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

sk8board

so 34 pages in, and the only thing abundently clear is that those voting No are doing so to stuff it to the gubberment,
and those voting Yes are trying to blackmail the country into submission.

somewhere along the line the facts have been either misplaced , or misrepresented.

One thing for certain, voting no to stuff it to cowan is a completely wasted vote. Just stay at home, leave democracy to the rest of us Yes/No voters who are voting on the issue, not the performance of the EU or FF.

Give me the FF/EU corruption over ganley's unknown, unelected, and unmandated motives any day. At least the former is taking place in front of our eyes.

boring_job_guy

My name is Mud wrote: »

Running the risk of repeating myself here, but if you dont know, dont vote.

that's pretty retarded if you don't mind me saying so. If the treaty is unreadable then of course i'm going to vote no!

The Irish constitution is readable so i don't see why this cannot be aswell. The fact that the treaty is a load of gobbledygook is a perfectly valid reason for voting no.I do not trust some of the other european leaders, so why should i let away with such dirty tactics?

The politics forum is over there --->, and the issues are all explained in rather good detail, if you bothered to search.

However, as you have failed to do that, let alone reasearch the treaty yourself, I would think your understanding on the "president-type thing" is not at all accurate.

I researched the treaty as much as is realistically expected. Yes i didn't read the whole thing, but i tried and I couldn't make sense of a single sentence.

The government have admitted that there would be an unelected representative for europe. This is far from democratic.I will vote no based on this.

Nehaxak

I wonder if that'll be the tactics employed this time by the yes campaign, that those who don't understand it all should just stay at home and not vote at all. Sure there'd be less people voting no then, proper EU democracy at work :rolleyes:

badabinbadaboom

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Norway has oil income. That's why they didn't join. As far as I know they'll probably join as soon as they run out of oil.

Not at all, from what I see they also have a huge well managed fishing fleet and an enormous Salmon farming industry.

RiverWilde

I voted yes last time and this time I'll be voting no. As far as I'm concerned the question has been asked and answered. Either this is a democracy or it isn't. You can't ask a question of the people and then turn around and say, 'sorry, wrong answer, try again.'

Riv

sk8board

boring_job_guy wrote: »

The government have admitted that there would be an unelected representative for europe. This is far from democratic.I will vote no based on this.

an unelected representative, chosen by the elected. What more do you want?

Using that logic, then be you FF, FG, Lab or whatever, they, as your elected representatives advised you to vote Yes last time round, yet the majority decided they knew better.

anonymous_joe

badabinbadaboom wrote: »

Not at all, from what I see they also have a huge well managed fishing fleet and an enormous Salmon farming industry.

And the reason tehy didn't join was to preseve their oil reserves, because there would have been issues with holding on to them if they were in the EU. Some Norwegians I used to know explained it to me, but I didn't really care that much. So long as they were counted as EU citizens for footballing purposes I didn't mind. ^^

I do find it unfortunate that a lot of people want to vote no to tell the government to fúck off. That's a big worry.

sk8board

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I do find it unfortunate that a lot of people want to vote no to tell the government to fúck off. That's a big worry.

+1

EamonnKeane

My name is Mud wrote: »

Using that logic, if you do not understand how an internal comubstion engine works, you should

A: Crash your car (spoil vote)
or
B: Dont drive (vote no)

This is the crux of the issue.

Uninformed voters spoiling the democratic will of the informed.

That's nonsense. One may not know the precise workings of the engine, but still know that it burns petrol to move the car around. The Irish, American constitutions are written in clear, unambiguous language. This is not. Are you familiar with the term "obscurantism"?

cooperguy

boring job guy wrote:

that's pretty retarded if you don't mind me saying so. If the treaty is unreadable then of course i'm going to vote no!

The Irish constitution is readable so i don't see why this cannot be aswell. The fact that the treaty is a load of gobbledygook is a perfectly valid reason for voting no.I do not trust some of the other european leaders, so why should i let away with such dirty tactics?

Im sorry but what you are saying is pretty retartarded. The treaty is supposedly unreadable because it is a complex treaty between multiple nations. If you dont understand then get somebody who does to explain ity to you or research yourself or dont vote. It is crazy to take a position on something you dont understand. It affects your future afterall! It is your responsibility to educate yourself.

Also your comparison with the Irish constitution is not valid as it is widely recognised as poorly written for a legal document. Also it is full of holes. So they sacrificed alot to make it readable.

The government have admitted that there would be an unelected representative for europe. This is far from democratic.I will vote no based on this.

They will be voted in by democratically elected representatives, this is not unusual or undemocratic

boring_job_guy

sk8board wrote: »

an unelected representative, chosen by the elected. What more do you want?

Using that logic, then be you FF, FG, Lab or whatever, they, as your elected representatives advised you to vote Yes last time round, yet the majority decided they knew better.

exactly, and that logic is flawed, I want a representative for europe who has been elected by the people, not by some untouchable eurocrats.

thelordofcheese

Biro wrote: »

You keep peddaling that line. So it's OK to keep asking "are you still sure?" every year till we change our minds, is it?

No, of course not.
But then, hyperbole is a fine substitute for fact around these parts.

Biro wrote: »

If a Yes is passed this time, will you be happy with a "best out of 3" election in 2010 just to be sure to be sure?

*facepalm*

Here's the best analogy of the current situation.
I approach you and offer you come cake
you say, "I'm alergic to nuts so i won't"
I go away, check what's in the cake and as it turns out, no nuts.
So i'm asking again, would you like some cake?

Now, you can still say no, nobody is stopping you, or having being told that there are no nuts you can say yes. This is what's commonly known as democracy.


Now, If this is rejected, eventually the EU will be back with another treaty. Why? Well the EU is currently a bloated mess in alot of areas, and it needs to be reformed. The lisbon treaty is the second attempt to do this, and because it needs to be done if the lisbon treaty is rejected there will be a third attempt.

Some people would see this as bullying, this is because they're egotistical enough to believe that the EU revolves around us. It is the EU trying to solve a problem that affects every member state and the operations of the EU itself.

And if we say no to lisbon for what seems to be very nebulous reasons a second time, then i think we need to look at ourselves and our future in the EU long and hard before we do anything else, because in that scenario clearly something not right with our current situation.

Terry

Darragh29 wrote: »

http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index.asp?locID=113&docID=1638

Oh. It's on the internet and is written in an opinion piece, so it must be true.

The EU will issue free lollipops (chupa-chups) to us if we vote yes.

hobochris wrote: »

http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=339

At the end of the day, Democracy will decide which way we go on this. I hope its a no vote but its up to the people to decide. either way I unlike the government respect that vote even if it goes against my views.

That site doesn't seem to be biased in any way at all.

Nigsy wrote: »

The issues??

The EU fat cats are a pack of criminals. I'm anti EU, I could not give a fcuk about a commissioner, as we know they sign a declaration stating that they put the EU before their home country. As for abortion and tax, these issues were not the reason I voted NO the first time, but evidently not for the last time.

Ever heard of the USSR? We'll have our owm GULAGS for "dissenters".

So we're voting for communists?
Sweet.

Boskowski

My name is Mud wrote: »

See above post - if you dont know, DONT VOTE.

All you 'Yes' guys don't know **** either. That's the way this stupid thing works. Make it so ****in complicated that for everything you say like 'but why does it say in article 21 such and such' someone can come along and say 'your wrong, thats not an issue because there is a conditional restriction on this in appendix 3, section 5...' blabla. How many more appendixes and subsections there are which can be applied to the issue at hand nobody knows (I'm exaggerating but you get the idea).

It's deliberately obscure.
Even if it wasn't as bad as it seems. Even if you resolved every meander of it and found that it's actually quite sound - it mustn't be like that. A constitution is a set of very basic rules brought forward by the the people, ratified by the people, to form a ruleset that governs how these people live together. This thing is not that.

But firstly it's not sound after every meander, it's far from it. It does not adhere to basic democratic principals like proper separation of the powers. The executive has way too much power, does most of the legislative stuff. The legislative has no power at all, they can't even bring forward proposals at all. The judiciary is not independent since they're appointed by the governments. It's bollix.
If we were still in school and we look ed at this in history/politics classes and we compared it to the theories of Montesquieu it wouldn't hold up and we wouldn't call it democratic or at most pseudo-democratic.

My name is Mud wrote: »

All other EU countries that ratified Lisbon, did so via the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government.

First of all this is wrong. Their parliaments may have ratified it, their governments cannot do that.

But in any case it would be still wrong. The 'Yes' fraction is trying to tell us this (ratification by the elected) is a proper legitimation for a european constitution and it's the same 'as if' the people ratified it. When so clearly it is not. The interests of the people and the interest of the elected are too different.

This treaty is not from the people for the people. This treaty about power, economical interests and about a way to rule over the people.

My name is Mud

boring_job_guy wrote: »

that's pretty retarded if you don't mind me saying so. If the treaty is unreadable then of course i'm going to vote no!

Using my internal combustion engine analogy, you shouldn't drive. I mean...you dont know how it works, so you shouldn't drive.

You rationale for voting no is moronic. The only thing retarded is voting no for something you dont understand.

As for ability to not make sense of the treaty, or even research it on this very website, search for posts from Sofflaw outling all the issues.

As to the government admitting having an unelected representative??? You have a backup to that? I suspect not.

Possibly getting confused with the QMV system I think

ben bedlam

The NO vote won once, and it will win comfortably again.

boring_job_guy

@my name is mud.

A better analogy would be a new drug. People are claiming all sorts of things about it. At best it could make you slightly healthier and your body work slightly more efficiently but also you could lose control over some of your bodily functions.
However You don't know how it works or what the negative consequences of it are. Some people are claiming all sorts of dire consequences which probably aren't true (but might be). You try to find out about this new drug, but the pharmaceutical company are trying to deliberalty confuse you and keep you in the dark. At which point you become suspicious, and refuse to take the new drug (vote no).
A perfectly rational (and wise) decision.

sk8board

boring_job_guy wrote: »

exactly, and that logic is flawed, I want a representative for europe who has been elected by the people, not by some untouchable eurocrats.

you mean the elected MEP eurocrats, which god willing, declan Ganley, the new leader of the free world, will not be joining.

as an aside, I think if ganley fails to be elected in the Connaught euro election, it could cause serious bother for the Libertas no campaign (I'm seeing 'Ireland rejects Ganley' type broadsheet headlines).

If on the other hand he gets elected, then it will surely swell the No vote.

either way, it will be a crucial event

My name is Mud

boring_job_guy wrote: »

and refuse to take the new drug (vote no).
A perfectly rational (and wise) decision.

That would be called abstaining, and therefore not voting.

Using your analogy, the "vote no" scenario would be destroying the drug.

Do you fully understand that?

:pac:

thelordofcheese

realcam wrote: »

All you 'Yes' guys don't know **** either. That's the way this stupid thing works. Make it so ****in complicated that for everything you say like 'but why does it say in article 21 such and such' someone can come along and say 'your wrong, thats not an issue because there is a conditional restriction on this in appendix 3, section 5...' blabla. How many more appendixes and subsections there are which can be applied to the issue at hand nobody knows (I'm exaggerating but you get the idea).

You're exaggerating because you imagine the EU to be giant boogyman here to eat your babies.
It's not the clearest document ever, i'll grant you that, but it's not incomprehesible.
Saying that it is betrays laziness.

realcam wrote: »

It's deliberately obscure.
Even if it wasn't as bad as it seems. Even if you resolved every meander of it and found that it's actually quite sound - it mustn't be like that. A constitution is a set of very basic rules brought forward by the the people, ratified by the people, to form a ruleset that governs how these people live together. This thing is not that.

Good thing it's not a constitution.

realcam wrote: »

But firstly it's not sound after every meander, it's far from it. It does not adhere to basic democratic principals like proper separation of the powers. The executive has way too much power, does most of the legislative stuff. The legislative has no power at all, they can't even bring forward proposals at all. The judiciary is not independent since they're appointed by the governments. It's bollix.
If we were still in school and we look ed at this in history/politics classes and we compared it to the theories of Montesquieu it wouldn't hold up and we wouldn't call it democratic or at most pseudo-democratic.

The EU has never been democratic. If it was we wouldn't be having a second vote.
The EU is a political and economic union of 27 member states, it is not a democracy. It never has been. I don't know where you got that notion from.

realcam wrote: »

First of all this is wrong. Their parliaments may have ratified it, their governments cannot do that.

But in any case it would be still wrong. The 'Yes' fraction is trying to tell us this (ratification by the elected) is a proper legitimation for a european constitution and it's the same 'as if' the people ratified it. When so clearly it is not. The interests of the people and the interest of the elected are too different.

So what's your solution?
If you believe this to be true, how can there be a government at all, if the interests are by your definition, too different?

realcam wrote: »

This treaty is not from the people for the people.

I think you'll find no treaty between nations ever is. What's your point?

Terry

cooperguy wrote: »

Im sorry but what you are saying is pretty retartarded. The treaty is supposedly unreadable because it is a complex treaty between multiple nations. If you dont understand then get somebody who does to explain ity to you or research yourself or dont vote. It is crazy to take a position on something you dont understand. It affects your future afterall! It is your responsibility to educate yourself.

Also your comparison with the Irish constitution is not valid as it is widely recognised as poorly written for a legal document. Also it is full of holes. So they sacrificed alot to make it readable.


They will be voted in by democratically elected representatives, this is not unusual or undemocratic

Sorry. Just had to poiunt out that spelling mistake.
It made me laugh.


'ooh. You laugh a spelling mistakes'
No. That particular one I did find funny though.

ben bedlam

sk8board wrote: »

you mean the elected MEP eurocrats, which god willing, declan Ganley, the new leader of the free world, will not be joining.

as an aside, I think if ganley fails to be elected in the Connaught euro election, it could cause serious bother for the Libertas no campaign (I'm seeing 'Ireland rejects Ganley' type broadsheet headlines).

If on the other hand he gets elected, then it will surely swell the No vote.

either way, it will be a crucial event

Im sick of the argument put forward that just because we elected the MEP eurocrats that that somehow gives them a licence to decide on matters of national importance without consulting and refering back to their peoples.

skelliser

I voted yes.
I will be voting no because the majority spoke last time and if our elected officials and European politicians wont respect that i sure as well will.
This debacle of a second vote has actually made me quite skeptical of europe now.

You can argue the reasons for the no vote all day long but you cant avoid the result. Whats done is done. I see this as a direct affront to democracy, what is the point in holding referenda if the result wont be respected! The yes side have failed to address this fundamental issue.

The seeds of mistrust had been sewn with the attitude of the yes campaign with slogans like"lisbon is good for europe, good for ireland" and the associated revalations that must of the main figures in the yes campaign had'nt bothered to read it! And now those ranks will only swell with lisbon 2.
Also whether you like it or not a good majority will see this as a referendum on the gov. and vote accordingly.

Anyways i cant see this gov lasting long enough, they're gonna get annihalted in the local elections.

My name is Mud

realcam wrote: »

All you 'Yes' guys don't know **** either. That's the way this stupid thing works. Make it so ****in complicated that for everything you say like 'but why does it say in article 21 such and such' someone can come along and say 'your wrong, thats not an issue because there is a conditional restriction on this in appendix 3, section 5...' blabla. How many more appendixes and subsections there are which can be applied to the issue at hand nobody knows (I'm exaggerating but you get the idea).

It's deliberately obscure.
Even if it wasn't as bad as it seems. Even if you resolved every meander of it and found that it's actually quite sound - it mustn't be like that. A constitution is a set of very basic rules brought forward by the the people, ratified by the people, to form a ruleset that governs how these people live together. This thing is not that.

But firstly it's not sound after every meander, it's far from it. It does not adhere to basic democratic principals like proper separation of the powers. The executive has way too much power, does most of the legislative stuff. The legislative has no power at all, they can't even bring forward proposals at all. The judiciary is not independent since they're appointed by the governments. It's bollix.
If we were still in school and we look ed at this in history/politics classes and we compared it to the theories of Montesquieu it wouldn't hold up and we wouldn't call it democratic or at most pseudo-democratic.



First of all this is wrong. Their parliaments may have ratified it, their governments cannot do that.

But in any case it would be still wrong. The 'Yes' fraction is trying to tell us this (ratification by the elected) is a proper legitimation for a european constitution and it's the same 'as if' the people ratified it. When so clearly it is not. The interests of the people and the interest of the elected are too different.

This treaty is not from the people for the people. This treaty about power, economical interests and about a way to rule over the people.

Not once do you make a point for the "no" camp, just that the treaty is "bollix".

In reality the treaty cleans up the reminants of other treaties in which a war-ravaged Europe was created to what you see today.

Article A, subsection B etc, has to be included because of this.

And it does adhere to democratic principals.

Currently, Ireland has a disproportionate weighting of representatives in Europe for the population it has. How democratic is that? Not very.

The QMV system will ensure that member states have equal says depending on their population size.

boring_job_guy

My name is Mud wrote: »

That would be called abstaining, and therefore not voting.

Using your analogy, the "vote no" scenario would be destroying the drug.

Do you fully understand that?

:pac:

fair enough.I left out a bit, sorry. here we go;

It is up for voting and either everyone takes the drug, or no-one takes it (you are not allowed pick everyone decides for themselves). So if the no vote doesn't win, then you are forced to take the drug whether you like it or not.

Voting no is a perfectly rational choice.

ben bedlam

skelliser wrote: »

I voted yes.
I will be voting no because the majority spoke last time and if our elected officials and European politicians wont respect that i sure as well will.
This debacle of a second vote has actually made me quite skeptical of europe now.

You can argue the reasons for the no vote all day long but you cant avoid the result. Whats done is done. I see this as a direct affront to democracy, what is the point in holding referenda if the result wont be respected! The yes side have failed to address this fundamental issue.

The seeds of mistrust had been sewn with the attitude of the yes campaign with slogans like"lisbon is good for europe, good for ireland" and the associated revalations that must of the main figures in the yes campaign had'nt bothered to read it! And now those ranks will only swell with lisbon 2.
Also whether you like it or not a good majority will see this as a referendum on the gov. and vote accordingly.

Anyways i cant see this gov lasting long enough, they're gonna get annihalted in the local elections.

here here!

Biro

My name is Mud wrote: »

That would be called abstaining, and therefore not voting.

Using your analogy, the "vote no" scenario would be destroying the drug.

Do you fully understand that?

:pac:

Continuing with this analogy - voting no is essentially saying that the drug they've come up with isn't what the voter feels comfortable with giving the people, therefore forcing them to bin the ingredients and try to find a new drug that does make the people happy.
Certainly what it doesn't mean is "I hate all drugs". Nor does it mean "I'm too uneducated to know what a drug is".

ShooterSF

My name is Mud wrote: »

That would be called abstaining, and therefore not voting.

Using your analogy, the "vote no" scenario would be destroying the drug.

Do you fully understand that?

:pac:

Technically. But lets say this drug was to replace paracetamol as the new basis for pain killers. By not voting you would be allowing others to make a decision for you even if you had your own fears.
By voting No you're saying it might be better but Im not convinced Im happy enough with the current drug for now thanks.

(While we're playing silly analogies ) I'd still prefer people to educate themselves, as best they can rather than abstain.

Ckal

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I do find it unfortunate that a lot of people want to vote no to tell the government to fúck off. That's a big worry.

Yes, but we find it worrying that people vote yes because they are Fianna Fail arse lickers. It goes both ways. Like I said, the "Bash the no-voters!" game is dead, it was a **** game to start with. So people need to back off.

Ireland answered a question. The majority of the powers didn't like it. "You're voting again" is what we were told by them and our own Government. What a load of absolute bull****. You'd expect this in Zimbabwe, not Ireland.

Given that I am registered to vote (I did what was needed to apply, yet they seem incompetent to actually send out a voting card these days), I will vote no. If it is Yes this time (which I doubt) then I don't care. Chances of me living in this country (and continent) for the rest of my life are very slim.

sdanseo

Brian Cowen stated categorically after the last referendum that there would not be another one.

Bye, Brian. Nice knowing ya.

I don't know what to vote. I didn't know last time and I voted NO based simply on "better the devil you know" etc. I see a few more reasons to vote yes this time, but I'm still almost as in the dark as I was before. I nearly voted yes last time, and I think having a commissioner now may influence me to cave and vote yes this time.

On the other hand I'm tempted to vote no purely because the Irish government refuses to respect the will of the people and in solidarity with the masses.

Again though - there will be fundamental changes to the deal. The only way to ask the people if they accept the changes is another vote.

We shall see. I'll be voting no doubt, but I'll need some convincing as to which side to vote for.