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

tolosenc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008

briantwin

walshb wrote: »

Look, your POST reeks of a person with no principles or backbone.

Haha thats a laughable comment. I have principles and i have backbone. What i also have is my patience worn very thin by nay sayers and the bs spewers that caused the no vote to prevail the 1st time around. I have done so much research into this treaty and gone from being very much on the No side originally to in the end voting yes as i had a much better understanding of the implications of a yes vote for Ireland. And i will vote yes again when the time comes.

Principals and backbone are sorely lacking when someone votes no because they think somehow they can shame the current governement out of office, or because we'll lose our beloved commissioner even though we signed him away in the Nice Treaty.

Ziggurat

Darragh29 wrote: »

There is a huge amount of distrust in relation to this treaty. The fact that it is so unreadable, coupled with the fact that we had a remark made by Valerie D'Estang regarding this treaty being deliberately designed in such a way as to hide proposals within it. There has been no explanation of this remark that I am aware of.

You can go down to any Easons outlet and by a copy of our constitution and read and also understand it over two mugs of coffee. Why is this treaty so utterly unreadable??? What on earth is the problem with a legible and readable document???

The US Constitution is also readable and legible. Because of that people have been arguing for donkeys years about what such and such a term means.

Then we started writing such documents in legalese to remove such ambiguities.
In the case of an international treaty this is even more important. So, you can either have a readable international treaty, riddled with ambiguities (or with language ambiguous enough that every country will have their own take on it) or you can have something like the Treaty of Lisbon which has very precise meaning attached to the language.

Honestly, why is that so hard to understand?

Our nearest neighbour, the UK, decided to opt out of the Euro, no big deal, we all respected their decision and went on with the Euro ourselves. If they want to take on the Euro, we'll be happy to accept them into the Eurozone.

What has this to do with Lisbon?

ShooterSF

obl wrote: »

I assumed that 6% was reffering to the loss of a comissioner. That is irrelevant. One we don't have a comissioner, and two, the reduction in the size of the comission was agreed to in Nice. I'm really surprised the EU caved on that one.

So am I tbh but they did and therefore those that wanted each nation to put forward (I avoid using the word "have") commissioner, something that was to change according to nice but with little time line, got what they wanted. Now I agree that we dont "have" a commissioner but I guess some are, right or wrong, skeptical of how well our interests would be looked after without an Irish person there, even if that's not what they're supposed to do.
It makes my life simpler though as this was one of the few positives I saw from a Yes vote and now to keep Nice on track we need a No vote :pac:

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Well it was more of a dig at people who don't realise the hypocrisy of saying they don't like being told what to do by the EU and that they should stay out of our affairs and then demand that the nations of the EU do as we do and criticize them for the methods by which they ratify treaties.

And you're quite right, the only issue should be "Is the treaty good for Ireland". I say should because that seems to be the furthest thing from many peoples minds.

Fair enough. Plenty of annoying suggestings, repeatedly, from both sides. I realise that and we do tend to go in the opposite extreme to respond.

walshb

briantwin wrote: »

Haha thats a laughable comment. I have principles and i have backbone. What i also have is my patience worn very thin by nay sayers and the bs spewers that caused the no vote to prevail the 1st time around. I have done so much research into this treaty and gone from being very much on the No side originally to in the end voting yes as i had a much better understanding of the implications of a yes vote for Ireland. And i will vote yes again when the time comes.

Principals and backbone are sorely lacking when someone votes no because they think somehow they can shame the current governement out of office, or because we'll lose our beloved commissioner even though we signed him away in the Nice Treaty.

Add to that, presumptuous and arrogant. So, those who voted NO did so purely to spite the govt?

See, every time you or others use this, you and others are showing your arrogance and complete lack of manners and respect for the people of this country. I could also say a lot voted YES and didn't have a clue WHY. That to me is bizarre.

Ok, maybe a lot did; but I tell you one thing; I would much rather vote NO to spite a
disrespecting govt than vote YES because I am a YES man with no backbone, or clue as to why I voted YES!

Jimpsta

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you see now i can't just let a statement like that go. twice now you've said i discredited myself and haven't given anything to back that statement up. how did i discredit myself? what are you talking about?

edit: or are you just flinging mud in the hope that something will stick?


declan?

Below from my earlier post with which you dis-credited yourself lad.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

didn't read it, don't care. i'm gone

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i give up


gone---->

Sam Vimes wrote: »

sorry, not replying. cba anymore, i'm sick of banging my head against a wall

Ace2007

DaDumTish wrote: »

here are my reasons - I dont agree with lisbon , and i voted no last time
but im willing to reconsider if we get bound consessions - and the presnt gov is gone.

( 3rd way to get rid of a government - make it look powerless in the eyes of the world )

1/ the gov cannot be trusted - they have p1ssed all over democracy - and treated it with the contempt they hold for the people of ireland.

2/ the gov are incompetent puffed up fat cat buffoons - who treat the people they are voted in to serve - as their own cash cow servants .

3/ the gov needs to go for the good of the country

4/ if the gov go and a new fresh one put in - lisbon will pass - fact.

( not a fan of enda, but anything is better than the present w@nkers - no contest - dont even try to suggest otherwise )



as it stands - this gov is doomed to lose again , be booted out of power , and ireland booted out of europe .


if the gov resigns now - we have a chance at rebuilding both the country and our standing in europe
with a fresh gov and a yes vote.


so will our gov do its patriotic duty and resign - ? will they fcuk !


oh , and

5/ arent you gone from this thread Sam ?

interestin that every point includes the present government - what about the opposition parties that want you to vote yes? get rid of FF - but who are you going to get in to run the government - all the "Vote No" TD's - good luck finding all of them - even SF would vote yes in the right circumstances.

Sam Vimes

walshb wrote: »

Add to that, presumptuous and arrogant. So, those who voted NO did so purely to spite the govt?

See, every time you or others use this, you and others are showing your arrogance and complete lack of manners and respect for the people of this country. I could also say a lot voted YES and didn't have a clue WHY. That to me is bizarre.

wtf are you talking about? loads of people on this thread alone have openly said they voted no because of issues they have with the irish government. the report a few pages ago showed that 10% of people voted no because of issues with our own politicians. are you saying they were lying to the people doing the report and everyone on the thread saying that's why they voted no are just taking the piss?

Sam Vimes

Jimpsta wrote: »

Below from my earlier post with which you dis-credited yourself lad.

emmmm.... i decided that i didn't want to take part in the discussion because i was repeating myself over and over to people who weren't listening but then somebody made a comment that i felt i had to respond to. how the hell does that discredit me? do you know what discredit means?

walshb

Sam Vimes wrote: »

wtf are you talking about? loads of people on this thread alone have openly said they voted no because of issues they have with the irish government? are you saying they didn't?

I never said NOBODY. I know full well some did. I have said that; but so what?
Is that a crime?

What about the bloody folks who voted YES to something they knew
NOTHING about. See, it all evens itself out and in the end, the NO
vote prevailed.

You are hanging on this thread about the NO side just voting NO
to spite the Government; but conveniently failing to
mention that a comparable portion on the YES side voted YES
to a treaty they didn't understand. When will it sink in with yee?:rolleyes:

Put freaking simply; a lot voted NO to spite the govt and because they knew
ZERO and a lot voted YES, despite knowing nothing. Now, who's the freaking
worse off?

This is not rocket science!

Add in, that a lot voted YES because they knew WHY and a lot voted
NO because they knew WHY, and it all evens itself out!

Sam Vimes

walshb wrote: »

I never said NOBODY. I know full well some did. I have said that; but so what?
Is that a crime?

no it's not a crime. but neither is it arrogant to point out that they did. please stop saying that it is

walshb wrote: »

What about the bloody folks who voted YES to something they knew
NOTHING about. See, it all evens itself out and in the end, the NO
vote prevailed.

You are hanging on this thread about the NO side just voting NO
to spite the Government; but conveniently failing to
mention that a comparable portion on the YES side voted YES
to a treaty they didn't understand. When will it sink in with yee?:rolleyes:

if you read my posts you'll see that i argued with my dad because he wanted to vote yes for stupid reasons ("i remember this country in the 50s" was his reason).

and i'm not hanging onto that thing about the government, people keep giving that as their reason for voting no and i keep arguig with them on it. i'd gladly put the whole government thing to rest

look i know that people voted yes for stupid reasons, i have acknowldeged that and even mentioned a few of the bad reasons. what we're talking about here is the reasons for voting no and i have yet to be given a valid one

walshb

Sam Vimes wrote: »

no it's not a crime. but neither is it arrogant to point out that they did. please stop saying that it is



if you read my posts you'll see that i argued with my dad because he wanted to vote yes for stupid reasons ("i remember this country in the 50s" was his reason).

and i'm not hanging onto that thing about the government, people keep giving that as their reason for voting no and i keep arguig with them on it. i'd gladly put the whole government thing to rest

look i know that people voted yes for stupid reasons, i have acknowldeged that and even mentioned a few of the bad reasons. what we're talking about here is the reasons for voting no and i have yet to be given a valid one

Ok, Sam, so we agree that on BOTH sides voters voted YES and NO for silly reasons. Ok, leave that aside, in the end the NO prevailed. That's the crux here and it seems that you and others will not accept it and then keep going back to the 'silly' reasons for the NO vote. There was silly reasons on both sides and comparably.

Sam Vimes

walshb wrote: »

Ok, Sam, so we agree that on BOTH sides voters voted YES and NO for silly reasons. Ok, leave that aside, in the end the NO prevailed. That's the crux here and it seems that you and others will not accept it and then keep going back to the 'silly' reasons for thr NO vote. There was silly reasons on both sides and comparably.

let's give an analogy. someone in ireland is running for taoiseach. he has a massive campaign promising, for example, a tax cut 1 year after he takes office.

this guy wins because of this promise but you know that the promise was a lie and he's actually going to raise tax and kill some babies.

would you say "oh well the people have spoken" and let him do it even though he was voted in on the basis of lies or would you try to tell everyone you could find that he was lying?



fianna fail was democratically voted in by our people only one year ago and yet so many no voters don't seem to want to accept that the people have spoken on that matter.......

walshb

Sam Vimes wrote: »

let's give an analogy. someone in ireland is running for taoiseach. he has a massive campaign promising, for example, a tax cut 1 year after he takes office.

this guy wins because of this promise but you know that the promise was a lie and he's actually going to raise tax and kill some babies.

would you say "oh well the people have spoken" and let him do it even though he was voted in on the basis of lies or would you try to tell everyone you could find that he was lying?



fianna fail was democratically voted in by our people only one year ago and yet so many no voters don't seem to want to accept that the people have spoken on that matter.......

We were asked to vote on a treaty; we voted NO; now, do you know some hidden hidden extreme danger we face for this NO vote?:rolleyes:

The treaty was hardly ALL ALL ALL brilliant and a NO would be utterly utterly
disastrous; so your analogy to me is a bit weird.

My analogy: I am told that a NO will mean that every person will
be mugged once a year every year. A YES will ensure this does not happen.
I will VOTE YES all the time.

This is an example of a real real benefit to voting a certain way.
You are intimating that a NO vote is a disaster and a YES vote is
so so so IMPORTANT! This is very misleading!

Sam, do you really believe a NO vote is a real bad way to go?

Sam Vimes

i think i may have made a very good point there. no voters keep saying "no means no" and "the people have spoken" etc etc etc and are pissed off that the eu don't want to accept that

but those same people are trying to undermine and get rid of our government that was democratically voted in by our electorate only one year ago


does "no mean no" only when "no" suits you?

andrew

whatisayis wrote: »

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10009975.shtml
The Irish Taxation Institute (ITI) has said that the report outlined today by EU Commissioner for Taxation, Lászlo Kovács for common corporate taxes in all EU Member States remains “dangerously fuzzy”.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/mccreevy-slams-ec-hidden-tax-plan-655022.html
Mr McCreevy told a business lunch in Dublin the proposal currently under consideration, and due to become Community law next year, is a "sinister" idea that "refuses to die".
It was clear from 50 years of history "and the reality of the institutional continuity of the Commission and its culture" that no matter how often certain proposals might be turned down, the officials sneak them out in different guises, he said.
"What is envisaged by those seeking to foist a CCCTB on Europe is quite different to what appears on the label.
"It is important that member states understand fully what is going on," he said.

Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty, the plan has been put on hold thanks to "Good old Ireland". Pure coincidence?
As a business owner this issue is very important to me. It should also be at least investigated by others because it will have an impact on everyone in Ireland.

[/FONT]

...still havn't put forward a mechanism by which we'd lose our low rate.

Darragh29 wrote: »

.... intangible things like "goodwill" and "solidarity" and all sorts of things that seem to exist only in politicians minds...

Speaking of intangible things which only exist in people's minds, the no 'lets protect Irish identity' vote is one of those things. WTF is Irish identity? The idea that Lisbon would make someone feel less Irish is laughable.

Darragh29 wrote: »

There is a huge amount of distrust in relation to this treaty. The fact that it is so unreadable, coupled with the fact that we had a remark made by Valerie D'Estang regarding this treaty being deliberately designed in such a way as to hide proposals within it. There has been no explanation of this remark that I am aware of.

You can go down to any Easons outlet and by a copy of our constitution and read and also understand it over two mugs of coffee. Why is this treaty so utterly unreadable??? What on earth is the problem with a legible and readable document???

Our nearest neighbour, the UK, decided to opt out of the Euro, no big deal, we all respected their decision and went on with the Euro ourselves. If they want to take on the Euro, we'll be happy to accept them into the Eurozone.

A guy above has covered the nature of legalise above, so i won't go into that. What I think is that, if you don't understand the treaty, than don't vote on it..abstain. This treaty isn't the same as a contract and shouldn't be treated as such. You can't 'abstain' from a contract as you can with a vote. I think everyone accepts that voter ignorance is bad. So, by that logic, ignorant voters are voting in ignorance. So surely it'd be better on both sides if ignorant voters just didn't vote. That way, people who know what they're deciding, and understand that neither vote maintains the status quo, get to decide the outcome. What do i define as an ignorant voter? Well...anyone who professes to be ignorant, it's nicely handy in this case. So voter ignorance = bad, therefore voting in ignorance is bad.

Nehaxak

Sam Vimes wrote: »

does "no mean no" only when "no" suits you?

No.

Sam Vimes

walshb wrote: »

We were asked to vote on a treaty; we voted NO; now, do you know some hidden hidden extreme danger we face for this NO vote?:rolleyes:

The treaty was hardly ALL ALL ALL brilliant and a NO would be utterly utterly
disastrous; so your analogy to me is a bit weird.

My analogy: I am told that a NO will mean that every person will
be mugged once a year every year. A YES will ensure this does not happen.
I will VOTE YES all the time.

This is an example of a real real benefit to voting a certain way.
You are intimating that a NO vote is a disaster and a YES vote is
so so so IMPORTANT! This is very misleading!

Sam, do you really believe a NO vote is a real bad way to go?

maybe the example was a bit extreme. i don't mean that the no vote is necessasrily disastrous. it just annoys me that i know from the report a few pages ago that only 4% (or was it 6%) actually had a valid reason for voting no and the rest either believed the lies or thought they were doing the general election again. and this makes me feel very embarrassed to be an irishman

Sam Vimes

Nehaxak wrote: »

No.

edit:didn't notice who that was posting. i'm not discussing this with you

walshb

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i think i may have made a very good point there. no voters keep saying "no means no" and "the people have spoken" etc etc etc and are pissed off that the eu don't want to accept that

but those same people are trying to undermine and get rid of our government that was democratically voted in by our electorate only one year ago


does "no mean no" only when "no" suits you?

"those same people are trying to undermine and get rid of our government that was democratically voted in by our electorate only one year ago."

Sam, that is a serious generalisation and presumption and an insult to a lot
of NO voters who voted NO because they believed NO to be the right thing to do

This arrogance is astounding!

Sam, is a NO vote a disaster for Ireland?

Jimpsta

Sam Vimes wrote: »

emmmm.... i decided that i didn't want to take part in the discussion because i was repeating myself over and over to people who weren't listening but then somebody made a comment that i felt i had to respond to. how the hell does that discredit me? do you know what discredit means?

I understand what it means 100%.

You openly asked for evidence or information to back up the no vote. Then when it was presented you acted like a child and threw your arms in the air and said you wouldnt even bother reading. You then went on to say you cant be arsed anymore and that you will leave the thread.

Sam Vimes

walshb wrote: »

"those same people are trying to undermine and get rid of our government that was democratically voted in by our electorate only one year ago."

Sam, that is a serious generalisation and presumption and an insult to a lot
of NO voters who voted NO because they believed NO to be the right thing to do

This arrogance is astounding!

you have to stop saying that. i know that only some people voted no because of the government. i know that some people had valid reasons (4%). in the post above i am referring only to the ones that voted because of the government (be it yes or no). if you are not one of those people please disregard the post. are we ok now?

walshb wrote: »

Sam, is a NO vote a disaster for Ireland?

well i don't know, probably not. but imo we're worse off for voting no and since no one can actually give me a reason to vote no i don't see why we shouldn't vote yes

Sam Vimes

Jimpsta wrote: »

I understand what it means 100%.

You openly asked for evidence or information to back up the no vote. Then when it was presented you acted like a child and threw your arms in the air and said you wouldnt even bother reading. You then went on to say you cant be arsed anymore and that you will leave the thread.

no i actually hadn't read that post, seriously. i did go back and read it afterwards and iirc it was from the same source where two other articles had been mentioned along with how they'd be bad for the country. the source completely misrepresented the articles it mentioned so i didn't feel any compulsion to try to prove the source wrong for a third time.

walshb

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you have to stop saying that. i know that only some people voted no because of the government. i know that some people had valid reasons (4%). in the post above i am referring only to the ones that voted because of the government (be it yes or no). if you are not one of those people please disregard the post. are we ok now?


well i don't know, probably not. but imo we're worse off for voting no and since no one can actually give me a reason to vote no i don't see why we shouldn't vote yes

Sam, if you STOP intimating that ALL the NO voters voted NO to piss the govt off, then I will STOP. It's simple.

I don't mean to pull you up on every word; but you were being very very broad in your statement and wholly inaccurate.

We were at a point, where we both agreed, to some extent, and we admitted that both
sides voted for silly reasons and both sides voted for valid reasons. Let us, as Irish, come together on the issue. Why fight amongst ourselves over a treaty, that to be honest, if it gets rejected, is far from the end of the bloody world.

There have been many reasons why NO was voted and yet you say nobody gave YOU reasons. One reason I gave is that ALL the parties, or all the major parties, were together on this issue; I smelt a RAT straight away there.

Now, that is ONE reason. You may NOT like it, but it's MY reason, and ONE of my reasons!

Nehaxak

Sam Vimes wrote: »

edit:didn't notice who that was posting. i'm not discussing this with you

...and that is because you haven't said anything of any substance not even once in this thread and still refuse to admit that the Lisbon treaty in referendum 2 will have not a single word changed in it's text.
We are being asked to vote on EXACTLY the same thing, nothing has changed, our great government has done nothing whatsoever to take into consideration the peoples vote of NO and their fears relating to why they voted NO in the first place.
It's just a simple affront to democracy, refusing to respect and accept the peoples previous vote and just throwing at them exactly the same thing to vote on again.
The Irish people will vote no again and the government and all of the yes campaign will look like absolute corrupt, cowardly, incompetent fools once more.
The only party showing any integrity on this matter is Sinn Fein. I've never voted for them before but they're getting my vote in the next election as they have been the only ones to question the text within the treaty and voice their concerns without worrying about who they might upset or how many arses they have to kiss afterwards. At least Sinn Fein said they would come out and support the treaty *IF* certain text was changed within it, not just "assurances" and pats on the back, you're alright lads, tickle my elmo and I'll tickle yours.
What an fcking joke of a political system we have in this country, an absolutely imbecilic shambles of corruption and complete lack of integrity.

Sam Vimes

walshb wrote: »

Sam, if you STOP intimating that ALL the NO voters voted NO to piss the govt off, then I will STOP. It's simple.

not ten posts previously in a post that quoted you i specifically said that 10% of people did. at no point did i ever intimate anything of the sort. although i did edit in the 10% 5 minutes after posting (but before you responded to it) so you may not have noticed it

walshb wrote: »

I don't mean to pull you up on every word; but you were being very very broad in your statement and wholly inaccurate.

We were at a point, where we both agreed, to some extent, and we admitted that both
sides voted for silly reasons and both sides voted for valid reasons. Lets us, as Irish, come together on the issue. Why fight amongst ourselves over a treaty, that to be honest, if it gets rejected, is far from the end of the bloody world.

is a result where a report showed that only 4% of people actually knew what they were voting for really "the voice of the people"?

walshb wrote: »

There have been many reasons why NO was voted and yet you say nobody gave YOU reasons.

when i say ME i mean i've researched it. not just that people were talking directly to me

walshb wrote: »

One reason I gave is that ALL the parties, or all the major parties, were together on this issue; I smelt a RAT straight away there.

Now, that is ONE reason. You may NOT like it, but it's MY reason, and ONE of my reasons!

i really don't know how to respond to that. every one of our elected representatives and their legal experts told us that the treaty was good for us. the only one that didn't is the mental one that kills babies. and this is what makes you smell a rat? you know that those politicians live in this country too and if the country is very badly affected by it (for example the economy takes a downturn), then they are going to be affected it too? do you think every politician in the country lives in an ivory tower stroking white cats and plotting new ways to hurt us which they will somehow be immune to?

democrates

andrew wrote: »

Speaking of intangible things which only exist in people's minds, the no 'lets protect Irish identity' vote is one of those things. WTF is Irish identity? The idea that Lisbon would make someone feel less Irish is laughable.

Yes there's no fear of EU stormtroopers coming in to prevent us from doing riverdance up and down the street to our hearts content .

I don't think national identity is under threat, but it seems very clear that it plays a role in how people think about national self-determination pka home rule.

Democracy is imperfect by definition since it features the tyranny of the majority, there's an ongoing balancing act on the question of where things get decided and/or agreed, from local to national to international level.

Identity is quite granular, I saw one guy on the news saying that Dublin would get Shannon water to drink "over my dead body", the Shell to Sea campaigners probably feel abandoned, then there's the country/urban divide, political, religious, social facets and so on. As we see from the balkans, middle-east, and countless other examples, identity changes very slowly, not always becoming more diffuse as there are times it intensifies.

Any attempt at effective democracy that fails to deal with the reality of identity is going to be sub-optimal and possibly problematic. Could Lisbon cause worse problems than it solves would be a fair question.

One school of though maintains that no peace has ever lasted without political union, a tone of warning is often used and the message is clear, create an EU government or Europe could end up at war again. For those who believe that war is a real danger, then treading very carefully would be advisable, and expanded qmv (despite talk of the principle of subsidiarity) risks sowing seeds of division that backfire badly by "them" imposing measures on "us".

Toiletroll

What a long post! Very interesting reading...

At the end of the day anyone voting should, without any shadow of a doubt, only vote if they know exactly what they are voting for and the implications of everything contained within the treaty. Broad effects and knock on effects should also be considered by anyone who can comprehand more than whats just written in the semi-encrypted Lisbon Treaty

whatisayis

andrew wrote: »

...still havn't put forward a mechanism by which we'd lose our low rate.

See below

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the source completely misrepresented the articles it mentioned so i didn't feel any compulsion to try to prove the source wrong for a third time.

I was the source in question and these were your two responses:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

yeah it's a plan. there's no harm in them talking about it and has been said they've been talking about it for years but that doesn't mean it's ever going to happen. "the climate changed" doesn't mean that the lisbon treaty would have brought in laws allowing them to force it through. it just means the climate changed

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the climate changed because we voted no to lisbon. but "the climate changed" could mean absolutely anything. what's your point?

Here was my response to your question (I substituted the actual treaty word 'proposal' with 'complaint' because I thought it might make it easier to understand.)

whatisayis wrote: »

Under Article 116, A complaint can be lodged if a member can be assumed to be distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market.
The procedure to do this is stipulated in Article 294 (Ordinary Legislative Procedures). In the Lisbon Treaty a provision has been added to this article whereby if a group of member states request something then paragraph 9 of Art 294 does NOT apply. Paragraph 9 calls for a unanimous vote.
If a group of states, led by Germany and France, go down this route to attempt to enforce their stated agenda on Corporate taxation (which they say is distorting the conditions of competition) the outcome will be decided by majority vote.
And that is why, several days after the No vote, the French Financial Minister put the plans on hold and said "thanks to good old Ireland".

I really don't know how I can make this more simple to understand.

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

See below



I was the source in question and these were your two responses:





Here was my response to your question (I substituted the actual treaty word 'proposal' with 'complaint' because I thought it might make it easier to understand.)



I really don't know how I can make this more simple to understand.

the "climate changed" wasn't the response i was talking about. it was a different post

look, the first time somebody posted interpretations of two articles (not their own interpretations, they were taken from a website) without the articles themselves, i spent my valuable time researching what was said and found out that it was essentially bollocks. i have no intention of wasting my time with a third one