Lisbon Treaty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

My point being, there is no alternative

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

If Marx's ideas were so out of date, why was he voted thinker of the Millenium by British academics?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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I haven't seen this at all. In fact, many on the Yes side have said that another vote is out of the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

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

---

Complete and utter aspirational claptrap with no substance. And to prove it, you quoted the master of vague aspirational claptrap, "Mr change" himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

It's in the Indo, 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

...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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

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****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

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.

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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/Refer...ingEnglish.pdf :

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

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

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

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