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 vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

darkman2

October 2nd is the date - how do you intend to vote?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FutureTaoiseach

turgon wrote:

Fair enough. So you wouldnt mind if the 14 smallest populated countries - probably amounting to 1/4 population, had the bigger countries under their control simply by their being "nations"?

I would prefer a form of equality under which no nation could have legislation forced on it against their will. That is my idea of national equality. In that context - no - is the answer to your question. But that would be idealistic - rather than realistic - on my part - because I recognise there is too much water already under the bridge to turn the clock back that far and restore vetoes that have long since passed into history. In that context, my focus is on preventing the process of the erosion of the veto from progressing further into sensitive areas of national sovereignty. In the context of national referenda in this country, that objective is not an unrealistic one.

What sort of sensitive areas am I talking about? For a start, I am extremely opposed to Paragraph 7(iii) of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009, which specifically empowers the Government to consent to the abolition of the right of the Irish govt to optin/out on a case-by-case basis to common policies in the area of Justice and Home Affairs. In the context of the abolition by Lisbon of 16 JHA vetoes, that would mean that, were this prerogative used by the govt, Ireland would have individual laws passed for it - with or without the consent of its govt - in the area of JHA. I have read the list of the 50 national-vetoes abolished under Lisbon, and I am not prepared to support inserting into our Constitution that sort of leeway for our govt to - as I see it - surrender sensitive areas of national sovereignty to the EU institutions.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I would prefer a form of equality under which no nation could have legislation forced on it against their will. That is my idea of national equality. In that context - no - is the answer to your question. But that would be idealistic - rather than realistic - on my part - because I recognise there is too much water already under the bridge to turn the clock back that far and restore vetoes that have long since passed into history. In that context, my focus is on preventing the process of the erosion of the veto from progressing further into sensitive areas of national sovereignty. In the context of national referenda in this country, that objective is not an unrealistic one.

What sort of sensitive areas am I talking about? For a start, I am extremely opposed to Paragraph 7(iii) of the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009, which specifically empowers the Government to consent to the abolition of the right of the Irish govt to optin/out on a case-by-case basis to common policies in the area of Justice and Home Affairs. In the context of the abolition by Lisbon of 16 JHA vetoes, that would mean that, were this prerogative used by the govt, Ireland would have individual laws passed for it - with or without the consent of its govt - in the area of JHA. I have read the list of the 50 national-vetoes abolished under Lisbon, and I am not prepared to support inserting into our Constitution that sort of leeway for our govt to - as I see it - surrender sensitive areas of national sovereignty to the EU institutions.

What specific areas worry you?

Obviously it wasn't a deal breaker for you before.

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

What specific areas worry you?

Obviously it wasn't a deal breaker for you before.

It was a deal-breaker for me before because a similar provision (paragraph 13) was contained in the 28th amendment to the Constitution Act 2008. Here is a comparison of their respective wordings:

28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2008 wrote:

The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol onthe position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on the
European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas

28th amendment to the Constitution Act 2009 wrote:

7° The State may exercise the options or discretions—
i to which Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union
relating to enhanced cooperation applies,
ii under Protocol No. 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union annexed to that treaty and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community), and
iii under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, so annexed, including the option that the said Protocol No. 21 shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

As you can see, they've also sneaked in provisions (paragraph 7(ii)) allowing the govt, with the support of the Oireacthas, to join the Schengen area, which will mean the end of systematic passport-checks on travel from 25 countries, including all the pre-Enlargement EU-15 countries other than the UK. I have concerns that the latter will lead to an increase in people-trafficking through Irish ports and airports, even while possibly reducing it over the border with Northern Ireland. We have seen the appalling slavery to which trafficked persons have been subjected by pimps on arrival in Ireland, and I do not believe we should be making life easier for the traffickers. With respect to the particular matter in paragraph 7(iii), it would amount to surrendering the following vetoes.:

(1) Administrative cooperation in the area of freedom, security and justice (article
61G FEU treaty)
(2) Border checks (article 62 FEU treaty)
(3) Asylum (article 63 FEU treaty)
(4) Immigration (article 69a FEU treaty)
(5) Incentive measures in the field of crime prevention (article 69C traité FUE)
(6) Eurojust – structure, operation, field of action and tasks (article 69D FEU treaty)
(7) Non-operational police cooperation (article 69F FEU treaty)
(8) Europol – structure, operation, field of action and tasks (article 69G FEU treaty)
(9) Judicial cooperation in criminal matters (article 69A FEU treaty)
(10) Approximation of criminal legislation, offences and sanctions, possibly
enhanced cooperation (article 69B FEU treaty)
(11) Arrangements for a mutual evaluation mechanism of the implementation of the Union policies in the area of freedom, security and justice (article 61C FEU treaty)

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It was a deal-breaker for me before because a similar provision (paragraph 13) was contained in the 28th amendment to the Constitution Act 2008. Here is a comparison of their respective wordings:

No, sorry. I meant in previous Treaties we would have given up vetoes and you voted yes.

Just wondering why it's so important now.

Is it the powers that the Dail has in that amendment that bothers you, more so than the actual amendment?

PopeBuckfastXVI

A common travel area enables slavery.

Remember folks you heard it here first...

sdanseo

We voted no the last time. I fail to see any changes that are anyway near enough to sway me. Either way, any changes that have been made are bull****, put there purely t force the rest of the treaty on the people who voted no based on all the facts rather than the light-headed twats who will reverse their vote because of the couple of lines that will be altered.

Remember what Cowen said the day of the last vote "In a referendum, the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box it sovereign. The government accepts and respects the verdict of the Irish people."

He lies, clearly. This is the same fúcking treaty - just because we didn't like it the first time is not an acceptable reason to put it to us again - to do so merely insults our intelligence. Yes, it may be good for the country but in my opinion it is equally damaging to our sovereignty. I am pro-european in theory, but this treaty in my opinion gives the EU superstate too much power, already it interferes too much in things like farming, environment etc and not enough where it should interfere like transport and communications. What use is setting a regulation to reduce CO2 emissions when there are still parts of Ireland without running water for the love of god...

Bullshít treaty, bullshít vote. The people have spoken and it is nothing short of fúcking treason to suggest we vote again.

yayaitsme

i voted no the last time and i'll vote no again, we're supposed to live in a democracy. what happens if the no vote wins again? Will there be a third vote until the government get the answer they want?

Dinner

yayaitsme wrote: »

what happens if the no vote wins again? Will there be a third vote until the government get the answer they want?

That depends. If it is rejected and the subsequent studies into why the public voted no and they discover that many of the reasons given are solvable through a series of legally binding protocols then maybe.

If I see one other person use the argument quoted above, then I'll cry bitter tears for my fellow man and their aversion to using logic to understand why a second vote is happening. I predict I'll be dehydrated by tuesday.:(

edenbridge146

Our ancestors fought and died for Freedom from UK, and now we want to get back in to the hands of another Dictatorship!!
Europe telling us what to do.....
The politican in charge of getting this passed will be given a big fat pay cheque and a job in the Europe too while the rest of us here pay higher taxes to fund it.
As if the Goverment didn't believe the first answer.....making out that we're stupid.

Eh I'll be answering a Big Fat No

yayaitsme

sorry Dinner please dont cry over it.
in the first vote during the canvassing on both sides i asked them to explain to me exactly what the treaty was all about, when the people at my front door couldn't explain it to me how was i supposed to vote. when i asked them questions they had no answers except they weren't sure

PopeBuckfastXVI

yayaitsme wrote: »

sorry Dinner please dont cry over it.
in the first vote during the canvassing on both sides i asked them to explain to me exactly what the treaty was all about, when the people at my front door couldn't explain it to me how was i supposed to vote. when i asked them questions they had no answers except they weren't sure

Yes the politicians did a terrible job the first time out alright.

Well feel free to ask any questions here, some of the people on this forum are scarily well informed, and admirably willing to take time to explain things to people who ask questions (Scofflaw I'm looking in your direction...).

FutureTaoiseach

K-9 wrote: »

No, sorry. I meant in previous Treaties we would have given up vetoes and you voted yes.

Just wondering why it's so important now.

Is it the powers that the Dail has in that amendment that bothers you, more so than the actual amendment?

Until Lisbon, I was one of those who went with the flow on EU issues. My reasoning for voting no related mostly to the contents of the Treaty and of the Constitutional Amendment we were/are being asked to approve, but also from a more general unease I feel about the direction of the EU. I started to seriously question the direction of the EU after the French and Dutch no votes to the EU Constitution. I was deeply troubled by the way 95% of the provisions of the rejected Constitution were reintroduced in the Lisbon Treaty. Sarkozy did not run on a mandate of such a Treaty when he ran for President in 2007 - he promised a "mini-treaty", but came back with one bigger than before. I also followed the parliamentary ratifications in those 2 countries, and viewed with particular concern the fact that the Dutch PM Balkanende announced he would order the Queen to veto a Lisbon referendum if the parliament passed one over his head as with the EU Constitution. Does this suggest a man who believes the Dutch people would regard their concerns as having been addressed by reheating the EU Constitution in this way? I think not. I had serious moral concerns about the EU - for the first time in its history - seeking to impose provisions on nations that had rejected them through direct popular-votes. In moral terms, I do not equate a decision by elected-representatives - who are susceptible to pressure from whips and vested-interests (as we know here from the Tribunals) with one by direct popular vote with respect to policy-issues. As such, Lisbon was already dead to me from the moment Bertie/Cowen etc. admitted this was essentially a rehash of the EU Constitution. Nowi if you want I can post quotes by some of the senior figures involved in drafting the EU Constitution and Lisbon attesting to the fact that that is what Lisbon is.

So my journey to voting no began with my concerns that the EU was behaving without due respect for the spirit of democracy in individual member states. When you ask your citizenry to approve a measure, and they say no, it is not in keeping with my concept of democracy to reintroduce a 95% identical document and ratify it through your national parliament. Now you may argue that this is my personal opinion - and to some extent that is true. But I have a sense from the no vote and the extent to which it was coming up on the radio phone-in shows debating Lisbon that many no voters shared my concerns. If Lisbon is allowed to go through, I believe it will deepen the democratic-deficit in Europe and undermine the principle of self-determination, which is itself contained in the UN Charter by the way. It's not self-determination to ask your people to decide on an issue of the day and then proceed regardless.

Other than that considerable moral dimension to my decision to vote no last year, there was also a sense that the centralisation of power in EU institutions - even when the participants are member states themselves (as in the Council of Ministers and European Council) - had gone far enough - and in some areas may even have gone too far. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that interest-rates as imposed by the ECB in Frankfurt were out of kilter with the threat of inflation in the Irish economy. I recall that in 1998, the Irish Central Bank reduced interest rates from 10% to 2%, despite our economic-growth of 10% that year. In the context of the housing-bubble, it can be said that we have learned a very valuable lesson from this experience about the dangers of overcentralising power in the institutions of the EU. And by implication, that gave me pause for thought on Lisbon.

I do not regard the measures on the role for national-parliaments and the citizens-petition as being adequate to address my concerns about overcentralisation in Brussels/Frankfurt/Luxembourg. The additional information on impending EU legislation for national parliaments 8 weeks in advance, and the measures allowing groups of national parliaments to ask the EU Commission to think again are welcome. But they are too advisory and non-binding to address the actual transfer of power to the EU institutions, and to the other member state governments that populate the Council of Ministers, with respect to the 50 areas in which Qualified Majority Voting is expanded (I listed the JHA ones above - subject to the govt and Oireachtas using the power included in the legislation to surrender them). I am in two minds about the co-decision process with respect to the European Parliament. Some will argue that co-decision, by expanding the EP's veto/amendment powers over EU legislation sent to it by the Commission, makes the EU more democratic. The problem is that part of co-decision is the removal of the corresponding national-vetoes on the Council of Ministers. It's like we're getting more democracy if we regard Europe itself as a demos (in the context of democracy), but less democracy in terms of the nation being a demos. Because effectively, the elected representatives of the Irish people are being reduced from having a 100% say over EU legislation in 50 areas (through the veto) to having very little say because our population-weight is so small via QMV under Lisbon.

I am also stridently opposed to the provisions of Paragraph 7(ii) which allow the govt to enter the Schengen agreement with the consent of the Oireachtas (which is already a given because of the whip-system). The Danish newspaper Politiken recently carried a story about how it has led to increased people and weapons-smuggling into Denmark - a Schengen country. With gang-warfare rife in Limerick and Dublin, this is the last thing we need:

Politiken wrote:

Schengen: Weapons and women smuggler’s paradise
Open EU borders are a paradise for weapons and human smugglers, senior Danish police officers say. Senior Danish police officers are complaining that the EU’s open borders under the Schengen agreement have made it simple for criminal groups to smuggle weapons and women into Denmark.

“The Schengen agreement has made it much easier to move weapons around Europe and to get them into Denmark. This is a problem as crime becomes much more serious when weapons are involved,” says Henrik Svindt of the Copenhagen Special Unit for Gang Crime and Women Traficking....

K-9

Logically, I see your point on the 95% part. Still, as can be seen by the recent German case, Treaties can be challenged and also questioned by national Supreme courts, rather like Crotty did.

On interest rates, the ECB raised them in 06 and our Govt. doubled Mortgage interest relief to €20,000 a year and FG proposed stupid Stamp Duty reform like McDowell.

Overall, I can see why the French/Dutch situation would lead you to the post above.

RandomName2

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

But I think the principle of the equality of nations is more important than a headcount. You seem to be following a majoritarian principle that treats the European public as a single people, with the wishes of the majority - at least at the level of representative-govt - prevailing. Of course, you could also say that Ireland was over-represented in the Westminster Parliament, with approximately 20% of the seats.

Yes, its only applicable if you consider the EU to be a single state. Even the US has parity between the different States within the Senate (indeed the threat that the South would be outvoted in the Senate eventually led to them declaring war on the North). Ireland was actually overrepresented in Westminster - which was meant to be a sop to those who wanted Home Rule (which it wasn't). But Ireland could always be a swing vote in Westminster, particularly as the Irish voted along national lines (thankfully national lines are not very apparent in the EU Parliament - yet).

But the argument that Brussels is not a form of state centralisation, on the grounds that it is just the meeting of various heads of state, is entirely bogus. On the same grounds you could argue that their is no centralised control in the Dail, as it is just a place where people elected in the 26 counties meet up.

I would be a yes voter if the Charter of Human Rights and the legislation granting greater powers to the Commission were removed, if most of the vetos were kept, and if the treaty hadn't been bulldozed through the EU member states (or their electorates, at least).

As far as I can see the contents of the Lisbon Treaty have been rejected by states within the EU on 3 seperate occasions (can they keep pushing it if it's been rejected 4 or 5? Lets find out!)

[Deleted User]

Dinner wrote: »

That depends. If it is rejected and the subsequent studies into why the public voted no and they discover that many of the reasons given are solvable through a series of legally binding protocols then maybe.

The MB IMS study post Lisbon one identified:
1 Lack of clarity/understanding of the treaty
2 Loss of sovereignty

as by far the 2 main reasons why people voted no. Those concerns have not been addressed no matter how the Yes side want to dress up those pointless guarantees. Its all window dressing and from here until next vote the Yes side will be raising so many red herrings Ireland will stink like a fishmongers.

Eire_prince

RandomName2 wrote: »

the treaty hadn't been bulldozed through the EU member states (or their electorates, at least).

As far as I can see the contents of the Lisbon Treaty have been rejected by states within the EU on 3 seperate occasions (can they keep pushing it if it's been rejected 4 or 5? Lets find out!)

they didnt give his people a vote on the subject, but they says to biffo they are willing to come and offer support to the yes camp, yet didnt biffo turn round and say it was wrong of the chezc president to openly criticise the yes camp in the last vote, cant have it both ways biffo

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, its only applicable if you consider the EU to be a single state. Even the US has parity between the different States within the Senate (indeed the threat that the South would be outvoted in the Senate eventually led to them declaring war on the North). Ireland was actually overrepresented in Westminster - which was meant to be a sop to those who wanted Home Rule (which it wasn't). But Ireland could always be a swing vote in Westminster, particularly as the Irish voted along national lines (thankfully national lines are not very apparent in the EU Parliament - yet).

But the argument that Brussels is not a form of state centralisation, on the grounds that it is just the meeting of various heads of state, is entirely bogus. On the same grounds you could argue that their is no centralised control in the Dail, as it is just a place where people elected in the 26 counties meet up.

No, because the TDs have no power within their constituencies, and exist only as representatives sent to the centre. That's what's being implied when someone claims that Europe is centralised, and it's not at all comparative. If the TDs ran county governments which kept most powers in their own hands, dictated the central budget, retained all military and coercive powers, negotiated and wrote the constitution, and could secede at any time, then you might have a somewhat comparable situation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, because the TDs have no power within their constituencies, and exist only as representatives sent to the centre. That's what's being implied when someone claims that Europe is centralised, and it's not at all comparative. If the TDs ran county governments which kept most powers in their own hands, dictated the central budget, retained all military and coercive powers, negotiated and wrote the constitution, and could secede at any time, then you might have a somewhat comparable situation.

We have TDs who operate close to the way described, and represent it as the normal way of doing political business. That has distorted the expectations of many Irish people. They see political representatives as local "fixers", with real local powers. To an extent, they actually have those powers because central and local government have been subverted by political interference.

In effect, we have been conditioned by our politicians to expect the wrong things from political representation.

Eire_prince

a local school group as for support by a local TD, he turned round and said no, as you didnt vote for me, so I wont support you.

this is a redicolous way for the TD, imagine biffo turning round and saying he wont support anyone who lives outside his terrority

Dinner

Deleted User wrote: »

The MB IMS study post Lisbon one identified:
1 Lack of clarity/understanding of the treaty
2 Loss of sovereignty

Absolutely. And in the run up to the second referendum the government and opposition have a chance to make up for their catastrophic failings in the lead up to the first vote. If we're working off the Millward Brown study then 45% of no voters did so for because they didn't understand it or it was too complex. Now, the parties and the Ref. Commission have a chance to explain it better and help people understand.
As for the treaty is to complex bit, no matter how well you explain it you will always have people who take the Jens-Peter Bonde view that it should be the same length and complexity as a Thomas the Tank Engine book. But, it being a complex international treaty negotiated between 27 countries, thats not gonna happen.

The next big reason for voting no in the MB study was Issues attributed to Lisbon with 26%, including reasons such as;

* Treaty is a bad deal - Straight off a Libertas poster. I've yet to see any real suggestions in how to improve it that are so good, the ratification process has to be halted. Or, more to the point, that the issues in Lisbon are such a bad deal that we should scrap it.

* Neutrality - Sorted with the protocols. (Even though Lisbon wouldn't have an effect).

* Commissioner - Thanks Libertas! You turned something completly irrelevant into a major issue.

Withing the remaining few % would be where Abortion and Conscription would sit. Not as big a concern obviously but they were there.

So if I voted no the first time round due to any of the reasons above, including a lack of understanding then I would welcome another crack at it.

[Deleted User]

Dinner wrote: »

So if I voted no the first time round due to any of the reasons above, including a lack of understanding then I would welcome another crack at it.

I do welcome another crack at it, as undemocratic as it is. And I will be voting No again, not due to any of the reasons mentioned above but down to not viewing anything positive about the treaty.

Anyway there is nothing wrong with where the EU is today. No need for further expansion or handing over further competencies. The EU/EEC (however you want to view it) was envisaged as an economic bloc and that's where it should stay. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Also,as an aside, the fear mongering being pushed by the Yes side is enough on its own to convince me to vote No!

PopeBuckfastXVI

Deleted User wrote: »

I do welcome another crack at it, as undemocratic as it is. And I will be voting No again, not due to any of the reasons mentioned above but down to not viewing anything positive about the treaty.

Anyway there is nothing wrong with where the EU is today. No need for further expansion or handing over further competencies. The EU/EEC (however you want to view it) was envisaged as an economic bloc and that's where it should stay. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Also,as an aside, the fear mongering being pushed by the Yes side is enough on its own to convince me to vote No!

The EU has always had the goal of 'an ever closer union' amongst the people of Europe, it has always been political, and the Economic Union is a method of achieving that goal.

As an aside, you were quite happy with the fear mongering being pushed by the No side?

[Deleted User]

dbl post

[Deleted User]

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

As an aside, you were quite happy with the fear mongering being pushed by the No side?

Nothing I engaged in so irrelevant to me. All of it was red herrings, some minority voices were magnified by the pro Lisbon press to make the No side look less attractive. And it looks like they are doing it again but this time using abortion, which to me is a complete non issue.

Its sad how they ignore the 2 main reasons people voted no and concentrate on the small issues. But looks like thats the way the pro Lisbon media side work, they frame the debate around minority issues because they are incapable of selling the treaty on its merits...perhaps since there are none..

PopeBuckfastXVI

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing I engaged in so irrelevant to me. All of it was red herrings, some minority voices were magnified by the pro Lisbon press to make the No side look less attractive. And it looks like they are doing it again but this time using abortion, which to me is a complete non issue.

Its sad how they ignore the 2 main reasons people voted no and concentrate on the small issues. But looks like thats the way the pro Lisbon media side work, they frame the debate around minority issues because they are incapable of selling the treaty on its merits...perhaps since there are none..

I assume you didn't engage in lying on behalf of the 'yes' campaign either, yet you claim it influenced you to vote 'no'. I'm interested as to why the lying from some of the 'no' campaigns didn't influence you towards a 'yes'?

I personally didn't need to pick up a paper to see 'no' campaign lies, they were run up every lamp post in the city in which I live.

I would think that if trying to persuade, or gain a 'yes' vote, one should address actual issues, rather than making up ones, which seems kind of purposeless.

Tell me, who on the 'No' side of the house wasn't given enough coverage?

[Deleted User]

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I assume you didn't engage in lying on behalf of the 'yes' campaign either, yet you claim it influenced you to vote 'no'. I'm interested as to why the lying from some of the 'no' campaigns didn't influence you towards a 'yes'?

Status Quo, best to leave things as they are rather than venture out into unknown territory which is essentially what a Yes will bring. Therefore let some of the minority No's say what they want, they are easily proven wrong if they are wrong. And none of that impacts the majority of us. In fact, whilst the Yes side beats around looking to demonise some section of the No's or other they are ignoring the main reasons why people voted No which is fine by me, let them run another poor campaign.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Tell me, who on the 'No' side of the house wasn't given enough coverage?

Since the majority of people who voted no did so because of the reasons outlined in my post above there are plenty of moderates out there. However the moderates are not as motivated to form a lobby group therefore I do not see anyone representing us. We do not need a pressure group to campaign on our behalf.

The treaty is unnecessary, end of story.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sorry, looks like it's not 'end of story'.

The people who actually work the European institutions seem to think that reform of those institutions actually is necessary, and seeing as they are closer to it than you, I'll trust their judgement over yours.

[Deleted User]

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Sorry, looks like it's not 'end of story'.

The people who actually work the European institutions seem to think that reform of those institutions actually is necessary, and seeing as they are closer to it than you, I'll trust their judgement over yours.

Well my heart bleeds for them...I'll trust my common sense above eurocrats any day.

And if you want to sign a contract which you do not understand the full ramifications of then good luck to you sir!

ps. I have a bridge for sale,real cheap,would look great on your lawn mister. Just sign here and its all yours

Daftendirekt

Deleted User wrote: »

Well my heart bleeds for them...I'll trust my common sense above eurocrats any day.

And if you want to sign a contract which you do not understand the full ramifications of then good luck to you sir!

Common sense would seem to dictate that you should educate yourself as to the full ramifications of the contract before deciding whether you want to sign, no?

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

Its sad how they ignore the 2 main reasons people voted no and concentrate on the small issues.

The main reason offered for voting ‘No’ was “Because I do not know enough about the Treaty…”. That wasn’t a good reason for voting ‘No’ last time out and, one year on, it holds even less credibility now. The amount of information available on this forum alone is easily sufficient to educate anyone on the main issues.

You mentioned in an earlier post that this ‘concern’ had not been addressed; how exactly do you propose to address the electorate’s lack of understanding?

Deleted User wrote: »

But looks like thats the way the pro Lisbon media side work, they frame the debate around minority issues because they are incapable of selling the treaty on its merits...perhaps since there are none..

No merits whatsoever? There is not one single positive you could take from the treaty?

Deleted User wrote: »

Status Quo, best to leave things as they are rather than venture out into unknown territory which is essentially what a Yes will bring.

Perhaps you could outline what will happen in the event that a ‘No’ vote is returned?