That works for me too :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
Printable View
That works for me too :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
Business Post readers are "Yes" voters, so why would "No" voters read it?? Furthermore, since the figures and assumptions in their polls before the vote were shown to be a load of ballots, why would anyone believe them anymore??Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Our Taoiseach was given a strong mandate last week to go to Brussels, and tell them; "this was the result, what are we going to do about it??" :confused:
However, all he did was state how sorry he was that we disobeyed him in a free vote, and was told by his masters from France and Germany, to vote again. :rolleyes: Instead of a man of steel, we have a laughing stock of a Taoiseach with no authority, either here or abroad.
Laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Thats what happens when less than 1% tries to force the other 99%.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Huh ? I didn't seek to force anybody - I was given a yes / no decision and made a decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Funny how people suspend their democratic leanings when they don't like the result.
Funny how people suspend their democratic leanings when they think they can hold someone to ransom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
The Lisbon treaty brought democracy, or "majoritarianism" as the No's called it, to more EU decisions. It brought the system closer to one man, one vote, for every EU citizen rather than special treatment for some. And it ensured a way of every citizen in the EU having a commissioner from their state 2/3's of the time, just like everyone else.
Fair, balanced, equal - apparently not things people want, when currently the scales are tipped in their favour; especially not when the last 2/3 they heard about is the new value of the house they're paying the bank for.
True. That is why we watch, read or listen to any form of media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
The people rejected the Lisbon Treaty, which whether you like it or not is supposed to be passed on the basis of unanimity.Quote:
Originally Posted by GavinZac
... who said I didn't like it? What the hell has that got to do with anything? :confused: Its not going to be 'stealth passed' now, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
I reckon you just picked the most irrelevant thing you could so, so as to avoid addressing anything I said. Funnily, that's happened a few times in this thread.
From the feedback I'm getting over here people are happy that Ireland voted no.
My wife's doctor was shaking my hand and saying thanks and other people at work also.
I think I would have voted yes. Just going on what the EU has done for Ireland. I haven't read anything about the treaty, maybe if I did I would have another opinion on it.
The EU has it's bad and good sides but I think Ireland has benefited a lot from it.
Of course it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Which is exactly why the 99% are asking us to re-consider our decision.
A lot of people seem to be automatically linking the fact that by voting no, we get some kind of free pass to renegotiate the Treaty, when patently this is not the case.
Whilst the ratification is by unanimity, the negotiation is most definitely by majority.
Ergo, thats why we aren't in the strong position that the No side would have us believe.
Declan Ganley has gone very quiet in the last few days as his prediction of how it would play out has turned out to be less than accurate.....
How naive!Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Everyone knew that was going to be the case when the joke was signed last year. Everyone knew that only one country was going to hold a referendum and the electorate there, would effectively, have the final say on whether it stood or fell. They are the rules of ratification, whether you agreed or disagreed with it. It fell, that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Yesterday, Hibernian axed 600 jobs and moved them to India. 1% of the company's payroll wanted to do so, so like it or not, the other 99% have to accept and deal with that situation. You may find the comparison "laughable", but that's the reality.
Since when did businesses become democracies?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
'it could be because of all the foreign criminals, don't know if thats true or not', that well thought out part of your post?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Referendums are very bad ways to enact any sort of law. I think Switzerland have a lot of them for local cantons so have all sorts of bizarre laws - maybe someone can point out if this is incorrect). Nice & Maastricht would not have passed if needed to run referendum in all states. Effectively you just need 1% of the voters in 1 of 27 states to stop everyone else. The EU would probably still have 13 states.
It seems vast majority of states don't need Referendums for most Treaties but I think they need to come up with some other way of making changes that bypasses Referendums.
Sure. Just pass one last treaty which clearly delineates where the EU has power and a rough outline of the internal structures which can be internally tweeked. Instead, we get treaty after treaty slightly expanding the role of the EU together with an obscene amount of trivial crap which should never see the ballot box.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
You can thank Raymond Crotty for that. Previous to his Supreme Court action in 1987 it was always assumed the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution gave the Oireachtas wide powers to deal within the scope of the EU. The Supreme Court decided (on a 3v2 split decision no less!!!!) that elements of the then Single European Act were at variance with the Constitution (though not the QMV interestingly) and that it should be put to the people. This established a precedent and every Treaty since has been put to referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I don't work in the field of law but I understand this was an extremely controversial decision and is widely challenged in legal fields and a belief that the decision to put everything to do with Europe to referendum is viewed as ridiculously conservative (instead of assessing each Treaty in the context of the Constitution and making a decision as to whether it is actually inconsistent).
The YES side would have no problem with refs, if the result went their way.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Refs. should be held in every state, and we see how many pfo's there would be. There's already been 3 on this alone. And there's a strong chance of 4, as any agreement concocted by Brussels on this, has to make it past our electorate, before coming into effect.
Can't uderstand how the USA can be run perfectly fine in the House of Representatives and Senate with 50 states, yet the EU can't run itself with barely half the amount. :confused:
I've never thought allowing a bunch of ill informed people decide the course of a country or a continent is a good ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by mypost
You want a federated single sovereign nation, do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost