Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are the No side conceding defeat?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    realcam wrote: »
    Why are we going away from it in that we're watering down the separation of powers? Why are we cutting down on the powers of the legislative?

    You do realize Lisbon increases the powers of the European Parliament? Or have I mis-contextualized your post? :)


  • Options
    #93
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    turgon wrote: »
    You do realize Lisbon increases the powers of the European Parliament? Or have I mis-contextualized your post? :)

    I also involves giving the national parliaments of each member state more of a say in the EU.


  • Options
    #94
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    realcam wrote: »
    There may be valid reasons for that and maybe there is no malice at all and maybe I'm a tinfoil hat wearer, but why weren't we ever talking about these things? These things are much more important to me than implementation details on abortion. These are the foundations of a supposedly democratic 'best ever' system that will eventually govern all of us. This is what we should be talking about. Not how we get out of the current recession. The recession will be all forgotten about in 50 years. How democratic Europes shape is won't.

    You are of course correct. We should have talked about those issues, unfortunately the leaders of No campaign decided not to debate those actual points but went on with groundless myths and lies which have been discussed at length to the detriment of a debate of what was ACTUALLY in the Treaty. I don't agree with how the Yes campaign was run but they had to spend most of their time debunking the lies spread by the No campaign.


  • Options
    #95
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    turgon wrote: »
    You do realize Lisbon increases the powers of the European Parliament? Or have I mis-contextualized your post? :)

    Yes, that's the nice trick here. It does, you're right.
    And it probably would be an actual improvement if we weren't at the same time raising the stakes in a big way.

    Because Europe is expanding vastly its governing areas.

    You must have noticed yourself that from coming from introducing industry standards and health & safety things and grain quotas all of a sudden we're talking 'big things'. Armies, death penalties, human rights and so on. And I'm not saying Europe does this and that and I'm not saying good or bad either. All I'm saying is Europes governing bodies concern themselves with these things when previously they have not. The stakes have been raised significantly. We're talking big things now.

    And for 'big things' the structures put in place aren't good enough, they also lack legitimation.


  • Options
    #96
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    You are of course correct. We should have talked about those issues, unfortunately the leaders of No campaign decided not to debate those actual points but went on with groundless myths and lies which have been discussed at length to the detriment of a debate of what was ACTUALLY in the Treaty. I don't agree with how the Yes campaign was run but they had to spend most of their time debunking the lies spread by the No campaign.

    I agree with you, the 'No' side was shocking, non-existent. The whole thing was a smoke-screen debate.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    alrightcuz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 113 ✭✭alrightcuz


    if the yes win This will be a sad day for Ireland and for the rest of Europe .we will be looked at as fools and cowards we were given the chance to be at the heart of democracy and stand up for everyone and instead we turned or back for pieces of silver our kids will pay for what we done.

    if the treaty is so good why didn't they let everyone in every country vote and have a true- honest -Europe,,,, listening to the people is the only way forward in Europe not this treaty


  • Options
    #98
    Fuhrer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭Fuhrer


    alrightcuz wrote: »
    if the yes win This will be a sad day for Ireland and for the rest of Europe .we will be looked at as fools and cowards we were given the chance to be at the heart of democracy and stand up for everyone and instead we turned or back for pieces of silver our kids will pay for what we done.

    if the treaty is so good why didn't they let everyone in every country vote and have a true- honest -Europe,,,, listening to the people is the only way forward in Europe not this treaty


    Its a sad day for Irish education when someone uses that many comas in one line. Good lord.


  • Options
    #99
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    alrightcuz wrote: »
    if the yes win This will be a sad day for Ireland and for the rest of Europe .we will be looked at as fools and cowards we were given the chance to be at the heart of democracy and stand up for everyone and instead we turned or back for pieces of silver our kids will pay for what we done.
    In fact we already look like fools because we were tricked by extremists into voting no and we clearly don't understand how democracy works, for example the people who think that the parliaments of Europe ratifying this treaty as one of the 158 million pieces of legislation they enact as part of their jobs is somehow unusual or undemocratic. Our constitution requires us to have referendums on European treaties and theirs don't and there's nothing undemocratic about it. After the farce this referendum has been I wish we didn't have one either. Referendums on complex international treaties are not a good idea as long as lying in campaigns is allowed


  • Options
    #100
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Fuhrer wrote: »
    Its a sad day for Irish education when someone uses that many comas in one line. Good lord.

    I can't see any sleeping people in his post :P


  • Options
    #101
    Fuhrer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,661 ✭✭✭Fuhrer


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I can't see any sleeping people in his post :P


    Im a lost cause


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Referendums on complex international treaties are not a good idea as long as lying in campaigns is allowed

    Well, you may as well abolish the entire 'democratic' political system then.
    Because me thinks from local elections, to Dail elections, to referendums, from NAMA to budgets to economy predictions and general conduct of elected representatives lying is and always was par for the course.


  • Options
    #103
    Red Sleeping Beauty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Just listening to Newstalk interviewing people just after voting. They only had one no voter and she said that she doesn't want increased militarisation and is worried about neutrality. When asked about the guarantees she says "they're not legally binding"

    Well done Sinn Fein, your lies convinced at least one


    Taken alongside the people voting yes for fear of not being able to get a job, lies and dodgy statements have been seen on all sides here Sam.


  • Options
    #104
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    realcam wrote: »
    Well, you may as well abolish the entire 'democratic' political system then.
    Because me thinks from local elections, to Dail elections, to referendums, from NAMA to budgets to economy predictions and general conduct of elected representatives lying is and always was par for the course.

    No not really. Elections are always going to be decided by the people directly of course and we have them every five years in case they make a bad choice and referendums on single divisive issues that are a matter of opinion like divorce or abortion are fine but things like this are why we have governments. NAMA for example, if put to a vote would most likely be voted down massively but while it might not be perfect, it's absolutely necessary or we'll trundle along for a few more years until our banks collapse. The reason we have a system of representative democracy is that the popular choice is not always the right one for the country at the time. Tough decisions sometimes have to be made and the turkeys will never vote for Christmas even if it's absolutely necessary that they do. A prime example would be the public sector who keep saying they didn't cause the recession as an argument against cuts as if that will magic several billion into the government coffers.

    A referendum on complex issues like this are basically a massive argumentum ad populum fallacy.
    Alan Rouge wrote: »
    Taken alongside the people voting yes for fear of not being able to get a job, lies and dodgy statements have been seen on all sides here Sam.

    They're not lies, they're reasonable predictions based on experience and expert advice


  • Options
    #105
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    NAMA for example, if put to a vote would most likely be voted down massively but while it might not be perfect, it's absolutely necessary or we'll trundle along for a few more years until our banks collapse.

    Well, that's why we should have let Anglo go down immediately. And Nationwide probably, too. BOI would be stable enough to survive I reckon. If not you could give them a few bucks, but the rest should have been given a taste of what they were preaching throughout the years. Market laws.

    But I suppose there is other threads for that...


  • Options
    #106
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The reason we have a system of representative democracy is that the popular choice is not always the right one for the country at the time.

    Now see this is where you have your politics wrong.

    Reason why we have a representative democracy is because we 4 million people don't all fit into Leinster House. We don't elect them to be more of an "expert" than ourselves. I mean look at the current shower. Half the people in my company have more of a brain than most of these guys.

    We elect them to tell us what they stand for and if their opinion is our opinion we give them our mandate to express said opinion for us and act upon it. We don't elect them to disappear into some sort of ivory tower and make decisions for us on things we '"don't understand properly" or make decisions for us that will be good for us if only "we knew...", but effectively contradict what we voted them in for in the first place, to look after our interests. After all we are the sovereign in a democracy and all power comes from us.

    That for example is the reason why in a proper democracy the Executive (government) is always being kept in check by the Legislative (parliament). So that once in power they can't go off on some mad rampage and do whatever they want. A controlling mechanism - by the way - that is not quite in place in Europe after the Lisbon treaty. Something I pointed out several times but people were too busy screaming 'lies!' at each other.


Advertisement