Ireland: Lisbon = World War III - Vote No [video]

GlobalStranger

Lisbon paves the way for World War III -
British Control of Europe -
Reducing population/Bio Fuel scam of Prince Philip/Food Crisis -
War with India, China, Russia -

Tragedy & Hope address May 7th 2008 Washington DC

by Lyndon LaRouche [website]

This was one year ago, & now it seems that the Irish people must educate themselves once again on a forced referendum that has already been voted on by the people, to be once again forced to vote on a referendum that has been rejected, but to be denied a referendum on eg Blasphemous Libel Legislation, & forced changes in the Criminal Justice Act.

This Information was available last year, and it may help you ask some questions of your own when you meet a Yes Campaigner.



*This Thread has been classed as a conspiracy by a mod.I did not choose to put it here, I had it listed under European Thread.
This is not a conspiracy post- poll if you agree/disagree
thanks

Iwasfrozen

:rolleyes:
Someone needs to do research from a non-fruit cake website.

worldrepublic

From the point of view of the mods, they are concerned that proponents of the theory, even if presenting bona fida arguments, will be written off wholesale, or labeled as "nuts". This is not fair, but that is the pattern at this time concerning certain matters -the EU, the Obama presidency, Lisbon II, climate change, peak oil etc.

An important caveat should be entered: conspiracies do happen, for example the Catholic Church, in collusion with a variety of institutions, conspired in order to perpetuate the systematic abuse and rape of children. This was a global conspiracy and went all the way to the top of the hierarchy (Holy See). Not so long ago, anyone who spoke out about this conspiracy was labeled a "nut", derided and victimised is a variety of ways. Unfortunately, this tendency to write off those who question establishment views, is still a very effective means of silencing well-meaning dissenters. Hitler said (Mein Kampf) that if you want to perpetrate a lie, make it really big one, and then noone will dare consider that it might be true.

But if you are confined to a sub-forum, so be it. The internet offers you the freedom to post elsewhere, or even to start your own website.

I would be cautious with respect to many of LaRouche's arguments, even if he has a good track record as an economist/forecaster.

Also, sometimes it is a mistake to get overly caught up with a single issue, e.g. JFK or 9/11. It is vital that you also become non-partisan and focus on a middle-ground between the left and right -try reading Noam Chomsky. Or watch "Manufacturing Consent" -really excellent documentary.

Keep up the interest though -personally I think it's amazing that so many people today are politically interested and active, and who refuse to become despondent.

worldrepublic

This is from an affiliate:

Anyone who talks in terms of WWIII on foot of a monetary breakdown crisis should maybe get a hearing? There are 12000 nuclear warheads in the US alone! Not to mention black projects, bio-warfare, etc. Have we all just acquiesced to this reality? Do we really think that the political machinery of the 21st Century is somehow "progressive"?

Darlughda

Good for you OP

I know Boards.ie is a privately run company and is not attempting to peddle the illusion of democracy, but nonetheless, the tone of suppression against the No side is alarming.

There are huge issues of patterns of European history and Irish sovereignty being ignored by the Yes side. I'm not keen on 'conspiracy' theories, but I am less tolerant of bullying in any form.

Captain Furball

This says it all really.Our culture is disappearing,we are moving toward a state much like America.Europe is fcked.

nyarlothothep

LaRouche has got a fairly dodgy track record irc, his organization in particular apparently had cult like leaning so far as I can recall.

Lone Stone

Captain Furball wrote: »

This says it all really.Our culture is disappearing,we are moving toward a state much like America.Europe is fcked.

But is Irish culture worth saving ...........

Ostrom

Captain Furball wrote: »

This says it all really.Our culture is disappearing,we are moving toward a state much like America.Europe is fcked.

America has maintained, and arguably developed more individuated state 'cultures' consistently since its beginnings. What makes you think a centralized EU administration of states far older the the US will do otherwise?

Salvelinus

<mod snip>

worldrepublic

efla wrote: »

America has maintained, and arguably developed more individuated state 'cultures' consistently since its beginnings. What makes you think a centralized EU administration of states far older the the US will do otherwise?

If you are pro-Lisbon, at least get the narrative right: nobody wants to promote the idea of a second USA/Empire.

worldrepublic

Salvelinus wrote: »

<mod snip>

You could at least try and be politically correct!

Ostrom

worldrepublic wrote: »

If you are pro-Lisbon, at least get the narrative right: nobody wants to promote the idea of a second USA/Empire.

No, just looking for a discussion

samson09

Lone Stone wrote: »

But is Irish culture worth saving ...........

Samson09 puts head in hands.

Closes eyes and moves head from side to side.

Attempts to say something but just mutters instead.

meglome

Darlughda wrote: »

Good for you OP

I know Boards.ie is a privately run company and is not attempting to peddle the illusion of democracy, but nonetheless, the tone of suppression against the No side is alarming.

What?!?!? You can't say some of this stuff in Politics as it's been debunked ten times over and they're really tired of it. Plus they insist on silly things like evidence not just some blokes/girls opinion.

Darlughda wrote: »

There are huge issues of patterns of European history and Irish sovereignty being ignored by the Yes side. I'm not keen on 'conspiracy' theories, but I am less tolerant of bullying in any form.

What bulling would this be? What Irish Sovereignty is this we're losing? And you won't mind showing me the part of the treaty this stuff is happening in.

The French president opened his big mouth and the Irish ignored him because in this democracy what the French president has to say we have no obligation to listen to or act on.

It's like a conspiracy fan club, everything is a CT no matter. You can read the Lisbon treaty and see what's in it, there's no CT. The no people can make stuff up till the cows come home but it still isn't in the treaty.

Darlughda

I would suggest you read some European history books, Meglome.

thecross1

whats the point in voting we say no they want to vote again if the vote is yes do we get to vote again to see if we can get the no vote then

the_syco

Darlughda wrote: »

There are huge issues of patterns of European history and Irish sovereignty being ignored by the Yes side. I'm not keen on 'conspiracy' theories, but I am less tolerant of bullying in any form.

Ignoring all facts from the No side is mind boggling!

constance tench

meglome wrote: »

You can read the Lisbon treaty and see what's in it, there's no CT. The no people can make stuff up till the cows come home but it still isn't in the treaty.

that's right the 'stuff' is not in the lisbon treaty, it's in all the other treaties that the lisbon treaty ammends.

meglome wrote: »

till the cows come home

will that make sense in 80 years time?..:(

Nick_oliveri

constance tench wrote: »

that's right the 'stuff' is not in the lisbon treaty, it's in all the other treaties that the lisbon treaty ammends.

If its amended in the Lisbon Treaty then its "in" or part of the Lisbon Treaty. Its not a code book for the Enigma Machine.

constance tench

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

If its amended in the Lisbon Treaty then its "in" or part of the Lisbon Treaty. Its not a code book for the Enigma Machine.

meglome

Darlughda wrote: »

I would suggest you read some European history books, Meglome.

I have. The EU has been a bastion of peace and prosperity. I assume that's what you mean?

meglome

constance tench wrote: »

that's right the 'stuff' is not in the lisbon treaty, it's in all the other treaties that the lisbon treaty ammends.

will that make sense in 80 years time?..:(

You see this is the great thing about the EU. At any time we, the Irish people, can decide to reject a treaty or reject the EU. This is our free democratic right. I'll wait for people to show me where these bad things are in the treaty. It should be simple right, since it's a legal document, right?

As for the Lisbon No vote, the government asked people why they voted No and then got legal guarantees that these were things not an issue. Now I'm not fond of this government of ours but I've no problem on that score, seems terribly democratic.

ilivetolearn

Proponents and opponents of the treaty might be interested in the following treaty summary:

Click me

Just hit CTRL + F to jump to the relevant section.

constance tench

meglome wrote: »

You see this is the great thing about the EU. At any time we, the Irish people, can decide to reject a treaty or reject the EU. This is our free democratic right.

i can't think of a political "party":rolleyes: that would have the balls or wherewithal
to exercise that right if needs be,
after all, our political leaders helped draft the thing, look how much of a saving face game this has become with them..

so how would we ever have a hope of exiting [if things get, not too good] if this treaty is excepted by our people as well? [legal guarantees and all]

let's wind things back here just a little, the enlarged EU...

an enlarged union, 'needs to operate more smoothly' was the basic reason given for creation of this treaty..

just how do the general population of existing member states benefit from this?..
it's just minister harney in a bigger dress size..

why such massing?..it's not esential for trade,[but it is for control]

i think the general feeling here is that we're on a road with a false bottom,
and as far as i know, there's no legal requirement in commerce to have a heart... or a conscience.

meglome

constance tench wrote: »

i can't think of a political "party":rolleyes: that would have the balls or wherewithal
to exercise that right if needs be,
after all, our political leaders helped draft the thing, look how much of a saving face game this has become with them..

so how would we ever have a hope of exiting if things get not too good, if this treaty is excepted by our people as well? [legal guarantees and all]

let's wind things back here just a little, the enlarged EU...

an enlarged union, 'needs to operate more smoothly' was the basic reason given for creation of this treaty..

just how do the general population of existing member states benefit from this?..
it's just minister harney in a bigger dress size..

why such massing?..it's not esential for trade,[but it is for control]

i think the general feeling here is that we're on a road with a false bottom,
and as far as i know, there's no legal requirement in commerce to have a heart... or a conscience.

Seriously what the hell are you talking about?

constance tench

meglome wrote: »

Seriously what the hell are you talking about?

yes i'm having a conniption here..and rightly so

slowly step by step the EU has being caging us in, *at least that has been the effect*..especially in fishing and farming, which is realy all we have as an island nation..food is all we have and there's restrictions on it!
and now they offer us the same corporate wonderland with legal 'guarantees'
and 'protocols'

Lone Stone wrote: »

But is Irish culture worth saving ...........

language, culture, and land are requirements for our sovereignty
we don't want to loose any of that..

meglome

constance tench wrote: »

yes i'm having a conniption here..and rightly so

slowly step by step the EU has being caging us in, *at least that has been the effect*..especially in fishing and farming, which is realy all we have as an island nation..food is all we have and there's restrictions on it!
and now they offer us the same corporate wonderland with legal 'guarantees'
and 'protocols'

I know those big meany EU people giving us all those billions and then they made us vote Yes to Lisbon. Em wait they just gave us the money and haven't forced us to do anything. Not to state the obvious but the EU pays our farmers quite a lot of money.

So if I get this right you don't like the Lisbon treaty although you don't seem to be able to point out where these bad things are in it. And you don't seem to like the EU either. Maybe you should look back to the 1980's in Ireland before the EU bailed us out of the recession.

constance tench

meglome wrote: »

I know those big meany EU people giving us all those billions and then they made us vote Yes to Lisbon. Em wait they just gave us the money and haven't forced us to do anything. Not to state the obvious but the EU pays our farmers quite a lot of money.

we handed over everything [financially] we had, when we entered the euro..we gave them hard currency, they gave us credit, fractioned from our injection..
so we should accept this treaty on behalf of the all the children of europe, because we owe the EU digits?

speaking during a St Patrick's Day visit to London, Mr Lenihan said entering the euro was a one-way trip, and a member state did not have the option of launching its own new currency in the way that Australia once broke away from the pound.
"Ireland is now an integral part not just of a currency zone but of a common market and an area in which there is a free movement of labour and capital," he said. "So it is impossible to leave a zone of free movement of labour and capital and set up your own currency..

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25202192-36418,00.html

meglome wrote: »

So if I get this right you don't like the Lisbon treaty although you don't seem to be able to point out where these bad things are in it. And you don't seem to like the EU either. Maybe you should look back to the 1980's in Ireland before the EU bailed us out of the recession.

post 24 points out..

thinking back to the 80's [the other kite]..i don't think the country went broke[supposedly]from the free tooth brushes CJ sent out to schools when he was minister for health:rolleyes:..

Nehaxak

Well in regards the Lisbon treaty itself, the simple fact remains that the Irish people have already vote No and now we're being forced/bullied into voting again because the democratic will of the people did not suit others both here and elsewhere in the EU.

As a matter of principal, myself, my family and friends and anyone else I've managed to talk to on it - will be voting No next time around because of that alone.

I doubt this time though that the No vote will win as the Irish people have been made feel as if we were punished for voting no the last time so I reckon there'd be enough of a majority scared enough to either vote yes or just not vote at all.

If the yes vote wins then I really don't see the point in ever casting a vote again in any election or otherwise in this country as at the moment I actually see no point at all in democracy given whatever we vote for is always it seems, taken with such disregard and contempt.

Nehaxak

Nehaxak wrote: »

Well in regards the Lisbon treaty itself, the simple fact remains that the Irish people have already vote No and now we're being forced/bullied into voting again because the democratic will of the people did not suit others both here and elsewhere in the EU.

As a matter of principal, myself, my family and friends and anyone else I've managed to talk to on it - will be voting No next time around because of that alone.

This is something I can't understand.
Did the ballots have a "NEVER!" option or something?

Have you ever seen the reasons people had for voting no?

Between 20 and 40 percent voted no because they simply didn't understand the treaty. This is really the will of the people?

Another sizeable percentage voted no because of issues that had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty like neutrality and abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008#Reasons_for_rejection

Now that there are legal guarantees against these (non)issues, we should still vote no because the EU researched the problems and addressed them?
Or has negotiation no place in politics and international relations?

Nehaxak

King Mob wrote: »

This is something I can't understand.
Did the ballots have a "NEVER!" option or something?

Have you ever seen the reasons people had for voting no?

Between 20 and 40 percent voted no because they simply didn't understand the treaty. This is really the will of the people?

Another sizeable percentage voted no because of issues that had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty like neutrality and abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008#Reasons_for_rejection

Now that there are legal guarantees against these (non)issues, we should still vote no because the EU researched the problems and addressed them?
Or has negotiation no place in politics and international relations?

If 99% of the people voted no because someone said water wasn't wet it doesn't matter. They still voted no. You must accept the democratic vote or democracy itself is destroyed. There is no discussion here, only excuses to explain away the vote the people gave and piss on them because that vote did not suit others.

If the next vote is a yes vote, do we all get a third chance at a re-run just in case ? Best out of three maybe ? Do we get to have another go at it because the No side didn't like the outcome ? Hmm ?
No, I think not.

I seriously doubt anyway the next referendum being run will be done honestly and above board, best guess is that 99% of polling stations will have easily rubbed out pencils rather than pens.

Nehaxak

Nehaxak wrote: »

If 99% of the people voted no because someone said water wasn't wet it doesn't matter. They still voted no. You must accept the democratic vote or democracy itself is destroyed. There is no discussion here, only excuses to explain away the vote the people gave and piss on them because that vote did not suit others.

So it doesn't matter that the majority of people who voted no either don't know what they voting on or had the wrong idea about what the Treaty would do?

No room to address the problems the people had and rectify them at all?
Negotiation has no place in international relations!

Nehaxak wrote: »

If the next vote is a yes vote, do we all get a third chance at a re-run just in case ? Best out of three maybe ? Do we get to have another go at it because the No side didn't like the outcome ? Hmm ?
No, I think not.

So in a deal you either take the first deal or reject it and every subsequent deal? Sounds rational alright.

And when you reach a deal that you both can agree on why continue to negotiate?

Nehaxak wrote: »

I seriously doubt anyway the next referendum being run will be done honestly and above board, best guess is that 99% of polling stations will have easily rubbed out pencils rather than pens.

Yay! Baseless accusations!

So if they could do this, why did they waste millions of Euros on the referendum that failed?
Why not just do that to begin with?

Nehaxak

King Mob wrote: »

So it doesn't matter that the majority of people who voted no either don't know what they voting on or had the wrong idea about what the Treaty would do?

Once again, it doesn't matter. The people vote NO, NO NO NO NO NO, the people voted NO.

Why can you not accept that vote cast democratically by the people rather than just assuming they were all stupid/ignorant ?

And when you reach a deal that you both can agree on why continue to negotiate?

Sooo.... I guess this means then you agree with me that if the next vote is a yes vote, we should continue to have another referendum on it all again, just in case yeah ?

Yay! Baseless accusations!

You think huh ? Let us know now when the vote comes around what they're handing out for people to cast their vote with yeah...

As a matter of order I'd like to also state that I actually agree for the most part in the Lisbon treaty and what it entails, for all it's mis-givings within - however, I will be voting No because I believe in democracy, detest fascism, and I hate the pure ignorance and elitism expressed by the vast majority of the yes campaigners. That plus I also detest that little French midget and all his squeeking he's done against the Irish people for pissing in his tea when we voted no the last time.

meglome

Nehaxak wrote: »

If 99% of the people voted no because someone said water wasn't wet it doesn't matter. They still voted no. You must accept the democratic vote or democracy itself is destroyed. There is no discussion here, only excuses to explain away the vote the people gave and piss on them because that vote did not suit others.

And the great things about our democracy is all those people can vote No again, if that's the way they still feel. Personally I'm not a fan of these reruns, if the government had run the campaign properly the last time we may well have had a Yes vote. However in this instance they did go out and ask people why they voted No and got guarantees on those things. So things have moved along and I don't see the issue with another vote. And let's be honest here there is no rule that's stops us voting again so the idea that it's undemocratic is bull****.

Nehaxak wrote: »

If the next vote is a yes vote, do we all get a third chance at a re-run just in case ? Best out of three maybe ? Do we get to have another go at it because the No side didn't like the outcome ? Hmm ?
No, I think not.

Well I'd be the first to vote No if I could see all the these problems with the treaty I keep hearing about. We voted No the last time for all the wrong reasons, mainly for stuff that wasn't even in the treaty itself.

Nehaxak wrote: »

I seriously doubt anyway the next referendum being run will be done honestly and above board, best guess is that 99% of polling stations will have easily rubbed out pencils rather than pens.

Is it just the elections that don't go your way that are fixed?

But really, give me a ****ing break, our elections are carefully monitored. And again let's be honest here the Yes side ran a rubbish campaign the last time but a generally honest one. The No campaign ran a great campaign but an extremely dishonest one. Nearly everything I've read from the No has turned out to be bull.

And seriously if I were to guess I'd say you were a No voter the first time around so your moral crusade about voting a second time is very dubious indeed. I'd safety imagine you'd find another grandstanding reason for the No vote if the second vote one didn't work.

6th

Meglome. Remember the Poster/Poster difference.

Nehaxak

meglome wrote: »

And the great things about our democracy is all those people can vote No again, if that's the way they still feel. Personally I'm not a fan of these reruns, if the government had run the campaign properly the last time we may well have had a Yes vote. However in this instance they did go out and ask people why they voted No and got guarantees on those things. So things have moved along and I don't see the issue with another vote. And let's be honest here there is no rule that's stops us voting again so the idea that it's undemocratic is bull****.



Well I'd be the first to vote No if I could see all the these problems with the treaty I keep hearing about. We voted No the last time for all the wrong reasons, mainly for stuff that wasn't even in the treaty itself.



Is it just the elections that don't go your way that are fixed?

But really, give me a ****ing break, our elections are carefully monitored. And again let's be honest here the Yes side ran a rubbish campaign the last time but a generally honest one. The No campaign ran a great campaign but an extremely dishonest one. Nearly everything I've read from the No has turned out to be bull.

And seriously if I were to guess I'd say you were a No voter the first time around so your moral crusade about voting a second time is very dubious indeed. I'd safety imagine you'd find another grandstanding reason for the No vote if the second vote one didn't work.

I'll ignore your insults and put them down to just a lack of intelligence/poor upbringing...

So anyway... If the next vote is a yes vote, you'll have no problems with us having yet another vote, just because the no voters weren't happy with the yes voters ? That is what you've basically said yes ?

...but of course that's not possible AND THAT IS WHY IT'S UNDEMOCRATIC !

If the treaty is voted in by a yes vote, we DO NOT get another chance to vote again.

I don't actually believe you people that go on about it being democratic and saying it's ok to have another vote on the exact same thing, even though it was rejected previously in a democratic vote. You're not naive, you know damn well what you're doing.

meglome

Nehaxak wrote: »

Once again, it doesn't matter. The people vote NO, NO NO NO NO NO, the people voted NO.

Why can you not accept that vote cast democratically by the people rather than just assuming they were all stupid/ignorant ?

Sooo.... I guess this means then you agree with me that if the next vote is a yes vote, we should continue to have another referendum on it all again, just in case yeah ?

You think huh ? Let us know now when the vote comes around what they're handing out for people to cast their vote with yeah...

As a matter of order I'd like to also state that I actually agree for the most part in the Lisbon treaty and what it entails, for all it's mis-givings within - however, I will be voting No because I believe in democracy, detest fascism, and I hate the pure ignorance and elitism expressed by the vast majority of the yes campaigners. That plus I also detest that little French midget and all his squeeking he's done against the Irish people for pissing in his tea when we voted no the last time.

So can I summarise why you're voting No...

1. We're voting on it again, even though there is absolutely no rule that says we can't.
2. The yes campaigners are elitist and ignorant.
3. The French president has a big mouth.

All of which are things that are not in the treaty and have nothing directly to do with the treaty. Does that not seem stupid?

Nehaxak

meglome wrote: »

So can I summarise why you're voting No...

1. We're voting on it again, even though there is absolutely no rule that says we can't.
2. The yes campaigners are elitist and ignorant.
3. The French president has a big mouth.

All of which are things that are not in the treaty and have nothing directly to do with the treaty. Does that not seem stupid?

No, I'm actually voting No because the sky is blue and water is wet.

What's the problem ?

Nehaxak

Nehaxak wrote: »

Once again, it doesn't matter. The people vote NO, NO NO NO NO NO, the people voted NO.

Wow then we both apparently have different ideas of what democracy is.

I like to think that it should be based partly on informed decisions.
And I believe a result that came from confusion and lies is a bad one.

Nehaxak wrote: »

Why can you not accept that vote cast democratically by the people rather than just assuming they were all stupid/ignorant ?

I'm not assuming anything.
I'm quoting well researched polls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008#Reasons_for_rejection

Alot of people voted no because they had no idea what they where voting on.
Alot of other people voted no because they believe in lies and misinformation.

Nehaxak wrote: »

Sooo.... I guess this means then you agree with me that if the next vote is a yes vote, we should continue to have another referendum on it all again, just in case yeah ?

Yes because I think negotiation is a very important part in international relation unlike you apparently.
The main issues people had (many of which weren't issues at all) with the Lisbon treaty have been addressed.

But instead of educating yourself on these issues you're doing the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and shouting "NO! NO! NO!"

By your logic we should never bother having an election again because we've already voted in FF and voted against FG.

Nehaxak wrote: »

You think huh ? Let us know now when the vote comes around what they're handing out for people to cast their vote with yeah...

SO they didn't do that first time around because......?

Nehaxak wrote: »

As a matter of order I'd like to also state that I actually agree for the most part in the Lisbon treaty and what it entails, for all it's mis-givings within - however, I will be voting No because I believe in democracy, detest fascism, and I hate the pure ignorance and elitism expressed by the vast majority of the yes campaigners. That plus I also detest that little French midget and all his squeeking he's done against the Irish people for pissing in his tea when we voted no the last time.

Yes how dare those fascists allow us to vote!

And the French President is a dick: a valid and grown up reason to vote no.

You're bothered by the "pure ignorance and elitism expressed by the vast majority of the yes campaigners" (which I'd love for you to point out some examples) but have no issue with the out and out lies on the no side?
Frankly lying to the public to influence an important vote would bother me a little more than a bit of snobbery.

Your argument quite frankly makes no sense.

Nehaxak

Nehaxak wrote: »

No, I'm actually voting No because the sky is blue and water is wet.

What's the problem ?

So you're voting not to get the best deal for Ireland or for any benefits for anyone. You're voting no because of really petty ****, like your dislike for Sarkozy and because some people are snobby?

Yay for democracy!

Nehaxak

King Mob wrote: »

SNIP...rubbish not worth quoting...

So answer me this, without all the rubbish...

If the next vote is a yes vote, is it ok then for us to have yet another vote after that because those that voted no are not happy with those that voted yes ?

Nehaxak

King Mob wrote: »

So you're voting not to get the best deal for Ireland or for any benefits for anyone. You're voting no because of really petty ****, like your dislike for Sarkozy and because some people are snobby?

Yay for democracy!

No, I'm voting No because water isn't wet and the sky isn't blue ?

Again, what's the problem ?

meglome

Nehaxak wrote: »

I'll ignore your insults and put them down to just a lack of intelligence/poor upbringing...

He he he. I didn't insult you but thanks for the insults.

Nehaxak wrote: »

So anyway... If the next vote is a yes vote, you'll have no problems with us having yet another vote, just because the no voters weren't happy with the yes voters ? That is what you've basically said yes ?

...but of course that's not possible AND THAT IS WHY IT'S UNDEMOCRATIC !

Basically every major political party in this country is supporting Lisbon, people who we elect to represent us. The reasons people gave for voting No were generally not in the treaty plus we've now got legal guarantees that they are not an issue. Since things have changed people are being given the opportunity to vote again. They will either vote Yes or No but I'm not getting how giving people more opportunities to vote is less democratic. Surely more opportunities to vote is more democratic.

Nehaxak wrote: »

I don't actually believe you people that go on about it being democratic and saying it's ok to have another vote on the exact same thing, even though it was rejected previously in a democratic vote. You're not naive, you know damn well what you're doing.

I hate to keep repeating myself but there is NOTHING that stops us voting ten times on a referendum if it comes down to it. You might not like it but that's just your opinion, there is no rule. If you don't like what the government are doing then don't vote for them. Who did you vote for?

bug

meglome wrote: »

You see this is the great thing about the EU. At any time we, the Irish people, can decide to reject a treaty or reject the EU. This is our free democratic right.

Oh dear God.

We did reject it. Isn't it great?.... I feel empowered to keep voting on the same document of documents, until I get it right.

Baaaahaaahaaaa.

Nehaxak

meglome wrote: »

{snip...}

If you don't like what the government are doing then don't vote for them.

I didn't ?

Who did you vote for?

Not that it's any of your business but for what it's worth, none of the above.


Same question to you, which you haven't answered...

"If the next vote is a yes vote, is it ok then for us to have yet another vote after that because those that voted no are not happy with those that voted yes ?"

meglome

Nehaxak wrote: »

No, I'm voting No because water isn't wet and the sky isn't blue ?

Again, what's the problem ?

So deflect when you don't have a decent answer.

Nehaxak

Nehaxak wrote: »

So answer me this, without all the rubbish...

If the next vote is a yes vote, is it ok then for us to have yet another vote after that because those that voted no are not happy with those that voted yes ?

Yea that's how democracy's done.
Ignoring other peoples arguments.

And your question show how ignorant you are of the issues at hand.
When a referendum like this is passed it is made into law or in this case is put into our constitution. To revert the constitution you'd need an entirely different referendum just for that one change.

When a referendum is defeated there is no such change.


And in my argument which you completely ignored in the name of democracy you see I brought up the fact that there where reasons for why people voted no. These reasons have been addressed and there now are legal guarantees.
This is negotiation.

When you're negotiating the price of a car do you continue to negotiate after you make a deal you both agree on?

So why do we continue to vote in elections when we've already voted in FF?

Nehaxak

meglome wrote: »

So deflect when you don't have a decent answer.


How did you vote the first time on Lisbon?

What parties did you vote for in the elections in 2007?

If what you're trying to get at is to get my political aspersions then just come straight out and say it ?

I've no quams in saying I voted Sinn Fein, as equally I gave my second vote to FG and my third to FF. Why ? Well because I vote for the individuals not their party, those that actually done something for the area community.

I actually voted yes the first time around btw.

I'm guessing you're quiet confused at this point so I'll come straight back at you with ...

"If the next vote is a yes vote, is it ok then for us to have yet another vote after that because those that voted no are not happy with those that voted yes ?"

...and hope you can answer it truthfully.

Nehaxak

King Mob wrote: »

Yea that's how democracy's done.
Ignoring other peoples arguments.

And your question show how ignorant you are of the issues at hand.
When a referendum like this is passed it is made into law or in this case is put into our constitution. To revert the constitution you'd need an entirely different referendum just for that one change.

When a referendum is defeated there is no such change.


And in my argument which you completely ignored in the name of democracy you see I brought up the fact that there where reasons for why people voted no. These reasons have been addressed and there now are legal guarantees.
This is negotiation.

When you're negotiating the price of a car do you continue to negotiate after you make a deal you both agree on?

So why do we continue to vote in elections when we've already voted in FF?

Legal guarantee's mean little or nothing, the text of the treaty stays the same and has not been changed. Hence, nothing has changed, hence democracy is being pissed on by Europe once again. Or are you *really* going to tell us now that we're not voting on EXACTLY the same text in the treaty this time around ?

So, the vote is passed next time and the treaty can be put on hold because before it goes into the Irish constitution we must have another vote on the treaty because the no side weren't happy with the yes vote.
Or did you mean you just wanted to rush the treaty into the constitution without first holding the next referendum ? Surely that wouldn't be democratic would it ? :rolleyes:

meglome

Nehaxak wrote: »

"If the next vote is a yes vote, is it ok then for us to have yet another vote after that because those that voted no are not happy with those that voted yes ?"

Why would we. Lisbon is good for Ireland and basically our of our political parties support it. Most of our academics support it, all our media supports it. And the reasons people gave for voting No the last time were either not in the treaty at all and/or we have guarantees on. Why would we need to vote again? Maybe just maybe Lisbon is really a good thing. And at any stage in the future we feel things have gone in a way we don't like we as a democratic country can decide to make a new arrangement.

You see sometimes democracy is rule by the mob and sometimes the mob makes bad decisions not based on the actual issues. When you look at the actual treaty the reasons we gave for voting no were bad reasons as they mostly weren't even in the treaty.

The Eurovision is a democracy and we all love how that turns out. Countries vote for their neighbours not because it's the best song just because they are their neighbours. Bad votes happen, should we just pretend they weren't bad votes.