walshb wrote: » At least I have the guts to be honest and not hide behind words. They had a vote, they didn't get the answer THEY wanted and now, another vote is being put to us on the SAME treaty, no matter what spin is put on it, assuranceS etc etc. Feck sake, am I alone in thinking that this is just not democracy and that the standards are simply LOW?
walshb wrote: » Andrew, I am not ANTI Lisbon forever and ever. I know that second votes on issues do happen because that is what allows progress and change, whether it be for good or bad. I just think that YES, 1 year and we are being asked to vote again is a direct show of contempt for the electorate. It couldn't be more obvious. I voted NO first time because I didn't agree with the treaty, now it's not about the treaty to ME; it's about the respect that should be shown to our people and YES, 1 year is a glaring and obvious show of contempt. I agree with all that Rented Mule wrote
andrew wrote: » So the problem isn't so much that we're having another vote then, but that we're having another vote so soon, which tbh I think isn't that unreasonable. I think it's the no.1 problem people have. But how long have we to wait then? If the governments assurances were to allay everyone's fears by next October, then would there really be a problem with running it again so soon?
tedstriker wrote: » If you didn't agree with the treaty and now they have changed the treaty then what is the problem?
walshb wrote: » Well, if we are in that dire a position, scrap the position
andrew wrote: » So 1 year is a 'show of contempt.' How long need we wait then?! Now thats hardly democratic! :eek:
walshb wrote: » Well, I did say that. I don't know why you insist on asking again? 1 year is IMO a crystal clear message that the govt don't give a toss about their OWN peoples views and rights! I'll ask you now, if I can; how long is acceptable to you, or does time mean ZERO?
walshb wrote: » Ok, to affirm my position; This second VOTE really is not about Lisbon to ME. It is about democracy and respect and for that, I would urge the people to vote NO. Yes, even those who voted YES in the first election should change the vote to NO to send a clear message that the electorate should never ever be disrespected and ignored. If we had/have any respect for each other and our right to democracy, we should stand side by side on this and VOTE NO It is the fundamental basis of democracy!
walshb wrote: » Off topic, when Mary McAleese was voted in unchallenged for her second term, IMO, democracy was not in play and it was wrong. No matter what, some vote should have taken place and this country should have seen to it that NO person could take office in this country without ELECTION.
again22 wrote: » those who accept the Lisbon Treaty will also accept the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights with it. The Charter proclaims that the death penalty is abolished, but then it directs one to a specific footnote in which it is written: “Except in case of war, riots, upheaval”.
walshb wrote: » That sounds great; but don't you think it's so so obvious that afer only 1 year, our people are being fed this from the SAME govt. I did say that I didn't think that voting again on issues was ALL BAD. But, this is takin' the piss. You have to see that?
ShooterSF wrote: » what have they changed? Answer me that.
andrew wrote: » I don't really think 1 year is too short a time frame. Ideally, all you need is enough time in which to run another referendum campaign. What difference does a year make? How does something become democratic and lacking in contempt after waiting just a little bit longer? The time period seems arbitrary to me (insofar as is practical), therefore (in my opinion) once you accept that it's ok to have another vote after a little while then you're basically saying that it's ok to have another vote whenever.
tedstriker wrote: » From what I am reading there is an element of the NO voters who are fearful of a repeat vote, now with added assurances, because the last time they argued issues that subsequently turned out to be utter rubbish. Issues about abortion, neutrality etc. If people really understood the treaty then these issues wouldn't exist. Can someone give me one fact about the Lisbon treaty that will stop them voting in favour. Nothing to do with the government, nothing to do with job losses, nothing to do with how undemocratic it is to vote??. Someone give me something solid as to why they honestly believe that the Lisbon treaty as is will now be presented has more negatives than positives for Ireland and for Europe.
ShooterSF wrote: » I'd still love an answer to that question.
ShooterSF wrote: » So given that all it takes to run a referendum is have a polling station I take it you'd have no problem if we set up permanent ones and ask each day - time being no issue to you.
ShooterSF wrote: » I'd still love an answer to that question. So given that all it takes to run a referendum is have a polling station I take it you'd have no problem if we set up permanent ones and ask each day - time being no issue to you.
obl wrote: » He was wrong. The treaty hasn't been changed. Cop on.
walshb wrote: » Why COP on?
obl wrote: » It was a ridiculous hyperbole on what he said, making what was a valid and intelligent contribution appear to have been reasoned by a two year old. That's why COP on.
ShooterSF wrote: » But to come back with word for word the same treaty without even toying with the notion of following the wishes of the electorate and moving on in less than a year is sickening.
European Council Presidency conclusions wrote: The European Council re-affirms that the Treaty of Lisbon is considered necessary in order to help the enlarged Union to function more efficiently, more democratically and more effectively including in international affairs. With a view to enabling the Treaty to enter into force by the end of 2009, the European Council, while respecting the aims and objectives of the Treaties, has defined the following path. On the composition of the Commission, the European Council recalls that the Treaties currently in force require that the number of Commissioners be reduced in 2009. The European Council agrees that provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision will be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State. The European Council has carefully noted the other concerns of the Irish people presented by the Taoiseach as set out in Annex 1 relating to taxation policy, family, social and ethical issues, and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) with regard to Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality. The European Council agrees that, provided Ireland makes the commitment in paragraph 4, all of the concerns set out in the said statement shall be addressed to the mutual satisfaction of Ireland and the other Member States. The necessary legal guarantees will be given on the following three points:. • nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the Union's competences in relation to taxation; • the Treaty of Lisbon does not prejudice the security and defence policy of Member States, including Ireland's traditional policy of neutrality, and the obligations of most other Member States; In addition, the high importance attached to the issues, including workers' rights, set out in paragraph (d) of Annex 1 will be confirmed. In the light of the above commitments by the European Council, and conditional on the satisfactory completion of the detailed follow-on work by mid-2009 and on presumption of their satisfactory implementation, the Irish Government is committed to seeking ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon by the end of the term of the current Commission.
ShooterSF wrote: » Here's just 1 that'll go ignored again. Citizen's initiative. It allows for the likes of the catholic religion to put forward the idea of teaching creationism in schools. This then takes up time where it has to be discussed by the E.U. Now have I answered you? (I do believe I pointed this out a few times!)
democrates wrote: » The EU mandarins seek to further Qualified Majority Voting, it's one purpose is to enable 'representatives ' of a majority of nations to impose their will on a minority. There is no reason why the EU can't be restructured to operate exclusively on the basis of co-operation rather than coercion. We see many examples where EU nations come together to agree things as we saw with the mini-summit on the financial crisis, we can do it any time for any reason and we don't need to vest power centrally. One of the greatest benefits to tax paying citizens of co-operation would be to pool purchasing power, cement for roads etc., but why is this not done? Could it be that profits for big business is more important than the interests of citizens?
ejmaztec wrote: » I'm more suspicious of new posters spouting on here than of any politician. I can't recall seeing a new poster in recent days who wasn't anti-Lisbon.
