Are we that blind and forgetful?

Biggins

THE PRESIDENT of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, has warned of a shift towards "supranationalism" in Europe which he says is suppressing freedom and democracy.

He mentioned this during a visit to a dinner with Mr Ganley of Libertas.
News Source:http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/1112/1226408554928.html

Fine Gael's foreign affairs spokesman Billy Timmins said the Minister for Foreign Affairs should lodge a formal complaint with his Czech counterpart over Mr Klaus's "inappropriate behaviour in creating a very definite perception that he is strongly sympathising with groupings and individuals who are opposed to Irish Government policy".

I would like at this juncture to point out to Fianna Gael whom have gotten very blind all of a sudden or even more stupider, that this is the same Irish government that is ignoring the voted mandate that the Irish people have set out at the last referendum!

Where does the public lodge a complaint when we are ignored when the Irish government sympathises with the EU and overrides the will of the people!

Fianna Gael - Kop yourself on you idiots. Pick a side and friggin' stick to it.
No wonder your a useless party.
The government ignores our (referendum) mandate but that's ok...
...But you give out against a foreign leader whom is opposed to an idea that the charlatans in the Dail are trying to force onto the public! (...wait - isn't that called bullying by the way?)

And by the way, I most defiantly am not a F.F. supporter - I'm not supporting Libertas.

It just pisses me off when someone/party ignores (for the sake of self-interest?), whats being forced on the people against their clear wishes but gives out with the government bullies when someone else actually stands up for the wishes of the people when our own elected wasters won't do it!

Fianna Gael - conveniently blind and silent when it suits them.

Sorry Fianna Gael - some of us, are all NOT that blind, clearly forgetful and stupid as ye are.

Villain

Its funny you have a foreign President on a state visit getting hassle for respecting the mandate of the Irish voters!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nhughes100

Well Fine Gael decided to back Lisbon so on the Lisbon issue we can tar them all with the same brush - Sinn Fein were the only party to oppose it, the Greens as usual didn't have an opinion either way.

Biggins

F.Gael should get off the fence!

They give out about someone that speaks up about a mandate which is wished for by the Irish public (but ignored!), yet F.Gael side with the bullies and now seemly are kissing their ass on this issue.

What the hell is going on today in Irish politics!

Hypocrisy of the highest order!

mike65

Sure the Government Press officials shut the Irish media out of the Vaclav Klaus press conference on Monday.

Mike

passive

Biggins wrote: »

...But you give out against a foreign leader whom is opposed to an idea that the charlatans in the Dail are trying to force onto the public! (...wait - isn't that called bullying by the way?)

Okay, for a start it's Fine Gael, not Fianna Gael. Regarding the bullying issue; as has come up before, this is not the playground and we are not 7. We don't need to throw a tantrum or lash out at teacher because we're being asked not to play on the grass. The grass is muddy and will ruin our nice clothes.

Mr Klaus going out of his way to meet with Declan Ganley is extremely disturbing and inappropriate. Even as a No supporter, you cannot deny the fact the Libertas's questionably funded campaign printed out and out lies and confused the people willfully to muddy the waters and prevent an informed decision from being made. This man is opposed to the European Union and wants to use us as an instrument in its weakness and demise. You're playing right into his hand.

Pick a side and friggin' stick to it.

They're the opposition, yes... But if there was some horrible disaster or crisis and Fianna Fail proposed measures and began taking action to help the people and sort out the problems, Fine Gael would not, and should not, oppose them on this for the sake of it. They're allowed make intelligent choices that benefit the Irish people (Voting Yes to Lisbon, for example) rather than attacking the Govt at every opportunity and using issues like this to score points and gain supporters (like, oh, I don't know, Sinn Fein?)

Biggins

passive wrote: »

Okay, for a start, you politically informed mastermind, it's Fine Gael, not Fianna Gael. Regarding the bullying issue; as has come up before, this is not the playground and we are not 7. We don't need to throw a tantrum or lash out at teacher because we're being asked not to play on the grass. The grass is muddy and will ruin our nice clothes.

Mr Klaus going out of his way to meet with Declan Ganley is extremely disturbing and inappropriate. Even as a No supporter, you cannot deny the fact the Libertas's questionably funded campaign printed out and out lies and confused the people willfully to muddy the waters and prevent an informed decision from being made. This man is opposed to the European Union and wants to use us as an instrument in its weakness and demise. You're playing right into his hand.



They're the opposition, yes... But if there was some horrible disaster or crisis and Fianna Fail proposed measures and began taking action to help the people and sort out the problems, Fine Gael would not, and should not, oppose them on this for the sake of it. They're allowed make intelligent choices that benefit the Irish people (Voting Yes to Lisbon, for example) rather than attacking the Govt at every opportunity and using issues like this to score points and gain supporters (like, oh, I don't know, Sinn Fein?)

You clearly missed my point (I'm ignoring the spelling issue).

I might not agree with Mr Klaus but F. Gael are forgetting about our mandate being ignored but giving out when someone else speaks about it - not even up for it - just about it.

F. Gael are ignoring what convenient - that the shower in the Dail are ignoring the referendum result - they are very silent on that matter
...but are speaking up and annoyed when someone else does what they are supposed to do, ie: represent by coincidence, the wishes of the Irish public.
I have the right to agree or disagree with Klaus but at least he is voicing at a higher level what the Government and F. Gael is ignoring.

F. Gael have the right to side with any policy that in the best interests of the Irish public, even if the public disagree with it.
but - and this is my main point - they are ignoring the over-riding of the mandate of the public, staying silent and dumb, and giving out only when someone else does their job and agrees with with the public!
(that's called Democracy in practise by the way!)

They stay quiet - say nothing abut the bullying, say nothing about the quiet sliding in of the E.U. Constitution by hidden legal means, they say nothing when more E.U. imposed Big Brother laws are slipped in.. etc...

...but they speak up and are enraged when someone actual sticks up for the Irish public!

seamus

Wait, the government have ignored the referendum results and are going ahead with Lisbon? Why was I not informed?

Oh wait, no they haven't.

The government, or any else for that matter, are allowed to be in support of a treaty that's been defeated at referendum. They're just not allowed to implement it.

The will of the people has been carried out - Lisbon has not been ratified. Where's the confusion here?

The Czech PM is getting stick because he's making a very clear statement to the EU as to where his intentions lie.

Villain

Passive incase you forgot the majority of the Irish electroate supported many views held by Libertas.

As for the funding issues, well if he shouldn't be talking to people who are members of political groups who have questions over where their money came from in the past you might want to tell him Brian Cowen is a member of Fianna Fail

Villain

seamus wrote: »

Wait, the government have ignored the referendum results and are going ahead with Lisbon? Why was I not informed?

Oh wait, no they haven't.

The government, or any else for that matter, are allowed to be in support of a treaty that's been defeated at referendum. They're just not allowed to implement it.

The will of the people has been carried out - Lisbon has not been ratified. Where's the confusion here?

The Czech PM is getting stick because he's making a very clear statement to the EU as to where his intentions lie.

Perhaps Seamus you need to read the views expressed by Dick Roche and other members of the Government since the vote was cast

seamus

Villain wrote: »

Passive incase you forgot the majority of the Irish electroate supported many views held by Libertas.

Let's clarify that. The majority of those who voted "No", believed the same falsehoods that Libertas were touting.

Perhaps Seamus you need to read the views expressed by Dick Roche and other members of the Government since the vote was cast

Any member of government is perfectly entitled to express their view.

Biggins

seamus wrote: »

Wait, the government have ignored the referendum results and are going ahead with Lisbon? Why was I not informed?

Oh wait, no they haven't.

Dear Gawd, even main parties on all sides have admitted that there will be more than likely another expensive referendum to try and get us to say "Yes" again.
In the meanwhile, in the media, through our letter boxes, etc we are getting promo items for the EU espousing what good they are doing for us.

...and I might add that Mr Cowan has admitted that he is trying to change parts of Irish law so that he can without a further referendum, bring in part of the Constitution/Treaty without the need for another vote. This is on record and has been reported on.

Don't tell me, the government is sticking with the results of the referendum!

We are getting away for the main point of this thread though.

The hypocrisy of F.Gael.

oscarBravo

Biggins wrote: »

Don't tell me, the government is sticking with the results of the referendum!

The referendum asked whether the constitution should be amended.

The answer was "no".

The constitution wasn't amended.



Have I missed something?

Villain

seamus wrote: »

Let's clarify that. The majority of those who voted "No", believed the same falsehoods that Libertas were touting.

That may be the case but we can't be caertain.

seamus wrote: »

Any member of government is perfectly entitled to express their view.

And anyone is welcome to pretend that view isn't shared among the rest of the Government, do you honestly think the rest of FF don't want any referendum? or at least wanted one before they went and made a shambles of the budget any referendum would be lost again because the electorate have no other way of expressing their anger at the Government rightly or wrongly.

seamus

But you're trying to make it out like this is some sort of coup, that the government are taking control and completely ignoring their constitutional duties.

They are not doing anything which they have not already got the power to do. We (being the people, probably not me and you) voted them in, therefore we gave them this power and therefore gave them the right to operate like this within that power.

You can call it underhanded and unethical, but the simple fact is that there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.

The Irish people voted "No" to changing the constitution, and they are not doing that. Ergo, the will of the Irish people is not being ignored.

We voted in a pro-EU government, so they're trying to be pro-EU. If we don't want a pro-EU government, we should stop voting them in.

That may be the case but we can't be caertain.

There were a number of polls released (and posted here, don't have the link to hand), that showed 75% (or thereabouts) of No voters, voted based on issues which had nothing to do with the treaty.

Biggins

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have I missed something?

Yes, the current changes that are coming to parts of Irish law, changes that are right now under review and closed door discussion, that will bring in parts of the constitution/treaty without the need for a vote.

This has been reported on and Mr Cowan admitted it is going on.

We voted on the entire contents of the constitution/treaty - not just parts of it.
We said "No" as a final vote, to the lot of it - even if we might have agreed with some aspects.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

The referendum asked whether the constitution should be amended.

The answer was "no".

The constitution wasn't amended.



Have I missed something?

If it ended there OscarBravo you would be spot on, but they will keep asking the question until they get the result they want, or try and bring aspects of the treaty without changing the Constitution.

For its worth I'm not surprised at FG, they support the treaty so obviously they are going to attack the views held by Vaclav Klaus, just because a party is in opposition doesn't mean they will represent the majority of voters.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

That may be the case but we can't be caertain.

True, largely because many people who voted "no" have a habit of getting defensive when they're asked why they did so.

...any referendum would be lost again because the electorate have no other way of expressing their anger at the Government rightly or wrongly.

Yeah, that shows them. Far more effective than talking to their elected representatives and expressing their anger directly, or - perish the thought - not voting for them.

oscarBravo

Biggins wrote: »

Yes, the current changes that are coming to parts of Irish law, changes that are right now under review and closed door discussion, that will bring in parts of the constitution/treaty without the need for a vote.

This has what, precisely, to do with a referendum on a constitutional amendment?

We voted on the entire contents of the constitution/treaty - not just parts of it.
We said "No" as a final vote, to the lot of it - even if we might have agreed with some aspects.

I'm not sure what was written on your ballot paper, but mine asked if I wanted to amend the constitution.

Villain wrote: »

If it ended there OscarBravo you would be spot on, but they will keep asking the question until they get the result they want, or try and bring aspects of the treaty without changing the Constitution.

Or, in the interim, the EU decides to work around us - or suspend our membership.

All of which is a hell of a lot more likely than us ever getting a straight answer as to why people voted "no".

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, that shows them. Far more effective than talking to their elected representatives and expressing their anger directly, or - perish the thought - not voting for them.

I did say rightly or wrongly, but sadly people feel the only way they get to the government is through the ballet box and as a general election is some way off the only vote they will get is the local and European elections and then another referendum.

As for talking to their elected representatives and expressing their anger directly, I have done that and I can tell you you might as well be talking to the wall, take the education cuts and the cervical cancer vaccine cutbacks, my local TD seems to think this is tough but ok. You can't get through to these people and sadly many people would use a referendum to get their across.

I mean if we had another referendum net month we would have FF TD's calling at doorsteps night and day looking for a yes vote, what do you think most people would say to them? DO you think they would say

" oh your not here to discuss the local issues or the assault on childrens education or the cervical cancer vaccine cutbacks or the state of the health system, you just want me to talk about Lisbon and then vote Yes, em ok yea sure TD"?

Biggins

oscarBravo wrote: »

This has what, precisely, to do with a referendum on a constitutional amendment?

That they are trying to insert parts of the constitution/treaty into other parts of Irish law if they can't (so far) get it into the constitution. I can't believe you can't see that.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure what was written on your ballot paper, but mine asked if I wanted to amend the constitution.

...as did mine. The public said "No" - so the constitution/treaty parts were rejected in its entirety. Again to repeat the above: they are trying to insert parts of the constitution/treaty into other parts of Irish law if they can't (so far) get it into the constitution.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

As for talking to their elected representatives and expressing their anger directly, I have done that and I can tell you you might as well be talking to the wall, take the education cuts and the cervical cancer vaccine cutbacks, my local TD seems to think this is tough but ok.

Then you should explain to your local TD that you won't be voting for him; that nobody in your family will be voting for him; and in fact you're going to pick a prominent opposition candidate and start canvassing for him. Ideally, follow up by doing just that.

You can't get through to these people and sadly many people would use a referendum to get their across.

Which is a great idea, apart from the twin flaws that (1) it doesn't work - the feckers are still running the country - and (2) it has the unfortunate side-effect of defeating a referendum for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the referendum itself. It's a bit like setting fire to an ambulance because your neighbour pissed you off: your neighbour's no worse off, and we're short an ambulance.

I mean if we had another referendum net month we would have FF TD's calling at doorsteps night and day looking for a yes vote, what do you think most people would say to them? DO you think they would say

" oh your not here to discuss the local issues or the assault on childrens education or the cervical cancer vaccine cutbacks or the state of the health system, you just want me to talk about Lisbon and then vote Yes, em ok yea sure TD"?

I don't know what anyone else would say, but I'd say "I'll be voting yes, but I won't be voting for you in the next election, and here's why..."

oscarBravo

Biggins wrote: »

That they are trying to insert parts of the constitution/treaty into other parts of Irish law if they can't (so far) get it into the constitution. I can't believe you can't see that.

I can, and it doesn't add up to a claim that the referendum result is being ignored.

By the same token I could claim that the referendum was a protest vote against the government, and the fact that the same government is still in power means that the vote was ignored. Doesn't make it true.

The public said "No" - so the constitution/treaty parts were rejected in its entirety. Again to repeat the above: they are trying to insert parts of the constitution/treaty into other parts of Irish law if they can't (so far) get it into the constitution.

European law gets transposed into Irish law all the time without referendum.

I actually don't agree with the approach of trying to implement parts of the treaty piecemeal. I can't imagine that there's any point in even doing so. The treaty gets ratified or it doesn't; that's the nature of the treaty.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then you should explain to your local TD that you won't be voting for him; that nobody in your family will be voting for him; and in fact you're going to pick a prominent opposition candidate and start canvassing for him. Ideally, follow up by doing just that.

That has been said and will be followed through with it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which is a great idea, apart from the twin flaws that (1) it doesn't work - the feckers are still running the country - and (2) it has the unfortunate side-effect of defeating a referendum for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the referendum itself. It's a bit like setting fire to an ambulance because your neighbour pissed you off: your neighbour's no worse off, and we're short an ambulance.

Oh I agree with you Oscar thats why I used the word "sadly", if you want me to think that people would view another referendum as a single issue and not use their vote to show their anger at the Government I'm sorry I jsut can't see it happening, in an ideal world maybe but in reality it would never happen

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know what anyone else would say, but I'd say "I'll be voting yes, but I won't be voting for you in the next election, and here's why..."

I may well say the same but I know many many others who wouldn't even give the TD a chance to talk and tbh it would be a fair cheek to call to a voters door looking for their vote on one matter while at the same time ignoring what their views on other matters.

Biggins

IF you can't see the first point, thats an insight ability issue that we could argue for ever...
We will have to agree to disagree on that one or we will get no where...

On the second point "European law gets transposed into Irish law all the time without referendum" - maybe so but those laws are not part of something that has been rejected by a vote - but are instead now it seems, re-worded and in the near future, inserted elsewhere where applicable into standard non-votable on, Irish state law.

JoeTheDumber

I think the 2nd referendum, the 2nd "GO", will be brilliant.

Even the dumbest of idiots will have to admit "we are being had here, this whole thing is a farce".

JoeTheDumber

oscarBravo wrote: »

True, largely because many people who voted "no" have a habit of getting defensive when they're asked why they did so.

I voted NO. And here's why. The EU is a joke, a corrupt, totalitarian bureaucracy run by gangsters.

JoeTheDumber

seamus wrote: »

We voted in a pro-EU government, so they're trying to be pro-EU. If we don't want a pro-EU government, we should stop voting them in.

Name a party which is not pro EU.

seamus wrote: »

There were a number of polls released (and posted here, don't have the link to hand), that showed 75% (or thereabouts) of No voters, voted based on issues which had nothing to do with the treaty.

What a joke BIFFO never even read the treaty, your leader never even read it, and yet you come out with this tatter.

seamus

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

Name a party which is not pro EU.

Sinn Féin

What a joke BIFFO never even read the treaty, your leader never even read it, and yet you come out with this tatter.

What's that got to do with anything? If Biffo didn't read it, that's his problem.

The reasons for the no vote given ranged from, "I don't understand it" to "I don't want my child conscripted".

Villain

seamus wrote: »

Sinn Féin
What's that got to do with anything? If Biffo didn't read it, that's his problem.

The reasons for the no vote given ranged from, "I don't understand it" to "I don't want my child conscripted".

Do you usually agree to sign off on legal documents you don't understand or take the word of people you don't trust that you should sign off on them

seamus

Villain wrote: »

Do you usually agree to sign off on legal documents you don't understand or take the word of people you don't trust that you should sign off on them

No, I read the friggin' things before I sign them. :rolleyes:

It wasn't rocket science. If you could read, you could understand it.

Very early on, a Libertas cohort came out and said, "I'm a big rich businessman. I've read this and it makes no sense. So don't bother reading it, it's nonsensical".

And a lot of people seemed to listen. Without fail, every single person who told me that they didn't know what it was about or didn't understand it, hadn't read a single piece of literature about it.

JoeTheDumber

seamus wrote: »

Sinn Féin.

Major?

seamus wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything? If Biffo didn't read it, that's his problem. .

Oh, I could not care less. However for FF to come out and say the NO voters were uninformed is a bit of a joke given his statement. And I my opinion, FF are operating with a gun to their head. They don't want a EU superstate any more than the rest of us, however the old "power of the purse" is working at its fullest. The international bankers could throw a small country like this into turmoil is one day, they know that.

seamus wrote: »

The reasons for the no vote given ranged from, "I don't understand it" to "I don't want my child conscripted".

My reasons are listed in the post above.

JoeTheDumber

seamus wrote: »

It wasn't rocket science. If you could read, you could understand it.

.

I'm not sure if you are naive or playing dumb, however what you read was a legal document, and as a result the words do not mean what you think. Why do you think most documents have preambles? Give even one passage to 5 different lawyers and you will get five completely and often contradictory answers.

Villain

seamus wrote: »

No, I read the friggin' things before I sign them. :rolleyes:

It wasn't rocket science. If you could read, you could understand it.

Very early on, a Libertas cohort came out and said, "I'm a big rich businessman. I've read this and it makes no sense. So don't bother reading it, it's nonsensical".

And a lot of people seemed to listen. Without fail, every single person who told me that they didn't know what it was about or didn't understand it, hadn't read a single piece of literature about it.

Well Seamus I read it and I didn't understand it all and I can assure you while I may not be a rocket scientist I am quite intelligent.

And seeing as though the Referendum commission were unsure on aspects of it maybe you should look to get involved with them when the next vote comes if you understood it all

seamus

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

However for FF to come out and say the NO voters were uninformed is a bit of a joke given his statement.

Except that it wasn't FF. It was an independent poll. Agreeing that voters were uninformed would have been an admission of failure on FF's part. And we know they don't like to admit failure.

And I my opinion, FF are operating with a gun to their head. They don't want a EU superstate any more than the rest of us

I fail to see how an "EU Superstate" has any relevance to Lisbon.

oscarBravo

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are naive or playing dumb, however what you read was a legal document, and as a result the words do not mean what you think. Why do you think most documents have preambles? Give even one passage to 5 different lawyers and you will get five completely and often contradictory answers.

Bye bye, casey.

Villain

The following is the speech Declan Ganley delivered at dinner last night in honour of Czech President Vaclav Klaus.

Mr. President, Madam First Lady, Mr Ambassador, Ladies and Gentleman, good evening, and thank you for coming;

When the current President, Nicolas Sarkozy, visited Ireland in the summer, after our referendum, he was outspokenly on the minority losing side. Yet we in Ireland ensured he talked freely to those he wanted to meet, including those who had won and represented the majority. You, as leader of the country hosting the next Presidency of Europe, from January, have had more difficulty, but happily you join us for this event tonight which is immensely important for my guests and for myself and for the majority of the Irish electorate.

We gather here this evening, Mr. President, from across Ireland and many nations of Europe, in your honour and with great pleasure we add our voices to those who have welcomed both you and your lovely wife to our country.

We greatly appreciate your friendship.

We honour you for your record.

We thank you for your decency towards us, the dignity in which you hold our Democracy, and the undoubted respect you have for our independence of thought and of action. In the wild days of storm and stress that have beset not just this country but Europe and wider world since our summer referendum, our attitude has been a national strength to us in which we hope you join. It is our determination to share that spirit within Europe.

Because of your leadership, your country is a better, freer, more prosperous and peaceful place. And you, at its heart, have a clear record of standing by your principles. One of these has been that you have been a friend to those who love democracy and freedom.

You have been a consistent voice against tyranny and oppression, immediately appealing to the Irish mind and heart, and for this we feel honoured that you are here tonight.

You have come here tonight because unlike some voices we have recently heard from Brussels, you value democracy above all else.

You heard the voice of the Irish people in June, and you have come here to respect and heed it, and for that we are grateful.

You have come here also, because like us, you have come to realise that Europe is being undermined by an elite group in Brussels who are on the verge of abandoning permanently Europe's experiment with democracy. It was the great achievement of the Irish Referendum Campaign to lay bare democratic deficit that currently lays at Brussels core. To highlight this deficit was our main purpose and it remains our main purpose now. The response of Europe to the straightforward sovereign declaration of our people, in rejecting the Lisbon Treaty, was immediate and authoritarian. Leaders in Europe expressed a view that was a denial of the popular vote. It was falsely manufactured by the same elite group and it’s abundantly clear they remain a threat to democracy’s future in Europe.

For much of your life you have watched such threats becoming manifest. They have a simple and suffocating purpose in which the democratic will of free peoples is overridden by elite. Their interest is single-minded and narrow. They pursue versions of progress that suit them and keep them in power. Their version of progress is made up of vague promises of an illusory 'better future'. That future belongs to them and is exclusive. It does not belong to the people of Europe.

You saw the discontent which that action breeds. You saw its results. You led the fight against it.

Here in Ireland, we became in June the third country democratically to reject the anti-democratic path that our leaders in Brussels have attempted to force upon us.

We rejected a Treaty that would have led us down a path towards rule by bureaucracy. We threw it out. And that part of what we did is over.

We rejected the idea of an unelected President.

We rejected the idea of a Europe directed by periodic prompts from the politicians around whom the bureaucrats were running rings.

Ireland said that it did not want an occasional voice at the table where decisions were made. It wanted the people of Europe to control that table much more directly.

We rejected the idea of our elected Parliament having only token power.

We rejected the idea of placing more power in the hands of a Commission driven by a mixture of private ideologies, a Commission that never needed to answer to the people they ruled.

We did not vote against Europe.

We rejected it because we Irish are truly European, we are European to the Core. We have suffered our own indignities. We have fought for our right to be heard. We know the value of Democracy. As Jefferson said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Vigilance sometimes includes reading the Treaties we are being asked to sign.

We knew others in Europe felt the same. We know that people in your country feel the same.

We rejected the Treaty because we did not want the voices of our brothers and sisters in France and the Netherlands be ignored, or see their wishes discarded.

The continued centralization of power in Brussels is not in itself a worthy goal.

We believed that our rights are our own to assert.

That our values are our own to choose.

And that our economies should be free and flexible in order to compete.

We did not reject the idea that together in Europe, we are stronger.

We did not reject your friendship, or the friendship of any nation in the Union.

Our vote should be seen in that light.

It was not a vote to disengage from Europe. It was a vote to change and correct Europe's course for the better. It was a vote to make Europe legitimate by making it properly democratic.

We need to change the balance in Brussels between the unelected elite and elected representatives.

Further integration is a good and worthy objective, but it needs to be agreed. We, with all the citizens of Europe, must sanction it democratically.

We do not want to see more power given to an organization that has, on so many occasions, shown its contempt for democracy.

The contempt was so great that before a single vote was cast in our
referendum, the European Parliament voted not to respect the result.

That contempt has continued every day since the vote on June 12th.

It is a contempt exemplified by a Commission that has continued to plan the
Treaty's implementation in defiance of our democratic voice.

That contempt is shown by the Parliament. Its members have called for the investigation of our campaign. They have circulated a Report on the Media. Yet they have never considered calling on the Commission to respect and heed our result.

Their view is that any dissent should be crushed. That the voice of the majority be silenced from the airwaves.

They believe that self determination is a theoretical right that people can have, but should not use.

They believe that Democracy is an more obstacle to be overcome.

They act as if they, and not the free peoples of Europe, created our prosperity.

We are told that we should give up more and more vetoes in the name of co-operation. This formula, by definition, leads to coercion.

We are told that we should give up our seat at the commission, while giving the commission more power.

We are told: if you do not do all these things, the consequences will be too terrible to behold. But no one explains this.

We in Ireland, making our democratic decision, have not been influenced by outside interests and organisations. We have simply exercised our democratic right to reject this authoritarian approach. It is though the idea of calling for democratic accountability is a strange un-European and foreign thing to do.

I'd like to remind some that we in Ireland were able to make stands for freedom long before Columbus learned to walk, never mind sail.

In response to any crisis, we are told that if only Brussels had more power, the crisis would be solved. Yet when we work together in a democratic spirit of co-operation, we can and will solve all our problems.

Democracy means compromising, listening to all voices, the submission of power
to the ballot box. And it is a process vastly preferable to the prescriptions Brussels wants us to adopt.

We will not be bullied. We will not allow more power to bigger countries at the expense of smaller nations. Change will not come at the expense of the right of all of Europe's citizens to hold our law-makers democratically accountable.

Mr. President, that is our position, and I believe it is moral and correct. But it is still not the position of a majority of your colleagues in Europe's capitals.

It will not be their position until the people of Europe force them to adopt it.

We need to create a platform for change from which all of Europe can speak with one voice.

There is a need for those of us who hold this view to win a mandate for our position.

Across Europe, the voice of the people has been silenced by Governments who feared the consequences of a free vote.

Next June, in the European elections. We have an opportunity to speak with
one voice, the voice of the people, the true and unheard voice of Europe.

Whether the language you speak is Irish, English, French, German, Maygar,
Italian, Czech, or Polish, we will have the chance to speak together in the only language
that some political leaders seem to understand, the language of the ballot box.

Giving people the opportunity to speak will require a pan-European movement and the courage and ambition for our wn change. Building that movement will be hard work, it may even be impossible. But it is the task to which we have set ourselves. And our reason? It is necessary and the people of Europe deserve better than to be treated with contempt by unaccountable elites.

If we succeed, we will win a mandate that will shake the NON-accountable grip of the Brussels elite to its foundations and chart a better course for a new European Renaissance.

The opportunity exists to give the people of Europe a chance to express their hope and vision for a European Union that works for, and listens to, them.

The mandate we seek is a mandate to change Europe, to change it in a way that can address the flaw highlighted by your predecessor President Havel when he once said "Europe speaks to my head but says nothing to my heart".

I believe that the European Union can attain that heart that it so badly needs.

It is one that can embrace, respect and endear itself to all Europeans. It recognises that democracy is something that unites us all and through which, in dignity, we can work together as one.

It is too early to say whether this can be done, Mr. President, but it is not too late to try.

So tonight, I thank you for coming to our country, and honouring us so greatly with your presence. I congratulate and thank you for all you have done for your own country. And I ask you and your people to stand with us and with the majority of the Irish people and in their turn, the majority of The French and Dutch people also.

We are a country of 4 million people, standing against the entire power of the Brussels elite.

We will be bullied, cajoled, hectored, and then bullied some more as they try to force us to bend the knee and bow our heads in contrition for standing up to them.

But we are the Irish and noit for the first time in our history, we are willing to stand on principle.

We are willing to fight for our right to say no. We will have the voices of all Europeans listened to and respected.

And we need your help.

For more than a decade, yours has been a voice for democracy, reform, and
self-determination.

Yours has been a voice for the rule of law, and for the democratic
process.

Yours has been a voice for economic freedom, and for limits on the powers of over-reaching governing bodies. I ask you tonight to stand with Ireland, and to stand with the principles
We are fighting to protect.

We have been honoured to have you here this evening, and by your genuine
and manifest respect for the dignity and decency of the Irish people.

We are honoured to call you our friend;

And we hope that the friendship between our two small, but great nations, will endure for many centuries to come.

Thank you and God bless you and the people of The Czech Republic.

thebman

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

Major?

Aren't Sinn Fein the only all Ireland party with representation North and South? That's pretty major

podge79

seamus wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything? If Biffo didn't read it, that's his problem.

he came out and said "trust us on this" and then turns around and says nah i couldnt have been arsed reading it... if the highest members of the government cant be bothered to read it and dont know whats in it with all their advisors around to do up summary briefing papers for them what chance had the ordinary man in the street of understanding it?

cooperguy

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

I voted NO. And here's why. The EU is a joke, a corrupt, totalitarian bureaucracy run by gangsters.

Here is a little fact that many people on the No side seem to forget. Ireland was nothing short of a complete sh*thole before the EU. Lets not forget that.

I got all sorts of ridiculous reasons for people voting No aswell. Everything from it will bring in Abortion and Euthanasia to that there will be mandatory military service.

nhughes100

cooperguy wrote: »

Here is a little fact that many people on the No side seem to forget. Ireland was nothing short of a complete sh*thole before the EU. Lets not forget that.

I got all sorts of ridiculous reasons for people voting No aswell. Everything from it will bring in Abortion and Euthanasia to that there will be mandatory military service.

No Ireland was in rag order before we joined the EEC, we were doing fine when the EU came along and no they are not the same thing. Funny little thing about democracy is that the well informed no voter gets one vote and so does the Coir nutcase.

oscarBravo

nhughes100 wrote: »

...the well informed no voter...

...of whom I think I've encountered enough to count on the fingers of one hand, so far.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

...of whom I think I've encountered enough to count on the fingers of one hand, so far.

You need to get out more OscarBravo

oscarBravo

Oh, I've met plenty of "no" voters, don't get me wrong.

podge79

oscarBravo wrote: »

...of whom I think I've encountered enough to count on the fingers of one hand, so far.

ah yes the "its my ball i'm going home" routine in the guise of blame the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the other (in this case 'no') side for treaty ratification failure....

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, I've met plenty of "no" voters, don't get me wrong.

Well I find it hard to believe out of 862,415 people who voted no you have only met 5 that were well informed.

nhughes100

I've only met one person who admitted to voting yes. I wonder is "well informed" being confused with "agrees with me" Them grapes are getting very sour.

oscarBravo

podge79 wrote: »

ah yes the "its my ball i'm going home" routine in the guise of blame the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the other (in this case 'no') side for treaty ratification failure....

I don't remember mentioning intelligence.

Villain wrote: »

Well I find it hard to believe out of 862,415 people who voted no you have only met 5 that were well informed.

I've heard a bewildering array of reasons for voting no, all the way up to someone who was voting "no" because Lisbon would prohibit open coffins at funerals. Those whom I'd consider well-informed "no" voters are avowed Euroskeptics, which - while I don't agree with it - is at least a somewhat rational reason for voting against an EU treaty.

nhughes100 wrote: »

I've only met one person who admitted to voting yes.

Maybe you need to get out more.

I wonder is "well informed" being confused with "agrees with me"

Nope. The vast, vast, vast majority of people I've encountered who voted against the treaty did so either for reasons irrelevant to the treaty document, or - by their own admission - because they didn't understand what they were being asked. Both are what I'd describe as ill-informed. It's not necessarily a pejorative term.

Villain

Do you not think one of the main issue with the treaty is that people couldn't understand it?

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

Do you not think one of the main issue with the treaty is that people couldn't understand it?

No. I utterly reject that as an excuse. There was a deluge of information available, including the very informative Referendum Commission leaflet that was delivered to every house and available in libraries and online. Consolidated versions of the treaties were available, so even the excuse of the treaty being unreadable because it was an amending treaty is threadbare.