Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!

walshb

daveharnett wrote: »

Wouldn't it make more sense to abstain and let people who bothered to get a clue make the decision?

I don't understand this hysteria about disrespecting the Irish electorate. As I see it, it is every citizen's privilege and duty when a referendum comes around to inform themselves of the issues, and to vote ON THE ISSUES.

To the NO side: if you trust the electorate to do their duty, and if Lisbon is as wrong as you contend, they you wouldn't fear twenty referendums.
To the YES side: if you believe that the electorate did their duty, you wouldn't want a second referendum.

So who's disrespecting the electorate? Everyone is. A whole lot of people voted for reasons other than the actual issues at stake, and we all know it.

OK, I covered this already. Lets say only those who KNEW what the treaty was about
actually voted. Do you think the vote would have been different. The NO side had as much knowledgeable folks as the YES side.

All voted because the law doesn't say that a person has to read from TOP
to BOTTOM any article. Those who voted YES, knowing NOTHING have more to
answer for than those who voted NO, knowing nothing. This is a no-brainer

daveharnett

walshb wrote: »

THE POXY GOVT BARELY READ THE TREATY AND ANY NORMAL SANE PERSON WOULDN'T BE BOTHERED READING THE TREATY.

Is that you charlie? :pac:

PrivateEye

let the Greens know that they should stick to saving trees!

Honestly, the Green Party will retain all TDs in the next election, and will probably come through 2009 in one piece too.

After the PDs they always had the highest earning voters (there was a poll conducted on this one, I'm not pulling it out of the sky.....swear) and I don't think those people are particulary worried about u-turns on stuff like their standing on EU Treaties, the countries natural resources, Shannon Airport blahblahblah.

Voting Green is in some peoples minds their 'bit done', and they'll vote them even if they've made a shambles of their time in government. The only one who could be fecked ironically enough is Gormless himself.

---

On the subject of Lisbon, again I love the 'sure we're all mad-smart for voting yes and the thick majority hadn't a clue' stuff. Did you not hear that stickball lad DJ Carry? 'Sure I trust meeee government, so I'll vote Yes sure' :rolleyes: Political scientist.

Plenty of idiots voted both ways, plenty of idiots didn't vote. Accept the fact that most of the people who went down to vote voted No. Toys and prams come to mind...

Prof.Badass

My main problem with lisbon is that the people have no voice in europe. Creating an unelected representative is going in the complete wrong direction imo. I would love a USE (i'm completely pro-europe), but i'm also pro-democracy and these european leaders see democracy merely as an obstacle in their path, not a process that must be respected and revered.

I don't think the world is gonna end if we don't vote yes, the eu's been going along just fine before it, no reason the same can't happen afterwards.

walshb

daveharnett wrote: »

Is that you charlie? :pac:

Well that says it all really. I do remember that!

Yet he and his cronies were expecting a YES?

ven0m

Tom65 wrote: »

It was in the government's interest, politically, to say that. I've said already I don't agree with them saying - I'm not basing my support of the Treaty on government support, and I don't think anyone else should either.

Sorry, I am pretty sure the future of the people of Europe is the PEOPLE'S interests, not the governments. Or do you still subscribe to Mugabe-esque politics?

Tom65 wrote: »

We appear to have different conceptions of democracy.

To me, the people have exercised their opinion in rejecting the Lisbon Treaty as it was. The government and the EU are taking account of that rejection by changing the document. You say we were asked under assurances that we would not be asked again - the exact same treaty is not being put to us. It is being put to us with changes based on the previous referendum. The document has changed as a result of the will of the people.

Sorry, even the people working on it say it is the same as what was put to us before. The second we delivered a 'no' vote, our voice was shat all over by politicians across Europe, & OUR Government went & 'apologised' because we said 'no'. How DARE they. We gave our democratic mandate, tell them we said 'no' - tough ****. How dare they apologise for what occured freely & democratically. How effing dare they!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

Tom65 wrote: »

(Just to add): people have certain reasons for voting a certain way in an election. I voted for parties in the last election that I won't vote for in the next one. Situations change, new issues come to light and so forth. Just as different issues change votes in general elections, so to do the changes to Lisbon Treaty precipitate a second vote.

If they are SO sure about this working, & it is for the betterment of democracy of Europe, why won't they let ALL citizens of Europe who this affects have the freedom to self-determine & vote, which is one of their basic human rights as guaranteed under the Geneva convention?

No-one will dare field that question, despite many people within countries who were denied a vote crying out for one, or like Holland where the most heinous act was committed (ty to the person in this thread who brought that reminder in) - where the Democratic & free will of the people was brushed to one side, again - no different than Mugabe or any other despot.

The entire crux about what Lisbon represents is about bettering democracy in Europe. The one question no-one in power will answer is why they will refuse people a democratic right to have their say with referenda across the entire European membership.

Democracy is defined as self-government by the people for the people.

Tell me where denying this protects or enhances democracy across the european union? Nothing about what is proposed promotes democratic equality, nor does the method to achieving Lisbon promote democracy, or a basic respect for it.

ven0m

Villain wrote: »

I'l agree with another vote on Lisbon as long they agree to run the General election again so we can all let BIFFO know what BIFFO means and let the Greens know that they should stick to saving trees!

Putting Biffo in as Taoiseach I still maintain was undemocratic. We voted for a government where Bertie Ahern led it. Then again, does it matter - Fianna Fail & Fine Gael are a gnats bollock hair from each other in the centre ground in politics, where non-committal & points scoring is more important than the lives of the people of this Island who pay their over-inflated wages, expenses & everything else their grubby hands can grab.

mickdw

Why doesnt our government tell them euro ****ers that they have gained more from ireland through fishing rights than they have ever handed over in grants etc. Those clowns in brussels are starting to get very smart re pity ye didnt vote yes comments when ireland now go looking for funding when in fact we are paying for ourselves in Europe

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

Back what up/

I said that on both sides you had those who knew and those who did not know, all voted and the NO prevailed. How freaking difficult is that to understand?

what you actually said was

I bet that equally both sides didn't know the treaty, so those who did know the treaty are also equal probably on both sides, hence it evens itself out and the NO vote prevailed, end if story!

I'm asking you do you have any way of proving the parity of ignorance on both sides, or are you just saying that because you'd like to believe that was the case.

also i find your attempts to compare what's happening now with mugabes south africa to be insulting and childish.

ven0m

thelordofcheese wrote: »

i find your attempts to compare what's happening now with mugabes south africa to be insulting and childish.

The degree of comparison may be questionable, but denying democracy is despotic. your lack of understanding of what democracy is, means, or how it is an entitlement is astounding.

Oh and all of you who are giving out about no voters still can't or haven't once in this thread put forward an argument as to how a framework for the betterment of democracy can be achieved though undemocratic means, or delivered through undemocratic means.

Whatever about the tin-foil wearing brigade on the "no" side who want to pull your leg over abortion, aliens, new world order blah blah blah bullcrap, there are those amongst us who can make a sensible argument, who are still asking the above:


How can you save or better democracy by denying it, or removing it & treated it as an obstacle, when it is the 'preferred means of the free world'.

Fratton Fred

mickdw wrote: »

Why doesnt our government tell them euro ****ers that they have gained more from ireland through fishing rights than they have ever handed over in grants etc. Those clowns in brussels are starting to get very smart re pity ye didnt vote yes comments when ireland now go looking for funding when in fact we are paying for ourselves in Europe

please tell me people don't actually believe this?

are you saying the Irish gave the EU €54Bn worth of fish? Great

thelordofcheese

ven0m wrote: »

The degree of comparison may be questionable, but denying democracy is despotic. your lack of understanding of what democracy is, means, or how it is an entitlement is astounding.

When the government ratify the lisbon against the result of a refferendum, then we can talk about denying democracy, otherwise, a second (and onto infinity) referendum is still, by definition, democratic.

No matter how much you protest to the contrary.

ShooterSF

thelordofcheese wrote: »

what you actually said was



I'm asking you do you have any way of proving the parity of ignorance on both sides, or are you just saying that because you'd like to believe that was the case.

Had this convo before with someone (IN the politics forum where this should be ).
Don't think theres any stats showing the level of ignorance on either side. So it's impossible to argue successfully. But equally theres no proof that No voter ignorance outweighed that of the yes voters.
One can only assume that people who voted on influence rather than making up their mind individually could be persuaded either way. With that in mind Id suggest FF and FG have more influence over people (as seen in the elections) than Libertas and SF. So with that in mind I'd suggest it's likely that the "ignorant" voters were at least balanced.
May I ask you a question? If Lisbon had been passed and a survey was done of the yes voters that showed most voted yes because they didn't know and were influenced by FF's We're better in the heart of it vague crap would you want a revote?

(Again why are these topics not in politics where I can ignore them!!)

daveharnett

walshb wrote: »

The NO side had as much knowledgeable folks as the YES side.

I'm not so sure. Yes, a lot of people were in the dark about the issues. It's my perception that the yes campaign completely failed to address the issues because they were too busy fighting the red herrings thrown at them by fearmongers on the other side.

Regardless, I will concede that they were people on both sides ignorant of the issues. What I would say is that I spoke with a significant number of people who voted no as a '**** you' to our government (Exhibit A). I don't think anybody voted yes to indicate their satisfaction with them.

BaconZombie

If the Goverment dropped the price of a pint to less then 1€ for about 2 months before the vote they may get a yes vote from people been pissed out of there head. But that's no going to happen so I'd say the no vote will get a much higher turnout this time.

ninebeanrows

Maybe they should sacrifice themselves. Have an election on the same day as the Referendum so we can do away with this shower.

Otherwise i will not be voting, i would vote Yes but i will abstain as a protest against this shower of bandits.

ven0m

thelordofcheese wrote: »

When the government ratify the lisbon against the result of a refferendum, then we can talk about denying democracy, otherwise, a second (and onto infinity) referendum is still, by definition, democratic.

No matter how much you protest to the contrary.

And what do you call apologising to European leaders because the Irish people said 'no'? That is undemocratic.

The government exist to execute & promote our democratically mandated will, not apologise for it.

So, now can we talk if you can leave your tinfoil hat to one side, & actually engage me in my questions on this debate, as one of those part-taking in this thread instead of putting out soundbyte after soundbyte.

Answer me how democracy can be saved or bettered through the denial of a democratic process. I'm still waiting for one of you to answer this, & none of you can or want to.

Donald-Duck

ghostdancer wrote: »

i wonder will the "yes" side re-use the "we'll get left behind in europe" scare tactic nonsense again to try and compel people.
if they do, they deserve to fail for insulting people's intelligence.
then again, a lot of people are thick as **** and probably believe it.

You are not the smartest fish in the sea.

thelordofcheese

ShooterSF wrote: »

Had this convo before with someone (IN the politics forum where this should be ).
Don't think theres any stats showing the level of ignorance on either side. So it's impossible to argue successfully. But equally theres no proof that No voter ignorance outweighed that of the yes voters.

I'd disagree, i'm fairly certain post election polls cited "i couldn't be arsed learning about it" as one of the main reasons people voted no.

But eitherwhich way, it's a terrible basis for justifying your vote and ties back into basically oking voter ignorance.

ShooterSF wrote: »

May I ask you a question? If Lisbon had been passed and a survey was done of the yes voters that showed most voted yes because they didn't know and were influenced by FF's We're better in the heart of it vague crap would you want a revote?

Firstly, i don't think should ever have been put to a public vote. plebicite is a horrible basis for forming law.

Second, the problem i have isn't that passed or failed, but the encouragement (mostly on the no side) that it's ok to be ignorant as long as you vote our way.

Third, we're not exactly alien to having issues put infront of us more than once. The idea that if a no vote can lead to a second referendum then so can a yes is stupid, because it fails to acknowledge that the reason topics resurface is because they are not resolved.

The topic of lisbon (and the bigger issue of the future of the EU) has not been resolved. We have said no, but we have not offered any legitimate reasoning nor an alternative. We have stopped the restructuring and reformation fo the EU so we still have to address this issue. A second vote (which may or may not have something like the seville declaration attached to it) is the easiest way to do this.
We might say no again. Which still leaves the issue of the future of the EU on the table, which is something we'll have to deal with.

The people here who are doing their best petualant five year old impression would probably be more productive if they actually discussed the treaty itself and what they see as it's problems and what solutions there might be, rather than making trite comparisons to horrible foreign regimes.

ChocolateSauce

Two votes = twice as democratic.

If it's no again, democracy will have been served and the no side will have a great deal to be smug about. If it is yes, democracy will have been served by allowing us the chance to change our minds and not have our past decisions set in stone.

Adamcp898

Think I might register to vote just to say no.

Donald-Duck

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Think I might register to vote just to say no.

Because you're sticking it to the government or because you know what its about?

DonJose

I would agree to another referendum but only if the government promise a new general election if the NO votes wins again.

20goto10

walshb wrote: »

Am I reading this right??:rolleyes:

And not understanding is a reason to vote YES?
Because many many folks did vote YES even though they knew nothing!

Damn straight not understanding is a reason to vote NO.

If you didn't understand, like the majority on BOTH sides, would you vote YES?

I really am stumped with this attitude.
Vote YES, even if you know nothing
Never VOTE NO:rolleyes:

If you had quoted me correctly you'd see I said if you don't understand it stay at home and leave it to people who do. I don't claim to understand it all but I do believe people when they explain the bits I don't understand in simpler language.

How do the no side expect them to change the treaty to meet their concerns when their concerns aren't even in the treaty. Its a total embarrasment.

skywalker

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Two votes = twice as democratic.

If it's no again, democracy will have been served and the no side will have a great deal to be smug about. If it is yes, democracy will have been served by allowing us the chance to change our minds and not have our past decisions set in stone.

By that logic why not have a third? Or a fourth? In fact by that logic if the vote is yes then we should definitely have a third as it'l be 1-1.

thelordofcheese

ven0m wrote: »

And what do you call apologising to European leaders because the Irish people said 'no'? That is undemocratic.

No it isn't, jesus h fucking christ.
And frankly if i'd spent years negotiating on behalf of ireland, made several changes to better suit the irish people and then failed to get that damn message across then i'd be applogising too.

ven0m wrote: »

The government exist to execute & promote our democratically mandated will, not apologise for it.

So, now can we talk if you can leave your tinfoil hat to one side, & actually engage me in my questions on this debate, as one of those part-taking in this thread instead of putting out soundbyte after soundbyte.

Answer me how democracy can be saved or bettered through the denial of a democratic process. I'm still waiting for one of you to answer this, & none of you can or want to.

This is because I don't believe that your assertation is correct that this is a denial of the democratic process. I think your attempts at debate are cheap and lazy, and you're throwing around the phrase democracy as a magic 'I win' card.

I am not interested in fueling your persucution complex.

Biggins

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Think I might register to vote just to say no.

Donald-Duck wrote: »

Because you're sticking it to the government or because you know what its about?

...because its his democratic right to do so and without pressure of having to explain why he is voting in one direction or another!

Donald-Duck

Biggins wrote: »

...because its his democratic right to do so and without pressure of having to explain why he is voting in one direction or another!

Doesn't mean hes any less retarded if thats his reason.

Tom65

ven0m wrote: »

Sorry, I am pretty sure the future of the people of Europe is the PEOPLE'S interests, not the governments. Or do you still subscribe to Mugabe-esque politics?

Yes, I love Mugabe. He's a great leader. I furiously beat off every time I see his picture.

ven0m wrote: »

Sorry, even the people working on it say it is the same as what was put to us before. The second we delivered a 'no' vote, our voice was shat all over by politicians across Europe, & OUR Government went & 'apologised' because we said 'no'. How DARE they. We gave our democratic mandate, tell them we said 'no' - tough ****. How dare they apologise for what occured freely & democratically. How effing dare they!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

When did they apologise? I saw government ministers going to talk about how to proceed in light of the Treaty.

ven0m wrote: »

If they are SO sure about this working, & it is for the betterment of democracy of Europe, why won't they let ALL citizens of Europe who this affects have the freedom to self-determine & vote, which is one of their basic human rights as guaranteed under the Geneva convention?

No-one will dare field that question, despite many people within countries who were denied a vote crying out for one, or like Holland where the most heinous act was committed (ty to the person in this thread who brought that reminder in) - where the Democratic & free will of the people was brushed to one side, again - no different than Mugabe or any other despot.

The entire crux about what Lisbon represents is about bettering democracy in Europe. The one question no-one in power will answer is why they will refuse people a democratic right to have their say with referenda across the entire European membership.

Democracy is defined as self-government by the people for the people.

Tell me where denying this protects or enhances democracy across the european union? Nothing about what is proposed promotes democratic equality, nor does the method to achieving Lisbon promote democracy, or a basic respect for it.

It doesn't require a referendum in other EU countries, therefore it doesn't get one. If there's changes in the CAP, should there be a referendum on that? What about the British rebate? These are crucial issue in the EU, but they wouldn't garner as much attention, let alone a referendum. At which point does it because an issue to being a referendum? If a country votes 'No' as a protest vote against government policies - is that democratic within a European context?
For most countries, their constitutions define a point at which their sovereignty cannot be passed without the people's consent. For Ireland, that line is set as such that the Lisbon Treaty requires a referendum. For other countries, it works differently.

Even in spite of the process - what if the Lisbon Treaty makes the EU more democratic (obviously this is another argument, but nonetheless) - it gives greater power to national parliaments, strengthens the European Parliament, and introduces the idea of citizens' initiative. If a treaty enhances self-determination and democracy within the EU, can it be undemocratic to adopt it?

ven0m

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'd disagree, i'm fairly certain post election polls cited "i couldn't be arsed learning about it" as one of the main reasons people voted no.

But eitherwhich way, it's a terrible basis for justifying your vote and ties back into basically oking voter ignorance.

Go back to fashioning tin-foil hats, you're better at them than debating.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Firstly, i don't think should ever have been put to a public vote. plebicite is a horrible basis for forming law.

Your opinion on this counts for jack - our constitution guarantees otherwise, or perhaps you've forgotten about that.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Second, the problem i have isn't that passed or failed, but the encouragement (mostly on the no side) that it's ok to be ignorant as long as you vote our way.

being ignorant of how democracy works is worse, look in the mirror.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Third, we're not exactly alien to having issues put infront of us more than once. The idea that if a no vote can lead to a second referendum then so can a yes is stupid, because it fails to acknowledge that the reason topics resurface is because they are not resolved.

Sorry, our government has admitted before Lisbon that the previous times thy went back and asked were out of order & undesirable, hence why they were so categorical & Biffo used the word, 'Categorically', when saying he would not be asking the Irish people a second time should the deliver a 'no' vote. Because he was tackled on his use of that word in the Dail, after he used it previously in relation to the Nice treaty.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

The topic of lisbon (and the bigger issue of the future of the EU) has not been resolved. We have said no, but we have not offered any legitimate reasoning nor an alternative. We have stopped the restructuring and reformation fo the EU so we still have to address this issue. A second vote (which may or may not have something like the seville declaration attached to it) is the easiest way to do this.
We might say no again. Which still leaves the issue of the future of the EU on the table, which is something we'll have to deal with.

It is not for US to provide an alternative. it is for the DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments of Europe to finally listen to calls from the people of their nations to have referendums, & to follow what is mandated from them.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

The people here who are doing their best petualant five year old impression would probably be more productive if they actually discussed the treaty itself and what they see as it's problems and what solutions there might be, rather than making trite comparisons to horrible foreign regimes.

'trite' - is that a new word you learned of your 'word of the day' emails? It would serve you better instead of hashing out crass responses to actually make an argument of any worth to support your case & I notice you side-stepped my question to you. perhaps you yourself have no understanding, other than the half arsed position you seem to have taken that offers little support to your logic, or any tangible discussion points furthering your own standpoint.