Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2 - Return of the Gombeen Man

molloyjh

I haven't been around the last few days and after reading some of that crap i've read here I'm glad of it! What happened to the reasonable and decent debate that we used to have? Why are the only no voters here so aggresive and why are they so quick to make rash and unfair conclusions? And why can't they deal with the points at hand. With a view to restart proper debate withe clear and relevant points:

1) Some no voters were ignorant, some were not
2) Some yes voterswere ignorant, some were not
3) The no campaign was overrun with lies and/or misrepresentations
4) The yes campaign was proof if it were needed that our most of politicians are completely out of touch.
5) While we were the only ones to get to vote there has been absolutely no evidence presented here from those that raise the point that there was any popular movement against the treaty or even the ratification methods anywhere on the continent.
6) If any yes voter called no voters in general idiots then they are nothing more than that themselves, and the same applies to no voters
7) People should base their vote on their understanding of the treaty and not others, be they political parties or interest groups.
8) Anyone who complains that the EU is not democratic and then insists the rule of unanimity be obeyed may need to rethink their position on one or the other.
9) And no may mean no to the entire treaty that does not answer the question regarding individual aspects there-in.

There's probably more but I'm writting this on an iPod in Florida so it can wait! I may be able to review this again soon but no guarantees!:D

ShooterSF

O'Morris wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty needs unanimous support before it can come into effect. One member state cannot ratify the treaty because it has been rejected in a referendum. This means that the treaty lacks unanimous support and so the only direction the EU can go in is the direction it would have gone in if the Lisbon Treaty never existed.

The EU needs to scrap the Lisbon Treaty completely and continue to function as it has done since enlargement. If a 27 member EU is found to be unworkable then the sensible thing for them to do would be to offload some of their responsibilities and hand back competences to the member states. That would leave a downsized EU to more effectively deal with those things which it should be responsible for i.e. the successful functioning of a single market.

If the Euro elite is not happy with that then they might consider leaving the current EU as the free-trade area that it was originally intended to be and they can then set up some alternative union of like-minded European countries who do share the same ambitions of a politically integrated federal Europe.

Perfectly phrased reason for a no vote that get's summarily ignored by yes voters who need to believe that only ignorance was the reason for a no vote.

Again you all jump on Choir(sp?), Sinn Fein and Libertas for spinning lies. But wasn't it our own government that promised (well warned) us that there was no way we could run a second referendum? Christ it was on loads of their posters. But it's ok for them to go back on their word? And we're then expected to trust them and their independent commissions "impartial explanation" of the treaty? Also who trusts solicitors?!!!

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty needs unanimous support before it can come into effect. One member state cannot ratify the treaty because it has been rejected in a referendum. This means that the treaty lacks unanimous support and so the only direction the EU can go in is the direction it would have gone in if the Lisbon Treaty never existed.

The EU needs to scrap the Lisbon Treaty completely and continue to function as it has done since enlargement. If a 27 member EU is found to be unworkable then the sensible thing for them to do would be to offload some of their responsibilities and hand back competences to the member states. That would leave a downsized EU to more effectively deal with those things which it should be responsible for i.e. the successful functioning of a single market.

If the Euro elite is not happy with that then they might consider leaving the current EU as the free-trade area that it was originally intended to be and they can then set up some alternative union of like-minded European countries who do share the same ambitions of a politically integrated federal Europe.

Perfectly phrased reason for a no vote that get's summarily ignored by yes voters who need to believe that only ignorance was the reason for a no vote.

Nothing given in O'Morris' post is any form of reason for voting No - it's an analysis of the effects of the No vote. Did you actually read it?

ShooterSF wrote: »

Again you all jump on Choir(sp?), Sinn Fein and Libertas for spinning lies. But wasn't it our own government that promised (well warned) us that there was no way we could run a second referendum? Christ it was on loads of their posters.

What? Just to be sure - are you claiming the government put "there can only be one" on their posters? If so, you're clearly talking about an entirely different referendum, because no government poster (or any other) contained any such messages. I don't recall the government even mentioning a second referendum before the vote - why would they have even done that?

ShooterSF wrote: »

But it's ok for them to go back on their word? And we're then expected to trust them and their independent commissions "impartial explanation" of the treaty? Also who trusts solicitors?!!!

Given you can't even remember what was on the posters used a couple of months ago, you're not high up on the credibility list yourself.

amazed,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nothing given in O'Morris' post is any form of reason for voting No - it's an analysis of the effects of the No vote. Did you actually read it?

Yes I did and the resulting fictional EUs are both viable and preferable to a more cenralised post successful lisbon one.

What? Just to be sure - are you claiming the government put "there can only be one" on their posters? If so, you're clearly talking about an entirely different referendum, because no government poster (or any other) contained any such messages. I don't recall the government even mentioning a second referendum before the vote - why would they have even done that?

My mistake, well I can't find it anyway. May have been something that was said but nevermind. I take the poster comment back.

Given you can't even remember what was on the posters used a couple of months ago, you're not high up on the credibility list yourself.

amazed,
Scofflaw

It's only from personal experience that solicitors come a close second to politicians on the list of don't trust what the say at face value. But that's me and my life experience.

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

It's only from personal experience that solicitors come a close second to politicians on the list of don't trust what the say at face value. But that's me and my life experience.

Funnily enough politicians and solicitors are well down my list. People with dodgy E.European accents pulling up along side me on a deserted road late at night and asking me to get in the car because they want to sell me stuff would be at the top of my list.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yes I did and the resulting fictional EUs are both viable and preferable to a more cenralised post successful lisbon one.

Well, what he's talking about is either an EC or an EEA. That would involve quite a lot of work, since we've been in an EU for about 15-16 years.

ShooterSF wrote: »

My mistake, well I can't find it anyway. May have been something that was said but nevermind. I take the poster comment back.

It was an odd claim...

ShooterSF wrote: »

It's only from personal experience that solicitors come a close second to politicians on the list of don't trust what the say at face value. But that's me and my life experience.

Estate agents, and under many circumstances, civil servants. I thought part of the whole thrust of the No side was that elected politicians were far superior to appointed civil servants, so it's kind of funny that you don't trust politicians and I don't trust civil servants...

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, what he's talking about is either an EC or an EEA. That would involve quite a lot of work, since we've been in an EU for about 15-16 years.

True but so would a two tier system where we would be voting using the old 1 level votes while everyone else would be using the new weighted ones (just an example). Simply put any of them would involve a lot of work and re-structuring but we've already been told the current system is unworkable so it leaves no other choice.
I won't vote yes to make the E.U's organizers life easier.

Estate agents, and under many circumstances, civil servants. I thought part of the whole thrust of the No side was that elected politicians were far superior to appointed civil servants, so it's kind of funny that you don't trust politicians and I don't trust civil servants...

Hmm I never had a huge problem with civil servants as long as they're not given powers above their unelected status (eg. President of Europe). Actually your right that it's a bit of a reverse I dislike the idea of us not putting forward a commissioner at all times but realise that's already the case since Nice (which I also voted no on twice).

Estate agents, car sales people, anybody who needs to learn to manipulate societies unwritten social rules to succeed I guess are always hard to trust

I'm still against a second vote so soon. Precedence shows we can reconsider things but most referendum thats repeated are intermittent (eg 9 years) and are more likely to witness a change in opinion with 9 year olds from the last time now on the register(sp?). To me this doesn't feel like the government is under pressure from the people to have a re-vote rather the E.U itself.

If there is one I'll definitely be out canvassing (which would be a first).

On a last point I was sickened to see one of our M.E.Ps attacking British M.E.Ps who showed support for our vote. As a representative of her people she should have put her personal opinion aside and REPRESENT the people.

I think that's the worst of it that none of our "representatives" have come out to say the Irish people made there decisions are we are going to carry out their choice. Ok they havent passed the treaty and ignored it I'm not talking black instead of white, I'm talking shades of gray. Instead at least to me it seems like they're trying to figure away around the choice of the people. Which is not democracy, it's not a dictatorship (I'm not going O.T.T), it's politics at it's worst though and it's pretty sickening.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I think that's the worst of it that none of our "representatives" have come out to say the Irish people made there decisions are we are going to carry out their choice. Ok they havent passed the treaty and ignored it I'm not talking black instead of white, I'm talking shades of gray. Instead at least to me it seems like they're trying to figure away around the choice of the people. Which is not democracy, it's not a dictatorship (I'm not going O.T.T), it's politics at it's worst though and it's pretty sickening.

Hm. No. Dictatorship is where you ignore the people, or hold a pretend vote. What they're trying to do is persuade the people to change their minds, because they can't do either of the above. So, yes, claiming that's dictatorship is quite hysterical - and I have to admit I don't find "trying to change their minds" particularly 'sickening', although I daresay it would annoy me if the first vote had gone my preferred direction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nacho libre

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hm. No. Dictatorship is where you ignore the people, or hold a pretend vote. What they're trying to do is persuade the people to change their minds, because they can't do either of the above. So, yes, claiming that's dictatorship is quite hysterical - and I have to admit I don't find "trying to change their minds" particularly 'sickening', although I daresay it would annoy me if the first vote had gone my preferred direction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So, you understand where some no voters are coming from.
With that in mind do we ever reach a stage where a decision taken becomes absolute on this treaty?

Also Oscar Bravo, it was Mary O'Rourke who suggested passing aspects of the Lisbon Treaty through the Dail.

I'm not sure if we have different definitions of Democracy.
However, i'll give you my definition - and it relates to the Lisbon Treaty. I subscribe to the argument you and other put forward that if it's found a majority of people who voted no were swayed by false claims rather than the reality of what the treaty entails then yes there should be a second vote as people have a right to change their mind and they should make an informed decision based on critical thinking. However, if it transpires after the second vote that the vast majority of people still reject the Lisbon Treaty then in my view it's dead in the water. I suspect this is where we differ on our definitions of democracy. At this point i think it would be undemocratic to bypass or disregard the expressed will of the people on this issue.
Scofflaw has generously admitted he would feel disgruntled if people sought to change his mind if the first vote had not gone his way. So he can understand the frustration of no voters who feel they've made an informed choice. I'm sure scofflaw and you would eventually come to think what part of yes don't they understand if people who voted no and didn't get their way were arguing that yes voters have a right to change their mind. No or yes must become absolute at some point other wise i feel you are in fact ignoring the will of the people which in my view is undemocratic.

Scofflaw

nacho libre wrote: »

So, you understand where some no voters are coming from.
With that in mind do we ever reach a stage where a decision taken becomes absolute on this treaty?

Not really. Our referendums are on changes to the Constitution. If we vote No, the Constitution is not changed. We can therefore vote again on the same change. If we vote Yes, the Constitution is changed, and we cannot vote again on that change....unless someone puts forward a proposed change whose effect is to reverse that change.

So there is never really a stage where the decision becomes absolute, since any change to the constitution can be reversed if passed, and offered again if not passed.

nacho libre wrote: »

Also Oscar Bravo, it was Mary O'Rourke who suggested passing aspects of the Lisbon Treaty through the Dail.

I'm not sure if we have different definitions of Democracy.
However, i'll give you my definition - and it relates to the Lisbon Treaty. I subscribe to the argument you and other put forward that if it's found a majority of people who voted no were swayed by false claims rather than the reality of what the treaty entails then yes there should be a second vote as people have a right to change their mind and they should make an informed decision based on critical thinking. However, if it transpires after the second vote that the vast majority of people still reject the Lisbon Treaty then in my view it's dead in the water. I suspect this is where we differ on our definitions of democracy. At this point i think it would be undemocratic to bypass or disregard the expressed will of the people on this issue.
Scofflaw has generously admitted he would feel disgruntled if people sought to change his mind if the first vote had not gone his way. So he can understand the frustration of no voters who feel they've made an informed choice. I'm sure scofflaw and you would eventually come to think what part of yes don't they understand if people who voted no and didn't get their way were arguing that yes voters have a right to change their mind. No or yes must become absolute at some point other wise i feel you are in fact ignoring the will of the people which in my view is undemocratic.

I think most of the Yes posters here will quite happily admit that there are plenty of No voters - the core No vote, in particular - whose vote was a fully informed one. We may disagree with them, but we don't think for an instant that they voted No in ignorance.

What we do think is that a large number of No voters outside that informed core made their minds up either expressly on the basis of their own uncertainty (didn't know -> voted No), or voted No on the basis of misunderstandings - for example, not wanting to "lose" the Irish Commissioner we "lost" at Nice.

Further, we think that some of those in the core of the No vote encouraged both these groups of voters through claims that there was inadequate information (although there was more than ever before), through claims that the Treaty was incomprehensible (when it was no more so than any other amending Treaty), or through promoting the various misunderstandings about the Treaty (abortion, conscription, tax, Commission, etc).

So when we say things like "lots of voters voted No in ignorance", we're not talking about the core, informed, No voters. We tend to leave those out because they usually cannot be persuaded - how could one persuade someone who believes in full Westphalian-style national sovereignty that any amount of international political integration is good? By and large, that group includes those who post here and elsewhere on the No side - so at no point are we saying what is frequently, if rhetorically, claimed - that we are calling No proponents here and elsewhere ignorant. Personally, I would only say any person in particular voted out of lack of information, or on the basis of misunderstanding, if that is either what they say themselves, or is evidently the case (where someone says "I voted No because we'd lose our Commissioner").

And, yes, I can fully appreciate the frustration of those who did vote No on an informed basis (to protect national sovereignty, usually), and who now feel that they are (a) apparently being described as "ignorant" and (b) looking at having to refight a fight they feel they've won.

I can also see that it's particularly irksome because all that's actually been achieved is to temporarily halt what appears to be an constant erosion of full national sovereignty. It's enormously tempting, of course, to say that's because you're standing in the way of the tide of change...but it would be equally fair for you to point out that change is not always progress.

Having said all that, I'll add that I'm not any happier about having to refight the blasted thing than the No side is, but I don't find any other alternative acceptable, since all of the other options involve ignoring the result of the referendum. I don't see trying to overturn the result by fighting another referendum undemocratic in the slightest, but allowing the Dáil to overturn the result would unquestionably be - and no matter how "good" the motives one does it for, the precedent would equally allow referendums to be set aside for "bad" reasons in the future. No dice.

Of course, you will point out that we could simply accept the status quo, but unless the other 26 countries involved are happy with that - and they're rather vocally not - there is no status quo for us to "accept", only a status quo for us to "enforce" on our partners, by insisting that they abide by the rule of unanimity even though in this case none of them want to. That's a very poor position to put ourselves in, particularly at a time when we are probably about to breach EU borrowing limits, technically putting ourselves out of the Euro mechanism (that's the same kind of 'technically' as the rule on unanimity).

So, I appreciate the No side doesn't want a return match, and neither does anyone else, but that's what there will have to be.

resignedly,
Scofflaw

utick

people died for your freedom.

VOTE NO ON LISBON 2

passive

utick wrote: »

people died for your freedom.

VOTE NO ON LISBON 2

hmm... if only those two sentences were in any way related...

Agent J

utick wrote: »

people died for your freedom.

VOTE NO ON LISBON 2

Nothing came closer to making me switch to voting yes over the referedum then this.

auerillo

Agent J wrote: »

Nothing came closer to making me switch to voting yes over the referedum then this.

I think this highlights that people base their decisions on all sorts of criteria. I once knew someone who voted for Garrett Fitzgerald because she thought he had "nice wavey hair".

Humans are emotional and many, if not most, decisions we make are a mixture of logic and emotion, in varying proportions. No amount of logic is going to persuade someone who voted either way to change their mind if their decision was not entirely logical in the first place, but based on a feeling that the EU is "good" or the EU is "not good".

I can imagine that many "yes" voters will welcome an opportunity to "Nice" the lisbon referendum, and effectively have a re-run of it in an effort to vote the way they would have liked the country to vote. In much the same way, many "no" voters will be outraged at what they see as a grave injustice as ignoring the original result.

If Lisbon II goes ahead, any referendum promises to be a bloody battle, which should, at least, be great sport to watch.

oscarBravo

nacho libre wrote: »

Also Oscar Bravo, it was Mary O'Rourke who suggested passing aspects of the Lisbon Treaty through the Dail.

Perhaps someone should sit Mammy down and explain how the treaty ratification process works.

...if it transpires after the second vote that the vast majority of people still reject the Lisbon Treaty then in my view it's dead in the water.

No argument. The only question then is: what happens next?

It would help if there was a clear picture of what exactly it is that Ireland has a problem with in the Lisbon treaty, but thus far such a picture is not exactly forthcoming.

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Having said all that, I'll add that I'm not any happier about having to refight the blasted thing than the No side is, but I don't find any other alternative acceptable, since all of the other options involve ignoring the result of the referendum. I don't see trying to overturn the result by fighting another referendum undemocratic in the slightest, but allowing the Dáil to overturn the result would unquestionably be - and no matter how "good" the motives one does it for, the precedent would equally allow referendums to be set aside for "bad" reasons in the future. No dice.

Of course, you will point out that we could simply accept the status quo, but unless the other 26 countries involved are happy with that - and they're rather vocally not - there is no status quo for us to "accept", only a status quo for us to "enforce" on our partners, by insisting that they abide by the rule of unanimity even though in this case none of them want to. That's a very poor position to put ourselves in, particularly at a time when we are probably about to breach EU borrowing limits, technically putting ourselves out of the Euro mechanism (that's the same kind of 'technically' as the rule on unanimity).

So, I appreciate the No side doesn't want a return match, and neither does anyone else, but that's what there will have to be.

resignedly,
Scofflaw

With all respect to a well thought out response the problem I find here is as you and many others see it there is no other option than to have a re-vote due to outside wishes etc. Which, fair enough may be cause for a re-vote to some and I'm sure there are other reasons why you feel that it's the only possible action as the no vote has simply stopped the wishes of many dead in their tracks.

However, from my point of view your basically saying a no to lisbon is just not a workable option and the only alternative is to re-vote till "We get it right" so to speak.

Because if life after the no vote's only realistic option is to have a re-vote what options will there be if there was a second one? Logically we'll be in the exact same place. Ok it would probably be political suicide to attempt a third but what other choice would there be? What alternatives would a second no produce that a first hasn't?

When does it stop?

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

With all respect to a well thought out response the problem I find here is as you and many others see it there is no other option than to have a re-vote due to outside wishes etc. Which, fair enough may be cause for a re-vote to some and I'm sure there are other reasons why you feel that it's the only possible action as the no vote has simply stopped the wishes of many dead in their tracks.

However, from my point of view your basically saying a no to lisbon is just not a workable option and the only alternative is to re-vote till "We get it right" so to speak.

Because if life after the no vote's only realistic option is to have a re-vote what options will there be if there was a second one? Logically we'll be in the exact same place. Ok it would probably be political suicide to attempt a third but what other choice would there be? What alternatives would a second no produce that a first hasn't?

When does it stop?

It's not the only option. However, it is the simplest option for all 27 countries and half a billion people - it is also the best option, because it is not, despite the hysteria, undemocratic.

And that is true whichever way the vote goes. If it is another No, as seems quite likely, then we move on to options that are not so simple, not necessarily so democratic, and not necessarily desirable for Ireland.

"No means no" only works if the world simply stops when you say it, which it doesn't, and hasn't. The pressure for reform of the EU is there, and no amount of Irish No stops that pressure from being there. As long as that pressure is there, and we are in the EU, we are being posed a question. It's not a case of "keeping going until we get it right" - it's a case of keeping going while there's still a question to answer. There are other ways the question can be answered, but holding the EU in a perpetual post-Nice freeze-frame is not one of them.

Another referendum is the simplest, best, and most immediate option. Nobody wants it, least of all those who feel they won the first referendum - but it's still a better option than any other, so it's worth trying all the same before we move on to other options.

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Another referendum is the simplest, best, and most immediate option. Nobody wants it, least of all those who feel they won the first referendum - but it's still a better option than any other, so it's worth trying all the same before we move on to other options.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What happens if the vote is still negative in another referendum? Does it mean Brian Cowen gets the chop, as many seem to say? If so, will he risk it?

While we can understand another referendum will be on a tweaked amendment, there is a definite feeling that the government is attempting to manipulate the people into voting the way it wants, rather than listening to the people, and some ask "what are the point of referendums if the results are not respected?"

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

What happens if the vote is still negative in another referendum? Does it mean Brian Cowen gets the chop, as many seem to say? If so, will he risk it?

I don't see how, I have to admit. Unless there's some realistic chance of a vote of no confidence succeeding, I don't see that Cowen would feel even slightly moved to go to the country.

auerillo wrote: »

While we can understand another referendum will be on a tweaked amendment, there is a definite feeling that the government is attempting to manipulate the people into voting the way it wants, rather than listening to the people, and some ask "what are the point of referendums if the results are not respected?"

Obviously it's very tempting to say that the government should do 'what the people want' when 'what the people want' is what we want - but there isn't a single one of us who doesn't equally say the government should 'stand firm in the face of public opinion' when 'what the people want' isn't what we want.

The job of the government isn't simply to do whatever the people at any given moment want - they do a lot of that in the hopes of re-election, certainly, and mostly it involves not making quite a lot of hard choices and necessary decisions. A large part of their job is to do what they think is the right thing to do, and be judged on it afterwards.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Begob

Scofflaw wrote: »

A large part of their job is to do what they think is the right thing to do, and be judged on it afterwards.
cordially,
Scofflaw

So true and so misunderstood.


I'm thinking let the country enter the slow lane and let the no voters complain then.
Of course they'll say I'm scaremongering but they'll say that and prove me right that they have no understanding of human nature.

Remember you pay much more for the use of the Golf club when you play with green fee's than you do if you are a full member.
Why? Because the club is there for it's members.
The club is selfish towards it's members.

Same applies to any group.The new faster section of the EU without Ireland will be a new group that will have less input from us-It will take decisions that won't include us.
That will be to our detriment.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

While we can understand another referendum will be on a tweaked amendment, there is a definite feeling that the government is attempting to manipulate the people into voting the way it wants, rather than listening to the people...

And what is it that you are trying to tell the government that is falling on deaf ears? What "tweaking" of the amendment would you like to see?

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

And what is it that you are trying to tell the government that is falling on deaf ears? What "tweaking" of the amendment would you like to see?

Not much point answering that as far as I can recall the 'yes' voters who post here have all declared that there would be no 'tweaking'/change to Lisbon a la Nice.

It reminds me of what we were told about Nice - we were told we wouldn't need another EU Treaty for about 30/40 years! Not even 10 years later

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Not much point answering that as far as I can recall the 'yes' voters who post here have all declared that there would be no 'tweaking'/change to Lisbon a la Nice.

On the other hand, the No side claimed it could be renegotiated, and that the government were lying. Are you now accepting that you were wrong, or are you just ducking the question?

thehighground wrote: »

It reminds me of what we were told about Nice - we were told we wouldn't need another EU Treaty for about 30/40 years! Not even 10 years later

I'm frankly amazed by the number of things "we" were apparently "told" about Nice that I don't recall at all. That one is particularly surprising, since Nice was regarded as a stop-gap even at the time, and work on the following Treaty was already scheduled at the time.

Mind you, given the dismal performance of the government in the recent campaign, it's always possible they said exactly that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

irish_bob

auerillo wrote: »

What happens if the vote is still negative in another referendum? Does it mean Brian Cowen gets the chop, as many seem to say? If so, will he risk it?

While we can understand another referendum will be on a tweaked amendment, there is a definite feeling that the government is attempting to manipulate the people into voting the way it wants, rather than listening to the people, and some ask "what are the point of referendums if the results are not respected?"

you say the goverment is not listening to the people with regard why they said no , the problem is , the people are not telling the goverment why they voted no , at least not in any coheerant way

krpc

irish_bob wrote: »

you say the goverment is not listening to the people with regard why they said no , the problem is , the people are not telling the goverment why they voted no , at least not in any coheerant way

If they wanted the people to tell them, in a coherent way, of why they voted in favour or against the treaty, then perhaps they should have provided a multiple choice option at the ballot station rather than just yes or no? They simply got a response that they provided options for.

sink

i-bloodhound wrote: »

If they wanted the people to tell them, in a coherent way, of why they voted in favour or against the treaty, then perhaps they should have provided a multiple choice option at the ballot station rather than just yes or no? They simply got a response that they provided options for.

Could that no be construed as dividing the no vote?

Scofflaw

i-bloodhound wrote: »

If they wanted the people to tell them, in a coherent way, of why they voted in favour or against the treaty, then perhaps they should have provided a multiple choice option at the ballot station rather than just yes or no? They simply got a response that they provided options for.

Our problem is really more that virtually none of our No posters seem willing to put forward any ideas on the renegotiation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

krpc

Scofflaw wrote: »

Our problem is really more that virtually none of our No posters seem willing to put forward any ideas on the renegotiation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

'Our' problem? Just out of curiosity, are you more than one person Scofflaw or are you speaking for others?

Scofflaw

i-bloodhound wrote: »

'Our' problem? Just out of curiosity, are you more than one person Scofflaw or are you speaking for others?

Royal 'we'! No, I'm assuming, perhaps presumptuously, that other posters here feel the same. After all, this is where we discuss things...


cordially,
Scofflaw

krpc

Scofflaw wrote: »

Royal 'we'! No, I'm assuming, perhaps presumptuously, that other posters here feel the same. After all, this is where we discuss things...


cordially,
Scofflaw

Did you ever consider that 'virtually none' of the no posters might be unwilling to provide ideas of renegotiation because they feel they are fighting a losing battle here on this thread? I'd also note that 'virtually none' is not none at all. For example, I post for me, I express my opinion and I write in the singular. I have read numerous posts where you speak for "we" and "our". Could it possibly give the distinct impression that an individual poster might believe it's one versus the many? I certainly have noticed that when one 'no' poster contributes that s/he receives lightning responses, almost a barrage, from the exact same people; yourself, sink and oscarbravo. In order to receive the responses you wish regarding renegotiation etc, it might, in my opinion, be wise to be a little bit more welcoming to posters rather than subscribing to, what can appear to be, the schoolyard bully-pack scenario.

cordially,
i-bloodhound