Sarkozy: Ireland needs to vote on Lisbon again

auerillo

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I don't get this part at all. How did Sarkozy deny the French people anything? He said he would ratify the Treaty if elected, and he did. What are you basing this 'denial' on? Has there been a court challenge in France that he over-ruled, or something sinister like that? Your comment is completely false, as far as I can see.

Telling the French people he was not going to let them vote specifically on the treaty is denying them an opportunity to vote on the treaty. I used the term "denying" in the sense of not allowing or affording them the opportunity.

Hitman Actual

auerillo wrote: »

Telling the French people he was not going to let them vote specifically on the treaty is denying them an opportunity to vote on the treaty. I used the term "denying" in the sense of not allowing or affording them the opportunity.

It's a completely incorrect use of the word, but if it suits your purposes to misrepresent the facts, sure why not use it? Libertas did make it fashionable to use these tactics, after all.

auerillo

lenny_leonard wrote: »

It's a completely incorrect use of the word, but if it suits your purposes to misrepresent the facts, sure why not use it? Libertas did make it fashionable to use these tactics, after all.

Its a shame to end up arguing semantics and I am sorry you don't like the use of the word deny. And it belittles you to call it a "tactic".

The OED defines "Deny • verb (denies, denied) 1 refuse to admit the truth or existence of. 2 refuse to give (something requested or desired) to. 3 (deny oneself) go without."

You may not like that I used the word to mean "refuse to give to" but it is a correct use of the word. Can you, in future, send me a private message if you have an issue of semantics, or an issue with the choice or usage of words, as it doesn't add anything to the thread itself and must be boring for others who are interested in the subject of the thread to have to read through this sort of nit picking.

Hitman Actual

auerillo wrote: »

Its a shame to end up arguing semantics and I am sorry you don't like the use of the word deny. And it belittles you to call it a "tactic".

The OED defines "Deny • verb (denies, denied) 1 refuse to admit the truth or existence of. 2 refuse to give (something requested or desired) to. 3 (deny oneself) go without."

You may not like that I used the word to mean "refuse to give to" but it is a correct use of the word. Can you, in future, send me a private message if you have an issue of semantics, or an issue with the choice or usage of words, as it doesn't add anything to the thread itself and must be boring for others who are interested in the subject of the thread to have to read through this sort of nit picking.

Look, I'm generally not pedantic at all, and don't care much for semantics, but the fact is Sarkozy didn't deny the French public anything, whatever way you choose to interpret it. In my opinion, it's unfair to paint the situation that way, but I have no problem with the mods deleting the comments I've made if they're deemed as dragging the thread off-topic.

molloyjh

auerillo wrote: »

Telling the French people he was not going to let them vote specifically on the treaty is denying them an opportunity to vote on the treaty. I used the term "denying" in the sense of not allowing or affording them the opportunity.

But by electing him and not insisting on a referendum the people themselves made the call. Had they really wanted a referendum they could have a) not elected him or b) elected him but put pressure on him to put the Treaty to the public. If they did neither then they themselves "denied" France of a referendum. Noone else.

You yourself have proven that point:

auerillo wrote: »

2 refuse to give (something requested or desired) to.

How is Sarkozy to know it is desired unless it is requested? Was it requested? In fact was it even desired? I have seen no proof of either so how could it, by your very definition of the word, be denied?

Morgans

"Everytime the Government has to make an important decision abut something they should always double check that it is what the people want, even though it was on the election manifesto that the people voted in favour of. Thats nonsense of the highest order."

Again, in a vibrant democracy that would be worthwhile, but where the entire political establishment (bar SF, and at at stretch the socialist party) all seem to unquestioningly go along with the european line. This even after Nice I failed. European politics is simply not a factor in Irish national elections. It is not an issue on which any party can point score. To say different is nonsense.

Even after Nice, no euroscepticism is evident among the main parties, with very few dissenting voices among the parties (McKenna excepted) as they went gung ho to get the Yes votes out. (Kenny and Cowan joining forces) There was no sense from the political establishment trying to understand the worries - the only people who vote No are loo-lahs attitude still persists even after a second treaty defeat. Maybe the Irish politicians will be more careful of framing the treaties the sell after two defeats in the last three. It is interesting to see after a second failed treaty to see how the european election hopefuls sell themselves next time round.

So when an important decision needs to be made, they do need to think about if the public would support the decision. You seem to think that once a govt is elected on a pro-european platform, they can decide what they want. Again, I will say that a national election where european issues are rarely discussed shouldnt equate to a mandate to do whatever they want in Europe. I am pleased that these treaty reverses reminds the govt of this. Maybe they will get the message this second time.

auerillo

Morgans wrote: »

"Everytime the Government has to make an important decision abut something they should always double check that it is what the people want, even though it was on the election manifesto that the people voted in favour of. Thats nonsense of the highest order."

Again, in a vibrant democracy that would be worthwhile, but where the entire political establishment (bar SF, and at at stretch the socialist party) all seem to unquestioningly go along with the european line. This even after Nice I failed. European politics is simply not a factor in Irish national elections. It is not an issue on which any party can point score. To say different is nonsense.

Even after Nice, no euroscepticism is evident among the main parties, with very few dissenting voices among the parties (McKenna excepted) as they went gung ho to get the Yes votes out. (Kenny and Cowan joining forces) There was no sense from the political establishment trying to understand the worries - the only people who vote No are loo-lahs attitude still persists even after a second treaty defeat. Maybe the Irish politicians will be more careful of framing the treaties the sell after two defeats in the last three. It is interesting to see after a second failed treaty to see how the european election hopefuls sell themselves next time round.

So when an important decision needs to be made, they do need to think about if the public would support the decision. You seem to think that once a govt is elected on a pro-european platform, they can decide what they want. Again, I will say that a national election where european issues are rarely discussed shouldnt equate to a mandate to do whatever they want in Europe. I am pleased that these treaty reverses reminds the govt of this. Maybe they will get the message this second time.

I think that is the theory. In practive, of course, the French and British, for example, could never have chanced a referendum as the results were not certain to approve the governments desired outcome. Far better to come up with clever arguments as to why denying their electorates the opportunity to vote was, in fact, more democratic!

Anyone who actually thinks the French or the British would have had a referendum if only they had realised there was a desire to have one is living in cloud cuckoo land. Politics is the art of getting what you want, and Sarkozy and Brown both wanted to ratify the treaty, even if their electorates did not want them to do that. IN their own eyes they would have been crazy to hold a referendum as the chances were it would have been lost.

molloyjh

Morgans wrote: »

You seem to think that once a govt is elected on a pro-european platform, they can decide what they want. Again, I will say that a national election where european issues are rarely discussed shouldnt equate to a mandate to do whatever they want in Europe. I am pleased that these treaty reverses reminds the govt of this. Maybe they will get the message this second time.

I think no such thing, as I have already said. So please stop putting words in my mouth. All I am saying is that it would be ridiculous for the Government to have to check with its people over any and every important decision (regardless of whether it is EU, global or domestic). They stand on a platform and we elect those we think best represent our views. However if there are aspects to that platform that we are not happy with it is up to us not them to make that known. You want everyone else to do the work for you and completely ignore your responsibility in the whole process.

If you are not happy with some of your elected officials policies then tell him/her so and stop waiting to be asked at every turn "Is this ok by you?" or "Do I have your persmission to do something I told you before the election I'd do?". Politicians (as much as I distrust and dislike many of them) have more than enough to be doing as it is without having to take on responsibility for running their decisions past the electorate the whole time too. You have a voice, presumably you have a phone, access to paper and a pen or even e-mail. If you have a view that they are not representing then it is up to you to tell them. Stop bashing them because they don't represent views noone has told them about. Thats just playing silly buggars.

molloyjh

auerillo wrote: »

I think that is the theory. In practive, of course, the French and British, for example, could never have chanced a referendum as the results were not certain to approve the governments desired outcome. Far better to come up with clever arguments as to why denying their electorates the opportunity to vote was, in fact, more democratic!

So you're going to ignore the point re your definition of denial proving that there is little to no evidence that any denial took place and just keep using the word. It must be great to take part in discussions where you can just utterly ignore elements that don't suit your purpose. :rolleyes:

Morgans

molloyjh wrote: »

I think no such thing, as I have already said. So please stop putting words in my mouth. All I am saying is that it would be ridiculous for the Government to have to check with its people over any and every important decision (regardless of whether it is EU, global or domestic). They stand on a platform and we elect those we think best represent our views. However if there are aspects to that platform that we are not happy with it is up to us not them to make that known. You want everyone else to do the work for you and completely ignore your responsibility in the whole process.

If you are not happy with some of your elected officials policies then tell him/her so and stop waiting to be asked at every turn "Is this ok by you?" or "Do I have your persmission to do something I told you before the election I'd do?". Politicians (as much as I distrust and dislike many of them) have more than enough to be doing as it is without having to take on responsibility for running their decisions past the electorate the whole time too. You have a voice, presumably you have a phone, access to paper and a pen or even e-mail. If you have a view that they are not representing then it is up to you to tell them. Stop bashing them because they don't represent views noone has told them about. Thats just playing silly buggars.

Very good rant, but not realistic in the slightest. I didnt say that they should run every decision by the electorate, but when making important decisions they need to take the publics feelings into account and not ASSUME that because they are in power, that they are free to make whatever decisions they want. This is especially easy to do with European issues with the cross party support, and European issues have never to date been a factor on national elections. So waht is importnat issues? Well, of course this is subjective but the constitution thankfully specifies issues where soverignity is shared/given away as important and that the govt has to check with the public.

If you dont like this system, you should call your TD, email them and try to get it changed - obviously enough by referendum.

One recent example, where politicans didnt assume that they had the full support of those who voted for them was after the last election. The greens for instance went back to their party members before going into govt, with Trevor Sargeant resigning. Something to be lauded as they didn't ASSUME that by going into government with FF was what people were actually voting for. It was an important decision within the green party context. Dick Spring and Labour arguably have never recovered from assuming what their voters actually wanted. But I digress.

molloyjh

Morgans wrote: »

Very good rant, but not realistic in the slightest. I didnt say that they should run every decision by the electorate, but when making important decisions they need to take the publics feelings into account and not ASSUME that because they are in power, that they are free to make whatever decisions they want. This is especially easy to do with European issues with the cross party support, and European issues have never to date been a factor on national elections. So waht is importnat issues? Well, of course this is subjective but the constitution thankfully specifies issues where soverignity is shared/given away as important and that the govt has to check with the public.

If you dont like this system, you should call your TD, email them and try to get it changed - obviously enough by referendum.

One recent example, where politicans didnt assume that they had the full support of those who voted for them was after the last election. The greens for instance went back to their party members before going into govt, with Trevor Sargeant resigning. Something to be lauded as they didn't ASSUME that by going into government with FF was what people were actually voting for. It was an important decision within the green party context. Dick Spring and Labour arguably have never recovered from assuming what their voters actually wanted. But I digress.

What was unrealistic exaclty? All I said was that for your opinion to be represented you have to give it. The Government can't consistantly go back to the public on issues that existed in their manifestos, if people have a problem with whats there its up to them to raise it. Sadly, like so many other areas in life, people seem to be refusing to accept responsibility in this area as well. The "someone else should do it for me" ideal is everywhere these days.

And your Greens example is totally off the point as they did not have this as part of their agenda in the election campaign and so had to go back to their members on it.

Morgans

molloyjh wrote: »

What was unrealistic exaclty? All I said was that for your opinion to be represented you have to give it. The Government can't consistantly go back to the public on issues that existed in their manifestos, if people have a problem with whats there its up to them to raise it. Sadly, like so many other areas in life, people seem to be refusing to accept responsibility in this area as well. The "someone else should do it for me" ideal is everywhere these days.

And your Greens example is totally off the point as they did not have this as part of their agenda in the election campaign and so had to go back to their members on it.

Yes, and the nations opinion was given in the last Nice and Lisbon treaty, yet there appears to be no appetite from the political establishment to inculcate a euro-scepticism into their policies. Politicans are professional politicans. Their job is to represent their electorate.

The vast majority of electorate have to live their own lives and are, as have been said previously, apathetic regarding politics. It is unrealistic that the majority of people who are busy trying to do their best for themselves and their families can continually confirm/argue with politicans on all issues. Those who do, the small number that do, should be congratulated. Its one of the reasons why democracy is not as direct as it should be, I suppose.

The apathy is something that politicans can even exploit. Complex documents to vote on that even politicans believe you would have to be an idiot to read. Maybe they assumed that such a document would stop people from turning out. Maybe they thought that in such circumstances the electorate would rely on their politicans to steer them on the best route.

The greens wouldnt commit to going into goverment with FF despite having the electoral position of trying to do what they could to implement their policies. Trevor Sargeant said that he would not lead the greens into govt with FF, and he resigned. Where there was an ambiguity as what was that their voters actually wanted, they checked with all their party members. I did say it was a digression, but it is an example of a party establishment not simply assuming that their voters actaully wanted.

As for the public resigning their respsonsibility, there has been scant evidence after Lisbon and very little evidence after Nice that the govt is following through on its responsibility of taking the publics views on europe on board.

is_that_so

Morgans wrote: »

One recent example, where politicans didnt assume that they had the full support of those who voted for them was after the last election. The greens for instance went back to their party members before going into govt, with Trevor Sargeant resigning. Something to be lauded as they didn't ASSUME that by going into government with FF was what people were actually voting for. It was an important decision within the green party context. Dick Spring and Labour arguably have never recovered from assuming what their voters actually wanted. But I digress.

Although off topic it highlights another problem with politics in this country; the self-serving cynicism of political parties and explains more easily why Labour got their comeuppance. Had Trev just resigned and not become Junior Junior Minister for something or other then it would have been a gesture to be admired and not just a get-out. Even so heir decision was to address those who are members of their party and not the many, many others who did not vote for them just to sign up a FF Govt.


The question of addressing the electorate is one I support but one I believe that is better provided through education,as I've commented elsewhere. Determining what is or is not important runs the risk of being hostage to the multitude of vested interests and in my view is not in any way democratically representative.

molloyjh

Morgans wrote: »

Yes, and the nations opinion was given in the last Nice and Lisbon treaty, yet there appears to be no appetite from the political establishment to inculcate a euro-scepticism into their policies. Politicans are professional politicans. Their job is to represent their electorate.

The vast majority of electorate have to live their own lives and are, as have been said previously, apathetic regarding politics. It is unrealistic that the majority of people who are busy trying to do their best for themselves and their families can continually confirm/argue with politicans on all issues. Those who do, the small number that do, should be congratulated. Its one of the reasons why democracy is not as direct as it should be, I suppose.

The apathy is something that politicans can even exploit. Complex documents to vote on that even politicans believe you would have to be an idiot to read. Maybe they assumed that such a document would stop people from turning out. Maybe they thought that in such circumstances the electorate would rely on their politicans to steer them on the best route.

The greens wouldnt commit to going into goverment with FF despite having the electoral position of trying to do what they could to implement their policies. Trevor Sargeant said that he would not lead the greens into govt with FF, and he resigned. Where there was an ambiguity as what was that their voters actually wanted, they checked with all their party members. I did say it was a digression, but it is an example of a party establishment not simply assuming that their voters actaully wanted.

As for the public resigning their respsonsibility, there has been scant evidence after Lisbon and very little evidence after Nice that the govt is following through on its responsibility of taking the publics views on europe on board.

Voter apathy is a problem with the people and blaming the politicians for it, I think, is highly unfair. The whole point of deocracy is that we can use our vote, our position of power, to ensure that our politicians do what we want them to do and not the other way around. If we don't use that system effectively then we can't blamce the politicians for the results.

Just a quick note: Its been brought to my attention that I've been a bit combative on these threads. If thats the case, then I apologise to anyone I may have annoyed/offended. It was never my intention. I've enjoyed these forums because the discussions are generally very ruly and respectful unlike other forums so if I've done anything to sabotage that then I'm sorry.

is_that_so

Morgans wrote: »

As for the public resigning their respsonsibility, there has been scant evidence after Lisbon and very little evidence after Nice that the govt is following through on its responsibility of taking the publics views on europe on board.

I am actually pleased to see that there is scant evidence. It is a time for reflection as they say. Incidentally the Govt have commissioned a poll to look at clarifying why votes were cast as they were. Given our present woes and the Lisbon fallout it makes very good sense for politicians not to be seen or heard from for a few weeks. Cowen, Coughlan(God help us) or Martin reaching for the nearest microphone is in no-one's interest for now.

oscarBravo

On the whole subject of the French being "denied" a referendum on the Lisbon treaty: how many previous European treaties have been put to a referendum in France, and how many have not?

Wolftone378

Got an email this morning from the Irish Antiwar Movement. They are holding a rally at government buildings on Merion Sq. at half twelve on Monday to greet Mr. Sarkozy. I would expect many "No" supporters to be there but, I also know some people who voted "Yes" who are not amused with Mr. Sarkozy's disrespect of the will of the Irish people as expressed in the Lisbon referendum. They will vote "No" the next time around. He will probably do more damage by coming here than he would by staying home with his mouth shut!

is_that_so

Wolftone378 wrote: »

Got an email this morning from the Irish Antiwar Movement. They are holding a rally at government buildings on Merion Sq. at half twelve on Monday to greet Mr. Sarkozy. I would expect many "No" supporters to be there but, I also know some people who voted "Yes" who are not amused with Mr. Sarkozy's disrespect of the will of the Irish people as expressed in the Lisbon referendum. They will vote "No" the next time around. He will probably do more damage by coming here than he would by staying home with his mouth shut!

The French currently hold the EU Presidency and he would be expected to visit anyway at some stage as he would all the EU countries.
While I am on this, this "I know a man who's heard of another man who knows loads of people who think they are right" argument really don't hold much sway at all.
I personally know a lot of people but hand on heart I have no idea how they did/would vote in any future referenda or anything else for that matter.

Hitman Actual

Wolftone378 wrote: »

Got an email this morning from the Irish Antiwar Movement. They are holding a rally at government buildings on Merion Sq. at half twelve on Monday to greet Mr. Sarkozy. I would expect many "No" supporters to be there but, I also know some people who voted "Yes" who are not amused with Mr. Sarkozy's disrespect of the will of the Irish people as expressed in the Lisbon referendum. They will vote "No" the next time around. He will probably do more damage by coming here than he would by staying home with his mouth shut!

You should point those original Yes voters to this post. Sarkozy's comments may have been stupid in the extreme, but in general the reaction hasn't been quite as 'disrespectful' as you're suggesting.

Edit to add: I actually agree that more harm than good may come of his visit. The Times today suggests that the government are wary of the reaction to his visit (no e-links, sorry).

Pangea

It is ridiclous that we may have to vote again ,it takes away the whole purpose of voting in the first place , It should be illegal to have re vote on a topic like this, we are being bullied into what other people want.
:mad:

genericgoon

Pangea wrote: »

It is ridiclous that we may have to vote again ,it takes away the whole purpose of voting in the first place , It should be illegal to have re vote on a topic like this, we are being bullied into what other people want.
:mad:

So I assume you think divorce should still be illegal? Or does there just need to be a certain period between votes? Should the EU just sit on its hands then for a few years with its outdated system?

Pangea

genericgoon wrote: »

So I assume you think divorce should still be illegal? Or does there just need to be a certain period between votes? Should the EU just sit on its hands then for a few years with its outdated system?

U are going off topic.
Why is their a vote in the first place if the EU wont accept what the voters have chosen ,and what was chosen was a NO vote!

genericgoon

Pangea wrote: »

U are going off topic.
Why is their a vote in the first place if the EU wont accept what the voters have chosen ,and what was chosen was a NO vote!

The EU has (probably) one country who have not ratified the treaty and 26 who have said Yes , according to their repsective constitutional processes. Now the EU could just scrap the Treaty or try some other solution. OR they could get the one country who said No to have another referendum. Its could yield a simple solution to a rather complex problem if we vote Yes. If the Irish people voted No based on legitimate reasons then a NO vote is a formality surely and then we shall see if the EU is really an evil totalitarian empire :rolleyes: And what government is going to risk the wrath of its people by asking a third time?You only need to look at the gains of SF and losses of the main parties to see what this would do. Until the EU/government outright ignores our desicion and pushes LT ahead anyways, it is still democracy.

latenia

It's very unfortunate for the 'Yes side' that, of all European leaders to be coming here at this time as EU president, it's Sarkozy. There's something intensely unlikable about the man-his arrogance, vanity, lack of self-awareness etc. (This is before you even begin to consider his politics.)
His comment last week about being president of Europe (technically true but he didn't mean it in the right spirit) is only going to enrage moderates here in a country where he would be laughed out of politics.
I couldn't see some genial Scandinavian getting the kind of reaction he'll face next week.

murphaph

molloyjh wrote: »

See my above point re the fact that the idea of a Constitution alone provoked opposition in France which is why the Constitution was abandoned.

It wasn't abandoned. It was rehashed as the Treaty of Lisbon which attempts to deliver virtually the same substance but through amendment of previous treaties. The french and dutch said no to the constitution so the EU elite rewrote it to make sure it wouldn't have to face referendum in those countries again. Even many yes supporters acknowledge that the Lisbon Treaty was written in this way. They may not see anything sinister in it but they acknowledge it to be true.

molloyjh wrote: »

So essentially what you are saying is that the politicians should know that significant opposition exists despite the fact that the significant opposition make no attempt to make themselves heard?

Erm, we made ourselves heard in the simplest way possible-we held a referendum which is about to be ignored and re-run if I know my onions. We spoke-the political elite of this country and the EU don't want to listen (to us, the french or the dutch...or british for that matter-the Lisbon treaty would surely sink if put to the british public).

molloyjh wrote: »

I again refer you to my above point re the abandonment of responsibility that is becoming ever more clear in Western democracy. If a politician is running for election says he is going to do A but the public want him to do B, yet they elect him without telling him they want B, is it not fair for the politician to assume that the people want A? If they are supporting him and not telling him otherwise what other conclusion can he come to? And if he should be checking back with the people, when does he check back and when not? Will he ever get anything done in that case? Its madness to suggest the people should get what they want if they are keeping what they want secret from the people who make it happen.

We didn't keep this issue secret from our political leaders. We have told them how we feel about this treaty and we are about to be told to vote again...and vote 'right'. Frankly I'm sick and tired of self serving politicians feeding from the trough and shafting the rest of us into a world I want no part of.

What part of NO do the political elite not understand? Three NO votes on the constitution/Lisbon and the steamroller rolls on!

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

The french and dutch said no to the constitution so the EU elite rewrote it to make sure it wouldn't have to face referendum in those countries again.

I'm seeing the term "EU elite" bandied about a lot. Let me get this straight: are we classifying our elected officials and a handful of DFA civil servants as the "EU elite" now?

We have told them how we feel about this treaty...

For the most part, it seems that how we feel about it is "huh?"

...and we are about to be told to vote again...and vote 'right'.

But you're going to vote "no" again, right? So what's the problem?

Three NO votes on the constitution/Lisbon and the steamroller rolls on!

How many "yes" votes?

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm seeing the term "EU elite" bandied about a lot. Let me get this straight: are we classifying our elected officials and a handful of DFA civil servants as the "EU elite" now?

Our elected officials have been known to feather their own nests at the expense of the public before.

oscarBravo wrote: »

But you're going to vote "no" again, right? So what's the problem?

If the yes vote carried and you were told to vote again because you voted 'wrong' you'd be peeved. Admit it!

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many "yes" votes?

None by referendum and given that the irish, dutch and french governments and main parties were/are all pro-Lisbon/Constitution yet the PEOPLE of all three nations voted NO to these things is suggestive to me that representative democracy is failing many of the nations who won't be holding a referendum on this subject.

oscarBravo

murphaph wrote: »

Our elected officials have been known to feather their own nests at the expense of the public before.

Some of them have, sure. Are we classifying them all as "EU elite" on that basis?

If the yes vote carried and you were told to vote again because you voted 'wrong' you'd be peeved. Admit it!

I don't recall anyone saying that we voted "wrong".

It's just silly sophistry to talk about being "told" to vote again if we'd voted in favour of ratification. The EU has a plan for its future development. We (the people) refused to ratify a treaty which we (our representatives) negotiated, and we haven't given any useful feedback as to why we rejected it. We're in a period of reflection, at the end of which we may or may not have an opportunity to revisit the decision on whether to ratify.

If we had ratified, why would we vote again?

None by referendum...

You might want to check your facts there.

molloyjh

murphaph wrote: »

It wasn't abandoned. It was rehashed as the Treaty of Lisbon which attempts to deliver virtually the same substance but through amendment of previous treaties. The french and dutch said no to the constitution so the EU elite rewrote it to make sure it wouldn't have to face referendum in those countries again. Even many yes supporters acknowledge that the Lisbon Treaty was written in this way. They may not see anything sinister in it but they acknowledge it to be true.


Erm, we made ourselves heard in the simplest way possible-we held a referendum which is about to be ignored and re-run if I know my onions. We spoke-the political elite of this country and the EU don't want to listen (to us, the french or the dutch...or british for that matter-the Lisbon treaty would surely sink if put to the british public).


We didn't keep this issue secret from our political leaders. We have told them how we feel about this treaty and we are about to be told to vote again...and vote 'right'. Frankly I'm sick and tired of self serving politicians feeding from the trough and shafting the rest of us into a world I want no part of.

What part of NO do the political elite not understand? Three NO votes on the constitution/Lisbon and the steamroller rolls on!

Have you even bothered to really read my posts at all or are you deliberately trying to misrepresent my points? The idea of a Constitution was formed to try and simplify previous treaties, introduce reforms and formalise certain elements such as the flag and song etc. It was the use of the term Constitution and the other almost national type changes that sparked fears of a lose of sovereignty in France. It was these issues that were addressed and the reforms were introduced in the form of a Treaty. If this "EU elite" you are referring to were so interested in deceiving everyone why on earth did they bother simplifying the changes and previous treaties into a Constitution. It makes no sense.

In terms of the objections to the Treaty itself I was referring to what we had been discussing previosuly, which was the other EU member states, not Ireland.

I know I apologised for being combative, but when my posts are being so blatantly taken out of context its hard not to get a little frustrated. I think I'm done with this discussion at this stage. Its going nowhere and I may as well be banging my head against a brick wall.

Some_Person

The nerve of Barroso and Sarkosy, trying to bully and threaten us out of our freedom.We said NO, we mean it and it's final.