For those of you who voted yes...

ejmaztec

heyjude wrote: »

A typical YES campaigner then, the people who agree with me are sound rational intelligent people and those that disagree are just idiots. How refreshing it must be to know that you are 100% right and those 800,000+ NO voters are wrong. But maybe just maybe the attitude of the EU towards us as regards the democratic decision of our people in this referendum, will show us exactly what type of Europe is being planned.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Some idiots also voted yes. I argue that no idiots should be allowed to decide the future of Ireland. I mentioned in several other of my ignored posts that there should not have been a referendum on such a complicated issue.

We voted in a government to make decisions on our behalf. That's their job, to represent our interests. They should know everything that there is to know about any matter of state, and have the answers to any questions asked of them with regard to any related matter. Any of them who cannot provide answers should not be in government. I say this because the government screwed this up as well, in that some of their representatives couldn't answer a number of questions about the treaty. Even taking this embarrassing situation into account, I believe that the government is still less idiotic than the ill-informed members of the voting public who had the final say in the future of Ireland.

turgon

Rhonda9000 wrote: »

The No (not turgon specifically) campaign deliberately made this loss-of-Commissioner business a huge issue and enjoyed falsifying and misrepresenting it.

Yeah I know completely. It was a non-issue for me personally.

Mr.Nice Guy

If this country is faced with a disgraceful repeat referendum it would fly in the face of democracy, and anybody who votes Yes to it will be spitting on the hard fought freedoms that this country possesses.

As much as I was disgusted by the Labour Party's decision to support the Treaty, I was pleased that Eamon Gilmore poured cold water on the idea of a repeat referendum. At least he's a democrat. Not sure about Mr Cowen.

What a farcical turn of events it would be if no other country in the EU gets a referendum but we end up with TWO because the EU can't accept no for an answer.

zig

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

If this country is faced with a disgraceful repeat referendum it would fly in the face of democracy, and anybody who votes Yes to it will be spitting on the hard fought freedoms that this country possesses.

As much as I was disgusted by the Labour Party's decision to support the Treaty, I was pleased that Eamon Gilmore poured cold water on the idea of a repeat referendum. At least he's a democrat. Not sure about Mr Cowen.

What a farcical turn of events it would be if no other country in the EU gets a referendum but we end up with TWO because the EU can't accept no for an answer.

I doubt there'll be another one, it will be for a newer treaty if there is, probably the "dublin treaty" just to encourage us to vote yes.

Anyway if the people of Ireland decide to vote yes the second time, whats your problem? It will be us that will have made that choice.

ionix5891

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

If this country is faced with a disgraceful repeat referendum it would fly in the face of democracy, and anybody who votes Yes to it will be spitting on the hard fought freedoms that this country possesses.

As much as I was disgusted by the Labour Party's decision to support the Treaty, I was pleased that Eamon Gilmore poured cold water on the idea of a repeat referendum. At least he's a democrat. Not sure about Mr Cowen.

What a farcical turn of events it would be if no other country in the EU gets a referendum but we end up with TWO because the EU can't accept no for an answer.

oh here we go again

every other country has elected officials who make decisions for them, see its called representative democracy

same way as no one in ireland directly votes a TD in, we vote for a party and they then decide in turn who gets the top spot

do you understand the concept now?

heres some further reading for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

oh and implying that the other 26 countries in the EU are un-democratic is yet another lie that needs to be put to rest, all this nationalist superiority bull-crap being spun by sein fein is disgusting, nationalism is how the last world war got fueled

philologos

Roxanne wrote: »

....would you vote no if the referendum was put to us a second time after hearing the reaction of European politicians in the aftermath of our decision?

There will be calls in the EU to ensure that a few thousand Irish voters do not hold up half a billion European citizens who want this treaty. -Antonio Missiroli
With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority. -Axel Schafer

These were posted in another thread. Do these quotes not clearly show that these people have no respect for democracy. The clear disregard for the "minority" , which is what Ireland and many other smaller countries represent in the EU is worrying to say the least.
Would you reconsider your yes vote after hearing this? I know I would.

I would vote yes again. I agree with the Treaty even if it is put to me a second time.

Scofflaw

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

What a farcical turn of events it would be if no other country in the EU gets a referendum but we end up with TWO because the EU can't accept no for an answer.

Actually, it would come about, if it came about, more because Ireland can't afford No for an answer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

archplanner

The woman who rang in to RTE from Galway, a duped voter? or a clever yes campaigner? who knows?

PH01

Yes again though but the numbers may not be there the next time.

Mr.Nice Guy

ionix5891 wrote: »

oh here we go again

every other country has elected officials who make decisions for them, see its called representative democracy

same way as no one in ireland directly votes a TD in, we vote for a party and they then decide in turn who gets the top spot

do you understand the concept now?

heres some further reading for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

oh and implying that the other 26 countries in the EU are un-democratic is yet another lie that needs to be put to rest, all this nationalist superiority bull-crap being spun by sein fein is disgusting, nationalism is how the last world war got fueled

What a load of bollocks.

Democracy would mean respecting the wishes of the people, not ignoring them altogether and trying to wriggle out of results that don't go your way.

The attitude espoused by the likes of you would fit in well in Zimbabwe right now. You'd do well on Mugabe's election committee.

We are democrats...except when we get a result we don't welcome.

Pathetic.

ionix5891

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

What a load of bollocks.

Democracy would mean respecting the wishes of the people, not ignoring them altogether and trying to wriggle out of results that don't go your way.

The attitude espoused by the likes of you would fit in well in Zimbabwe right now. You'd do well on Mugabe's election committee.

We are democrats...except when we get a result we don't welcome.

Pathetic.

stand back and listen to youself :rolleyes:

eoin2nc

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

What a load of bollocks.

Democracy would mean respecting the wishes of the people, not ignoring them altogether and trying to wriggle out of results that don't go your way.

The attitude espoused by the likes of you would fit in well in Zimbabwe right now. You'd do well on Mugabe's election committee.

We are democrats...except when we get a result we don't welcome.

Pathetic.

So by your logic we should have a vote every time a new law is proposed?

Thats why we elect TDs, to make decisions om our behalf.

Comparing that to Zimbabwe? Get real

Mr.Nice Guy

ionix5891 wrote: »

stand back and listen to youself :rolleyes:

Lay off your best friend rolleyes and listen to democracy in action.

eoin2c wrote:

So by your logic we should have a vote every time a new law is proposed?

Thats why we elect TDs, to make decisions om our behalf.

Comparing that to Zimbabwe? Get real.

What are you on about? There had to be a vote on the matter and it was rejected. Would we be hearing talk of a repeat referendum if the vote had been Yes? Of course not. So where is the justification for another vote? Such a disgraceful view of democracy can of course be compared to Zimbabwe and Mugabe's attitude to results he does not like.

Open your bloody eyes.

Bard

Myth wrote: »

Since politicians didn't impact how I decided the first time around (I voted yes) if it was put to the Irish people again (and I don't think it should) I would vote yes again.

Agreed 100%. I actually informed myself on what the treaty meant to me and to Ireland. I actually found out what was involved and what changes it would bring about - and based on all that, I voted YES - NOT based on anything any politician said.

Anyone who voted NO (or YES for that matter) purely based on the campaigns run by either side without informing themselves properly by looking at the freely available impartial information on the treaty made a mistake, imho.

eoin2nc

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Lay off your best friend rolleyes and listen to democracy in action.



What are you on about? There had to be a vote on the matter and it was rejected. Would we be hearing talk of a repeat referendum if the vote had been Yes? Of course not. So where is the justification for another vote? Such a disgraceful view of democracy can of course be compared to Zimbabwe and Mugabe's attitude to results he does not like.

Open your bloody eyes.

Just read the nonsense you are posting, comparing the EU to Zimbabwe

Mr.Nice Guy

eoin2nc wrote: »

Just read the nonsense you are posting, comparing the EU to Zimbabwe

Mugabe ignores a result he does not like. Result - widespread condemnation.

The EU ignore a result they do not like. Result - people like you defend them.

I think you are the one posting nonsense.

ionix5891

eoin2nc wrote: »

Just read the nonsense you are posting, comparing the EU to Zimbabwe

with this NO vote Ireland took a big step back, a step back to the GOOD OLE DAYSH back when we had more in common with Zimbabve than Europe

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Mugabe ignores a result he does not like. Result - widespread condemnation.



The EU ignore a result they do not like. Result - people like you defend them.



I think you are the one posting nonsense.

how can you compare Ireland/EU to Zimbabwe is beyond me, are there armed squads going around country side, are there death threats being issued and carried, is there torture going on (well beside reading your posts)? is there hunger and famine? hyperinflation? international condemnation (oh wait nvm leave this one out)?

Mr.Nice Guy

ionix5891 wrote: »

how can you compare Ireland/EU to Zimbabwe is beyond me, are there armed squads going around country side, are there death threats being issued and carried, is there torture going on (well beside reading your posts)? is there hunger and famine? hyperinflation? international condemnation (oh wait nvm leave this one out)?

I never brought up death squads or torture. We are discussing democracy here and I'm saying the EU's attitude towards it is no different to Zimbabwe's. If you disagree with me please justify your reasoning. I see no difference.

Grudaire

I think its time for the Hitler comparison...

To be fair If I was around Id've voted:

Maybe- ask me in a month when the fecking eijits actually explain the thing

So I can't say another vote angers me, however given that the people said NO, and not Maybe

Not to mention widespead support doesn't appear to exist for the treaty in other countries

ionix5891

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I never brought up death squads or torture. We are discussing democracy here and I'm saying the EU's attitude towards it is no different to Zimbabwe's. If you disagree with me please justify your reasoning. I see no difference.

we rejected the treaty for ireland


if the rest of the EU now rename the Lisbon Treaty to Paris Treaty or whatever, remove the clause that says all countries have to sign. and then the rest of the countries decide to go ahead and sign it, how is that undemocratic? they dont even have to consult us, we put our cards on the table and made the first move the ball is not in our court anymore, the train moved on

and if it does comeback (the "ball") I am gonna damn make sure Ireland doesnt get sidelined


"keep ireland strong in europe" was the NO slogan, were in a much weaker position now politically than we were this time a week ago imho, hell if we signed the treaty we could have had a nice exit strategy, now nothing, nada

i dont see how this can be fixed, the politicians have asked "what went wrong?", "what can be changed?", "what do yee want" and so far the same people who campaigned for a NO (libertas im pointing at you) have gone into hiding


how can we fix this mess? can any NO supporter answer that! what is the NO sides plan!?

is_that_so

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I never brought up death squads or torture. We are discussing democracy here and I'm saying the EU's attitude towards it is no different to Zimbabwe's. If you disagree with me please justify your reasoning. I see no difference.

It's not the EU, it's individual politicians who have their own agendas to look out for and journalists chasing stories. What the EU's attitudes is will become clear at the summit meeting later next week, although I find that Zimbabwe analogy baffling.

Mr.Nice Guy

ionix5891 wrote: »

we rejected the treate for ireland


if the rest of the EU now rename the Lisbon Treaty to Paris Treaty or whatever, erase any mention if Ireland. and the rest of the countries decide to go ahead and sign it, how is that undemocratic? they dont even have to consult us, we put our cards on the table and made the first move the ball is not in our court anymore, the train moved on

It is undemocratic because it required support frome very member state when drawn up.

"If the Irish people decide to reject the treaty of Lisbon, naturally, there will be no treaty of Lisbon."

- French Prime Minister Francois Fillon

"The Lisbon treaty project ended today with the decision of the Irish voters and its ratification cannot be continued."

- Czech Rep President Vaclav Klaus

Not to mention the fact that they are resisitng efforts to give the people of the EU their say on the direction the EU is taking when polls show most EU citizens would like to be consulted.

ionix5891 wrote:

and if it does comeback (the "ball") I am gonna damn make sure Ireland doesnt get sidelined

"keep ireland strong in europe" was the NO slogan, were in a much weaker position now politically than we were this time a week ago imho

So you plan on endorsing an entity that does not respect the wishes of nation-states. Absurd.

We are not in a weaker position now because we don't at this point have to face up to a voting system that will leave us weaker than the likes of Bulgaria and Romania.

Mr.Nice Guy

is_that_so wrote: »

It's not the EU, it's individual politicians who have their own agendas to look out for and journalists chasing stories. What the EU's attitudes is will become clear at the summit meeting later next week, although I find that Zimbabwe analogy baffling.

"Without doubt it is not good news, but Europe will not stop. I am convinced that, as has occurred at other times in the past in the EU, we will find a solution among ourselves."

'We will find a solution among ourselves'. That is a quote from the Spanish Foreign Minister but it could have been just as easily uttered by the tyrant Mugabe.

turgon

Well personally I would like to say something (and I know I come off as biased).

• Ok, so we lose political favour in the EU as a result of the Lisbon Treaty (I agree).
• Now lets define political favour as how nicely other countries deal with us. As a result of being treated nicely we are allowed have a bigger say etc etc.
• Now if we have lost political favour because the Lisbon was No, then it is fair to say that we have lost political favour because the result of the ratification was not to the leaders liking.
• That is to say, the leaders do not like the result of the referendum ("the will of the people").
• Adding 1+1 we get: The leaders of Europe are not treating us as nicely because they don't like the "will of the people".

Whatever your opinion on that, I don't mind. I'm just laying it out as logically as I can.

is_that_so

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

'We will find a solution among ourselves'. That is a quote from the Spanish Foreign Minister but it could have been just as easily uttered by the tyrant Mugabe.

This quote is hardly helpful to your argument but it does highlight the reality that you seem to be ignoring. The EU want to find a way through this as they always do, collectively. They will find a legal or political way to sort out the problem, ideally with all 27 members going in the same direction.

ionix5891

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

than the likes of Bulgaria and Romania.

here comes the xenophobic card...

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It is undemocratic because it required support frome very member state when drawn up.
.

the current treaty does, whats to stop the rest of the countries from leaving this clause out and making a new treaty with or without ireland?

I have a feeling the next referendum will be much simpler

YES - We stay in europe with most points from the Lisbon treaty regurgitated
NO - We end up on the periphery like Iceland and Norway

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

So you plan on endorsing an entity that does not respect the wishes of nation-states.

let me fix that for ya

So you plan on endorsing an entitys that does not respect the wishes of nation-states?

as i said they can respect this treaty and scrap it but theres nothing stopping them making new one a few years down the road


and then the referendum will be very simple do we want to be part of Europe or not

Mr.Nice Guy

is_that_so wrote: »

This quote is hardly helpful to your argument but it does highlight the reality that you seem to be ignoring. The EU want to find a way through this as they always do, collectively. They will find a legal or political way to sort out the problem, ideally with all 27 members going in the same direction.

Oh I'm well aware that the EU will try and find some other way around it as they did when the French and Dutch rejected the EU constitution. Doesn't make it right however, nor does it mean we the people should sit back and take it.

is_that_so

It's the political reality of having to work with 27 countries. What the EU does really only comes up at times like this, the rest of the time as long as it's not impinging on our lives we don't much care. Paradoxically approving the treaty would have given us more say.

ixtlan

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

There had to be a vote on the matter and it was rejected. Would we be hearing talk of a repeat referendum if the vote had been Yes? Of course not. So where is the justification for another vote? Such a disgraceful view of democracy can of course be compared to Zimbabwe and Mugabe's attitude to results he does not like.

Open your bloody eyes.

Hello,

I keep repeating this, but I need to as new people join the discussion. I am trying to be a reasonable yes voter.

The referendum was lost. The treaty cannot pass as it. The question to be first addressed (before thoughts of the other 26 or even 25 proceeding) is what can be tweaked in Lisbon to make it acceptable to the Irish public.

If there are changes that address the concerns of enough no voters then it should be acceptable to put this new revised treaty (of Paris perhaps) to a new vote. This is not undemocratic. I made a list of items previously, but for example the military clause can specifically exclude Ireland. I'm pretty sure that no other state cares about this.

So, I understand the annoyance of the considered (meaning they considered the treaty carefully) no voters at suggestions that they didn't understand. However I am annoyed at the tone many of them are taking now that a new vote under any circumstances is totally unacceptable and undemocratic.

Ix.

rugbyman

Had a quick look through this thread. see a lot I agree with, morly yes voters and informed no voters like roxanne. I FULLY accept the result of the vote. this is a democracy. some posters have suggested that the yes voters on here look down on the No voters as lefties, loonies etc.

in the last few weeks before and after the referendum i have yet to meet a No voter who had one good reason to vote NO. Very good speakers, mary lou, mr Ganley etc but a great array of anti somethings or other who were voting against a variety of issues, none of which were relevant.

I have met few since the vote who openly admit to voting No, seems to be a sheepish mood of better say nothing exists.

Finally, we all know that there are different socio economic levels , of I,Q. levels and of education levels and other groupings in the country.. and though I cannot back this up with concrete statistics,I reckon the the lower social and economic groups and people with less education voted No
and the "coping classes" voted Yes. thousands of execptions of course on either side.