stevedublin wrote: » Our Minister for Europe said "The Irish people should vote NO to Lisbon 2." in Druids Glen this morning!
WooPeeA wrote: » He should be fired then. His job is to represent the government and its statements, not doing his own independent politics.
passive wrote: » Actually a "better one" would have been for you to answer his question, then ask him this counterquestion. What you've just said is "yeah, you're right. I don't have a ****ing clue what I'm talking about... but...em... you shut up!"
Otacon wrote: » I am happy enough with the way the EU is at the moment. If I could have voted last time, it would have been 'No' as there was no compelling argument made as to why things should change. Why should I change my vote?
passive wrote: » I don't know if the "no to lisbon" thing is true, but Dick Roche was held a gunpoint this morning in a robbery. It's possible the guys who held him up made him say "No to Lisbon." 'tis likely enough they're Shinners anyway
whatisayis wrote: » Here's a better one for you - what parts of the treaty specifically do you support?
WooPeeA wrote: » The Lisbon will provide a democracy to EU. Finally every man will have an impact on politics of the Union by voting for their representatives who will hold real power in their hands. Looking at unelected elite and doing nothing as we have to do today will become a relic of the past.
20goto10 wrote: » The independent report uncovered why we voted no. And there is nothing in the treaty that can be changed to address our concerns. So again, why should we automatically deserve respect? We have sabotaged the treaty and put a lot of really important agendas which the treaty is setup to resolve on hold while we have our little hissy fit. Thats what I call arrogance.
niceirishfella wrote: » Not with some of "the lord of cheezyness's" posts. Utter tripe and no real value to the thread.
ven0m wrote: » We sabotaged nothing. We held a fair democratic process that was carried out according to all EU laws on democratic voting. A legitimate result was returned. The second this nation returned an unpopular vote, Senior European politicians went about an incredibly nasty media campaign belittling every single voter in this country by slamming the Irish nation for delivering a 'No' vote. Anyone who shows that level of contempt for a legitimately delivered democratic mandate is nothing short of a despot, because only despots cry about democratically delivered results that do not go their way.
passive wrote: » you shouldn't have to be dramatically talked into going for it. It's a simple document that makes changes to procedure, and your attitude shows why having a referendum on it is absurd. We should have referendums about abortion, the death penalty, a woman's place being in the home etc. Things people care about. Asking people to choose Yes or No to something unspectacular is the cause of all the lies, BS and apathy in response, and these are costing our country and the union from running properly and being more efficient in these difficult times.
democrates wrote: » To describe it as mere changes to procedure is hardly fitting to its import, if it were so trivial saying no would be no great problem. EU leaders have spent five years hammering this out, it is very important, they are very keen to have it adopted, and it will affect the lives of citizens in member states. The wider context of the vote is whether we believe the EU is going in the right direction, do we want deeper political union and increasingly centralised government, where decisions may at times be imposed by qmv against our interests, or do we think the way forward is an EU based exclusively on co-operation between member nations.
ven0m wrote: » The second this nation returned an unpopular vote, Senior European politicians went about an incredibly nasty media campaign belittling every single voter in this country by slamming the Irish nation for delivering a 'No' vote.
Sam Vimes wrote: » maybe we don't want that but the eu is moving towards more centralised government and ireland isn't going to change that direction. what you're talking about is a debate on whether or not we should be members of the eu, not the lisbon treaty.
Sam Vimes wrote: » but do not you see any problem with that? they analysed the reasons we voted no and discovered that there was nothing in the treaty that could be changed to address those concerns....because we voted no for reasons that had nothing to do with the treaty. we may as well have voted no to lisbon because we disapprove of george bush
passive wrote: » oh wah wah, the big mean boys said hurtful things. Link me some examples to this "incredibly nasty media campaign." All I remember was some shock and irritation that we'd thrown a spanner in the works and rejected a treaty that we ourselves (i.e. our elected representatives) had a huge role in composing. That we did so for reasons unrelated to its content was probably pretty f*cking incredible for those involved. Anyway, when did we become a nation of whingebags? man up and respond to criticism with decent arguments, not petty actions like rejecting things to "teach them a lesson."
justcallmetex wrote: » Free country, man entitled to express any opinion he likes without fear of "The Party".
ven0m wrote: » It is not about whinging. If there's anyone who was whinging it was Sarkozy & his cronies. If it wasn't for British, Irish & American servicemen & women, he'd be saluting a German flag every morning before Bratwurst.
ven0m wrote: » Again, some of you still can't understand that it is our constitutionally protected right to vote on ANYTHING put before us at a voting booth in any way for whatever reason. This is a fundamental part of a democracy & democracy as a tool of governance. Jesus h effing christmas, how hard is that for alot of you to comprehend or understand? You're still trying to inject moral authority into voting, i.e. you should only vote if you understand, or should abstain if you don't .... that's not how democracy works, it's not how our constitution was formed ... Honestly, some of you have such an inability to grasp the simplest fact relating to democracy, it makes me wonder how in god's name you can make your way thru Lisbon when you can't so much as grasp something as fundamentally simple as 'your right to vote how you please'.
passive wrote: » Sorry, those examples I asked for? And yeah, we sure showed the French up in our epic stand against Hitler and the holocaust. We have every ****ing right to talk.. about that thing.. we don't talk about.. the.. emergency? or something...
passive wrote: I'm confused... You think a functioning democracy should have people voting between "A" and "B" based on their militant feelings about Purple?
ven0m wrote: » Excuse yourself & your incredible ignorance, but ALOT of Irishmen & women fought in the British forces in WW2, including members on both sides of my own family. I'd suggest you button it before you make ignorant comments like that in future about something you know sweet F.A. about.
As for your examples:http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0715/breaking86.htm Explain why Sarkozy felt the need to make such statements as the ones in the above article publicly to the media? If you did that in a work place, you'd be done for bullying & harassment. Go find more yourself. Everyone saw them in the papers, on Sky News in press gatherings etc. Don't troll & play it like you didn't see them either, everyone did.
"If you did that in the workplace you'd be done for bullying and harassment"
It's not for anyone to question a fundamental of democracy. Either you believe in it as a system or you don't. If you don't, go form a political party to fight for this to be changed constitutionally here, as well as around the world - otherwise piss off busting my balls over it. I didn't design democracy. you just don't like that someone has told you how it is, & you'd rather be an emo about it. Honestly - I know I shouldn't, but I'm thankful that democracy will even let someone like 'passive' vote. Shows how far the world has come, & yet still how far it still needs to go.
passive wrote: » I doubt you know all that much about "the way the EU is at the moment" to be honest or you'd know that changes need to be made to the way it is run due to the increase in membership, at the very least. This is why the Yes campaign has it more difficult. The No campaign can yell all kinds of absurd and untrue stuff about the EVILS that Lisbon will do, but the Yes side are stuck saying "wait, what? no! it won't do any of that. It's just normal stuff, administration and institutional reform. There's nothing shiny or exciting in it" you shouldn't have to be dramatically talked into going for it. It's a simple document that makes changes to procedure, and your attitude shows why having a referendum on it is absurd. We should have referendums about abortion, the death penalty, a woman's place being in the home etc. Things people care about. Asking people to choose Yes or No to something unspectacular is the cause of all the lies, BS and apathy in response, and these are costing our country and the union from running properly and being more efficient in these difficult times.
