Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Possibility of a Lisbon #2

Options
1…6791112…15

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    dresden8 wrote: »
    At last we agree.

    I never disagreed on this point.

    What I suggested is precisely what happened for Nice II.


  • Options
    #243
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Are you sure?


  • Options
    #244
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    dresden8 wrote: »
    Are you sure?

    Of course, why else would I have posted it?


  • Options
    #245
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    IRLConor wrote: »
    There could be a 1000 referenda a day on the matter and it wouldn't make it undemocratic. Stupid yes, undemocratic no.

    It would only be undemocratic if the government acted in the opposite direction to the vote. Asking again is not an attack on democracy, in fact it's the very cornerstone of democracy.

    Are you sure?


  • Options
    #246
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    IRLConor wrote: »
    There could be a 1000 referenda a day on the matter and it wouldn't make it undemocratic. Stupid yes, undemocratic no.

    It would only be undemocratic if the government acted in the opposite direction to the vote. Asking again is not an attack on democracy, in fact it's the very cornerstone of democracy.


    Are you sure you're sure?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    IRLConor wrote: »
    There could be a 1000 referenda a day on the matter and it wouldn't make it undemocratic. Stupid yes, undemocratic no.

    It would only be undemocratic if the government acted in the opposite direction to the vote. Asking again is not an attack on democracy, in fact it's the very cornerstone of democracy.

    Now, are you really, really sure you're sure?


  • Options
    #248
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    IRLConor wrote: »
    There could be a 1000 referenda a day on the matter and it wouldn't make it undemocratic. Stupid yes, undemocratic no.

    It would only be undemocratic if the government acted in the opposite direction to the vote. Asking again is not an attack on democracy, in fact it's the very cornerstone of democracy.


    Absolutely positive now?


  • Options
    #249
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    IRLConor wrote: »
    There could be a 1000 referenda a day on the matter and it wouldn't make it undemocratic. Stupid yes, undemocratic no.

    It would only be undemocratic if the government acted in the opposite direction to the vote. Asking again is not an attack on democracy, in fact it's the very cornerstone of democracy.

    Really? No messin?


  • Options
    #250
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    IRLConor wrote: »
    There could be a 1000 referenda a day on the matter and it wouldn't make it undemocratic. Stupid yes, undemocratic no.

    It would only be undemocratic if the government acted in the opposite direction to the vote. Asking again is not an attack on democracy, in fact it's the very cornerstone of democracy.

    How about now?


  • Options
    #251
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    turgon wrote: »
    Well its everyones (I mean No voters and politicians) problem really, no ones to blame. Some No voters are not constuctive at all.

    In fact a saw a sign today "Keep the Turks Out".

    So you wont please everyone, but I suppose you only need 50% + 1.

    By our problem I mean Ireland's. We can get help from the EU in exploring how to proceed but ultimately we need to work it out for ourselves, all of us. As you have commented yourself there are some key areas of concern and a very good place to start.

    However I think it might also be a good opportunity for our political classes to explore a new relationship with those who voted for them. While that may not be absolutely specific to Lisbon IMO the negative view of politicians was built into the reaction to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    is_that_so wrote: »
    By our problem I mean Ireland's. We can get help from the EU in exploring how to proceed but ultimately we need to work it out for ourselves, all of us. As you have commented yourself there are some key areas of concern and a very good place to start.

    However I think it might also be a good opportunity for our political classes to explore a new relationship with those who voted for them. While that may not be absolutely specific to Lisbon IMO the negative view of politicians was built into it.


    As per the Lisbon treaty where all countries have to ratify, by definition, Europe has said no.


  • Options
    #253
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    is_that_so, that is a good point. However some people just dont like politicians be default, its kinda silly.

    dresden8, please stop spamming. Its annoying.


  • Options
    #254
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    dresden8 wrote: »
    How about now?

    I'll keep saying yes. No amount of asking me will make me say no. :)


  • Options
    #255
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    turgon wrote: »
    is_that_so, that is a good point. However some people just dont like politicians be default, its kinda silly.

    dresden8, please stop spamming. Its annoying.


    Spam referenda anyone?


  • Options
    #256
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    dresden8 wrote: »
    As per the Lisbon treaty where all countries have to ratify, by definition, Europe has said no.

    Well the European Parliament said Yes. IMO, Ireland has said NO, and if we can sort oursleves out then thats fine.

    dresden8, what is the purpose of you posting here? Because if its to give people headaches then well done youve got me.


  • Options
    #257
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    IRLConor wrote: »
    I'll keep saying yes. No amount of asking me will make me say no. :)

    The question was asked 7 times but you only said no twice. In the strange world of the yes voter I'm sure that must have some significance about the turn-out. Far less than 50%.


  • Options
    #258
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    turgon wrote: »
    is_that_so, that is a good point. However some people just dont like politicians be default, its kinda silly.

    I accept that , in the same way that 20% are against the notion of the EU in any way, but I find it an uncomfortable situation and one that we should be addressing. From what I see it has gone far beyond a portion of the populace not liking them. There now appears to be a much wider and deeper mistrust.


  • Options
    #259
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    dresden8 wrote: »
    The question was asked 7 times but you only said no twice. In the strange world of the yes voter I'm sure that must have some significance about the turn-out. Far less than 50%.

    The only reason I haven't responded to all of them is that it would be annoying for the other posters.

    If they were real referenda then I'd turn up.


  • Options
    #260
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    IRLConor wrote: »
    The only reason I haven't responded to all of them is that it would be annoying for the other posters.

    If they were real referenda then I'd turn up.

    How often? Once a week, a month, a year? How many is too many?


  • Options
    #261
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    dresden8 wrote: »
    How often? Once a week, a month, a year? How many is too many?
    Until such time as the Government, elected by the people, decide no more is required. The people are equally able to vote out this Government if they don't like the questions that are being put to them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,290 ✭✭✭dresden8


    hmmm wrote: »
    Until such time as the Government, elected by the people, decide no more is required. The people are equally able to vote out this Government if they don't like the questions that are being put to them.

    Wow. Just wow. A referendum every day for the next four years until the general election. Or until they get the result they want.

    Just wow.


  • Options
    #263
    johnnyboy4711
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭johnnyboy4711


    Let me understand this.
    We can vote but we can only vote one way,yes/no???

    Why was our government/ec so sure that their was going to be a victory for them?

    why also was there no plan B if the 'no' side won?

    nice way to do business!

    NOt a clue do they have!

    john


  • Options
    #264
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    dresden8 wrote: »
    Wow. Just wow. A referendum every day for the next four years until the general election. Or until they get the result they want.

    Just wow.

    I never said it would be smart, sensible or even a good way to spend taxpayer euros.

    I just challenge the notion that it's undemocratic.


  • Options
    #265
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Having no plan B was just a scare tactic to get people to vote YES.

    The YES side were arrogant, IMO, at the start. They underestimated the NO side, and also took it for granted that everyone would think the treaty was great.


  • Options
    #266
    CtrlSource
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭CtrlSource


    Let me just start by saying i find ionix5891's posts quite arrogant and boredline ignorant, especially the use of bold text to emphasise his 'arguments'. But i've read enough so far to realise that i couldn't be arsëd getting into a debate with him/her.

    Anyway, a second Lisbon vote with no ammendments? Eh, no thanks Brian! It seems hard to credit the idea that we will be asked to hold another referendum with the Treaty left as is.

    When the French and Dutch rejected the draft Constitution, their votes were respected and what should have happened, happened. Lisbon was born out of that and it took into account their concerns. Now we have voted against it, we should be respected and a new Treaty brought foward for ratification by whatever means is acceptable to the various nations of Europe. Here, we will need another referendum.

    This whole suggestion about a Lisbon rerun might well turn out to be moot, since the Czechs are starting to look quite iffy on whether they'll ratify or not


  • Options
    #267
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    turgon wrote: »
    Having no plan B was just a scare tactic to get people to vote YES.

    Well, in fairness, Lisbon was plan B. They didn't have a plan C.

    I don't think it was a scare tactic TBH, more a tactic to avoid the torrent of abuse that would come if they said "Plan C [D, E, F...] would be to tweak the treaty until it's agreed upon".
    turgon wrote: »
    The YES side were arrogant, IMO, at the start. They underestimated the NO side, and also took it for granted that everyone would think the treaty was great.

    Certainly this seemed to be the attitude of the main political parties given that their campaigns seemed to be "vote yes, because the treaty is er... em.. great and stuff (BTW vote for me in the next general election!)".


  • Options
    #268
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    CtrlSource wrote: »
    Anyway, a second Lisbon vote with no ammendments? Eh, no thanks Brian! It seems hard to credit the idea that we will be asked to hold another referendum with the Treaty left as is.

    I don't think that's going to happen.

    At the very least the constitutional amendment will be different and will address some of the concerns of the no side.


  • Options
    #269
    berliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 420 ✭✭berliner


    ionix5891 wrote: »
    good we now have a year to clear alot of the lies spread by Liberats and SF and beat some sense into politicians who instead of explaining the treaty to the people put their smiley faces on the damned posters
    What part of no dont they understand? It's gone beyond a joke this eu sham.


  • Options
    #270
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    berliner wrote: »
    What part of no dont they understand? It's gone beyond a joke this eu sham.

    What would you have them do? Throw up their hands and say "Right lads, the Irish have said no. No more reform for the EU." ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    johnnyboy4711 wrote: »
    why also was there no plan B if the 'no' side won?

    nice way to do business!
    Some would say the Lisbon treaty was plan B since the French and Dutch electorates rejected a similar treaty that Ireland never got a chance to vote on.


Advertisement