Are we that blind and forgetful?

seamus

Villain wrote: »

Do you usually agree to sign off on legal documents you don't understand or take the word of people you don't trust that you should sign off on them

No, I read the friggin' things before I sign them. :rolleyes:

It wasn't rocket science. If you could read, you could understand it.

Very early on, a Libertas cohort came out and said, "I'm a big rich businessman. I've read this and it makes no sense. So don't bother reading it, it's nonsensical".

And a lot of people seemed to listen. Without fail, every single person who told me that they didn't know what it was about or didn't understand it, hadn't read a single piece of literature about it.

JoeTheDumber

seamus wrote: »

Sinn Féin.

Major?

seamus wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything? If Biffo didn't read it, that's his problem. .

Oh, I could not care less. However for FF to come out and say the NO voters were uninformed is a bit of a joke given his statement. And I my opinion, FF are operating with a gun to their head. They don't want a EU superstate any more than the rest of us, however the old "power of the purse" is working at its fullest. The international bankers could throw a small country like this into turmoil is one day, they know that.

seamus wrote: »

The reasons for the no vote given ranged from, "I don't understand it" to "I don't want my child conscripted".

My reasons are listed in the post above.

JoeTheDumber

seamus wrote: »

It wasn't rocket science. If you could read, you could understand it.

.

I'm not sure if you are naive or playing dumb, however what you read was a legal document, and as a result the words do not mean what you think. Why do you think most documents have preambles? Give even one passage to 5 different lawyers and you will get five completely and often contradictory answers.

Villain

seamus wrote: »

No, I read the friggin' things before I sign them. :rolleyes:

It wasn't rocket science. If you could read, you could understand it.

Very early on, a Libertas cohort came out and said, "I'm a big rich businessman. I've read this and it makes no sense. So don't bother reading it, it's nonsensical".

And a lot of people seemed to listen. Without fail, every single person who told me that they didn't know what it was about or didn't understand it, hadn't read a single piece of literature about it.

Well Seamus I read it and I didn't understand it all and I can assure you while I may not be a rocket scientist I am quite intelligent.

And seeing as though the Referendum commission were unsure on aspects of it maybe you should look to get involved with them when the next vote comes if you understood it all

seamus

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

However for FF to come out and say the NO voters were uninformed is a bit of a joke given his statement.

Except that it wasn't FF. It was an independent poll. Agreeing that voters were uninformed would have been an admission of failure on FF's part. And we know they don't like to admit failure.

And I my opinion, FF are operating with a gun to their head. They don't want a EU superstate any more than the rest of us

I fail to see how an "EU Superstate" has any relevance to Lisbon.

oscarBravo

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are naive or playing dumb, however what you read was a legal document, and as a result the words do not mean what you think. Why do you think most documents have preambles? Give even one passage to 5 different lawyers and you will get five completely and often contradictory answers.

Bye bye, casey.

Villain

The following is the speech Declan Ganley delivered at dinner last night in honour of Czech President Vaclav Klaus.

Mr. President, Madam First Lady, Mr Ambassador, Ladies and Gentleman, good evening, and thank you for coming;

When the current President, Nicolas Sarkozy, visited Ireland in the summer, after our referendum, he was outspokenly on the minority losing side. Yet we in Ireland ensured he talked freely to those he wanted to meet, including those who had won and represented the majority. You, as leader of the country hosting the next Presidency of Europe, from January, have had more difficulty, but happily you join us for this event tonight which is immensely important for my guests and for myself and for the majority of the Irish electorate.

We gather here this evening, Mr. President, from across Ireland and many nations of Europe, in your honour and with great pleasure we add our voices to those who have welcomed both you and your lovely wife to our country.

We greatly appreciate your friendship.

We honour you for your record.

We thank you for your decency towards us, the dignity in which you hold our Democracy, and the undoubted respect you have for our independence of thought and of action. In the wild days of storm and stress that have beset not just this country but Europe and wider world since our summer referendum, our attitude has been a national strength to us in which we hope you join. It is our determination to share that spirit within Europe.

Because of your leadership, your country is a better, freer, more prosperous and peaceful place. And you, at its heart, have a clear record of standing by your principles. One of these has been that you have been a friend to those who love democracy and freedom.

You have been a consistent voice against tyranny and oppression, immediately appealing to the Irish mind and heart, and for this we feel honoured that you are here tonight.

You have come here tonight because unlike some voices we have recently heard from Brussels, you value democracy above all else.

You heard the voice of the Irish people in June, and you have come here to respect and heed it, and for that we are grateful.

You have come here also, because like us, you have come to realise that Europe is being undermined by an elite group in Brussels who are on the verge of abandoning permanently Europe's experiment with democracy. It was the great achievement of the Irish Referendum Campaign to lay bare democratic deficit that currently lays at Brussels core. To highlight this deficit was our main purpose and it remains our main purpose now. The response of Europe to the straightforward sovereign declaration of our people, in rejecting the Lisbon Treaty, was immediate and authoritarian. Leaders in Europe expressed a view that was a denial of the popular vote. It was falsely manufactured by the same elite group and it’s abundantly clear they remain a threat to democracy’s future in Europe.

For much of your life you have watched such threats becoming manifest. They have a simple and suffocating purpose in which the democratic will of free peoples is overridden by elite. Their interest is single-minded and narrow. They pursue versions of progress that suit them and keep them in power. Their version of progress is made up of vague promises of an illusory 'better future'. That future belongs to them and is exclusive. It does not belong to the people of Europe.

You saw the discontent which that action breeds. You saw its results. You led the fight against it.

Here in Ireland, we became in June the third country democratically to reject the anti-democratic path that our leaders in Brussels have attempted to force upon us.

We rejected a Treaty that would have led us down a path towards rule by bureaucracy. We threw it out. And that part of what we did is over.

We rejected the idea of an unelected President.

We rejected the idea of a Europe directed by periodic prompts from the politicians around whom the bureaucrats were running rings.

Ireland said that it did not want an occasional voice at the table where decisions were made. It wanted the people of Europe to control that table much more directly.

We rejected the idea of our elected Parliament having only token power.

We rejected the idea of placing more power in the hands of a Commission driven by a mixture of private ideologies, a Commission that never needed to answer to the people they ruled.

We did not vote against Europe.

We rejected it because we Irish are truly European, we are European to the Core. We have suffered our own indignities. We have fought for our right to be heard. We know the value of Democracy. As Jefferson said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Vigilance sometimes includes reading the Treaties we are being asked to sign.

We knew others in Europe felt the same. We know that people in your country feel the same.

We rejected the Treaty because we did not want the voices of our brothers and sisters in France and the Netherlands be ignored, or see their wishes discarded.

The continued centralization of power in Brussels is not in itself a worthy goal.

We believed that our rights are our own to assert.

That our values are our own to choose.

And that our economies should be free and flexible in order to compete.

We did not reject the idea that together in Europe, we are stronger.

We did not reject your friendship, or the friendship of any nation in the Union.

Our vote should be seen in that light.

It was not a vote to disengage from Europe. It was a vote to change and correct Europe's course for the better. It was a vote to make Europe legitimate by making it properly democratic.

We need to change the balance in Brussels between the unelected elite and elected representatives.

Further integration is a good and worthy objective, but it needs to be agreed. We, with all the citizens of Europe, must sanction it democratically.

We do not want to see more power given to an organization that has, on so many occasions, shown its contempt for democracy.

The contempt was so great that before a single vote was cast in our
referendum, the European Parliament voted not to respect the result.

That contempt has continued every day since the vote on June 12th.

It is a contempt exemplified by a Commission that has continued to plan the
Treaty's implementation in defiance of our democratic voice.

That contempt is shown by the Parliament. Its members have called for the investigation of our campaign. They have circulated a Report on the Media. Yet they have never considered calling on the Commission to respect and heed our result.

Their view is that any dissent should be crushed. That the voice of the majority be silenced from the airwaves.

They believe that self determination is a theoretical right that people can have, but should not use.

They believe that Democracy is an more obstacle to be overcome.

They act as if they, and not the free peoples of Europe, created our prosperity.

We are told that we should give up more and more vetoes in the name of co-operation. This formula, by definition, leads to coercion.

We are told that we should give up our seat at the commission, while giving the commission more power.

We are told: if you do not do all these things, the consequences will be too terrible to behold. But no one explains this.

We in Ireland, making our democratic decision, have not been influenced by outside interests and organisations. We have simply exercised our democratic right to reject this authoritarian approach. It is though the idea of calling for democratic accountability is a strange un-European and foreign thing to do.

I'd like to remind some that we in Ireland were able to make stands for freedom long before Columbus learned to walk, never mind sail.

In response to any crisis, we are told that if only Brussels had more power, the crisis would be solved. Yet when we work together in a democratic spirit of co-operation, we can and will solve all our problems.

Democracy means compromising, listening to all voices, the submission of power
to the ballot box. And it is a process vastly preferable to the prescriptions Brussels wants us to adopt.

We will not be bullied. We will not allow more power to bigger countries at the expense of smaller nations. Change will not come at the expense of the right of all of Europe's citizens to hold our law-makers democratically accountable.

Mr. President, that is our position, and I believe it is moral and correct. But it is still not the position of a majority of your colleagues in Europe's capitals.

It will not be their position until the people of Europe force them to adopt it.

We need to create a platform for change from which all of Europe can speak with one voice.

There is a need for those of us who hold this view to win a mandate for our position.

Across Europe, the voice of the people has been silenced by Governments who feared the consequences of a free vote.

Next June, in the European elections. We have an opportunity to speak with
one voice, the voice of the people, the true and unheard voice of Europe.

Whether the language you speak is Irish, English, French, German, Maygar,
Italian, Czech, or Polish, we will have the chance to speak together in the only language
that some political leaders seem to understand, the language of the ballot box.

Giving people the opportunity to speak will require a pan-European movement and the courage and ambition for our wn change. Building that movement will be hard work, it may even be impossible. But it is the task to which we have set ourselves. And our reason? It is necessary and the people of Europe deserve better than to be treated with contempt by unaccountable elites.

If we succeed, we will win a mandate that will shake the NON-accountable grip of the Brussels elite to its foundations and chart a better course for a new European Renaissance.

The opportunity exists to give the people of Europe a chance to express their hope and vision for a European Union that works for, and listens to, them.

The mandate we seek is a mandate to change Europe, to change it in a way that can address the flaw highlighted by your predecessor President Havel when he once said "Europe speaks to my head but says nothing to my heart".

I believe that the European Union can attain that heart that it so badly needs.

It is one that can embrace, respect and endear itself to all Europeans. It recognises that democracy is something that unites us all and through which, in dignity, we can work together as one.

It is too early to say whether this can be done, Mr. President, but it is not too late to try.

So tonight, I thank you for coming to our country, and honouring us so greatly with your presence. I congratulate and thank you for all you have done for your own country. And I ask you and your people to stand with us and with the majority of the Irish people and in their turn, the majority of The French and Dutch people also.

We are a country of 4 million people, standing against the entire power of the Brussels elite.

We will be bullied, cajoled, hectored, and then bullied some more as they try to force us to bend the knee and bow our heads in contrition for standing up to them.

But we are the Irish and noit for the first time in our history, we are willing to stand on principle.

We are willing to fight for our right to say no. We will have the voices of all Europeans listened to and respected.

And we need your help.

For more than a decade, yours has been a voice for democracy, reform, and
self-determination.

Yours has been a voice for the rule of law, and for the democratic
process.

Yours has been a voice for economic freedom, and for limits on the powers of over-reaching governing bodies. I ask you tonight to stand with Ireland, and to stand with the principles
We are fighting to protect.

We have been honoured to have you here this evening, and by your genuine
and manifest respect for the dignity and decency of the Irish people.

We are honoured to call you our friend;

And we hope that the friendship between our two small, but great nations, will endure for many centuries to come.

Thank you and God bless you and the people of The Czech Republic.

thebman

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

Major?

Aren't Sinn Fein the only all Ireland party with representation North and South? That's pretty major

podge79

seamus wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything? If Biffo didn't read it, that's his problem.

he came out and said "trust us on this" and then turns around and says nah i couldnt have been arsed reading it... if the highest members of the government cant be bothered to read it and dont know whats in it with all their advisors around to do up summary briefing papers for them what chance had the ordinary man in the street of understanding it?

cooperguy

JoeTheDumber wrote: »

I voted NO. And here's why. The EU is a joke, a corrupt, totalitarian bureaucracy run by gangsters.

Here is a little fact that many people on the No side seem to forget. Ireland was nothing short of a complete sh*thole before the EU. Lets not forget that.

I got all sorts of ridiculous reasons for people voting No aswell. Everything from it will bring in Abortion and Euthanasia to that there will be mandatory military service.

nhughes100

cooperguy wrote: »

Here is a little fact that many people on the No side seem to forget. Ireland was nothing short of a complete sh*thole before the EU. Lets not forget that.

I got all sorts of ridiculous reasons for people voting No aswell. Everything from it will bring in Abortion and Euthanasia to that there will be mandatory military service.

No Ireland was in rag order before we joined the EEC, we were doing fine when the EU came along and no they are not the same thing. Funny little thing about democracy is that the well informed no voter gets one vote and so does the Coir nutcase.

oscarBravo

nhughes100 wrote: »

...the well informed no voter...

...of whom I think I've encountered enough to count on the fingers of one hand, so far.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

...of whom I think I've encountered enough to count on the fingers of one hand, so far.

You need to get out more OscarBravo

oscarBravo

Oh, I've met plenty of "no" voters, don't get me wrong.

podge79

oscarBravo wrote: »

...of whom I think I've encountered enough to count on the fingers of one hand, so far.

ah yes the "its my ball i'm going home" routine in the guise of blame the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the other (in this case 'no') side for treaty ratification failure....

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, I've met plenty of "no" voters, don't get me wrong.

Well I find it hard to believe out of 862,415 people who voted no you have only met 5 that were well informed.

nhughes100

I've only met one person who admitted to voting yes. I wonder is "well informed" being confused with "agrees with me" Them grapes are getting very sour.

oscarBravo

podge79 wrote: »

ah yes the "its my ball i'm going home" routine in the guise of blame the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the other (in this case 'no') side for treaty ratification failure....

I don't remember mentioning intelligence.

Villain wrote: »

Well I find it hard to believe out of 862,415 people who voted no you have only met 5 that were well informed.

I've heard a bewildering array of reasons for voting no, all the way up to someone who was voting "no" because Lisbon would prohibit open coffins at funerals. Those whom I'd consider well-informed "no" voters are avowed Euroskeptics, which - while I don't agree with it - is at least a somewhat rational reason for voting against an EU treaty.

nhughes100 wrote: »

I've only met one person who admitted to voting yes.

Maybe you need to get out more.

I wonder is "well informed" being confused with "agrees with me"

Nope. The vast, vast, vast majority of people I've encountered who voted against the treaty did so either for reasons irrelevant to the treaty document, or - by their own admission - because they didn't understand what they were being asked. Both are what I'd describe as ill-informed. It's not necessarily a pejorative term.

Villain

Do you not think one of the main issue with the treaty is that people couldn't understand it?

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

Do you not think one of the main issue with the treaty is that people couldn't understand it?

No. I utterly reject that as an excuse. There was a deluge of information available, including the very informative Referendum Commission leaflet that was delivered to every house and available in libraries and online. Consolidated versions of the treaties were available, so even the excuse of the treaty being unreadable because it was an amending treaty is threadbare.

thebman

I know a lot of people who voted no because of the commissoner thing which seems to be from Nice and not because of Lisbon but everyone just assumed it was in Lisbon since Libertas said it was and the government never explained that this was in Nice and was inevitable properly.

ChocolateSauce

There is a general concensus that the reason it failed is because voters were misinformed- many said they were afraid of abortion, loosing a commisioner, conscription into an EU army, loss of control of our taxing, etc....All issues which Lisbon would not have affected in any way. Ergo it is acceptable (intellectually speaking) to ignore the so-called will of those voters, because they did not exercise an informed opinion; Only those who voted against it for real reasons have the moral right to be considered, very probably a minority.

Villain

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There is a general concensus that the reason it failed is because voters were misinformed- many said they were afraid of abortion, loosing a commisioner, conscription into an EU army, loss of control of our taxing, etc....All issues which Lisbon would not have affected in any way. Ergo it is acceptable (intellectually speaking) to ignore the so-called will of those voters, because they did not exercise an informed opinion; Only those who voted against it for real reasons have the moral right to be considered, very probably a minority.

I see your logic the problem is most people voted for parties in the last general based on their mandate, however a lot of that has been done away with in the last few months,so should we have another general election becasue they were mis-informed?

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. I utterly reject that as an excuse. There was a deluge of information available, including the very informative Referendum Commission leaflet that was delivered to every house and available in libraries and online. Consolidated versions of the treaties were available, so even the excuse of the treaty being unreadable because it was an amending treaty is threadbare.

Who wrote the consolidated versions, who's interputation was it? If the document was readable like our constitiution you wouldn't need people to put their trust in Politicians, the same politicians who have gone back on what they have said so many times in the past. Have a read of the FF pre-election mandate, would you trust the same people who wrote that to write a document telling you what you are voting on?

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

I see your logic the problem is most people voted for parties in the last general based on their mandate, however a lot of that has been done away with in the last few months,so should we have another general election becasue they were mis-informed?

That would be nice.

Villain wrote: »

Who wrote the consolidated versions, who's interputation was it?

The consolidated versions are not interpretations. They are the actual text of the revised treaties, as they would have looked had Lisbon been ratified, and they are as readable as our Constitution.

Of course, if you don't trust whoever published the consolidated versions, you could always sit down and spend a few days with a copy of Lisbon and of the relevant treaties and produce your own consolidated versions, but you'll feel pretty silly at the end when you arrive at precisely the same result.

If the document was readable like our constitiution you wouldn't need people to put their trust in Politicians, the same politicians who have gone back on what they have said so many times in the past. Have a read of the FF pre-election mandate, would you trust the same people who wrote that to write a document telling you what you are voting on?

You don't need to rely on information from either the "yes" or "no" camps. The neutral Referendum Commission published a layman's guide to the contents of the treaty. It was concise, informative, and contained all the information required to make an informed decision.

sink

Villain wrote: »

Who wrote the consolidated versions, who's interputation was it? If the document was readable like our constitiution you wouldn't need people to put their trust in Politicians, the same politicians who have gone back on what they have said so many times in the past. Have a read of the FF pre-election mandate, would you trust the same people who wrote that to write a document telling you what you are voting on?

Here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge. The consolidated treaties as amended by Lisbon are nothing more than the existing treaties with the Lisbon amendments applied. There is no possible way for them to be biased as they are the original treaties which we are debating. If you attempt to argue they are biased against your pov, then your pov is not based in reality.

http://www.iiea.com/publicationxtest.php?publication_id=33

Villain

My apologies I was referring to the information leaflets provided by the Referendum Commission and others

sink

It's interesting that both the yes and no side appear to be guilty of the same thing. Back when Sarkozy and Barrosso commented on the Lisbon debate in Ireland they were criticised by No supporters of butting in on a domestic issue and were being disrespectful towards our sovereignty. Now the tables have turned and the Yes side are accusing a foreign dignity of sticking their nose where it doesn't belong all while they are being welcomed with open arms by the no campaigners. You are blind if you can not see hypocrisy displayed by both sides.

I am of the opinion that since we are in a political union the protocols for foreign relations with other member stated should be relaxed. What happens politically in one country can impact other countries within the union and so all member sates should be forwarded the courtesy of being free to comment on the politics of fellow members regardless of their position. Common sense and self interest should be the only regulators.

cabinteelytom

An interesting comment, Sink , and even-handed. A significant difference is that Barosso and Sarkozy have formal roles within the EU administration and a more obvious personal and career interest in forwarding a treaty which would increase the voice of the EU [elite] in the world.
Vaclav Klaus has resisted much peer-pressure to hold an independant point of view, which should be respected; and he is a reminder that it is not true that 53% of the Irish people are 'holding back' the progress of 457 million others-many of the others would have voted against the treaty also!
And why are we all being bounced into 'poorly understood' [I'm told] changes before the Nice enlargement has had time to work through ( unfinished business in Romania and Bulgaria, who only get freedom to work throughout the union in Jan09, and the EU says Bulgaria has not got to grips with corruption, crime and Government yet)?
The truth is we should welcome all the inputs from informed foreigners that we can get, and the more varied the better. We have real decisions to make and need to know what are the likely consequences in eastern Europe and elsewhere.

EamonnKeane

cooperguy wrote: »

Here is a little fact that many people on the No side seem to forget. Ireland was nothing short of a complete sh*thole before the EU. Lets not forget that.

I got all sorts of ridiculous reasons for people voting No aswell. Everything from it will bring in Abortion and Euthanasia to that there will be mandatory military service.

Past performance may not be a reliable indicator of future performance.