Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why should I vote Yes?
Options
Comments
-
1. the increase in codecision means that you have a much greater ability to stop or amend EU legislation through your MEP. The codecision changes are not the same as losing the veto, since in most cases the areas brought under codecision are already QMV areas.
The Council of Ministers has the final say on issues of legislation. Our voting rights will be reduced in the Council of Ministers. We already have much fewer MEPS than the larger countries, something like 12 to Germany's 99. This shifts the balance of power closer to the bigger countries.
While decisions are already made by co-decision on QMV, our voting rights in that QMV will be reduced. We will also need to secure the alliance of 3 other nations when looking to veto something. If all we can offer in that alliance is the promise to support a future cause with our paltry voting rights, I do not see much incentive for other countries to side with us. Instead countries like Germany and France will be more enticing. Furhter shifting the balance of power in their favour.2. the Charter of Fundamental Rights gives citizens the ability for the first time to challenge and have struck out EU legislation that infringes their stated rights. While the COFR is already currently in use as a 'guideline' for creating EU legislation, it cannot currently be used to oppose EU legislation.
What are the practical implications of this? How will this affect me the voter? Does it also suggest that up until now, Europe has been happy to push through legislation that has infringed upon human rights. Why do we need this in writing unless Europe has already been crossing this line?3. the Subsidiarity 'orange/yellow card' system means that you have a greater ability to oppose EU legislation through the Oireachtas (Dáil and Seanad).
But do the reduced voting rights not mean, that when it comes to making the dicision where it matters, in the Council of Ministers, we will actually have less of a say. Ultimately this appears as though we will be able to see what is going on, but won't be able to do much about it4. the Oireachtas also gains a greater right to be kept informed on EU legislation - and that right applies to the whole of both houses, not just the government, so the opposition and independents will be kept better informed - if they're doing their job, we will also be better informed.
Again, this appears to amoung to being able to see what is going on, but not being able to do very much about it. Also, did we not have the right to know what was going on before? Is this the kind of track record we should also be considering?5. the various additional transparency upgrades included in Lisbon, such as the requirement that the Council of Ministers debate and vote in public when deliberating on draft legislation (16.8 TEU), mean that we as citizens gain better oversight and thus control of our government in Europe.
Excellent, so we will be able to see what is going on but not necessarily have much say in it, not be able to understand it. Lisbon is supposed to be about transparency, it has been anything but so far.6. the Citizens' Initiatives give ordinary people a way to put requests for legislation onto the Commission's agenda for the first time.
What ordinary people are going to be proposing legislation for Europe? Surely if ordinary people are given the opportunity to do this, and for them to be properly considered it will require a lot of time devoted to reviewing them. This surely cannot be classed as being more efficient.
Also, our reduced voting rights would mean that we can propose all we want, but being such a poor ally to anyone, we won't have much chance of getting anything pushed through0 -
-
mangaroosh -
Just to pick up on one of the central points you appear to have made repeatedly, Ireland's voting weight will be increased not decreased by Lisbon.
Currently, Ireland's voting weight is 7 out of 321 which is 2.18%.
Under Lisbon Ireland's voting weight will be equal to every other state because each state gets 1 vote. That is 1 out of 27, which is 3.7%. This is a gain of 1.52 percentage points, or a 70.05% increase in our voting weight.
Germany currently has 29 out of 321 votes, which is 9.03%.
As you can see, not only is Ireland now equal to Germany, but Ireland is making a massive relative gain over Germany, as they are being reduced to a fraction of their current voting weight.
The numbers you seem to be alluding to is the population weighting that is used to calculate the double majority. This is simply that in order for Council to pass something by double majority they need over 55% of the member states (each with one vote), and that majority must reflect 65% of the population (which is based on ... population). This was proposed by Ireland and accepted by the other states because it guarantees the interests of both large and small states because nothing can be passed without a coalition involving both types.
Of course this sets aside the point which is also worth noting that out of the 199 votes that took place in Council last year, Ireland was out-voted in exactly 0 of them.
I hope this clears up the confusion: Ireland increases its voting weight under Lisbon.0 -
hugthemountain wrote: »mangaroosh -
Just to pick up on one of the central points you appear to have made repeatedly, Ireland's voting weight will be increased not decreased by Lisbon.
Currently, Ireland's voting weight is 7 out of 321 which is 2.18%.
Under Lisbon Ireland's voting weight will be equal to every other state because each state gets 1 vote. That is 1 out of 27, which is 3.7%. This is a gain of 1.52 percentage points, or a 70.05% increase in our voting weight.
Germany currently has 29 out of 321 votes, which is 9.03%.
As you can see, not only is Ireland now equal to Germany, but Ireland is making a massive relative gain over Germany, as they are being reduced to a fraction of their current voting weight.
The numbers you seem to be alluding to is the population weighting that is used to calculate the double majority. This is simply that in order for Council to pass something by double majority they need over 55% of the member states (each with one vote), and that majority must reflect 65% of the population (which is based on ... population). This was proposed by Ireland and accepted by the other states because it guarantees the interests of both large and small states because nothing can be passed without a coalition involving both types.
Of course this sets aside the point which is also worth noting that out of the 199 votes that took place in Council last year, Ireland was out-voted in exactly 0 of them.
I hope this clears up the confusion: Ireland increases its voting weight under Lisbon.
This is not the information that has been presented in the Referendum Commission booklet. Can you post a link so I can check out that info.
Personally, I do just want to make the right decision on this one, and so far No seems to be it, because our elected officials and probably future governments have neglected to sufficiently inform us on this. This is another reason I would vote No, to show that this approach is not acceptible0 -
-
Advertisement
-
cheers - it seems to be pretty much the same info as the booklet tho. I checked it out before0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »cheers - it seems to be pretty much the same info as the booklet tho. I checked it out before
What else are you looking for? They explain all the important issues. If you think it's lacking in some way it's probably because it doesn't include any of the lies from either side.0 -
I think from reading mangaroosh's posts its clear his position was decided long before this thread was started.
Working against a persons pre-disposition - their gut reaction as it were - can often be the hardest part of promoting a side in a debate.0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »The Council of Ministers has the final say on issues of legislation. Our voting rights will be reduced in the Council of Ministers. We already have much fewer MEPS than the larger countries, something like 12 to Germany's 99. This shifts the balance of power closer to the bigger countries.
While decisions are already made by co-decision on QMV, our voting rights in that QMV will be reduced. We will also need to secure the alliance of 3 other nations when looking to veto something. If all we can offer in that alliance is the promise to support a future cause with our paltry voting rights, I do not see much incentive for other countries to side with us. Instead countries like Germany and France will be more enticing. Furhter shifting the balance of power in their favour.
It's been pointed out repeatedly that this is false. We have two voting weights under Lisbon - population (0.8%) and 1 state vote (3.7%). Under Nice, we have three voting weights - population (0.8%), 1 state vote (3.7%), and negotiated votes (7/349 = 2%). The comparison being made by the No campaigns is of the negotiated vote to the population vote - but one is not being replaced by the other. Our composite voting weight under Nice is 2.167% (0.8+2+3.7/3), our composite voting weight under Lisbon is 2.25% (0.8+3.7/2).mangaroosh wrote: »What are the practical implications of this? How will this affect me the voter? Does it also suggest that up until now, Europe has been happy to push through legislation that has infringed upon human rights. Why do we need this in writing unless Europe has already been crossing this line?
If the latter were the case, then all the more need for the Charter. As to how it affects you - laws that infringe on the rights in the Charter can be legally challenged. That may not be something you'd do personally, but there are plenty of people out there who would. A written, explicit, and legally binding set of rights has traditionally been a concession wrung out of government at the point of a gun (or sword in the case of the Magna Carta), because it's a very strong defence against unjust laws.mangaroosh wrote: »But do the reduced voting rights not mean, that when it comes to making the dicision where it matters, in the Council of Ministers, we will actually have less of a say. Ultimately this appears as though we will be able to see what is going on, but won't be able to do much about it
See above - there is no such reduction.mangaroosh wrote: »Again, this appears to amoung to being able to see what is going on, but not being able to do very much about it. Also, did we not have the right to know what was going on before? Is this the kind of track record we should also be considering?
It's part of the toolkit. On its own it would be of limited use, but in combination with the increased citizen powers to challenge legislation, it becomes very important.
You're attempting to deal with (that is, object to) each of these items singly. They're not single issues - you vote yes, you get the whole toolkit, and the whole package is much stronger than any element individually.mangaroosh wrote: »Excellent, so we will be able to see what is going on but not necessarily have much say in it, not be able to understand it. Lisbon is supposed to be about transparency, it has been anything but so far.
See above.mangaroosh wrote: »What ordinary people are going to be proposing legislation for Europe? Surely if ordinary people are given the opportunity to do this, and for them to be properly considered it will require a lot of time devoted to reviewing them. This surely cannot be classed as being more efficient.
Ordinary people won't be proposing the legislation, they'll be requesting the Commission to propose legislation.mangaroosh wrote: »Also, our reduced voting rights would mean that we can propose all we want, but being such a poor ally to anyone, we won't have much chance of getting anything pushed through
No such reduction - see above.
If you don't want an improved democratic toolkit, just say so. It's in the Treaty, but you don't have to vote for it.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
It's been pointed out repeatedly that this is false. We have two voting weights under Lisbon - population (0.8%) and 1 state vote (3.7%). Under Nice, we have three voting weights - population (0.8%), 1 state vote (3.7%), and negotiated votes (7/349 = 2%). The comparison being made by the No campaigns is of the negotiated vote to the population vote - but one is not being replaced by the other. Our composite voting weight under Nice is 2.167% (0.8+2+3.7/3), our composite voting weight under Lisbon is 2.25% (0.8+3.7/2).
Ah, I hadn't realised that. I knew they were only giving half the truth but there's even more they're not giving that I was unaware of.
Oh wait, this is supposed to generate a ten page thread where I refuse to believe you no matter how much supporting evidence you pile up isn't it
0 -
Advertisement
-
mangaroosh wrote: »This is not the information that has been presented in the Referendum Commission booklet. Can you post a link so I can check out that info.
Personally, I do just want to make the right decision on this one, and so far No seems to be it, because our elected officials and probably future governments have neglected to sufficiently inform us on this. This is another reason I would vote No, to show that this approach is not acceptible
Mangaroosh - absolutely no problem. I am sorry that the Referendum Commission fails to clarify this for you.
Article 238 TFEU explains the voting in Council. Under Article 4.1 TEU, the EU cannot engage in anything not explicitly outlined in the treaty. Thus, seeing as how the weighting of votes is removed from the treaty, the outcome is that each state has 1 vote, and that 55% majority of votes must then be representative of 65%+ of the population. That is to say, voting is now two stages. Stage 1 - each country votes, with their 1 vote. Once 55%+ is reached, they check to make sure that it represents 65%+ of the population.0 -
What else are you looking for? They explain all the important issues. If you think it's lacking in some way it's probably because it doesn't include any of the lies from either side.
No its just not very clear in how the changes will affect us, and what they actually mean, in lay mans terms0 -
I think from reading mangaroosh's posts its clear his position was decided long before this thread was started.
Working against a persons pre-disposition - their gut reaction as it were - can often be the hardest part of promoting a side in a debate.
I am honestly open on this one. I prob won't decide until I'm actually in the polling booth.
I do feel that there are a number of things that need to be considered here, and the manner in which all of the political parties of this country have handled this is one of them, as it is they that will be implementing much of these changes.
EDIT: I am errring on the side of No, because it is the safer option, until such point as I am convinced to vote Yes0 -
What makes it safer?mangaroosh wrote: »I am errring on the side of No, because it is the safer option...0 -
It's been pointed out repeatedly that this is false. We have two voting weights under Lisbon - population (0.8%) and 1 state vote (3.7%). Under Nice, we have three voting weights - population (0.8%), 1 state vote (3.7%), and negotiated votes (7/349 = 2%). The comparison being made by the No campaigns is of the negotiated vote to the population vote - but one is not being replaced by the other. Our composite voting weight under Nice is 2.167% (0.8+2+3.7/3), our composite voting weight under Lisbon is 2.25% (0.8+3.7/2).
If the latter were the case, then all the more need for the Charter. As to how it affects you - laws that infringe on the rights in the Charter can be legally challenged. That may not be something you'd do personally, but there are plenty of people out there who would. A written, explicit, and legally binding set of rights has traditionally been a concession wrung out of government at the point of a gun (or sword in the case of the Magna Carta), because it's a very strong defence against unjust laws.
See above - there is no such reduction.
It's part of the toolkit. On its own it would be of limited use, but in combination with the increased citizen powers to challenge legislation, it becomes very important.
You're attempting to deal with (that is, object to) each of these items singly. They're not single issues - you vote yes, you get the whole toolkit, and the whole package is much stronger than any element individually.
See above.
Ordinary people won't be proposing the legislation, they'll be requesting the Commission to propose legislation.
No such reduction - see above.
If you don't want an improved democratic toolkit, just say so. It's in the Treaty, but you don't have to vote for it.
regards,
Scofflaw
cheers for the info. I am increasingly tending toward backing the actual Treaty.
I just have to decide now whether or not, to consider the failure of the political parties to provide this information, but I am leaning towards just taking it on its merits.0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »No its just not very clear in how the changes will affect us, and what they actually mean, in lay mans terms
Such as what?
Tbh, most of the changes won't effect our day to day lives at all. the treaty is mostly about the operating procedures of the EU, mind numbingly boring operating procedures. This idea that it will be the end of the world is just scaremongering.mangaroosh wrote: »EDIT: I am errring on the side of No, because it is the safer option, until such point as I am convinced to vote Yes
Where does this mistrust of the EU come from? They've done nothing but massive amounts of good for Ireland as far as I can see.
Also, if you were out in a pub with 26 friends and they all wanted to go to a pub across the road, would you sit firmly in your chair and demand that they explain point by point the benefits of this new pub and force them all to stay with you until you were good and satisfied?
This is the problem with a veto system, the minority who are afraid of change can dictate to the vast majority. I'm not saying you should go with them just because they want to go but if you want to prevent 26 friends doing something they want, you have to give a good reason0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »What makes it safer?
the fact that changes won't be ushered in, apart from those that are already scheduled. We could always vote again on Lisbon0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »the fact that changes won't be ushered in, apart from those that are already scheduled. We could always vote again on Lisbon
Would it not occur to you that they want to make these changes for a very good reason and that the union can't continue as it is? Change is not necessarily bad and the status quo is not necessarily good
As with all organisations, if the EU can't keep up with changing circumstances because its members are too afraid to allow it to change the union will collapse0 -
Such as what?
Tbh, most of the changes won't effect our day to day lives at all. the treaty is mostly about the operating procedures of the EU, mind numbingly boring operating procedures. This idea that it will be the end of the world is just scaremongering.
The breakdown of the QMV is not abundantly clear, in highlighting the current state, and how the changes will affect the voting. Scofflaw was able to do this in the matter of a single post.Where does this mistrust of the EU come from? They've done nothing but massive amounts of good for Ireland as far as I can see.
I would personally be very pro-Europe. I simply take exception to the manner in which the political parties have gone about informing us about this treaty. We voted No once, largely becuase of a lack of information and they have allowed almost the exact same situation to materialise again. They have put forward a deplorable campaign, that sought to do as the No campaign is doing and scare people into voting one way or the other. I feel we should be holding our politicians to a higer standard, than the likes of Cóir, because Cóir won't be running the country after the next general election.
I also, don't believe we should be basing our vote on this Treaty on the fact that we've prospered under Europe. That suggests that we should just accept whatever comes from the EU as being good, without actually questioning it first.Also, if you were out in a pub with 26 friends and they all wanted to go to a pub across the road, would you sit firmly in your chair and demand that they explain point by point the benefits of this new pub and force them all to stay with you until you were good and satisfied?
If only it were that simple. If my friends were insising that I adopt a new approach to decision making, then I sure as hell would not adopt it until I was convinced it was positive for me. I'd want to know how it works first before saying, sure, they're my friends they know what is best for me. I would trust the information they give me, but I would still want to have the information. If I knew that one person was very eager for me to adopt this new decision making process, I would want to know why, and if he couldn't provide me with satisfactory answers then I would be extremely skepticle and would err on the side of not adopting this new decision making process.This is the problem with a veto system, the minority who are afraid of change can dictate to the vast majority. I'm not saying you should go with them just because they want to go but if you want to prevent 26 friends doing something they want, you have to give a good reason
This is where the responsibility is on the majority to ensure that if the change is indeed a positive one, that this information is communicated clearly to those in the minority, otherwise it is perfectly reasonable to assume the minority will be skepticle - fear of the unknown is a basic part of what constitutes the human condition.0 -
Would it not occur to you that they want to make these changes for a very good reason and that the union can't continue as it is? Change is not necessarily bad and the status quo is not necessarily good
As with all organisations, if the EU can't keep up with changing circumstances because its members are too afraid to allow it to change the union will collapse
It would occur to me that these changes are being made for a very good reason, but I would also assume if there was a very good reason that it would be made known. If the reasons given turned out to be little more than rhetoric and fallacies, it would make me question whether or not such a good reason exists, and whether or not those pushing for the change actually understand what it is that they are doing. After the global economic downturn, I am a little more questioing of those in power than I was, so when I am told there is a good reason for implementing legislation that cannot be changed, I want to be left in no uncertain terms what that very good reason is.
Equally true is the fact that change is not necessarily good, but there are certain truisms that suggest not changing is better than change, when the outcome of that change is not known. "Better the devil you know", " a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
Indeed with any organisation, unless the leaders cannot provide clear cut reasons to proceed in a certain direction, those that are expected to follow are going to be skepticle, especially when proposed changes could potentially affect how they live. If those leader are incapable of dissemenating this information clearly and in a manner understandable to those expected to vote on it, then those leaders are failing in their job of leading. Unfortunately fear and caution tend to be the natural reaction of humans when it comes to the unknown, therefore, to overcome this, and convince people to vote in favour of change, those promoting the change had bettter be strong in their reasoning, otherwise, the natural disposition will be to err on the side of caution.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm just going to go ahead and ask nicely you to stop going on about how crap our politicians are. I agree with you and I'm sure everyone else here does too but that does not reflect on the Lisbon treaty. If they're not telling you the benefits of the treaty, ask someone else. This is not their treaty. They are not the ones pushing for the change, they're one of hundreds of groups doing it and they're not very good at itmangaroosh wrote: »It would occur to me that these changes are being made for a very good reason, but I would also assume if there was a very good reason that it would be made known. If the reasons given turned out to be little more than rhetoric and fallacies, it would make me question whether or not such a good reason exists, and whether or not those pushing for the change actually understand what it is that they are doing.
The problem with the benefits of the treaty is that if I tell someone that the simplified revision procedure will allow certain single issues to be negotiated by the European Council (made up of the heads of state of each government) and passed unanimously in line with the constitutional requirements of each member nation (requiring a referendum if our constitution requires it) and that this decision cannot not increase the competences of the union, and that this replaces in some limited areas the ordinary revision procedure which requires multiple issues to be compiled in a single treaty, all of which must be passed or rejected by the national parliaments or the people and that this makes limited changes easier and more efficient to make while ensuring proper controls and limitations..........they fall asleep. The benefits of this treaty, while necessary, are very very boring and don't fit on a poster
Does that mean we should vote in Fianna Fail forever? We don't know what anyone else would be like after all. Better the devil you know. That is logic I have heard many times btwmangaroosh wrote: »Equally true is the fact that change is not necessarily good, but there are certain truisms that suggest not changing is better than change, when the outcome of that change is not known. "Better the devil you know", " a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".0 -
mangaroosh, if you insist that it must be our politicians who tell you about this treaty, look out for Micheal Martin and the MEP from the debate on Today FM yesterday (can't remember her name)
You should listen to newstalk too. Ivan Yates on the breakfast show who's a former minister for agriculture is very good. He's always getting people on and demolishing them0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »I am honestly open on this one. I prob won't decide until I'm actually in the polling booth.
You've tried every avenue to discredit Treaty related reasons to vote Yes, and used excuse upon excuse to let yourself vote No. Example: that voting Yes will be a stamp of approval of the Yes campaign. Not of course that you would apply this logic the other way around: you seem unafraid of approving of the deceit and lies on the No side. Ive have absolutely no doubt as to which way your going to be voting on October 2nd.
Its a tactic that been used on here before. An "undecided" "pro-EU" voter comes on asking for reasons to vote Yes and cannot for some reason except the validity of all the great responses given to him. Its another version of the "I'm from <insert EU country>: vote No as I was denied a vote." They try and distance themselves from the No camp as they think that gives some credence to their "indecision" and their final "erring on the side of No."
These tactics probably worked on me the first few times it happened, last time round. But after a number of the "undecided voter" and the "concerned Swedish citizen" appearances you begin to see through it.0 -
Vote Yes, so we can stop voting on this fecking thing and be left in peace0
-
I agree with you and I'm sure everyone else here does too but that does not reflect on the Lisbon treaty. If they're not telling you the benefits of the treaty, ask someone else. This is not their treaty. They are not the ones pushing for the change, they're one of hundreds of groups doing it and they're not very good at it
What I take from what your saying here is that you advocate the quango ism and quackery of lobbyist groups and the illegal brown nosing of Barroso coming into the country to tell us what is good for us. Give me a break. This whole thing stinks of an agenda that has endless pockets of money for an ultimate agenda of grabbing power and making an legally binding undemocratic Europe for it's peoples. You also claim that the government are not the ones looking for change. Why do they advocate a yes then?0 -
What I take from what your saying here is that you advocate the quango ism and quackery of lobbyist groups and the illegal brown nosing of Barroso coming into the country to tell us what is good for us. Give me a break. This whole thing sticks of an agenda that has endless pockets of money for an ultimate agenda of grabbing power and making an legally binding undemocratic Europe for it's peoples.
If I told you what I took from what you're saying I'd get banned. How the fcuk do you get the idea that I support corruption from saying that the government is incompetent but that's a separate issue to the treaty and should not effect how you vote on it?
Or are you another one that will be voting no to the upcoming children's rights referendum to send those fat cats a message? That message being you haven't a fcuking clue what you're voting on of course
Still waiting for that true problem with the treaty btw. Do you not want your cookie?0 -
-
I'm just going to go ahead and ask nicely you to stop going on about how crap our politicians are. I agree with you and I'm sure everyone else here does too but that does not reflect on the Lisbon treaty. If they're not telling you the benefits of the treaty, ask someone else. This is not their treaty. They are not the ones pushing for the change, they're one of hundreds of groups doing it and they're not very good at it
No problem. The officials of the Yes campaign have failed miserably in its attempt to justify a Yes vote. It has left a situation where people are turning to unofficial sources for information that could prove erroneous. This is not a satisfactory situation and reflects badly on the Yes campaign.The problem with the benefits of the treaty is that if I tell someone that the simplified revision procedure will allow certain single issues to be negotiated by the European Council (made up of the heads of state of each government) and passed unanimously in line with the constitutional requirements of each member nation (requiring a referendum if our constitution requires it) and that this decision cannot not increase the competences of the union, and that this replaces in some limited areas the ordinary revision procedure which requires multiple issues to be compiled in a single treaty, all of which must be passed or rejected by the national parliaments or the people and that this makes limited changes easier and more efficient to make while ensuring proper controls and limitations..........they fall asleep. The benefits of this treaty, while necessary, are very very boring and don't fit on a poster
That isn't necessarily a problem with the benefits rather with how they are explained. If they are related to a persons actual concerns, their attention could be held. While they may not lend themselves to being put on posters, that does not advocate making stuff up, because when those are found out to be untruths, then it only serves to weaken your position, and the Yes campaign started from a seriously weak position with the onus being on them to prove that Yes was better than no.
Why couldn't we have seen a poster that said, we will actually have a stronger voice in Europe. That way people would be forced to question the claim made by the No proponents. Where there are two conflicting claims it is more natural to question both. Where there is one ambiguous claim, and one more definite claim, the tendency is to lean on the side of the stronger assertion.Does that mean we should vote in Fianna Fail forever? We don't know what anyone else would be like after all. Better the devil you know. That is logic I have heard many times btw
Is that what you took from it?
I cast no aspersions on what should or should not be done, merely pointed out an entirely natural phenomenon.
The onus is on the opposition party to show that they have something better to offer, this is why FF got into Government for another term, because the opposition could not show that they offered a better alternative - therefore we went with the "better the devil you know".
The thing is, if FF go down in peoples estimations, the opposition parties have an easier job of showing they offer a better alternative, the onus is still on them to do so. However, if the opposition parties weren't able to show a superior alternative, then you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be a case of "better the devil you know"0 -
mangaroosh, if you insist that it must be our politicians who tell you about this treaty, look out for Micheal Martin and the MEP from the debate on Today FM yesterday (can't remember her name)
You should listen to newstalk too. Ivan Yates on the breakfast show who's a former minister for agriculture is very good. He's always getting people on and demolishing them
Even better, you can watch the Today FM debate here:
http://qik.com/alexiagolez
Just pick a few of the videos at the bottom to get the right one. Martin is one of the better FF'ers on Lisbon. Harkin is very good too on the debate.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Advertisement
-
You've tried every avenue to discredit Treaty related reasons to vote Yes, and used excuse upon excuse to let yourself vote No. Example: that voting Yes will be a stamp of approval of the Yes campaign. Not of course that you would apply this logic the other way around: you seem unafraid of approving of the deceit and lies on the No side. Ive have absolutely no doubt as to which way your going to be voting on October 2nd.
You would not believe how unconcerned I am about your level of surety as to which way I am going to vote. Honestly, it is quite staggering.
The logic being applied is based on a simple matter of fact, that we should be holding the political representatives of this country to a higher standard than the likes of Cóir, because of the actual repercussions it would have. I'm sorry if you can't see this. That is why there is a difference what the vote actually says. It says that our leaders have to raise the bat a little, that simply matching a shoddy campaign is not good enough, not when it comes to important issues. This what politics is about, it is never a simple matter of, tick a box and get on with it, there are wider ramifications, and again, apologies if you cannot see that.Its a tactic that been used on here before. An "undecided" "pro-EU" voter comes on asking for reasons to vote Yes and cannot for some reason except the validity of all the great responses given to him. Its another version of the "I'm from <insert EU country>: vote No as I was denied a vote." They try and distance themselves from the No camp as they think that gives some credence to their "indecision" and their final "erring on the side of No."
Have you considered the possibility that this tactic has been used so often, because it is actually quite representative of the electorate. This is a reasonable assumption, because as I have highlighted, the onus is on the Yes campaign to provide a decent reason to vote yes, or in the very least, provide open and honest debate that will allow for an informed decision. The reason the onus is on them is two-fold. Firstly, like it or not, they are largely made up of our political representatives, and they rightfully so, should be held to a higher standard. Second, voting Yes results in changes, that are not already scheduled. The natural disposition is going to be one of caution, better the devil you know and all that - this is basic human psychology. Therefore, the onus is very much on them to combat this. The beauty being that they can kill two birds with the one stone, by providing us with all the relevant information in a manner that is understandable to everyone, not just those of a higher education level.These tactics probably worked on me the first few times it happened, last time round. But after a number of the "undecided voter" and the "concerned Swedish citizen" appearances you begin to see through it.
This isn't a tactic. I do not stand to benefit if you vote Yes or No. I just want to make sure that all the issues are considered as may be important and indeed relevant. Likewise I want to get a better understanding myself, that is why I came on here, and I have indeed got a much better understanding that I could have done from the Yes campaign. The problem being, that having to come on here re-inforces the failure of the Yes campaign. Also, the information gathered here is a little more questionable than more official sources, this is just a matter of fact again.
If indeed you do view these as tactics, and will allow these tactics to sway your opinion, then I would suggest you do a little more thinking as to what the various issues are and the potential ramifications of your vote.0
Advertisement