Lisbon Treaty

[GavinZac]

My point being, there is no alternative
Right then, that wraps it up for you in this topic I suppose?

[BohsPartisan]

Right then, that wraps it up for you in this topic I suppose?

Only if your selective quoting was representative. Yet more intellectual dishonesty from yourself.

[GavinZac]

Only if your selective quoting was representative. Yet more intellectual dishonesty from yourself.
The rest of your post is off-topic guff. What am I to do? We could go on forever about sticking it to the man, but its as irrelevant as it is pointless.

[Student Mullet]

If Marx's ideas were so out of date, why was he voted thinker of the Millenium by British academics?Presumably this vote refers to a previous millennium, so the contradiction doesn't arise.

[GavinZac]

Presumably this vote refers to a previous millennium, so the contradiction doesn't arise.

Similarly, you wouldn't be strung up for nominating Isaac Newton but its not a very good idea to base your ideas on the ephemeral ether because of it.

[mypost]

What I've seen from the coverage since the vote, is the Yes side salivating at the prospect of being given another go to put the democratic will of the electorate in their place.

When you look at the figures, they make very clear reading. A very high turnout, with a very large majority of 110k people that defeated the proposal, by 7% in 33 constituencies. Now, if the yes side think another referendum will be a formality, when they look at those figures, maybe they should reconsider their stance, as there would be no guarantee of the result they demand.

By respecting the decision of the electorate, that would indicate that another referendum is out of the question. Should it not be respected, those of us on the No side have no qualms to vote it down again. The EU has to understand that No doesn't mean maybe, it means No. Full stop. You only have to look at the UK, who will probably complete the process this week, despite widespread anger among the general public, who were not afforded the right to democracy as we were. Magnify that by 25 other countries, and it's clear that 500 million citizens don't want this in their name.

We have and will receive more political support over the coming days and months, for having a democratic vote, and not doing what the rest of the EU is being told to do. While they can bully other countries into caving into their demands, they can't and won't bully us. If Brussels try to confront us at the ballot box, as we've already demonstrated, there will be only one winner, and it won't be them.

Great line earlier in the week, demonstrating the difference between Brian and Barack on the campaign trail. With Barack Obama, it's "yes we can", with Brian, it's "no you can't" :D

[dancinpants]

With Barack Obama, it's "yes we can"

Unashamedly stolen from Bob the Builder. :eek:

Agree with the rest of your post. The more I read on the subject the more I get the feeling that the Treaty just doesn't sit right with ALOT of people - just reading the 82+ pages of the "your comment" section on bbc.com will tell you that. Craziness aside (abortions, gay marriage etc :rolleyes: ) theres just something askew with it. :confused:

Since Ireland rejected it, the fact the EU now seem DESPARATE to "pass it anway" is kinda disconcerting...does that not bother YES voters? Why the desparation?

[OneRedArmy]

What I've seen from the coverage since the vote, is the Yes side salivating at the prospect of being given another go to put the democratic will of the electorate in their place.I haven't seen this at all. In fact, many on the Yes side have said that another vote is out of the question.

You only have to look at the UK, who will probably complete the process this week, despite widespread anger among the general public, who were not afforded the right to democracy as we were. Magnify that by 25 other countries, and it's clear that 500 million citizens don't want this in their name. .Interesting maths.
And as for democracy, what is happening in Britain is absolutely democratic. The British public elected a party that is pro-Lisbon Treaty. The main opposition is anti-Lisbon yet didn't get elected. Thats democracy working the way its intended.

What arguably is undemocratic is putting a complex legal document to a referendum when many of the voters are, for whatever reason, ignorant of its detail, meaning and implications.


We have and will receive more political support over the coming days and months, for having a democratic vote, and not doing what the rest of the EU is being told to do. While they can bully other countries into caving into their demands, they can't and won't bully us. If Brussels try to confront us at the ballot box, as we've already demonstrated, there will be only one winner, and it won't be them.

Great line earlier in the week, demonstrating the difference between Brian and Barack on the campaign trail. With Barack Obama, it's "yes we can", with Brian, it's "no you can't" :DComplete and utter aspirational claptrap with no substance. And to prove it, you quoted the master of vague aspirational claptrap, "Mr change" himself.

[Billsthoughts]

Do you think those guys rule anything? They're just puppets. The ruling elite are the corporations, the banks, the media, and unelected bodies like the EU commission. In particular the corporations make the big decisions that effect our lives. They control production and distribution of goods and services.

Yes. They pass the laws. Therefore they rule. Who do you think runs the "banks" and the "corporations"? Just ordinary shams. If you want to control production set up a corporation.

[Macy]

If you subscribe to the view (I don't, but clearly many do) that in terms of costs vs benefits of EU membership, we are or are moving towards a negative marginal position (interest rates, fishing, immigration etc.) then the anti-EU feeling is only going to increase.
Cowen will be looking for someone (anyone?) to blame for the downturn. Rather than try and blame the opposition, which is the normal FF way, he know has the perfect out - The people.


Its clear the Irish electorate ignored the "Europe has been good to us so vote yes" argument (with some good reason) and if people are looking to see where the EU will benefit Ireland going forward its hard to make a clear case.
Clearly it should be part of the argument. The problem was it was the only argument that the yes side put up.

[seanfhear]

I believe the power of political parties can be illustrated by their policies/manifestos.There is hardly a cigarette paper between them and that is even the opposition parties that we all know will change little if elected.Can anyone come up with a policy from one of the mainstream parties that would upset or even inconvience big business or the banks that have caused the credit crunch.The main parties in ireland do not even have much influence with the electorate which is probably a good thing

[Billsthoughts]

I believe the power of political parties can be illustrated by their policies/manifestos.There is hardly a cigarette paper between them and that is even the opposition parties that we all know will change little if elected.Can anyone come up with a policy from one of the mainstream parties that would upset or even inconvience big business or the banks that have caused the credit crunch.The main parties in ireland do not even have much influence with the electorate which is probably a good thing

I think you are talking about ordinary peoples greed. In this country the banks lent money to people who were only too willing to take it. People paid stupid sums for houses on the basis that the prices will go up indefinitely. :rolleyes:
(It reminds me of the Eircom shares and people wanted compensation cause the price went down. It was the "governments" fault for telling them it was a sure thing. )
No point blaming the government as they have got voted in by the people every election for the last ten years.

[seanfhear]

Human greed.This is the trait of humans that i just cannot get my head around.We all know that unbridled greed will lead to our destruction.I believe that it is a disease like alcoholism or drug addiction but we have not celebrated these problems like we have the pursuit of happiness through avarice

[pete]

Interesting to see the survey in todays paper (i think the Examiner did it?) on why people voted No. Shocked that 75% of No voters thought this could be renegotiated. Renegotiating would only work if actually knew why people voted No i.e. concrete reason.

The one good thing to come out of the No vote is a big discussion on Irelands future in the EU & where we see that going. We really should have been having that discussion 6 months ago.

I think a two tier EU is inevitable eventually. When the Euro was introduced that paved the way for countries to opt out of major decisions. It is probably a logical way to progress as will be difficult to get 27 countries to agree on everything & also the most democratic way forward. Ireland has a choice to make now on how we proceed.

[Macy]

Interesting to see the survey in todays paper (i think the Examiner did it?) on why people voted No. Shocked that 75% of No voters thought this could be renegotiated.
It's in the Indo (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/revealed-why-we-voted-no-to-lisbon-1412027.html), with btw nothing to back the opening paragraphs claim of people believing it could be "easily" renegotiated in the figures given. If you had a problem with part of the treaty, why wouldn't you want it renegotiated?


Renegotiating would only work if actually knew why people voted No i.e. concrete reason.
If that question was actually asked - the report doesn't say whether it was or wasn't

[John83]

...And as for democracy, what is happening in Britain is absolutely democratic. The British public elected a party that is pro-Lisbon Treaty. The main opposition is anti-Lisbon yet didn't get elected. Thats democracy working the way its intended...
They elected a party whose manifesto promised a referendum. That promise would be reason enough for a no voter to ignore the party position on Europe and focus on the other issues, from tax to healthcare to crime. To suggest that an opinion of majority party is also held by the majority of the public is disingenuous. Furthermore, the first past the post system used in British elections greatly exaggerates Labour's popularity. Your argument on this point is entirely facetious.

Oh, man. I voted with Sinn Fein and Coir, lunatics of all flavours, ignorant people and stupid people. That's okay. I can accept that in a binary decision, I'm going to vote with some nutters. But arguing on the same side as Mypost? I feel dirty.

[Calcio Jack]

Having voted 'no' last week...expect that i'll most likely vote 'yes' next time, churlish, childish,immature, or subtle and smart whatever your take on it I don't care...but suggest the 'yes' politicians might try and find out how many others might do the same (assuming of course some cosmetic chages are made to the Treaty to make it easy for 'no' voters to justify to themselves a 'yes'vote) anyone feel the same or think what I've outlined is realistic... and if you don't like my principles well i've got another few sets

[osarusan]

To suggest that an opinion of majority party is also held by the majority of the public is disingenuous.

Well said that man.

The argument that if the government party (and in Ireland's case, also the opposition) have a stance on a particular issue, this is always an accurate reflection of the majority of the people in the country, is a flawed argument.
The idea that Ireland is going against the wishes of 500 million Europeans is based on that argument, but in three countries (the only 3?) where the current proposals (or very similar proposals and under a different name) were put to a referendum, the voters refused to pass it.

The idea that we should also trust the people behind the treaty on the basis that they surely know what is better for us than we do ourselves is another argument that has very little merit for me. I don't trust any politician blindly.

And finally, the idea that an issue such as this is too important to be left to an uninformed voting public is ludicrous, and entirely undemocratic. That said, the voting public have a responsibility to inform themselves of the issue. To blame somebody else for their own lack of understanding of what the treaty is about it a pretty lame excuse.

[jebus]

The argument that if the government party (and in Ireland's case, also the opposition) have a stance on a particular issue, this is always an accurate reflection of the majority of the people in the country, is a flawed argument.

It's not always an accurate reflection, but it is the way a democracy should run. In England, for example, the voting public know that Labour are vastly more pro-European than their Tory counterparts, and were voted in ahead of the Tories in the last national election. I would assume that the people who voted for them would know this obvious fact, and so I would assume they were happy for the Labour party to deal with the upcoming Lisbon Treaty. If they then are unhappy with the way Labour has shaped Britain's foreign policy then they can exercise their frustration by voting for the Tories, the Lib Dems, Respect or whoever they wish, in the hopes of changing that direction. That's the way democracy has been run, and that is the way democracy should continue to run.

Putting a complex Treaty to a public that means little to many, or that don't understand it whilst being whipped up by campaigns of lies and scaremongering (on both sides), with very actual debate on the matter is ridiculous in the extreme

[Schumi]

In England, for example, the voting public know that Labour are vastly more pro-European than their Tory counterparts, and were voted in ahead of the Tories in the last national election. I would assume that the people who voted for them would know this obvious fact, and so I would assume they were happy for the Labour party to deal with the upcoming Lisbon Treaty.They promised a referendum on Lisbon and then changed their minds after the election. That's hardly democracy.

[osarusan]

Putting a complex Treaty to a public that means little to many, or that don't understand it whilst being whipped up by campaigns of lies and scaremongering (on both sides), with very actual debate on the matter is ridiculous in the extreme
In a situation where it is difficult to get an accurate understanding of an issue due to scaremongering, surely is it better to try harder to get an accurate understanding than to simply stop having referenda on such issues (and place the decisions of our politicians, many of whom admitted they hadn't read it themselves either).

[jebus]

They promised a referendum on Lisbon and then changed their minds after the election. That's hardly democracy.

I think you'll find breaking election promises has always been apart of democracy.

Didn't they promise to look into having a referendum though, not actually have one? And haven't they changed leadership since the last election, so Brown can point to that being a Blair idea?

[GavinZac]

They promised a referendum on Lisbon and then changed their minds after the election. That's hardly democracy.

No, its not. Its a constitutionally monarchic republic. Whereby the people choose to put decision making power in the hands of a trusted set of people for a number of years, then base the next decision on how they did and how they think the other could do. True democracy would be consulting the (eligible; in reality, this has meant wealthy male) public for every little decision. That is fine for city-states in Hellenic epics, but the British public, as with their Irish counterparts, vouch for the republic/parliament system by their participation.

[jebus]

In a situation where it is difficult to get an accurate understanding of an issue due to scaremongering, surely is it better to try harder to get an accurate understanding than to simply stop having referenda on such issues (and place the decisions of our politicians, many of whom admitted they hadn't read it themselves either).

How do you do that though? The only way is by allowing censorship, and then who decides to censor who? It opens up quite a large tin of worms allowing the government* to do that during any referendum and possible election

* I assume it would have to be the government who would have to do that

[OneRedArmy]

They elected a party whose manifesto promised a referendum. That promise would be reason enough for a no voter to ignore the party position on Europe and focus on the other issues, from tax to healthcare to crime. .That promise was made in the context of the European Constitution, in 2005.
To suggest that an opinion of majority party is also held by the majority of the public is disingenuous. Furthermore, the first past the post system used in British elections greatly exaggerates Labour's popularity. Your argument on this point is entirely facetious. .You could use the same argument in relation to low turnout figures in any election not reflecting the majority of the population. Nobody mentioned majority, the key word was "democratic" and how people are stating that referenda are the only true democratic way, which is horse****.

[Bald Student]

To suggest that an opinion of majority party is also held by the majority of the public is disingenuous.That's true but I think it's a strength of the system. It forces the government to have a set of internally consistent policies. The public may well be in favour of lower taxes and more public spending but someone elected into power must choose one or the other.

There's a very good recent example of this. In opposition the green party was simultaneously in favour of more windmills and opposed to more power lines in rural areas. Now that they're in power, they're forced to betray one of their support bases.

Having said all that, the UK government could have held a referendum if they'd wanted to.

[pineapple stu]

Having waded through only part of this 42-page thread, has anyone yet given a concrete reason to vote for Lisbon? I haven't seen it, and indeed didn't see a single reason given in the Yes canvassing. We were told that Europe was good, so we should vote Yes, we were told that the No side's arguments were flawed, so we should vote Yes, and we were shown posters which said Lisbon was somehow good for jobs, etc, but again without any reason why.

I'm genuinely curious as to how people can hold such passionate views on the subject without being able to give a single reason why we should have voted this in?

[dahamsta]

Of course the same could be said for the No side.

(I voted No, so I'm not just stirring. Both sides were cat when it comes to, you know, facts and stuff.)

adam

[pineapple stu]

Of course the same could be said for the No side.
Absolutely. I voted no primarily because I didn't see anything wrong with the status quo; to be honest, I couldn't see any other way of voting. Micheál Martin, our Foreign Affairs Minister, had a quarter of a page in the Irish Times on Monday without giving a single reason to vote for it; when that happens, you start to ask questions.

[Mr A]

Well I would say that the proposed reforms in the running of the EU were pretty sensible and reflected the need for reform and streamlining in light of the expansion of the Union, hence I voted yes.

[OneRedArmy]

Having waded through only part of this 42-page thread, has anyone yet given a concrete reason to vote for Lisbon? I haven't seen it, and indeed didn't see a single reason given in the Yes canvassing. We were told that Europe was good, so we should vote Yes, we were told that the No side's arguments were flawed, so we should vote Yes, and we were shown posters which said Lisbon was somehow good for jobs, etc, but again without any reason why.

I'm genuinely curious as to how people can hold such passionate views on the subject without being able to give a single reason why we should have voted this in?Efficiency and clarity of decision making. That was my prime reason. Unfortunately thats probably a hard sell for most people.

As an aside, did you read any of the stuff from the Referendum Commission? (they don't escape blame for whats happened but they did produce quite a lot of factual unbiased info). That allowed me to draw conclusions.

I do agree that if people were waiting for the main political parties to tell them why to vote yes, then a picture of a grinning local-yokel with the word YES underneath it didn't really cut it.

Whilst I'm disappointed by the result of the referendum, I take no shortage of comfort that it has made the main parties (on the Yes side), to a man, look like absolute gimps.

[pineapple stu]

As an aside, did you read any of the stuff from the Referendum Commission? (they don't escape blame for whats happened but they did produce quite a lot of factual unbiased info). That allowed me to draw conclusions.
I did, yeah, albeit briefly. To be honest, my main conclusion from that was that it didn't even seem as if it should go to a referendum (having drawn roughly the conclusion you mention with regards the point of the whole thing).

[jebus]

Having waded through only part of this 42-page thread, has anyone yet given a concrete reason to vote for Lisbon?

We effectively denied Croatia the chance for economic growth by voting no, how about that for a reason to vote yes

How about a common climate change policy that would put pressure on the US and China for seconds

[pineapple stu]

We effectively denied Croatia the chance for economic growth by voting no, how about that for a reason to vote yes
Unfortunately, it's an awful reason because, as per my original post, there's no cause and effect. "Vote Yes or the sky will fall down!" - that's all your post says.

Ditto your second point.

[Student Mullet]

Arguing the merits of the treaty and arguing the tactics of the two campaigns are tow separate things but a big part of the problem I saw with the yes campaign was that they probably didn't agree with a lot of what they were defending. I got the impression that Cowen would much prefer decisions to go on behind closed doors and for the commissioners to wear the national jersey because that's the kind of politics he's used to. Having to defend more transparent and accountable decision making didn't seem to suit him or any one else in the Dáil.

[John83]

I did, yeah, albeit briefly. To be honest, my main conclusion from that was that it didn't even seem as if it should go to a referendum (having drawn roughly the conclusion you mention with regards the point of the whole thing).
From http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/ReferendumWordingEnglish.pdf :

10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.
That's reason enough to require it go to referendum for me.

[jebus]

Unfortunately, it's an awful reason because, as per my original post, there's no cause and effect. "Vote Yes or the sky will fall down!" - that's all your post says.

Ditto your second point.

Ah you're one of those who thinks climate change will just sort itself out, right I'll back out now as I'd rather not lower my IQ to the level of a marshmallow

[John83]

Ah you're one of those who thinks climate change will just sort itself out, right I'll back out now as I'd rather not lower my IQ to the level of a marshmallow
Or you could explain to him why you think Croatia's economic success was so closely linked with the treaty, and not look like an arrogant jerk.

[jebus]

Or you could explain to him why you think Croatia's economic success was so closely linked with the treaty, and not look like an arrogant jerk.

You obviously don't know me if you think I can do that. Suffice to say if you can do the math on EU grants + Croatia = a more prosperous Croatia you can work out my answer. I see the EU are trying to push Croatia through without this, but it would have been a lot smoother had we passed the Lisbon Treaty. This also affects further EU expansion, so there's a few countries in the Balkans who probably would like a word too, so even if you take Croatia out of my maths equation and put in 'Generic Balkan Country' you'll get the idea

[dahamsta]

You'd have to wonder if they could pull it off a second time. I think there's a fair chance they could make it even worse, and make themselves look like even bigger idiots.

Ireland seeks guarantees before second EU referendum (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/2146169/Ireland-seeks-guarantees-before-second-EU-referendum.html)

Although on the plus side, it'd put the last nail in the coffin of the gombeen mucksavage running our poor country...

[mypost]

I voted no primarily because I didn't see anything wrong with the status quo; to be honest, I couldn't see any other way of voting.

It's rare that Stu, Adam, mypost and bohemians fans are shoulder-to-shoulder on an issue. :) But like the political parties on the Yes side, it's convenient to put differences aside for the greater good of the country.

And the decision on Friday was for the greater good of the country. It was important to get this voted down, so we wouldn't have to be subject to an EU nation, who like other nations around the world, wants a permanent President and Foreign Minister. Mary McAleese and Micheal Martin would be effectively useless from next year, the Dail would be nothing more than a poor mans talking shop. The Irish Constitution would be no more.

As it stands, we have a strong Europe as it is, and while we need to compete with Russia (banjaxed outside Moscow), India (frequent terrorist outrages), and China (world's most repressive regimes), the issue of climate change is not as important as the individual loss of sovereignty and democracy that passing this treaty entails. The loss of sovereignty is something which should never be surrendered by any nation, let alone Ireland, with our history. Ditto democracy.

Free Europe is a strong Europe, and the Europe most citizens want. Only politicians want Federalism.

[OneRedArmy]

As it stands, we have a strong Europe as it is, and while we need to compete with Russia (banjaxed outside Moscow), India (frequent terrorist outrages), and China (world's most repressive regimes), the issue of climate change is not as important as the individual loss of sovereignty and democracy that passing this treaty entails. The loss of sovereignty is something which should never be surrendered by any nation, let alone Ireland, with our history. Ditto democracy.

Free Europe is a strong Europe, and the Europe most citizens want. Only politicians want Federalism.Your comments on Russia, India and China are frankly, beneath ridicule.

Its because of people like you I want Europe to have more influence.

[pete]

I voted Yes as the admin and decision making changes seem sensible, necessary and as good a deal as I think we could reasonably expect. The EU has been good for us and threatened doom of previous Treatys never occurred so ultimately I trust the EU. I did my own research & I also did not feel any of the organisations on the No side made me inclined to question the EU.

[pineapple stu]

Ah you're one of those who thinks climate change will just sort itself out, right I'll back out now as I'd rather not lower my IQ to the level of a marshmallow
So I should do what you say because you said to do it? And you think I have the IQ of a marshmallow?

That's a No vote for me so. See how this works?

A further problem with your bullying, dismissive arrogance arises from the fact that it's a tact the EU have tried before. Take the Maastricht Treaty, for example. We were basically told that (and I paraphrase out of necessity) without the euro, Ireland would be nothing. We had to have this or we'd all end up back in the 60s. So we voted for it; we were young and naive at the time. Denmark, Sweden and the UK didn't vote for it and lo! the sky hasn't fallen in on their economies. So people are looking for more of a reason to vote something in than "Shut up and vote for it, idiot."

Oh, and I'd say Croatia will be fine.

[SMorgan]

I am fairly sure that if the Government ask the same question, with some tinkering, they'll get the same answer. Last Thursday’s outcome bears little resemblance to Nice One.

The fact is that you can be pro-EU and fully acknowledge the benefits of Ireland's involvement in the EEC, EC and now the EU and still vote against the Lisbon Treaty. This agreement was anti-democratic, in that it was drafted to avoid some countries having to put it to their people and involved the appointing of an unelected President and Minister of Foreign Affairs. I’d say that if this Treaty was put to a vote across Europe, Ireland would have strengthened its credentials as a pro-EU country. Do you believe for one minute that Denmark, Netherlands, France or the UK would have gotten anything like 46% for the “indecipherable drivel” that was the Lisbon Treaty. There is a space reserved in heaven for those on this message Board trying to explain it to the rest of us, even if one of them tried to claim that the Commissioners have a legitimate mandate and cannot be considered unelected. :confused:

[DaveyCakes]

Mary McAleese and Micheal Martin would be effectively useless from next year

Would anyone notice the difference?

[DaveyCakes]

We effectively denied Croatia the chance for economic growth by voting no, how about that for a reason to vote yes

How about a common climate change policy that would put pressure on the US and China for seconds

Ah, the Maude Flanders argument..."Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Croatians"

They seem to be doing okay....

http://eu.mfa.hr/?mh=34&mv=307&id=4232

[OneRedArmy]

So I should do what you say because you said to do it? And you think I have the IQ of a marshmallow?

That's a No vote for me so. See how this works?

A further problem with your bullying, dismissive arrogance arises from the fact that it's a tact the EU have tried before. Take the Maastricht Treaty, for example. We were basically told that (and I paraphrase out of necessity) without the euro, Ireland would be nothing. We had to have this or we'd all end up back in the 60s. So we voted for it; we were young and naive at the time. Denmark, Sweden and the UK didn't vote for it and lo! the sky hasn't fallen in on their economies. So people are looking for more of a reason to vote something in than "Shut up and vote for it, idiot."

Oh, and I'd say Croatia will be fine.You've just done whats known as post-fact justification.

You didn't vote no because Jebus thinks you have the brain of a marshmallow.

As for the Euro, I don't think comparing us to Britain, Denmark or Sweden is in any way relevant. By any measure, Euro membership has been very good to us. If you're looking for a comparison, do some research into how the New Zealand and Icelandic economies (small island economies moving from an agrarian base) are doing recently outside an Currency Area or Trade Block.

Your comments are indicative of the "post-Celtic Tiger superiority complex with an added dose of economic paranoia" that seems to have grasped large swathes of the country every since people realised that property accumulation wasn't the magic beans production license they'd thought it was.

Without wanting to sound like David McWilliams, as a nation we're like a child thats been told the birthday party is over and they can't have any more cake. We're angry and we'll blame anyone who tries to tell us what to do.

The EU has and continues to be beneficial to us to this day. Anyone who disputes this should at least bring some figures/examples or the like to the table.

[pineapple stu]

You've just done whats known as post-fact justification.

You didn't vote no because Jebus thinks you have the brain of a marshmallow.
But people did vote no because politicians thought the people have the brains of a marshmallow. It's called likening one thing to another. Obviously jebus didn't sway my vote.


As for the Euro, I don't think comparing us to Britain, Denmark or Sweden is in any way relevant. By any measure, Euro membership has been very good to us.
Again with the sweeping dismissive statements with no back up whatsoever. I think it's a default setting for some of yez!

And I'm not trying to argue whether or not the euro is good, but I am arguing that the EU and the government went way over the top when they stated the consequences of not joining. Different thing.

[OneRedArmy]

Do you believe for one minute that Denmark, Netherlands, France or the UK would have gotten anything like 46% for the “indecipherable drivel” that was the Lisbon Treaty. There is a space reserved in heaven for those on this message Board trying to explain it to the rest of us, even if one of them tried to claim that the Commissioners have a legitimate mandate and cannot be considered unelected. :confused:1. You are right that it hasn't been well explained by the people who had a responsibility to do so (the main political parties).
2. That acknowledged, legal documents by their nature are "indecipherable drivel", particularly EU ones due to the complexity.