I'm voting 'Yes' tomorrow. Why?1. COIR says, if we vote 'Yes' gay marriage and abortion legislation is IMMINENT
2. I would prefer to be ruled by Europe than by a bunch of people who get elected on promises of filling potholes and fixing drain pipes
3. Look who is on the 'No' side
4. If the treaty goes through, then we won't have to vote on another EU treaty for a very, very long time - so no more talk about treaties, qualified majority voting, tax jargon, losing commissioners, and no more endless airtime, columns and TV debates dedicated to something that no one really has a clue about (and no, I haven't read it either, but I've tried to educate myself as best as possible)
5. I don't trust Libertas
6. Might be fun to make Jim Corr cry
7. I fully support the microchipping of babies. I also fully support Micro Chips. Yumsies.
(microchipped baby photee by Simon McGarr)
39 comments:
Una does rock!
Seriously, Una, those are really bad reasons for voting yes.
I also hate most of the lulas on the no side, but considering the yes side can't offer a single reason why this treaty is necessary beyond 'jobs...blah blah...economy will melt if you don't...blah blah Ireland will melt if you don't'.
That's just not good enough.
We are the only people in Europe with a vote on this. The Dutch and French have already rejected it.
For their sheer anti-democratic chuzpah alone, we should vote no.
Please reconsider Una, I thought you were a bit smarter than this!
not to mention the fact that Ganley (head of libertas) is also the ceo of an american defence contractor. . .
where are they getting their money from?
sinn fein wanting me to vote 'no' sealed the deal in my mind. 'yes' ftw
I would have to agree with you in relation to your second comment.
Any thing would be better to being governed by the gang we have here.
Itt is amazing though how EU referendums seem to bring groups from both the far right and far left together to campaign for the same cause
Voice of Reason - A lot of my reasons were jokey, obviously.
So in seriousness, as far as I can see, all this treating is doing is tidying up how a lot of the EU is run. I've tried to read some of it and it's almost impossible to get through. But that doesn't mean I don't think it's probably a good thing from some of the kind of Lisbon Treaty CliffsNotes that I've dug into in the papers etc.
The 'Yes' side completely screwed up their campaign by taking the "just trust us" route instead of attempting to explain to the public what the treaty actually IS (and how could they, when most of THEM don't even have a bog?)
Regarding the 'No' campaign - most of it is a bag of lies spun by lunatics.
The reason it's neck and neck is because Irish people DON'T trust the people who say 'just trust us' and in general are cantankerous voters. A lot of the people I've spoken to who are voting 'No (me Ma included) are doing it for reasons like 'no one's going to tell me what to do' or 'I'm sick of the whole thing' or 'the government can go and fuck themselves', or feel like they're teaching Fianna Fail a lesson or something. That's completely unconstructive stuff.
I've always been pro-Europe. I think the EU has been fantastic for Ireland, economically and socially, and I think (at the risk of sounding like Enda Kenny) if we want to continue to be a part of that process, it's important that the Irish people vote this through.
RE: "We are the only people in Europe with a vote on this. The Dutch and French have already rejected it. For their sheer anti-democratic chuzpah alone, we should vote no." - so far, that's one of the worst reasons I've heard for voting no (babychipping aside)
@ Sean: it will all come out in the wash...
> Please reconsider Una, I thought you were a bit smarter than this!
This kind of carry-on pisses me right the fuck off. The No camp have spent ages telling us we're too stupid to figure the issues out for ourselves, now they have the fuckin gall to bitch at people who do the research. Seriously like, you cunts can take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
...although Una, I must say I strongly disagree with your Micro Chips policies, on the grounds that they have the ming, and will be pushing for renegotiation on this issue. I'll take this to the Supreme Court if I have to.
MICRO CHIPS FO LIFE YO!
Who would want to eat soggy pieces of reformed potato shite out of a microwave?
Fuck that.
but they're CHIPS and you can MICROWAVE them
Your diet is appalling.
I'm kinda in love with emordino and una right now. Queer coalition!
I would have to agree with you in relation to your second comment.
Any thing would be better to being governed by the gang we have here.
This is a fallacy. The EU is in part made up by the gang we have here but they get to use it as a smokescreen saying that anything sort of unpopular that comes down from the EU isn't their fault. "It's not us," they lie, "it's the EU", before not saying "I was doing coke off of an eastern european hooker's tits when that meeting was going on."
Una, so you're voting yes even though you admit that you don't really understand the treaty because you like Europe. That spells success for the yes strategy of making the issue pro- or anti-Europe.
It's not about the EU's existence, it's not going away. And if it's been good for us, it's been good under the present system and we don't need another one.
We wouldn't be voting on it if it was just a simple tidying up exercise. We are voting on it because it is a further impingment of sovereignty and thus requires over-riding our constitution. They tidy up all the time without asking us to vote about it.
Again, I say, not a single reason given by the yes side. They've just said Europe is good, vote yes. And apparently it's worked.
Just a quick question, Voice of Reason, are you affiliated with any particular political party or 'No' camp organisation? Libertas? Sinn Fein? COIR?
No. I can't stand any of the NO people. Most of them are scare-mongering liers.
I am an independent NO voter.
One more good reason to vote no is that this treaty requires states to increase their military spending, under the aegis of an agency staffed by representatives of the arms industry. Look what happened when the military-industrial complex rose in America, and think about what might happen wirh Europe's upcoming army...
If in doubt, vote no.
Don't vote yes just because you don't like the nutbars.
RE: "military spending, under the aegis of an agency staffed by representatives of the arms industry." John Bolton came out recently saying as Yes vote would undermine NATO, which in my opinion wouldn't exactly be a bad thing.
Again, I'm not voting Yes because "just because you don't like the nutbars", I'm voting Yes because of my own personal opinions based on the research I've done.
And if it's been good for us, it's been good under the present system and we don't need another one.
We do need an improved system due to the enlargement and any future enlargement. Surely you knew that, right?
Mary Lou Mac Donald just announced very loudly to my office in the sky that were all ejits if we don't vote no.
If I wasn't already voting yes (based on researching the treaty) I would certainly have been changing sides. She gives me the heebyjeebies.
She needs a micro chip.
Maybe thats why she's all against it, she knows they'd make her get chip-faced of her face.
It would only 'undermine NATO' in the sense that it would draw more nations, including neutral ones like ours, into military action as part of the EU force.
Una, what are the opinions based on your research. I mean, you said earlier that you didn't really understand the treaty. That's the point, you're not supposed to understand it, we're just supposed to say 'Europe Good, Sinn Féin/ COIR etc bad', and vote accordingly.
How can a treaty which forces countries to spend more on military - not education, not health, but arms - be a good thing? Can you not see the problem with this?
If FF, FG, IBEC, etc, are all trying to sell you something, you can be damn sure it's not in your best interests. It's in their best interests. Workers rights will be non-existent, foreign companies will be able to pay foreign wages to workers as was recently ruled legal in the European Court.
Roosta: I don't accept that patronising rationale. This is not tidying up, it's a radical power grab encoded in legalese to try to baffle us.
I think it's a lose lose for Ireland. After listening to the arguments for and against I came to the conclusion that I would vote No. Then the French came out and threatened that the Irish would suffer most if they voted No (even though they already voted no). I believe they have every intention of carrying out that threat. We won't get the softly softly treatment as we did when we voted down Nice. We are a subject nation in the European Empire and the only way to avoid punishment is to vote as we are told to.
I'm reluctantly voting yes with a french gun to my head.
That's a pretty sad reflection of the fear-based nature of the campaign.
If you have to be beaten into something, it's not a good deal.
If the used carman threatens to break your legs unless you buy his car, you can be sure you're not getting a bargain.
Grow a pair and vote no.
"Una, what are the opinions based on your research. I mean, you said earlier that you didn't really understand the treaty. That's the point, you're not supposed to understand it, we're just supposed to say 'Europe Good, Sinn Féin/ COIR etc bad', and vote accordingly." - I don't understand 100% all the ins and outs of it, no, but I've tried to understand the basics.
I understand that some of it rejigs how EU institutions work in an attempt to improve their efficiency, which is a good thing, especially as the EU enlarges. One of the neverending criticisms of the EU is that the process of decision-making is so complicated that it slows everything down. This should be improved, and I think the treaty allows for the introduction of aspects of restructuring that will allow that.
I'm pretty much in favour of what this actually means: the European Council having a president, reducing the number of commissioners (I know a lot of people are against this, but I'm in favour of it if it makes things run more smoothly), changing the way the council of ministers vote and getting rid of some of the national vetos, which IMO seem to just hold things up all the time.
Regarding the legislative proposals that the EU will then be allowed make - the No side seems to be freaking out about this, that all of a sudden tonnes of EU laws will over-ride our own laws and even our constitution. But amn't I right in thinking that the Irish government has an opt out clause to this? Then what's the panic?
I don't think the treaty will undermine Irish sovereignty. And even if it does pave the way towards a federal Europe or whatever, I'm not sure I'm against that.
So, Voice of Reason, maybe you do know more about the treaty than I do, but I don't think I'm completely ignorant about it, and I don't think I'm basing my vote on ignorance. I'm certainly not basing it on all of the misinformation being fed to the pubilc (namely, it has to be said, from the No side).
I've researched as best as I can, and I'm basing my decision on that.
And this whole nonsense about the French and Dutch rejecting it is b****x. They asked for changes to be implemented or they would reject it. Those changes were made and their governments were happy to accept it.
I'm voting yes for all the same reasons. I particularly like the potholes one, medical cards is another one!! I don't care if some of the reasons are meant to be jokey - they're still brilliant. Best Lisbon post by far!
I appreciate the naivety of our anonymous friend. The only change to the constitution is that it is no longer being called a constitution, and that they decided against giving anybody the right to vote on it. The idea that changes were asked for and given is laughable.
Una, what you say is all well and good, but even if we accept that this is just about efficiency and so on, why then are there also arms industry requirements in there?
Even if you are okay with most of the treaty, that shouldn't blind you to the bad stuff. And increased military spending and power for the arms industry only means one thing: more war, more militarisation and less neutrality.
There is a worrying complacency abroad in regard to this treaty. It seems there is a bias to want to believe big daddy and go along with the status quo in trust. It scares the bejesus out of me frankly.
About the French and Dutch rejections, the French rejected it as a two fingers to Jacque Chirac (much as some people may do here as a two fingers to the current government, however little sense that makes), and the Dutch, like us, didn't want to see their taxes going to Europe, instead of getting handouts. On that issue, I think we're mature enough now to give something back to Europe.
About everything else, any argument the No side gives is misinformation, distortion, or contradictory.
For example, two No posters - "Say No To Foreign Rule" and "Follow the French and Dutch - Vote No".
I've already ticked the Tá bosca. And would encourage people to check out http://www.jazzbiscuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/spoofers-guide-to-lisbon1.pdf
It is quite astoundingly arrogant to pretend that you know why people in Holland and France voted no. You don't.
Polls suggest they would vote no again if given the chance, and AFAIK Chirac's gone, so there goes that theory.
Whatever about the NO arguments, there is no YES argument. Nothing. Just trust us. That's not a good enough reason. If it were a jury situation, shadow of a doubt must come into play.
Depressingly it looks like the government scared enough sheep into the yes pen to win this one. It's quite scary to see how gullible people are.
Seriously dude, how many times do I have to give you my 'Yes' argument?
I am not a "sheep" nor am I "gullible". Just because I've made a reasoned decision not to vote how you have chosen, doesn't make me stupid.
Plenty of people I know who are voting 'yes' are doing so on the basis of the information they have provided themselves with through researching the treaty. I'm the last person who would just sit back and vote on the basis of what the government tells me to do.
I'm not insulting your decision, so don't insult mine.
You still haven't explained why you think increased arms spending is a good thing, that's all I'm saying.
Anyway, I'm off now to do my little bit for what remains of our independence. Good day to you all.
Voice of reason, the argument for Ireland's neutrality disappeared decades ago.
I love the notion that we'll all be marching off to war in some European army.
In practice, we've never been completely neutral anyway. Never.
There is a triple lock on our "neutrality" which is still guaranteed by Lisbon.
And as for military spending, don't you think we'll need to spruce up the old tanks and Martello towers given that if we opt out of any common defence policy we'll be an ideal back door into the rest of Europe for the foreign army that is surely about to invade us?
Have a word with yourself.
Show me where it says in the treaty "we will be spending more money on arms."
If the Lisbon Treaty was so full of sexy details like that, and plans for a New World Order, and abortion, nuclear war, microchipping, gay marriage, trashing neutrality, and everything else the No side claims, then surely everyone would be reading it?
Hell, the EU could probably market the document as the new fucking Da Vinci Code for all the exciting things people are saying about it at this stage.
But well done Voice Of Reason, at least you're voting.
Voice of Reason said...
"It is quite astoundingly arrogant to pretend that you know why people in Holland and France voted no. You don't."
And yet you claim to know why we're voting yes - "the government scared enough sheep into the yes pen".
I was arguing with my sister about this earlier, and she seems to believe that by voting yes, conscription will be re-introduced for a European force. Hence she's voting No. Who's the scared one?
Irish people should hold their own government and our laws should reflect our best interests.
I believe current legislation resembles a stony Olde Eire wall and needs to evolve and adapt to modern demands.
I don't believe strongarmed European strictures are the way to a better Ireland. As far as abortion and equal rights,ignorance has held us back but it's ignorance at a dying rate as our once pious culture has taken a reality check in recent years. It's not instant but Ireland can come to reason on these issues without compromising itself to Europe.
Why should we take the word of the same government that led us up the garden path? We've begun to tackle the crooked officials who've taken advantage of a trustworthy, hardworking country, one that drew itself into a reckonable force from a very dismal, not-so-distant past. The last thing the country needs right now is further political dalliances: we need to assess the state of the nation.
Like all countries, we have our faults but they must be addressed by the people and its dedicated government, untainted by overt foreign influence. After all, it's what we fought 800 years for.
I <3 Ireland
Em, I don't suppose I could get a photo credit?
to the people who think that eu legislation is passed without our consent - eh, that already happens! it will just happen in more areas.
it also happens here in ireland! are you involved in case law that goes on yearly in ireland? laws are made all the time without your consent? why does it make any difference now?
military spending is not the big bad evil voice of reason claims. this treaty makes it an obligation for all EU countries to come to the aid of other countries if they are invaded / have humanitarian crisis - such as kosovo, chad, burma, china, etc. etc. we'll need up to date equipment and well trained peace keepers for these purposes!
'Em, I don't suppose I could get a photo credit?'
Dude i dont think this is the time or place to ask for a pat on the back.God get over it its just a photo.
Post a Comment