Its absolutely not pointless as it provides an interesting background to your anti-Lisbon Treaty views.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Why are you afraid of answering the question?
Printable View
Its absolutely not pointless as it provides an interesting background to your anti-Lisbon Treaty views.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Why are you afraid of answering the question?
As opposed to you discussing the EU staying out of the Russia/Georgia thingQuote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Ireland will not withdraw from the EU, the EU will not break up, and it won't revert pre-Maastricht either, i.e., pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Ireland is a pro-EU nation, that doesn't mean you must obey what your government demands on a whim. We have a constitutional democracy. There has been a referendum which has produced a verdict. The government is therefore obliged to respect the outcome of it, whether they approve it or not.
Avoided the question again.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
This is the reason you avoided it. You, and Libertas too, are inherently anti-EU, but you cleverly realised that would never sell in the referendum as we like to see ourselves, by and large, as a pro-European nation. So you, in your posts earlier in the thread (and Libertas in their literature) sold the No vote primarily on the basis that Nice was working effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
You don't believe this for a second (nor do Libertas), you actually don't agree with the post-Maastricht situation (maybe you don't even agree with a free trade area, but you won't say so who knows?). See your posts on the Georgian situation for an example.
Its this deception that Libertas have engaged in and this will become clear over the next 12 months as they roll out their campaign for the Euro elections. Ganley, the proud Irishman that he is, used Ireland as a pawn to launch his anti-EU platform and we lapped it up with a compliant media and a bumbling Government.
This has nothing to do with the benefits of Lisbon, its a thinly veiled attempt to dismantle or otherwise begin the process to materially change the existing European structures.
Once again, no I'm not. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
No I didn't, but yes it is.Quote:
you sold the No vote primarily on the basis that Nice was working effectively.
You don't believe this for a second
Most people, including the Euro-sceptics agree with it.Quote:
(maybe you don't even agree with a free trade area, but you won't say so who knows?).
Nothing to do with it.Quote:
See your posts on the Georgian situation for an example.
Ganley isn't anti-EU.Quote:
Ganley, used Ireland as a pawn to launch his anti-EU platform
The broadsheet media, and the state broadcaster are pro-Lisbon, as with every EU treaty.Quote:
we lapped it up with a compliant media and a bumbling Government.
:o
:D:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
What do you base this on? Because he says so? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mypost
He might be pro EC though (i.e. economic free trade area)
He's a businessman. 90% of them are pro-EU, and like the Dail, automatically vote in favour of EU Treaties. The few who don't, have actually read the treaty, realise what is at stake, and what we stand to lose under this one.
I wonder will this wonderful survey that the Government are currently drip feeding to the Press, which will be released in 2 weeks time, tell us why people vote Yes
I am sure that
"I want Ireland to stay in the EU"
"It must be right because nearly all the main stream Partys supported it"
would feature large.
I am sure that for every stupid reason people had for voting No, there is an equally ridiculous reason why people voted Yes.
Still waiting for your response to my question on the previous page.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
PS In reference to the above, I haven't heard any non-aligned Yes supporter claim the main parties ran a good campaign, ergo people will have voted Yes and No for ridiculous reasons as they didn't understand the Treaty.
Of course thats a compelling reason that it should never have gone to referendum...
Our constitution demands that it has to. Whether it should or shouldn't, is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Sorry ORA i missed your question on the previous page.
My point is that its silly to try to draw a distinction between the constitution and the supreme court. The Supreme Court is the gaurdian of the constitution and its preposterous to say that the constitution doesn't say but the supreme court does. That's to attack the very legislative foundation of the state.
In relation to the other matter, if a referendum is required then there is no way around that regardless of how compelling the case is. That's the problem with a written constitution. The alternative is making it up as we go along. (The Law Lords, The House of Lords). I know which system i'd prefer.
I think the point being made is that neither the constitution nor the supreme court says that european treaties must go to referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
If they didn't we wouldn't have them. There's no way the government of the day would allow EU treaties to go to referendums, if at all possible. If they could, they would do away with elections too. Sure the voters are stupid, don't know what they're voting for, and don't understand the consequences. Don't they?? :confused: Better to form a government themselves, as in 1994. :rolleyes:
No that wasn't the point previously made. If it was, then I wouldn't have responded. He made the point that an "unelected supreme court" may have considered it necessary but that didn't necessarily mean the constitution requires it. That's what I took issue with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
Results of survey on my people voted
Can we take the vote off these people as unable to inform themselves?Quote:
An opinion poll commissioned by the Government found that 42 per cent of people cited a lack of knowledge, information or understanding of the treaty as the reason for voting No. It was by far the most significant reason given for voting against the treaty.
By the same token, can we take the vote off the TD's and MP's around Europe, who read the party lines, rather than the Treaty before "voting"?
Assuming we can't, then No.
Should have a general election, because the Government TD's incapable of explaining it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I'd like to see the questions asked, because I know no one who thought conscription or abortion was an issue, yet these continue to be the focus of the Government when discussing the result. Was it a bit like Mock The Week's this is the answer what was the question...
My mother gave out to me for voting yes because I could have been conscripted and sent off to some war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
You mean some form of Fascism? Always knew you leaned that way Pete.. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
I love the irony here.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
The results of the survey are both good & bad for the government.
- Such a high percentage of uninformed people means the government did not do its job. How difficult is it to tell people this does not lead to abortion or conscription.
- High percentage of uninformed gives an excuse for Lisbon II.
I feel it is embarrassing to the country that we will need another vote just because we cannot inform ourselves.The changes between Nice I & II were minimal.
We don't need another vote. The answer was "No". What part of that does the Government not understand?
Also, I'd suggest that the Government get their survey results and every where it says
"fear of conscription"
"fear of introduction of abortion"
"fear that a Snickers is going to be changed back to a Marathon"
the Government put a red line through the concern and writes "Mistrust of Politicians". And that's one thing that isn't going to change between Lisbon 1 and Lisbon 2.
Address the concerns in question and I am sure most of the people will find another reason to vote No.
I am also concerned about this surveys that was carried out at a cost of 170k. Why was it carried out and what was the objective? It's fundamentally wrong for public finance to be used to carry out such a survey if the only objective of the research was to assist the "Yes" side in fighting a second referendum and getting a "Yes" vote. In my opinion that would be a miss-use of public funds and may even have been unconstitutional. If FF, FG or L wanted to know that then they should have commissioned their own survey.
If we'd voted Yes would there have been a survey to inform us as to why we voted Yes or No??
BTW, did the survey indicate how many people voted Yes because they want to stay in the EU or because the political parties told them to?
Are these people not as equally "uninformed" as some of those that voted No?
If there is another vote, we may as well have Zanu-PF run the EU. Clearly, Brussels love them.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
The Irish Times had the report attached to their breaking news. It might still be there if you can find it. It broke down the ages & reasons for voting. On the Yes side below that you had government information, political party info etc... but all at small percentages.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
On both the Yes & No the biggest reason for vote either way was "no specific reason"
What, you saying I lean towards Fascism? Pot, kettle situation? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
Please enlighten me.
Found it, thanks.
The report states
"The non-specific tone of these responses indicates that the Yes vote was largely a pro-Europe vote rather than an endorsement of the Treaty on its specific merits. "
Are these people not as ignorant or misinformed as any of those that voted No without giving due consideration to the specific merits of the Treaty?
The survey indicates that a large section of the Yes vote were just herded out and simply and blindly followed party polictical advice on the issue.
Or that those 'blindly voting yes' have trust in the EU and are not susceptible to cynicism or suspicion and paranoia.
I read that as "no one specific issue".Quote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
Unless I remember wrong (and I'm sorry if I do) didn't you tell us in one of the socialism discussions that you'd be in favour of a socialist revolution even if the majority opposed it because most of us have had our opinions influenced by a capitalist media?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
That is very similar to pete's comment that the uninformed shouldn't have a vote.
They voted as they were told to.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfx
Maybe I know more gullible people than you do but I knew plenty who at one point or another thought this was the case(although Im not sure how they voted in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Also a child in my class came in upset at this cos they thought they would be sent to war at 18 if this happened.
I have a problem with anyone who votes while they admit they dont understand it, whether they vote yes or no.
I have an even bigger problem with the people (mypost you are included on this because you have done this on this very thread) who said that if you don't understand it you must Vote No. People like that, and the people who vote without understanding the issue, are what's wrong with democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
Harsh thing to say, but there you have it
All citizens over 18 in the state are entitled to vote in referendums. Most politicians don't understand it either, not just here, except they have to vote Yes. The electorate are not obliged to agree with them. If you're an undecided voter, and are not convinced by the federalists, then you have no option but to exercise your democratic right, and vote No.
Rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Being entitled to vote does not mean you must vote. It means you have a responsibility to research what you are voting on and make an informed decision.
If you couldnt be bothered doing this, be this a normal person or politician, you should not be voting.
You are making a choice by voting either yes or no, and neither choice should be taken lightly. When voting no on something, while technically keeping the status quo in legislation it may not translate to such in practice and may make things worse. Similarly while voting yes, the politicians may not always lead you in teh right direction.
There should be no 'Default' vote. Do your research or spoil your vote. There is nothing responsible about voting against something that for all you know could be of great benefit, simply because the politicians didnt convince you. You have your own responsibility when it comes to voting too
A parliamentary vote would result in less than 10 No votes in the Dail. Few of the 150+ TD's who would vote in line with party policy would have read/understood the document, but done what their leader instructed them to do. There would be a similiar heavy majority in the Seanad. The Bill has already passed the first and second stage in the Oireachtas. Now it's left to the electorate, to decide whether it stands or falls. It's up to the politicians, who remember also don't understand the Treaty, to "persuade" you to follow their advice. If you don't, you are equally entitled to disagree with them, and vote accordingly. We have decided in a free and fair vote, and the status quo remains.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
And? Are we just writing facts irrelevant to what was being said?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Just because politicians do it doesnt make it right, similarly people voting when they are uninformed happens but its not right imo.
My post was not confined to the Lisbon treaty. I believe it in regard to all voting
That is democracy, everybody has the right to vote, and can vote as they wish, for all sorts of reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
It must be pointed out, that there were several reasons why they voted, giving the impression they all did because they didn't understand it, is wrong.
*shudders at the thought of putting the LHC construction to a referendum*Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus