Ok, now please leave EU

iPoker

sopranos wrote: »

The tunnel was a psychological and physical improvement towards the whole idea of "big Europe" which released the British from the century-long idea of "splendid isolation".

don't be stupid. how is a 51 km tunnel under sea rail tunnel more connecting (or symbolic in 2008) than flights, internet, etc? As said, the UK is usually anti-Europe; doesn't have the Euro, etc.

Moreover, the chunnel has been a terrific failure

iPoker

sopranos wrote: »

I had the same identical criticism about France and Netherlands two years ago too. They voted No for internal political reasons (French were against Chirac, at the time), and used EU referendum as a way of protesting. That's why referendum are not the right tool for voting a Treaty. Today, the French and Dutch Parlaments voted the Treaty at almost unanimity (Dutch need a ratify from the first Kamer, but the second already voted Yes), EXACTLY as they usually vote other important laws in their countries.

what makes you the authority on deciding the reason why a nation voted a certain way? I understand, its "yes" or "no", not "yes" or "no, and tell us why".

Time Magazine

Lemming wrote: »

As I've said before and I'll say again; your notion of democracy is horrendously skewed.

So we should bend over and accept whatever the EU dictates because we received money? That is also not democracy.

It is a horrendously skewed notion of democracy to believe that 0.17% of a federation's population can unquestionably prevent what all of the twenty-seven elected member states' governments agree on.

Rb

Antithetic wrote: »

It is a horrendously skewed notion of democracy to believe that 0.17% of a federation's population can unquestionably prevent what all of the twenty-seven elected member states' governments agree on.

Ireland didn't set the unanimity rule though.

sopranos

Lemming wrote: »

Where the f*ck do you keep getting it into your skull that because of this vote Ireland is suddently anti-EU? Really? You've managed to condense a complex situation into such a simplified notion that I would expect from the mind of a child; not a free-thinking, educated adult.

So let's analyze the thread. Who's pro-EU then? The farmers that "we get as much money as we can out of it", or the "I'm Irish, I just want the economic market from Europe" ? Or the "we didn't know what the Treaty means"? or the "we're neutral, we don't want to be involved in EU's military"?

What's Europe for you then? EUROPE is a concept, not a building with a few hundred seats in it (cit.).

Lemming wrote: »

So we should bend over and accept whatever the EU dictates because we received money? That is also not democracy. Nor would it be responsible of either an electorate to do so, or a body wishing to govern them to expect an electorate to do so too. "Childish" I believe is the term to use for that particular idea. Or "Simple".

Instead is very responsible to vote for half billion people bringing arguments like "we didn't understand the fu*ing Treaty then we vote NO"

Lemming

Antithetic wrote: »

It is a horrendously skewed notion of democracy to believe that 0.17% of a federation's population can unquestionably prevent what all of the twenty-seven elected member states' governments agree on.

As Rb has already pointed out, it was the EU that stated that all 27 member states must ratify the treaty unanimously. Not Ireland.

Further - which federal state are you referring to? Europe is not a federate state. It is (supposedly) a union of equality among member states.

Finally, it is pie-in-the-sky guesswork to predict the desire of the rest of the member-state populations and how they would have voted if given the chance.

saoranach

and I think its safe to say that if other countries could vote, some of them would probably also vote no.... maybe some people really dont see the need for the EU to become a nation?

turgon

sopranos wrote: »

Do you see "military" or "army" or something similar as the main points of the Treaty?

Well done sopranos, another classic comment. So you are you saying that if something is not a "main" point then it is not a point at all. So If the treaty was advocating abortion, once it was not a "main" point, we could not vote No on it. Sopranos, just deal with the fact that the Lisbon Treaty furthers the militarization of the EU. Even the Yes people here have agreed to that. Ignoring it is doing you no favours.

sopranos wrote: »

So, the "electoral base" of Ireland is against EU?

You joined, by the looks of it, boards.ie today. You come here accusing the Irish people of being anti-EU. We give you convincing evidence otherwise which you choose to ignore. You continue labeling us Euroskeptics. If you cant take what is said here, and are not willing to engage in a proper discussion, not mere ignorance, then I would really prefer if you weren't here.

turgon

Antithetic wrote: »

It is a horrendously skewed notion of democracy to believe that 0.17% of a federation's population can unquestionably prevent what all of the twenty-seven elected member states' governments agree on.

Are you claiming that the other 99.83% are for the treaty?

turgon

sopranos wrote: »

Instead is very responsible to vote for half billion people bringing arguments like "we didn't understand the fu*ing Treaty then we vote NO"

Oh right, so if you dont understand something your first inclination is to agree with it?

iPoker

sopranos wrote: »

So let's analyze the thread. Who's pro-EU then? The farmers that "we get as much money as we can out of it", or the "I'm Irish, I just want the economic market from Europe" ? Or the "we didn't know what the Treaty means"? or the "we're neutral, we don't want to be involved in EU's military"?

What's Europe for you then? EUROPE is a concept, not a building with a few hundred seats in it (cit.).



Instead is very responsible to vote for half billion people bringing arguments like "we didn't understand the fu*ing Treaty then we vote NO"

so what is your vision for Europe? and what do you feel the initial purpose of the European Coal and Steal Community and the European Economic Community?

Ronseal quick drying woodstain.

sopranos

iPoker wrote: »

so what is your vision for Europe? and what do you feel the initial purpose of the European Coal and Steal Community and the European Economic Community?

Ronseal quick drying woodstain.

This is my vision for Europe:
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm

bonkey

Antithetic wrote: »

It is a horrendously skewed notion of democracy to believe that 0.17% of a federation's population can unquestionably prevent what all of the twenty-seven elected member states' governments agree on.

Those twenty-seven member states' governments all signed up to a system whereby decisions of this scale required unanimity, with each nation ratifying in accordance with its national policies.

Democracy, the wishes of the Irish government, or indeed of anyone else has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Lets play "what if" for a second. Imagine that our constitution allowed the President to veto any proposed change to the constitution, and that the President decided that Lisbon was a bad deal and did just that. You'd now have a situation where one person defeated the Lisbon Treaty, and you know what...it'd be completely and totally above board.

The number of votes capable of overturning something that requires unanimity is one. Each nation had one vote. It has nothing to do with our population size, or that we had a referendum.

I very much doubt that very many of the Irish people up in arms about how such a tiny population can have so much say would actually support the implication of their argument....that the EU should be able to dictate whatever it likes to Ireland. If it were to decide that member-states could not leave....we shouldn't be able to vote against that, because it would be undemocratic. If it were to decide that German was the official language of all member states....Irish and English should be thrown out the window, because to not do so would be undemocratic.

Sorry...I don't buy it for a second. I also don't buy it from the non-Irish making the same noises. They're full of hot air, but mostly because they don't have a plan B right now. But all those in power making noises about who can and cannot dictate the path will make sure that whatever solution they find will still prevent their nations from being dictated to by a democratic majority.

Lemming

[edit: as per usual, Bonkey hits the nail firmly on the head with the hammer]

turgon

sopranos wrote: »

This is my vision for Europe:
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm

I see your ignoring other posts. Again.

rollie

sopranos wrote: »

Instead is very responsible to vote for half billion people bringing arguments like "we didn't understand the fu*ing Treaty then we vote NO"

see i dont see where this comes in either....there was a low turnout (what was it 40 something...i know treaty's aren't exactly crowd gatherers but thats still pretty low), that to me would indicate that the people who either didnt know or didnt care (its my personal belief that its heavily the former over the latter...but that is just my belief) stayed at home. I do think that the people that did vote did, in their minds, know what and why they were voting.

Ireland made a decision, and although it was against what i wanted i am not about to kick up stink. I firmly believe that the european project will continue, but that the idea of what it is to be european will be scrutinized...and intellectual debate is a good thing.

see op, what i really dont understand about your arguements is how from all that you jump to the conclusion that we are anti-europe. Lots of things need to be discussed.

sopranos

turgon wrote: »

You joined, by the looks of it, boards.ie today. You come here accusing the Irish people of being anti-EU. We give you convincing evidence otherwise which you choose to ignore. You continue labeling us Euroskeptics. If you cant take what is said here, and are not willing to engage in a proper discussion, not mere ignorance, then I would really prefer if you weren't here.

Excuse me, where are that convincing evidence? Please re-read the whole thread and tell me where you see any sort of genuine European spirit from any of the Irish answers.
Of course, it's not only a Irish feeling, there's a certain amount of Euroskepticism in Europe, but we're discussing about your referendum, are we?

Duffman

Where are you from?

If you want to make simplistic assumptions about the Irish people then we might as well argue on your level.

turgon

sopranos wrote: »

Excuse me, where are that convincing evidence?

I was referring to the argument that the Lisbon Treaty is not the best thing on earth. My evidence was drawn from the actual consolidated text.

Consolidated Treaty of Lisbon wrote:

Treaty on European Unions - Article 42

2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence...

3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy...

...Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities...

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Yet you have refused to accept that the Irish No vote was partially because out of concerns within the Treaty itself. Oh, and after reading this you claimed that there was no militarization in the EU. And that it was not a reason to vote No because it was not a "main point" (according to the EU itself)

rollie

sopranos wrote: »

Excuse me, where are that convincing evidence? Please re-read the whole thread and tell me where you see any sort of genuine European spirit from any of the Irish answers.
Of course, it's not only a Irish feeling, there's a certain amount of Euroskepticism in Europe, but we're discussing about your referendum, are we?

rollie wrote: »

Ireland made a decision, and although it was against what i wanted i am not about to kick up stink. I firmly believe that the european project will continue, but that the idea of what it is to be european will be scrutinized...and intellectual debate is a good thing.

see op, what i really dont understand about your arguements is how from all that you jump to the conclusion that we are anti-europe. Lots of things need to be discussed.

Eh theres some...

I understand that you're quite passionate about this from what i've read, but that will only bring you so far....whats done is done, its time for a bit of reflection and discussion...you know, like civilized poeple

heyjude

Antithetic wrote: »

It is a horrendously skewed notion of democracy to believe that 0.17% of a federation's population can unquestionably prevent what all of the twenty-seven elected member states' governments agree on.

The EU is a union of 27 countries, that is the central issue. We aren't a single state of 500 million people. So if they say that all 27 countries must ratify the Treaty for it to be passed and one of more countries do not ratify it, then under their own rules it will not be passed.

If they now proceed with the Treaty as if it had been ratified by all, then it merely confirms what some NO campaigners had said, that the wording of the Treaty is open to interpretation and what it may mean in practice might not not be what was initially believed.

The need for ratification by all was crystal clear and unambiguous, unlike the wording of the Treaty itself, so if now something as clear as the need for unanimous ratification is now apparently subject to reinterpretation, then what sections of the Treaty will be reinterpreted in the future ?

Would the situation have been different if Britain had held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and voted NO ? Of course it would, so a Europe dominated by the big countries seems set to be confirmed, if a small country says NO they ignore it and go on regardless, but if a big country says NO, well then they have to "respect the democratic wishes of the people". A case of A la carte democracy.

sopranos

Lemming wrote: »

So what's your point?
So what's your point?
So what's your point?
So what's your point?

My point is that you demonstrated in four answer the whole concept of anti-Europeism or Euroskepticism, call it as you like. For you, EU is a "let's preserve my private wealth and fu*k the rest of pathetic europeans" stuff, for me is "we're in the same ship, let's try to build up something better together".

Duffman

If he's not going to answer the question, can we have the IP address? In the interests of a balanced argument and all that..

SuperSean11

Duffman wrote: »

If he's not going to answer the question, can we have the IP address? In the interests of a balanced argument and all that..

+1

Lemming

sopranos wrote: »

My point is that you demonstrated in four answer the whole concept of anti-Europeism or Euroskepticism, call it as you like. For you, EU is a "let's preserve my private wealth and fu*k the rest of pathetic europeans" stuff, for me is "we're in the same ship, let's try to build up something better together".

Actually, sopranos, my dear trolling little racist, I voted 'yes'.

What I deeply object to is your blinkered, childish, vitrolic, facist remarks that bear absolutely no grounding in reality nor a clue on how the Lisbon treaty was to be ratified as stated by the EU itself. Not Ireland.

sopranos

Duffman wrote: »

If he's not going to answer the question, can we have the IP address? In the interests of a balanced argument and all that..

Hey Shelock Holmes, I wrote it already. I'm an Italian living in Austria. I give you some hints: mafia, corruption, trash, football team losing 3-0 against netherlands. Now go on, it's all yours.

iPoker

sopranos wrote: »

This is my vision for Europe:
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm

As you know, Paddy is so drunk on Guinness that he is collapsed outside the pub, watching Leprechauns pass by, and does not understand Lisbon! In your own words please! also, don't forget about the ECSC and EEC considerations?

turgon

Once again, sopranos, you are ignoring my argument and my quotes from the Treaty. Why cant you just admit that your argument if flawed? Theres nothing wrong with admitting it, you certainly wont be judged for it around here. But what you will be judged for is continuing to ignore reason.

rollie wrote: »

civilized poeple

Soory rollie, sopranos actually doesnt understand what that is

Duffman wrote: »

If he's not going to answer the question, can we have the IP address? In the interests of a balanced argument and all that..

+1,000,000

iPoker

heyjude wrote: »

The EU is a union of 27 countries, that is the central issue. We aren't a single state of 500 million people. So if they say that all 27 countries must ratify the Treaty for it to be passed and one of more countries do not ratify it, then under their own rules it will not be passed.

If they now proceed with the Treaty as if it had been ratified by all, then it merely confirms what some NO campaigners had said, that the wording of the Treaty is open to interpretation and what it may mean in practice might not not be what was initially believed.

The need for ratification by all was crystal clear and unambiguous, unlike the wording of the Treaty itself, so if now something as clear as the need for unanimous ratification is now apparently subject to reinterpretation, then what sections of the Treaty will be reinterpreted in the future ?

Would the situation have been different if Britain had held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and voted NO ? Of course it would, so a Europe dominated by the big countries seems set to be confirmed, if a small country says NO they ignore it and go on regardless, but if a big country says NO, well then they have to "respect the democratic wishes of the people". A case of A la carte democracy.

Agreed!

rollie

sopranos wrote: »

My point is that you demonstrated in four answer the whole concept of anti-Europeism or Euroskepticism, call it as you like. For you, EU is a "let's preserve my private wealth and fu*k the rest of pathetic europeans" stuff, for me is "we're in the same ship, let's try to build up something better together".

see there you go again, you're not really making any sense. not only are you trying to put words in his/irelands mouth, but you're not really understanding what hes saying. to be honest i think you are too pis$ed off about the whole thing...this could be an interesting discussion but you need to absorb what others are saying rather then coming to the table with what you think is a solid opinion and sticking to your guns as the opinion as the cracks appear.


i think he said that he was an itallian in austria just a catch up for those who havent been here all day....

i really shouldnt be doing this, i have an interview tomorrow