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

Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!

skelliser

So we're gonna get a second referendum on the lisbon treaty!
Hooray for democracy!

Find more posts tagged with

rabble rabble rabble

careful now

vote yes

don't vote

nazi germany and ufos?

srs thread

vote yes!

don't vote no

poop throwing

uninformed idiocy

goddamn commies

welcome our eu overlords

no means yes

vote for more sexi wimmin

vote no!

vote kodos

keep ireland irish

don't care

Quick Links

Comments

SheroN

ben bedlam wrote: »

I am entitled to say that another referendum should not take place, as is the country as a whole. We were asked a question, and the majority of our electorate answered NO to that question.

As far as I know the treaty will have changes so you're voting on something else.

Ckal

SheroN wrote: »

As far as I know the treaty will have changes so you're voting on something else.

But can the treaty have changes when 99% of EU has ratified something different? Wouldn't the rest of Europe have to ratify this amended treaty for it to be passed?

20goto10

CaptainNegative wrote: »

But if we knew, we could shoot it down when it came to the referendum, why bother saying anything beforehand?

Because it was brought to a referendum as having already been debated on by our politicians. Our elected politicians. The negotiating stage was over, it was time to accept or reject. Yes we rejected, so lets change it to address the concerns of the nation.....only what exactly needs to be changed? Our concerns have got nothing to do with the treaty.

Here's a nice bit of democracy. 1 small Island gets to dictate to 26 other nations.

ShooterSF

Ckal wrote: »

But can the treaty have changes when 99% of EU has ratified something different? Wouldn't the rest of Europe have to ratify this amended treaty for it to be passed?

Surely they would. So why didnt the government protest the EU presidency's demand for the rest of Europe to continue passing a treaty that was dead in it's current state?

ven0m

20goto10 wrote: »

Here's a nice bit of democracy. 1 small Island gets to dictate to 26 other nations.

Actually you're wrong there. The majority of those 26 nations didn't even get to have their say & were dictated to by their own governments, despite opposition & outcries for referendums. So don't play that card.

Ckal

ShooterSF wrote: »

Surely they would. So why didnt the government protest the EU presidency's demand for the rest of Europe to continue passing a treaty that was dead in it's current state?

Okay! I just don't want to vote Yes and then be told that these amendments can't happen because 99% of Europe didn't agree to it.

Tchaikovsky

No means no, mofo.

20goto10

ven0m wrote: »

Actually you're wrong there. The majority of those 26 nations didn't even get to have their say & were dictated to by their own governments, despite opposition & outcries for referendums. So don't play that card.

Dictated to by their elected politicians and law makers? Their constitutions don't require a referendum. Its none of our business to interfere in that.

ven0m

20goto10 wrote: »

Dictated to by their elected politicians? Their constitutions don't require a referendum. Its none of our business to interfere in that.

Just as it is none of their business to interfere in ours

ShooterSF

20goto10 wrote: »

Dictated to by their elected politicians and law makers? Their constitutions don't require a referendum. Its none of our business to interfere in that.

Ah yes, rules. BTW I agree on this point with you. Those are the rules on passing the lisbon treaty in their countries. Tell me though what were The rules for passing lisbon. Was it unanimity? If so you're point about one country holding back the rest of Europe is undemocratic, when this is not a democracy are as pointless as people arguing that other countries didnt get a referendum.

ven0m

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ah yes, rules. BTW I agree on this point with you. Those are the rules on passing the lisbon treaty in their countries. Tell me though what were The rules for passing lisbon. Was it unanimity? If so you're point about one country holding back the rest of Europe is undemocratic, when this is not a democracy are as pointless as people arguing that other countries didnt get a referendum.

The proviso with this framework was a unanimous acceptance or nothing. It wasn't unanimous, & they went back on that also with their "we'll go ahead without Ireland & ratify anyway."

That was vile. you can't change the rules after you state all or nothing, & then belittle an entire nation for how it set out it's mandate from a referendum.

20goto10

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ah yes, rules. BTW I agree on this point with you. Those are the rules on passing the lisbon treaty in their countries. Tell me though what were The rules for passing lisbon. Was it unanimity? If so you're point about one country holding back the rest of Europe is undemocratic, when this is not a democracy are as pointless as people arguing that other countries didnt get a referendum.

Yes it was unanimity. Thats why it cannot be passed. I would agree a 2nd vote should be a vote on a changed document. The problem is finding something to change that will address our concerns. If there's nothing to change then we should have to vote again. I see there is talk of keeping a commissioner for every country. Will that be enough? I don't think it will. The stubborn Irish attitude of no means no will get it rejected again.

SpookyDoll

Here's a nice bit of democracy. 1 small Island gets to dictate to 26 other nations.

Hurray!!! Our turn, I LOVE dictatin!!!

We just have to act all contrite until we gets the pig money, then we can stick it to them again!!!!!

daveharnett

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!

It's our democratic right to take the ball home with us if we don't like how the game is going?

Doesn't it occur to you that this 'democratic right' comes with responsibilities?
To your fellow citizens?
To your fellow europeans, who don't get the same chance you do?
To the memory of those who worked and fought for your right to vote?

I have no beef with anybody for voting one way or another based on their understanding of the issues. But to use one's vote one way or another to play a prank is nothing but contemptible.

ben bedlam

Ckal wrote: »

But can the treaty have changes when 99% of EU has ratified something different? Wouldn't the rest of Europe have to ratify this amended treaty for it to be passed?

BINGO. Ireland simply doesnt have the clout in Europe to change the treaty, thus forcing other states to re-ratify it, so we cannot be presented with a treaty next time round that is in any way different to the one we have just rejected.

ART6

There are already leaks into the media that Ireland will be asked to vote on the treaty following amendments that guarantee our neutrality, attitude to abortion, and the retention of a commissioner. Big change! Big deal!

I don't pretend to speak for all Irish people, and I don't have means of questioning the people of the other member states, but it does seem to me that all this is missing the point, which is that, I suspect, the people of Europe, including Ireland are becoming sick of the continual barrage of legislation and meddling in what should be national affairs by this monilithic and potentially corrupt organisation. Certainly there is substantial evidence that the British, had they been given the opportunity, would have voted overwhelmingly against the Treaty, but their government, siding with others in the EU, took away that democratic right. I suspect (no, I don't have firm evidence) that had several other countries not been sold by their politicians they would have said no too.

I have read posts in this thread that claim that when we elect politicians to represent us, we should allow them to do so without their having to consult us on everything, but that argument is facile. It depends what it is they want to do, and if that is far away from any manifesto they may have, and if it significantly affects the government of the state, then consult they must, morally at least. Otherwise, why should a government not have the right to decide that it isn't going to bother with elections any more and stay in power instead? The trouble is, where do we find morals in ours or other EU governments?

And before anyone flames me for accusing the EU of potential corruption, perhaps they could explain how it is that the EU has had its auditors reject its accounts for the last 13 years? Try doing that for one year if you run a business in Ireland!

Biggins

Can anyone explain why the British government is so incensed about our E.U. vote when in fact they refuse to adopt the European Euro?
They want us to join up and they won't even take on board the basic European currency!

One rule for one and a different rule for another again?

ven0m

daveharnett wrote: »

It's our democratic right to take the ball home with us if we don't like how the game is going?

Doesn't it occur to you that this 'democratic right' comes with responsibilities?
To your fellow citizens?
To your fellow europeans, who don't get the same chance you do?
To the memory of those who worked and fought for your right to vote?

I have no beef with anybody for voting one way or another based on their understanding of the issues. But to use one's vote one way or another to play a prank is nothing but contemptible.

A right to vote does not carry with it anything else other than a responsibility to vote how you want to without prejudice or recourse. To suggest anything else is a disregard for our constitution or the basic rights of voting under the general understanding of democracy.

seamus

ven0m wrote: »

A right to vote does not carry with it anything else other than a responsibility to vote how you want to without prejudice or recourse. To suggest anything else is a disregard for our constitution or the basic rights of voting under the general understanding of democracy.

It includes a responsibility, as I mention above, to vote in the best interests of either yourself or society. Either/Both are perfectly valid reasons.

The fundamental principle behind democracy is giving "power to the people". It is a means by which the people can choose what is best for them and/or their country, rather than being dictated to by somebody that they didn't choose to have in power. Voting because you want to "stick it to the man", or for another other reason than, "I think this is the best course of action", undermines the entire point of giving the power to the people. Vote "No" or "Yes" because you think the Lisbon Treaty is bad/good for you or for the country.

If you are voting for any other reason, please cop on and stay at home.

ven0m

Biggins wrote: »

Can anyone explain why the British government is so incensed about our E.U. vote when in fact they refuse to adopt the European Euro?
They want us to join up and they won't even take on board the basic European currency!

One rule for one and a different rule for another again?

Gordon Brown, self proclaimed savior of the world (LOL) should really stick a sock in it, but I wouldn't put too much heed in what was reported, or how. He's used for soundbytes about everything at the minute, & probably doesn't know what he's being asked when.

However, the issue of the Euro is totally separate to the acceptance or dissolution of the Lisbon treaty. They have a right to retain their own currency if they so wish, exclusive over whether Lisbon is agreed fundamentally or not. However, at the moment it is hurting them to maintain their own currency, & will do over the longer term as Europe grows & as Euro adoption increases.

Bringing stuff like the UK's non-acceptance of the Euro has nothing to do with Lisbon, & it's re-run form. Gordon Brown being a prat & talking out of turn on us having to have a second referendum however, very pertinent.

Gordon is a man for whom there are no mistakes to be made, & he never makes any mistakes :rolleyes:

Biggins

ven0m wrote: »

...the issue of the Euro is totally separate to the acceptance or dissolution of the Lisbon treaty. They have a right to retain their own currency if they so wish, exclusive over whether Lisbon is agreed fundamentally or not. However, at the moment it is hurting them to maintain their own currency, & will do over the longer term as Europe grows & as Euro adoption increases.

Bringing stuff like the UK's non-acceptance of the Euro has nothing to do with Lisbon, & it's re-run form....

Cheers. Explanation much appreciated.

ven0m

seamus wrote: »

It includes a responsibility, as I mention above, to vote in the best interests of either yourself or society. Either/Both are perfectly valid reasons.

An individual's vote carries no other responsibility than to reflect their answer on a set issue based on how they feel they should vote & on what they feel has influenced that decision. It is the sum of those that dictate the interests of society through majority.

seamus wrote: »

The fundamental principle behind democracy is giving "power to the people". It is a means by which the people can choose what is best for them and/or their country, rather than being dictated to by somebody that they didn't choose to have in power. Voting because you want to "stick it to the man", or for another other reason than, "I think this is the best course of action", undermines the entire point of giving the power to the people. Vote "No" or "Yes" because you think the Lisbon Treaty is bad/good for you or for the country.

You can't state that someone who wants to vote to 'stick it to the man' undermines the principal of democracy when the principal of democracy gives the person the entitlement to vote that way.

seamus wrote: »

If you are voting for any other reason, please cop on and stay at home.

That's not democratic, or supportive of democracy.

Moving away from responding to your post Seamus, I still see not a single person who seems pro-lisbon or who thinks those whose votes were negative & were questionable has attempted to answer what I posed nearly 4 pages back;

How does the curtailing of democracy improve & better the execution of democracy, which is what Lisbon is?

I mean, if you want to talk about the Lisbon treaty & it's potentia re-run as opposed to whether someone who voted based on advice in the morning from the Rice Krispies, it's a question that all of us if it gets re-run when we turn up at a voting station will have to answer (unless the Corn Flakes have interupted the Rice Krispies to add their 2 cents worth

)

Holsten

They'll be getting another big fat NO from me once again.

Screw 'em!

seamus

ven0m wrote: »

You can't state that someone who wants to vote to 'stick it to the man' undermines the principal of democracy when the principal of democracy gives the person the entitlement to vote that way.

Of course it does. If you were being asked, "Do you want to go on holidays to Spain or to Italy?", and your answer was "Rice Krispies!", do you not see how pointless it was to ask you the question in the first place?

More relevant - if you're being asked to choose between A or B, and you ignore the content of either option, but go for B because the presenter wants you to choose A, you're once again completely missing the point of being asked in the first place.

How does the curtailing of democracy improve & better the execution of democracy, which is what Lisbon is?

Detail please, how Lisbon plans to curtail the democratic process in this country.

Terry

ur destiny?
A future in an ancient city?
Awesome.

ven0m

ART6 wrote: »

There are already leaks into the media that Ireland will be asked to vote on the treaty following amendments that guarantee our neutrality, attitude to abortion, and the retention of a commissioner. Big change! Big deal!

I don't pretend to speak for all Irish people, and I don't have means of questioning the people of the other member states, but it does seem to me that all this is missing the point, which is that, I suspect, the people of Europe, including Ireland are becoming sick of the continual barrage of legislation and meddling in what should be national affairs by this monilithic and potentially corrupt organisation. Certainly there is substantial evidence that the British, had they been given the opportunity, would have voted overwhelmingly against the Treaty, but their government, siding with others in the EU, took away that democratic right. I suspect (no, I don't have firm evidence) that had several other countries not been sold by their politicians they would have said no too.

I have read posts in this thread that claim that when we elect politicians to represent us, we should allow them to do so without their having to consult us on everything, but that argument is facile. It depends what it is they want to do, and if that is far away from any manifesto they may have, and if it significantly affects the government of the state, then consult they must, morally at least. Otherwise, why should a government not have the right to decide that it isn't going to bother with elections any more and stay in power instead? The trouble is, where do we find morals in ours or other EU governments?

And before anyone flames me for accusing the EU of potential corruption, perhaps they could explain how it is that the EU has had its auditors reject its accounts for the last 13 years? Try doing that for one year if you run a business in Ireland!

The constitution of the Republic Of Ireland contains the proviso that anything that changes the constitution, or the fundamentals of our own sovereignty must be put before the people by way of referendum. It was a deliberate clause by the founders of our country as a form of protecting us from ourselves & others. It was incredible foresight in my personal opinion.

Many other countries do not have such explicit clauses in their own frameworks, some have options on referendums, & chose not to execute them, some like the Dutch have them & then decided 'screw public mandate'.

Every free person in the world fundamentally enjoys the right to 'have their say' by way of ballot. Not everyone exercises it, which is also their right.

No country lost their rights to have referendums. Those that had them by manditory framework had them, & they spoke clearly. Others with options, exercised rights to not have them, which they were entitled to. Fundamentally, the EU is about a group of nations working together respecting each other's differences while trying to achieve commonality.

The fundamental crux of what I think you are getting at is that people in various countries with options for referenda had their calls fall on deaf ears with their governments, & those with options didn't exercise them to outrage of many numbers in those countries.

No-one has had anything taken from them here in this entire process. But, what is blatant is this bandying about that Ireland & its voters should respect Europe, while the utmost contempt since our 'no' vote has been shown towards us, which has gone unaddressed by our elected officials in Europe on our behalf, or by people in general.

ven0m

seamus wrote: »

Of course it does. If you were being asked, "Do you want to go on holidays to Spain or to Italy?", and your answer was "Rice Krispies!", do you not see how pointless it was to ask you the question in the first place?

Are you high? seriously? I'm not being funny, but that's nowhere near the same as to someone voting yes/no to 'stick it to the man'. You're adding a third option where there is none on a yes/no vote. Your analogy is way way way off.

seamus wrote: »

More relevant - if you're being asked to choose between A or B, and you ignore the content of either option, but go for B because the presenter wants you to choose A, you're once again completely missing the point of being asked in the first place.

Your right to vote how you please for whatever reason means this is not questionable. You're injecting moral right/authority into voting, which has nothing to do with voting.

seamus wrote: »

Detail please, how Lisbon plans to curtail the democratic process in this country.

The structure of the politicians within the various constituents of the EC removes any real democratic elections of people to posts, with no framework for public accountability, like we have currently when we get to vote MEP's etc in, or the use of a veto by any member state, or collection of vetos by a group of member states. this isn't rocket science & is core to the fundamental problems within what Lisbon is trying to achieve. A president who is not elected by ballot, or accountable to term balloting? I mean come on, please don't tell me you really need me to explain this to you, otherwise what are you doing in a thread about the Lisbon treaty?

Darragh29

seamus wrote: »

It includes a responsibility, as I mention above, to vote in the best interests of either yourself or society. Either/Both are perfectly valid reasons.

The fundamental principle behind democracy is giving "power to the people". It is a means by which the people can choose what is best for them and/or their country, rather than being dictated to by somebody that they didn't choose to have in power. Voting because you want to "stick it to the man", or for another other reason than, "I think this is the best course of action", undermines the entire point of giving the power to the people. Vote "No" or "Yes" because you think the Lisbon Treaty is bad/good for you or for the country.

If you are voting for any other reason, please cop on and stay at home.

To my mind, there is nothing illegal, immoral or irresponsible about a protest vote. You have a right and a responsibility to vote whatever way you see fit. What you might think is "best for the people or the country" and what I might feel is "best for the people or the country", could be two entirely different things.

I personally feel that for as long as we are dealing with an intransigent EU that avoids referendums wherever possible and rejects referendum decisions whenever they do have to have a referendum and the decision is not one that they wished for, well I feel that we are better off preventing any further integration with an EU that is administrated on this basis. You appear to feel differently, more power to you, but I still am voting responsibly by voting in line with my views above.

Patricide

This is a wreak the head. Obviously people are going to vote yes now this time, especially with the economic downturn.

I voted No the first time, and im going to vote no again, if for no other reason but just to show that we cant be bullied into doing the EU's bidding. You may have the idea that its the Irish peoples choice and we can chose to vote no again as a country but it doesnt take away from the fact that we DID already vote. They should learn to back off.

skelliser

ven0m wrote: »

The constitution of the Republic Of Ireland contains the proviso that anything that changes the constitution, or the fundamentals of our own sovereignty must be put before the people by way of referendum. It was a deliberate clause by the founders of our country as a form of protecting us from ourselves & others. It was incredible foresight in my personal opinion.

This is not entirely correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotty_v._An_Taoiseach