Lisbon Treaty Referendum 2 - Return of the Gombeen Man

dresden8

obl wrote: »

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.

You should read my post where I show that just because a politician wants something doesn't necessarily mean all his constituents want something. If it did, the Treaty would have sailed through the Irish referendum.

Obviously didn't happen.

sink

ktex2 wrote: »

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....

sigh!

ktex2

Agent J wrote: »

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. )

Any number of referendums until they get what they want thats what will happen. It's already happened 3 times. Its the oh you people are too stupid to vote here's some concessions now vote yes. And whats even funnier is the PR game thats already starting the threats ' If you don't vote then ireland will be a mockery of europe etc etc, we'll be thrown out of europe on the edge all because of you stupid little people when will you learn'

If europe turns out the way sarkozy and merkel and the other faceless bureaucrats want i.e total control then they can take it. They say next year will be the referendum in the hope people will have forgotten about the last vote you know the whole passing of time makes one forgetful and forgiving..

dresden8

sink wrote: »

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?

They had their ratification mechanisms, we had ours. Agreed beforehand and unanimity was required.

What's your problem with this concept? This is what those representative governments agreed. By your logic this is what those 400 million people wanted.

Their wishes should be respected.

Agent J

I dont get this numbers arguement at all.

Its irrelevant.

The treaty must be ratified by all member states. Not a majority. Not all but one. Not all but one but sure its 500 million vs 4 million so the 4 million should ratify it regardless....

All of them.

Or else the treaty does not come into existance.

We didnt set that rule or insist on that. That is a rule by the EU.
If it cant abide by its own rules then how can we trust a treaty from them?

So either side playing around with numbers based on things made up on the spot and looking for new ways to creatively show one side or the other... Doesnt matter a damn.

dresden8

Agent J wrote: »

I dont get this numbers arguement at all.

Its irrelevant.

The treaty must be ratified by all member states. Not a majority. Not all but one. Not all but one but sure its 500 million vs 4 million so the 4 million should ratify it regardless....

All of them.

Or else the treaty does not come into existance.

We didnt set that rule or insist on that. That is a rule by the EU.
If it cant abide by its own rules then how can we trust a treaty from them?

So either side playing around with numbers based on things made up on the spot and looking for new ways to creatively show one side or the other... Doesnt matter a damn.

Yes but this 800,00 can't hold up 400 million bull**** arguement has to be hit on the head. It ain't that way at all. We don't know what they want, they weren't asked.

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

They had their ratification mechanisms, we had ours. Agreed beforehand and unanimity was required.

What's your problem with this concept? This is what those representative governments agreed. By your logic this is what those 400 million people wanted.

Their wishes should be respected.

The Lisbon treaty can't be ratified because we are a signatory. They can keep the same treaty call it something else and leave Ireland out of it. You seem to think they shouldn't be allowed do this. They are perfectly entitled to look after their own interests without even considering us, which they will if we become a permanent road block. The only thing they can't do is force us to do what they want. Anything else is fair game.

dresden8

sink wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty can't be ratified because we are a signatory. They can keep the same treaty call it something else and leave Ireland out of it. You seem to think they shouldn't be allowed do this. They are perfectly entitled to look after their own interests without even considering us, which they will if we become a permanent road block. The only thing they can't do is force us to do what they want. Anything else is fair game.

But I thought they were our friends?

ktex2

Ammm the people of france and holland were asked and they voted 'no'. So did the irish. Can you guess what the people of the uk and the rest might have voted. Any idea? When they voted no the powers that be decided to rehash the treaties and present them in a diiferent form hey presto lisbon treaty for the irish. Members of the EU have stated they made it purposefully unintelligable to allow for ' confusion' opening it up to any interpretation that can be made. Even the politicans in ireland pushing for a yes vote admitted they didn't know what most of the content referred to because if you actually read it most of it was referring to previous treaties which most people didn't have time to read through i.e long unintelligible documents with vague and confusing text hiding something else.

The very reason why the governments of europe and faceless bureaucrats in europe DIDN'T ask their populations to vote because they would vote overwhelmingly no to this idea, not because politicians represent their whole constituients. How can that even be possible??? But corrupt power hungry people don't care what their populations think, all thats important is that they get what they are really after and if this whole example of what has happened with the lisbon treaty in ireland doesn't convince people of that then they really have you where they want you.

At the start i didn't think they could be so obvious about doing but these people are so arrogant they do it right in front of the country's eyes. Whats really irking me more then anything is the whole not accepting the vote. That is the erosion and dissapearance of democracy and the way they are acting has convinced many of that.

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

But I thought they were our friends?

Ok lets use the friends analogy. There are a group of 27 friends, 26 of whom want to go on a good night out, one is not feeling great and doesn't want to be left alone. All 26 are not going to stay behind just to keep the 1 happy. 1 or 2 might stay behind and keep company but should the sick 1 hold the rest accountable because they went on without him/her?

Agent J

Sink,

Let them do that.
However i really dont think that is going to happen. I cant see the people of the other countries blinding accepting yet another rework without wanting to ask
"Hang on, Why did the Irish reject this?, Should we maybe look at this ourselves?"

Also the manner in how the rejection of the treaty by both our political masters here and in the EU will speak volumes based on current behaviour.

And hey. Even if they do. That is their choice. I repect that.
I just hope they only have to get asked once.

tolosenc

dresden8 wrote: »

You should read my post where I show that just because a politician wants something doesn't necessarily mean all his constituents want something. If it did, the Treaty would have sailed through the Irish referendum.

Obviously didn't happen.

Well then, democracy obviously doesn't work. If people's elected representatives are as hell bent on pushing the exact opposite of what their constituents want as some people would have you believe, then there are major, major issues. But by and large this is not the case at all.

The only reason it didn't pass in Ireland was because of the vote not being truly democratic. Citizens were either uninformed or misinformed on the treaty and voted accordingly. Democracy states that citizens should be informed on the issues on which they vote.

dresden8

sink wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty can't be ratified because we are a signatory. They can keep the same treaty call it something else and leave Ireland out of it. You seem to think they shouldn't be allowed do this. They are perfectly entitled to look after their own interests without even considering us, which they will if we become a permanent road block. The only thing they can't do is force us to do what they want. Anything else is fair game.

Last reply was facetious I know, but I've been fighting the good fight all night.

Does this mean we should now fear our European Overlords and what they're going to do to punish us?

dresden8

obl wrote: »

Well then, democracy obviously doesn't work. If people's elected representatives are as hell bent on pushing the exact opposite of what their constituents want as some people would have you believe, then there are major, major issues. But by and large this is not the case at all.

The only reason it didn't pass in Ireland was because of the vote not being truly democratic. Citizens were either uninformed or misinformed on the treaty and voted accordingly. Democracy states that citizens should be informed on the issues on which they vote.

And who are the new voting police? Will there be an IQ test? Will uneducated votes be rejected?

sink

ktex2 wrote: »

Ammm the people of france and holland were asked and they voted 'no'. So did the irish. Can you guess what the people of the uk and the rest might have voted. Any idea? When they voted no the powers that be decided to rehash the treaties and present them in form hey presto lisbon treaty for the irish.

This is exactly why the governments of europe and faceless bureaucrats in europe DIDN'T ask their populations to vote because they would vote overwhelmingly no to this idea. But corrupt power hungry people don't care what their populations think, all thats important is that they get what they are really after and if this whole example of what has happened with the lisbon treaty in ireland doesn't convince people of that then they really have you where they want you.

At the start i didn't think they could be so obvious about doing but these people are so arrogant they do it right in front of the country's eyes. Whats really irking me more then anything is the whole not accepting the vote. That is the erosion and dissapearance of democracy and if the way they are acting in relation to this doesn't convince you of what lies ahead once we give into this then we are seriously in trouble.

Are you forgetting that Spain and Luxembourg voted yes to the constitution and if you add up all the Yes and no votes in all countries for the constitution the yes votes wins. Also France had a presidential election in between and the president who was voted in by quiet a significant majority said he would ratify the lisbon treaty if elected. And also Hollands government collapsed which satisfied the electorate as that was all the majority of no voters were after in the referendum anyway. When the Lisbon treaty was ratified through Hollands parliament the electorate barely flinched.

Agent J

obl wrote: »

Well then, democracy obviously doesn't work. If people's elected representatives are as hell bent on pushing the exact opposite of what their constituents want as some people would have you believe, then there are major, major issues. But by and large this is not the case at all.

The only reason it didn't pass in Ireland was because of the vote not being truly democratic. Citizens were either uninformed or misinformed on the treaty and voted accordingly. Democracy states that citizens should be informed on the issues on which they vote.

Really? Show me where democracy states that?
By whos defination of informed?
By what objective standard?

Also leaving that aside... Who fault would that be?


If it was a yes majority would you still be making the same claim?

This is why the yes side will loose the 2nd referendum if it does happen.

Agent J

sink wrote: »

Are you forgetting that Spain and Luxembourg voted yes to the constitution and if you add up all the Yes and no votes in all countries for the constitution the yes votes wins.

The numbers argument means nothing. It is irrelevant.

The treaty says ALL.

See my previous post on it.

dresden8

sink wrote: »

Ok lets use the friends analogy. There are a group of 27 friends, 26 of whom want to go on a good night out, one is not feeling great and doesn't want to be left alone. All 26 are not going to stay behind just to keep the 1 happy. 1 or 2 might stay behind and keep company but should the sick 1 hold the rest accountable because they went on without him/her?

What if the 26 think snorting coke is a good idea? Should the 1 go along with everyone else, just to be part of the gang.

If they told us to put our hands in the fire, should we?

Did you mother never tell you that you don't have to follow the gang?

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

Last reply was facetious I know, but I've been fighting the good fight all night.

Does this mean we should now fear our European Overlords and what they're going to do to punish us?

They're not going to do anything to us you're being facetious again. They'll do what they want to do and they'll leave us alone. Which imho won't be a good thing for us.

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

What if the 26 think snorting coke is a good idea? Should the 1 go along with everyone else, just to be part of the gang.

If they told us to put our hands in the fire, should we?

Did you mother never tell you that you don't have to follow the gang?

Ok well then we don't snort coke. They snort coke without us. What's the problem?

The lisbon treaty by the farthest stretch of the imagination can't be compared to snorting coke.

If your ok with them going ahead without us then why are you arguing with me that they shouldn't be allowed to go ahead without us?

sink

Agent J wrote: »

The numbers argument means nothing. It is irrelevant.

The treaty says ALL.

See my previous post on it.

I was replying to a post about numbers. I probably should have added the qualifier that if the UK was allowed vote there is no doubt they would vote against it but the 25 other countries are just as likely to vote for it.

dresden8

sink wrote: »

Ok well then we don't snort coke. They snort coke without us. What's the problem?

The lisbon treaty by the farthest stretch of the imagination can't be compared to snorting coke.

If your ok with them going ahead without us then why are you arguing with me that they shouldn't be allowed to go ahead without us?

The party lifestyle was your analogy not mine, don't blame me.

I'm not ok with them going ahead without us. There are current treaties in place.

There's a whole other argument buried on this forum about Europe punishing us.

My opinion is that smaller countries would be insane to introduce provisions where small countries, such as ourselves, would be punished for disappointing the big boys.

It would literally be Turkeys voting for Christmas.

ktex2

sink wrote: »

They're not going to do anything to us you're being facetious again. They'll do what they want to do and they'll leave us alone. Which imho won't be a good thing for us.

They'll do what they want to do and they'll leave us alone? Yes this has been demostrated by the way they have respected our vote and left us alone hasn't it?

Yes they do respect us and once we do what they want they will leave us alone, so by that logic we must do what they want or else.....they won't leave us alone...which is what is happening right now and what this whole debate is about.

Im glad to see you put such faith in faceless bureacrats in europe who respect our vote and will leave us alone once we vote the way they want.

So when they get their way i.e the treaty passed they can decide to overturn our own high court decisions bring in the death penalty( in the treaty ) and they can do this whenever they please in the best interests of the 'eu' or the elite in other words. Obey and do as your told and you might get a pension, Speak out of turn and... joe soap will be wondering how the hell he gave away his freedoms.

I can't say i share your enthusiasm for this idea and also i do valve my freedom..whats left of it...

sink

Agent J wrote: »

Really? Show me where democracy states that?
By whos defination of informed?
By what objective standard?

Also leaving that aside... Who fault would that be?


If it was a yes majority would you still be making the same claim?

This is why the yes side will loose the 2nd referendum if it does happen.

obl used the wrong phrase. What he should have said is that academics in the field of democracy have reached a consensus that for it to work the demos must be well informed.

H. Kelsen, Ethics, Vol. 66, No. 1, Part 2: Foundations of Democracy (Oct., 1955), pp. 1-101

dresden8

sink wrote: »

Are you forgetting that Spain and Luxembourg voted yes to the constitution and if you add up all the Yes and no votes in all countries for the constitution the yes votes wins.

Ahem,

As we're continually being told about the French and Dutch referenda and Great Britain's refusal to hold a referendum, the Treaty is not the Constitution. It is something totally different.

Make up your minds lads.

sink

ktex2 wrote: »

They'll do what they want to do and they'll leave us alone? Yes this has been demostrated by the way they have respected our vote and left us alone hasn't it?

Yes they do respect us and once we do what they want they will leave us alone, so by that logic we must do what they want or else.....they won't leave us alone...which is what is happening right now and what this whole debate is about.

Im glad to see you put such faith in faceless bureacrats in europe who respect our vote and will leave us alone once we vote the way they want.

So when they get their way i.e the treaty passed they can decide to overturn our own high court decisions bring in the death penalty( in the treaty ) and they can do this whenever they please in the best interests of the 'eu' or the elite in other words. Speak out of turn and... joe soap will be wondering how the hell he gave away his freedoms.

I can't say i share your enthusiasm for this idea and also i do valve my freedom..whats left of it...

You are mistaking the EU not leaving us alone for our government not leaving us alone. If the government were to interpret the no vote meaning we will never sign this treaty ever under any condition. Then they would have to bow out of any future EU treaty based on lisbon. What they are actually doing is asking our EU partners to wait and see if they can get the Irish voter to work around the issues and sign it under different conditions at some point in the future. If our government were to say to our EU partners that's it lads nothing else to be done, they would leave us behind and would be in the process of setting up a new treaty between 26 of them right now.

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

Ahem,

As we're continually being told about the French and Dutch referenda and Great Britain's refusal to hold a referendum, the Treaty is not the Constitution. It is something totally different.

Make up your minds lads.

I was replying to a specific post which held up the constitution as the same thing as the lisbon treaty. Which completely ignored the yes in spain and luxembourg and everything that has happened in the political sphere of those no countries since then

Also Starring LeVar Burton

I say a Coup d'État is in order lads!
Country is in a shambles, the goverment only want to make more money in order to buy more holiday villas in Spain.
I say we take matters into our own hands and give Hitler II (aka. Cowen) a run for his money.

And before I get a load of abuse hurled back at me, the above was meant jokingly, but at the same time, it is a load of bollocks if they try to get us to vote again.

NO won! Deal with it! And for those saying the NO voters were uninformed and scaremongered into voting that way, grow up and be sure not to head down the political career path (we've enough eejits running the country as is).

NO means NO - Lisbon II is a Sham.

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

The party lifestyle was your analogy not mine, don't blame me.

My analogy was of a night out, something positive. You brought the coke analogy in, something inherently negative and it became your analogy.

dresden8 wrote: »

I'm not ok with them going ahead without us. There are current treaties in place.

And why can't we only partake with what we agreed to under nice, and the rest do whatever they want to do without us? Which is the only realistic alternative to us ratifying this treaty at some point in the future with opt outs or clarifications.

dresden8 wrote: »

There's a whole other argument buried on this forum about Europe punishing us.

Not my argument. I may have said we would get a frosty reception but thats far from them taking out the wooden spoon.

dresden8 wrote: »

My opinion is that smaller countries would be insane to introduce provisions where small countries, such as ourselves, would be punished for disappointing the big boys.

We are not only disappointing the big boys we are dissapointing all 26 states. Infact some of the most pro lisbon states are the baltics, malta and luxembourg. They will probably be more annoyed with us than France or Germany.

dresden8 wrote: »

It would literally be Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Why this treaty benefits everyone virtually equally, can you point out any specific advantages this treaty gives the big boys over the little ones?

Agent J

sink wrote: »

obl used the wrong phrase. What he should have said is that academics in the field of democracy have reached a consensus that for it to work the demos must be well informed.

H. Kelsen, Ethics, Vol. 66, No. 1, Part 2: Foundations of Democracy (Oct., 1955), pp. 1-101

And I agree with that idea whole heartly.

But the problem arises that being well informed is a very subjective thing to try and measure

It is far too easy to claim that the public were not well informed when they vote aganist your opinion and that what it seems is happening.

How do you tell the difference between that and people genuinely not being informed?

And whos responability is it to inform the people?
The government fouled that up entirely.
Dont get me started on the referednum commission...

And would the same arguements be brought out by the same people if the treaty had passed?