Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!

Options
1…910121415…63

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Donald-Duck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭Donald-Duck


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    That's a whole other day's debate... What do you do if you simply do not trust the people who are telling you to vote yes???

    The same guy (Biffo), who is telling you to vote yes on Lisbon:

    Can't run a country.

    Has absolutely no strategy whsoever for economic recovery.

    Was Minister for Finance when all the causes of our current economic woes were being put in place.

    Has surrounded himself with a team of people who are clearly not up to the job of running the country, and have no handle on their brief, in particular, Mary Coughlan and Brian Lenihan.

    If he can't run the country, then how can we be sure that his conviction that we should vote for Lisbon is sound??? Because everything this guy has touched since he had the power to make an executive decision, has been a complete disaster. Remember when he was Minister for Health?!?!?!? He f*cking RAN out of that brief and had left the health service with nearly every branch of workers in the health service on strike.
    Every real political party is telling you to vote yes.


  • Options
    #333
    cooperguy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭cooperguy


    imeddyhobbs wrote: »
    We are the gateway,you used this term yourself

    Try telling Spanish fishermen that they cant fish in Irish water anymore,their government would fall in a fortnight!The french government would be gone overnight!!
    Yes I used the term, except that is not even slighly what I meant by it. We can be used as a gateway to the EU by multinationals, so can many other countries. There are other fishing grounds (even if ours are important) and it certainly would not lead to the collapse of any government. We are not needed by the EU. Unless of coarse you can show some other examples.


  • Options
    #334
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    cooperguy wrote: »
    It was take it or leave it due to the nature of what the vote was about. Divorce only affected the people voting. Clearly not the case here where the whole EU is part of the treaty and where "leaving it" has side effects (there is no side effects on a decision to allow divorce). Anyway, im going to bed now!

    No, divorce or the lack of a right to divorce, effects anyone who is married or who will be married in the future, whether they have voted or not.


  • Options
    #335
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    Donald-Duck wrote: »
    Every real political party is telling you to vote yes.

    And we know the only reason why FF were elected last time, because the opposition were worse!


  • Options
    #336
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    cooperguy wrote: »
    How do you believe the loss of the commisioner would have affected the influence of Ireland? Also by voting No do you not see how our influence is being affected

    Due to the fact that we are a small country with less influence than the majority of other countries due primarily to our smaller population, smaller economy and less politically powerful. Always having a commisioner helps combat this. Not having one even for a period of time diminishes this.

    I would actually like someone to clearly state how voting note no means that we have less influence. Will other countries stop listening to us if we vote no? In what ways will they move ahead? What will the top tier of Europe be doing that we will not if we are in the second lower tier?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Yakult
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,941 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    I'll vote no for the fun of it all.


  • Options
    #338
    cooperguy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭cooperguy


    The commission is like the cabinet of a government. There is only so many good jobs e.g. finance etc. After that the cabinet becomes bloated and inefficient and basically the extra people are just making up numbers. Always having a commissioner but him basically being the equivalent of a back bencher really isnt much advantage.


  • Options
    #339
    whatisayis
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭whatisayis


    That's the question!


  • Options
    #340
    whatisayis
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭whatisayis


    Sorry, meant to reference Mrmoe's comment.


  • Options
    #341
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    Mrmoe wrote: »
    Due to the fact that we are a small country with less influence than the majority of other countries due primarily to our smaller population, smaller economy and less politically powerful. Always having a commisioner helps combat this. Not having one even for a period of time diminishes this.

    I would actually like someone to clearly state how voting note no means that we have less influence. Will other countries stop listening to us if we vote no? In what ways will they move ahead? What will the top tier of Europe be doing that we will not if we are in the second lower tier?

    This "influence" argument is doing my head in. We have less "influence", and we should indeed have less "influence", because we are a small country with a small population. Just like in an election, Leitrim has less TD's than Dublin, because there are less people in Leitrim!

    Why do we want more "influence" or "goodwill" than we are entitled to??? Just give us what we signed up for and I'll be happy with that. This crazy notion that we have to constantly be trying to earn "brownie points" from other EU countries is plain stupid. It seems to me now that in order to maintain "influence" and "goodwill", we have to trade in our right to dissent and to say no when we don't like the look of something???

    On the same topic, we are a leading example of human rights good practice and our constitution has served us well over the years. If any of the countries that are looking down their noses at us, had the balls to put Lisbon to their people, it would be thrown out just like it was here...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    cooperguy wrote: »
    The commission is like the cabinet of a government. There is only so many good jobs e.g. finance etc. After that the cabinet becomes bloated and inefficient and basically the extra people are just making up numbers. Always having a commissioner but him basically being the equivalent of a back bencher really isnt much advantage.

    I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about bloated and inefficient cabinets, useless junior ministeries, jobs for the boys, etc...


  • Options
    #343
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    cooperguy wrote: »
    The commission is like the cabinet of a government. There is only so many good jobs e.g. finance etc. After that the cabinet becomes bloated and inefficient and basically the extra people are just making up numbers. Always having a commissioner but him basically being the equivalent of a back bencher really isnt much advantage.

    I like your analogy but unfortunately I think it only reinforces my own convictions.

    I agree that the commision would be inefficient. In fact why should each/any country appoint a commisioner. It would be much better if people who were actually good at a particular job or suited to a role got it on merit i.e if we had all German commisioners simplly because they were the best. That way no country would have undue influence.

    To come back to your point about the commsion being like the cabinet. It is true that there are only so many good positions i.e like finance etc. However, I would much prefer that my local TD was at the cabinet table even without a high profile cabinet post rather than being a backbencher with no influence away from the table.


  • Options
    #344
    cooperguy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭cooperguy


    Darragh29 wrote: »
    I'm sure we could teach the EU a thing or two about bloated and inefficient cabinets, useless junior ministeries, jobs for the boys, etc...
    So then why vote no? Why not learn from our own mistakes?


  • Options
    #345
    cooperguy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭cooperguy


    Mrmoe wrote: »
    I like your analogy but unfortunately I think it only reinforces my own convictions.

    I agree that the commision would be inefficient. In fact why should each/any country appoint a commisioner. It would be much better if people who were actually good at a particular job or suited to a role got it on merit i.e if we had all German commisioners simplly because they were the best. That way no country would have undue influence.

    To come back to your point about the commsion being like the cabinet. It is true that there are only so many good positions i.e like finance etc. However, I would much prefer that my local TD was at the cabinet table even without a high profile cabinet post rather than being a backbencher with no influence away from the table.
    My point was with the bloated commision the extra commisioners would be nothing more than back benchers. Would it not be good that when we do get in there we get something good?


  • Options
    #346
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    cooperguy wrote: »
    So then why vote no? Why not learn from our own mistakes?

    'Cos the whole thing is a joke. If you have to threaten and manipulate member countries into agreeing with you, then you have lost, you have nothing to offer. I think we need to distance ourselves from the EU, not integrate any further with it. I'm happy with where we are right now, that's enough integration for me.

    Every day I listen to the radio, I'm bombarded with messages about how a new survey has been done and we are now behind this that or the other EU average. The whole EU project to me has turned into a rat race where every country has to try to outperform the other and this is being pushed down on top of us at citizen level. I'm sick of it and I think it's time to stop running around like headless chickens trying to keep up with countries that are much bigger than us, and start cutting our cloth according to our own measure.


  • Options
    #347
    Mrmoe
    Registered Users Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    cooperguy wrote: »
    My point was with the bloated commision the extra commisioners would be nothing more than back benchers. Would it not be good that when we do get in there we get something good?


    That is a good point and you are correct in saying that if Ireland had a good position then we as a country would benefit. However, what I worry about is the time period when we are not there. For example say knowing a bit of shoddy luck we do not have a have a commisioner at the table when a particular major event occurs or decisions need to be made. We would have less of a voice.

    What my argument boils down to is do we gain more than we lose? On the most part we would probably gain but there is a risk associated with that . I think there is a greater risk in not having a say at a crucial time than not having an influential position when we do go in.


  • Options
    #348
    Iang87
    Registered Users Posts: 3,181 ✭✭✭Iang87


    voting again is bull****, i hope we dont anger them they might put someone competent in charge, ooh we'd be in trouble then


  • Options
    #349
    arid
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭arid


    Iang87 wrote: »
    voting again is bull****, i hope we dont anger them they might put someone competent in charge, ooh we'd be in trouble then
    How is it bull****?

    They analysed the reasons why people voted no and tried to address them. Hardly "bending over to receive our destiny" is it? If anything it shows that we have more influence than we deserve in the Union.

    If people really want to then just vote no again. Then that will be it, but we'll have to deal with the consequences.

    The problem with the EU is that most of the benefits of membership aren't directly visible, but that doesn't mean they're not there. Access to a market of 500 million people for a start. Freedom to work and live anywhere.

    And you know some people are worried that they'll take over, well it's not going to happen, but even if they did they'd do a ****ing better job than those gob****es in the Dáil.


  • Options
    #350
    whatisayis
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭whatisayis


    I thought it has been established that if we vote No it doesn't mean we will no longer be members of the EU. Therefore, the benefits of membership will remain? Could anyone here make a simple list of the maybe 10 reasons to vote Yes or No? Unless the 'Yes' reasons are very strong, I suspect the outcome will be an even stronger 'No'.


  • Options
    #351
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,507 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    We could debate this issue till' the cows come home.
    The bottom line is simple and that is that the Govt
    have IMO failed to respect the peoples fundamental right
    in a democracy to choose how to vote. We can
    slice it and dice it and claim this camp knew
    nothing and that camp knew nothing etc etc; that does
    not get away from the fact that we VOTED and we voted NO.

    Why, in just over a year will this referendum AGAIN be put
    to the people?

    I compared this particular case to being no different
    to Mugabe's disrespect to democracy and some said
    this was inaccurate and insulting?

    Both show simply a lack of respect for democracy. That's the
    comparison I made!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    Mena
    Registered Users Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭Mena


    walshb wrote: »
    We could debate this issue till' the cows come home.
    The bottom line is simple and that is that the Govt
    have IMO failed to respect the peoples fundamental right
    in a democracy to choose how to vote. We can
    slice it and dice it and claim this camp knew
    nothing and that camp knew nothing etc etc; that does
    not get away from the fact that we VOTED and we voted NO.

    Why, in just over a year will this referendum AGAIN be put
    to the people?

    I compared this particular case to being no different
    to Mugabe's disrespect to democracy and some said
    this was inaccurate and insulting?

    Both show simply a lack of respect for democracy. That's the
    comparison I made!

    Comparing anything in this country to anything done by Mugabe shows a lack of understanding of the situation in Zimbabwe and a lack of respect for the people affected by it.

    As for Lisbon 2, I don't see why another vote is such a problem. If, and I mean If they actually make changes then it's vital it's voted on again.


  • Options
    #353
    20goto10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    Mrmoe wrote: »
    That is a good point and you are correct in saying that if Ireland had a good position then we as a country would benefit. However, what I worry about is the time period when we are not there. For example say knowing a bit of shoddy luck we do not have a have a commisioner at the table when a particular major event occurs or decisions need to be made. We would have less of a voice.

    What my argument boils down to is do we gain more than we lose? On the most part we would probably gain but there is a risk associated with that . I think there is a greater risk in not having a say at a crucial time than not having an influential position when we do go in.
    An Irish commissioner does not represent Ireland. We will of course still have a voice, it'll just be through commissioners who happen to be from a different country.

    Does Charlie McCreevy represent Ireland and only talk on behalf of Ireland? Actually he's a good example, he's been in trouble for flying the Irish flag when he is supposed to be neutral and representing the whole of the EU.


  • Options
    #354
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,507 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Mena wrote: »
    Comparing anything in this country to anything done by Mugabe shows a lack of understanding of the situation in Zimbabwe and a lack of respect for the people affected by it.

    Did you read what I wrote?

    The comparison was purely on the 'lack of respect for a democratic vote.'

    Mugabe's regime are guilty of NOT respecting the democratic process and the Irish
    Govt are guilty of not respecting the democratic process

    Now, any other comparison; well, that's a matter of opinion!

    Nothing more and nothing less.


  • Options
    #355
    20goto10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    walshb wrote: »
    Did you read what I wrote?

    The comparison was purely on the 'lack of respect for a democratic vote.'

    Mugabe's regime are guilty of NOT respecting the democratic process and the Irish
    Govt are guilty of not respecting the democratic process

    Now, any other comparison; well, that's a matter of opinion!

    Nothing more and nothing less.
    Why does it automatically deserve respect? When the reasons for voting no are taken into consideration I do not think it deserves respect. They must accept it, which they have done, but why should they respect it?

    The government are in the impossible position of having to negotiate with other EU countries on stuff which has nothing to do with the treaty. Personally I think a vote on whether or not to stay in Europe should take place rather than the Lisbon treaty. Then the no vote would make perfect sense.


  • Options
    #356
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    Mena wrote: »
    Comparing anything in this country to anything done by Mugabe shows a lack of understanding of the situation in Zimbabwe and a lack of respect for the people affected by it.

    As for Lisbon 2, I don't see why another vote is such a problem. If, and I mean If they when they actually make changes then it's vital it's voted on again.

    We knew from the day this treaty was rejected that it wasn't a matter of if but a matter of when.


  • Options
    #357
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 55,507 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    20goto10 wrote: »
    Why does it automatically deserve respect? When the reasons for voting no are taken into consideration I do not think it deserves respect. They must accept it, which they have done, but why should they respect it?

    The government are in the impossible position of having to negotiate with other EU countries on stuff which has nothing to do with the treaty. Personally I think a vote on whether or not to stay in Europe should take place rather than the Lisbon treaty. Then the no vote would make perfect sense.

    All I can say is 'Oh my god.'

    What an arrogant attitude.

    The reasons for voting NO are not JUST because folks didn't
    understand the treaty, I did and I voted NO because
    I agreed NO was the best option.

    What about the folks voting YES when not knowing
    about the treaty? What does this say about them?


  • Options
    #358
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    I for one welcome another 11Billion threads full of people who can't be bothered to research the issue at hand giving out about how they'll vote 'No' to stick it to the 'gubberment'. May death come swiftly to their enemies.

    Yes... because the only ones who'd vote no are silly people who haven't bothered to research the issue at hand and are trying to "stick it to the 'gubberment'".
    Great to see the broad mindedness of the Yes camp!


  • Options
    #359
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    I'll vote No again thanks to incompetence of FF.
    We ran the treaty once. Both sides tried to scaremonger us. A small group of nutters on the no side (Choir or whatever theyre called) cried on about abortion conscription etc. which were rightfully shot down as stupid.

    The people voted no and what the the government manage to get in the renegotiations? Guarantees that we wont be made have abortions while being conscripted into the army. Well fukin done. Negotiate guarantees that have NOTHING to do with the treaty. Dip****s.
    Never been so annoyed with incompetence. Will be lending myself to No campaigners.


  • Options
    #360
    Darragh29
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,097 ✭✭✭Darragh29


    Biro wrote: »
    Yes... because the only ones who'd vote no are silly people who haven't bothered to research the issue at hand and are trying to "stick it to the 'gubberment'".
    Great to see the broad mindedness of the Yes camp!

    I've never seen a more ignorant and intransigent gang as the yes campaigners last time. If you didn't agree with them, you were politely advised to put yourself on a hot water bottle and get back into bed with your f*cking Enid Blyton novel...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    20goto10
    Registered Users Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭20goto10


    walshb wrote: »
    All I can say is 'Oh my god.'

    What an arrogant attitude.

    The reasons for voting NO are not JUST because folks didn't
    understand the treaty, I did and I voted NO because
    I agreed NO was the best option.

    What about the folks voting YES when not knowing
    about the treaty? What does this say about them?
    The independent report uncovered why we voted no. And there is nothing in the treaty that can be changed to address our concerns. So again, why should we automatically deserve respect? We have sabotaged the treaty and put a lot of really important agendas which the treaty is setup to resolve on hold while we have our little hissy fit. Thats what I call arrogance.


Advertisement