More annoying Creationism or Lisbon Treaty rejection?

CerebralCortex

Then a lot of political organisations may fall apart.

Schuhart

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Then a lot of political organisations may fall apart.

I'm sure that many political organisations might fall apart without a mandate.

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote: »

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.

Ideally, I would ban voting if someone does not the basics of what they are voting for. Excuse the cringy analogy but someone can't drive unless they know the rules can they?

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.

But that's a tautology, isn't it?

iUseVi

Schuhart wrote:

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.

WTF? You think young people, women and the unemployed are ignorant? That statement could be at least described as ageist and sexist, but I could use stronger words.

MooseJam

well aparantly the major reason for voting no was lack of understanding on the treaty, so the best way forward in my opinion is to inform the voters properly, take out full page newspaper ads extolling the virtues of the treaty and hold the referendum again

bus77

I think it should have been treated as a national issue, not just an internal democratic one. Because that's ultimately what these type's of referendums are. There was a politician who made a move towards getting it addressed by a presidential commission. Some commentators were almost laughing at him and dismissing it but I say it was a move in the right direction.

But.....Mc Alesse is in that direction...

I know

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ideally, I would ban voting if someone does not the basics of what they are voting for. Excuse the cringy analogy but someone can't drive unless they know the rules can they?

I don’t think the analogy holds, because it’s a situation where the State is looking for your mandate because that’s the source of their legitimacy. If their purpose is truly beyond your understanding, they just can’t do it.

Now, bear in mind, the Government could seek a mandate from the people to scrutinise all EU treaties on the behalf of the electorate. Effectively, every other EU Government seems to have such a mandate. But our Government haven’t done that – so they have to keep coming back to us on issues like this until they do.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But that's a tautology, isn't it?

I’m honestly not sure. I’m simply pointing to the reality that EU Governments are attempting to move in the absence of such a mandate. I think that’s a bad idea, as they are effectively trying to pretend the problem doesn’t exist.

I think the same strong case can be made for Europe as has always been made. But, for all that, there’s a decision the European people need to make as to whether we are willing to trust each other enough to continue to even greater integration. Political elites cobbling agreements together so they can avoid that decision only adds to distrust. They’re storing up a problem for the future.

iUseVi wrote: »

WTF? You think young people, women and the unemployed are ignorant? That statement could be at least described as ageist and sexist, but I could use stronger words.

I think you’re missing the sequence of argument. The European Commission survey that I posted above states, inter alia, that 76% of no voters felt the treaty would be easily renegotiated by Ireland. Tim feels that this is an error of such magnitude that someone who held it is simply too ignorant to vote – in other words the overwhelming majority of no voters were too ignorant to vote.

The survey also states that No support was particularly strong among the young, women and unemployed. Hence, putting those two facts together, we get an indication that the young, women and unemployed may disproportionally feel that the treaty would be easily renegotiated by Ireland and hence, by Tim’s criterion, be too ignorant to vote.

Clearly in cases where mental capacity is truly lacking, there is little point in pretending that someone can exercise a vote. However, I’d expect most humans can exercise a vote. That said, I see no reason why someone shouldn’t advocate that, say, only males aged over thirty in full time employment should have a vote – I just want to make it plain that this is the effect of what Tim is saying.

iUseVi

Schuhart wrote: »

I think you’re missing the sequence of argument. The European Commission survey that I posted above states, inter alia, that 76% of no voters felt the treaty would be easily renegotiated by Ireland. Tim feels that this is an error of such magnitude that someone who held it is simply too ignorant to vote – in other words the overwhelming majority of no voters were too ignorant to vote.

The survey also states that No support was particularly strong among the young, women and unemployed. Hence, putting those two facts together, we get an indication that the young, women and unemployed may disproportionally feel that the treaty would be easily renegotiated by Ireland and hence, by Tim’s criterion, be too ignorant to vote.

Clearly in cases where mental capacity is truly lacking, there is little point in pretending that someone can exercise a vote. However, I’d expect most humans can exercise a vote. That said, I see no reason why someone shouldn’t advocate that, say, only males aged over thirty in full time employment should have a vote – I just want to make it plain that this is the effect of what Tim is saying.

Apologies, I should have read the previous postings. I take back my wild accusations.

Asiaprod

iUseVi wrote: »

Apologies, I should have read the previous postings. I take back my wild accusations.

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote: »

Now, bear in mind, the Government could seek a mandate from the people to scrutinise all EU treaties on the behalf of the electorate. Effectively, every other EU Government seems to have such a mandate. But our Government haven’t done that – so they have to keep coming back to us on issues like this until they do.I’m honestly not sure. I’m simply pointing to the reality that EU Governments are attempting to move in the absence of such a mandate. I think that’s a bad idea, as they are effectively trying to pretend the problem doesn’t exist.

I think they are flummoxed as to why we voted no. We got a good deal in that treaty and we have a track record of getting a lot from the EU. But now they have some very good evidence why we voted no, which would be due to ignorance.

The question is whose fault is that? Government, the EU or the people themselves?

The second question is how to we resolve this impasse. While 70% of no voters seem to think it's quick easy to resolve, the reality is it is anything but.

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think they are flummoxed as to why we voted no. We got a good deal in that treaty and we have a track record of getting a lot from the EU. But now they have some very good evidence why we voted no, which would be due to ignorance.

In fairness, I think they well understand the reasons why electorates vote against more integration. That's why they went to such lengths to avoid the need for a popular mandate.

While I know we should not ascribe to conspiracy what can equally be explained by incompetence, I'd actually wonder if the interventions by French politicians (to the effect that we'd better vote yes or else) were actually intended to provoke a No vote so they could advance the idea of a two speed Europe or otherwise frighten small countries into submission.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The question is whose fault is that? Government, the EU or the people themselves?

At the end of the day, its the Government who are seeking our mandate for this treaty that they've negotiated. And, in fairness, when you consider that their opposition consisted of an uneasy coalition of marginal right and left wing groups they should hardly have found it quite so difficult to get their message across.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The second question is how to we resolve this impasse. While 70% of no voters seem to think it's quick easy to resolve, the reality is it is anything but.

Indeed, it would look like the only possible option is another vote, with some kind of superficial gloss to make it look like a misunderstanding has been cleared up.

But they'll have their work cut out to get it. I mean, if voters knew that one result of a no vote would be France dropping its plans for a European consolidated tax base, the no percentage would probably have rocketed over 60%.

boa-constrictor

Tim

The tone or content of your posts is not going to convert the mind of any normal person. You come across as having an attitude that you are superior to the ignorant people who voted No to Lisbon.

One of the reasons the No vote won out was because the government adopted the same attitude as you - that the people were too stupid to understand and should just vote yes. Brian Cowen said "people are telling me about a phrase here, a clause there - just vote yes".

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing let the cat out of the bag during his interview with Le Monde last year when he said "public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly" and the reality is that the Irish government didn't want the people to understand the treaty for precisely the same reason.

Charlie McCreevy said he hadn't read the treaty and that "only a lunatic would read it".

The Yes side were repeatedly asked to give even one tangible benefit of the Treaty and they failed. All kinds of general benefits were suggested, such as faster decision making, greater democracy (simply untrue) etc etc but not one actual benefit was outlined by any politician. On the contrary the No side pointed out several possible downsides to the treaty and obviously the government didn't address these concerns or else the result would have been different.

The Yes side continuously avoided dealing with the issues at hand. This was evident throughout the campaign when proponents of the treaty verballly attacked the No side instead of their arguments. Of course this worked in favour of the No side.

I am not going to abstain because it suits you, or spoil my vote which is the action of a cretin. I have as much a stake in this as every other citizen and I have an education which enables me to understand any reasonable concept which is explained in a rationale manner. This was not explained in a rationale manner. I picked up the leaflet which was delivered to my house to read it one day and before I had got to the second paragraph it was referring to sections of other documents which I did not have (or would not be expected to have) in my possession. How could people possibly understand the full meaning of the treaty when this is the stupid means used to explain it. I don't believe that you understand the treaty.

I have kept myself informed by listening to all the arguments and discounting arguments from the likes of you.

One (just one) of my reasons for voting No was my belief that Europe will pursue tax harmonisation. Ireland does not enjoy competitive advantage in much and if we are forced to increase our corporation tax rate I believe it will have a very detrimental effect on the country. The goverment say that we have a veto on tax matters - they are saying in effect that we can stand up to Europe on this issue. Given events of the last week I think it is laughable that Brian Cowen could spin a yarn like this. If he was able to stand up to Europe he should have went to Brussels and told them that our vote was to be respected. Instead he went over there apoligising for the Irish vote and the "unchartered waters" it has put us in. Europe is atleast paying lip service to respecting the Irish vote, while secretly planning how to somehow present us with another referendum without it seeming like an absolute attack on democracy. We are about as important in Europe as the Blasket Islands are to Ireland and if the Irish government ever does stand up to Europe we will be as far out in the cold then as we are now so why not stand up to them now and get it over with.

There are many other concerns presented by the treaty which haven't been addressed and if you want to win some votes you could do with addressing them instead of asserting your supremacy.

Tim Robbins

boa-constrictor wrote: »

Tim

The tone or content of your posts is not going to convert the mind of any normal person. You come across as having an attitude that you are superior to the ignorant people who voted No to Lisbon.

One of the reasons the No vote won out was because the government adopted the same attitude as you - that the people were too stupid to understand and should just vote yes. Brian Cowen said "people are telling me about a phrase here, a clause there - just vote yes".

But that's ridiculous logic. Are you voting for Lisbon or the debating style of Brian Cowen?

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing let the cat out of the bag during his interview with Le Monde last year when he said "public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly" and the reality is that the Irish government didn't want the people to understand the treaty for precisely the same reason.

Are you voting for Lisbon or the debating style or comments made by d'Estaing.

Charlie McCreevy said he hadn't read the treaty and that "only a lunatic would read it".

Are you voting for Lisbon or the debating style or an opinion held by McCreevy?

The Yes side were repeatedly asked to give even one tangible benefit of the Treaty and they failed. All kinds of general benefits were suggested, such as faster decision making, greater democracy (simply untrue) etc etc but not one actual benefit was outlined by any politician. On the contrary the No side pointed out several possible downsides to the treaty and obviously the government didn't address these concerns or else the result would have been different.

The no side came out with abject lies about abortion, tax and defense. These claims were dealt with by politicians, the Catholic Church and the referendum commision. I don't know what planet you are on.

The Yes side continuously avoided dealing with the issues at hand. This was evident throughout the campaign when proponents of the treaty verballly attacked the No side instead of their arguments. Of course this worked in favour of the No side.

Well this is flawed again.
The Yes side may not have been perfect but you were not voting for their debating style, you were voting for Lisbon?

I am not going to abstain because it suits you, or spoil my vote which is the action of a cretin. I have as much a stake in this as every other citizen and I have an education which enables me to understand any reasonable concept which is explained in a rationale manner.

I disagree. You sound like you are voting for treaty based on your view of the debating tactics. This is irrational and illogical.

One (just one) of my reasons for voting No was my belief that Europe will pursue tax harmonisation.

More nonsense. We kept our veto on taxation. That is a very simple fact. You are deluded or misinformed.

The goverment say that we have a veto on tax matters - they are saying in effect that we can stand up to Europe on this issue. Given events of the last week I think it is laughable that Brian Cowen could spin a yarn like this.

It's not a yarn, it's there black and white in the treaty.

There are many other concerns presented by the treaty which haven't been addressed and if you want to win some votes you could do with addressing them instead of asserting your supremacy.

There's gaps in the fossils records and evolution is only a theory.
Right you are zero on logic and big up on emotional paranoia.

I understand how you might someone like me arrogant, I find such vacuous arguments exceptionally annoying and if you find them normal and valid, yes you would find me arrogant. Like I said, creationists don't effect my job or my morgage, but sadly no voters have.

We are in limbo now. Out of Lisbon but in the EU. This is an impasse that can't continue. It's very worrying because I can't really see people like yourself realising the precarious situation you have put this state in.

A treaty between 27 states is always going to be of a complex nature. Unfortunately most people don't read that much and don't know that about Europe or politics. For that reason, the debate will be dumbed down to soundbites and scare tactics.

It's because of this sad reality, Cowen is going to have to come up with something very special or otherwise we are f*cked.

Tim Robbins

Another No argument. Taken from Saturday's Irish Times.

Irish Times wrote:

Madam, - We thank God the Father for His guidance to the Irish people in the Lisbon Treaty referendum. Having regard to the overwhelming strength of the political, commercial and media influence in both Europe and Ireland in favour of the treaty, the power of God and prayer has been most evident.

The utmost spiritual gratitude is due to the Irish people, magnified by that due to the Franciscans of the Renewal, Myross, Limerick and especially their guardian, Fr Benedict Groeschel, who invoked the prayers of the 490 million in Europe in association with his EWTN radio and television audience throughout the world.

We believe that Ireland has "sown the seeds of a spiritual revolution" on June 12th.

The challenge ahead for the people of God is to stand up courageously for His Law, to ensure that it is not displaced by an EU secular substitute leading to our eternal damnation. - Yours, etc,

MAIRE and JERRY O'MAHONY, Merrion Square, Dublin 2.

Readers of the Mirror, Star etc eat your heart out.

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Another No argument. Taken from Saturday's Irish Times.

In fairness, while I haven't checked the survey, I don't think that 'because you are a marginalised religious zealot hankering after the Golden Age of Irish Catholicism' was identified as a common no vote reason. I suspect the IT is vanishing up its own hole, much as it did during the campaign itself.

Can I also suggest that, if you want to see a repeated referendum with a Yes vote, then you'll have to bring people like Boa Constrictor around. That means, for the sake of argument, finding an answer that addresses his point of why we should take comfort from a national veto on taxation issues if our supposed national veto on the Lisbon Treaty amounts to nothing.

Now, it may well be that we've just hitched our cart to the EU and its too late to change and, whatever we do, we cannot expect them to provide us with endless Agricultural subsidies and opportunities to rob their corporation tax via transfer pricing while requiring no military commitments.

Which, incidently, makes me think its a little rich to accuse the no campaign of lying in a context where the pro Europe camp tries to pretend there is still no military dimension to the EU, even as 400 Irish soldiers are serving in an EU force in Chad. The doublethink in that outlook is simply bizarre, and shows that real fear of addressing realities in the European context.

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote: »

Which, incidently, makes me think its a little rich to accuse the no campaign of lying in a context where the pro Europe camp tries to pretend there is still no military dimension to the EU, even as 400 Irish soldiers are serving in an EU force in Chad. The doublethink in that outlook is simply bizarre, and shows that real fear of addressing realities in the European context.

It's not doublethink. The Chad mission is supported by the UN and our government. We kept our veto on the defense agency and cannot be told by Europe when to participate in peace keeping missions or a war.

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's because of this sad reality, Cowen is going to have to come up with something very special or otherwise we are f*cked.

Fúcked how?

I think this sums up your attitude to what you think will happen:

Tim Robbins wrote: »

zero on logic and big up on emotional paranoia.

You seem to be absolutely certain that there is nothing but doom and gloom ahead, and with nothing to really back it up.

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's not doublethink. The Chad mission is supported by the UN and our government.

Its doublethink if we're pretending the EU doesn't have a military dimension. I'm not particularly saying the Chad mission is something we should not be a part of. Simply that the extent of our denial of the significance of being there as part of an EU force is doublethink.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We kept our veto on the defense agency and cannot be told by Europe when to participate in peace keeping missions or a war.

Can you appreciate why this comment is not particularly useful in a context where we use our veto on the Lisbon Treaty and find that, apparantly, we actually can be told by Europe when to amend existing Treaties and our veto amounts to nothing.

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Fúcked how?
I think this sums up your attitude to what you think will happen:
You seem to be absolutely certain that there is nothing but doom and gloom ahead, and with nothing to really back it up.

Do you somehow think we can magically stay in Europe and no-one will mind we have not ratified Lisbon?

Europe wants to move on. The parliamentary elections are next May. All other countries want to work under the arrangements agreed in Lisbon. This means election boundries are redrawn and candidates contest the elections under these rules.

Just on this issue alone are you saying:
1. There will be no elections in May. Therefore there is no problem.
2. The elections in May will be under the rules agreed in Nice and no-one will mind.
3. Ireland will participate in the elections in May under Lisbon rules and no-one will notice.
4. Ireland will opt out completely of the elections and loose parliamentary representatives in Europe.

I say we are f*cked because there is no easy answer for what we will happen. You seem to think there's a magc wand, care to elaborate?

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote: »

Its doublethink if we're pretending the EU doesn't have a military dimension. I'm not particularly saying the Chad mission is something we should not be a part of.

No there are clear legal differences. One is Europe can decide when we participate, the other is we decide. Hence this is not double think. That is incorrect.

Can you appreciate why this comment is not particularly useful in a context where we use our veto on the Lisbon Treaty and find that, apparantly, we actually can be told by Europe when to amend existing Treaties and our veto amounts to nothing.

Lost you here.

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote: »

2. The elections in May will be under the rules agreed in Nice and no-one will mind.

This. But with "can legally object" in place of "will mind".

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No there are clear legal differences. One is Europe can decide when we participate, the other is we decide. Hence this is not double think. That is incorrect.

As I said, the failure to acknowledge a significance of our participation (voluntary or otherwise) in an EU force is doublethink.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Lost you here.

Compare your confidence in our veto in the Defence area to the picture of calamity you paint when we actually invoke our veto over Lisbon. If we actually used our veto in the defence area (or in taxation) would we not face exactly the same kind of bullying that we are currently getting over the Lisbon no vote? Would we not similarly have the likes of Sarkozy waxing on about respecting our veto while working to isolate us within the Union?

I'm not sure if I can actually put it any clearer. I'm not trying to be funny, but I find the point sticks out in my mind pretty clearly.

boa-constrictor

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But that's ridiculous logic. Are you voting for Lisbon or the debating style of Brian Cowen?

Are you voting for Lisbon or the debating style or comments made by d'Estaing.

Are you voting for Lisbon or the debating style or an opinion held by McCreevy?

I made a valid point that many of the people advocating a Yes vote haven't put up a good argument. You haven't addressed this at all in your response. Repetion doesn't win an argument. I would have thought that if you really believe that the citizens of this country are so uneducated that they need to be told what way to vote - then surely it would be a good idea if the supposed learned people like Cowen, d'Estaing, McCreevy and yourself put up an intelligible argument.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The no side came out with abject lies about abortion, tax and defense. These claims were dealt with by politicians, the Catholic Church and the referendum commision. I don't know what planet you are on.

Some of the No side came out with possibilities which may or may not materialise. It would have been appropriate for the Yes campaign to give assurances that the treaty would not lead to their fears being realised but they chose not to - why? Was it because they didn't understand the treaty either or was it that the fears were valid.

By the way, even if the No side came up with absolute lies (which I dont think they did), it wouldn't invalidate the entire No argument - it would only damage the argument of those individuals - all the Yes side had to do was point out the lies.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well this is flawed again. The Yes side may not have been perfect but you were not voting for their debating style, you were voting for Lisbon?

I am critising the lack of a valid argument for a Yes vote. Please give me one specific benefit of the Lisbon Treaty and don't lay some guilt trip on me that I have a duty to support Lisbon because of all that Europe has done for me. If thats the case all we have to do is order everyone to vote yes.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I disagree. You sound like you are voting for treaty based on your view of the debating tactics. This is irrational and illogical.

This is like being in a boxing match with an opponent who won't put on his gloves. Ditto above. We can't have a debate unless the Yes side are prepared to debate instead of just telling us to vote Yes.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

More nonsense. We kept our veto on taxation. That is a very simple fact. You are deluded or misinformed.

It's not a yarn, it's there black and white in the treaty.

I aint deluded Tim. Read my post again. I know we claim to have a veto - my point is that our government would neve have the balls to use it.

Schuhart put it better than me when he said;
"Compare your confidence in our veto in the Defence area to the picture of calamity you paint when we actually invoke our veto over Lisbon. If we actually used our veto in the defence area (or in taxation) would we not face exactly the same kind of bullying that we are currently getting over the Lisbon no vote? Would we not similarly have the likes of Sarkozy waxing on about respecting our veto while working to isolate us within the Union?".

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There's gaps in the fossils records and evolution is only a theory.
Right you are zero on logic and big up on emotional paranoia.

I understand how you might someone like me arrogant, I find such vacuous arguments exceptionally annoying and if you find them normal and valid, yes you would find me arrogant. Like I said, creationists don't effect my job or my morgage, but sadly no voters have.

We are in limbo now. Out of Lisbon but in the EU. This is an impasse that can't continue. It's very worrying because I can't really see people like yourself realising the precarious situation you have put this state in.

A treaty between 27 states is always going to be of a complex nature. Unfortunately most people don't read that much and don't know that about Europe or politics. For that reason, the debate will be dumbed down to soundbites and scare tactics.

It's because of this sad reality, Cowen is going to have to come up with something very special or otherwise we are f*cked.

I don't know where this talk of fossils and evolution is coming from. Again I would ask that you debate Lisbon and stop going wildly off the point.

We are at one on the arrogant bit.

You have to understand - we are members of a club (think of it like you would your local golf club if you like). That club has a set of rules and one of the rules is that for any changes to be made to the rules, all members have to agree. They didn't. This doesn't mean that the the club is in trouble (I won't use your language - I'm not accustomed to it) or that the other 26 can toddle off and change the rules anyway - it means the club doesn't change.

I have been speaking to a number of people in the last few days who told me that they voted Yes but have changed their mind based on EU leaders lack of respect for Irelands decision, so I agree with you that Cowen is going to have to pull one serious rabbit out of the hat if he is going to turn this around.

I am starting to think that you may actually be what is referred to as an agent provocateur. I wish you well and hope that you keep posting as I honestly believe that you will convert many of the Yes side to No voters.

Tim Robbins

boa-constrictor wrote: »

I made a valid point that many of the people advocating a Yes vote haven't put up a good argument.

I did this already in post 42. Are you trying to make this debate go round in circles?

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

This. But with "can legally object" in place of "will mind".

And do you think we should make that clear now, so that the other countries can make a decision as to what they will do or do you think we should them stew for a while, prepare for these elections under new rules as they have already communicated to us that that is what they want to do and then break it to them?

Tim Robbins

Today's offering...

Irish Times wrote:

Madam, - I voted No in the referendum mainly because of the moral issues involved - abortion, euthanasia, same-sex "marriage". I believe we should be in control of these vital moral decisions ourselves. Who knows what the European Court would foist on us by its creative interpretations relating to equality, provisions of services, etc?

The majority of Irish people want to leave a better world to our children and grandchildren and especially to leave a Christian legacy. If God is left out of the equation (and the EU does this) how can our country be blessed? I must also admit to a fear that further militarisation of the EU could see my four-month-old grandson face conscription in the fullness of time.

I know these matters are not specifically set out in the treaty but for me they can certainly be implied as more and more control is given to a godless Brussels. - Yours, etc,

(Mrs) CATHERINE SCOTT,

Sweetbriar Lawn,

Tramore,

Co Waterford.

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote: »

As I said, the failure to acknowledge a significance of our participation (voluntary or otherwise) in an EU force is doublethink.

No. It's sophistry to say "voluntary or otherwise" as it is only voluntary. That's the key point which are missing and the reason why it is not double think.

Compare your confidence in our veto in the Defence area to the picture of calamity you paint when we actually invoke our veto over Lisbon. If we actually used our veto in the defence area (or in taxation) would we not face exactly the same kind of bullying that we are currently getting over the Lisbon no vote? Would we not similarly have the likes of Sarkozy waxing on about respecting our veto while working to isolate us within the Union?

We are not be bullied by the EU. If it was clear what parts of Lisbon we were not happy with we could negotiate opt clauses like we have on security and asylum policies. The problem is that it is not clear what parts we are not happy with.

It is simple unreleastic to expect 26 countries to rip up a treaty because we are incapabale of articulating what we don't like about it.

Nobody is forcing Lisbon on this state. It is simply disingenious to say that is the case. We can opt out completly or find some opt out clauses. However, most of the no vote is so asinine in its reasoning it's look very difficult to see what opt out clauses or what parts we need to resolve.

All we are getting is the "people have spoken", "democracy is the winner" and several other sound bites, nonsensical idealistic revolution talk and vacuous and baseless paranoia speak.

This is not anyway to move forward. The sad thing is that most no voters (judging by boards.ie and media coverage) seem to not have an iota of what a mess we are in and do not seem bothered about how to find a resolution.

I mean the only no grouping to even bother put forward a suggestion for a way forward was Sinn Fein.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Today's offering...

I'm still waiting for you to point out whats wrong with "my offering" in post 137, I know a lot of people who voted no for this reason and I'm waiting to see if you have any counter to this claim or even if you think its acceptable.

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote: »

As I said, the failure to acknowledge a significance of our participation (voluntary or otherwise) in an EU force is doublethink.

No. It's sophistry to say "voluntary or otherwise" as it is only voluntary. That's the key point which are missing and the reason why it is not double think.

Compare your confidence in our veto in the Defence area to the picture of calamity you paint when we actually invoke our veto over Lisbon. If we actually used our veto in the defence area (or in taxation) would we not face exactly the same kind of bullying that we are currently getting over the Lisbon no vote? Would we not similarly have the likes of Sarkozy waxing on about respecting our veto while working to isolate us within the Union?

We are not be bullied by the EU. If it was clear what parts of Lisbon we were not happy with we could negotiate opt clauses like we have on security and asylum policies. The problem is that it is not clear what parts we are not happy with.

It is simple unreleastic to expect 26 countries to rip up a treaty because we are incapabale of articulating what we don't like about it.

Nobody is forcing Lisbon on this state. It is simply disingenious to say that is the case. We can opt out completly or find some opt out clauses. However, most of the no vote is so asinine in its reasoning it's look very difficult to see what opt out clauses or what parts we need to resolve.

All we are getting is the "people have spoken", "democracy is the winner" and several other sound bites, nonsensical idealistic revolution talk and vacuous and baseless paranoia speak.

This is not anyway to move forward. The sad thing is that most no voters (judging by boards.ie and media coverage) seem to not have an iota of what a mess we are in and do not seem bothered about how to find a resolution.

I mean the only no grouping to even bother put forward a suggestion for a way forward was Sinn Fein.

An Fear Aniar

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is not anyway to move forward. The sad thing is that most no voters (judging by boards.ie and media coverage) seem to not have an iota of what a mess we are in and do not seem bothered about how to find a resolution.

Who said we have to keep moving forward? Whose master-plan are we being forced to follow?

De Valera put a spanner in the works for sure, the crafty bugger.



.