Q2002 wrote: » I might actually vote this time!
humanji wrote: » Why not actually read the treaty (it's honestly not that hard, I managed it FFS, and I'm thick as pig shìt!) and deciding what's best for you? What's the worst that can happen? Sure if the treaty is really that bad for everyone, it'll be a no vote again. One day out of your life isn't going to make that much of a difference.
humanji wrote: » Ok people, I know this is going to fall on deaf ears, but 28% of the population voted no. And a portion of that admitted to not voting on what was actually in the treaty. How is following the will of an ill-informed minority democratic? Think about it. If nobody except for 2 people actually managed to vote last time, and they voted yes because they thought it was about ice-cream, would you honestly want to honour that vote? Why not actually read the treaty (it's honestly not that hard, I managed it FFS, and I'm thick as pig shìt!) and deciding what's best for you? What's the worst that can happen? Sure if the treaty is really that bad for everyone, it'll be a no vote again. One day out of your life isn't going to make that much of a difference.
walshb wrote: » I say that the majority didn't read, (That's a a given!) the treaty, YES and NO, so if they didn't read it, then why the hell vote YES to something they didn't read? It works both ways. IMO, it makes more sense to vote NO to a treaty you know nothing about
thelordofcheese wrote: » Stop making excuses for voter ignorance. It's disgusting.
ronbyrne2005 wrote: » IMO the more laws and rules and regulations we get from EU the better as the politicans here only want rules/laws that suit them and their cronies
walshb wrote: » I'm worried you are actually serious?
thelordofcheese wrote: » Everybody shut up and listen to this, because it's the most sensible thing that will be said in this thread.
walshb wrote: » What? How the hell do you know that I or others did or did not read the treaty? You sound completely like the chancers trying to force this on us.Those same chancers themselves didn't even know the treaty details This gets better alright; it is NOW being intimated that the YES voters read the treaty and it wasn't simply a case of "my govt want me to vote this way," but the NO voters didn't read it and just voted NO. I say that the majority didn't read, (That's a a given!) the treaty, YES and NO, so if they didn't read it, then why the hell vote YES to something they didn't read? It works both ways. IMO, it makes more sense to vote NO to a treaty you know nothing about