Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

lisbon is bridge too far for the average irish joe "to Get"

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Several posters came on here and said they were stupid, did they?


  • Options
    #33
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Sparks wrote: »
    Several posters came on here and said they were stupid, did they?
    Several said they didn't understand the treaty and so were voting 'No'. That said, I'm sure there were plenty of 'Yes' voters who didn't understand it either.


  • Options
    #34
    easyontheeye
    Registered Users Posts: 742 ✭✭✭easyontheeye


    Sparks wrote: »
    Several posters came on here and said they were stupid, did they?

    not getting lisbon == stupid

    does it? i never said that


  • Options
    #35
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    So they didn't say they were stupid then, they just said that they didn't understand the treaty (which, to be fair, even I found tough going and I've got a little formal legal training and have a little experience in reading Irish law). Would that be right?


  • Options
    #36
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    easyontheeye wrote: »
    i never said that
    I never said you did. I said djpbarry did.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Mike Funnelly
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭Mike Funnelly


    Thank God we voted no, so those Euro Nazis in Brussels can't screw us over any more than they can already, who the feck gives France and Germany the right to Chastise US the People of Ireland for making up our own minds, why the hell don't they give their people a vote to see if they should ratify it. Hopefully some of the other countries in Europe who weren't sure about it, will have the balls to say NO aswell, to show the French and Germans that they will not get their thousand year Reich.


  • Options
    #38
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Just the Germans Mike. The French wanted a thousand pound Brie, not a thousand year Reich. It's a common mistake, easy to make.


  • Options
    #39
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Sparks wrote: »
    So they didn't say they were stupid then, they just said that they didn't understand the treaty (which, to be fair, even I found tough going and I've got a little formal legal training and have a little experience in reading Irish law). Would that be right?
    I think we need to back up a little; johnnyq was speculating as to what the media in the rest of Europe would make of the 'No' vote here. He suspected that the fact that a large number of people here admitted to not understanding the treaty may be highlighted. I merely stated that many posters on here admitted to not understanding the treaty and, as such, that particular assessment may well be an accurate one; I was not accusing anyone of being stupid.

    However, I DO believe that voting (whether you vote 'Yes' or 'No') on something that you do not understand IS stupid.


  • Options
    #40
    Mike Funnelly
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭Mike Funnelly


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I think we need to back up a little; johnnyq was speculating as to what the media in the rest of Europe would make of the 'No' vote here. He suspected that the fact that a large number of people here admitted to not understanding the treaty may be highlighted. I merely stated that many posters on here admitted to not understanding the treaty and, as such, that particular assessment may well be an accurate one; I was not accusing anyone of being stupid.

    However, I DO believe that voting (whether you vote 'Yes or 'No') on something that you do not understand IS stupid.

    How is it stupid if you vote no you're not changing anything, if you voted yes on the otherhand without knowing, that truly is stupid. if we had voted yes it would have meant that in the future the Dail and Seanad, who we vote in could make decisions like this for us without a referendum, they could say yes to anything without us being able to do anything. These oh so gifted people all saying to vote yes:confused: and then getting their eyes opened so rudely a couple of hours ago


  • Options
    #41
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Mike Funnelly wrote: »
    How is it stupid if you vote no you're not changing anything...
    Putting your name to something you don't understand is foolish; every decision has consequences.
    Mike Funnelly wrote: »
    ...if we had voted yes it would have meant that in the future the Dail and Seanad, who we vote in could make decisions like this for us without a referendum, they could say yes to anything without us being able to do anything.
    No they couldn't. The constitution cannot be altered without a referendum; ratifying Lisbon would not have changed that fact.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    titan18
    Registered Users Posts: 12,004 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Mike Funnelly wrote: »
    How is it stupid if you vote no you're not changing anything, if you voted yes on the otherhand without knowing, that truly is stupid. if we had voted yes it would have meant that in the future the Dail and Seanad, who we vote in could make decisions like this for us without a referendum, they could say yes to anything without us being able to do anything. These oh so gifted people all saying to vote yes:confused: and then getting their eyes opened so rudely a couple of hours ago


    So you're saying that the people you vote for in the General Elections should not have the right to pass laws and make important decisions for you in the name of this state,even though you've voted them in.If you've voted them in to the Dail,they should have the ability to say Yes to a treaty.


  • Options
    #43
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    titan18 wrote: »
    If you've voted them in to the Dail,they should have the ability to say Yes to a treaty.

    And thus change our constitution without our consent. Ya, I'd really like that to happen. Don't forget, it would have if we didn't get to vote in this treaty.

    Sure what else in our constitution is important? They should just be able to railroad over that too.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #44
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    johnnyq wrote: »
    And thus change our constitution without our consent. Ya, I'd really like that to happen. Don't forget, it would have if we didn't get to vote in this treaty.
    Not sure what you mean by this (bit in bold)?


  • Options
    #45
    johnnyq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Not sure what you mean by this (bit in bold)?
    Sorry that's a bit unclear.

    It combines two separate arguments and are unfortunately slightly irrelevant - sorry not thinking straight ;)

    First, if this had only gone through the dail (say it could have) then going on the results it would not have reflected the will of the people.

    Second, I read about a line of argument saying (but I can't source it atm) that an Irish vote wasn't technically necessary (as it possibly fell outside the remit of the crotty case) and that the Dail could have legally (not politically of course) voted it through without such a vote taking place. But this of course wouldn't have changed the constitution since Lisbon would *apparently* be operating within it.


Advertisement