Possibility of a Lisbon #2

towel401

It would only have been a few minutes ago that this was actually brought up as a possibility on the Beeb. I couldnt fcking believe it, there are people out there who are actually seriously considering re-running the referendum just after the last one.

They could change a few bits, try to focus on non-issues such as irish neutrality while the rest of the treaty stays the same and strives towards a European superstate. but that's hardly good enough is it?

if Biffo actually sees this as an option I think it would be time to just kick the muppet out, what I don't understand is why people actually put up with this "Wrong answer, bitch" style of ruling a country. They don't do re-runs in other countries because they know that if they tried it the streets will be filled with protesters in the morning but in Ireland it is an acceptable practice?

utick

when do we get a rerun of nice?

Rb

If they try to put the same document in front of us for vote again, it'll merely be rejected again (possibly by a larger margin this time) and it'll make Brian Cowen look like an idiot.

marco_polo

towel401 wrote: »

It would only have been a few minutes ago that this was actually brought up as a possibility on the Beeb. I couldnt fcking believe it, there are people out there who are actually seriously considering re-running the referendum just after the last one.

They could change a few bits, try to focus on non-issues such as irish neutrality while the rest of the treaty stays the same and strives towards a European superstate. but that's hardly good enough is it?

if Biffo actually sees this as an option I think it would be time to just kick the muppet out, what I don't understand is why people actually put up with this "Wrong answer, bitch" style of ruling a country. They don't do re-runs in other countries because they know that if they tried it the streets will be filled with protesters in the morning but in Ireland it is an acceptable practice?

Seems that 10% of people voted no on the basis of what you now admit was a non-issue, so maybe a rerun would be for the best.

tolosenc

towel401 wrote: »

the treaty stays the same and strives towards a European superstate

Lisbon Treaty wrote:

The Union shall respect ... Member States ... national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government.

Please read the thing before you make false claims about it/vote on it.

Mr.Micro

It would be interesting if a Re Run took place and the outcome was the same. What then? The Europeans would still press ahead yes? If such an outcome happened it would IMO be disaster for the Government. It is high risk strategy. Any normal person can now see that the voter has really no say here unless the answer is yes.


If Cowen fudges this it will come back to haunt him and FF. As much as he wants to appease Europe he will have to think of the next elections local and general and respect the vote of the people and the constitution.

dresden8

marco_polo wrote: »

Seems that 10% of people voted no on the basis of what you now admit was a non-issue, so maybe a rerun would be for the best.

Yes but a lot of people voted Yes because they believe their politicians. Those muppets should be denied a vote.

towel401

obl wrote: »

Please read the thing before you make false claims about it/vote on it.

when the EU wants to sign international treaties and start up its own defence forces and defence policies it is trying to become a state of its own. it might only be a very small step but still aims towards the superstate. when they feel the time is right they can just hold a referendum to remove the clause you mentioned, then keep trying until that gets through.

Scofflaw

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It would be interesting if a Re Run took place and the outcome was the same. What then? The Europeans would still press ahead yes? If such an outcome happened it would IMO be disaster for the Government. It is high risk strategy. Any normal person can now see that the voter has really no say here unless the answer is yes.


If Cowen fudges this it will come back to haunt him and FF. As much as he wants to appease Europe he will have to think of the next elections local and general and respect the vote of the people and the constitution.

It really rather depends on what the other member states do. Given the choice between taking Ireland out of the EU and getting an electoral kicking, I suspect FF will wait until after the elections next year (June 5th roughly), and put it to referendum again.

If it is a choice between ratifying Lisbon with guarantees on the points of concern (and we should be able to get those) and leaving the EU, I imagine a majority will go for a Yes vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

It really rather depends on what the other member states do. Given the choice between taking Ireland out of the EU and getting an electoral kicking, I suspect FF will wait until after the elections next year (June 5th roughly), and put it to referendum again.

If it is a choice between ratifying Lisbon with guarantees on the points of concern (and we should be able to get those) and leaving the EU, I imagine a majority will go for a Yes vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But, do you not think it will be a bit embarrassing (and undemocratic) for Ireland to receive special treatment - other EU countries might get really annoyed with us and not buy our goods etc.

Or will you be saying Fair Play to the ignorant and stupid "No" people - only for them we could be be helping to fund Sarkozy Army (thats provided he is still in power in France - he isn't exactly the most popular there at the moment).

utick

towel401 wrote: »

when the EU wants to sign international treaties and start up its own defence forces and defence policies it is trying to become a state of its own. it might only be a very small step but still aims towards the superstate. when they feel the time is right they can just hold a referendum to remove the clause you mentioned, then keep trying until that gets through.

not to mention the constitution, flag and anthem, that had to be dropped but they are still determined to head in the directin of a superstate, i dont think there can be any doubt about that

marco_polo

towel401 wrote: »

when the EU wants to sign international treaties and start up its own defence forces and defence policies it is trying to become a state of its own. it might only be a very small step but still aims towards the superstate. when they feel the time is right they can just hold a referendum to remove the clause you mentioned, then keep trying until that gets through.

By by what mechanism would they just "remove the clause". The EU has no authority to call any referendum anywhere. And who exactly is 'they'? I can never get a good answer to this one.

Is it the MEPs, commissioners, member state leaders, civil servents. There are some Irish people on each of those bodies. Wait a minute, that means 'they' are amongst us already :eek: its too late.

zig

towel401 wrote: »

It would only have been a few minutes ago that this was actually brought up as a possibility on the Beeb. I couldnt fcking believe it, there are people out there who are actually seriously considering re-running the referendum just after the last one.

They could change a few bits, try to focus on non-issues such as irish neutrality while the rest of the treaty stays the same and strives towards a European superstate. but that's hardly good enough is it?

if Biffo actually sees this as an option I think it would be time to just kick the muppet out, what I don't understand is why people actually put up with this "Wrong answer, bitch" style of ruling a country. They don't do re-runs in other countries because they know that if they tried it the streets will be filled with protesters in the morning but in Ireland it is an acceptable practice?

I really dont get this problem people have with a second referendum, its the people that vote , if we choose to vote the same way again then so be it, if we dont then so be it also. If you feel more strongly about the second referendum than you do about the vote itself then DONT BOTHER VOTING. Seriously, a second referendum is the government acknowledging that it was an awful campaign and that they need to try again and promote and explain it better.

You cannot deny the simple fact that a high percentage(enough to make the difference in the result I reckon) of the no voters were voting out of lack of knowlege.

Granted the same can be said for the yes camp, but I really dont think the yes voters are going to change over to a no vote as much as the "i dont understand" voters are going to change to the yes vote if more info on the treaty is given to the people.

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

But, do you not think it will be a bit embarrassing (and undemocratic) for Ireland to receive special treatment - other EU countries might get really annoyed with us and not buy our goods etc.

Probably but there is not much we can do about it now in any case. If we haven't burnt some of our bridges already they have been smoke damaged at the very least.

Or will you be saying Fair Play to the ignorant and stupid "No" people - only for them we could be be helping to fund Sarkozy Army (thats provided he is still in power in France - he isn't exactly the most popular there at the moment).

Isn't that the beauty of the EU, that a guy who is pushing unpopular policies both at home and at a European level can be there one moment and gone the next. Listening to some people he is one of the 'they' who are trying to take over Europe, when the fact of the matter is he may not even be leader of France by the time the French presidency is over.

eoin2nc

dresden8 wrote: »

Yes but a lot of people voted Yes because they believe their politicians. Those muppets should be denied a vote.

:rolleyes:
So I'm a muppet then that I trust my local TD, and I should be denied a vote?

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

But, do you not think it will be a bit embarrassing (and undemocratic) for Ireland to receive special treatment - other EU countries might get really annoyed with us and not buy our goods etc.

It's certainly embarrassing for the government. If you think about it, guarantees are essentially a way of having the EU say what the official Yes campaign ought to have said in the first place.

thehighground wrote: »

Or will you be saying Fair Play to the ignorant and stupid "No" people - only for them we could be be helping to fund Sarkozy Army (thats provided he is still in power in France - he isn't exactly the most popular there at the moment).

Well, that particular one I don't think has any bearing whatsoever. The French attempt to get the EU armed is a generation old now - and the Germans, British, and others still seem to think as little of it as they always have done.

I don't think Sarkozy has shown himself up very well over the Irish No thus far, but he has time to redeem himself, and he's only saying what any other French leader would have said (well, de Gaulle would have said a lot more).

If you mean in the more general sense that, if Ireland gets special treatment for saying No, it will encourage us to do the same again next time (Ireland: special move - one free extra go at all negotiations), the answer is, I suppose, that would depend on how many of us would vote Yes on a 'good faith' basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tolosenc

towel401 wrote: »

when the EU wants to sign international treaties and start up its own defence forces and defence policies it is trying to become a state of its own.

It already does this, just in a far more convoluted way. Allowing this to be done more efficiently is the essence of the treaty. It is not trying to be come a state, merely a representative body of many states.

towel401 wrote: »

it might only be a very small step but still aims towards the superstate.

Source? (Please, no Libertas garbage)

towel401 wrote: »

when they feel the time is right they can just hold a referendum to remove the clause you mentioned, then keep trying until that gets through.

But such a vote would have to be unanimous - thus we have a veto.

towel401

zig wrote: »

I really dont get this problem people have with a second referendum, its the people that vote , if we choose to vote the same way again then so be it, if we dont then so be it also. If you feel more strongly about the second referendum than you do about the vote itself then DONT BOTHER VOTING. Seriously, a second referendum is the government acknowledging that it was an awful campaign and that they need to try again and promote and explain it better.

You cannot deny the simple fact that a high percentage(enough to make the difference in the result I reckon) of the no voters were voting out of lack of knowlege.

Granted the same can be said for the yes camp, but I really dont think the yes voters are going to change over to a no vote as much as the "i dont understand" voters are going to change to the yes vote if more info on the treaty is given to the people.

a second referendum is just saying they didn't get the answer they wanted and now they are going to push harder. The government shouldn't be pushing these treaties upon us. they should at least try to represent the people who put them in power instead of this system where they go to a meeting in Brussels, bring back a treaty and try to convince us we want it.

if they want to create a superstate they can just come up with a lisbon-amending treaty and try to convince us its in our best interest to give up sovereignty altogether to help the economy/ global warming/ creation of a utopia or whatever else their spin doctors can come up with.

basically I don't agree with the concept of the govt trying to tell us what we want and how we should vote. at this point it doesn't even matter what the treaty is about since its already been voted down it should be left at that

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's certainly embarrassing for the government. If you think about it, guarantees are essentially a way of having the EU say what the official Yes campaign ought to have said in the first place.

Well, that particular one I don't think has any bearing whatsoever. The French attempt to get the EU armed is a generation old now - and the Germans, British, and others still seem to think as little of it as they always have done.

I don't think Sarkozy has shown himself up very well over the Irish No thus far, but he has time to redeem himself, and he's only saying what any other French leader would have said (well, de Gaulle would have said a lot more).

If you mean in the more general sense that, if Ireland gets special treatment for saying No, it will encourage us to do the same again next time (Ireland: special move - one free extra go at all negotiations), the answer is, I suppose, that would depend on how many of us would vote Yes on a 'good faith' basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No, I'm referring to the 'Yes' posters on here who castigated the 'No' voters for being a bit stupid - imagine thinking that they might have a 2nd go at voting for the Lisbon Treaty !

Sarkozy is reducing the size of the French army - at this moment in time we have Irish soldiers out in Chad on peacekeeping duties (who insist on wearing different uniforms to differentiate them from the French who are hated and distrusted by the locals). How will they be able to differentiate themselves when we have to do what we are told by Mr. Sarkozy?

Oh and why now do you think the French now decided to drop their tax harmonisation agenda at the moment.

Personally, I wouldn't trust Sarkozy as far as I'd throw him!

marco_polo

towel401 wrote: »

a second referendum is just saying they didn't get the answer they wanted and now they are going to push harder. The government shouldn't be pushing these treaties upon us. they should at least try to represent the people who put them in power instead of this system where they go to a meeting in Brussels, bring back a treaty and try to convince us we want it.

if they want to create a superstate they can just come up with a lisbon-amending treaty and try to convince us its in our best interest to give up sovereignty altogether to help the economy/ global warming/ creation of a utopia or whatever else their spin doctors can come up with.

basically I don't agree with the concept of the govt trying to tell us what we want and how we should vote. at this point it doesn't even matter what the treaty is about since its already been voted down it should be left at that

All of that is still working of the fantastical assumption is that a "Super State" is somethins that all other 26 states actually want or would ever agree to. The much mentioned rejection of the Lisbon treaty by Holland and France (who are apparently leading the charge towards the creation of such an super entity) is testament to that.

I still haven't seen any evidence that citizens of other states are deeply unhappy with the content Lisbon Treaty. Certainly no signs of a revolution against the treaty on any of the 19 states that have ratified it so far. Probably because they are not as precious about non issues in the context of the treaty such as abortion and neutrallity and miniscule percentage differences in voting weights.

I also notice more gratutious 'they' statements. And the bullying line as well in spite of the fact that at least as many countries like Austria have made broadly positive statements about our verdict in the referendum as those that have made negative ones.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

No, I'm referring to the 'Yes' posters on here who castigated the 'No' voters for being a bit stupid - imagine thinking that they might have a 2nd go at voting for the Lisbon Treaty !

I think the point was actually that it won't be renegotiated.

thehighground wrote: »

Sarkozy is reducing the size of the French army - at this moment in time we have Irish soldiers out in Chad on peacekeeping duties (who insist on wearing different uniforms to differentiate them from the French who are hated and distrusted by the locals). How will they be able to differentiate themselves when we have to do what we are told by Mr. Sarkozy?

Is someone due to die and make him king?

thehighground wrote: »

Oh and why now do you think the French now decided to drop their tax harmonisation agenda at the moment.

As far as I know they haven't, since that doesn't depend on Lisbon anyway.

thehighground wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't trust Sarkozy as far as I'd throw him!

There at least our views of reality coincide, however briefly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

towel401

marco_polo wrote: »

All of that is still working of the fantastical assumption is that a "Super State" is somethins that all other 26 states actually want or would ever agree to. The much mentioned rejection of the Lisbon treaty by Holland and France (who are apparently leading the charge towards the creation of such an super entity) is testament to that.

I still haven't seen any evidence that citizens of other states are deeply unhappy with the content Lisbon Treaty. Certainly no signs of a revolution against the treaty on any of the 19 states that have ratified it so far. Probably because they are not as precious about non issues in the context of the treaty such as abortion and neutrallity and miniscule percentage differences in voting weights.

I also notice more gratutious 'they' statements. And the bullying line as well in spite of the fact that at least as many countries like Austria have made broadly positive statements about our verdict in the referendum as those that have made negative ones.

its a long, and slow process and they might not agree with it right now but 5 or 6 more random city treaties will soften them up a bit more.

<sarcasm>
because its the likes of Germany that want the superstate. they already have more power in the EU due to their population, the next few treaties (ones named after other random cities) will prop them up another bit. Its the next best thing they can get to just ruling Europe altogether, which is what they wanted to do since the 40's. Then all they need is to get a German president for europe in, remove the 2.5 year term limit using more random city treaties and they can get what they always wanted.

See the EU is a big conspiracy to get us all ruled by Germany

EU is the long way around to the Third Reich.
</sarcasm>

marco_polo

towel401 wrote: »

its a long, and slow process and they might not agree with it right now but 5 or 6 more random city treaties will soften them up a bit more.

<sarcasm>
because its the likes of Germany that want the superstate. they already have more power in the EU due to their population, the next few treaties (ones named after other random cities) will prop them up another bit. Its the next best thing they can get to just ruling Europe altogether, which is what they wanted to do since the 40's. Then all they need is to get a German president for europe in, remove the 2.5 year term limit using more random city treaties and they can get what they always wanted.

See the EU is a big conspiracy to get us all ruled by Germany

EU is the long way around to the Third Reich.
</sarcasm>

Really because Germany is very much not in favour of a European army for obvious reasons. The EU would not be much of a Super state without one of those.

As Irving Welsh once wrote, It would be "as useless as a flaccid prick in a barrell load of fannies"

dresden8

marco_polo wrote: »

Really because Germany is very much not in favour of a European army for obvious reasons.

Yeah, it was the army that nearly done for Hitler.

Inevitably

zig wrote: »

I really dont get this problem people have with a second referendum, its the people that vote , if we choose to vote the same way again then so be it, if we dont then so be it also. If you feel more strongly about the second referendum than you do about the vote itself then DONT BOTHER VOTING. Seriously, a second referendum is the government acknowledging that it was an awful campaign and that they need to try again and promote and explain it better.

What about the fact that it is woeful waste of money?!

Moriarty

If the quality of posts don't seriously improve in this thread in the next few hours it's going to get locked.

This is not after hours.

thecaptain

Rb wrote: »

If they try to put the same document in front of us for vote again, it'll merely be rejected again (possibly by a larger margin this time) and it'll make Brian Cowen look like an idiot.

are you a bit wet behind the ears?

they are hardly going to present the exact same treaty, even the most docile idiot would start yapping. change a few lines here and there and away we go.

the eu soviet style super state is well on its way.

and another thing, do people actually believe that the government act in the best interests of the people????????????????????? read some history

Moriarty

Thecaptain: if you're going to make wide-reaching claims like that you need to back them up. Please read the charter before posting again.

ionix5891

ok I call the conspiracy theorists (see their terrible quality parallel threads) in this thread (the quality of their ramblings is rapidly deteriorating in this thread too)


to actually write down their concerns in bullet points and reference the relevant parts of the lisbon treaty that made them deduce these fantasies of a superstate


go right ahead please, maybe one you get off your paranoia cloud and actually sit down and read the damned thing :rolleyes:


otherwise can the moderators please put this in the Conspiracy forum along with the rest of their threads, this is not constructive political debate but spuds in the ears singing lalalala crazines

auerillo

A re run of the vote will be great fun, with the "no" side having all that extra ammunition in their armoury that the EU has now proved it is undemocratic (by refusing to accept the democratic will as expressed by the Irish Electorate this time), and also by pointing out that any assurances from th eyes side are worthless since David Byrne and others gave reassuarances that Ireland would retain its commissioner for 130 years to try to sway the no voters over to the yes side in Nice II.

On the domestic front , Fianna Fail run's the risk of alienating large sections of the electorate which could negatively affect their own domestic electoral success for a generation.

On this issue, the French electorate have been ignored, as have the Dutch , by the EU, and now it looks as if they will also ignore the Irish electorate.

Personally, this lack of respect for democracy in the EU is the most worrying aspect of all. It makes the EU seem arrogant, and highlights the fact that the EU leaders, both elected and non elected, do not see themselves as our servants, but see themselves as our masters.

PH01

Can't wait.