If Ireland does indeed get bullied into accepting the Lisbon treaty...

hatrickpatrick

...is there still any chance of it being shot down somewhere else? Are the Czechs and the Germans still hesitating, for example?

rigumagoo

Sure hope not

Martin 2

A very provocative and misleading thread title, Ireland is not being bullied into passing Lisbon, some people may feel bullied but generally I think there's a lot of debate and discussion happening and most people will decide one way or another based on what's best for them, the country and the EU (not necessarily in that order).

As for it being shot down somewhere else, I think that's wishful thinking on your part... see http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0630/eulisbon.html

oscarBravo

Spare a thought for all the poor people bullied into voting "no" last time.

ei.sdraob

jebus quist (blasphemy bill ahem!) reading boards.ie now feels like reading a trashy British tabloid

now lets see the definition

Bullying is the act of intentionally causing harm to others, through verbal harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation

If anything I will claim I am being bullied by the No side, they are verbally assaulting me with lies for last year and causing me physical harm when same lies are repeated (same debunked trash) since another cluster of braincells dies

:cool:

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...is there still any chance of it being shot down somewhere else? Are the Czechs and the Germans still hesitating, for example?

Yes the Czech and Polish Presidents are indeed refusing to signing off on the treaty which has been ratified by their countries democratically elected parliaments, until we have voted again.

Presumably in the hope that we will do their dirty work for them.

hatrickpatrick

I'm sorry but I define being told "vote yes or you're screwed" as bullying to be honest - it's not true and is simply a form of coercive propaganda.

^Are you basically saying that if we pass it the last remaining objecting countries will also agree to pass it?

And McCreevey has already stated that he believes most countries would have rejected it if their electorate's had a say in whether it got passed or not. The illusion of democracy which you are trying to present is and always has been fundamentally flawed.

In Ireland for example, there was no party you could have voted for which would have both been big enough to form a majority in government and opposed the Lisbon treaty. Things like this are issues in which representative democracy just isn't enough. The people deserve a direct say in what's going on. Which is in fact one of my reasons for being generally apprehensive of handing over power to the EU. It gives the people even less control over their own country.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm sorry but I define being told "vote yes or you're screwed" as bullying to be honest - it's not true and is simply a form of coercive propaganda.

Who told you that?

BlitzKrieg

I'm sorry but I define being told "vote yes or you're screwed" as bullying to be honest - it's not true and is simply a form of coercive propaganda.

but how is that different to *vote no or you lose*?

ChocolateSauce

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm sorry but I define being told "vote yes or you're screwed" as bullying to be honest - it's not true and is simply a form of coercive propaganda.

I've heard, "vote yes or you'll hold Europe back". I like moving forward. I've also heard, "vote no or they'll take your rights, your freedom, your democracy, abort your babies, conscript your children, force us into wars and take control of your taxes", all of which are lies. That seems much more like bullying to me.

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

Yes the Czech and Polish Presidents are indeed refusing to signing off on the treaty which has been ratified by their countries democratically elected parliaments, until we have voted again.

Presumably in the hope that we will do their dirty work for them.

They, and the Tories in the UK, have positioned themselves so that they're only saying No if we say No - in which case their refusal will be redundant. The only independent possibility of a refusal was Germany, but their constitutional court gave Lisbon a clean bill of health.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

They, and the Tories in the UK, have positioned themselves so that they're only saying No if we say No - in which case their refusal will be redundant. The only independent possibility of a refusal was Germany, but their constitutional court gave Lisbon a clean bill of health.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scoff...Are you implying that if the treaty is passed before presumably the Tories are voted in,then there is nothing they can do about it despite the fact a lot of UK voters would be voting in the hope that this would be feasible.

Mario007

KINGVictor wrote: »

Scoff...Are you implying that if the treaty is passed before presumably the Tories are voted in,then there is nothing they can do about it despite the fact a lot of UK voters would be voting in the hope that this would be feasible.

To be honest even if Ireland rejects the treaty there is very little the Tories can do, as i understand it. The treaty has been fully ratified as agreed on in Britain therefore the ratification process in Britain is complete so having a referendum would actually be illegal as such. And lets be honest Cameron is using this kind of rhetoric to get the UKIP voters, thats the problem when you have pretty much only one party on the right and one party on the left in the country....

BlitzKrieg

KINGVictor wrote: »

Scoff...Are you implying that if the treaty is passed before presumably the Tories are voted in,then there is nothing they can do about it despite the fact a lot of UK voters would be voting in the hope that this would be feasible.

Its more of a wont rather then can.

Tories have taken the populist position on Lisbon, even when a substantial portion of their own party disagree with it.

P. Breathnach

KINGVictor wrote: »

Scoff...Are you implying that if the treaty is passed before presumably the Tories are voted in,then there is nothing they can do about it despite the fact a lot of UK voters would be voting in the hope that this would be feasible.

Many commentators believe that the Tories don't actually want to scupper Lisbon (although they have a sizable Eurosceptic group among them who probably would). The possibility that we will derail the process allows them to strike attitudes at no political cost. If we vote yes, we might make them uncomfortable.

[That must be a good case for a yes vote: the prospect of seeing David Cameron trying to wriggle out of the ensuing situation.]

Mario007

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Many commentators believe that the Tories don't actually want to scupper Lisbon (although they have a sizable Eurosceptic group among them who probably would). The possibility that we will derail the process allows them to strike attitudes at no political cost. If we vote yes, we might make them uncomfortable.

[That must be a good case for a yes vote: the prospect of seeing David Cameron trying to wriggle out of the ensuing situation.]

speaking of brits and reasons to vote yes, i heard on the czech television that UKIP and their nationalistic group in the EP want to campaign in ireland against lisbon. i mean thats bound to get the irish voting for yes, no british person will tell how to vote!;):D

ei.sdraob

Mario007 wrote: »

speaking of brits and reasons to vote yes, i heard on the czech television that UKIP and their nationalistic group in the EP want to campaign in ireland against lisbon. i mean thats bound to get the irish voting for yes, no british person will tell how to vote!;):D

Declan Ganley tried telling us how to vote ...

Mario007

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Declan Ganley tried telling us how to vote ...

yeah bit he was irish...sort of...kinda...well he had an irish passort...i think:D

ei.sdraob

Mario007 wrote: »

yeah bit he was irish...sort of...kinda...well he had an irish passort...i think:D

Ganley's public schoolboy accent gave him away imho

then theres Rupert Murdoch and his media empire's anti EU spin

and lets not forget how quickly SF abandoned their "hate" for the British in order to side with brittish euro skeptics, tis was rather amusing to observe

KINGVictor

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Ganley's public schoolboy accent gave him away imho

then theres Rupert Murdoch and his media empire's anti EU spin

and lets not forget how quickly SF abandoned their "hate" for the British in order to side with brittish euro skeptics, tis was rather amusing to observe

So basically because he had "public schoolboy British accent" .....inevitably lessens his credibility despite the fact he is Irish .I know a few Public officials in Ireland that have American/English accents.

On the issue of Sf...very contentious ,but logically enemity doesn't last forever...and because there is lack of discourse among our major political parties in Ireland on the Lisbon treaty does not mean it should be the same everywhere.
In most EU countries ...you find some opposition political parties that still oppose the Lisbon treaty.No one can defend the position in Ireland politics...unless most are in politics as a result of their Parents antecedents or cowardice...they must have different Ideological positions for F sake.
We dont even have a lot of Independents that oppose the treaty if any ...sounds to me like the principle of argumentum ad populum...because most of my colleagues support the treaty...so therefore they must be right.The toicheach,dick roche and fellow colleagues confessed to have never read the treaty...and yet they support the contents....idiotic to say the least.They would as guilty as the NO campaigners consistently attacked on this forum as not understanding the treaty before voting No.

I personally believe that...even as we speak a lot of both No/Yes voters have not read the treaty in full or fully comprehend its implications/disadvantages/advantages before forming an opinion.
It all boils down to what your idea of Europe should be/or shouldn't and each individuals inference as to what would be positive/negative in the treaty...and also regretfully what constitutes the most popular stance.

ei.sdraob

KINGVictor wrote: »

So basically because he had "public schoolboy British accent" .....inevitably lessens his credibility despite the fact he is Irish .I know a few Public officials in Ireland that have American/English accents.

On the issue of Sf...very contentious ,but logically enemity doesn't last forever...and because there is lack of discourse among our major political parties in Ireland on the Lisbon treaty does not mean it should be the same everywhere.
In most EU countries ...you find some opposition political parties that still oppose the Lisbon treaty.No one can defend the position in Ireland politics...unless most are in politics as a result of their Parents antecedents or cowardice...they must have different Ideological positions for F sake.
We dont even have a lot of Independents that oppose the treaty if any ...sounds to me like the principle of argumentum ad populum...because most of my colleagues support the treaty...so therefore they must be right.The toicheach,dick roche and fellow colleagues confessed to have never read the treaty...and yet they support the contents....idiotic to say the least.They would as guilty as the NO campaigners consistently attacked on this forum as not understanding the treaty before voting No.

I personally believe that...even as we speak a lot of both No/Yes voters have not read the treaty in full or fully comprehend its implications/disadvantages/advantages before forming an opinion.
It all boils down to what your idea of Europe should be/or shouldn't and each individuals inference as to what would be positive/negative in the treaty...and also regretfully what constitutes the most popular stance.

I dont like the guy, but for reasons that have nothing to do with his accent or background (we were having a laugh btw dont take things seriously)


some of the reasons are:
* shady military connections
* no accountability or info on the millions of euro spend campaigning
* not answering my very simple questions in galway few months back

Mario007

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Ganley's public schoolboy accent gave him away imho

then theres Rupert Murdoch and his media empire's anti EU spin

and lets not forget how quickly SF abandoned their "hate" for the British in order to side with brittish euro skeptics, tis was rather amusing to observe

oh yeah the accent was not doing him any favours:D

its pretty much like that with every nationalistic party, they hate each other but there is no one else out there that actually understands their policies better than other nationalistic parties.

still would be funny to see the famour 'Shadow of the Gunman' poster being reprinted from the yes side if UKIP does decide to intervene:D

Mario007

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I dont like the guy, but for reasons that have nothing to do with his accent or background (we were having a laugh btw dont take things seriously)


some of the reasons are:
* shady military connections
* no accountability or info on the millions of euro spend campaigning
* not answering my very simple questions in galway few months back

i agree with the above reasons, plus there's the whole issue with libertas as a political party being highly controversial as it had members that were accused of xenophobia, denying holocaust or wanting france out of the eu...

KINGVictor

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I dont like the guy, but for reasons that have nothing to do with his accent or background (we were having a laugh btw dont take things seriously)


some of the reasons are:
* shady military connections
* no accountability or info on the millions of euro spend campaigning
* not answering my very simple questions in galway few months back

TBH ...he is just as shady/questionable as a lot of Irish politicians running this country....or most EU officials for that matter.
Every thing listed in your post apart from your anecdotal experience are just unsubstantiated accusations btw..

..."we were just having a laugh"...can you expanse on that.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who told you that?

Brian Cowen, Sarkozy, and pretty much every other pro Lisbon politician. They didn't give a single positive reason why we SHOULD vote yes, just why we SHOULDN'T vote no.

-It's going to **** our economy
-We will end up like Iceland
-Voting no to this specific treaty means you reject the entire concept of the EU and will be ostracized
-We'll end up in a two tier EU system where Ireland loses power
-Can you think of anymore? I could quote hundreds of them.

This is basically my other main reason for opposing (apart from the loss of national sovereignty, that our country should be governed by, and ONLY by the Irish citizens). I dislike being blackmailed into voting one way or another in any given situation, from an argument between friends to a national poll. These statements are untrue scaremongering tactics, and it would be a disgrace if we allowed the government and the EU elite to win on those grounds.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is basically my other main reason for opposing (apart from the loss of national sovereignty, that our country should be governed by, and ONLY by the Irish citizens).

If you believe that, then all other given reasons are superfluous, and potentially (I stress potentially) dishonest. It's a belief that's entirely incompatible with the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

starbelgrade

Democracy is a myth & wasted on the foolish who don't know what's good for them . Frankly, I'd prefer a good, honest dictatorship with a real vision, just to see if it makes any diference.

ei.sdraob

KINGVictor wrote: »

TBH ...he is just as shady/questionable as a lot of Irish politicians running this country....or most EU officials for that matter.
Every thing listed in your post apart from your anecdotal experience are just unsubstantiated accusations btw..

..."we were just having a laugh"...can you expanse on that.

Oh you are right, politicians lie and try to never answer any questions put to them, but this guy put this art to a new level in our quick chat

you do not lie flat (with contradicting answers and body language) to a person standing next to you and then ask for his vote

tho that's no consequence now as hes claims his political career is over

Sam Vimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is basically my other main reason for opposing (apart from the loss of national sovereignty, that our country should be governed by, and ONLY by the Irish citizens). I dislike being blackmailed into voting one way or another in any given situation, from an argument between friends to a national poll. These statements are untrue scaremongering tactics, and it would be a disgrace if we allowed the government and the EU elite to win on those grounds.

These statements from the no crowd are untrue scaremongering tactics, and it would be a disgrace if we allowed the liars and naysayers to win on those grounds.

You've been lied to on both sides mate. Why don't you just make up your own mind?

tlev

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Brian Cowen, Sarkozy, and pretty much every other pro Lisbon politician. They didn't give a single positive reason why we SHOULD vote yes, just why we SHOULDN'T vote no.

-It's going to **** our economy
-We will end up like Iceland
-Voting no to this specific treaty means you reject the entire concept of the EU and will be ostracized
-We'll end up in a two tier EU system where Ireland loses power
-Can you think of anymore? I could quote hundreds of them.

This is basically my other main reason for opposing (apart from the loss of national sovereignty, that our country should be governed by, and ONLY by the Irish citizens). I dislike being blackmailed into voting one way or another in any given situation, from an argument between friends to a national poll. These statements are untrue scaremongering tactics, and it would be a disgrace if we allowed the government and the EU elite to win on those grounds.

Ireland has shown itself pretty incapable of governing itself recently

ChocolateSauce

tlev wrote: »

Ireland has shown itself pretty incapable of governing itself recently

Recently? I'd say since 1922 tbh. That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't govern ourselves, we just need to do it better.

Furious-Dave

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Recently? I'd say since 1922 tbh. That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't govern ourselves, we just need to do it better.

Fascism I tells ya! For about 10 years. That will straighten everything out. :pac:

tlev

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we need a 3rd party to govern us either I'm merely pointing out the complete ineptitude of the current party . The sad thing is a don't really have faith in any of the other parties doing much better either...actually maybe we should outsource our politicians :rolleyes::rolleyes:, I wonder how much it would take to get Obama :D

seamus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is basically my other main reason for opposing (apart from the loss of national sovereignty, that our country should be governed by, and ONLY by the Irish citizens).

Personally I believe that home government is wasted in a lot of areas that could very easily be harmonised across the EU and be run by EU departments with separate "branch offices" in each country distinct from that country's government.

Just to take one example - the food safety authority. This is effectively governed by the Department of Health. But surely food safety is food safety whether you're in Ireland or Denmark? So why is this an authority under local remit? Why not make the food safety authority an independent function under the European Department of Health, reporting to and funded by the EU? The the Minister for health and her staff can forget about having to deal with this at all and give more focus to more pressing issues.

There hundreds of such bodies and departments which we don't need to run ourselves and by having a relevant EU department which runs each of these functions in every state of the EU, then you get some semblance of harmonisation of standards across these bodies and functions.

That allows our own government to massively downsize and focus our monies and energies on areas that really matter - such as the IFSRA.

P. Breathnach

seamus wrote: »

... Just to take one example - the food safety authority. This is effectively governed by the Department of Health. But surely food safety is food safety whether you're in Ireland or Denmark? So why is this an authority under local remit? Why not make the food safety authority an independent function under the European Department of Health, reporting to and funded by the EU? The the Minister for health and her staff can forget about having to deal with this at all and give more focus to more pressing issues.

There hundreds of such bodies and departments which we don't need to run ourselves and by having a relevant EU department which runs each of these functions in every state of the EU, then you get some semblance of harmonisation of standards across these bodies and functions....

We do actually have a bit of that, in the setting of European standards for many products and services, including food safety. We adopt (sometimes adapt) European standards, but have local enforcement; the local enforcement bit is necessary, as we couldn't have our inspectors working out of Bologna or Oporto.

Let me remind you of where it gets us. We get some decent evidence-based standards; we get some political gamesmanship (for example, rows about the making of cheese with unpasteurised milk); we provide ammunition for Eurosceptics (real issues about defining sausages; myths about straight bananas); we get conflict about policy on GMOs.

I agree with the essence of what you propose: we should minimise duplication of costly exercises where it is feasible to pool our efforts and resources. I think that lies more in the realm of setting standards than in enforcement.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

The only independent possibility of a refusal was Germany, but their constitutional court gave Lisbon a clean bill of health.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not quite true, The German Court still halt the Ratification by preventing the German president signing of Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty until the German Parliament put in safeguards/Conditions recommended by the Court. The German Government is now under pressure to get it done before their elections in October.

marco_polo

limklad wrote: »

Not quite true, The German Court still halt the Ratification by preventing the German president signing of Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty until the German Parliament put in safeguards/Conditions recommended by the Court. The German Government is now under pressure to get it done before their elections in October.

You are both right, the court ruled that there is nothing in Lisbon that is incompatable with German law, but ratification is being held untill legislation the German granting parlimentary bodies more power over future changes and amendments.

But trust me Scofflaw knows all this already

limklad

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Fascism I tells ya! For about 10 years. That will straighten everything out. :pac:

Yea, they are currently known as Fianna Failers and their dodgy leader shown here in business dealing is shown here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3vEOSkk5AM :eek:

KINGVictor

marco_polo wrote: »

You are both right, the court ruled that there is nothing in Lisbon that is incompatable with German law, but ratification is being held untill legislation the German granting parlimentary bodies more power over future changes and amendments.

But trust me Scofflaw knows all this already

This is so perplexing ....what reasearch have you personally carried out.Scoff has done his and has come to conclusions based on his own understanding.For you and others to continually revert to Scoff knows...scoff is a always right ...crap is absolute rubbish.He may be right but it is very lazy to counter other peoples post based on one person's conclusion..Educate us on your own findings.

Mario007

KINGVictor wrote: »

This is so perplexing ....what reasearch have you personally carried out.Scoff has done his and has come to conclusions based on his own understanding.For you and others to continually revert to Scoff knows...scoff is a always right ...crap is absolute rubbish.He may be right but it is very lazy to counter other peoples post based on one person's conclusion..Educate us on your own findings.

i think what he means is that scoff, as you said, always does his research and thus knows the facts and is pretty much 100% right when it comes to facts and no one can dispute that. its almost like referring to the news report you've seen on tv.

but the thing about the german court is pretty much well known anyway and doing your research does actually tell you this same fact

marco_polo

KINGVictor wrote: »

This is so perplexing ....what reasearch have you personally carried out.Scoff has done his and has come to conclusions based on his own understanding.For you and others to continually revert to Scoff knows...scoff is a always right ...crap is absolute rubbish.He may be right but it is very lazy to counter other peoples post based on one person's conclusion..Educate us on your own findings.

Whoa boy

What Limlad said "The German Court still halt the Ratification by preventing the German president signing of Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty until the German Parliament put in safeguards/Conditions recommended by the Court. The German Government is now under pressure to get it done before their elections in October."

And I meerly suggested out, tongue somewhat in cheek, that Scoff would probably know this already.

As for the rest of my post if my understanding is incorrect or incomplete in some ways then by all means enlighten me.

While I may not have time to read the full judgement, From the half a dozen or so articles I have read I think I have got the major theme of the judgement about right.

There just a good article from the Irish Times that I posted a few pages back if you want to have a look.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

Not quite true, The German Court still halt the Ratification by preventing the German president signing of Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty until the German Parliament put in safeguards/Conditions recommended by the Court. The German Government is now under pressure to get it done before their elections in October.

I can't quite agree. The German court found nothing in Lisbon that conflicted with German Basic Law (amongst other interesting findings), but also found that their internal democratic controls were not strong enough to properly implement the provisions of the Basic Law when dealing with the EU.

Specifically, they found that the German government could not by itself give up vetoes in the 'passerelle' clauses, but required a vote of the parliament(s). Essentially, that's a judgement that giving up vetoes is something requiring a ratification-like step. It's by no means unreasonable, and hardly paints Lisbon as unhealthy, since once those conditions are fulfilled, the court has no issues with it, and it does not consider the passerelle clauses themselves repugnant, only the mechanism by which the government proposed to act on them.

Something worth considering is that the proposed Amendment we'll be voting on in October contains a very similar mechanism to that required by the German court:

The new subsection 12° provides for the State to avail of certain options and discretions and to agree to certain legal acts under the Treaty on foot of the prior approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It updates the provisions inserted in relation to the Treaties of Amsterdam and of Nice covering those situations where, because the discretion exists to opt into a given action, Irish participation is not deemed to be legally ‘‘necessitated’’ by Union membership. This subsection provides for the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas for the exercise of options and discretions referred to therein. Some of the provisions, relating to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, are specific to Ireland while others, relating to ‘‘enhanced co-operation’’, are relevant to all twenty-seven Member States.

In other words, our government's proposed mechanism for activating the relevant passerelles is already as strong as the German requirement laid down by the court.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is basically my other main reason for opposing (apart from the loss of national sovereignty, that our country should be governed by, and ONLY by the Irish citizens).

To point out the obvious, it is perfectly valid for the electorate to decide to pool/transfer sovereignty to either the EU or international bodies, such as the ICC, if they believe it is in their best interest.

Your belief, founded as it is on fundamental opposition to such decisions by the electorate, is in effect based on denying the electorate their sovereign right to participate in such international bodies should they so choose.

P. Breathnach

View wrote: »

To point out the obvious, it is perfectly valid for the electorate to decide to pool/transfer sovereignty to either the EU or international bodies, such as the ICC, if they believe it is in their best interest...

It's interesting to note where people draw lines. I cede personal sovereignty to the state, where it is pooled with that of the rest of the citizenry, and used to the benefit of all (in theory, and usually in practice). Those of us who are married or in similar relationships also participate in sovereignty-pooling. A business partnership involves sovereignty pooling.

What is so sacrosanct about the idea of Ireland that we have to have a sovereignty frontier? I identify also with Europe and, indeed, with humanity.

Anyway, we have already traded sovereignty in many areas through a raft of international treaties and through accepting international conventions.

Maintenance of sovereignty is not a principle; it's a tactic.

PopeBuckfastXVI

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's interesting to note where people draw lines. I cede personal sovereignty to the state, where it is pooled with that of the rest of the citizenry, and used to the benefit of all (in theory, and usually in practice). Those of us who are married or in similar relationships also participate in sovereignty-pooling. A business partnership involves sovereignty pooling.

What is so sacrosanct about the idea of Ireland that we have to have a sovereignty frontier? I identify also with Europe and, indeed, with humanity.

Anyway, we have already traded sovereignty in many areas through a raft of international treaties and through accepting international conventions.

Maintenance of sovereignty is not a principle; it's a tactic.

Get ready to duck P. I can see a few misplaced references to Hobbes & Rousseau being flung in your direction...

P. Breathnach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Get ready to duck P. I can see a few misplaced references to Hobbes & Rousseau being flung in your direction...

It's all right: I donned full body armour before posting.

rumour

starbelgrade wrote: »

Democracy is a myth & wasted on the foolish who don't know what's good for them . Frankly, I'd prefer a good, honest dictatorship with a real vision, just to see if it makes any diference.

Vote YES. Seems at least on the right route to deliverying!!

ButcherBoiz

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm sorry but I define being told "vote yes or you're screwed" as bullying to be honest - it's not true and is simply a form of coercive propaganda.

^Are you basically saying that if we pass it the last remaining objecting countries will also agree to pass it?

And McCreevey has already stated that he believes most countries would have rejected it if their electorate's had a say in whether it got passed or not. The illusion of democracy which you are trying to present is and always has been fundamentally flawed.

In Ireland for example, there was no party you could have voted for which would have both been big enough to form a majority in government and opposed the Lisbon treaty. Things like this are issues in which representative democracy just isn't enough. The people deserve a direct say in what's going on. Which is in fact one of my reasons for being generally apprehensive of handing over power to the EU. It gives the people even less control over their own country.

Please, pretty please tell me that you are not appealing to the authority of a rocket-scientist like Charlie McCreevey in order to establish an argument. Next you'll be appealing to the wisdom of George W. Bush. How do these people get into positions of power... oh yes, that's right, 'democracy'.

At least you are voting nooooooo.

I cannot believe that several very active posters in this forum are soooo enamored with these muppets and talking heads, as if that would convince a majority to vote for or against Lisbon.

Now really, the people who are desperate to do their little bit for a yes vote, might well be characterised as a 'middle-class', terrified of the hard times ahead.... and who would sell their granny for promised of european funding. I really can not get the mindset. And btw, most people who think of themselves as being in a cozy middle-class are a joke. In the States, if you own a bank you are considered "upper middle-class". A job in an office and a pension makes you Joe Soap. So while all of our money (and future income) is being poured into banks (privately owned by the super-rich) don't think that being a good little pro-European will bring any money back your way.

Rant over.

Unfortunately, I will be bowing out of the discussions for at least a week. But as you know who says: I'll be back!

K-9

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Please, pretty please tell me that you are not appealing to the authority of a rocket-scientist like Charlie McCreevey in order to establish an argument. Next you'll be appealing to the wisdom of George W. Bush. How do these people get into positions of power... oh yes, that's right, 'democracy'.

At least you are voting nooooooo.

I cannot believe that several very active posters in this forum are soooo enamored with these muppets and talking heads, as if that would convince a majority to vote for or against Lisbon.

Now really, the people who are desperate to do their little bit for a yes vote, might well be characterised as a 'middle-class', terrified of the hard times ahead.... and who would sell their granny for promised of european funding. I really can not get the mindset. And btw, most people who think of themselves as being in a cozy middle-class are a joke. In the States, if you own a bank you are considered "upper middle-class". A job in an office and a pension makes you Joe Soap. So while all of our money (and future income) is being poured into banks (privately owned by the super-rich) don't think that being a good little pro-European will bring any money back your way.

Rant over.

Unfortunately, I will be bowing out of the discussions for at least a week. But as you know who says: I'll be back!

Well there isn't much to discuss in there.

We might get back to a debate on the Referendum by the time you are back.

ButcherBoiz

K-9 wrote: »

Well there isn't much to discuss in there.

We might get back to a debate on the Referendum by the time you are back.

Sorry K-9 from Donegal, but I did acknowledge that it was merely meant as a rant (doesn't everyone do that from time to time, being merely human?).

K-9

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

Sorry K-9 from Donegal, but I did acknowledge that it was merely meant as a rant (doesn't everyone do that from time to time, being merely human?).

Yep. It was a mindless rant.