Printable View
Stepohen Collins is getting all excited about the latest poll in his own newspaper today. :rolleyes:
I may remind him that the 3:1 advantage the Yes side had from a poll in the same paper, turned into a 7% turnaround in 3 weeks last spring. :D To me, these polls that the Yes newspaper carry out, is very much a case of preaching to the converted.
I would be very interested in seeing a breakdown of middle-class/working-class voters were polled. We might get a different % forecast then.
a yes vote is essential and i don't see why the EU should wait for us if we vote no again.
We are Irish but also European, and the Lisbon treaty is in the best interest for Europe as a whole.
We're Irish first, then European. The Lisbon Treaty is from the book of nightmares, and until next year's UK election, we are the only country that can stop it taking effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by irishultra
A no vote is essential, as it was in June, to uphold earlier No votes and democracy in general.
Lison is in the best of politicians, period. Politicians that already have too much power, and too little respect for democracy.
I emailed my 3 MEPs last week about the copyright bill, only one had the courtesy to reply.
adam
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
How is it the best interest of politicians?
The reasons for denouncing the treaty are stupid.
Does the treaty increase the amount of decisions taken in Brussels?
I would have hoped so but unfortunately not.
Will the Treaty of Lisbon create a European "Super-State"?
I'm not in favour of a ''super-state'' exactly, but a greater European identity would be much better. I would support a overall president of europe(in the long term) but with a good bit of control with each countrys goverment. It would also lead to much better opportunities.
I take 'pride' in both Irish and European Identity. I have both flags outside my house.
The EU is extremely diplomatic and thats why they are advising us to votes again, especially when a lot of people voted no because they simply could not understand the treaty. So again why should Ireland hold back the EU progressing because we can't understand it.
Like imagine in this day and age peoples reasons for rejecting it included because it will lead to abortions being made legal?:rolleyes:
Its 2009 FFS.
No citizen is expected to read the treaty cover to cover. What they are expected to know is the core details of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by irishultra
It's a politicians dream charter. Hence all the talk of Ireland remaining at the "centre of power", and the heart of "decision-making" of the EU. When Ireland will only lose power at EU level.
Ireland effectively becomes a province under the EU Constitution. The Irish constitution is no longer valid, the Dail is reduced to a coffee morning talking shop rather than the legislation chamber it currently is. We would no longer be represented by our President. Our new President would be nominated by Brussels rather than be elected by the Irish people. We would lose the right to hold the EU Presidency, for equal time as other states. We lose our voting weights, our commissioner, and our corporate tax policy. We lose our right to 60 current vetoes that are in the interest of this state's well being. In the current economic climate, we are obliged to spend what little funds are available to increase our military spending, and come to the assistance of another member state should they be attacked. No jobs or investment will be created in this country as a result of a Yes vote. No jobs were created as a result of passing the Nice Treaty. We lost thousands of jobs after passing it, in the 2003 slowdown.
Blood is thicker than water, and in an Irish referendum, you are morally obliged as an Irish citizen to think of the well being of this country, before the well being of other states. After doing so, you should have little alternative but to tick the bottom box on the ballot paper, and preserve democracy in Ireland, and in the European Union.
I don't want to get into too much of an off topic discussion but whether a politician has time to enter into a private correspondence isn't really the measure of a democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
It is a measure of democracy though. They're my representatives in government.
irishultra, if you'd like people to respond to your posts, not insulting their intelligence is usually a good start. When you show some respect, I'll return with same.
I don't agree with mypost on a lot of things, but on one point above he's right: Lisbon is a politician's wet dream. They wrote it for themselves, not for us.
adam
sorry i didnt mean to come across like that honestly. i'm just putting my thoughts out there i'm only 17 so the opinions aren't concrete or very indepth but yeah sorry for coming across like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Fair enough but I think it's much more closely a measure of how many letters they get and how much spare time they have in their day.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I don't thing the treaty should deal with anything like this. Under whatever laws and treaties, we have the right to petition our elected reps and the right to boot them out of office if we're not happy with their response. After that, I think their performance should be judged by the electorate alone. If the people of Munster have chosen to elect MPs who don't respond to letters, that's their democratic right.
I find it fascinating that by and large (but not exclusively) the Lisbon debate falls as follows:
A Yes vote is generally advocated on intangible grounds ie Europe is good for us - better in than out - we have benefited from europe
A No vote is advocated generally on the basis of the actual treaty itself ie individual passages in the treaty - the commissioner, the voting rights, the organisational issues
Pretty tragic public debate and let me say this out loud in words
We do not have an intellgient electorate - we have people in the electorate who are hihgly intelligent but by and large the electorate is a Star reader
The pols know this which is why they treat us with such contempt
Europe was good for us, as a funding and trading bloc. As a political union, it's not been anywhere near the same benefit to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
We were warned over breaking the growth and stability pact, we were chastised for providing the bank guarantee, we are regularly taken to court over trivial issues. Now we're sneered at, for exercising our democratic right, which the EU claims to love. So long as that democratic right goes their way.
Once again, because of our constitution, it falls to us to be the guardians of democracy in the EU. Others should share the responsibility with us. But their politicians have decided to silence the people they represent instead. That may be what they want, but that's not what I and hundreds of millions of EU citizens want either. A no vote is a no-brainer.
Sorry but this is rubbish. How many times have you heard people give 'abortion' 'conscription' etc as reasons for voting no? Cos Ive heard it more than I can count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
BOTH sides have those who are voting for reasons that have no relevance to the treaty itself.
Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
Precisely - advocated on the basis of a passage in the treaty - not necessarily an accurate representation but on the basis of the actual treaty.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
Equally there is plenty of irrelevant drivel on the yes side
My point is - to agree with Adam - that this is a pols wet dream - a treaty which makes their lives easier and makes them less transparent and a docile public
But sure whats the difference between that and saying its good for us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
And Ive heard plenty of rubbish that had no basis in the treaty whatsoever, not the one I read anyway.
Sorry - I said it badly.
Where I was going - and it was a point made clumsily - is that the quality of public debate is lousy, on both sides.
I am kind of on the fence but lean to a No - my point was that the level of debate is infeasibly bad and is driven, on both sides, by pretermined agendas with little or no relevance to the actual subject at hand and its wider context
It is campaigning by sounbite and we let it happen
Lets be honest, if the EU was still giving use billions to improve our infrastructure the last Treaty would have passed easily. As a nation we thought we had made it & didn't need that cash any more. I believe the recession will mean more people vote Yes.
Given the pathetic politicians we have in this country more powers for the EU would be a good thing.
I agree. Hopefully some day we might be able to get a transport system and other things as good as our European compatriots.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Actually mypost i agree it is a joke that all EU citizens were not given the vote in relation to lisbon. why not have a europe wide vote, where the eu populations choice is based on a whole rather than just one country. Would this have been possible?
This would leave to possibility of the Treaty passed by majorities in large countries & our Vote would be insignificant.Quote:
Originally Posted by irishultra