Biggins wrote: » ...because its his democratic right to do so and without pressure of having to explain why he is voting in one direction or another!
ven0m wrote: » Show us where on the voting forms it said: "If no, please tick why you are voting 'no'" Democratic voting is simple - a right to say 'yes' or 'no' for whatever reason you like without prejudice for that reason, or a right to question that reason. it is a simple mandate. Methinks you need to climb down off that horse of yours there hoss.
Adamcp898 wrote: » Think I might register to vote just to say no.
ven0m wrote: » Go back to fashioning tin-foil hats, you're better at them than debating.
20goto10 wrote: » Thats not what democracy is. Democracy is a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections. It is the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life. Tell how voting No because you can't be arsed to understand what you're voting for is democratic? Its an abuse of power influenced by those with an ulterior motive. Its a total embarrasment and even more reason why political power should be taken out of the hands of gob ****es and into those who know what they're doing.
Donald-Duck wrote: » Oh the irony.
wendelsailor wrote: » Some of the opinions here are so stupid. In these "hard" times were going to need Europe more than ever and the last thing this country should do is turn it's back on Europe.
wendelsailor wrote: » Half of you probably don't even understand anything about the treaty anyway!
ven0m wrote: » Your opinion on this counts for jack - our constitution guarantees otherwise, or perhaps you've forgotten about that.
ven0m wrote: » being ignorant of how democracy works is worse, look in the mirror.
ven0m wrote: » It is not for US to provide an alternative. it is for the DEMOCRATICALLY elected governments of Europe to finally listen to calls from the people of their nations to have referendums, & to follow what is mandated from them.
ven0m wrote: » 'trite' - is that a new word you learned of your 'word of the day' emails?
ven0m wrote: » It would serve you better instead of hashing out crass responses to actually make an argument of any worth to support your case & I notice you side-stepped my question to you. perhaps you yourself have no understanding, other than the half arsed position you seem to have taken that offers little support to your logic, or any tangible discussion points furthering your own standpoint.
Mark200 wrote: » If they change the treaty and then put it up for voting again I don't see why anyone would be annoyed. The whole Libertas slogan was "get a better deal for Ireland" and then when we get the chance on voting for a 'better deal' like Libertas wanted, now the argument is going to be "oh how undemocratic"??? What the hell?
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.
ben bedlam wrote: » The best thing about rejecting Lisbon 2 will be that ignorant pig Cowen having to step down as Taoiseach as his postion becomes untenible.
ven0m wrote: » You are entitled to a vote, & to use that vote as you personally see fit, in whatever manner you wish for whatever reasons, politics, or logic you wish, without rebuke or question. Democracy contains no bias towards how people vote, nor should it. It is the purest form of entitlement within a free state that forms its constitution on the acceptance of that, which ours does. I'd suggest you go read instead of reducing yourself to calling people gob****es & whatnot because they voted how they voted, which frankly is none of your business.
ven0m wrote: » Hardly a reason for rejecting Lisbon, as it's not about how bad this government is, but again - you're entitled to cast your vote how you see fit on whatever grounds you like, thank your constitution
ben bedlam wrote: » EU "assurances" mean nothing, as they are not legally binding. Not one syllable of the treaty will be changed,
20goto10 wrote: » Its stubborn attitudes like this that have got us in this mess. Nobody is denying the democratic will of the Irish people. We've rejected it, so ok they have to go back and change it and address our concerns. How exactly do you address the concerns which have nothing to do with what we were voting on? Or how do you address the issue of people voting no because they can't be arsed to find out what they are voting on? Can you not see the problem here? This is not democracy in action. btw, how you voted is not my business but the outcome certainly is my business. In fact I would say unless you have read the treaty and know what you voted for then it is actually none of your business.
ven0m wrote: » How is my attitude about how people voted 'stubborn'? Our constitution & acceptance of democracy means we have to accept that people can & will vote how they want for absolutely ridiculous reasons, & there's nothing anyone can do about it. I don't understand why people think 'spoiling votes' is acceptable, what's the point in even voting then, that person may as well abstain along with the apathetics. The people whinging about people who voted yes or no cos they didn't know, or who voted 'no' as a way to punish the government (which IS retarded!!!) are entitled to that, & all of us who believe in democracy must respect those votes as distasteful as they may be. Either you want democracy or you don't. There's no grey shades for it, & certainly none that our constitution seems to provide for. Under that framework, someone voting 'yes' because their Rice Krispies told them is as legitimate as someone who understood the crux of what they voted 'yes' for. That is an inescapable fact, & one all of us on the side of any referendum item must accept as we use the democratic process to mandate.
nyarlothothep wrote: » A lot of people voted without bothering to read the treaty and were duped by misinformation. That to me is a total affront to democracy.
ben bedlam wrote: » I do not want anything to be changed. The Lisbon Treaty was rejected by the Irish vote, end of. My point is that in the coming weeks and months, the government will attempt to say to the Irish people "The EU looked at our concerns and addressed them" when in legally binding reality, nothing has changed, and the EXACT SAME TREATY will be presented again to the Irish electorate.
20goto10 wrote: » What do you want changed? There was a report drawn up as to what needed to be changed in order for the Irish to be happy with the treaty. None of it had anything to do with the treaty! Can you not see the problem here? And besides that, we've spent 7 years debating and negotiating the treaty. If you had a problem with it you should have said so when there was time to do something about it.
thelordofcheese wrote: » I'd disagree, i'm fairly certain post election polls cited "i couldn't be arsed learning about it" as one of the main reasons people voted no. Certain Fianna Fail ones? Firstly, i don't think should ever have been put to a public vote. plebicite is a horrible basis for forming law. I disagree with you here. There are negatives to putting these things to referendum but our constitution is a great thing in that we elect people to run our country by these rules. If they want to change the rules they have to ask us. Without it the government could do whatever it feels for 5 years. Second, the problem i have isn't that passed or failed, but the encouragement (mostly on the no side) that it's ok to be ignorant as long as you vote our way. Agreed. I believe everyone has a right to vote Yes or No and can decide themselves. The problem I have is that people seem to cast the no voters into the ignorant pile and the yes voters into the enlightened pile. (See a certain 'tard post earlier) Third, we're not exactly alien to having issues put infront of us more than once. The idea that if a no vote can lead to a second referendum then so can a yes is stupid, because it fails to acknowledge that the reason topics resurface is because they are not resolved. Ah yes but at least feign the idea that you'll push to change the treaty or abandon it completely. Dont comeback with the same one. The problem here is if they're coming back with a revised treaty then why did they not protest the EU presidency asking other countries to continue ratifying a treaty that needed to be renegotiated and therefore ratified all over again? Or are they coming back with the exact same treaty? Which really is disrepecting the electorate. The people here who are doing their best petualant five year old impression would probably be more productive if they actually discussed the treaty itself and what they see as it's problems and what solutions there might be, rather than making trite comparisons to horrible foreign regimes. I debated the topics less than a year ago. I will again when I see a revised treaty. Till then all we can debate is the actions of our government.
Certain Fianna Fail ones? Firstly, i don't think should ever have been put to a public vote. plebicite is a horrible basis for forming law. I disagree with you here. There are negatives to putting these things to referendum but our constitution is a great thing in that we elect people to run our country by these rules. If they want to change the rules they have to ask us. Without it the government could do whatever it feels for 5 years. Second, the problem i have isn't that passed or failed, but the encouragement (mostly on the no side) that it's ok to be ignorant as long as you vote our way. Agreed. I believe everyone has a right to vote Yes or No and can decide themselves. The problem I have is that people seem to cast the no voters into the ignorant pile and the yes voters into the enlightened pile. (See a certain 'tard post earlier) Third, we're not exactly alien to having issues put infront of us more than once. The idea that if a no vote can lead to a second referendum then so can a yes is stupid, because it fails to acknowledge that the reason topics resurface is because they are not resolved. Ah yes but at least feign the idea that you'll push to change the treaty or abandon it completely. Dont comeback with the same one. The problem here is if they're coming back with a revised treaty then why did they not protest the EU presidency asking other countries to continue ratifying a treaty that needed to be renegotiated and therefore ratified all over again? Or are they coming back with the exact same treaty? Which really is disrepecting the electorate. The people here who are doing their best petualant five year old impression would probably be more productive if they actually discussed the treaty itself and what they see as it's problems and what solutions there might be, rather than making trite comparisons to horrible foreign regimes. I debated the topics less than a year ago. I will again when I see a revised treaty. Till then all we can debate is the actions of our government.
Firstly, i don't think should ever have been put to a public vote. plebicite is a horrible basis for forming law.
Second, the problem i have isn't that passed or failed, but the encouragement (mostly on the no side) that it's ok to be ignorant as long as you vote our way.
Third, we're not exactly alien to having issues put infront of us more than once. The idea that if a no vote can lead to a second referendum then so can a yes is stupid, because it fails to acknowledge that the reason topics resurface is because they are not resolved.
The people here who are doing their best petualant five year old impression would probably be more productive if they actually discussed the treaty itself and what they see as it's problems and what solutions there might be, rather than making trite comparisons to horrible foreign regimes.
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » Therefore you are fully entitled to vote No - however you are not entitled to say that the refererendum should not take place.
