of the barrell fools. Have you?

i have pal. oh isnt great we have something in common!! yipee



anyways, im off to watch the football so ill reply to any other odd post you make later if i remember you


ps. most people, including alot of the politicians have not read the entire treaty. this is a fact. sorry to burst your bubble

me_right_one

kryogen wrote: »

i have pal. oh isnt great we have something in common!! yipee



anyways, im off to watch the football so ill reply to any other odd post you make later if i remember you


ps. most people, including alot of the politicians have not read the entire treaty. this is a fact. sorry to burst your bubble

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers there, you seem a bit offended for some reason.

I know many people have not read the treaty, but yet have voted. They are idiots. You are just affirming my point.

Liam Byrne

turgon wrote: »

The problem wasnt being "kicked out" from the current EU. The problem was being excluded from further EU intergration. The other 26 states, particularly those heavily in favour of further EU integration, may have gone on without us.

Really ? So what was the whole point of Lisbon requiring "unanimous" approval in order to proceed ?

The phrase trotted out was "Yes to Europe"; it was actually "Yes to a particular vision of Europe, that you may or may not agree with".

Anyway, that was an aside. The issue is the phrasing "Yes to Jobs", and the fact that it promises jobs in return for voting yes.

Lenihan claims that isn't the case.

But I've just thought of previous referenda; "Yes to Abortion", and "Yes to Divorce"; voting yes in either of those didn't "promise" or "guarantee" that there would actually be abortions or divorce (no-one might have availed of the possibility); it just made those more "likely".

However the implication of the three similarly-worded campaigns is completely at odds with what Lenihan is now saying.

me_right_one

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The issue is the phrasing "Yes to Jobs", and the fact that it promises jobs in return for voting yes.

No it doesnt:rolleyes:

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But I've just thought of previous referenda; "Yes to Abortion", and "Yes to Divorce"; voting yes in either of those didn't "promise" or "guarantee" that there would actually be abortions or divorce (no-one might have availed of the possibility); it just made those more "likely".

No, but it did legislate for them to be legalised. Completely different kettle of fish.