The people of Ireland have spoken.

ircoha · 14-06-2008 1:42pm

Some amended extracts from JFK's inaugural speech seem appropriate:

We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. ....

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Irish men and women -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge -- and more.

To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To that assembly of sovereign states, the EU, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support -- to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective, to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak, and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

And, if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor -- not a new balance of power, but a new world of law -- where the strong are just, and the weak secure, and the peace preserved.

sharkemon · 14-06-2008 1:58pm

Kovik wrote: »

Congratulations to Declan Ganley, an unaccountable, unelected, unvetted political spokesman with an enormous financial interest in the outcome of this vote, for purchasing a referendum.

Democracy indeed.

At least his money will be accounted for.

Our elected government spent vast sums of our money (taxes) on a Yes campaign, which 53% of the voting population were opposed to.

The government is starting a blame game and it is all too easy for our government representatives to start a smear campaign in regard to Mr Ganley's finances.

limklad · 14-06-2008 2:09pm

skearon wrote: »

No of course not, but from having canvased for the past number of weeks, it was clear a majority of people believed Libertas' lies, it is also clear from the tallies that the areas which were canvassed had a stong Yes vote, as we were able to explain to people what the true situation was

I have a question. Why wasn't there a full script how the EU was to be governed rather than piece meal of information? The Lisbon is full of amendments of two existing treaties, therefore it was difficult to read? Have you read and fully understand the treaty? To read & understand it was not easy and you had to refer back to previous treaties, you need an extensive law degree..
Why didn't the government print off or made available (Paper or online) a fully amendable treaty of text of the working of the EU. What are they hiding? What are the PM of every country hiding? If the Lisbon so great why didn't they print a document that make it easier to read and comprehend?
Our politicians admit they have not read the treaty nor fully understand it so why are they so arrogant into thinking the people will vote for it?

Mr.Micro · 14-06-2008 2:10pm

Ireland voted no IMO because whatever was learned about the Lisbon Treaty by the electorate was all negative, less say, losing a commissioner etc. I am not a bit surprised. A cross party charm offensive failed and having to look at the local politicians mugs on the few pathetic posters that were put up was the last straw. FF, FG and Labour should not take the Irish people for granted and think because they all sanction the Treaty then its ok, for who? I do not feel better off in the EU, with Ireland the most expensive country in Europe but the politicians sure do I will bet, as they are on the gravy train.

limklad · 14-06-2008 2:17pm

sharkemon wrote: »

At least his money will be accounted for.

Our elected government spent vast sums of our money (taxes) on a Yes campaign, which 53% of the voting population were opposed to.

The government is starting a blame game and it is all too easy for our government representatives to start a smear campaign in regard to Mr Ganley's finances.

[FONT=&quot]Mr Ganley nor any of his allies was not the reason why I vote NO.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It easy for the government to have sour grapes, they let a bad campaign and threw their own dirt and now they will have to explain to their European counterparts in why they failed with egg on their face from the People. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Lisbon treaty failed because government have fail to listen to the people in the first place and threw previous benefits in our face to distract us rather than explain future benefits of the EU with the Lisbon Treaty.[/FONT]

sharkemon · 14-06-2008 2:22pm

limklad wrote: »

I have a question. Why wasn't there a full script how the EU was to be governed rather than piece meal of information? The Lisbon is full of amendments of two existing treaties, therefore it was difficult to read? Have you read and fully understand the treaty? To read & understand it was not easy and you had to refer back to previous treaties, you need an extensive law degree..
Why didn't the government print off or made available (Paper or online) a fully amendable treaty of text of the working of the EU. What are they hiding? What are the PM of every country hiding? If the Lisbon so great why didn't they print a document that make it easier to read and comprehend?
Our politicians admit they have not read the treaty nor fully understand it so why are they so arrogant into thinking the people will vote for it?

The EU did not release a consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty. This was done in order to avoid having specifically worded document which would have made it neccessary to hold referendums in more EU countries.

It was an avoidance tactic to ensure that opposition to the Treaty would be minimized.

They also forbade any EU body from publishing a completed version of the Treaty until it was passed.

limklad · 14-06-2008 2:26pm

sharkemon wrote: »

The EU did not release a consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty. This was done in order to avoid having specifically worded document which would have made it neccessary to hold referendums in more EU countries.

It was an avoidance tactic to ensure that opposition to the Treaty would be minimized.

They also forbade any EU body from publishing a completed version of the Treaty until it was passed.

If this is true then I will be On the "No campaign" in future as EU is heading more undemocratic.

FruitLover · 14-06-2008 2:31pm

Irish and Proud wrote: »

If you don't know, vote No!

Eh.. no, if you don't know, then either educate yourself or stay the hell out of it and let people who do know deal with it in an informed manner.

Voting isn't just a blind right, it's a responsibility.

sharkemon · 14-06-2008 2:33pm

limklad wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]Mr Ganley nor any of his allies was not the reason why I vote NO.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It easy for the government to have sour grapes, they let a bad campaign and threw their own dirt and now they will have to explain to their European counterparts in why they failed with egg on their face from the People. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Lisbon treaty failed because government have fail to listen to the people in the first place and threw previous benefits in our face to distract us rather than explain future benefits of the EU with the Lisbon Treaty.[/FONT]

I agree.

I also had my reasons for voting NO, and it is not because I support any of the groups that lead a No campaign, because I do not.

I have read a part of a consolidation version of the Treaty, and due to its ambiguity and ability to change almost any law without consultation of the people, I deemed that it was not in Ireland's best interest.

For those interested, here is a link to the consolidated version of the Treaty.
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=632958&da=y

limklad · 14-06-2008 3:06pm

FruitLover wrote: »

Eh.. no, if you don't know, then either educate yourself or stay the hell out of it and let people who do know deal with it in an informed manner.

Only Lawyers understand the treaty the way it stands at the moment and not all understand the in and out. So by your logic, you should be rule out voting in the referendum also.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Everybody has a right to vote and no one should say that they can or the way you put it

FruitLover wrote: »

stay the hell out of it and let people who do know deal with it

It the Government responsibility to make it understandable, and to properly explain it. They are given their timeframe to do so. Lisbon have been around for some time and they did it poorly.
They avoided awkward questions and use dirt to hide or divert from it. That what pissed me off and began to question it.

By not voting you are allowing something to pass which might end up hurting you in the future.

Also the Politicians admit they have not read the treaty. Even Charlie McCreavy our own commissioner admits he did not read it either.

Hitman Actual · 14-06-2008 3:42pm

sharkemon wrote: »

For those interested, here is a link to the consolidated version of the Treaty.
http://www.euinfo.ie/uploads/file/LT-Reader_friendly.pdf

If you're going to post something like this, at least try to post a link to an independent, non-biased analysis of the Treaty. That site has no credibility whatsoever, and if you based your 'No' decision on anything from there, then I'm sorry to say that you were grossly misled.

sharkemon · 14-06-2008 3:55pm

lenny_leonard wrote: »

If you're going to post something like this, at least try to post a link to an independent, non-biased analysis of the Treaty. That site has no credibility whatsoever, and if you based your 'No' decision on anything from there, then I'm sorry to say that you were grossly misled.

I did not base my decision to vote on any of the other information on this site, or indeed that brought forward by any of the organisations pushing for a No vote.

However, I did take the time to examine the consolidated version of the Treaty on which I based my opinions.

I'm sure you can agree, the consolidated document is simply the Treaty in it's final state, and not campaign manifesto. Therefore, regardless of it's location on the internet it is, in fact, the least biased piece of literature available to read, and should have been more readily available to the public from other sources on both sides.

Here again is a link to the document posted in an independent location:
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=632958&da=y

CtrlSource · 14-06-2008 4:37pm

is_that_so wrote: »

The people have spoken and I respect it. However I am getting tired of referenda being passed or rejected by a minority in the country and appalled that yet again over 50% didn't bother. Whilst they can be an exercise in democracy a referendum that does not reach a minimum of 50%( would prefer 70% ) turnout to my mind should not be recognised as valid.

Read the Constitution. Article 47.2.1 states: "Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall be held to have been vetoed by the people if a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast against its enactment into law and if the votes so cast against its enactment into law shall have amounted to not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the voters on the register."

What surprises me is that no-one has challenged your claim that "yet again over 50% didn't bother".

It was already long since announced at the time of your posting that a little over 53% of the electorate voted on Thursday.

Hopefully you're now a bit happier, knowing that this vote satisfies your view on poll validity

is_that_so · 14-06-2008 4:58pm

CtrlSource wrote: »

Read the Constitution. Article 47.2.1 states: "Every proposal, other than a proposal to amend the Constitution, which is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people shall be held to have been vetoed by the people if a majority of the votes cast at such Referendum shall have been cast against its enactment into law and if the votes so cast against its enactment into law shall have amounted to not less than thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the voters on the register."

What surprises me is that no-one has challenged your claim that "yet again over 50% didn't bother".

It was already long since announced at the time of your posting that a little over 53% of the electorate voted on Thursday.

Hopefully you're now a bit happier, knowing that this vote satisfies your view on poll validity

Still too low for me and we need a referendum to fix that!

I misread the final turnout as 46% and then Boards crashed before I could correct it

CtrlSource · 14-06-2008 5:10pm

A majority is a majority in my book dude.

Maybe you should write a Bill and submit it to the Cabinet

There may also be some work for you in Zimbabwe (with Zanu-PF)!

is_that_so · 14-06-2008 5:14pm

CtrlSource wrote: »

A majority is a majority in my book dude.

Maybe you should write a Bill and submit it to the Cabinet There may also be some work for you in Zimbabwe (with Zanu-PF)!

May just do that. By the way here's the Danish Maastricht rejection turnout. Much better

ircoha · 14-06-2008 8:19pm

La Madame wrote: »

The Irish shouldn't be allowed to vote on such important issues at all. This provincial and selfish Atlantic Island Community has benefited from the EU for decades. The EU has given so much to the ROI and still the place is crap.
Look only what u have achieved in the 90 years of your own independence ...
Really have a look at your Health System, Public Transport, Road Infra - Structure, and the continuing Environmental disaster etc
without the EU this place would be even worse, face it folks your are not made to run your own State so please do not stand in the way of the more civilised Nations which are going to shape a European future in the light of World Globalisation.

more civilised Nations, of course like
England who visited Ollie Cromwell on the Irish
Germany who brought WW I1 and WWII to Europe
France who visited enormous horrors on the people it colonized and more recently, as noted elsewhere on this forum, murdered a Green Peace activist in Auckland.
more civilised Nations, of course.

limklad · 14-06-2008 8:48pm

La Madame wrote: »

The Irish shouldn't be allowed to vote on such important issues at all. This provincial and selfish Atlantic Island Community has benefited from the EU for decades. The EU has given so much to the ROI and still the place is crap.
Look only what u have achieved in the 90 years of your own independence ...
Really have a look at your Health System, Public Transport, Road Infra - Structure, and the continuing Environmental disaster etc
without the EU this place would be even worse, face it folks your are not made to run your own State so please do not stand in the way of the more civilised Nations which are going to shape a European future in the light of World Globalisation.

You have a clear disrespect of a sovereign right of the people here to decide their fate in how they are to be governed. I would suggest for you to ask your government put the treaty to a referendum in your country.
EU is about co-operation, not bullying, intimidate or frightening states into submission. Bullying is not civilised, Cooperating is. No state is perfect. EU cannot fix that

mr kr0nik · 14-06-2008 10:31pm

Helix wrote: »

and what they said was "i dont understand this and im not bothered finding out about it, so im going to vote no instead"

Or perhaps some of them said "I don't understand this and im not bothered finding out about it, so im going to trust the vast majority of TDs and vote yes".

Stop making assumptions about the people who voted no.

La Madame · 14-06-2008 10:56pm

limklad wrote: »

You have a clear disrespect of a sovereign right of the people here to decide their fate in how they are to be governed. I would suggest for you to ask your government put the treaty to a referendum in your country.
EU is about co-operation, not bullying, intimidate or frightening states into submission. Bullying is not civilised, Cooperating is. No state is perfect. EU cannot fix that

You got it quite right I have a clear disrespect for Irish Politics.

La Madame · 14-06-2008 11:00pm

ircoha wrote: »

more civilised Nations, of course like
England who visited Ollie Cromwell on the Irish
Germany who brought WW I1 and WWII to Europe
France who visited enormous horrors on the people it colonized and more recently, as noted elsewhere on this forum, murdered a Green Peace activist in Auckland.
more civilised Nations, of course.

NI anybody?

force eleven · 14-06-2008 11:27pm

ircoha wrote: »

more civilised Nations, of course like
England who visited Ollie Cromwell on the Irish
Germany who brought WW I1 and WWII to Europe
France who visited enormous horrors on the people it colonized and more recently, as noted elsewhere on this forum, murdered a Green Peace activist in Auckland.
more civilised Nations, of course.

And set off nuclear bomb tests in the South Pacific, in the face of the then USSR/USA actually banning tests....

hatrickpatrick · 14-06-2008 11:29pm

with posts like the OP's why is it always people on the *yes* being accused of being arrogent?

One simple reason: The yes side was condescending and patronizing, and the no side wasn't.

The no side used (for the most part) arguments directly related to why the treaty was bad for Ireland.

The yes side, on the other hand, spent less time telling people the good sides of the treaty than warning people of the "consequences" and "absurdity" of voting no.

And being told to do something without being given reasons other than "consequences if you don't" generaly pisses the crap out of people.

heyjude · 14-06-2008 11:33pm

gordon_gekko wrote: »

as gay mitchell said on radio earlier , all those on the no campagin and all those members of the public who voted no must now take responsibility for there descision

But what does taking responsibility for their decision actually mean ? Its just a meaningless soundbite, does he want all 800,000 NO voters to head off to Brussels to explain their decision and negotiate a solution ?

Kovik wrote: »

Libertas spent more on their campaign than every major political party combined.

Not true, according to reports in the newspapers, it is estimated that the YES side(ie. FF, FG and Labour etc) spent €2.5m on the campaign, while the NO side(ie. SF, Libertas etc) spent €1.5m.

But I think the NO side made up for the smaller expenditure through greater enthusiasm and effort. I know we didn't receive any literature from FF or Labour, but did get a campaign leaflet from FG, though the town did have plenty of FF Yes posters featuring local councillors/candidates. Not one person from the YES side rang the door to canvass support during the entire campaign. This compares with the general election where all the major parties canvassed door to door including our local FF TD, who was nowhere to be seen this time.

ircoha · 15-06-2008 12:02am

Originally Posted by gordon_gekko
as gay mitchell said on radio earlier , all those on the no campaign and all those members of the public who voted no must now take responsibility for their decision.

We are taking responsibility for our decision. The Yes side are saying they will reflect on the result but nowhere do I hear them saying they will consult with people on the NO side, it is all consult with colleagues: eg heads up each others asses forming one big millipede.

As suggested elsewhere on this forum
put together a ballot paper which asks several questions on which the answer is Yes or No rather than one all or nothing.

We rejected being treated as follows:

Valery Giscard D'Estaing, one of the authors of the rejected EU constitution, ominously warned: "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly . . . All the earlier proposals will be in the new text but will be hidden and disguised in some way.''

Former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern set the tone for the referendum campaign in February by branding opponents of the Lisbon Treaty as "the loo-laas and loony left''.

limklad · 15-06-2008 12:08am

La Madame wrote: »

You got it quite right I have a clear disrespect for Irish Politics.

Not Just Irish Politics, But Irish People too!

FionnMatthew · 15-06-2008 12:10am

limklad wrote: »

Only Lawyers understand the treaty the way it stands at the moment and not all understand the in and out.

I read the treaty, and I can vouch for the fact that a lot of it was intelligible enough to those without a Law degree.

I don't pretend to understand every facet of it from start to finish. But that feat, even for the simplest of texts, is impossible. No lawyer can claim to have followed every interpretation to its conclusion, however comprehensive he may be.

However, had I gone back and read the antecedent treaties, and read a bit about the structure of the Union, I feel confident I would have known enough to make an informed decision on the treaty.

To do anything less, and yet still insist on voting would have been to fail in my civic duty, which I take on only when I exercise my right to vote.

So by your logic, you should be rule out voting in the referendum also.

By his logic, you can't know enough to know if he can be ruled out or not. It is perfectly possible that he understood the treaty, having read it.
But his verdict on you, I should think, rather stands.

Everybody has a right to vote and no one should say that they can or the way you put it

Not everyone has a right to vote. People under a certain age don't have such a right. People serving criminal sentences for serious crimes don't have a right to vote. I don't know where you pulled this platitude from.

The people who do have a right to vote, abuse that right by voting ignorantly, or blindly. Sure, you have a right to vote. But rights come with duties. If you take them on, you also take on duties. One of those duties was to read the treaty. If you didn't, you abused your rights, and you don't really deserve them.

It the Government responsibility to make it understandable, and to properly explain it.

It is certainly NOT the governments responsibility to do that. It is the electorates responsibility to inform itself. Anything else would be the thin end of the wedge. How lazy and intellectually dishonest can a person be? Where do you think your right to vote comes from? Out of your ear? By accepting your vote, you take on a responsibility to make sure you make the right decision. If you were given sovereign power over this country, on the condition that you carried out the job properly, do you think, having accepted, you'd have dispensation to act irresponsibly? Or would you expect that other people would teach you how to behave, since, you might argue, you can't take responsibility for it yourself. The government should not be expected to compensate for pathological intellectual laziness and bad faith. You have a vote. If you want to use it, use it responsibly, or not at all. Otherwise, you devalue everyone else's vote by so much a fraction as you make of the electorate. If this is your attitude towards constitutional democracy, you run the risk of being a nail in its coffin.

They are given their timeframe to do so. Lisbon have been around for some time and they did it poorly.

And so you are given free dispensation to vote randomly, or on whatever whim occurs to you at the time, on the Lisbon Treaty? How confident do you feel that the decision you arrived at was the correct one, seeing as you feel the government didn't inform you properly? If the answer is "not very" or something like that, WHY DID YOU VOTE AT ALL?
Your right to vote doesn't just go away if you don't exercise it. If you hadn't a clue on what you were voting, you should have just fired up your XBOX and forgotten about it.
Not to cast aspersions on you, but that sort of talk really does have the ring of "sheep" about it.

By not voting you are allowing something to pass which might end up hurting you in the future.

Which might... What? How do you know? You didn't read it. The Lisbon Treaty might butter your toast, for all you know. It might contradict the second law of thermodynamics. It might add years to your life! It might even give you oral sex. The bottom line is: you didn't read it. You haven't a clue.

Why are you even arguing here? You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, beyond what you were told, and took on faith. End of story.

Also the Politicians admit they have not read the treaty. Even Charlie McCreavy our own commissioner admits he did not read it either.

Do you do everything your politicans do? Go and have a read about the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. Really!

limklad · 15-06-2008 12:16am

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I read the treaty, and I can vouch for the fact that a lot of it was intelligible enough to those without a Law degree.

I don't pretend to understand every facet of it from start to finish. But that feat, even for the simplest of texts, is impossible. No lawyer can claim to have followed every interpretation to its conclusion, however comprehensive he may be.

However, had I gone back and read the antecedent treaties, and read a bit about the structure of the Union, I feel confident I would have known enough to make an informed decision on the treaty.

To do anything less, and yet still insist on voting would have been to fail in my civic duty, which I take on only when I exercise my right to vote.

By his logic, you can't know enough to know if he can be ruled out or not. It is perfectly possible that he understood the treaty, having read it.
But his verdict on you, I should think, rather stands.

Not everyone has a right to vote. People under a certain age don't have such a right. People serving criminal sentences for serious crimes don't have a right to vote. I don't know where you pulled this platitude from.

The people who do have a right to vote, abuse that right by voting ignorantly, or blindly. Sure, you have a right to vote. But rights come with duties. If you take them on, you also take on duties. One of those duties was to read the treaty. If you didn't, you abused your rights, and you don't really deserve them.

It is certainly NOT the governments responsibility to do that. It is the electorates responsibility to inform itself. Anything else would be the thin end of the wedge. How lazy and intellectually dishonest can a person be? Where do you think your right to vote comes from? Out of your ear? By accepting your vote, you take on a responsibility to make sure you make the right decision. If you were given sovereign power over this country, on the condition that you carried out the job properly, do you think, having accepted, you'd have dispensation to act irresponsibly? Or would you expect that other people would teach you how to behave, since, you might argue, you can't take responsibility for it yourself. The government should not be expected to compensate for pathological intellectual laziness and bad faith. You have a vote. If you want to use it, use it responsibly, or not at all. Otherwise, you devalue everyone else's vote by so much a fraction as you make of the electorate. If this is your attitude towards constitutional democracy, you run the risk of being a nail in its coffin.

And so you are given free dispensation to vote randomly, or on whatever whim occurs to you at the time, on the Lisbon Treaty? How confident do you feel that the decision you arrived at was the correct one, seeing as you feel the government didn't inform you properly? If the answer is "not very" or something like that, WHY DID YOU VOTE AT ALL?
Your right to vote doesn't just go away if you don't exercise it. If you hadn't a clue on what you were voting, you should have just fired up your XBOX and forgotten about it.
Not to cast aspersions on you, but that sort of talk really does have the ring of "sheep" about it.

Which might... What? How do you know? You didn't read it. The Lisbon Treaty might butter your toast, for all you know. It might contradict the second law of thermodynamics. It might add years to your life! It might even give you oral sex. The bottom line is: you didn't read it. You haven't a clue.

Why are you even arguing here? You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, beyond what you were told, and took on faith. End of story.

Do you do everything your politicans do? Go and have a read about the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. Really!

Then explain the treaty!!

FionnMatthew · 15-06-2008 12:57am

limklad wrote: »

Then explain the treaty!!

No. I'm not doing your civic homework.

Here is the draft treaty, in a nice, easy html format. Go and read it yourself.

If you should want to read the antecedent treaties, here's a consolidated version.

Off you go.

auerillo · 15-06-2008 1:53pm

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Why are you even arguing here? You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, beyond what you were told, and took on faith. End of story.

!

I think you misunderstand why people voted no, or why people voted yes. And perhaps you also don't understand how much emotion plays a part in votes and referendums.

From my own anecdotal experience, there is a general feeling that politicians don't listen to the people who they are supposed to represent. There is also a general feeling that the people of europe are being denied a voice on this issue, on what is a very important issue of handing over power to unelected bureaucrats and giving them the power to amend the treaty in future without needing to ask permission of a single one of the almost half a billion citizens.

That is important and no amount of scolding others here for not having read the treaty can mask that. The campaign of the yes side failed partly becasue they spent a lot of time scolding anyone who was thinking of voting no, and it's a shame to do that at the expense of the issues.

The people of Ireland have spoken.

Comments