Yes to Lisbon = Goodbye Constitutional Republic

sink

democrates wrote: »

That no way out argument is up there with intelligent Design - "I can't figure it out so it proves God created it".

Read through my posts on this thread for what we need to aim for.

It's not a no way out argument. To change things people need to change their governments we can't do that for them. For instance in the UK if Labour are voted out of the next government is far more likely to hold a referendum regardless of anything we do, we have no influence except to possibly scare them into not having referenda ever.

portomar

Irish and Proud wrote: »

and what is this opt-out withdrawal clause in relation to Ireland and policing in the EU. One has to remember the Homeland Security Bill in the US - I think, I think, I smell a stink!!! :eek:

the opt-out of EU policing bill and us homeland security bill have almost nothing in common. our opt out exists for a number of reasons, one being sensitivity over the border, another being our status as the only country with a land border with a country who had already opted out. this is similar to schengen stance, the government seem to have an understandable aim of not wanting to do anything that would make the border a more defined one in legal terms by having differing visa and policing areas.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

For instance in the UK if Labour are voted out of the next government is far more likely to hold a referendum regardless of anything we do, we have no influence except to possibly scare them into not having referenda ever.

Please Please just re-read what you have wrote!! And ask yourself how you could possibly find that acceptable.

Should referenda only be held when the government is assured they have brainwashed the public sufficiently to get the right result?

Maybe the Burmese Junta or Robert Mugabe have something to learn from our european neighbours?

This is exactly where the EU is heading and must be stopped.

BMH

johnnyq wrote: »

Please Please just re-read what you have wrote!! And ask yourself how you could possibly find that acceptable.

Should referenda only be held when the government is assured they have brainwashed the public sufficiently to get the right result?

Maybe the Burmese Junta or Robert Mugabe have something to learn from our european neighbours?

This is exactly where the EU is heading and must be stopped.

Surely having a motion defeated by referendum largely due to misinformation and ignorance would lead countries to avoiding referenda on similar topics?

democrates

sink wrote: »

It's not a no way out argument. To change things people need to change their governments we can't do that for them. For instance in the UK if Labour are voted out of the next government is far more likely to hold a referendum regardless of anything we do, we have no influence except to possibly scare them into not having referenda ever.

Ok to be precise you said:

sink wrote:

He was not 'threatening' consequences, he and the EU itself will not do anything. The consequences he speaks of are for the EU itself and all it's member states including Ireland. It will be stuck in a quagmire with no direction out. No one has any ideas what to do after a no vote, including the no vote campaigners.

The right thing may not be the easiest thing to do for the campaigners and organisers, but for most people it will come down to voting. If the 'representatives' don't like it, there are plenty to take their places.

Edit: I'm not swayed by the argument that we're only making it worse for ourselves if we say no to our European neighbours, we're not, a no to Lisbon is a no to the politicians who are failing to give voice to our fellow 500 million European citizens.

johnnyq

BMH wrote: »

Surely having a motion defeated by referendum largely due to misinformation and ignorance would lead countries to avoiding referenda on similar topics?

But that wasn't what sink was saying. It's also quite a convenient excuse actually.

"We'll make the decisions because the public could never understand it".

That certainly is an effective strategy for governments who wish to push their own agendas.

Really BMH, don't you think it should be the case that the treaty should be clear enough so that people know what it contains and others could not misinterpret it?

Imagine, this was going to be our constitution!!!

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Should referenda only be held when the government is assured they have brainwashed the public sufficiently to get the right result?

You're being asinine, any government would never put anything to a referenda they thought they couldn't win. The reason being that loosing a referenda is extremely damaging and could cause the government to collapse. Expecting a government that calls a garaunteed loosing referenda and back it passing does not deserve to be in government and should be removed asap.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Is that so?? There is no way the EU can actually find out why there was a NO vote and suggest something new?? What happened in Nice?? A NO vote, followed by a change, sparking a YES vote.

Hmm. I hope you're not under the impression that any change was made to the Treaty of Nice between the two referendums? The only change was in our amendment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

Really BMH, don't you think it should be the case that the treaty should be clear enough so that people know what it contains and others could not misinterpret it?

The two are mutually exclusive. I'm sure you will now cite our Constitution / the US Constitution / etc as examples of such clear documents, conveniently leaving out the enormous body of interpretative law they have generated as a result of their "clear" language.

cordially,
Scofflaw

democrates

sink wrote: »

You're being asinine, any government would never put anything to a referenda they thought they couldn't win. The reason being that loosing a referenda is extremely damaging and could cause the government to collapse. Expecting a government that calls a garaunteed loosing referenda and back it passing does not deserve to be in government and should be removed asap.

And the constitution being rejected by the French and Dutch proves how out of touch with the people politicians have become. Plus, no one was removed as a result, the same people are having another go with as few people as possible being asked this time.

BMH

johnnyq wrote: »

"We'll make the decisions because the public could never understand it".

Pretty much. We elect people to handle our problems.

That certainly is an effective strategy for governments who wish to push their own agendas.

Again, you're describing our current and aspirant state of democracy.

Really BMH, don't you think it should be the case that the treaty should be clear enough so that people know what it contains and others could not misinterpret it?

I believe the treaty is quite clear, but this is an issue of opinion.

sink

democrates wrote: »

And the constitution being rejected by the French and Dutch proves how out of touch with the people politicians have become. Plus, no one was removed as a result, the same people are having another go with as few people as possible being asked this time.

No Sarkozy was not in power during the constitution referenda. In Holland the governing coalition collapsed twice since, but the majority party managed to form a new government twice by the skin of their teeth without having to hold elections.

turgon

BMH wrote: »

Surely having a motion defeated by referendum largely due to misinformation and ignorance would lead countries to avoiding referenda on similar topics?

Are you suggesting that all people who vote NO are ignorant? Because that would, ironically enough, be an ignorant stance.

BMH wrote: »

Pretty much. We elect people to handle our problems.

Yes to handle our problems. Not how to handle them.

turgon

I know democrates that im on your side of the argument, but I do feel that part of the reason the Constitution was rejected was because of the nature of it. People did not want to create a constitutional state, with flag and all.

BMH

turgon wrote: »

Are you suggesting that all people who vote NO are ignorant? Because that would, ironically enough, be an ignorant stance.

I'm saying that a failure to pass the treaty would be viewed, in Europe, as due to misinformation, ignorance of the actual content of the treaty, or as an attempt to 'punish' the ruling government. An Irish Times poll around a week ago shows this to be a pretty accurate view.

Yes to handle our problems. Not how to handle them.

Should a plebiscite be held on every decision the government makes? How do you suggest they 'solve problems' without first deciding 'how to' do so?

sink

sink wrote: »

In Holland the governing coalition collapsed twice since, but the majority party managed to form a new government twice by the skin of their teeth without having to hold elections.

After checking up on my facts I found I made a mistake. There was an election in 2006 after the collapse.

turgon

BMH wrote: »

I'm saying that a failure to pass the treaty would be viewed, in Europe, as due to misinformation, ignorance of the actual content of the treaty, or as an attempt to 'punish' the ruling government. An Irish Times poll around a week ago shows this to be a pretty accurate view.

That exactly supports our view that the EU is out of touch!! They should be able to see the problems they have created, rather than blaming rejection on other issues. Big egos are a problem, I would imagine,

QUOTE=BMH;56064052]Should a plebiscite be held on every decision the government makes? How do you suggest they 'solve problems' without first deciding 'how to' do so?[/QUOTE]

When I meant how, I meant within what democratic institutions. ie the government can deal with our problems, but if they wish to change our form of government- ex. giving the EU more power - then we should be consulted. We should be able to decide our own form of government

turgon

sink wrote: »

After checking up on my facts I found I made a mistake. There was an election in 2006 after the collapse.

That could have been about other issues as well though

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

You're being asinine, any government would never put anything to a referenda they thought they couldn't win. The reason being that loosing a referenda is extremely damaging and could cause the government to collapse. Expecting a government that calls a garaunteed loosing referenda and back it passing does not deserve to be in government and should be removed asap.

Who said that proper reform of Europe would be a guaranteed losing referendum?
There is a difference between good reform and brainwashing.

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm sure you will now cite our Constitution / the US Constitution / etc as examples of such clear documents, conveniently leaving out the enormous body of interpretative law they have generated as a result of their "clear" language.

Are you seriously suggesting that the interpretation of legal professionals on clear language is a worse scenario than the total confusion for everyone -voters and legal professionals alike - created by vague documents like the Lisbon Treaty?

For Scofflaw

Wow those tea-leaves are working wonders for your prediction skills:D

BMH wrote:

you're describing our current and aspirant state of democracy.

Could I be detecting a shared sense of despair about the present situation? Voting Yes to the proposals on the table is hardly going to improve things.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

There is a difference between good reform and brainwashing.

Are you insinuating that I and all other yes supporters are somehow brainwashed?

sink

turgon wrote: »

That could have been about other issues as well though

Could've been about anything, 'democracy at work' if you will.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

Are you insinuating that I and all other yes supporters are somehow brainwashed?

Hmm,welllllll.....:eek:.....:D

Your words:
"any government would never put anything to a referenda they thought they couldn't win"
It's either a good reform or a bad reform.
If a government is seriously pushing for a bad reform and thinks they will win it you can't help but think some brainwashing is about.

Now, some think the Lisbon Treaty and the militarisation etc.. that comes with it is a good reform - that's not brainwashing.

Do you really think all people in the political parties share that view?
Surely aren't there some FF and FG loyalists who are rightly concerned about the treaty and being threatened to support it or else their political lives are dead in the water.
So some must put their brain, let's see.... 'on hiatas' until after the referendum.

On the other hand, perhaps sink, it may legitimate to insinuate that there is not one brain in the FF/FG parties in the first place

BMH

turgon wrote: »

That exactly supports our view that the EU is out of touch!! They should be able to see the problems they have created, rather than blaming rejection on other issues. Big egos are a problem, I would imagine,

Surely if it's basing its opinions on accurate polling information...

When I meant how, I meant within what democratic institutions. ie the government can deal with our problems, but if they wish to change our form of government- ex. giving the EU more power - then we should be consulted. We should be able to decide our own form of government

These are the democratic institutions of the other countries. Your criticisms of the way foreign sovereign nations conduct business could be construed as the foreign interference in domestic affairs that you claim you want to avoid. We have a law that demands our consultation on these matters because we elected a government that enacted such a law. The other countries don't because, for whatever reason, they decided not to elect a government that would bring in such a policy.

BMH

johnnyq wrote: »

Hmm,welllllll.....:eek:.....:D
If a government is seriously pushing for a bad reform and thinks they will win it you can't help but think some brainwashing is about.

...

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Your words:
"any government would never put anything to a referenda they thought they couldn't win"
It's either a good reform or a bad reform.
If a government is seriously pushing for a bad reform and thinks they will win it you can't help but think some brainwashing is about.

I believe it is a good reform, I made that decision months ago way before any government party began campaigning. I'm not going to stoop to your level and insult a large body of people based on our disagreements. It show's a poor level of reasoning on your part, that you can't see both sides of the argument. I can see broadly your reasoning and I disagree with aspects of it but i'm not going to insult your intellegence unless you say something stupid, and you have just done so.

johnnyq

sink wrote: »

I believe it is a good reform, I made that decision months ago way before any government party began campaigning. I'm not going to stoop to your level and insult a large body of people based on our disagreements. It show's a poor level of reasoning on your part, that you can't see both sides of the argument. I can see broadly your reasoning and I disagree with aspects of it but i'm not going to insult your intellegence unless you say something stupid, and you have just done so.

Wow you don't take sarcasm well. Maybe this would have made it clearer - :rolleyes:

In fact I'll set out some teaching notes for you (and BMH)

johnnyq wrote:

Hmm,welllllll.....:eek:.....:D

Note: Smiley face indicates laughter, perhaps that a point should not be taken seriously

Your words:
"any government would never put anything to a referenda they thought they couldn't win"
It's either a good reform or a bad reform.

Note: It refers to 'a referendum' and logic speaks that any reform is either good or bad.

If a government is seriously pushing for a bad reform and thinks they will win it you can't help but think some brainwashing is about.

Note: Again this refers to any bad reform. My omission of the word 'knowingly' may have caused confusion. Look at the Austrian Nazi referendum or the Burmese "democracy" referndum if you are uncertain about the concept of bad reforms.

Now, some think the Lisbon Treaty and the militarisation etc.. that comes with it is a good reform - that's not brainwashing.

Note: Lol you conveniently left this part out of your quote above. Please read posts properly before claiming to be insulted.

Do you really think all people in the political parties share that view?
Surely aren't there some FF and FG loyalists who are rightly concerned about the treaty and being threatened to support it or else their political lives are dead in the water.
So some must put their brain, let's see.... 'on hiatas' until after the referendum.

Note: This raises a valid point about those esp. in FF who see reasons to vote against the treaty and have been threatened to support it by a certain biffo

On the other hand, perhaps sink, it may legitimate to insinuate that there is not one brain in the FF/FG parties in the first place

Note: See the smiley face - look at it - it implies humour. This is a joke and not ment to be taken seriously

BMH

Great thanks for that now have you any factual argument against the treaty that you'd like to discuss?

johnnyq

BMH wrote: »

Great thanks for that now have you any factual argument against the treaty that you'd like to discuss?

Super - it's great when people realise that there can be playful proding in an argument without it stooping to some awful level

Nope I think i'm done for the night. But by all means if you're interested in my factual arguments against the treaty look at Post 2 in the Why should I vote no thread!

turgon

BMH wrote: »

Great thanks for that now have you any factual argument against the treaty that you'd like to discuss?

Common Europeon Defence. Read article 42 of the consolidated treaty. Its all there.

sink

turgon wrote: »

Common Europeon Defence. Read article 42 of the consolidated treaty. Its all there.

That argument has been proven bogus. No doubt there is a sentiment to form a EU military but it provides no way of doing so without another referendum in this country.