Ireland would join to this?

OldJay

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

What qualifies one to discuss this matter?

The sanctimonious last para of the post I was referring to has all the airs of someone lecturing me that I should know better. It is prefaced by a tone-setting "Listen, I'm in uni therefore . . . .etc".

You've still a way to go yet.

hatrickpatrick

Well I'm getting a lot of flack for my remark about economic vs political union...

Yes, it is true that the EU has been moving more towards interfering in domestic policies, and the people have accepted it. Fair enough.

Isn't there a line we should draw? are you arguing that just because we accepted it up to a certain point, we can never shout "stop, this ha gone far enough?" The Lisbon treaty represents a dramatic shift in the very meaning of "the EU". It's not as simple as "we accepted previous agreements so therefore we must accept future ones".

Read that sentence again. Can't you see how ridiculous it sounds? If you were a member of a political party and you voted yes to joining it when it was an environmentalist party, then successively voted yes to it expanding slightly the scope of its interests and causes, does that automatically mean you can never say "this is one step too far and we need to stop it here before it gets out of hand, we're supposed to be an environmentalist party but you're proposing we join the extreme republican movement as well"?

Ok, the analogy sounds ridiculous, but that's just what's happening. The Lisbon treaty is not a simple expansion on previous treaties, it's a total and dramatic shake up of the entire organization of the EU. The EU will be a different organization if Lisbon is ratified and the question is, is that something we want to let it turn into or not?

prinz

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Before you vote read this treaty,most of have not,you follow the government like cattle to the slaughter,even after what they have done to us.Shame on all of you.

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

What point are you trying to make?You are clearly shallow and malicious...

:rolleyes: Ditto.

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I'm getting a lot of flack for my remark about economic vs political union...

Yes, it is true that the EU has been moving more towards interfering in domestic policies, and the people have accepted it. Fair enough.

Isn't there a line we should draw? are you arguing that just because we accepted it up to a certain point, we can never shout "stop, this ha gone far enough?" The Lisbon treaty represents a dramatic shift in the very meaning of "the EU". It's not as simple as "we accepted previous agreements so therefore we must accept future ones".

Read that sentence again. Can't you see how ridiculous it sounds? If you were a member of a political party and you voted yes to joining it when it was an environmentalist party, then successively voted yes to it expanding slightly the scope of its interests and causes, does that automatically mean you can never say "this is one step too far and we need to stop it here before it gets out of hand, we're supposed to be an environmentalist party but you're proposing we join the extreme republican movement as well"?

Ok, the analogy sounds ridiculous, but that's just what's happening. The Lisbon treaty is not a simple expansion on previous treaties, it's a total and dramatic shake up of the entire organization of the EU. The EU will be a different organization if Lisbon is ratified and the question is, is that something we want to let it turn into or not?

Dramatic in what way? Are the competencies of the EU expanding greatly? No the addition of one shared competence Energy, and three limited supporting compatencies such as Tourism is not a massive power grab.

The fundamental operating principals of the institutions the Commission, Council, Parliament, ECB and ECJ remains exactly the same.

Some additional areas moving to QMV and there is a minor adjustment in the voting weights.

Where are the earth shattering and dramatic changes in the meaning of the EU exactly?

Generally if an analogy sounds ridiculous there is a reason for that.

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I read only as far as here. That's not supposed to be the end of it, that's not how democracy works as the supreme court ruled a short while ago

No matter......... yet again you've jumped another conclusion in the world according to you.

rebelmind

ei.sdraob wrote: »

deliberative democracy is another name for dictatorship

thankfully we are not in a dictatorship

/

Every tyranny holds 'elections'.
The veneer of credibility is what tyranny requires.
But, you see, there is only one answer they will accept.
Does this remind you of anything?

Sam Vimes

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I'm getting a lot of flack for my remark about economic vs political union...

Yes, it is true that the EU has been moving more towards interfering in domestic policies, and the people have accepted it. Fair enough.

Isn't there a line we should draw? are you arguing that just because we accepted it up to a certain point, we can never shout "stop, this ha gone far enough?" The Lisbon treaty represents a dramatic shift in the very meaning of "the EU". It's not as simple as "we accepted previous agreements so therefore we must accept future ones".

You're absolutely right. There should come a point where we shout stop but I've seen the QMV changes in Lisbon and this is not that point. It can be argued that that is the ultimate goal but if such a treaty is brought forward I will vote no right along with you. We should not vote no to this treaty because we think it might lead to future treaties, that's a slippery slope fallacy. Contrary to popular belief we are not giving up our right to referendums

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

No matter......... yet again you've jumped another conclusion in the world according to you.

your assertion of "Ireland rejects it, thats supposed to be the end of it." was incorrect and misunderstands the nature of democracy. I can only assume the rest of the post was based on this premise and since the premise is wrong, any conclusion based on it is also likely to be wrong.

The supreme court said:

However, the Supreme Court today dismissed his appeal, saying the grounds on which he based it were manifestly unfounded.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/farmer-loses-court-bid-to-prevent-lisbon-vote-1893285.html

They said that only allowing one run at anything disenfranchises people from changnig their minds.

Do you think that divorce should always and forever be illegal in Ireland because it was voted down once or do you think the second referendum we had (which passed with 50.28%) was acceptable? And if so, what's the difference?

edit: if you intend to say "more time passed" or anything along those lines, I will say: "the public had issues and many were addressed so what is the purpose of waiting an arbitrary length of time?"

And if you say "the treaty is the same" I will ask you to point out the parts that should have been changed to address the issues of abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner and when you can't I will ask you why it matters that the treaty is the same, since those issues could be addressed without changing it"

MarkK

rebelmind wrote: »

But, you see, there is only one answer they will accept.
Does this remind you of anything?

Yes, it reminds me of this:

Group | Accession | SEA | Maastricht | Amsterdam | Nice | Lisbon
| | | | | |
Sinn Fein | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
P McKenna | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
Anthony Coughlan/National Platform | - | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
COIR/YD/SPUC | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
PANA | - | - | - | NO | NO | NO

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I'm getting a lot of flack for my remark about economic vs political union...

Yes, it is true that the EU has been moving more towards interfering in domestic policies, and the people have accepted it. Fair enough.

Isn't there a line we should draw? are you arguing that just because we accepted it up to a certain point, we can never shout "stop, this ha gone far enough?" The Lisbon treaty represents a dramatic shift in the very meaning of "the EU". It's not as simple as "we accepted previous agreements so therefore we must accept future ones".

Read that sentence again. Can't you see how ridiculous it sounds? If you were a member of a political party and you voted yes to joining it when it was an environmentalist party, then successively voted yes to it expanding slightly the scope of its interests and causes, does that automatically mean you can never say "this is one step too far and we need to stop it here before it gets out of hand, we're supposed to be an environmentalist party but you're proposing we join the extreme republican movement as well"?

Ok, the analogy sounds ridiculous, but that's just what's happening. The Lisbon treaty is not a simple expansion on previous treaties, it's a total and dramatic shake up of the entire organization of the EU. The EU will be a different organization if Lisbon is ratified and the question is, is that something we want to let it turn into or not?

The Lisbon Treaty is arguably the most boring and least interesting EU Treaty since the Treaty of Brussels in the 1960s (which essentially merged the 3 Commissions of the then 3 Communities into one). That isn't a concidence, it is because the British in particular essentially wanted the Treaty to result in a re-phrasing of the existing Treaties. The French, on the other hand, wanted the Treaty to go a lot, lot further then it does...

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

your assertion of "Ireland rejects it, thats supposed to be the end of it." was incorrect and misunderstands the nature of democracy. I can only assume the rest of the post was based on this premise and since the premise is wrong, any conclusion based on it is also likely to be wrong.


And if you say "the treaty is the same" I will ask you to point out the parts that should have been changed to address the issues of abortion, taxation, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner and when you can't I will ask you why it matters that the treaty is the same, since those issues could be addressed without changing it"

On the first point above you have made an assumption that I believe is incorrect but you might have toi read the post to verify that:rolleyes:
On the second point you have presented a few 'if' scenarios that I do not believe are relevant to my post so I am not sure how to reply.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

On the first point above you have made an assumption that I believe is incorrect but you might have toi read the post to verify that:rolleyes:

I do not have to read the post to verify that "Ireland rejects it, thats supposed to be the end of it" is wrong. That statement is wrong all on it's own

rumour wrote: »

On the second point you have presented a few 'if' scenarios that I do not believe are relevant to my post so I am not sure how to reply.

You said that a second referendum is undemocratic so I asked you if you think that Ireland's second divorce referendum was undemocratic. I then gave your two most likely responses to pre-empt them and my further responses to them. Please read them before replying so we don't have to repeat ourselves

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I do not have to read the post to verify that "Ireland rejects it, thats supposed to be the end of it" is wrong. That statement is wrong all on it's own



You said that a second referendum is undemocratic

On your first point if you take it out of context and adopt your perspective perhaps there is some validity however that was not the point of my post.

On the second point above I did not write 'undemocratic' anywhere in any of the posts on this thread. You are again jumping to unfounded conclusions.

You might have to read what I have written before you jump to the conclusion that I am a No campaigner telling lies and misquoting people.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

On your first point if you take it out of context and adopt your perspective perhaps there is some validity however that was not the point of my post.

On the second point above I did not write 'undemocratic' anywhere in any of the posts on this thread. You are again jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Regardless of any context and regardless of if you wrote the word undemocratic, when a country votes no to something that is not supposed to be the end of it. Democracy works through negotiation and compromise, not through "NO MEANS NO". If the negotiations and compromise do not result in a change in the treaty being required then so be it, there's nothing wrong with that.

rumour wrote: »

You might have to read what I have written before you jump to the conclusion that I am a No campaigner telling lies and misquoting people.

I don't think you're telling lies, I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding democracy. Now could you please answer my question:


Do you think that divorce should always and forever be illegal in Ireland because it was voted down once or do you think the second referendum we had (which passed with 50.28%) was acceptable? And if so, what's the difference?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Regardless of any context and regardless of if you wrote the word undemocratic, when a country votes no to something that is not supposed to be the end of it. Democracy works through negotiation and compromise, not through "NO MEANS NO". If the negotiations and compromise do not result in a change in the treaty being required then so be it, there's nothing wrong with that.


I don't think you're telling lies, I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding democracy. Now could you please answer my question:


Do you think that divorce should always and forever be illegal in Ireland because it was voted down once or do you think the second referendum we had (which passed with 50.28%) was acceptable? And if so, what's the difference?

This from the person who refuses to read a post, then deliberately takes a section out of context and then makes up words that were infact never written. A little bit like bullying to me.

robindch

rebelmind wrote: »

Every tyranny holds 'elections'.

The leaders of North Korea, Cuba, and the Vatican are not elected by universal suffrage.

sceptre

Some of you guys are getting quite personal in this thread. That's outside the bounds of what the charter allows. That'll stop now please.

Please remember the possibility of reporting an insulting post rather than responding in kind. There would have been fewer cards handed out in this thread so far had that been actually done. Report the posts that you feel are insulting, don't respond in kind of escalate the exchange to something that I'll find undesirable.

MarkK

rumour wrote: »

This from the person who refuses to read a statement and take it out of context. A little bit like bullying to me.

If you do not wish to be challenged on your assertions, you should not post them on a message board.

If you believe someone has misrepresented or misinterpreted what you said, why do you not just clarify it?

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

This from the person who refuses to read a post, then deliberately takes a section out of context and then makes up words that were infact never written. A little bit like bullying to me.

If you really want to know, I read your post. As I suspected when I read the first line, it's validity was dependent on the first statement being correct. It's not so the entire post could be dealt with more efficiently by addressing that line.

So you won't answer my question then? Is it, as I suspect, because you know the answer and it invalidates your argument?

rumour

MarkK wrote: »

If you do not wish to be challenged on your assertions, you should not post them on a message board.

If you believe someone has misrepresented or misinterpreted what you said, why do you not just clarify it?

Please read my previous posts on the issue.

MarkK

rumour wrote: »

Please read my previous posts on the issue.

Which post was that?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you really want to know, I read your post. As I suspected when I read the first line, it's validity was dependent on the first statement being correct. It's not so the entire post could be dealt with more efficiently by addressing that line.

So you won't answer my question then? Is it, as I suspect, because you know the answer and it invalidates your argument?

My original posts deals with perception. It is not a democratic principle that I am trying to explain.

Unless my understanding is completely incorrect the treaties that were voted on were signed on the condition that they had the right to refuse, this would be decided by referendum or ratification or whatever other means by the individual country.

The process from Nice to the current treaty is not a shining example of respecting the original intent upon which the treaty was signed. This simple task of asking people again to vote is not necessarily bad but when viewed over a few years it appears a consistent tactic. This does not mean the treaty is good or bad, should or shouldn't be passed, become law etc. What is does signal is that the peoples democratic choice is somewhat irrelevant as the treaties objectives are paramount. Where did that mandate come from?

I think it logical and rational to question why this is so? I believe as I am an average punter many others do also. The perception that something is being driven that does not respect peoples wishes creates fears and practically induces a 'NO", it doesn't even matter at this stage what you are asking for. I think this is a neutral objective observation. I am not the only one to comment on the perceived democratic deficit in Brussels. I believe the EU have dedicated resources to counter this perception. I do not think it is helped by the track record I have spoken about and think it will take years to overcome the damage caused by these tactics. My own conclusion is that there are pressing issues for Europe around the corner that require this action. Issues that are not yet for the public domain such as energy resources etc.

I understand your direct correlation to the divorce referendum but do not find the analogy correct. It does serve your argument but in comparison to the drive behind this process to unify europe and the multiple countries involved it is not a fair analogy and i believe you know this.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I understand your direct correlation to the divorce referendum but do not find the analogy correct. It does serve your argument but in comparison to the drive behind this process to unify europe and the multiple countries involved it is not a fair analogy and i believe you know this.

No I honestly see no difference, please explain it to me

rumour wrote: »

My original posts deals with perception. It is not a democratic principle that I am trying to explain.

Unless my understanding is completely incorrect the treaties that were voted on were signed on the condition that they had the right to refuse, this would be decided by referendum or ratification or whatever other means by the individual country.

The process from Nice to the current treaty is not a shining example of respecting the original intent upon which the treaty was signed. This simple task of asking people again to vote is not necessarily bad but when viewed over a few years it appears a consistent tactic. This does not mean the treaty is good or bad, should or shouldn't be passed, become law etc. What is does signal is that the peoples democratic choice is somewhat irrelevant as the treaties objectives are paramount. Where did that mandate come from?

I think it logical and rational to question why this is so? I believe as I am an average punter many others do also. The perception that something is being driven that does not respect peoples wishes creates fears and practically induces a 'NO", it doesn't even matter at this stage what you are asking for. I think this is a neutral objective observation. I am not the only one to comment on the perceived democratic deficit in Brussels. I believe the EU have dedicated resources to counter this perception. I do not think it is helped by the track record I have spoken about and think it will take years to overcome the damage caused by these tactics. My own conclusion is that there are pressing issues for Europe around the corner that require this action. Issues that are not yet for the public domain such as energy resources etc.

Democracy doesn't work through people sitting there Ian Paisley like going "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO". It works through compromise and negotiation. If a people reject something you don't just throw the whole lot in the bin, you find out why they voted no and see if there's anything that can be done to address their concerns.

This is going to sound insulting but it's the truth. The fact that neither the Nice treaty nor Lisbon required a change is not a reflection on the EU, it's a reflection on the gullibility and paranoia of the Irish people. Extremists and vested interest groups keep lying to us and we keep believing them. As such when we vote no and explain why there is nothing to change in the treaties because none of the sh!t that we're voting no about is in the treaty. If the people vote no because they think the treaty allows the EU to raise our taxes.....and it doesn't, why should they just let the treaty die?

Besides that there's all the side issues. Let's take the example of voting no to spite the government. Just what do you expect the EU to do about that? And again why should they throw a treaty in the bin just because we don't like our government?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I honestly see no difference, please explain it to me


Democracy doesn't work through people sitting there Ian Paisley like going "NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO". It works through compromise and negotiation. If a people reject something you don't just throw the whole lot in the bin, you find out why they voted no and see if there's anything that can be done to address their concerns.

This is going to sound insulting but it's the truth. The fact that neither the Nice treaty nor Lisbon required a change is not a reflection on the EU, it's a reflection on the gullibility and paranoia of the Irish people. Extremists and vested interest groups keep lying to us and we keep believing them. As such when we vote no and explain why there is nothing to change in the treaties because none of the sh!t that we're voting no about is in the treaty. If the people vote no because they think the treaty allows the EU to raise our taxes.....and it doesn't, why should they just let the treaty die?

Besides that there's all the side issues. Let's take the example of voting no to spite the government. Just what do you expect the EU to do about that? And again why should they throw a treaty in the bin just because we don't like our government?

FFS I just spent an hour replying to you and the post is now lost between writing it and logging back in? Any suggestions?

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

FFS I just spent an hour replying to you and the post is now lost between writing it and logging back in? Any suggestions?

You could concede defeat

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

FFS I just spent an hour replying to you and the post is now lost between writing it and logging back in? Any suggestions?

Unfortunately, those posts tend to be gone forever. Firefox sometimes keeps them, IE doesn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw