Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2 - Return of the Gombeen Man

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is there a danger of you at some point actually contributing something to the debate, rather than this constant low-level meta-sniping?

Meaning?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Meaning?

What I wrote.

Re-read the post I quoted. What does it contribute to the debate?

dresden8

I think I have contributed a lot to the debate in this thread. Please take my posts apart individually or collectively if you so wish. That kind of dismissive contemptuous remark on your part reflects badly on you, not me.

In that post in question I was merely stating that this forum has moved from a position of saying that the treaty was easy to understand to it was not deliberately made difficult to understand.

How is that low-level meta-snipiing (whatever that means)?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

I think I have contributed a lot to the debate in this thread. Please take my posts apart individually or collectively if you so wish.

I do, and you respond with something like:

In that post in question I was merely stating that this forum has moved from a position of saying that the treaty was easy to understand to it was not deliberately made difficult to understand.

This forum doesn't have a position. It has never had, and will never have a position. Individual posters have positions.

What you posted was a cheap shot, basically bundling everyone you disagree with into a single position so that you can take individuals' points as if they were collective ones, and claim that they have changed.

This is a cheap shot, because it avoids having to confront the awkward question of demonstrating that the treaty was deliberately made difficult to understand, as some have claimed.

dresden8

No, I don't think you have taken my posts apart.

At least the battleground has shifted to deliberately complicated.

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

In that post in question I was merely stating that this forum has moved from a position of saying that the treaty was easy to understand to it was not deliberately made difficult to understand.

Difficult to understand? NO! Difficult to read? Most definitely. They are two separate things and are easy to get confused.

Take an analogy of Shakespeare's writings. If you were just handed a copy of his sonnets without any education in english literature, would you be able to understand them? How about if someone explained what each poem was about and you read them again, would that not make them easier to understand? How about you just read the explanations without reading the poems would you not be able to understand them then?

Once you have a sufficient explanation of what is in the treaty you can then apply the explanation to each individual amendment and understand them quiet easily. If you were just given the treaties without any explanation, people who are unqualified would likely make mistakes in interpreting it. On the other hand if you are given a sufficient explanation you don't even need to read the treaties to know what they are about.

The issues involved are easy enough to understand and that is what is important.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

No, I don't think you have taken my posts apart.

At least the battleground has shifted to deliberately complicated.

You want to explain to me how I can take that stellar contribution apart?

You're not discussing the treaty. You're not discussing whether or not the government should re-run the treaty. You're not discussing anything whatsoever of substance. You're talking about "the battleground" shifting. That's what I mean by meta-sniping. You're not talking about the issues; you're talking about the discussion of the issues.

dresden8

sink wrote: »

Difficult to understand? NO! Difficult to read? Most definitely. They are two separate things and are easy to get confused.

Take an analogy of Shakespeare's writings. If you were just handed a copy of his sonnets without any education in english literature, would you be able to understand them? How about if someone explained what each poem was about and you read them again, would that not make them easier to understand? How about you just read the explanations without reading the poems would you not be able to understand them then?

Once you have a sufficient explanation of what is in the treaty you can then apply the explanation to each individual amendment and understand them quiet easily. If you were just given the treaties without any explanation, people who are unqualified would likely make mistakes in interpreting it. On the other hand if you are given a sufficient explanation you don't even need to read the treaties to know what they are about.

The issues involved are easy enough to understand and that is what is important.

All well and good if you trust the person doing the explaining. There ain't an awful lot of that about at the moment.

RichMc70

oscarBravo wrote: »

The point in having a constitution is that they have to ask. I'm at a loss as to why it's so offensive to be asked the same question more than once.

I'd suggest you spend time in Zimbabwe before comparing Ireland to Mugabe's regime.

Firstly, if somebody keeps asking the same question it becomes annoying in a nagging kind of way and the answer is always going the same as the first. In this case NO.

Secondly, thanks for your suggestion but I've no immediate plans to spend time in Zimbabwe. Just to clarify things, my comment on Mugabe was merely jest.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

You want to explain to me how I can take that stellar contribution apart?

You're not discussing the treaty. You're not discussing whether or not the government should re-run the treaty. You're not discussing anything whatsoever of substance. You're talking about "the battleground" shifting. That's what I mean by meta-sniping. You're not talking about the issues; you're talking about the discussion of the issues.

Hey, you started it.

And I accept you don' like that post. Take the others apart as well please.

oscarBravo

RichMc70 wrote: »

Firstly, if somebody keeps asking the same question it becomes annoying in a nagging kind of way and the answer is always going the same as the first. In this case NO.

Haven't you ever changed your mind about anything? I have.

The people of Ireland changed their minds about Nice, and about divorce, but not about PR/STV. It seems the answer is not always going to be the same, especially if circumstances change in between asking the questions.

Secondly, thanks for your suggestion but I've no immediate plans to spend time in Zimbabwe. Just to clarify things, my comment on Mugabe was merely jest.

It's not funny. There's no comparison - literally none whatsoever. Comparing damn near anything to Mugabe's regime is the new Godwin.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Hey, you started it.

Going from strength to strength, I see.

And I accept you don' like that post. Take the others apart as well please.

Post something of substance and I'll discuss it. Something containing facts would be a good place to start.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

All well and good if you trust the person doing the explaining. There ain't an awful lot of that about at the moment.

Who would you trust to explain an international treaty to you?

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

Going from strength to strength, I see. Post something of substance and I'll discuss it. Something containing facts would be a good place to start.

Oscar I can see you're getting quite tetchy. How about my reply to Fratton Fred? Discuss numbers.

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

All well and good if you trust the person doing the explaining. There ain't an awful lot of that about at the moment.

There are thousands of trained solicitors in this country and there are millions across the whole EU. They are qualified to understand it they don't need anyone to explain it to them. If the explanations given were blatantly false don't you think there would be more than just coir, libertas and sinn fein saying so? Or are you saying you don't trust anyone anywhere?

dresden8

sink wrote: »

There are thousands of trained solicitors in this country and there are millions across the whole EU. They are qualified to understand it they don't need anyone to explain it to them. If the explanations given were blatantly false don't you think there would be more than just coir, libertas and sinn fein saying so? Or are you saying you don't trust anyone anywhere?

Well I certainly don't trust Bertie "oh, there's another ten grand" Aherne or his chosen muppet Cowen. Not to mention the village idiot Kenny. And no, I don't trust that crowd above either.

Did the confederation of trained solicitors come out in support of the treaty?

Same way I don't expect you to trust me either.

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

Oscar I can see you're getting quite tetchy. How about my reply to Fratton Fred? Discuss numbers.

I'll give it a go.

dresden8 wrote: »

Fred, if you want to play a numbers game, how about possibly 5,000 politicians across Europe voted yes while 862,415 Irish people voted no.

Plus 752,451 Irish yes voters. No still wins

So you are saying that the politicians representing 493 million people across Europe can be held over a barrel by 862,415 irish people? Should they not have free will to do what they want? If not why don't they just give us complete dominion over them so we can dictate their policy. That's basically what you are saying should happen. We either agree to try and work with them or we get pushed out of the way it's that simple.

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

Well I certainly don't trust Bertie "oh, there's another ten grand" Aherne or his chosen muppet Cowen. Not to mention the village idiot Kenny. And no, I don't trust that crowd above either.

Did the confederation of trained solicitors come out in support of the treaty?

Same way I don't expect you to trust me either.

Why are you even interested in politics if you don't trust anyone but yourself? Obviously nothing anyone ever says or does will be good enough. It seems the only thing that will satisfy you is to be in complete control yourself.

ktex2

Oh i just knew this would happen. Demcracy in europe? Your having a laugh. Whats going on here folks is simple its just a means for the elite in europe to get more control over the people. Thats it. This is 1984. We defeated fascism in 1945 but the elite hell bent on total control and subjegation of populations found another way..

They don't give a damn about the ordinary joe soap. You can see it in the arrogance and demeanour of merkel, sarkozy and even our own leaders. The only time you matter to them is when you can scupper their plans for total control. They give you enough money to feed yourself and have some toilet roll and your not even gaureented a pension anymore. Meanwhile they make the laws. Judicary system is being phased out for a quasi fascist control system whereby some elite faceless bureaucrats decide how to best implement the death penalty. You'll have no say in anything once they pass this treaty. Your just another number to them.

Its funny how so many people seem so oblivious to it. They hide their fascist elite program behind a series of treaties, nice, mastrict, lisbon and now it seems we're being asked to vote again.

But what is so sinister is how they learn from their mistakes. They say oh lets ignore the dutch vote. 15 milion people said no to it so lets ask the french 60 million said no, ok lets just ignore them they don't count. Now ireland says no but lets keep banging on the door until we get what we really want. They are going to get what they want if the irish buy into this let me tell you and it will be the death of what little semblence of democracy we had left in this country.

I can predict how this is going to go even watching prime time this evening it has already started. Some goverment minister trotted out on behalf of brussels telling us ' we really do care about the peoples concerns now what can we do best to rememdy those concerns so that we can set up our fascist system then discard these concessions once we do so'. Its the same argument that was used against when the french and dutch voted ' these stupid little people just don't understand we'll have another go and another and another until they learn to vote the 'right' way'

When the times comes to vote i know how i'll be voting...

sink

ktex2 wrote: »

Oh i just knew this would happen. Demcracy in europe? Your having a laugh. Whats going on here folks is simple its just a means for the elite in europe to get more control over the people. Thats it. This is 1984. We defeated fascism in 1945 but the elite hell bent on total control and subjegation of populations found another way..

They don't give a damn about the ordinary joe soap. They give you enough money to feed yourself and have some toilet roll and your not even gaureented a pension anymore. Meanwhile they make the laws. Judicary system is being phased out for a quasi fascist control system whereby some elite faceless bureaucrats decide how to best implement the death penalty. You'll have no say in anything once they pass this treaty. Your just another number to them.

Its funny how so many people seem so oblivious to it. They hide their fascist elite program behind a series of treaties, nice, mastrict, lisbon and now it seems we're being asked to vote again.

But what is so sinister is how they learn from their mistakes. They say oh lets ignore the dutch vote. 15 milion people said no to it so lets ask the french 60 million said no, ok lets just ignore them they don't count. Now ireland says no but lets keep banging on the door until we get what we really want. They are going to get what they want if the irish buy into this let me tell you and it will be the death of what little semblence of democracy we had left in this country.

I can predict how this is going to go even watching prime time this evening it has already started. Some goverment minister trotted out on behalf of brussels telling us ' we really do care about the peoples concerns now what can we do best to rememdy those concerns so that we can set up our fascist system then discard these concessions once we do so'

When the times comes to vote i know how i'll be voting...

Shouldn't this sort of rant belong in the conspiracy theories forum?

dresden8

sink wrote: »

I'll give it a go.



So you are saying that the politicians representing 493 million people across Europe can be held over a barrel by 862,415 irish people? Should they not have free will to do what they want? If not why don't they just give us complete dominion over them so we can dictate their policy. That's basically what you are saying should happen. We either agree to try and work with them or we get pushed out of the way it's that simple.

They may represent the people in their parliaments but are they representing their wishes in this matter? Irish politicians overwhelmingly agreed with and wanted the treaty passed. It wasn't what the people wanted.
The "people wanted the treaty because their politicians wanted the treaty" does not follow.

Frankie Lee

sink wrote: »

Shouldn't this sort of rant belong in the conspiracy theories forum?

No

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

They may represent the people in their parliaments but are they representing their wishes in this matter? Irish politicians overwhelmingly agreed with and wanted the treaty passed. It wasn't what the people wanted.
The "people wanted the treaty because their politicians wanted the treaty" does not follow.

Does the budget always represent what the people want. When the government raises taxes should we call for a revolution?

sink

Frankie Lee wrote: »

No

So the nazis secretely are taking over europe and he bases this assumption on half a dozen factually inaccurate statements. He sounds like a NWO, 911 or flat earth conspiracy theorist to me.

dresden8

sink wrote: »

Does the budget always represent what the people want. When the government raises taxes should we call for a revolution?

We don't vote directly on the budget. We vote directly on referenda. I don't see the analogy.

tolosenc

dresden8 wrote: »

Fred, if you want to play a numbers game, how about possibly 5,000 politicians across Europe voted yes while 862,415 Irish people voted no.

Plus 752,451 Irish yes voters. No still wins

Yes, but as such a proponent of the 'defence' of Democracy, I'm sure you realise that these 5,000 politicians each represent many constituents. If each represented even 25, the yes side would win. However, if number were nearer 25000, thus:

Yes 125,752,451 - 862,415 No

That still leaves about 350,000,000 un-accounted for.

And as the saying goes: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

dresden8

sink wrote: »

Shouldn't this sort of rant belong in the conspiracy theories forum?

Well, he is over the top a bit.

ktex2

So the nazis secretely are taking over europe and he bases this assumption on half a dozen factually inaccurate statements. He sounds like a NWO, 911 or flat earth conspiracy theorist to me


Conspiracy theorist? Listen pal if you can't see that these people are fascists then we are seriously in trouble. i made the analogy to the nazis becase thats what it feels like. Whats it called when the people vote and they are ignored 3 times in a row. Any idea? Oh must be a conspiracy then....

Agent J

1)Dick roche either through incomptence or malious lied to the Irish people.

Its been replayed on newstalk and i heard him myself on the last word. He was asked directly if lisbon was rejected what would happen

-The Eu would continue under the current rules

Would there be a 2nd referendum

-No because it had to be ratified before the end of 2008 so another referendum would have to be held before then.

Go read the treaty for yourselves. It clearly states that this is not the case.

So how on earth are we supposed to trust him?

2)If Ireland doesnt accept the Lisbon treaty then the treaty is dead.
End of story. Any other rework will not be the same document and somehow i dont see the other countries letting their politicians letting them pass yet another rework without being consulted. If the EU doesnt move quickly enough then the Tories will get back into power accross the water and then any hope of a reform treaty will be dead.

3)If the treaty has been passed would there even be a consideration of having another referednum to make sure we really meant it? Would there be a group to find out why the people voted Yes?
The resultds arent being treated equally by the government. They are paying lipservice to "respecting the will of the people" while looking for a way around it.


If the government continues to engage in kite flying exerices and then pushes a 2nd referednum then its only going to harden the No side and perhaps alienate a few yes sider people on a basic democratic principle.

Finally. Lets assume we have a 2nd referendum.
Should we have a 3rd? 4th? Which number of referenda becomes ridiculus?(Within a short space of time of course. Asking a question like divorce every 10/20 years is different. )

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

We don't vote directly on the budget. We vote directly on referenda. I don't see the analogy.

But the germans, italians, polish, estonians, latvians, sweedish, finish, hungarians portugees etc don't. They are perfectly happy to let parliament decide but you think their parliaments should be held to account for 800,000 odd Irish votes. Should we overthrow their on behalf of our European friends because they just don't seem bothered enough to do it themselves?