Impossible to call right now IMO.
Printable View
Impossible to call right now IMO.
We had a straw poll at work last week & something like 7-8 Yes to 1 No & he seemed to be wavering. Italian guy gave small speech about needing a strong EU & Head of the company joked that he could take the afternoon off if he brought his soap box to Stephen Green :p
Its pretty much the opposite in my place.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The Media last weekend: "The No side have the momentum, the Yes side are facing an uphill struggle"
Last night: "Suddenly, it's too close to call" :rolleyes:
Obviously the Yes side have put the effort in since last week, but so have the No side, and on almost every poll I've seen on websites in the last couple of weeks, including here, it has a very clear No vote. The mood on the ground is that the electorate are resisting the government's bullying tactics. Only a couple of weeks ago, the result was apparantly a "shoo-in", for the TD's, the Trade Unions, Farmers, Big Business, and their other Yes men. People are starting to understand what a Yes vote will mean, and they're not happy with it. It's vital they express their opinion on Thursday.
Today there is meant to be a media embargo on the referendum yet the Indo are running with a scare strory about how a No vote will lead to longer dole queue. Seems like another cheap shot and another scarestory from the Yes campaign.
I think this Government is doing a good enough job of lengthening the dole queues without the benefit of a No vote.
Most in here are just absolutely bored with it at this stage, and don't seem to be bothering to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I think it'll probably be a yes vote, the media has successfully manipulated it so Cowan and the yes side have had the last word all day yesterday (not that they focused on the actual treaty once). I guess then we'll see who was really lying if it is a Yes vote.
What does the turn out have to be in order to be legal? I don't know anyone who is going to vote, there seems to be great apathy towards it all.
I would be interested to hear an example of government bullying. Political parties are suppose to have an opinion & are pretty much duty bound to take one side & campaign for that. It is hard to sell the Yes side with obvious direct advantages for this country but some of the No side have the liberty to lie about emotive issues to scare people (abortion, euthanasia, gay marraige, adoptions etc...).Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I'd call the scaremongering - if you vote No, it will go bad for you - bullying. So are the tactics of the No camp, but that's now what you asked.
Come off it pete, the Yes side have used the views of the loopers like COIR to tar the whole no side in the last few days - we've had the abortion stuff, libertas funding etc all this week from the Yes side (normally put to the Shinners or Socialist who clearly don't agree with that view). We've also had all "the sky will fall in" stuff from the yes side and we'll be thrown out of europe bull as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
The only one's that have focussed on the actual treaty in the debates I've heard or seen have been the shinners and the socialists - joe higgins and especially Richard Boyd Barrett. Libertas have their moments, sometimes. Yes side didn't focus at all on the treaty.
Its only a radio and TV ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
None of them did. It boiled down to what scared you most. Not being able to sell anything to europe, or going to war with a (possibly gay) european army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
My prediction is that as with most things people in Ireland get upset about and jump up and down promising us doom and gloom if we dont agree with them ( like the smooking ban ) is no matter which way it goes very little will change.
I think that's one thing that hasn't really been touched upon - the fact that the proposed alterations are actually being phased in between 2014 and 2017. As difficult as it is to decide how to vote (I think I'll see what mood I'm in in the booth) it seems even harder to make a decision on changes that, formally at least, won't manifest until six years down the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Given that everyone knows about it and has equal opportunity to present themselves at the polling station I'd imagine there's no requirement for a quorum. I couldn't be certain on that though, or whether provision is made for exceptional circumstances like flooding say. Interesting. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
There isn't a minimum quorum, but a low turnout and a No vote will be used to justify going again. In fairness, a low turnout and a Yes would have the No side screaming for another vote on the basis of it not being a proper mandate, but without the power to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
Again, it'd depend on the outcome, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
That would please the peaceniks as won't be invading many countries with a gay army. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Reminds me of this book :D
Not sure about the gay element but article 27.3 does require us to increase our military capabilities so there is a militarisation aspect to it. There will be a European army, Sarkozy has outlined that as a plan for France's EU presidency and as part of the new EU with one foreign policy and one economic policy it will by default be our army too. I've outlined more than that directly applying articles of the treaty in other posts too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Article 27.3 does not apply to the Republic of Ireland. The provisions previously made for us are not amended by this treaty. We no more have to militarise than we have to learn the Marseillaise. Also, states can group to have a their own common foreign policy if they like but it is not required and is in fact just a nod that they won't get chucked out of the EU if they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
If this is your idea of directly applying articles of the treaty then you are severely misinformed.
“all member states shall undertake to progressively improve their military capabilities” We are not obliged to send the Irish army into any particular engagement but we are obliged to increase our military capability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M89u1OMnJFA
They're hardly going to, Python-esque, put "all member states (except Ireland)" after every bloody concession we've gotten, are they? The piece that exempts us from these areas, and other exceptional pieces like the ones specific to islands like ourselves and the UK, are in seperate places in their own treaties.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
We are, categorically, not required to improve our military capabilities.
I'd imagine there would be some political pressure applied in 100 years time when we've got the same 3 tanks and Chinamerica turn up on our door step with lasers... :D
Now that the Lisbon treaty is nearly over with when is the vote on the Lisburn treaty ive been hearing about ?
Vote yes to detaching Ulster and giving it a gentle nudge toward GreenlandQuote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
It's the Lesbian Treaty I'm looking forward to.
Hmmm ...then why not just leave out the All? Let it just read "Member states are required..."Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
A law-talkin' guy once told me (repeatedly) that the most important word in legalese is the word All. All means All and nothing less than All.
He said the very first thing you do in studying any contract/treaty is underline all of the Alls, write out what you understand each sentence they fall in to actually mean, query it and see if you can get the All deleted or changed to "certain specified", "certain specific" ...
One thing people should realise is that the French and Germans do not rule the EU. In fact they probably have less say than they should, as their populations are so big. One could argue that if we were true democrats we woudl object to the fact that the peoples of France and Germany and the UK are under represented at the tables of power at the EU, as the smaller nations up to now have the same amount of commissioners etc. So these sort of scare tactics about a European Army and the harmonisation of corporation tax does not reflect the reality on the ground. Ireland is an integral part of the EU and we play a very big role in forming coalitions of like minded views. Negotians and consensus forming and networking are how it works out there and Ireland has shown itself to be very adept at such things.
There are over 12 nations that are against the harmonisation of corporation tax and a good few nations have a lower rate than us, Estonia for one having 0% per cent tax rate so they are not going to go for it.
In addition losing a veto in relation to a few ares is quite good as nobody wants an organisation to run by the power of the veto as it does not allow for pogressive ideas. However we do retain the veto in relation to defence.
No no no, you have to trust Dick Roche on this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
Good post. The tax issue is a scare tactic & nothing more. Will other countries increase their VAT to 21%? Will they all introduce VRT? Would the UK approve this? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilMcD
We are required to "improve our military capabilities" which I have no problem with as our Army deserve to have the best equipment we can provide. It doesn't mean we will be putting orders in for an aircraft carrier.
Are we doing an exit poll here for curiosity's sake?
According to RTE the percentage of voter turnout in Sligo is 1%! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
To be fair to the ambivalent people of Sligo the low turnout is at least partly attributable to how bad and uninspiring the campaign was.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
Could do. I wouldn't expect it to reflect the national vote though. The general election polls here were strongly anti-government, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
Interesting of itself, I submit.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
I'm going to vote shortly. Dramatic vacillations abounded over the past few weeks but I'm now leaning towards a Yes as in quite a good mood today. How's that for logic? Having read the Treaty John, was there anything in it that should make me change my mind?
I'm voting Yes after work if we do start using this as an exit poll
That's not logic, that's madness. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
26 other countries are not allowed to vote, I'm sure many of their electorate are in a good mood today.
If you're going to shake Sarkosy's hand at the ballot box today, at least think hard about it before you do.
They already voted in their national elections, if they're not happy with the way their elected politicians are voting on this than I suggest they ask more questions in regards to said politicians party foreign policy next timeQuote:
Originally Posted by mypost
would prefer gran canaria please.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
I always thought I was a little mad. Thanks for the confirmation. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
As I explained, I've swayed side to side throughout. I couldn't make up my mind as neither side had compelling arguments, so now, because I'm in a positive mood, I'm voting Yes. Seems reasonable, if a bit silly.
Wouldn't you feel that given the fact you've been unable to decide which way to vote, and given the fact that this is an issue which will have serious consequences regardless of the result, you'd be more responsible not to vote at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
Got my Yes vote in just there. There was nobody else there at the time but it was early afternoon.
We also voted in our national elections, where it's probably fair to say we didn't get much of a choice, between yes and no politicians. Much like the other 26. Only this time, we get to vote on the issue at hand, where elsewhere they've been gagged.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
Osarusan, good post.
Germany is not allowed Referendums post Hitler.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost