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

im def gonna make it home to vote yes this time.

retarded "no" voters with no reasons to vote "no" except that it was explained to them properly.

walshb

Deleted User wrote: »

im def gonna make it home to vote yes this time.

retarded "no" voters with no reasons to vote "no" except that it was explained to them properly.

Please tell me you are NOT in power

The YES side didn't understand it and the NO
side didn't understand it; but the NO side are retarded
for voting NO to a treaty they didn't understand?

Think about this ludicrous view!

It wasn't me!

walshb wrote: »

Am I reading this right??:rolleyes:

And not understanding is a reason to vote YES?
Because many many folks did vote YES even though they knew nothing!

Damn straight not understanding is a reason to vote NO.

If you didn't understand, like the majority on BOTH sides, would you vote YES?

I really am stumped with this attitude.
Vote YES, even if you know nothing
Never VOTE NO:rolleyes:

Not understanding is a good reason to not vote. If you vote in ignorance, you're wilfully perverting the course of democracy and don't deserve the right to vote in my opinion. That goes for both sides. Better ten percent turnout where everyone knows what the vote is about than ninety percent where half of them think it's a raffle for sandwiches.

Doc wrote: »

Could it not be that the 72% didn’t vote because they where the ones who did not consider themselves fully informed and so did not want to vote one way or the other? They all had a right to vote but chose not too exercise it.

The vote was No and was democratic even if 2 people only voted it would still be democratic as long as everyone else had the opportunity to vote.

Unless there are serious changes to the treaty then there should be no new vote.

Anyway how is it democratic to the other countries that we get concessions on a treaty that other they have already singed up to? Why should we get a better deal then them? Should they not get the same concessions?

Other countries didn't need to alter their constitutions by means of a referendum in order to ratify Lisbon and it was possible to do it through their governments without consulting the people, the same way governmental business is transacted the world over, every day.

Tom65

ven0m wrote: »

Clearly you weren't paying attention.

We were told IF we voted NO, it was business as usual & nothing changed. So those of us who voted no were expecting nothing.

The fact it is being forced upon is again & will continue to be (despite government assurances we would NOT be asked again like last time) until we give them the answer they want (which is NOT democratic & frankly Mugabe is more honest in his politics than this form of politics).

Hope that clears it up for you :-)

Was the Libertas campaign (they being the major opponents of the treaty) not based on "Europe can do better"?

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Tell that to the millions of people all over Europe who have never had a chance to vote on this. Democracy my arse.
.

They voted against the Constitution. The EU changed it. Again, does this not constitute how democracy works - the people rejected something, the EU came back (considering the need to change), with a changed document?

Biggins

20goto10 wrote: »

What attitude are you talking about? The attitude that Libertas and all the socialist twats told us about? Or did you actually see some attitude for yourself?

Is this that same attitude as the government threw at us?
- Some of us (the government!) didn't read it, we know your not going to read it - but we want you to vote "Yes" for it anyway...

Their reaction when they found out the reasons for voting no was completely understandable.

People talk about a 2nd vote being undemocratic. What is undemocratic is rejecting a treaty on the basis of ignorance.

Are you saying it its fine for all of us to be blanket called 'ignorant'?
And who did this survey exactly? It wasn't an independent survey, it was a Fianna Fail one, backed and financed by them. The results conveniently were in their favour - that's a nice coincidence and handy for them!

Not understanding is not a reason to vote no.

Really? When I don't understand something in a shop, I don't buy it - but we are just expected to buy the treaty "'cos thats different" - COBBLERS!

Abortion is not a reason to vote no.
Neutrality is not a reason to vote no.

Really? There was me thinking I was voing on aspects and areas that I looked at for clarification as I DID read the treaty.

Losing a commissioner is not a reason to vote no. We already lost a commissioner in the Nice treaty.

...and having an even lesser chance of one representing us (with the rejected treaty) is a good thing is it?

Now have some cop on and read the treaty. If you don't understand it get someone to explain it to you. If you still can't understand it stay at home and leave it to people who can.

Guess what, lay off the patronising, you won't win any discussion by vile and spite.
To answer the above - I read the damn thing - I did understand it and guess what - I rejected it for many particular reasons.

Guess what too? That's my right - but as for those rights being respected, well the E.U. is sticking its two fingers up at us.

skelliser

20goto10 wrote: »

What attitude are you talking about? The attitude that Libertas and all the socialist twats told us about? Or did you actually see some attitude for yourself?

Their reaction when they found out the reasons for voting no was completely understandable.

People talk about a 2nd vote being undemocratic. What is undemocratic is rejecting a treaty on the basis of ignorance.

Not understanding is not a reason to vote no.
Abortion is not a reason to vote no.
Neutrality is not a reason to vote no.
Losing a commissioner is not a reason to vote no. We already lost a commissioner in the Nice treaty.

People want the treaty changed to allay our concerns will be waiting a while. You can't change something that isn't there.

Now have some cop on and read the treaty. If you don't understand it get someone to explain it to you. If you still can't understand it stay at home and leave it to people who can.

now who is being ignorant!
re-read my posts you tool! i read the treaty and voted YES!

Doc

Deleted User wrote: »

im def gonna make it home to vote yes this time.

retarded "no" voters with no reasons to vote "no" except that it was explained to them properly.

So your saying someone is retarded because they voted no because a reason to vote no was explained to them properly?

How dose what you said make any sense?

Edit: Sarcasm Doc! (Slaps hand to forehead) Sarcasm!

ven0m

Tom65 wrote: »

Was the Libertas campaign (they being the major opponents of the treaty) not based on "Europe can do better"?

Again, I put it to you - which part of the EU statement of :

"If the Irish people vote 'no', nothing changes & it is business as usual"

do you NOT understand?

I don't give a flying f**k about Declan Ganley & Libertas, they can go eff themselves with their soundbyte ****. He's doing it to protect his business interests, like he always does.

We were asked to vote. We did so in a free democratic manner with arguments from all sides presented. We were promised we would not be asked again by our Government (who work for us, & are there to execute OUR democratic will on the global stage, & work for OUR betterment to secure OUR future). We gave an answer. That answer was no.

So ergo, if we are told if we vote no, nothing changes - nothing should change, end of. It is a more extreme version of a sales person in a store harassing you after you've said you are browsing & don't need any assistance, except the difference being - these sales people WE & EVERYONE ELSE IN EUROPE IS PAYING FOR :mad:

Doc

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Other countries didn't need to alter their constitutions by means of a referendum in order to ratify Lisbon and it was possible to do it through their governments without consulting the people, the same way governmental business is transacted the world over, every day.

I didn’t say they did what I meant was we will get a better deal if we now vote yes then they have gotten because they just approved it. That doesn’t seem like their people are getting the best deal.

ven0m

Doc wrote: »

I didn’t say they did what I meant was we will get a better deal if we now vote yes then they have gotten because they just approved it. That doesn’t seem like their people are getting the best deal.

What about the fact the majority of British people wanted a referendum, but the government there refused to hold one? That speaks volumes about what the EU wants to be.

People in a free democratic society request to have their voices heard over something important & people elected to carry out the mandate of the people refuse to give the people a say.

Fascism anyone?

walshb

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Not understanding is a good reason to not vote. If you vote in ignorance, you're wilfully perverting the course of democracy and don't deserve the right to vote in my opinion. That goes for both sides. Better ten percent turnout where everyone knows what the vote is about than ninety percent where half of them think it's a raffle for sandwiches.



Other countries didn't need to alter their constitutions by means of a referendum in order to ratify Lisbon and it was possible to do it through their governments without consulting the people, the same way governmental business is transacted the world over, every day.

Listen, both sides then are guilty if that's the case you are presenting. I bet that equally both sides didn't know the treaty, so those who did know the treaty are also equal probably on both sides, hence it evens itself out and the NO vote prevailed, end of story!
WE had YES voters who knew nothing and NO voters who knew nothing.
WE had YES voters who knew and NO voters who knew.
Conclusion, NO vote prevailed in a FAIR contest!

Had all the people who knew nothing, NOT voted, we are still in a contest that either side could have won! Those who knew the treaty and voted on it

thelordofcheese

walshb wrote: »

Listen, both sides then are guilty if that's the case you are presenting. I bet that equally both sides didn't know the treaty, so those who did know the treaty are also equal probably on both sides, hence it evens itself out and the NO vote prevailed, end if story!

That's an awful lot of shitty assumptions you're making there.

Care to back that up, or are we now operating under the theory that truth is something you feel in your gut?

walshb

thelordofcheese wrote: »

That's an awful lot of shitty assumptions you're making there.

Care to back that up, or are we now operating under the theory that truth is something you feel in your gut?

Back what up/

I said that on both sides you had those who knew and those who did not know, all voted and the NO prevailed. How freaking difficult is that to understand?

Tom65

ven0m wrote: »

Again, I put it to you - which part of the EU statement of :

"If the Irish people vote 'no', nothing changes & it is business as usual"

do you NOT understand?

I don't give a flying f**k about Declan Ganley & Libertas, they can go eff themselves with their soundbyte ****. He's doing it to protect his business interests, like he always does.

We were asked to vote. We did so in a free democratic manner with arguments from all sides presented. We were promised we would not be asked again by our Government (who work for us, & are there to execute OUR democratic will on the global stage, & work for OUR betterment to secure OUR future). We gave an answer. That answer was no.

So ergo, if we are told if we vote no, nothing changes - nothing should change, end of. It is a more extreme version of a sales person in a store harassing you after you've said you are browsing & don't need any assistance, except the difference being - these sales people WE & EVERYONE ELSE IN EUROPE IS PAYING FOR :mad:

I wasn't saying everyone was a Libertas supporter (*shudders*), I'm saying they were the main representatives of the no side.


"If the Irish people vote 'no', nothing changes & it is business as usual"

I think it was something that was politically naive of the government to say (just because I support the Lisbon Treaty, doesn't mean I support the government...or any party for that matter), knowing full well that if it was rejected there would have to changes. There were many, many ways I disagreed with the way the Yes campaign was run, and that was one of them. The aim of saying it was to give the impression that it was take-it or leave it. I said that was wrong at the time and I still think it now.

However, many voters had certain fears over aspects of the Treaty. In an attempt to move forward, they've offered to leave the Commissioners as they are and give assurances over tax, abortion, sovereignty etc.

If your interpretation was that the voting no means nothing changes, then okay - vote no again. But did people not vote on the basis that they were worried about parts of the treaty, and having these parts changed will assuage these fears?

ven0m

thelordofcheese wrote: »

That's an awful lot of shitty assumptions you're making there.

Care to back that up, or are we now operating under the theory that truth is something you feel in your gut?

Both sides had adequate time, resources, airtime, media attention etc to present their arguments. If they left something out, or whatever - tough. It's like being at a debate. You are given the timeslot to stand up & make your case/argument for your view. You can't go interjecting afterwards that you forgot to add, or cry about stuff you left out. You go into that scenario with a strategy, for-armed with facts. knowledge etc to back up your position, & to defend your stance as vehemently as possible.

Both sides did. The people of Ireland spoke. End of.

Doc

walshb wrote: »

Back what up/

I said that on both sides you had those who knew and those who did not know, all voted and the NO prevailed. How freaking difficult is that to understand?

Apparently pretty difficult if you wanted a yes vote.

Hence the second vote.

Chardee MacDennis

humanji wrote: »

Ok people, I know this is going to fall on deaf ears, but 28% of the population voted no. And a portion of that admitted to not voting on what was actually in the treaty. How is following the will of an ill-informed minority democratic? Think about it. If nobody except for 2 people actually managed to vote last time, and they voted yes because they thought it was about ice-cream, would you honestly want to honour that vote?

Why not actually read the treaty (it's honestly not that hard, I managed it FFS, and I'm thick as pig shìt!) and deciding what's best for you? What's the worst that can happen? Sure if the treaty is really that bad for everyone, it'll be a no vote again. One day out of your life isn't going to make that much of a difference.

someone speaking sense about the Lisbon Treaty! the shock of it all!!

SheroN

I will vote yes again because everyone I know who voted no seems to be a bit of a 'tard.

RobBrn

Biffo should apologize to the nation for not bothering his fat arse the first time and allowing unchallenged misinformation to be fed to the people.

The misinformation has already started again.

He and his Muppet Show (that may be a bit unfair as the Muppets were great) should wake up, listen to the concerns of the people, address those concerns, co-operate with other pro Lisbon parties and do a bit of work on it this time.

walshb

Doc wrote: »

Apparently pretty difficult if you wanted a yes vote.

Hence the second vote.

Mate, you give me HOPE. I thought I was going mad!:)

inforfun

At least you can vote again.

In Holland a 66% NO vote was followed by the Lisbon Treaty that was OK'ed by the Dutch government without a referendum.
How is that for democracy....

ghostdancer

i wonder will the "yes" side re-use the "we'll get left behind in europe" scare tactic nonsense again to try and compel people.
if they do, they deserve to fail for insulting people's intelligence.
then again, a lot of people are thick as **** and probably believe it.

ven0m

Tom65 wrote: »

I
I think it was something that was politically naive of the government to say (just because I support the Lisbon Treaty, doesn't mean I support the government...or any party for that matter), knowing full well that if it was rejected there would have to changes. There were many, many ways I disagreed with the way the Yes campaign was run, and that was one of them. The aim of saying it was to give the impression that it was take-it or leave it. I said that was wrong at the time and I still think it now.

The EU body as a whole pushing Lisbon said if Ireland votes no, nothing changes. So they lied to us. This is not a good way to win trust from people you are seeking a mandate from.

Tom65 wrote: »

However, many voters had certain fears over aspects of the Treaty. In an attempt to move forward, they've offered to leave the Commissioners as they are and give assurances over tax, abortion, sovereignty etc.

You as an instrument within a democratic process are entitled to vote freely in any manner you choose, your reasons, thoughts, understanding, that aid towards your choice are unquestionable, & should not be placed as a point for rebuke afterwards because the result makes some politicians unhappy. They work for us, not the other way around.

Tom65 wrote: »

If your interpretation was that the voting no means nothing changes, then okay - vote no again. But did people not vote on the basis that they were worried about parts of the treaty, and having these parts changed will assuage these fears?

Again, people are entitled to vote any way they like freely for whatever reasons, even if they woke up & decided to vote 'no', that is not for questioning, rebuke or otherwise.

We held FREE DEMOCRACTIC VOTING which adhered to all known & accepted democratic processes with assurances from those seeking our mandates tht if we did not deliver what they wanted (which is funny because I'm sure our futures as people in Europe is based on what WE want, not what an elected government wants) we would not be asked again, & the issue would be dropped.

So far the only nation in Europe respecting our rights democratically is the Czech Republic, a people who seem to understand the importance of democracy given their long history where democracy, freedom to self-determine & have your will/mandate voiced was denied.

So again, I revert back to how you or anyone else can fail to understand this & be pro a re-run of it? Anyone supporting a re-run is undemocratic, & supports cohersive politics, which is synonymous with Robert Mugabe, & other similar modern dictatorships.

ShooterSF

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Not understanding is a good reason to not vote. If you vote in ignorance, you're wilfully perverting the course of democracy and don't deserve the right to vote in my opinion. That goes for both sides. Better ten percent turnout where everyone knows what the vote is about than ninety percent where half of them think it's a raffle for sandwiches.

But then you have people like Humanji complaining that a low turnout means we can't accept the result.

SheroN wrote: »

I will vote yes again because everyone I know who voted no seems to be a bit of a 'tard.

You can probably check it in "the survey".I really should have read that survey afterwards. Fascinating stuff, was it 100% of No voters were 'tards? Better check myself in to a hospital.
Would it make you happy if we banned the mentally disabled from voting?

Tom65

ven0m wrote: »

The EU body as a whole pushing Lisbon said if Ireland votes no, nothing changes. So they lied to us. This is not a good way to win trust from people you are seeking a mandate from.

It was in the government's interest, politically, to say that. I've said already I don't agree with them saying - I'm not basing my support of the Treaty on government support, and I don't think anyone else should either.

ven0m wrote: »

You as an instrument within a democratic process are entitled to vote freely in any manner you choose, your reasons, thoughts, understanding, that aid towards your choice are unquestionable, & should not be placed as a point for rebuke afterwards because the result makes some politicians unhappy. They work for us, not the other way around

Again, people are entitled to vote any way they like freely for whatever reasons, even if they woke up & decided to vote 'no', that is not for questioning, rebuke or otherwise.

We held FREE DEMOCRACTIC VOTING which adhered to all known & accepted democratic processes with assurances from those seeking our mandates tht if we did not deliver what they wanted (which is funny because I'm sure our futures as people in Europe is based on what WE want, not what an elected government wants) we would not be asked again, & the issue would be dropped.

So far the only nation in Europe respecting our rights democratically is the Czech Republic, a people who seem to understand the importance of democracy given their long history where democracy, freedom to self-determine & have your will/mandate voiced was denied.

So again, I revert back to how you or anyone else can fail to understand this & be pro a re-run of it? Anyone supporting a re-run is undemocratic, & supports cohersive politics, which is synonymous with Robert Mugabe, & other similar modern dictatorships.

We appear to have different conceptions of democracy.

To me, the people have exercised their opinion in rejecting the Lisbon Treaty as it was. The government and the EU are taking account of that rejection by changing the document. You say we were asked under assurances that we would not be asked again - the exact same treaty is not being put to us. It is being put to us with changes based on the previous referendum. The document has changed as a result of the will of the people.


(Just to add): people have certain reasons for voting a certain way in an election. I voted for parties in the last election that I won't vote for in the next one. Situations change, new issues come to light and so forth. Just as different issues change votes in general elections, so to do the changes to Lisbon Treaty precipitate a second vote.

daveharnett

walshb wrote: »

IMO, it makes more sense
to vote NO to a treaty you know nothing about

Wouldn't it make more sense to abstain and let people who bothered to get a clue make the decision?

I don't understand this hysteria about disrespecting the Irish electorate. As I see it, it is every citizen's privilege and duty when a referendum comes around to inform themselves of the issues, and to vote ON THE ISSUES.

To the NO side: if you trust the electorate to do their duty, and if Lisbon is as wrong as you contend, they you wouldn't fear twenty referendums.
To the YES side: if you believe that the electorate did their duty, you wouldn't want a second referendum.

So who's disrespecting the electorate? Everyone is. A whole lot of people voted for reasons other than the actual issues at stake, and we all know it.

PrivateEye

http://gripofhysteria.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/mugabe.jpg

Its democracy in action,
put your freedom to the test....

Villain

I'l agree with another vote on Lisbon as long they agree to run the General election again so we can all let BIFFO know what BIFFO means and let the Greens know that they should stick to saving trees!

walshb

ven0m wrote: »

The EU body as a whole pushing Lisbon said if Ireland votes no, nothing changes. So they lied to us. This is not a good way to win trust from people you are seeking a mandate from.



You as an instrument within a democratic process are entitled to vote freely in any manner you choose, your reasons, thoughts, understanding, that aid towards your choice are unquestionable, & should not be placed as a point for rebuke afterwards because the result makes some politicians unhappy. They work for us, not the other way around.



Again, people are entitled to vote any way they like freely for whatever reasons, even if they woke up & decided to vote 'no', that is not for questioning, rebuke or otherwise.

We held FREE DEMOCRACTIC VOTING which adhered to all known & accepted democratic processes with assurances from those seeking our mandates tht if we did not deliver what they wanted (which is funny because I'm sure our futures as people in Europe is based on what WE want, not what an elected government wants) we would not be asked again, & the issue would be dropped.

So far the only nation in Europe respecting our rights democratically is the Czech Republic, a people who seem to understand the importance of democracy given their long history where democracy, freedom to self-determine & have your will/mandate voiced was denied.

So again, I revert back to how you or anyone else can fail to understand this & be pro a re-run of it? Anyone supporting a re-run is undemocratic, & supports cohersive politics, which is synonymous with Robert Mugabe, & other similar modern dictatorships.

I hate to admit it, but this is so true. We are actually promoting undemocratic
politics with this and I don't see much of a differnce with the Mugabe regime.
We are unfortunately, not alone. The U.S were not accepting the HAMAS
elected vote either; and the U.S are the so called centre of democracy.

Folks, remember, our govt also did this with Nice; this is not the first and will
not be the last time that our govt shows its people nothing but contempt and until
we support each other, no matter what side we are on in a vote, we will
always suffer.

Like I said, had I voted YES, I would now vote NO to send a clear
message that we will not be disrespected and that our people have the right
to vote how they like without being told they are wrong!

ShooterSF

Also any chance the mods could keep these topics to the politics forum? I get dragged in there arguee with scoff, oscar and co for a while blow off steam and promise myself I won't go back to discuss lisbon.
At this point it's obvious that everyone has an opinion and trying to change someone elses is as likely as beating a wall in a game of tenis and a tenth as fun as banging your head of it instead.
But everytime the debate spills over to AH I cant help getting dragged in, riled up and off to politics forum again. Grrr.
Mods do you job!