Possibility of a Lisbon #2

ionix5891

murphaph wrote: »

Deliberately so-the Lisbon treaty was 'crafted' so as to legally avoid as many referenda as possible!!.

AHA! puts on tinfoil hat

murphaph wrote: »

How do you know? They didn't ask the people to give their apporval to this so your claim is totally unfounded. Given the number of reasons for the NO vote being spouted by YES supporters here, it is reasonable to suppose the french/dutch also voted no for some spurious reasons.

they asked the representatives who were elected by the people, sigh complete and utter lack of understanding being shown yet again

murphaph wrote: »

Aye, but it is a treaty which hands over more power to the EU and so people can't reverse the decision by removing those elected representatives, who all seem hell bent on castrating themselves. .

can you back that up by pointing where exactly in the Lisbon treaty more power is handed over? and where does it say we can never hold another referendum ever again

murphaph wrote: »

That dodn't mean the populace agree. We likely wouldn't have rioted or held mass protests if we'd been denied a referendum either, even though we voted NO when given the chance, so your argument is rubbish. Comprende? .

are you saying the people of Ireland and Europe are to sheepish to protest against their elected governments (whos being "elitist" now?), The French would be the first ones to rise up, they have the whole revolution thing learned to the t. There has been no protests on the streets whether peaceful or otherwise so it must be some conspiracy right? 500 million people are being lied to?

murphaph wrote: »

You're a gas man. I was talking to a french friend in Lyon the other day. She had previously voted YES to the constitution and is broadly in favour of the European project. She was raging that they had been denied the right to give their ascent to this new treaty which the politicians claimed to have addressed WHAT THEY PERCEIVED the issues to be! She was delighted that we voted NO. The french people are not all happy with Lisbon and even many who are are upset that they didn't get to say so! They all know they were deliberately denied a referendum by way of the treaty itself. It was no accident of law, quite deliberate. There's only one reason to do that.

Oh the friend card! i have friends in Netherlands who was quite happy with this treaty and how their concerns were addressed


:cool:

jellybeans

SkepticOne wrote: »

Left out of the treaty? The treaty is dead unless all countries ratify it.

so your certain the others wont go ahead without ireland?

is_that_so

This is not like a football match ;we won and you lost. While respect is required for the No vote as much respect is required for those who voted Yes. As in any type of election the "loser" still has the right to be represented. So whatever your position respect that those on the other side who actually made an informed decision are also part of this and don't assume that your own view of the world is the only one.

As to the initial post, there is ground for doing so even though for now we are speculating in a void. There are also many elements of the Treaty that are uncontentious for most of us. There will always be a hardcore of 20% or so who remain implacably opposed to the EU project under any circumstances.

One of the elements I believe that has come out of this and not just in the referendum is the disconnect between the political classes and rest of us.

We put them there and there are times when they need to be telling us where we are going and more importantly, listening. However that does preclude them from making decisions that are best for the nation even if some people don't like it.

Margot Wallstrom on it.

"EU communication must be a two way street"

The need to communicate even more effectively became especially apparent in the aftermath of the French and Dutch 'no' to the Constitution. The rejections showed that there are many different views and understandings about Europe and where it is heading.
This is why a new approach was needed not only relating to communication, but also regarding the future of Europe as a whole.

Consequently, we have developed a new approach to European communication that puts citizens at the heart of European policies.

It is based on three strategic principles :

* Listening to citizens: taking their views and concerns into account
* Communicating how our policies affect their everyday lives
* Connecting with citizens by 'going local': addressing people in their national or local settings, using their favourite form of media.

...

lisbon_lions

If this turns out to be true, then we will be forced into pondering and choosing by means of a false dilema. This 'there is no alternative' situation is incorrect and highly disrespectful to the voters of this country. We will put it to you again, yes and you're with us, no and your on your own - with no mention of a third scenario of no and Lisbon is toast.

jellybeans

well in fairness if every country had the treaty tailor made to suit their particular wants it would get out of hand.

dlofnep

ionix5891 wrote: »

where is this vast amount you speak of? where are these revolutions and protests on the streets of Europe??

Check any news article or video on the internet that allows "comments" and you'll see for yourself. (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1318932,00.html) I don't see the Governments advertising the benefits & cons of the Lisbon Treaty - so why would the average citizen of Europe be any wiser?

Congratulations Eire !! At last democracy is seen - scotland

Well done, Ireland ! Now then Gordon, can we in the UK have the referendum your party promised us so we can vote the same way. - england

This is great news, well done the Irish. I bet my pension that most other peoples in europe would also reject this treaty to build a Greater Europe. We are being bulldozed into this without our consent. -france

First few responses outside of Ireland alone. I haven't cherry picked these comments either as you can see by a click view of them yourself. Check all the comments and you'll see similar responses. I rest my case.

is_that_so

lisbon_lions wrote: »

If this turns out to be true, then we will be forced into pondering and choosing by means of a false dilema. This 'there is no alternative' situation is incorrect and highly disrespectful to the voters of this country. We will put it to you again, yes and you're with us, no and your on your own - with no mention of a third scenario of no and Lisbon is toast.

Not at all and it has happened before;see Denmark and Maastricht. As someone observed elsewhere we are members of a group. We don't have to be there but it is something we believe in if the polls on EU membership are to be believed. The EU project attempts to operate for the good of the 27 even if some people strongly oppose the areas they are involved in and use it a punch bag for any number of ills. Like anything it's not perfect.

ionix5891

lisbon_lions wrote: »

with no mention of a third scenario of no and Lisbon is toast.

if Lisbon is toast EU will be stopped in its track (fine by alot of far left and far right people who would love nothing but to go backwards in time to growing potatoes and shooting each other as exemplified by posts in parallel threads here) and has a very good chance of falling apart

what are the options for EU when it cant go forwards? go backwards?? stay in place and rot???


nothing constructive has come from Liberats and Sein Fein in the last week, they are just not interested in Europe as shown time and time again but with furthering their own agendas, if it means lying to the people and fueling nationalism so be it


:cool:

lisbon_lions

All im saying is it appears to be put to us in a loaded gun type scenario,
Yes/No = In out, whereas I was of the opinion that no meant not all 27 can ratify therefore Lisbon cannot be implemented. Maybe im still young and naive.

ionix5891

lisbon_lions wrote: »

All im saying is it appears to be put to us in a loaded gun type scenario,
Yes/No = In out, whereas I was of the opinion that no meant not all 27 can ratify therefore Lisbon cannot be implemented. Maybe im still young and naive.

such an option would lead us back to 2 tiered EU, how is that any better?

murphaph

ionix5891 wrote: »

if Lisbon is toast EU will be stopped in its track (fine by alot of far left and far right people who would love nothing but to go backwards in time to growing potatoes and shooting each other as exemplified by posts in parallel threads here) and has a very good chance of falling apart

That's enough for me. I'll not respond to any more of your posts. I have a lot of time for a lot of the YES side on here. None for this tripe though. Good day sir.

lisbon_lions

ionix5891 wrote: »

such an option would lead us back to 2 tiered EU, how is that any better?

Is a two tiered senario only a recent idea brought to life by our no vote also? a slow lane for us and maybe the Czech's? Sorry to use office type crap but has the goalposts changed during the game on this one? I think so.

SkepticOne

jellybeans wrote: »

so your certain the others wont go ahead without ireland?

It is a treaty for reform of EU institutions. Unanimity is required among all members of the EU. Any treaty entered into by a subset of EU members would have no legal authority to make these fundamental changes of the institutions.

is_that_so

dlofnep wrote: »

Check any news article or video on the internet that allows "comments" and you'll see for yourself. (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1318932,00.html) I don't see the Governments advertising the benefits & cons of the Lisbon Treaty - so why would the average citizen of Europe be any wiser?

They are not allowed to spend any money on it, courtesy of the McKenna judgement of 1995, only political parties can. I'd also suggest with respect that Sky is hardly what could be considered a source of quality analysis any more than the ramblings of some self-appointed expert on YouTube.

ionix5891

is_that_so wrote: »

Sky is hardly what could be considered a source of quality analysis

not with Rupert Murdoch pulling the strings for his own needs. the guy hates EU since it has the power granted by the people to stop him getting more power by brainwashing the people via his media outlets

has the goalposts changed during the game on this one? I think so.

yes they have. alot of countries are expressing their concerns about Ireland holding them back. if we want to remain in Europe we have to address these concerns before they turn sour.

conceited

Ionix5891 your wrong on so many points .

so they voted yes for the people after the concerns of the people that voted no we addressed.

I don't think you understand what the lisbon treaty is.

In 2005 the netherlands and france voted no on the european constitution.
In 2007 French Parliament has passed the bill authorizing ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

This time around, European leaders have ensured that the new treaty has not been put before citizens in referenda, with the exception of Ireland, where one is constitutionally required. Instead, parliaments are simply ratifying it.

As I understand this and please correct me if i'm not "getting it".

Giscard constitution now the encapsulated in lisbon treaty is the exact same as the one written up in 2004 - the word constitution and religous inheritance.

And please stop running back to edit your posts.

dlofnep

is_that_so wrote: »

They are not allowed to spend any money on it, courtesy of the McKenna judgement of 1995, only political parties can. I'd also suggest with respect that Sky is hardly what could be considered a source of quality analysis any more than the ramblings of some self-appointed expert on YouTube.

It's random comments, not Sky. It just so happens to be a sky website. And what's wrong with the opinion of someone on youtube? This elitest attitude going on here is awfully transparent. If you vote no, your opinion must be worthless! Get a grip man. Alot of perfectly sane people across Europe are against this treaty.

hmmm

I applaud the willingness of so many people to potentially sacrifice Ireland's economy based on comments other Europeans have made on blogs and comment sections. I'm sure our sacrifice will not go unnoticed in the history books, we can sing rebel songs about it and celebrate the country as a martyr.

Back in the real world, no next time will really mean no. We're lucky that our neighbours didn't get too upset by our last two kicks in the teeth. The next vote, irrespective of the wording, will be a referendum on whether we want to continue as part of the EU because the rest of the Europe wants to move on. There is no status quo on offer. It's perfectly democratic - if we don't want to remain part of the club, we're free to leave.

is_that_so

dlofnep wrote: »

It's random comments, not Sky. It just so happens to be a sky website. And what's wrong with the opinion of someone on youtube? This elitest attitude going on here is awfully transparent. If you vote no, your opinion must be worthless! Get a grip man. Alot of perfectly sane people across Europe are against this treaty.

I can disagree but respect your opinion because it is argued but not a link to show me how many other people feel like you.

ionix5891

conceited wrote: »

Ionix5891 your wrong on so many points .



I don't think you understand what the lisbon treaty is.

In 2005 the netherlands and france voted no on the european constitution.
In 2007 French Parliament has passed the bill authorizing ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.



As I understand this and please correct me if i'm not "getting it".

Giscard constitution now the encapsulated in lisbon treaty is the exact same as the one written up in 2004 - the word constitution and religous inheritance.

And please stop running back to edit your posts.

I know well the difference betwee the previous constitution and this treaty

but you are saying the French and the Dutch Referenda (As well as the YES ones in Spain and Luxembourg) are irrellevant and have nothing to do with Lisbon?

so which one is? and why did you drag them in if they have nothing to do with it

conceited wrote: »

Why weren't the Dutch and the French told to re-run their referenda?

The elected representatives of the people of these countries have ratified a treaty. how is that undemocratic or wrong? And once again there isnt widespread condemnation or riots or the governments being replaced by the people

ionix5891

dlofnep wrote: »

Alot of perfectly sane people across Europe are against this treaty.

theres no doubting that

but they are not a majority otherwise there would be riots in 19 countries now, since they are democracies people can protest and come together to form groups, we are not seeing that. or are you implying that these countries are not democratic?


only in Ireland have nationalist Sein Fein, US Military contractors called Liberats, Coir and other religious fundamentalists have come together to protest (and in alot of cases spread lies) about what was essentially a good deal for Ireland and EU which took many years to hammer (during Irish presidency of the EU no one complained btw) out over Issues that had nothing to do with that Treaty


whats wrong with that picture

conceited

I know well the difference betwee the previous constitution and this treaty

You proved you didn't when you said the following

their DEMOCRATICALLY elected representatives have voted YES

without the people complaining as their concerns and demands were addressed

and yes it is very good its an example of democracy in action, if you don't see that im sorry but maybe someone else can make it clearer

now once again let me correct that line for you
so they voted yes for the people after the concerns of the people that voted no we addressed.

You obviously have no clue what was or wasn't changed.

so which one is? and why did you drag them in if they have nothing to do with it

I asked a question at the begining of the thread which i'm still answering now .

Why weren't the Dutch and the French told to re-run their referenda?

See my previous points which you glossed over .

The elected representatives of the people of these countries have ratified a treaty. how is that undemocratic or wrong?

Your argument is flawed.
They both voted no like we have but they fiddled with there constituion and passed it anyway the exact same constitution that you say is different which is not different at all.

dresden8

hmmm wrote: »

Back in the real world, no next time will really mean no. We're lucky that our neighbours didn't get too upset by our last two kicks in the teeth.

Back in the real world making people vote until you get the answer you want is the mark of Robert Mugabe. Interestingly, he didn't like the result of the last vote so he's running it again. Unfortunately, he did get upset by that kick in the teeth. I suppose we're lucky Sarko doesn't have his European army in place, then we'd really be effed.

Oh, the bittersweet irony.

therewillbe

Do they not understand , no means no!

dresden8

And what do you mean next time? How many times to vote no before it's really a no, instead of just "maybe"?

is_that_so

therewillbe wrote: »

Do they not understand , no means no!

dresden8 wrote: »

And what do you mean next time? How many times to vote no before it's really a no, instead of just "maybe"?

Sound like some good slogans for the campaign so. Seriously though while some people are exploring what the effect of the vote is, others just carp on about the perceived injustice of something that may not happen. Who knows what it will bring but it does appear that some people have already decided their vote irrespective of what it contains.

conceited

I'm thinking about my kids and their kids and their families it's not about us at all really when you think about it, not as much as future generations.

dresden8

is_that_so wrote: »

Sound like some good slogans for the campaign so. Seriously though while some people are exploring what the effect of the vote is, others just carp on about the perceived injustice of something that may not happen.

I think you'll find that they're exploring ways to overturn and ignore the vote.

Anyway better slogans for the next campaign are

"Vote yes or we'll destroy your economy"

"Vote yes or we'll f**k you out"

"You Irish don't count for f**k, do what you're told."

I might have some posters done up and spread them around. And they won't be financed by CIA torture flights forcing children to have abortions either.

hmmm

dresden8 wrote: »

I suppose we're lucky Sarko doesn't have his European army in place, then we'd really be effed.

Oh, the bittersweet irony.

Yeah good on you we can really put Sarkozy in his place, a second no will really show him. Why don't we send insults to all our main trading partners? There will be another vote and the vote will be to decide whether we voluntarily want to become the Albania of Western Europe.

is_that_so

dresden8 wrote: »

I think you'll find that they're exploring ways to overturn and ignore the vote.

Anyway better slogans for the next campaign are

"Vote yes or we'll destroy your economy"

"Vote yes or we'll f**k you out"

"You Irish don't count for f**k, do what you're told."

I might have some posters done up and spread them around. And they won't be financed by CIA torture flights forcing children to have abortions either.

I can offer no comment at all on any of this however you might like to read my post on inclusiveness on Page 2.