More annoying Creationism or Lisbon Treaty rejection?

Dave!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You should send that into the IT.

Dunno if the IT would print a pac-man smiley tbh :pac:

WooPeeA

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The very bad thing is that we are getting no intelligent suggestions from the no camp how to move forward. They just expect some sort of magic wand from the people they don't even trust and gave as their reason for the no vote. It really is ridiculous.

Good point. Another problem with no campaigners is that they never had any after campaign plan.

The Irish Times, is generally an intelligent newspaper. Therefore the reasons from no voters, in that paper should be from the more intelligent of the no voters out there.

Today, in the letters' page, one voter voted no because he can't get broadband, another voted no because there was no mention of God in it.

I think most of no voters were not aware of the fact that Treaty of Lisbon is international law that will have to be obligated in whole continent, and tried to abreact their local problems by voting no..

Dades

Dave! wrote: »

Dunno if the IT would print a pac-man smiley tbh :pac:

I think pac-man would be conspicuous in his absence...

If letters were as easy to respond to as on the Indo's site I'd do it. But who needs to pay 80 quid a year to subscribe when you can get your news from A&A on Boards!

robindch

Cactus Col wrote: »

It wouldn't be fair for only people in Louth to have a say on issues that would affect the whole of Ireland.

In the same way that it's not fair for Ireland's "no" vote to affect the whole of Europe?

Cactus Col wrote: »

That eurovision analogy was a terrible one.

Not really, it was quite appropriate since you said that you wanted to respect the French and Dutch rejection of the EU Constitution. Though I don't quite understand why you wouldn't give equal weight to the Spanish and Luxembourgeois approval of the same document. Seems to me that you've simply decided on a position and have selectively chosen reasons to support it.

Cactus Col wrote: »

Seeing as the Dail and Seaned would have had a greater say in european matters, consideration of the performance of the Ruling Party should have been an essential element of everybody's decision making process here.

Again, you seem to have missed the point of my dayglo comment above. The citizens are voting on the document that's in front of them, not on whether or not they enjoyed the process or people that produced it.

Whoever said that laws are like sausages in that one should avoid watching them being produced, made a point which is worth thinking about.

Tim Robbins

WooPeeA wrote: »

Good point. Another problem with no campaigners is that they never had any after campaign plan.

The only ones who did want a complete revolution of the EU. Libertas, People before Profit, Coir and the Patricia McKenna revolution.

It really is ridiculous. It's a case of democracy being subverted by ignorance.
I mean I am deliberately challenging no voters to articulate a way out of this mess, I have done it also on the politics forums. I have heard nothing.

All I am hearing is "the people have spoken". Fine, but they really to need to speak a bit more.

robindch

JC 2K3 wrote: »

[...] it's ok to vote yes so that we don't hold back 450 million Europeons, and so that we give something back to the people of Europe after years of reaping the benefits of the EU, however, it's not ok to vote no based on anti-treaty feelings shared by many of these 450 million people.

I suspect I'm going to go blue in the face from pointing it out, but a voter's only concern should be the document in front of them -- not the Europeans, not the government, not the campaign, not Ganley, not anybody or anything else. A referendum vote exists purely to approve or reject a constitutional amendment, and the amendment should be judged on its merits alone. Otherwise, the vote is wasted and the system subverted.

Malari

Dades wrote: »

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The Rules of the Road also studiously omit any reference to God. I wonder if she has no choice but to ignore them too. :pac:

I saw that too and laughed out loud! Nevermind the fact that it doesn't need to specifically mention her imaginary friend by name in order to refer to him.

"The Treaty of Lisbon states that the EU respects the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States."

From the Referendum Commission website

Run_to_da_hills

Malari wrote: »

I saw that too and laughed out loud! Nevermind the fact that it doesn't need to specifically mention her imaginary friend by name in order to refer to him.

"The Treaty of Lisbon states that the EU respects the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States."

From the Referendum Commission website

The Lisbon treaty is one of the sneakiest and cunning documents of this century. It weaved in and out of the constitutions of 26 nations in such a way that it did not interfere with their constitutions except for Ireland of which it came across like a brick wall.

Thomas J. Clarke, Sean Mac Diarmada, Thomas MacDonagh,P. H. Pearse, Eamonn Ceannt, James Connolly and Joseph Plunkett would all have turned in their graves had we voted yes and hander our nation over to foreigners again.

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty is one of the sneakiest and cunning documents of this century. It weaved in and out of the constitutions of 26 nations in such a way that it did not interfere with their constitutions except for Ireland of which it came across like a brick wall.

Thomas J. Clarke, Sean Mac Diarmada, Thomas MacDonagh,P. H. Pearse, Eamonn Ceannt, James Connolly and Joseph Plunkett would all have turned in their graves had we voted yes and hander our nation over to foreigners again.

Groan :rolleyes:

Have you read the Lisbon Treaty RTDH?

Can you point out that amendments that "hand our nation over to foreigners"

robindch

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Thomas J. Clarke, Sean Mac Diarmada, Thomas MacDonagh,P. H. Pearse, Eamonn Ceannt, James Connolly and Joseph Plunkett would all have turned in their graves had we voted yes and handed our nation over to foreigners again.

I say bring back the High Kings of Ireland and Brehon Law! Reinstate Feudalism and the Groat!

Tim Robbins

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty is one of the sneakiest and cunning documents of this century. It weaved in and out of the constitutions of 26 nations in such a way that it did not interfere with their constitutions except for Ireland of which it came across like a brick wall.

Thomas J. Clarke, Sean Mac Diarmada, Thomas MacDonagh,P. H. Pearse, Eamonn Ceannt, James Connolly and Joseph Plunkett would all have turned in their graves had we voted yes and hander our nation over to foreigners again.

Again, this is why I started this thread. How do you logically define "foreigner"? What about telling all the boggers to go back to their farms so I can walk around this city and afford a house where I grew up?

Secondly, we might actually be better off handing over aspects of our nation to "foreign rule". The Sweds would do a better job with our hospitals, the French would do our town planning, the Germans do our roads and just about anybody would have put an underground in Dublin by now.

Your arguments are as threadbare as any creationist's.

Run_to_da_hills

[/IMG]

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Again, this is why I started this thread. How do you logically define "foreigner"? What about telling all the boggers to go back to their farms so I can walk around this city and afford a house where I grew up?

Secondly, we might actually be better off handing over aspects of our nation to "foreign rule". The Sweds would do a better job with our hospitals, the French would do our town planning, the Germans do our roads and just about anybody would have put an underground in Dublin by now.

Your arguments are as threadbare as any creationist's.

The Germans are great road builders.:rolleyes:

[IMG][/img]

MrPudding

And let's not forget the clause that means we would all have to be chipped for tracking purposes....

MrP

Dades

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Germans are great road builders.:rolleyes:

The Irish know a bit about construction too.

Zombrex

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

[/IMG]The Germans are great road builders.:rolleyes:

The Germans are great road builders. What has this got to do with Hitler? Are you implying that building a high quality motor way system leads to nationalistic fascism?

Mark Hamill

The reason I voted no is this: In Ireland if the government want to make any changes to the Irish constitution then there has to be a referendum and the Irish Public get the final say. This is also how it worked for the treaty of the European Union, they wanted to change it with the Lisbon treaty, so they had to get a referendum from the Irish Public to do it. However if the Lisbon had of been voted in, then Article 48 of the new ratified treaty would have meant that further changes would only have required notification of National Parliments, and once the Parliments agreed to it, the changes would be made, with no input from the public.

Art 48,Lisbon Treaty wrote:

Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.

For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members

This completely goes against the basis of how democracy is supposed to work in this country (the public have the power, not the government) and was rightly voted against.
As for what we do now that we have voted no? Well if Sarkozy doesn't like how the European Union is being effected by the soveriegn decision of the Irish people, and germany thinks that the Treaty can be ratified without Ireland, then maybe its time Ireland leaves the EU.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What about telling all the boggers to go back to their farms so I can walk around this city and afford a house where I grew up?

In my capacity as a Kerryman, I feel that you Dubs should be out there making carpark payments to your planners so that there's more housing available! Everything was fine when the system was corrupt. It's only since somebody noticed that the whole thing was corrupt and the payments dried up that house prices skyrocketed. QED.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Secondly, we might actually be better off handing over aspects of our nation to "foreign rule". The Sweds would do a better job with our hospitals, the French would do our town planning, the Germans do our roads and just about anybody would have put an underground in Dublin by now.

Are you mad?! Imagine what'd happen if we let in these damundblastit foreigners and their funny ways! I can see it now -- the supermarkets piled high with croissants and other Cuisine de France, Chinese and Indian restaurants on every street corner, and where you couldn't buy a plate of Coddle or Collared Head to preserve the purity of yer Catholic Oirish Soul?

What'd happen then, mister?!

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

The Germans are great road builders. What has this got to do with Hitler? Are you implying that building a high quality motor way system leads to nationalistic fascism?

Possibly. Since "Darwinism" leads to National Socialism too, one can only conclude that just about everything seems to cause Nazism, except presumably, the christians who made up around 90% of the population of the country back then!

bus77

robindch wrote: »

Possibly. Since "Darwinism" leads to National Socialism too, one can only conclude that just about everything seems to cause Nazism, except presumably, the christians who made up around 90% of the population of the country back then!

Well, you can't say it wasn't a Christian who tried to put a stop to it either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Stauffenberg

An Fear Aniar

Wicknight wrote: »

Groan :rolleyes:

Have you read the Lisbon Treaty RTDH?

Can you point out that amendments that "hand our nation over to foreigners"

The Illuminazis are not that dumb!

They're sneaking it in bit by bit. This Treaty signs away, in principle, our absolute sovereignty. Once that principle is lost, it's easy for them to keep diluting and diluting until we're their slaves.



.

Tim Robbins

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

The Illuminazis are not that dumb!
They're sneaking it in bit by bit. This Treaty signs away, in principle, our absolute sovereignty. Once that principle is lost, it's easy for them to keep diluting and diluting until we're their slaves.
.

I am beginning to think you are a troll An Fear Aniar.

Schuhart

For anyone interested in such facts as are available, this is a European Commission telephone poll giving indications of what Irish voters state as their reasons for voting yes and no.

Mark Hamill

Schuhart wrote: »

For anyone interested in such facts as are available, this is a European Commission telephone poll giving indications of what Irish voters state as their reasons for voting yes and no.

Interesting how according to that poll 11% of "Yes" voters thought the treaty was bad for Ireland and 11% of "No" voters thought it was good for Ireland (pg 9).

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote: »

For anyone interested in such facts as are available, this is a European Commission telephone poll giving indications of what Irish voters state as their reasons for voting yes and no.

Amazing find. Very impressive they can organise and publish something so quickly.

Obni

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hundreds of millions of Europeans voted for the governments to negotiate a treaty for them, because it creates logistical problem to have 500 million people around a table.

I wonder what percentage of votes received by those governments were cast by people who's primary concern was "Who will negotiate the Lisbon Treaty for me? I don't imagine the electorate in any Western European nation differs in their propensity to elect governments based on a balance of tradition and selfishness. I doubt Lisbon was a deciding factor for any of the 500 million when electing their national parliament.
All you can really say about your 500 million voters is that 496 million of them don't live in a country where they have a say in ratifying the treaty.

Given that those of us who voted no are clearly mindless cretins, I was wondering if you could enlighten us as to the key points that made you vote yes. Or did you just unquestioningly accept the guidance of those in authority to support creatio Lisbon?

If you think that any Irish voter concerned that our voice in Europe would be diminished was a fool, then watch how much weight our no vote carries in the next few weeks.

MrPudding

Obni wrote: »

Given that those of us who voted no are clearly mindless cretins,

Don't be so hard on yourself. I wouldn't call you mindless.

MrP

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Very impressive they can organise and publish something so quickly.

Indeed, plus they clearly have an interest in actually trying to make some sense out of the vote. I found this finding interesting

The young people who participated, women and those not working were significant supporters of the “no” vote; the majority of professionals, managers and retirees were backing the “yes” campaign

I'd speculate this means that people voted yes in proportion to the extent they are empowered and have wealth.

Which is a tad strange, as the legislation that comes our way from EU could hardly be seen as reactionary.

Obni wrote: »

All you can really say about your 500 million voters is that 496 million of them don't live in a country where they have a say in ratifying the treaty.

I think you could even go further, and say Ireland is not the only country where Lisbon would be voted down in a referendum.

Tim Robbins

Obni wrote: »

Given that those of us who voted no are clearly mindless cretins, I was wondering if you could enlighten us as to the key points that made you vote yes. Or did you just unquestioningly accept the guidance of those in authority to support creatio Lisbon?

See post 42.

If you think that any Irish voter concerned that our voice in Europe would be diminished was a fool, then watch how much weight our no vote carries in the next few weeks.

We are in limbo. That's hardly a position of strength. We have also lost some good will amongst our neighbours all of whom were ready to implement Lisbon Jan 09 but not have to waste time trying to sort out this mess.

Already a number of diplomats have slagged us off and who have gone out of their way to praise us, UK extremists and Le Pen.

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote: »

Indeed, plus they clearly have an interest in actually trying to make some sense out of the vote. I found this finding interestingI'd speculate this means that people voted yes in proportion to the extent they are empowered and have wealth.

Which is a tad strange, as the legislation that comes our way from EU could hardly be seen as reactionary.I think you could even go further, and say Ireland is not the only country where Lisbon would be voted down in a referendum.

Indeed it's an excellant statring point to analyse how ignorant some people are. Especially the part which states 70% percent thought the treaty would be easy to renegotiate. Anyone who is that ignorant should not be voting.

If anything it should prompt the commission and council to suggest that the EU project will fall apart unless a critical amount of people know how it works.

I would like to see legislation whereby all member states had to teach democracy models in their secondary schools.

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Anyone who is that ignorant should not be voting.

Do you feel comfortable effectively saying that young people, women and the unemployed should be disenfranchised? I mean, there was a time when that was the situation so I'm not suggesting for a minute that you shouldn't hold that view. I'm just asking if you are willing to follow the implications of what you say to where the evidence would lead.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If anything it should prompt the commission and council to suggest that the EU project will fall apart unless a critical amount of people know how it works.

If you phrased that as it should prompt the commission and council to suggest that the EU project will fall apart unless a critical amount of people give them a mandate, then we'd actually agree.