nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

More annoying Creationism or Lisbon Treaty rejection?

Tim Robbins

Some of the reasons for No are more annoying than anything I have heard for creationism. I am gutted about Friday and need to let off some steam. Here of some examples of some of the stupidest arguments I have heard in recent weeks.

Exampe 1: I am not voing No to something I can't understand?
Retort 1.a:
Why don't you abstain if you can't understand?
Retort 1.b:
If you don't want to read a complicated treaty, read the refcom summary.

Example 2: I don't like FF or the scandals about Bertie.
Retort 2.a: This is treaty about Europe not FF or Bertie.

Example 3: It's too complicated, it should be simplier.
Retort: Do you honestly expect a legal agreement between 27 countries which must be detailed, to be like a postman pat story?

Example 4: I don't trust Irish politicians.
Retort a: Well then why are you voting against something which helps the EU not Irish politicians.
Retort b: What's the logical conclusion of that? Get rid of all Irish politicians?

Example 5: I don't like the way the ECB put up interest rates?
Retort: So what's the logical conclusion, revert to having our own central bank, leave the Euro and revert to using the punt?

Example 6: We are loosing our Commissioner?
Retort a: We have the same commisioner rights as any other country, including Germany and France.
Retort b: The commissioners are legally obliged not to show any bias to their own country anyway.

Example 7: I don't see like the idea of an EU superstate?
Retort a: So do you think the world should be run by the US and China? Or should we just become a US proxy?
Retort b: How about ideas such as co-operation and economies of scale, are you against them as well?

Example 8: The EU is not democratic. Why aren't other countries having their say?
Every country elected representatives to negotiate that treaty for them.
Some countries have had a bad experience with referendums because they are a good way of creating misunderstandings and discontent. In Germany, Hitler used referendums to grow his power base for example.

Basically we have said no without offering one intelligble reason why or one constructive suggestion for a way forward. It just looks like we are not interested in the EU unless we are getting massive handouts. That treaty took 6 years to negotiate. There were millions of niggly points. Even whether to include the references to our Christian heritage. A compromise was reached between 27 elected governments. The EU is one of the few international organisations that has any concept of ethics, labour laws, the environment, the importance of science and it makes sense we work together. Everything that was a major issue for us, e.g. tax, we got our way. Now, we just look stupid and greedy and I ashamed of being Irish.

The tactics the No campaign used were very similar to creationism. Look at the complexity of something, create doubt and fear. Offer absolutely nothing better with any substance.

Very sad day. Either the EU project will stall or else move on without us.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dave!

It's a close one mate

Akrasia

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Example 4: I don't trust Irish politicians.
Retort a: Well then why are you voting against something which helps the EU not Irish politicians.
Retort b: What's the logical conclusion of that? Get rid of all Irish politicians?

There is a very strong reason to believe that we were being deceived (not just by Irish politicians)

The coverage of Sarcozi has been very interesting post referendum with many reports that his presidency of the E.U. is in crisis following the Irish rejection of the treaty.

What does this mean? It means his secretive agenda (he was waiting until after the vote to release the agenda of his presidency because he knew if the Irish were better informed we would react badly) of tax harmonisaton and further centralising of decision making in europe would only have been possible if Lisbon had been passed.

Example 6: We are loosing our Commissioner?
Retort a: We have the same commisioner rights as any other country, including Germany and France.
Retort b: The commissioners are legally obliged not to show any bias to their own country anyway.

The commission is the only place legislation can be introduced in the E.U. It's a very undemocratic institution already, and would be very much less democratic we lose our only influence for a third of the time.

Example 7: I don't see like the idea of an EU superstate?
Retort a: So do you think the world should be run by the US and China? Or should we just become a US proxy?
Retort b: How about ideas such as co-operation and economies of scale, are you against them as well?

This is the nub of the issue. You appear to think a federalist E.U. is a good idea, while others do not want to hand over so much power to the E.U. and value their national sovergnity. Those that don't agree with you you label lunatics (by associating them with creationists)

People don't like the direction the E.U. is going. We don't want to be ruled by beurocrats in Brussles with hardly any influence in what they do. (our most powerful influence is our insistence in holding referendums on E.U. treaties, and we are seeing now just how little they respect the democratic will of the Irish people.)

Example 8: The EU is not democratic. Why aren't other countries having their say?
Every country elected representatives to negotiate that treaty for them.
Some countries have had a bad experience with referendums because they are a good way of creating misunderstandings and discontent. In Germany, Hitler used referendums to grow his power base for example.

That's a perfect example of goodwins law. "Referendums are evil, that;s what hitler did' The only 'Bad experience' the E.U. elites have had with referendums are that the people cant be trusted to accept their decrees. There have been a large number of E.U. treaties that have been passed in many nationstates by referendum. The people will vote for treaties that they are in favour of. It is totally undemocratic for nations to pass a treaty through their parliament that they know full well their people are opposed to. (the U.K., France, Netherlands all did exactly this)

Basically we have said no without offering one intelligble reason why or one constructive suggestion for a way forward. It just looks like we are not interested in the EU unless we are getting massive handouts. That treaty took 6 years to negotiate. There were millions of niggly points. Even whether to include the references to our Christian heritage. A compromise was reached between 27 elected governments. The EU is one of the few international organisations that has any concept of ethics, labour laws, the environment, the importance of science and it makes sense we work together. Everything that was a major issue for us, e.g. tax, we got our way. Now, we just look stupid and greedy and I ashamed of being Irish.

The tactics the No campaign used were very similar to creationism. Look at the complexity of something, create doubt and fear. Offer absolutely nothing better with any substance.

Very sad day. Either the EU project will stall or else move on without us.

Or the E.U. is like an organism that is evolving. Its getting bigger and bigger and more and more complex, but it's starting to get too big, and it's starting to exhaust its food supply and is less agile.

Bigger isn't always better. More integration isn't always better.

If every region in the world consolidated and consolidated with closer and closer cooperation, we'd ultimately see the emergence of 4 or 5 huge federations all with competing interests and with the very real risk of global conflicts on a scale we have never seen before.

The E.U. is a trading block, a way to increase cooperation. we don't need to become a superstate.
The bigger it gets the less democratic it has to be by definition

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Some of the reasons for No are more annoying than anything I have heard for creationism.

Much my thoughts too, having heard seven people I know mention their forehead-slappingly stupid reasons for voting "no".

btw, I've a thread going here in the EU forum about dumb reasons.

Here's my favourite, from yesterday afternoon, by somebody in Herbert Road with a white plastic board and a spraycan. The sign under the Lisbon poster is for a missing cat, btw:

robindch

Akrasia wrote: »

The people will vote for treaties that they are in favour of.

Yes, that's right, but that can only happen honestly when people take their responsibility to inform themselves fully about the topic at hand, and then vote (or abstain) based upon an accurate appreciation. That's democracy in action.

Tim's point, and I entirely agree with him, is that this did not happen in this election. Instead, a large portion of the electorate voted according to their thoughts on issues unrelated to the Treaty, and which in my experience frequently bordered on the delusional, at the behest of various organizations which, to say the very least, were less than honest.

Consequently, what we saw on Thursday was not the practice of democracy which I understand to proceed from the informed consent of the electorate, but an outcome which (if the IT poll ten days ago is accurate) was delivered through a mixture of ignorance and Karl-Rove-style manipulation of the electorate.

It's not nice and the comparison to creationism is apt.

Tim Robbins

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a very strong reason to believe that we were being deceived (not just by Irish politicians)

Do you think the US put a man on the moon? What about 9 / 11 did it really happen?

The coverage of Sarcozi has been very interesting post referendum with many reports that his presidency of the E.U. is in crisis following the Irish rejection of the treaty.

What coverage? Silly tabloid journalists? Where you voting for Sarcozi or a Treaty which took 6 years to negotiate between 27 countries?

The commission is the only place legislation can be introduced in the E.U. It's a very undemocratic institution already, and would be very much less democratic we lose our only influence for a third of the time.

No the commission proposes legislation that's all, the other strands ratify and enact it. Including our own Dail.
You really aren't very well informed.

This is the nub of the issue. You appear to think a federalist E.U. is a good idea, while others do not want to hand over so much power to the E.U. and value their national sovergnity. Those that don't agree with you you label lunatics (by associating them with creationists)

They just don't have any intelligent reasons. Simple as that.

People don't like the direction the E.U. is going. We don't want to be ruled by beurocrats in Brussles with hardly any influence in what they do. (our most powerful influence is our insistence in holding referendums on E.U. treaties, and we are seeing now just how little they respect the democratic will of the Irish people.)

We elect the EU parliament which has been getting increasing powers.
We elect the ministers which sit at the council of ministers meetings. OUr government, which we elect appoint our commisioner.

It is totally undemocratic for nations to pass a treaty through their parliament that they know full well their people are opposed to. (the U.K., France, Netherlands all did exactly this)

More stupidity. The parliament, and governments of 27 states were all democratically elected to negotiate that and every European treaty. It is too complicated to have referenda for every nation because the people are not involved directly in the negotations. This is for logistical reasons. You can't 500 million sit around a table and reach consensus. Therefore, it is up for each elected government to speak for its citizens. Ever here of the UN it works the same way. Do you think that should be scrapped because we have never had a referendum for it?

We only have referendums because our constituition was written in the 1930's before the concept the EU had even being thought about. IT actually makes no sense to give complicated legal documents to people to vote on who don't even understand the basics of the European politics.

What about the IPCC 4th report on climate change? Where was our referendum on that. If we have a referendum on a complicated legal document why not have one on a complicated scientific document? By your ridiculous logic there is a clear democratic deficit with respect to climate change.

The E.U. is a trading block, a way to increase cooperation. we don't need to become a superstate.
The bigger it gets the less democratic it has to be by definition

This is just rhetoric. You are just using a silly scare word : "superstate" without saying what exactly the problem is. Absolutely no logic.

Your arguments are no more intelligble than any thing I have heard from a creationist. There are gaps in the fossil record and evolution is only a theory.

Please go off and read some good books. The Oxford VSI to the European Union would be a good place to start.

Ireland has to return to the EU and give some way forward or else opt out.
We look absolutely stupid because we have no intelligent reason.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We only have referendums because our constituition was written in the 1930's before the concept the EU had even being thought about.

Not true. In what I think was an amendment to the 1987 ruling by the Supreme Court in case that Ray Crotty took against the government over the Single European Act, the Court recommended that all future EU Treaties would have to be approved by referendum in order to ensure their constitutionality.

CerebralCortex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Exampe 1: I am not voing No to something I can't understand?
Retort 1.a:
Why don't you abstain if you can't understand?
Retort 1.b:
If you don't want to read a complicated treaty, read the refcom summary.

What if you weren't in a positiom to understand it and wanted to exercise you democratic rights.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Example 3: It's too complicated, it should be simplier.
Retort: Do you honestly expect a legal agreement between 27 countries which must be detailed, to be like a postman pat story?

Maybe it should be delivered in stages.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Example 4: I don't trust Irish politicians.
Retort a: Well then why are you voting against something which helps the EU not Irish politicians.
Retort b: What's the logical conclusion of that? Get rid of all Irish politicians?

Well it makes life difficult for them especially if you didn't vote for them in the general election.

I'm with you on every other example except the following

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Example 8: The EU is not democratic. Why aren't other countries having their say?
Every country elected representatives to negotiate that treaty for them.
Some countries have had a bad experience with referendums because they are a good way of creating misunderstandings and discontent. In Germany, Hitler used referendums to grow his power base for example.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Basically we have said no without offering one intelligble reason why or one constructive suggestion for a way forward. It just looks like we are not interested in the EU unless we are getting massive handouts. That treaty took 6 years to negotiate. There were millions of niggly points. Even whether to include the references to our Christian heritage. A compromise was reached between 27 elected governments. The EU is one of the few international organisations that has any concept of ethics, labour laws, the environment, the importance of science and it makes sense we work together. Everything that was a major issue for us, e.g. tax, we got our way. Now, we just look stupid and greedy and I ashamed of being Irish.

The tactics the No campaign used were very similar to creationism. Look at the complexity of something, create doubt and fear. Offer absolutely nothing better with any substance.

Very sad day. Either the EU project will stall or else move on without us.

In fairness a lot of fear has been created by the yes side too about its rejection, of course there shouldn't be this is a democracy.

Galvasean

Um.. why is this in A&A?

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Not true. In what I think was an amendment to the 1987 ruling by the Supreme Court in case that Ray Crotty took against the government over the Single European Act, the Court recommended that all future EU Treaties would have to be approved by referendum in order to ensure their constitutionality.

The court ruled that way because it interpretated the constituition as such. That was my understanding, open to correction.

ZorbaTehZ

My personal favourite is "I'm voting no because we need to keep the politicians on their toes"

Akrasia wrote: »

That's a perfect example of goodwins law. "Referendums are evil, that;s what hitler did"

Reductio ad hitlerum

Galvasean wrote:

Um.. why is this in A&A?

Tim Robbins

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What if you weren't in a positiom to understand it and wanted to exercise you democratic rights.

You shouldn't vote if you don't understand. Or else you should close your eyes and just tick a box.

Maybe it should be delivered in stages.

So you have to get 27 countries to agree to that. The other 26 say, why should it be delivered in stages? What's the logical reason? Ireland are you just trying to slow things down?

In fairness a lot of fear has been created by the yes side too about its rejection, of course there shouldn't be this is a democracy.

And that fear is valid. The Euro already devalued 1.7% on Friday. This will put more pressure onthe ECB. Do you have a morgage by any chance? Inflation is sky high in the Euro zone, already, now more pressure.

Basically, the Euro market is trying to compete with US, China, Brazil, Japan etc. 27 countries agree a way of reforming to speed up legislation and to operate more efficiently, instead of progressing that Ireland throws a spanner in the works for what? Again I repeat for what? We got everything we wanted at the negotiations? We have no logical reason or constructive suggestion for a better solution?

We are now in the position whereby the other 26 countries can go ahead and ratify this treaty. Where does that leave us? We have said no but can't even articulate an intelligent reason, so how do resolve something we can't even articulate.

They can technically move on without us. They'd be stupid not to try to do that. IF 26 countries agree a way forward and 1 country can't even articulate a reason why it doesn't agree, why should they wait around?

Now our electorate has created a mess for our own government to sort out. Instead of progressing with the program for government, we have to spend more time trying to find a resolution for this mess. Again for what? We already had consensual agreement with other member states and won the negotiations in key areas? What more do we want?

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Galvasean

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What if you weren't in a positiom to understand it and wanted to exercise you democratic rights.

Simple, spoil your vote on purpose.

PDN

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

I'm sure I'm being terribly politically incorrect, but I see little point in allowing people to vote on things when they lack the qualities necessary to make an informed and sensible decision.

For example, opinion polls consistently show that a majority of the UK population would vote for the restoration of capital punishment - but I think that MP's demonstrate good leadership when they refuse to enact the will of the people in this regard.

If people were unable to discern the lies that were told about the Lisbon Treaty then they obviously lack the qualifications to be included in the decision making process. Other governments recognised that fact.

Incidentally, I would also be opposed to the content of a school's science curriculum being determined by referendum.

CerebralCortex

Galvasean wrote: »

Simple, spoil your vote on purpose.

Don't believe in spoiling my vote. You don't really say much by doing that in my opinion.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

I'm sure I'm being terribly politically incorrect, but I see little point in allowing people to vote on things when they lack the qualities necessary to make an informed and sensible decision.

For example, opinion polls consistently show that a majority of the UK population would vote for the restoration of capital punishment - but I think that MP's demonstrate good leadership when they refuse to enact the will of the people in this regard.

If people were unable to discern the lies that were told about the Lisbon Treaty then they obviously lack the qualifications to be included in the decision making process. Other governments recognised that fact.

Incidentally, I would also be opposed to the content of a school's science curriculum being determined by referendum.

Couldn't agree more. :eek:

While democracy is a fantastic idea, it isn't always so simple or practical to let people decide, especially when the people haven't got a clue what they are voting about.

Fanny Cradock

I admit that I was one of the uneducated masses with regards to this vote. I found that neither side made a particularly strong case for my vote. This meant that I was left with my general mistrust of all this political to guide my decision. So ignorance and mistrust where the cornerstones of my decision

Somehow I think Europe will continue to trundle along.

As an aside, I have absolutely no idea what the views of creationists have to do with the Lisbon Treaty. Votes weren't necessarily decided by religious belief. I know atheists who voted no and Christian who voted yes.

JC 2K3

If you're going to liken the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty to Creationism, let me liken the Yes campaign to religious fear mongering.

Schuhart

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Example 3: It's too complicated, it should be simplier.
Retort: Do you honestly expect a legal agreement between 27 countries which must be detailed, to be like a postman pat story?

You will recall that the reason we had this turkey on our table was because an earlier, more coherent, document had failed to get a popular mandate from French and Dutch voters. The document was deliberately convoluted to make it unintelligible to voters.

I agree many may have had silly reasons for voting no. I didn't vote, as I was out of the country, but I probably would have voted yes for all the wrong reasons - basically if people all over Europe are willing to let their governments treat them with contempt like this, I don't see us as really being in a position to take leadership on bridging the gap between Brussels and the people. Signs on - we've voted no and its not as if Biffo is out there with a new vision for Europe.

But I think we need to grasp the whole picture. A shoddy treaty, thrown together so that governments could ignore their electorates, got voted down by Ireland. The No vote was particular high in counties with a high population of lonely farmers and nervous sheep. I don't have any particular shame about this shoddy enterprise coming to grief like this, as I think there is a technocratic elite wanting to further the European project without a mandate.

And they simply need to get that mandate. Whether they like it or not. (And its pretty clear, incidently, that its 'not'). Without it, they simply have no legitimacy.

Or would you rather we went back to the idea that them fellahs with a bit of education have far more of a clue than us, and they must know what they're talking about when they say its wrong to wear a condom.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

I'm sure I'm being terribly politically incorrect, but I see little point in allowing people to vote on things when they lack the qualities necessary to make an informed and sensible decision.

Democracy failed the day stupid people began to outnumber intelligent people, but grew just intelligent enough to wander into the voting booth.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Don't believe in spoiling my vote. You don't really say much by doing that in my opinion.

It makes a lot more sense than voting for something you don't understand. If everyone were to do that, we might as well pass referendums by the flip of a coin.
If you spoil your vote on purpose at least they know you were interested enough to vote, just couldn't decide what to vote for. If they got a million votes back saying 'Not enough information to make informed decision' they may rethink how to go about future referendums.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

As an aside, I have absolutely no idea what the views of creationists have to do with the Lisbon Treaty. Votes weren't necessarily decided by religious belief. I know atheists who voted no and Christian who voted yes.

Indeed. I'm still wondering why its in A&A.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

Ireland should be run by Moderators, who can hand out infractions and bans for stupidity. I'd start with infractions for everyone who voted no for a stupid reason (not that they'd have been allowed vote in the first place).

Galvasean wrote: »

Indeed. I'm still wondering why its in A&A.

Me too. Though I'm strangely reluctant to do anything about it.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

I'm sure I'm being terribly politically incorrect, but I see little point in allowing people to vote on things when they lack the qualities necessary to make an informed and sensible decision.

Should such people also be exempt from eternal damnation? I mean, if they lack the wherewithal to decide if they want more European integration, presumably they similarly can't be expected to decide which religion, if any, they should be following.

I suppose, alternatively, your argument might be that there is no potential conflict here as a) stupid people should not be allowed to vote in referenda and b)those same stupid people will be damned by God. Its just that seems to do away with the idea of free will having something to do with salvation as God has created folk incapable both of participating as responsible voters and participating as responsible believers.

I knew there had to be a religious angle to this thread.

Talliesin

As far as I can see the only connection is that the OP has Creationism, religious belief, and Lisbon scepticism together as three things that he disagrees with, and as such bearing some sort of relationship to each other.

This does not seem like very clear thinking to me.

I can just about see a connection with the way that people on all three sides ("three" because the No side contained a lot of far-right and a lot of far-left who had extremely different takes on why they were opposed) seemed to expect us to make a leap of faith.

At least Libertas went to the effort of making some sort of argument as to why people should vote no. They were largely bull****, but believing a lie isn't as dumb as voting as someone says when they've nothing better than "because I say so".

Tim Robbins

Schuhart wrote: »

The document was deliberately convoluted to make it unintelligible to voters.

I disagree. It was convulted because it's complicated agreement between 27 sovereign nations. Very few people would read anything at all about democracy, so naturally a list of amendments to the EU is going to be too much for them.

But I think we need to grasp the whole picture. A shoddy treaty, thrown together so that governments could ignore their electorates, got voted down by Ireland.

Thrown together, it was 6.5 years of negotiations of democratically elected governments.

The No vote was particular high in counties with a high population of lonely farmers and nervous sheep. I don't have any particular shame about this shoddy enterprise coming to grief like this, as I think there is a technocratic elite wanting to further the European project without a mandate.

I would imagine it was also high amongst people who don't read that much.

And they simply need to get that mandate. Whether they like it or not. (And its pretty clear, incidently, that its 'not'). Without it, they simply have no legitimacy.

The treaty was negotatiated for 27 countries by 27 soverign, democractically elected governments. That's a mandate.

If you insist of referendums of complicated legalise well then you must consistent and apply the same rules to the UN. Now could you tell me how many referendums there have been for that?

How about the WTO?

I don't know if you read any of my previous posts but it's actually a very difficult objective to reach agreement amongst 27 nations.
All nations have their caveats which must be negotiated. Now, if you insist it must have the backing the all the people of all countries well then how can ever envisaging that happening without having alll 500 million people in the negotiations.
Also you must be consisted and apply it to every international organisaion we participate in, including the EU.

Tim Robbins

Talliesin wrote: »

As far as I can see the only connection is that the OP has Creationism, religious belief, and Lisbon scepticism together as three things that he disagrees with, and as such bearing some sort of relationship to each other.

You can remove religious belief from that set. Religious belief is a personal choice which in many cases has had many positive effects for society and individuals even if it's not fundamentally true.

Creationism is absolute nonsense, so is No to Lisbon. The latter is far more annoying because it has thrown this state into a right mess.

I have a job and a morgage. I don't see creationism threathening either, sadly it's not the same for this No to Lisbon idiocy.

Right now, I am embarrased to be Irish. Embarrased to be from a nation that made it so clear that it's not interested in EU unless it's getting handouts and tries to disguise that behind silly arguments such as: it's too complicated.

We're supposed to be an educated society, we should be able to do better.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Democracy + Uneducated People = Bad Decisions

Agree but we're supposed to be educated. We've statistically a high percentage of people who go onto third level.

I think it's a case of:
Democracy + Greedy People = Bad Decisions.

The problem is people have become so obsessed with themselves, they have forgotten the concept of a world view.

Talliesin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

a nation that made it so clear that it's not interested in EU unless it's getting handouts and tries to disguise that behind silly arguments such as: it's too complicated.

So, you don't think there's anyone in the entire country, or indeed the entire EU, that believes the treaty isn't in the best interest of EU citizens? Not a single one?

Tim Robbins

Talliesin wrote: »

So, you don't think there's anyone in the entire country, or indeed the entire EU, that believes the treaty isn't in the best interest of EU citizens? Not a single one?

Of course they may believe it but they are incapable of articulating a logical argument. Hence the comparison to creationists.

OK-Cancel-Apply

I wonder what percentage of people voted 'no' primarily because of the religion (abortion) issue. Had a certain group of people put aside their religious beliefs, could we have seen a 'yes' result?

Galvasean

Talliesin wrote: »

So, you don't think there's anyone in the entire country, or indeed the entire EU, that believes the treaty isn't in the best interest of EU citizens? Not a single one?

For the record I voted 'No' and don't meet the criteria outlined in the OP.
Of course if someone disagrees with a referendum they must be ignorant because we know the treaty was nothing but sunshine and rainbows. :rolleyes:
If it were so clear cut which was the right decision there would be no need to vote on it.