Fiscal Treaty Referendum.....How will you vote?

swampgas

Beamer06 wrote: »

I do not trust the government, so my vote will be no and there are 4 votes in our house and they are all no

If you don't trust the government, why do you bother voting at all?

I could understand you deciding not to vote, I can't see why you think a No vote is somehow going to make the government more trustworthy.

goat2

oscarBravo wrote: »

So educate yourself, or abstain.

"I don't know what either of these buttons do" isn't an argument for pushing one of them, it's an argument for pushing neither of them.

yes i have educated myself,
but watching the debate with the head of labour and listning to the yes and no side, i think not even the government fully understand it, or else, they cannot elaborate and explain their side of the arguement for, while the no side are well able to put their point across, then again i feel we have been sold for thirdy pieces of silver, so i am not willing to say yes to anything right now,
last time ganley was on for the previous referendums asking us to vote no, he was well able to explain and we found out with the passage of time that what he had warned came true, so this time i am willing to take his word above many others

Godge

StealthRolex wrote: »

Of course not. If the treaty did not contain the gun to the head that is the conditional access to the ESM funds I probably would though.

I agree that countries like France and Germany should be forced to stick to the rules but I object to being threatened.

Let me leave aside the accuracy or not of your interpretation and focus on what it means. Wow, the arrogance of the Irish would be the reaction to that post elsewhere in Europe.

You agree that "countries like France and Germany should be forced to stick to the rules", I suppose you would put a gun to their head if necessary.

Yet, you say that "if the treaty did not contain the gun to the head that is the conditional access to the ESM funds I probably would though (vote yes)". So take away the gun to Ireland's head.

Can you see the hypocrisy and the arrogance in what you are saying? force Germany and France but don't force Ireland???

P.S. Do not take this post as agreement by me that the Treaty forces anyone to do any particular thing.

meglome

Max Power1 wrote: »

No voter here.

I voted no in both Lisbons too.

(As an aside, how far did the "Yes to Jobs, Yes to Lisbon" slogan get us?)

-MaxPower

A booming export industry?

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Of course not. If the treaty did not contain the gun to the head that is the conditional access to the ESM funds I probably would though.

I agree that countries like France and Germany should be forced to stick to the rules but I object to being threatened.

So, you don't ever sign any contract that has conditions in it? No mortgage, no mobile phone, no loans, no bank account, no employment...?

You're a marvel.

amused,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, you don't ever sign any contract that has conditions in it? No mortgage, no mobile phone, no loans, no bank account, no employment...?

You're a marvel.

amused,
Scofflaw

If there is a condition I object to I do not sign it. The condition can be removed or amended.

StealthRolex

Godge wrote: »

Let me leave aside the accuracy or not of your interpretation and focus on what it means. Wow, the arrogance of the Irish would be the reaction to that post elsewhere in Europe.

You agree that "countries like France and Germany should be forced to stick to the rules", I suppose you would put a gun to their head if necessary.

Yet, you say that "if the treaty did not contain the gun to the head that is the conditional access to the ESM funds I probably would though (vote yes)". So take away the gun to Ireland's head.

Can you see the hypocrisy and the arrogance in what you are saying? force Germany and France but don't force Ireland???

P.S. Do not take this post as agreement by me that the Treaty forces anyone to do any particular thing.

What about the arrogance of the French and Germans?

The Governance treaty is not required save to get the Germans to put money in to the ESM and even so that is in no way guaranteed.

p.s. This treaty clearly forces those who accept it to do things in law does it not?

beeftotheheels

StealthRolex wrote: »

If there is a condition I object to I do not sign it. The condition can be removed or amended.

Only if the counter-parties agree to the change. In the alternative they could just tell you to "sod off", it is all down to relative bargaining power and I get the feeling that ours is being massively over-stated by the No campaign. Watch Greece.

Scofflaw

goat2 wrote: »

yes i have educated myself,
but watching the debate with the head of labour and listning to the yes and no side, i think not even the government fully understand it, or else, they cannot elaborate and explain their side of the arguement for, while the no side are well able to put their point across, then again i feel we have been sold for thirdy pieces of silver, so i am not willing to say yes to anything right now,
last time ganley was on for the previous referendums asking us to vote no, he was well able to explain and we found out with the passage of time that what he had warned came true, so this time i am willing to take his word above many others

What, Lisbon introduced abortion? Gave the EU the power to set our corporation tax rate? Meant we'd never have another referendum?

I can't think of anything Ganley claimed about Lisbon that came true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

If there is a condition I object to I do not sign it. The condition can be removed or amended.

Hold up...you said you objected to the fact that there was a condition, now you're saying No if you find the condition objectionable.

Since the Fiscal Treaty is the condition of ESM, what you appear to be saying is that you would vote No to the ESM because you object to the Fiscal Treaty. But what you're actually voting on is the Fiscal Treaty, so you cannot give the fact that the Fiscal Treaty is an objectionable condition to ESM as a reason for refusing the Fiscal Treaty, because that assumes the Fiscal Treaty is objectionable in itself, and your claimed objection to it is that it is an objectionable condition for ESM.

Which, in case it's unclear, you're not actually voting on.

gently,
Scofflaw

Max Power1

meglome wrote: »

A booming export industry?

where are the jobs we voted yes for?

Still circa 500,000 people unemployed. The real figure is much higher if you factor in emigration and those who dont qualify for welfare

StealthRolex

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Only if the counter-parties agree to the change. In the alternative they could just tell you to "sod off", it is all down to relative bargaining power and I get the feeling that ours is being massively over-stated by the No campaign. Watch Greece.

In one to one negotiations an accommodation can be reached. Dealing with dictators is a different matter entirely.

I am watching Greece. They won't be kicked out of the Euro and they won't be allowed to leave before Germany does.

oscarBravo

Max Power1 wrote: »

(As an aside, how far did the "Yes to Jobs, Yes to Lisbon" slogan get us?)

Precisely as far as all the stupid slogans on the 'no' side. Which is a salient lesson on how useful slogans are in making your mind up either way.

goat2 wrote: »

goat2 wrote: »

i fully agree with you on this, i do not fully understand the thing...

yes i have educated myself...

If you still don't understand it, then you haven't done a good enough job of educating yourself. Your choices remain: educate yourself or abstain.

but watching the debate with the head of labour and listning to the yes and no side, i think not even the government fully understand it, or else, they cannot elaborate and explain their side of the arguement for, while the no side are well able to put their point across...

If you're choosing a side based on how well they articulate their points in a TV debate - with no reference to the accuracy or validity of those points - you're doing it wrong.

...then again i feel we have been sold for thirdy pieces of silver, so i am not willing to say yes to anything right now,

What thirty pieces of silver? What does that mean?

last time ganley was on for the previous referendums asking us to vote no, he was well able to explain and we found out with the passage of time that what he had warned came true, so this time i am willing to take his word above many others

Almost nothing Ganley warned of last time came true.

oscarBravo

Max Power1 wrote: »

where are the jobs we voted yes for?

I didn't vote 'yes' for jobs. Did you vote 'no' to avoid conscription?

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hold up...you said you objected to the fact that there was a condition, now you're saying No if you find the condition objectionable.

Since the Fiscal Treaty is the condition of ESM, what you appear to be saying is that you would vote No to the ESM because you object to the Fiscal Treaty. But what you're actually voting on is the Fiscal Treaty, so you cannot give the fact that the Fiscal Treaty is an objectionable condition to ESM as a reason for refusing the Fiscal Treaty, because that assumes the Fiscal Treaty is objectionable in itself, and your claimed objection to it is that it is an objectionable condition for ESM.

Which, in case it's unclear, you're not actually voting on.

gently,
Scofflaw

At this point I'm voting No because the majority suggesting a Yes vote in this thread are coming across all smug and superior and deploy tactics of disparagement and denigration not far removed from bullying.

Scofflaw

Max Power1 wrote: »

where are the jobs we voted yes for?

Still circa 500,000 people unemployed. The real figure is much higher if you factor in emigration and those who dont qualify for welfare

You may perhaps not have noticed that a quarter of our employment was in a property bubble which burst in 2008, and that there's an ongoing recession. I'm not sure quite how you failed to notice those things, really, but you evidently did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

goat2 wrote: »

last time ganley was on for the previous referendums asking us to vote no, he was well able to explain and we found out with the passage of time that what he had warned came true

What did he say that has come through?

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

At this point I'm voting No because the majority suggesting a Yes vote in this thread are coming across all smug and superior and deploy tactics of disparagement and denigration not far removed from bullying.

I think you should just vote No because you want to. It's the honest course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

At this point I'm voting No because the majority suggesting a Yes vote in this thread are coming across all smug and superior and deploy tactics of disparagement and denigration not far removed from bullying.

Given that you come up with a new reason for voting 'no' every few minutes, I think it's fair to conclude that you don't need a reason; simply a justification.

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think you should just vote No because you want to. It's the honest course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I sure as hell don't want to vote the same way as the bunch of professional liars and that call themselves politicians.

swampgas

StealthRolex wrote: »

At this point I'm voting No because the majority suggesting a Yes vote in this thread are coming across all smug and superior and deploy tactics of disparagement and denigration not far removed from bullying.

What should concern you most is that you and your family are going to have to live with the consequences of the referendum. It's up to you of course, bit I'd suggest you need a better reason to vote No than the fact that a bunch of people on an internet forum were a bit snotty.

antoobrien

StealthRolex wrote: »

At this point I'm voting No because the majority suggesting a Yes vote in this thread are coming across all smug and superior and deploy tactics of disparagement and denigration not far removed from bullying.

I haven't noticed any such posts (from the yes side), so please point out the disparagement & denigration (which are probably contra charter).

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

I sure as hell don't want to vote the same way as the bunch of professional liars and that call themselves politicians.

Which particular bunch, though? You'll be voting the same way as some politicians whichever way you vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which particular bunch, though? You'll be voting the same way as some politicians whichever way you vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is true.

there would appear to be fewer asking for no than yes so in democratic terms there are more whom I would disagree with than agree with.

Besides, I like to give the underdog a chance. In terms of raw democracy they are equally deserving of votes if only to ensure the democratic process is working as designed.

Doing the numbers, Three main parties are asking for Yes and one is asking for No. I consider them all to by lying shysters to one degree or another so if they are all lying that is one reason to vote Yes and three reasons to vote No.

They may not all be lying, and I suspect O'Cuiv isn't as he was gagged, but that is neither here nor there.

If this treaty is that important those who want a yes vote should be more convincing. Unfortunately there is a trust issue and no matter how convincing the argument if I cannot trust those presenting the argument there is a problem.

I also think it is a badly thought out treaty and that they could do a lot better.

And I think, as many do, that the timing is wrong and we are being rushed. This is a very good reason to vote No.
On historic terms the way it works is you vote and vote and vote until you vote the "right" way.

This vote needs to be postponed and a No vote is the only way to do it.

Only getting one vote this time? Yeah right. We've heard that before.

StealthRolex

antoobrien wrote: »

I haven't noticed any such posts (from the yes side), so please point out the disparagement & denigration (which are probably contra charter).

I don't do back seat modding.

--Kaiser--

StealthRolex wrote: »

At this point I'm voting No because the majority suggesting a Yes vote in this thread are coming across all smug and superior and deploy tactics of disparagement and denigration not far removed from bullying.

You're voting No to a fairly important treaty because you think you're being bullied by some randomers on an internet forum? Congratulations, that's the least rational decision I've ever heard

StealthRolex

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You're voting No to a fairly important treaty because you think you're being bullied by some randomers on an internet forum? Congratulations, that's the least rational decision I've ever heard

I've had other rational reasons whether you agree with them or not.

Anyway, democracy, as it works in Ireland, does not require rationality as a reason for voting one way or the other.

oscarBravo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Anyway, democracy, as it works in Ireland, does not require rationality as a reason for voting one way or the other.

Yay for democracy.

Ozymandius2011

The ESM sounds like a massive Ponzi scheme. We are being asked to contribute €11 billion to a fund that doesn't yet exist. Bernie Madoff eat your heart out.

dvpower

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The ESM sounds like a massive Ponzi scheme. We are being asked to contribute €11 billion to a fund that doesn't yet exist. Bernie Madoff eat your heart out.

Nope