Lisbon Treaty

[mypost]

The people I know that haven't read it aren't going to vote either way, that seems to be the sensible option

Most people who won't vote, tend to be people with zero interest in politics. That applies to other referendums and elections as well.

[jebus]

Most people who won't vote, tend to be people with zero interest in politics. That applies to other referendums and elections as well.

Not in this case I think. A lot of people feel they are either being misled or misinformed by both sides of the debate and so don't want to cast a vote

[pete]

Best reason I heard so far to vote Yes is that we need a strong united Europe. Russia, China & India are gaining power & influence every year & like it or not reality dictates that we need to be part of a one group or the other.

We are a small country on the edge of Europe & we need the influence & power a united Europe provides. The Treaty makes it policy to create electricity inter-connectors across Europe & ensures the EU acts together to ensure energy security. As a country that more or less imports its entire energy needs & almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels in the medium terms this is vital to our interests. We can talk about recyclable energy sources but that won't happen overnight.

A No vote weakens the EU as it makes the decision process longer & more difficult with too manager veto rights & rotating Presidency,

[mypost]

we need a strong united Europe. Russia, China & India are gaining power & influence every year & like it or not reality dictates that we need to be part of a one group or the other.

In what?? Those countries have always had influence, dictatorship countries Russia and China are permanent UN Council members after all. They won't gain the same level of influence as France and Germany will under this. And it's France and Germany's influence that will affect us.

We are a small country on the edge of Europe & we need the influence & power a united Europe provides.

For what?? We are a small country, so are many in the EU.

A No vote makes the decision process longer with too manager veto rights & rotating Presidency,

That's a good thing.

[pete]

In what?? Those countries have always had influence, dictatorship countries Russia and China are permanent UN Council members after all. They won't gain the same level of influence as France and Germany will under this. And it's France and Germany's influence that will affect us.

China may always have had a UN security council seat but had little or no effective power as it was an economic back water. Energy security is going to a massive issue in the coming years & Europe needs to acts collectively.Europe gets a lot of gas from Russia & when our local supply runs out we will need to buy from them too. The Lisbon Treaty adds clause ensuring energy supply is an EU goal.

[lilywhite stu]

new opinion poll out today in the irish times No 35%, Yes 30%. thats outside the margin of error so I'd be fairly hopeful of the treaty being rejected. Realistically the turnout won't be 65% anyway so I'm reckoning on an even bigger gap than that poll would suggest. the bookies are still odds on for a yes so there's some value to be had on a no!

[micls]

If the politicians haven't read the treaty, why should the electorate?? We still have to cast our vote on it regardless.

With rights come responsibilities. Yes you have the right to vote on it, but its your responsibility to inform yourself so that you then make what you believe to be the best decision.

Anyone who votes without informing themselves doesnt deserve the right to vote, politicians included

[mypost]

China may always have had a UN security council seat but had little or no effective power as it was an economic back water.

Economics had little effect in UN Council meetings, the permanent members had a veto, and used it. The G8 meetings involved Russia, even when they hadn't two kopecs to rub together.

Europe gets a lot of gas from Russia & when our local supply runs out we will need to buy from them too.

As an island, it's unlikely to affect us very much.

[superfrank]

I genuinely believe that if people don't know which way to vote, they should go in and spoil their vote. It'll serve both sides right for scare-mongering.

[mypost]

I genuinely believe that if people don't know which way to vote, they should go in and spoil their vote. It'll serve both sides right for scare-mongering.

You accuse both sides of scaremongering, yet advocate a "Yes" vote??

Meanwhile, more scaremongering from the "Yes" men:

"Jobs, jobs, it's all about jobs and about working to get jobs in the future."

http://home.eircom.net/content/uniso...t&cat=National

All about jobs. We're losing, not gaining jobs as it is.

Wonder if Michael Collins was worried about jobs here when he was fighting the British Army and the Civil War??

[micls]

You accuse both sides of scaremongering, yet advocate a "Yes" vote??

But you're advocating no despite obvious scaremongering from them. Whats the difference?

People need to ignore the scaremongering and go find out for yourself. Then at least when you decide Yes or No you'll have your own reasons to have done so.

[micls]

Meanwhile, more scaremongering from the "Yes" men:



http://home.eircom.net/content/uniso...t&cat=National

All about jobs. We're losing, not gaining jobs as it is.

Wonder if Michael Collins was worried about jobs here when he was fighting the British Army and the Civil War??

The scaremongering from the yes side is never going to come near the scaremongering from the no side.

Forced abortion? Forced military service at 18?

[superfrank]

But you're advocating no despite obvious scaremongering from them. Whats the difference?

People need to ignore the scaremongering and go find out for yourself. Then at least when you decide Yes or No you'll have your own reasons to have done so.

Thank you, micls. I couldn't have put it better myself.

[mypost]

But you're advocating no despite obvious scaremongering from them. Whats the difference?

Difference is the above poster was suggesting there was scaremongering from both sides. Whereas the only voters accusing the No side of it, are those on the other side, as they have nothing to sell to their own voters.

[superfrank]

Difference is the above poster was suggesting there was scaremongering from both sides. Whereas the only voters accusing the No side of it, are those on the other side, as they have nothing to sell to their own voters.

I'm voting Yes because I've read up on the treaty and I see a lot of good in it. My choice hasn't been influenced by the scare-mongering of both sides.

[micls]

Difference is the above poster was suggesting there was scaremongering from both sides. Whereas the only voters accusing the No side of it, are those on the other side, as they have nothing to sell to their own voters.

I dont understand that post at all.

The only ones accusing the no voters of it are those on the other side? What does that mean. I know people voting no who think the scaremongering on the no side is ridiculous.

Do you disagree that both sides are scare-mongering?

[mypost]

Do you disagree that both sides are scare-mongering?

Yes.

After all, if they're merely cosmetic changes in the Union, what's the fuss about??

[micls]

Yes.

After all, if they're merely cosmetic changes in the Union, what's the fuss about??

Yes, you dont think theres any scaremongering? Ok......either you're being sarcastic( if so Im completely missing whatever point youre trying to make) or you live in a cave..

[mypost]

Yes, you dont think theres any scaremongering? Ok.

Grand.

The No side are highlighting the reality of what we're voting on, after the groups campaigning went to actually sit down and go through the laborious process of reading the EU treaty from cover to cover, something that theTaoiseach and EU Commissioner have openly admitted to not doing.

The Yes camp's campaign amounts to fantasising, that

• Losing our commissioner for a full EU term, and our voting weights halved is not detrimental to Ireland.
  
• That we will lose influence in Europe, if we send the Treaty back to Brussels unratified
  
• That we need to be part of a strong Europe to challenge other countries.
  
• That we need to say yes to attract foreign investment, at a time when companies are already closing plants and moving them overseas, or else overlooking us completely. This issue will continue regardless of what outcome there is next week.

They are right on one thing however. The "Europe has been good to us" whine. Sure, even the No side acknowledge that. This referendum is about the future of the European Union, not the past.

[micls]

Grand.

The No side are highlighting the reality of what we're voting on,

Are we voting on legalising abortion? Strange that, I must have missed that bit in it.