The arrogance of the YES side to say we are "ruining" it for the other 500 million

ShooterSF

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But then there would be arguments about how it was broken up.
Basically if a group felt really strongly about something in that treaty, a constructive way forward would have been to organise themselves and articulate those grievances to the government to see if we could get an opt out clause. For example, suppose a group were really worried about energy policy stipulations, they organised into a coherent group and then met the government and we got an opt out clause for that part.

So let's see who the no groups were then:
Liberats - want a hardcore neolibe Europe
Sinn Fein - Marxist revolution
Richard Boyd Barret - Marxist revolution
Coir - Right Wing Catholic Empire

So how does the government get anything useful or constructive from any of those groups it can't because the reality is those groups only represent extremes and don't have a history of compromise and consensus.

This is what is so frustrating for the yes side, we want to move forward and resolve this mess but we're getting no progressive or constructive solutions from the no side. It's very indicative that no voters didn't really think about this. They sort of expect the government to magically come up with a solution when they don't even bother articulating the exact nature of their problems.

Voting "no" if you're not prepared to help find a solution is just downright selfish.

For future reference I stopped reading here as calling Sinn Fein (Which the SF in my name has NO affiliation to, yes it has been asked) a Marxist Revolutionary party made me laugh. I don't think I could take anything that followed seriously. There are many Yes voters here whose opinion I consider valid but.....

limklad

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But then there would be arguments about how it was broken up.
Basically if a group felt really strongly about something in that treaty, a constructive way forward would have been to organise themselves and articulate those grievances to the government to see if we could get an opt out clause. For example, suppose a group were really worried about energy policy stipulations, they organised into a coherent group and then met the government and we got an opt out clause for that part.

So let's see who the no groups were then:
Liberats - want a hardcore neolibe Europe
Sinn Fein - Marxist revolution
Richard Boyd Barret - Marxist revolution
Coir - Right Wing Catholic Empire

So how does the government get anything useful or constructive from any of those groups it can't because the reality is those groups only represent extremes and don't have a history of compromise and consensus.

This is what is so frustrating for the yes side, we want to move forward and resolve this mess but we're getting no progressive or constructive solutions from the no side. It's very indicative that no voters didn't really think about this. They sort of expect the government to magically come up with a solution when they don't even bother articulating the exact nature of their problems.

Voting "no" if you're not prepared to help find a solution is just downright selfish.

Tim you have really lost the plot and very disrespectful to the NO voters who excerise their democratic right, who do not fit in the groups you mentioned. You have not read the commission own poll in why people voted No. Just because people voted NO does mean they are any of

=Tim Robbins wrote: »

Liberats - want a hardcore neolibe Europe
Sinn Fein - Marxist revolution
Richard Boyd Barret - Marxist revolution
Coir - Right Wing Catholic Empire

Most of the No voters come from Fianna Fail/Fine Gael/Labour groups and if election was ran on the same day as the referendum, nearly all of them with minor changes would get back in.
They have not turn Bad over night because the government and Yes Campaign own people said No to them. You need to wake up and take off your bigotry donkey blinkers and stop smearing good educated people who woke up and questioned “why should they vote Yes” for this complicated treaty? It is quite foolish to vote yes to a treaty that has been not been explained porperly and then they blackmail the people into thinking the EU will Fail if this does not pass, that We will be sidelined and lose our benefits. There is no proof that will happened, just speculation.
The government did a lot of smearing themselves that affect the treaty chances of been ratified.

jmayo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But then there would be arguments about how it was broken up.
Basically if a group felt really strongly about something in that treaty, a constructive way forward would have been to organise themselves and articulate those grievances to the government to see if we could get an opt out clause. For example, suppose a group were really worried about energy policy stipulations, they organised into a coherent group and then met the government and we got an opt out clause for that part.

So let's see who the no groups were then:
Liberats - want a hardcore neolibe Europe
Sinn Fein - Marxist revolution
Richard Boyd Barret - Marxist revolution
Coir - Right Wing Catholic Empire

So how does the government get anything useful or constructive from any of those groups it can't because the reality is those groups only represent extremes and don't have a history of compromise and consensus.

This is what is so frustrating for the yes side, we want to move forward and resolve this mess but we're getting no progressive or constructive solutions from the no side. It's very indicative that no voters didn't really think about this. They sort of expect the government to magically come up with a solution when they don't even bother articulating the exact nature of their problems.

Voting "no" if you're not prepared to help find a solution is just downright selfish.

Newsflash folks... just heard from the Dept of Environment that there is to be included on the ballot sheet, a section where voters that disagree with Tim Robbins can fill out the reasons for their stupidity :rolleyes:

Of course I told them we should maybe just let people like Tim Quisling (sorry I mean Robbins) make all decisions regarding whether or not we decide to sell out our country in future.

Perhaps you will have to pass aptitude test before getting polling card.
Again Mr Robbins would set the test so that we could be sure of getting the RIGHT result :rolleyes:

turgon

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Voting "no" if you're not prepared to help find a solution is just downright selfish.

So Im out one day walking down the road, and next thing I here the government having a referendum.

So I read an article or two and decide to vote NO.

NOW just because the government has decided to have a referendum (with me having nothing to do with that decision) I have a RESPONSIBILITY to find a solution????????????

So you saying unless I'm willing to devote hours to helping, I cant vote NO???? Even though it was hardly my fault the referendum was initiated anyway, I am forced to devote my time to it.

Tripe.

turgon

Ok lets get this straight. Cowen has a plan and he sends it to the electorate. Now I cant just disagree with it. You mean, I have to actually find an alternative? Like, what if there were refernda everyday??? How could we make money? Wed be spending our whole lives working out how to fix Cowens problems, which he started.

That wouldnt be good for the economy.:eek:




But I suppose, the NO side had reasons to vote NO. Just extremists, old ladies and rebels. Like in fairness the Lisbon Treaty is a sacred document donated from God, as holy as the ten commandments. How could there be any problems with it??

marco_polo

turgon wrote: »

So Im out one day walking down the road, and next thing I here the government having a referendum.

So I read an article or two and decide to vote NO.

NOW just because the government has decided to have a referendum (with me having nothing to do with that decision) I have a RESPONSIBILITY to find a solution????????????

So you saying unless I'm willing to devote hours to helping, I cant vote NO???? Even though it was hardly my fault the referendum was initiated anyway, I am forced to devote my time to it.

Tripe.

The beauty of direct democracy right there, Citizens taking a keen interest in the future of the country. This is why the referedum system works so smoothly in this country.

limklad

turgon wrote: »

Ok lets get this straight. Cowen has a plan and he sends it to the electorate. Now I cant just disagree with it. You mean, I have to actually find an alternative? Like, what if there were refernda everyday??? How could we make money? Wed be spending our whole lives working out how to fix Cowens problems, which he started.

That wouldnt be good for the economy.:eek:




But I suppose, the NO side had reasons to vote NO. Just extremists, old ladies and rebels. Like in fairness the Lisbon Treaty is a sacred document donated from God, as holy as the ten commandments. How could there be any problems with it??

Making statements like this is undermining and emotionally bulling the people the right to set the rules in which the government must abide by. Your attempt to give the government free reign to change these rules at their (the government) own will is a NO NO.

As you well know and everybody know well, there is NO REFERENDUMS for day to day issues.

eoin2nc

jmayo wrote: »

Of course I told them we should maybe just let people like Tim Quisling (sorry I mean Robbins) make all decisions regarding whether or not we decide to sell out our country in future.

Are you comparing voting YES to what I think you are comparing it to? Here we go again with this mis-guided nationalist ideas again

jmayo

eoin2nc wrote: »

Are you comparing voting YES to what I think you are comparing it to? Here we go again with this mis-guided nationalist ideas again

eoin2nc I am compared one person's attitude to a certain individual.
And yes I do believe there are a sizable group in Ireland that now would sell our country to the highest bidder in order to able to continue to afford their 4 hols a year and their BMW.
And before you throw the usual clap trap.
I am not a provo/SF and detest the stuff they have done and espouse and I am not sure I actually want a 32 county Ireland.
But saying all that I would still say I am nationalistic.
What is wrong with that or should we all be the happy clappy globalisation Federal EU loving "Yes" men that some of our EU leaders want us to be.
I want our country to have an independent voice on some issues (however limited) and not be subserveient to a dictat issued in some European capital.

And before you ram the race card, I have no problem with foreigners living here or working here (hell I welcome them and what they can bring to us), since my family have had to for generations to work abroad and suffer that form of racism.
I have no problem contributing to the economies of less well off countries in Eastern Europe and helping them like we were helped.
If the EU leaders and strategists think that they can decide what they think is best for the EU and it's citizens, even though sizable amount of citizens in multiple EU countries are against those ideas then the EU is doomed long term.

Oh and before you say I shouldn't label yes voters as something, that is what the vast majority of them have been doing to No voters.

is_that_so

jmayo wrote: »

Oh and before you say I shouldn't label yes voters as something, that is what the vast majority of them have been doing to No voters.

We got a No vote and that's that. I see no issue with that but I do take issue
with some of those who chose to vote No on issues that they did not recognise as being unrelated to the treaty. The sheer range of elements that people voted No on is one that anyone who voted is entitled to question as much as one should question the "good for the country " on the Yes side.