The Lisbon Treaty (2 Viewers)

[taubstumm]

Like Seanc, I intend on reading up on it to make sure there's nothing totally nuts in it but I just couldn't be arsed. It's so fucking boring. I'll probably vote yes, and here's why.

1) All the prophesies of doom made by the Vote No brigade in the past have proven false. I'm starting to think that these people are against the European project in general, rather than any individual treaty.

2) It seems really inappropriate that this is being voted by the people anyway. I mean nobody has a fucking clue. It's much too complicated and boring. I understand that it's supposed to be more democratic but I don't think it's wise for uninformed people to be making decisions on anything, certainly anything this important (I'm assuming it's important, but I'm really not sure since I can't be arsed reading up on it). The purpose of having elected representatives (I thought) that the people vote representatives based on the general direction they wish their country to take and these representatives debate matters much too complicated/boring for the rest of us.

3) There doesn't appear to be too much outcry from the Europeans who don't get to vote on this. The issues were debated in parliaments (and funkadelics) across Europe and the people seem happy enough (as far as I know). Unless you count Le Penn and his ilk.

4) Sinn Fein are against it.

I hope I didn't bore yiz.

surely, if the treaty is so complicated and boring that you can't make head nor tail of it, that would be a persuasive reason to cast a default vote against it, not for it?

 

[Wobbler]

surely, if the treaty is so complicated and boring that you can't make head nor tail of it, that would be a persuasive reason to cast a default vote against it, not for it?

No, I'd imagine 90 odd percent of way goes through the Dail is so complicated and boring that I can't make head nor tail of it. It doesn't mean they're necessarily bad things. I have no reason to assume there's anything nasty in the Lisbon treaty and as far as I can work out it's just a constitutional anomaly that it's a referendum at all.

 

[taubstumm]

No, I'd imagine 90 odd percent of way goes through the Dail is so complicated and boring that I can't make head nor tail of it. It doesn't mean they're necessarily bad things. I have no reason to assume there's anything nasty in the Lisbon treaty and as far as I can work out it's just a constitutional anomaly that it's a referendum at all.

yeah, i don't disagree with you about that. what i'm getting at is that if i was asked to make a decision about something i don't have any information about, or can't be bothered reading any information about, then, philosophically speaking, my default option would be a no-voting, better-the-devil-you-know attitude.

that said, i can't vote on this thing anyway, so the entire point i'm making is hypothetical when applied to my own circumstances.

 

[Wobbler]

I think the devil I know, is Ireland's continuing involvement in the Euopean project.

The devil I don't know is Ireland's uncertain future in Europe if the treaty was rejected.

 

[Buzzo]

Taoiseach criticises 'loo-las' against treaty

Deaglán de Bréadún, Political Correspondent
Campaigners against the Lisbon Treaty were described by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern last night as "loo-las of every kind and shape" who advocated "loony-left" policies.
Launching in Dublin the 2008 Bruce Shaw Handbook, a guide to the construction and property industry, Mr Ahern departed from his script to say that, between now and the referendum date, "there will be a whole lot of loo-las of every kind and shape drifting around this country following the same nonsense that they followed since 1972".
Criticising Sinn Féin's role in opposing the treaty, he said "all sensible political parties" were voting Yes but that "the loony left, led by a number of parties including Sinn Féin and Marxist-Leninist groups and the Socialist Party", were all on the No side.
"And there's also some fundamentalist groups as well," he added.
These groups and individuals were "following the same nonsense that they followed since 1972" when Ireland voted to join the European Economic Community.
Mr Ahern said opponents of membership had forecast that, by voting Yes, "we will ruin ourselves and we'll go under sea and that we'll succeed in doing what St Patrick didn't do by bringing the water all over Ireland, and every other nonsense".
He urged his audience of business people: "Please advise your staff of all political persuasions that all sensible political parties in this country - which are Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, the Greens, who are joining us for the first time in voting for Europe, the Progressive Democrats - are all for it."
On forthcoming construction projects, the Taoiseach gave a further hint that he intended to remain in office for some time when he mentioned that the Spencer Dock conference centre would be "opened by me in 2010".
© 2008 The Irish Times

 

[broken arm]

yeah, i don't disagree with you about that. what i'm getting at is that if i was asked to make a decision about something i don't have any information about, or can't be bothered reading any information about, then, philosophically speaking, my default option would be a no-voting, better-the-devil-you-know attitude.

that said, i can't vote on this thing anyway, so the entire point i'm making is hypothetical when applied to my own circumstances.

i always find this situation interesting and the fact you draw on a range of preconceptions, perceptions, experiences and prejudices to make the decision for you.

you can't go with the general trend of your existng leaning because both right and left are anti it.

even if you read this word for word you'll have a hard time understanding the future impliocations, spill-overs ect.

policy analysis to fuck.

 

[the strange guy]

Lefty Loo-Las?
I'm pretty sure I fall into that category.
VOTE NO!

 

[classic seanc]

I did my thesis on this.
It was supposed to happen years ago but there was arguments about various complicated issues, (border trade, gambling, finance, general on-line services). These were all resolved about 3 days after I handed in the thesis, so I have no idea what they sorted out in the end. So, I can tell you nothing about it. Just go to Wikipedia.

As with most things European, I assume any good reasons to vote "no" will be ignored in favour of xenophobia on Joe Duffy and Newstalk voxpops.

So, basing this on what very little I do know, the free market for goods was a good thing, and this is just extending that to services, which I think is also good. But I'll need to look at the nitty gritty to see if there's anything mad in it.

After a tiny bit of research, I think I'm completely wrong, confused, and I've made a total tool of myself.
But I'm not sure.

 

[Space]

Lefty Loo-Las?
I'm pretty sure I fall into that category.
VOTE NO!

Can I be in your gang?

 

[Pantone247]

surely, if the treaty is so complicated and boring that you can't make head nor tail of it, that would be a persuasive reason to cast a default vote against it, not for it?

I agree with this, I think if we (the people) have been asked to rubber stamp a treaty for the EU the least someone could do is print a couple of million nice colour leaflets out lining the basic in's and out's of the treaty and the pros and cons involved in it. Rather then just being told if you don't vote for it you're a "loo-la"

I reckon the first rejection of Nice was simply cause no one knew what it was about, and it getting passed the second time was just a massive mobilsation of the FF faithful, in the interm no tried to explain the treaty and Bertie just told the EU we were an embaressment to him

that whole episode was one of the most messed up things ever

 

[Shorty]

I agree with this, I think if we (the people) have been asked to rubber stamp a treaty for the EU the least someone could do is print a couple of million nice colour leaflets out lining the basic in's and out's of the treaty and the pros and cons involved in it. Rather then just being told if you don't vote for it you're a "loo-la"

I reckon the first rejection of Nice was simply cause no one knew what it was about, and it getting passed the second time was just a massive mobilsation of the FF faithful, in the interm no tried to explain the treaty and Bertie just told the EU we were an embaressment to him

that whole episode was one of the most messed up things ever

I'm going to vote no just so that if it is rejected there can be a second referendum where we all get told we didn't vote the right way the first time, just like Nice.

Also with regards to previous comments, I thought the referendum affects the whole of Europe, it's not just an opt out for Ireland?

 

[F. Fred Palakon]

I agree with this, I think if we (the people) have been asked to rubber stamp a treaty for the EU the least someone could do is print a couple of million nice colour leaflets out lining the basic in's and out's of the treaty and the pros and cons involved in it.

I think they have. They've put them all online anyway: http://www.reformtreaty.ie/

Also with regards to previous comments, I thought the referendum affects the whole of Europe, it's not just an opt out for Ireland?

It does. For the treaty to come into effect, all 27 member states need to ratify it.

 

[nofunchee]

i must say i'm very cynical about the wording of the treaty. surely to god they could've made it a little more readable.

the possible military consequences of the thing are probably what scare me the most. reading the treaty it's all shit like 'strengthening the atlantic alliance" and "common foreign and security policy". i don't know much about this shit, does that mean more influence over irish army deployment by eu countries who were happy to send troops into iraq?

on the economic side, however it's inclusion, the sacred chalice of 'economic growth' is pretty annoying. economies can't bloody grow forever. that's aside from getting into all the negatives associated with achieving 'growth'.

 

[Pantone247]

I think they have. They've put them all online anyway: http://www.reformtreaty.ie/



It does. For the treaty to come into effect, all 27 member states need to ratify it.

they've not sent anything to me... could I be on a black list?

some states ratify it with a referendum, some put it before parliment. The Uk's parliment rejected (or may reject it) and then it could be put to a vote

I think it's a 'good thing' that we vote on it, I just wish Aherne wouldn't act like it was a total pain in the hole for him to deal with the publics will

 

[broken arm]

youze pricks wouldn't be typing shit ondinternet if it wasn't for the eu. now you want to spoil the party for the povvers in the ex-cccr

 

[classic seanc]

Seriously, in all fairness, fuck Bertie.

 

[IFF]

yeah, i don't disagree with you about that. what i'm getting at is that if i was asked to make a decision about something i don't have any information about, or can't be bothered reading any information about, then, philosophically speaking, my default option would be a no-voting, better-the-devil-you-know attitude.

in this situation, i'd probably not vote for either yes or noi. actually i would spoil my vote stating how i felt there was not enough information to make an informed choice

they've not sent anything to me... could I be on a black list?

some states ratify it with a referendum, some put it before parliment. The Uk's parliment rejected (or may reject it) and then it could be put to a vote

I think it's a 'good thing' that we vote on it, I just wish Aherne wouldn't act like it was a total pain in the hole for him to deal with the publics will

i think a small godforsaken town of 18 people (all members of the one family probably) last september had referendum aboput whether it should be put to a referendum by the british government!!!

 

[nofunchee]

[video=google;-4291770489472554607]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en[/video]