TIME magazine article about Ireland's "No"

molloyjh

murphaph wrote: »

If a man's vote is ignored and he is told he voted wrongly and must vote again, he has EVERY RIGHT to be offended.

Nobody has been told they voted incorrectly. I have yet to hear anyone state such a thing. Many have said that there was an element that voted out of totaly ignorance or with inaccurate info. This seems to be the case judging by the EU Commissions survey and from talking with some of the people that voted on the day.

Noone is telling anyone how to vote either. Its not even 100% certain yet if we will be asked to vote on Lisbon a second time. And even if we are there is no more or less pressure on you to vote one way or the other than there was the first time around.

There seems to be a lot of paranoia and noise making around the possiblity of a second referendum which totally ignores the fact that it allows people to vote No all over again if they so wish, or change their vote from one to the other if they so wish. There is nothing anti-democratic about asking us to vote again. If the result of that vote is rejected by the Government and they proceed with ratifying Lisbon anyway, then people can start talking about the end of democracy. Until then we still live in a free and fair democratic society and there is no suggestion or proof to the contrary.

CtrlSource

If we didn't vote incorrectly, then why consider the need for a second vote?

molloyjh

CtrlSource wrote: »

If we didn't vote incorrectly, then why consider the need for a second vote?

Circumstances have changed. We didn't realise that the EU would plan to go ahead with this anyway and so we didn't have all the nessecary info to hand to make a qualified decision. It would in fact be utterly anti-democratic not to have a second referendum should that be the case as we weren't aware of that possibility before-hand.

My only problem with all of this is that for some reason (and I can only surmise that it is the fault of our Government) the EU leaders seemed to expect us to vote Yes. It came as a shock that we didn't. Given the fact that we voted No to Nice the first time around should have at least raised the possibility of a No result this time around. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that the Irish Government assured the EU leaders that Ireland would vote Yes, which itself would then explain the EU leaders frustrations with Cowen and co for promising something that they couldn't deliver.

CtrlSource

Circumstances haven't really changed. Did you really believe them when they said there was no Plan B? There's always a Plan B! Remember Nice?

i actually thought that Lisbon would be passed by a small majority and i think that the Gov probably did assure the brass in the EU that they'd get a Yes vote.

molloyjh wrote: »

We didn't realise that the EU would plan to go ahead with this anyway and so we didn't have all the nessecary info to hand to make a qualified decision. It would in fact be utterly anti-democratic not to have a second referendum should that be the case as we weren't aware of that possibility before-hand.

i disagree. The link you make is a pretty tenuous one to use in favour of a second referendum

marco_polo

CtrlSource wrote: »

Circumstances haven't really changed. Did you really believe them when they said there was no Plan B? There's always a Plan B! Remember Nice?

i actually thought that Lisbon would be passed by a small majority and i think that the Gov probably did assure the brass in the EU that they'd get a Yes http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=56409127vote.



i disagree. The link you make is a pretty tenuous one to use in favour of a second referendum

But would you personally be against a second referendum in similar circumstances with Lisbon, the addition of protocols to the treaty etc? It is not at all clear what many No campaigners position is on this matter.

molloyjh

CtrlSource wrote: »

Circumstances haven't really changed. Did you really believe them when they said there was no Plan B? There's always a Plan B! Remember Nice?

i actually thought that Lisbon would be passed by a small majority and i think that the Gov probably did assure the brass in the EU that they'd get a Yes vote.

i disagree. The link you make is a pretty tenuous one to use in favour of a second referendum

So then what exactly is the Plan B if one does exist? The realities of the situation as they are currently presenting themselves were not apparent before the referendum. Sure didn't most of the NO campaign say that by voting No nothing would change and we would mantain the stauts quo? Its becoming blatantly obvious that this is not the case. We were not made aware of the strong possibility that the EU would look to move ahead without us and therefore we could not have made a educated decision as we were not furnished with all of the relevant information. It is only fair that we be allowed to have our say again now that the "whole truth" has come to light.

As for Nice it was my understanding that the second referendum wasn't on a plan B at all, but was instead on Nice again with a few stipulations for our benefit???? Isn't this what is being discussed for Lisbon????

Scofflaw

CtrlSource wrote: »

Generalisation central! i would suspect (but have no factual proof to hand) that far more "working class" people vote Labour and Fianna Fail. AFAIK, peoples' votes in this referendum tended not to be based on any party allegiances. i do not support Sinn Fein at all, nor do i have much interest in what Libertas have been saying.

How do you actually know the level of education of Yes and No voters?

The answer to these various points is 'statistics' and 'surveys'! I agree that more working class people probably vote FF/Lab than vote SF, but SF support is strong in working class areas (see here) - and the point that working class areas tend to also be SF strongholds couls also be taken to indicate a more general disgruntlement with the political mainstream than is necessarily reflected purely by SF votes.

As to part affiliation and voting pattern, we have Eurobarometer results:

LISBON: party supporters’ votes
PARTY|YES|NO
Fianna Fáil (41% of those surveyed said they support FF)|60%|40%
Fine Gael (20% of those surveyed said they support FG)|51%|49%
Labour (9% of those surveyed said they support Labour)|45%|55%
Green Party (6% of those surveyed said they support the Greens)|43%|57%
Sinn Féin (6% of those surveyed said they support Sinn Féin)|5%|95%
Progressive Democrats (2% of those surveyed said they support PDs)|69%|31%
All others (17% of those surveyed said they didn’t remember or didn’t answer)|39%|61%



So, 95% of SF voters voted No, which means that effectively the entire SF vote translated into No votes.

CtrlSource wrote: »

It would sound dismissive. It would be insulting to me to somehow be expected to vote a particular way because the general perception was that my "class" are more pro-EU or whatever. You can be pro-EU and pro-Europe and still have problems with this Treaty and some EU policies.

Hmm. Statistics are not normative - that is, they do not tell you how you should vote. They're simply an estimated record of how people did vote.

CtrlSource wrote: »

Nobody is going to admit that their trying to query the legitimacy of the vote, but it doesn't hurt them to spin it that way, at least for a while. It may start to put doubts in the minds of swing voters - if we are indeed to be asked to vote again.

i don't have a problem with another referendum, so long as we're voting on a different Treaty, or at least one that has been given more than just a minor cosmetic makeover. If the Irish people are asked to vote on the Treaty again as is, or with very minor semantic alterations / declarations, i won't hesitate in voting No again. It would be a protest vote on my part, whereas the first time i voted based on my opinion of the Treaty

As I say, I don't see any other option. I am relatively certain we will obtain guarantees and assurances in respect of matters of concern, and we may in theory manage some fudge in the matter of the Commission, but it will essentially be a vote on the same Treaty, this time with the rider that we are voting on our own position in the EU as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Scofflaw wrote: »

17% of those surveyed said they didn’t remember...

Sorry Scofflaw; didn't remember what? How they voted?

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

Sorry Scofflaw; didn't remember what? How they voted?

Presumably how they voted in the GE last year - that might be people who voted for an Independent as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gurgle

The funny thing about this whole Lisbon treaty is that there was no need for a referendum about it in the first place.

A referendum is to change the constitution, or in the case of the one referred to incorrectly as the 'Lisbon Treaty Referendum' - to cancel it.

The actual change to the constitution was to make it secondary to european law. This was not a requirement to ratify the treaty.

Thats what I voted no to - A constitution that comes secondary to the law isn't a constitution, just a book of suggestions.

If we had another vote, on the Lisbon Treaty this time, I would vote yes.

molloyjh

Gurgle wrote: »

The funny thing about this whole Lisbon treaty is that there was no need for a referendum about it in the first place.

A referendum is to change the constitution, or in the case of the one referred to incorrectly as the 'Lisbon Treaty Referendum' - to cancel it.

The actual change to the constitution was to make it secondary to european law. This was not a requirement to ratify the treaty.

Thats what I voted no to - A constitution that comes secondary to the law isn't a constitution, just a book of suggestions.

If we had another vote, on the Lisbon Treaty this time, I would vote yes.

Eh well not really. There was a slight change to the constitution because of this. Either way the "secondary to the law" bit you're referring to is already there and has been for decades. Its part and parcel of being in the EU. Its not that the Constitution is secondary to the EU law per se, but more that the 2 don't conflict with one another. The logic being that it can't be law until it is passed, and to pass it the EU members must vote on it according to their constitutional requirements, which for Constitutional changes requires referendum here in Ireland.

The article you're referring to (in my mind anyway) is more applicable to new member states as it ensure that their Constitution and the Treaty are not at odds. Any conflicts can be resolved through amendments to eitherr the Treaty or their Constitution. It is less relevant to us as we have input into whether it becomes law or not in the first place.

CtrlSource

marco_polo wrote: »

But would you personally be against a second referendum in similar circumstances with Lisbon, the addition of protocols to the treaty etc? It is not at all clear what many No campaigners position is on this matter.

As i said earlier, i don't have a problem with another referendum, so long as we're voting on a different Treaty, or at least one that has been given more than just a minor cosmetic makeover. If the Irish people are asked to vote on the Treaty again as is, or with very minor semantic alterations / declarations, i won't hesitate in voting No again. It would be a protest vote on my part, whereas the first time i voted based on my opinion of the Treaty

molloyjh wrote: »

So then what exactly is the Plan B if one does exist? The realities of the situation as they are currently presenting themselves were not apparent before the referendum. Sure didn't most of the NO campaign say that by voting No nothing would change and we would mantain the stauts quo? Its becoming blatantly obvious that this is not the case. We were not made aware of the strong possibility that the EU would look to move ahead without us and therefore we could not have made a educated decision as we were not furnished with all of the relevant information

Plan B is exactly what we're living through now. Plan B is EU posturing and tactics aimed at persuading the Government to hold another vote. If you didn't think that would happen in the event of a No vote, fair enough. i did.

It is only fair that we be allowed to have our say again now that the "whole truth" has come to light.

i take your point if you are a No voter who would has had a change of mind and wants to vote Yes. If you are in fact a Yes voter and are trying to use this as an excuse to say that those poor No voters should be allowed to rectify matters after this bombshell came to light, then it's a flimsy argument and i reject it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I am relatively certain we will obtain guarantees and assurances in respect of matters of concern, and we may in theory manage some fudge in the matter of the Commission, but it will essentially be a vote on the same Treaty, this time with the rider that we are voting on our own position in the EU as well.

If this is going to be the prevailing attitude, why don't we simply hold a referendum about whether we should stay in or leave the EU. That would almost certainly result in "we should stay" and then, we should scrap this Treaty ratification by referendum nonsense, as it's a waste of time. Any No vote on a Treaty will be eventually ignored anyway

oscarBravo

CtrlSource wrote: »

If the Irish people are asked to vote on the Treaty again as is, or with very minor semantic alterations / declarations, i won't hesitate in voting No again. It would be a protest vote on my part...

Irrespective of the consequences, whatever they may be?

...why don't we simply hold a referendum about whether we should stay in or leave the EU. That would almost certainly result in "we should stay" and then, we should scrap this Treaty ratification by referendum nonsense, as it's a waste of time. Any No vote on a Treaty will be eventually ignored anyway

A plebiscite on whether or not we should stay in the EU would almost certainly result in a "yes" vote, but that's not the same as asking whether we should ratify Lisbon, complete with a warning that not to do so could leave us outside the EU. Why? Because lots of people would vote "no" either because they don't believe the consequences could be that bad, or out of sheer dudgeon at having the choice presented to them so starkly.

CtrlSource

oscarBravo wrote: »

Irrespective of the consequences, whatever they may be?

Yes, because nothing would have changed and i'd be voting on the same Treaty. If they added a second part asking if i wanted to remain a member of the EU, i'd vote Yes to that.

Scofflaw

CtrlSource wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

I am relatively certain we will obtain guarantees and assurances in respect of matters of concern, and we may in theory manage some fudge in the matter of the Commission, but it will essentially be a vote on the same Treaty, this time with the rider that we are voting on our own position in the EU as well.

If this is going to be the prevailing attitude, why don't we simply hold a referendum about whether we should stay in or leave the EU. That would almost certainly result in "we should stay" and then, we should scrap this Treaty ratification by referendum nonsense, as it's a waste of time. Any No vote on a Treaty will be eventually ignored anyway

Well, that's probably not the choice that will be on offer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

CtrlSource wrote: »

As i said earlier, i don't have a problem with another referendum, so long as we're voting on a different Treaty, or at least one that has been given more than just a minor cosmetic makeover.

So you want changes made for the sake of making changes?

molloyjh

CtrlSource wrote: »

Plan B is exactly what we're living through now. Plan B is EU posturing and tactics aimed at persuading the Government to hold another vote. If you didn't think that would happen in the event of a No vote, fair enough. i did.

So Plan B is just Plan A....again. Not much of a Plan B, but I agree that this was really the only logical outcome from a No vote. So what exacly is your point? You said that they lied when they said they had no Plan B, but a re-hash of Plan A is not really a Plan B at all, its just a re-hash of Plan A (which was Plan B itself to the Constitution anyway!). Plan B suggests an alternate plan, not the same one.

CtrlSource wrote: »

i take your point if you are a No voter who would has had a change of mind and wants to vote Yes. If you are in fact a Yes voter and are trying to use this as an excuse to say that those poor No voters should be allowed to rectify matters after this bombshell came to light, then it's a flimsy argument and i reject it.

I never suggested how people should vote, just that they should be given the opportunity to again should the circumstances change sufficiently. The strong possibility of a two-speed EU is sufficient enough IMO to warrant another referendum.

CtrlSource wrote: »

Any No vote on a Treaty will be eventually ignored anyway

That is nothing more than opinion. It may well be fair to say that if the vast majority of the EU wants something and a negligible amount (like say 0.2% as a "random" proportion) are blocking it then there may be a certain amount of pressure applied to the 0.2% to fall in line with the rest of the Union. After all the EU is really just a body that reflects the combined will of its members and if a tiny proportion of those members are blocking something the rest want its not really an effective partnership. As I said elsewhere maybe if we as a country are so opposed to what would certainly seem to be the will of the rest of the EU we should start to examine closely whether we belong in the Union at all.

triple h

molloyjh wrote: »

. As I said elsewhere maybe if we as a country are so opposed to what would certainly seem to be the will of the rest of the EU we should start to examine closely whether we belong in the Union at all.

I was thinking like this after the No vote won, it is a good point and i think irish people should think hard about this. Maybe most irish people want ireland to join the USA and become the 51st ( i think, 50 something maybe) state.

I voted Yes to Lisbon, i think Yes should have won, but i accept the No vote ( even though it was the wrong result i reckon), i have to accept it. But i will admit, the way some people ( french president the worst ) are acting really annoys me and makes me want to Vote No the next time for spite and another point, i do not see why a result should be ignored and people asked to vote again. That does not sound very democratic to me.

molloyjh

triple h wrote: »

I voted Yes to Lisbon, i think Yes should have won, but i accept the No vote ( even though it was the wrong result i reckon), i have to accept it. But i will admit, the way some people ( french president the worst ) are acting really annoys me and makes me want to Vote No the next time for spite and another point, i do not see why a result should be ignored and people asked to vote again. That does not sound very democratic to me.

Its not undemocratic though either. We all still get the chance to vote No as much as Yes. I think to be honest what has happened is that the Irish Government told the other EU leaders that they would get a Yes vote from the people and didn't. The Yes campaign was quite obviously total rubbish and now the EU leaders are pissed at our politicians for not delivering on their word. Most EU leaders have been quite reasonable on this though. You also have to remember that the realities of voting No were complete unknowns and now that we know what the consequences are, they are sufficiently severe (IMO) as to require another referendum. We didn't realise the first time around what we were really voting on.

Butterbox

molloyjh wrote: »

We didn't realise the first time around what we were really voting on.

Yes and now that we do, I'm voting no.

CtrlSource

molloyjh wrote: »

So Plan B is just Plan A....again. Not much of a Plan B, but I agree that this was really the only logical outcome from a No vote. So what exacly is your point? You said that they lied when they said they had no Plan B, but a re-hash of Plan A is not really a Plan B at all, its just a re-hash of Plan A (which was Plan B itself to the Constitution anyway!). Plan B suggests an alternate plan, not the same one.

So we're both agreed that re-running the vote was the likely (or logical in your eyes) outcome from a No vote.

The alternative plan is to ignore the Irish and press ahead with Lisbon. Not in the spirit of the EU and its tradition of unanimity and hence won’t get the support of some smaller nations, as well as the Scandinavians and others who don't like seeing small countries bullied.

That is nothing more than opinion. It may well be fair to say that if the vast majority of the EU wants something and a negligible amount (like say 0.2% as a "random" proportion) are blocking it then there may be a certain amount of pressure applied to the 0.2% to fall in line with the rest of the Union. After all the EU is really just a body that reflects the combined will of its members and if a tiny proportion of those members are blocking something the rest want its not really an effective partnership. As I said elsewhere maybe if we as a country are so opposed to what would certainly seem to be the will of the rest of the EU we should start to examine closely whether we belong in the Union at all.

Come now, you either agree with our right to vote and its validity or you don't! We only hear this kind of rubbish about 0.2% blah blah when the result is not to the liking of those who speak it :rolleyes:

You also have to remember that the realities of voting No were complete unknowns and now that we know what the consequences are, they are sufficiently severe (IMO) as to require another referendum. We didn't realise the first time around what we were really voting on.

The stench of scaremongering is truly overpowering! Hehe

molloyjh

CtrlSource wrote: »

So we're both agreed that re-running the vote was the likely (or logical in your eyes) outcome from a No vote.

It was likely in my eyes, however there would be a serious question mark over whether or not the Irish public at large realised this. Apparently roughly 3/4 of the NO voters thought we'd get to negotiate a better deal (can't remember what the yes fgure was but it was significantly lower). It would certainly appear that most voters didn't fore-see this outcome.

CtrlSource wrote: »

The alternative plan is to ignore the Irish and press ahead with Lisbon. Not in the spirit of the EU and its tradition of unanimity and hence won’t get the support of some smaller nations, as well as the Scandinavians and others who don't like seeing small countries bullied.

The purpose of the Union is to represent the needs and wishes of the people of the Union. It would certainly appear that the will of the people of the Union is in favour of the Treaty given that we were the only ones to reject the Treaty. The question that needs to be asked is not of the EU tradtions of unanimity, but whether or not we belong in a Union where we are at odds with everyone else in it. We are not the be all and end all, and we certainly aren't a core member of the Union. If we alone are adopting a different stance to all the other members it is us and not them that are causing the fractures in the Union. We are meant to work together for mutual benefit, not for our own. If we aren't willing to do that then maybe we shouldn't be playing ball at all?

CtrlSource wrote: »

Come now, you either agree with our right to vote and its validity or you don't! We only hear this kind of rubbish about 0.2% blah blah when the result is not to the liking of those who speak it :rolleyes:

I whole-heartedly agree with our right to vote. I also agree with the other member states right to hold their opinions on that vote and decide a course of action for themselves as a result. There is nothing wrong with the rest of the Union reacting to our vote, be that to kill off the Treaty or question the result or leave us behind in a two tier EU. The Union as a whole wants to go with Lisbon. We do not (apparently, though that has been argued elsewhere). It is completely okay for the EU as a whole and for ourselves to attempt to evaluate the situation and a way forward. If I'm in a partnership with you and 25 others and you all want to go one way and I don't one of the most obvious solutions is for me to leave the partnership. Why should the EU be any different?

CtrlSource wrote: »

The stench of scaremongering is truly overpowering! Hehe

Where is the scaremongering in what I said? All I stated was that it was apparent that the Irish people didn't realise what would happen if we voted No. You may well have, but you are not the Irish people. Most people didn't see this happening (see the above comment re the 75% of No voters).

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Where is the scaremongering in what I said? All I stated was that it was apparent that the Irish people didn't realise what would happen if we voted No. You may well have, but you are not the Irish people. Most people didn't see this happening (see the above comment re the 75% of No voters).

Why should Irish people have foreseen this happening? There was a unanimity agreement. According to you, the reason Irish people will change their vote to 'Yes' in another referendum is because we are going to be thrown out if we vote 'No' again! How can you expect us to believe that our Corporation Tax rate is going to remain at 12.5% with actions like this?

Note comments from Kaczynski which I agree with.

"Mr Kaczynski warned EU leaders against trying to isolate or pressure Ireland. "If one breaks the rule of unanimity one time, it will never exist again. We're not strong enough for this type of solution," he said."

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

Why should Irish people have foreseen this happening? There was a unanimity agreement. According to you, the reason Irish people will change their vote to 'Yes' in another referendum is because we are going to be thrown out if we vote 'No' again! How can you expect us to believe that our Corporation Tax rate is going to remain at 12.5% with actions like this?

Note comments from Kaczynski which I agree with.

"Mr Kaczynski warned EU leaders against trying to isolate or pressure Ireland. "If one breaks the rule of unanimity one time, it will never exist again. We're not strong enough for this type of solution," he said."

When did I ever say we should have foreseen it? I just said we didn't. And when did I ever say we should change our vote to a Yes? I just said that now that circumstances have changed it makes sense to get us to vote on it again given the new realities of the situation, I never suggested what way that should be.

Additionally I never said that the EU would break their rule of unanimity. Its perfectly legal for them to remove us from the Treaty (as we don't want to be a part of it) and have an internal Treaty with the other member states within the EU. This would have no impact on our Corporation Tax at all, and that is scaremongering to say it would. However there would be nothing to stop the other EU countries from adopting taxation policies amongst themselves and leaving us to our own.

We would still be a part of the EU. Our rejection of the Lisbon Treaty would stand, and everyone elses ratification of it would also. However it also means that the EU can deal with certain issues within the framework of Lisbon and not include us at all.

This is just an option open to the EU now. After all what are the alternatives:
A) Keep going as is - struggle on with the inefficiencies and be in a position where taking on new members is highly unlikely. I would doubt many really people want that, certainly the majority of the EU doesn't.
Renegotiate from scratch - it took 7 years to come up with Lisbon. If that wasn't good enough, I would hate to imagine how long it would take to draft something that would be good enough. If we request something be changed it could have a knock on effect in many other areas.
C) Two-Tier EU - as above
D) Dissolve the EU and reform without Ireland - would any of us really be happy with that?
E) Put Lisbon back to the Irish with a few clarifications - try again and if they say no then we're down to A to D.

If there are any other options then please let me know. And if not, which of these do you think is most ideal and why? I personally think (given that for most of us A to D weren't on the table initially) that option E is the best because its a far clearer choice this time around. Beyond that I only see C as the other realistic option.

CtrlSource

molloyjh wrote: »

It would certainly appear that the will of the people of the Union is in favour of the Treaty given that we were the only ones to reject the Treaty.

It would appear that the elected Governments of many of the others in the EU are in favour of the Treaty. What the people of say the UK, France and some others would say if it was put to a popular vote is an open question. My point being that i believe more countries would reject it if it was put to referendum.

The question that needs to be asked is not of the EU tradtions of unanimity, but whether or not we belong in a Union where we are at odds with everyone else in it. We are not the be all and end all, and we certainly aren't a core member of the Union. If we alone are adopting a different stance to all the other members it is us and not them that are causing the fractures in the Union. We are meant to work together for mutual benefit, not for our own. If we aren't willing to do that then maybe we shouldn't be playing ball at all?

Oh yes, that question does need to be asked. Otherwise they're changing the way they operate at a very fundamental level. You seem to be suggesting that we're really anti-EU and isolationist for voting No. Are you implying that just because we voted against this treaty, that we belong outside the EU? Very extreme view imho.

The Union as a whole wants to go with Lisbon. We do not (apparently, though that has been argued elsewhere). It is completely okay for the EU as a whole and for ourselves to attempt to evaluate the situation and a way forward. If I'm in a partnership with you and 25 others and you all want to go one way and I don't one of the most obvious solutions is for me to leave the partnership. Why should the EU be any different?

Obvious, but incredibly complex to actually achieve. It would be unprecedented for a country to leave the EU, or to be thrown out. i don't see either happening, but maybe it will.

i flat out refuse to have my vote against this Treaty characterised as a catalyst for a potential split from the EU. i voted against the Treaty, it's up to the other to decide what they want to do.

Where is the scaremongering in what I said? All I stated was that it was apparent that the Irish people didn't realise what would happen if we voted No. You may well have, but you are not the Irish people. Most people didn't see this happening (see the above comment re the 75% of No voters).

Taking this 75% at face value (although i have my doubts about its accuracy), what does it mean? We weren't asked to vote based on what we thought might be the outcome one way or the other. With respect molloyjh, there seems to be too much "oh no, now we've gone and pissed-off the Europeans, what have we done?!" in your posts. Just seems a little OTT and premature at this stage, to be planning the funeral of Ireland, as a result of our No vote

Scofflaw

It would be unprecedented for a country to leave the EU

Not quite unprecedented - Greenland left.


cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

CtrlSource wrote: »

i flat out refuse to have my vote against this Treaty characterised as a catalyst for a potential split from the EU. i voted against the Treaty, it's up to the other to decide what they want to do.

...


We weren't asked to vote based on what we thought might be the outcome one way or the other.

There seems to be a running theme in your posts of refusing to let the potential consequences of your decisions inform them.

If potential consequences don't inform your decisions, what does?

CtrlSource

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not quite unprecedented - Greenland left.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Never knew that. That's my new fact of the day

CtrlSource

oscarBravo wrote: »

There seems to be a running theme in your posts of refusing to let the potential consequences of your decisions inform them.

If potential consequences don't inform your decisions, what does?

No so. i just did not let any prospect of our leaving the Union inform my decision on which way to vote, or even enter my head as a likely potential consequence tbh

oscarBravo

CtrlSource wrote: »

No so. i just did not let any prospect of our leaving the Union inform my decision on which way to vote, or even enter my head as a likely potential consequence tbh

The problem with refusing to entertain potential consequences of your decision is that it leads to sub-optimal decisions.