Conspiracy?

utick

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Do you want democracy in Europe or not? 4 million holding back 500 million is NOT democracy. Democracy = majority rules

really? may isuggest if 4 million people are blocking thewill of 500 million, that those 500 million get off their arses and protest to show their disgust at this injustice

ionix5891

utick wrote: »

really? may isuggest if 4 million people are blocking thewill of 500 million, that those 500 million get off their arses and protest to show their disgust at this injustice

they are thru their democratically elected politicians, whose job it is to deal with these things

Scofflaw

murphaph wrote: »

Do you accept that the constitution was more transparent than Lisbon?

It wasn't any more or less transparent than the consolidated version of Lisbon - after all, that was essentially what it was (95% or whatever).

murphaph wrote: »

Do you think it is acceptable that the constitution was binned without trying to make it work?

If you mean running a second round of referendums on the Constitution as amended after the Dutch and French rejections...I don't have any strong feelings on it either way.

murphaph wrote: »

You see, I'd have no problems in complex treaties of amendment IF the ordinary joes of Europe were asked, just once, in clear unambiguous language, if they actually want to be members of what the EU is heading for.

That would involve, first, an agreement as to "what the EU is heading for". Unfortunately, there is no such agreement. Instead, much like any other project, it's heading wherever it gets steered on a year to year basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ionix5891

did you not get the memo from liberats?

its heading towards a new soviet union, them damn commies are gonna get us all (puts on tinfoil hat)


onto more serious note, the above "eu = soviet union" quote is taken directly from my friend before the last referendum, i didn't realize at the time that he actually believed it we should try our best to ensure fud like this doesn't catch on again, its just so ridiculous (then again so are all conspiracies)

Scofflaw

ionix5891 wrote: »

did you not get the memo from liberats?

its heading towards a new soviet union, them damn commies are gonna get us all (puts on tinfoil hat)


onto more serious note, the above "eu = soviet union" quote is taken directly from my friend before the last referendum, i didn't realize at the time that he actually believed it we should try our best to ensure fud like this doesn't catch on again, its just so ridiculous (then again so are all conspiracies)

Ah, yes - the EUSSR. That explains why the Communist Party of Ireland wanted a No vote...or perhaps they were voting against the USE...which Libertas are in favour of...although Libertas support We Are Change Ireland, who oppose the NWO that will be ushered in by Lisbon according to the wishes of the global elite of capitalists...like Declan Ganley...who favours a militarily interventionist EU...which is opposed by Irish socialists and communists...who oppose Lisbon...I think I've dropped something...because Lisbon is right wing...although the right wing oppose it because it's too statist...no, it's here on the floor..room spinning...because it will allow the EU to increase our corporate tax rate...because the EU is pro-business...I think I'll just lie here for a while...

dizzily,
Scofflaw

utick

ionix5891 wrote: »

they are thru their democratically elected politicians, whose job it is to deal with these things

the people still have the right to protest and i believe they would be if they were as angryat ireland as those who claim we are blocking 500 million, people would have you believe. my honest opinion would be that the vast majority of people of europe dont care either way for lisbon

Scofflaw

utick wrote: »

the people still have the right to protest and i believe they would be if they were as angry at Ireland as those who claim we are blocking 500 million, people would have you believe. my honest opinion would be that the vast majority of people of Europe don't care either way for lisbon

I agree - there's no evidence that they're terribly upset about the lack of referendums either. On the other hand, we probably can say that the governments of other EU countries are pissed off with our government - but then, who isn't?

cordially,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah, yes - the EUSSR. That explains why the Communist Party of Ireland wanted a No vote...or perhaps they were voting against the USE...which Libertas are in favour of...although Libertas support We Are Change Ireland, who oppose the NWO that will be ushered in by Lisbon according to the wishes of the global elite of capitalists...like Declan Ganley...who favours a militarily interventionist EU...which is opposed by Irish socialists and communists...who oppose Lisbon...I think I've dropped something...because Lisbon is right wing...although the right wing oppose it because it's too statist...no, it's here on the floor..room spinning...because it will allow the EU to increase our corporate tax rate...because the EU is pro-business...I think I'll just lie here for a while...

dizzily,
Scofflaw

Don't stay there too long or you'll be found and aborted by the atheist Muslim Christian EU who will force abortion on us all (Cóir) while depriving us of our right to have an abortion (SWP).

EamonnKeane

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Do you want democracy in Europe or not? 4 million holding back 500 million is NOT democracy. Democracy = majority rules

Democracy = rule by the people - all of them, not 50.1% of them. As Franklin said, it is not two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

kevteljeur wrote: »

If I ask you, "Do you want to eat cake, yes or no" and you reply no, and then if I ask a second time (or more, as the case may be) then I am not forcing you to eat cake. I am simply asking you repeatedly if you want to eat cake. It may be inefficient, tedious and repetitive, but it is still your choice and not mine. You can keep saying no, if you that is your choice.

There a clearly a large number of people both inhabiting this forum and in Ireland generally who don't see the difference between repeatedly asking, and forcing to accept, and this bothers me a lot. Ireland can still vote no.

Had it been a "yes" vote, there would be no prospect of a rerun. Your cake analogy is colossally stupid and can be twisted any way. what if a man asked you to go home with him, and you said no. And he looked at you and asked again, and you said no. He repeated himself again, slightly louder and with a hint of malice, and of course he's being tedious and repetitive but sure it's your choice now all the same isn't it?

K-9

Well the benefits of a Common Energy Policy was seen as far fetched and a Conspiracy.

I suppose what is happening with Russia and the Ukraine is the Freemasons and the Elite gathering together!

STILL No sign of our Neutrality, Taxation etc. being ditched.

Time to Ask, Were Is the REAL Conspiracy?

Scofflaw

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Democracy = rule by the people - all of them, not 50.1% of them. As Franklin said, it is not two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Well, starting at the top, and working down - first, Franklin never said it. The earliest appearance of the phrase is 1992. Second, two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner does encompass what democracy is - the point being that the sheep will not be dinner, because in a working democracy the sheep will be protected by law, not subject to the whim of the majority.

Those who go on about modern society as if it were either a naked power-struggle between elites and people, or the tyranny of the majority, neglect the centuries old work of the law in taming and defining the limits of that struggle.

Lastly, democracy definitely is usually defined as rule by the majority of the people. "All of them" would be a consensus, and, one imagines, rather less than likely.

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Had it been a "yes" vote, there would be no prospect of a rerun. Your cake analogy is colossally stupid and can be twisted any way. what if a man asked you to go home with him, and you said no. And he looked at you and asked again, and you said no. He repeated himself again, slightly louder and with a hint of malice, and of course he's being tedious and repetitive but sure it's your choice now all the same isn't it?

Have you been threatened by the government in some way? I would imagine that's a newsworthy story. So, of course, would a third and subsequent referendum be, as per your analogy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CtrlSource

Scofflaw wrote: »

I know what you're saying here - but the problem is the French were told that by Sarkozy, who they then elected. Of course, elections are about a lot of other things, and the question of Lisbon probably figured very low down on most voters' lists, if it featured at all - but that doesn't change the point. Indeed, it reinforces it - most people don't give a toss about EU treaties, and appear to be entirely unbothered by not holding a vote on Lisbon. There have been no riots, and nothing but a handful of demonstrations, with handfuls of protesters, in a country famous for them.

I think one has to face the fact that Lisbon is not important to most people, and they don't actually care about getting to vote on it. Obviously, if one does care about the Lisbon Treaty, the lack of a vote is important - but for most people, I don't think so at all. Getting highly worked up over the non-voting of people who don't appear to care about voting seems a little artificial either way.

The Dutch case is slightly different, in that the Dutch government had a constitutional problem with the referendum. The Dutch constitution only allows for non-binding referendums, but the government found themselves unable to ratify after the referendum No vote. That effectively made the referendum binding, which presents a problem under the Dutch constitution, so the idea of referendums has been rejected. Again, that sounds dubious, but the Dutch are happy with their constitution, so this appears to be, again, entirely acceptable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

i wouldn't have a problem with your supercilious post, if you weren't so biased in wanting to see the Lisbon vote overturned.

the question of Lisbon probably figured very low down on most voters' lists

Really?

Indeed, it reinforces it - most people don't give a toss about EU treaties, and appear to be entirely unbothered by not holding a vote on Lisbon. There have been no riots, and nothing but a handful of demonstrations, with handfuls of protesters, in a country famous for them.

That's a rather wooly argument Scofflaw. i could write almost the exact opposite and it would have as much rhetorical value (i.e. none) as the above. Glad you weren't around to influence the drafting of our Constitution anyway!

I think one has to face the fact that Lisbon is not important to most people, and they don't actually care about getting to vote on it.

o_O

Getting highly worked up over the non-voting of people who don't appear to care about voting seems a little artificial either way.

Those silly voters. Why listen to them anyway. Let's just have another vote. If we don't like the result, let's just kick old Ireland out :rolleyes:

but the Dutch are happy with their constitution

Ah that's nice. Thanks for carrying out the research!

Scofflaw

I think what I'm saying is easily provable:

1. there have been no mass demonstrations in favour of having a vote on Lisbon in countries that are not having a referendum - that's a fact. It doesn't show people favour Lisbon, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate any meaningful mass opposition to it, or to the lack of referendums - hardly surprising in countries that don't usually run them anyway.

2. the French elected Sarkozy, who promised ratification without referendum. That doesn't prove that the French didn't want a referendum, but it certainly shows that if they did, it wasn't high up on their list of priorities.

3. the Dutch Constitution was rewritten in 1983, and has been amended a couple of times since. There is no opposition movement to the Constitution, which suggests that the Dutch are as happy with theirs as we are with ours.

So, while you dislike what I'm saying, it seems to me that you haven't offered any evidence against it, just a little dismissive rhetoric ('supercilious', 'biased', 'woolly') which in turn reflects your position.

cordially,
Scofflaw

murphaph

Scofflaw wrote: »

1. there have been no mass demonstrations in favour of having a vote on Lisbon in countries that are not having a referendum - that's a fact. It doesn't show people favour Lisbon, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate any meaningful mass opposition to it, or to the lack of referendums - hardly surprising in countries that don't usually run them anyway.

I disagree. Let's look for a moment at our own govt. which I believe (and am backed by latest opinion polls) are deeply unpopular, yet we have not seen mass protests calling for their heads, as in say, Greece. It's not true to say that because there aren't mass protests against something that people have no opinion on it. In many states, mass protest is unheard of no matter how bad things get.

Scofflaw wrote: »

2. the French elected Sarkozy, who promised ratification without referendum. That doesn't prove that the French didn't want a referendum, but it certainly shows that if they did, it wasn't high up on their list of priorities.

No, it proves it wasn't high enough up their list of priorities for his opponent to win. By the way, does anyone know if his opponent publically stated the opposite, ie, "If I win I will have a referendum on Lisbon"?

Scofflaw

murphaph wrote: »

I disagree. Let's look for a moment at our own govt. which I believe (and am backed by latest opinion polls) are deeply unpopular, yet we have not seen mass protests calling for their heads, as in say, Greece. It's not true to say that because there aren't mass protests against something that people have no opinion on it. In many states, mass protest is unheard of no matter how bad things get.

That would be a much better argument - except that we have had mass protests. Have you forgotten the OAPs and the teachers already?

murphaph wrote: »

No, it proves it wasn't high enough up their list of priorities for his opponent to win. By the way, does anyone know if his opponent publically stated the opposite, ie, "If I win I will have a referendum on Lisbon"?

Yes, she did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

murphaph

Scofflaw wrote: »

That would be a much better argument - except that we have had mass protests. Have you forgotten the OAPs and the teachers already?

No, they were in my mind as I framed the response but I consider them mere special interest groups (like when farmers protest), not representative of the public at large. They had gripes with govt decisions that affected them as a group(s) specifically.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, she did.

Thanks, I wasn't sure if they'd been given the choice either way. I still maintain that domestic issues have dominated and will always dominate general elections.

Scofflaw

murphaph wrote: »

No, they were in my mind as I framed the response but I consider them mere special interest groups (like when farmers protest), not representative of the public at large. They had gripes with govt decisions that affected them as a group(s) specifically.

That tends to form the reason why people are pissed off with the government, though. Like yourself, I'd certainly discount farmers' protests, but because they're common, not because they're a 'special interest group'. Aside from anything else, alternative political groups (communists, anarchists, etc), which tend to form the core of public protests, are themselves special interest groups.

murphaph wrote: »

Thanks, I wasn't sure if they'd been given the choice either way. I still maintain that domestic issues have dominated and will always dominate general elections.

Well, sure, but I'd say that's more of a general principle - heck, I don't even think people vote in the euros on European issues. It's been pointed out before, but asking people "would you prefer X or Y" indicates nothing about the depth of the preference.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Vadrefjorde

partholon wrote: »

no.

i was quite happy with the EEC.

Ive no interest what so ever in the "greater intergration" of the EU. as i dont think its necessary or in ireland best interest as a sovereign nation.

+1 to that.

K-9

Well the Russia Ukraine Energy crisis is one reason Lisbon could be good.

A common EU Energy policy would make sense in dealing with Russia.

Strangely, any speak of Russia cutting of Energy supplies was seen as scaremongering by many on the No side. 6 Months later?

And still no Abortion, Common Taxation, EU Army etc.

murphaph

We need to get our own 'energy house' in order first. Why the need for this country to wait for an integrated EU energy policy? We have been lashed by wind, tide and rain for millions of years-yet we still import 90 something percent of our energy. Ridiculous. We can forge ahead with developing our own energy sustainability NOW. We should be a bloody world leader in exporting green energy. We have the brains (we build power stations for other countries after all!) to do it. Just needs the funding.

ionix5891

murphaph wrote: »

We need to get our own 'energy house' in order first. Why the need for this country to wait for an integrated EU energy policy? We have been lashed by wind, tide and rain for millions of years-yet we still import 90 something percent of our energy. Ridiculous. We can forge ahead with developing our own energy sustainability NOW. We should be a bloody world leader in exporting green energy. We have the brains (we build power stations for other countries after all!) to do it. Just needs the funding.

as someone who worked in electricity generation here in Ireland

I agree with you that we need more green power

But its not the answer to all problems because, its expensive and these sources like wind don't provide consistent base loads, god help us if we had to run factories and hospitals on wind power alone


The cheapest solution in long run from engineering point of view is a pellet based reactor, these cant meltdown due to the physics of the reactor and provide cheap consistent base load

Ive been at ESBs coal plants, they provide most of this countries power, them things burn mountains of coal and the particles that go up the chimney are more dangerous and radioactive (mercury) than you get from nuclear power plant

An ideal economic and engineering solution to this countrys energy needs would be 1 nuclear plant to provide most of the base load, few gas plants to provide peak demand (these can be turned on quick) and few more pumped storage stations like turlogh hill to provide energy storage for the wind generated electricity

But no, that would never happen in this country since were incapable of making rational decisions

So we will continue polluting our "green" country

sigh

murphaph

Totally agree. Modern nucear generation is a world away from Windscale! Lots of 'green' countries are in fact nuclear powered.

There is a frighteningly reactional element in this country which rears its head anytime nuclear power is mentioned.

Scofflaw

murphaph wrote: »

Totally agree. Modern nucear generation is a world away from Windscale! Lots of 'green' countries are in fact nuclear powered.

There is a frighteningly reactional element in this country which rears its head anytime nuclear power is mentioned.

Unfortunately so - the evidence is, as ionix says, that we won't be making rational decisions about nuclear power any time soon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

murphaph wrote: »

There is a frighteningly reactional element in this country which rears its head anytime nuclear power an EU treaty is mentioned.

Fixed that for you.

Nostradamus

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Do you want democracy in Europe or not? 4 million holding back 500 million is NOT democracy. Democracy = majority rules

Can you show me were the other 400 million got a vote?

The EU is a totalitarian, corporate/militarist superstate invented and implemented by international bankers as one step towards a one world global government run for corporations and not for humans. The evidence for this overwhelming now and the fact that we are being told to "vote again Micks and this time make sure you give us the right result" says all one needs to know about the EU and their eventual intentions.

Democracy in Europe would be served by the destruction of the EU and restoration of the nation states. Hitler would of loved the EU. Oh wait, sure wasn't it his idea to begin with!

Personally I think anyone who votes yes to the Lisbon Treaty 2 and goes on about democarcy really needs to get a cop on and see that the EU hates the concept of the popular vote. The citizens of Europe are just their worker bees and our place is shut up, pay taxes and let them implement all the inhuman laws they desire.

Peace.

ionix5891

Nostradamus wrote: »

Can you show me were the other 400 million got a vote?

ah another lost soul who needs education on basics of democracy

they elected in political leaders to make decisions like that for them

its calledy representative democracy

just because our constitution states that we need to throw a referendum on anything that could change it, a form of
direct democracy

doesn't mean that the other countries are less democratic than us, if anything we are the odd one out here

go read up on the wiki articles above and stop sprouting your nonsense

Nostradamus wrote: »

let them implement all the inhuman laws they desire.
.

such as?

murphaph

It's quite clear there are nations in the EU who do not want any further integration with the EU. Our nearest neighbour is the best example yet their so called REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY is going to ratify Lisbon. We all know here that if that treaty was put to referendum it would fail miserably. So their own government is railroaing a treaty that they know well is not wanted by their own people! Our government is now re-running the same referendum less than 18 months after we said no. Yeah yeah, they can legally ask us to vote again every day if they want but as has been said many times before...if this kind of carry on was happening in Zimbabwe over some point of land law requiring referendum, you'd all scream about how Mugabe is a tyrant.

The EU grows less democratic everyday. There is an ultimate goal here....see the bigger picture ffs.

ionix5891

im sorry but i don't buy into the whole conspiracy craic :rolleyes:

murphaph

Just look at our own Bev Flynn laughing at us plebs while she takes her €40k allowance for being an independent until 2010 even though she's back in the FF fold. Can you not see we are all being laughed at by the political elite? Blind trust in our elected represetnatives to 'look after us' is unwise in the extreme.

K-9

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah yeah, they can legally ask us to vote again every day if they want but as has been said many times before...if this kind of carry on was happening in Zimbabwe over some point of land law requiring referendum, you'd all scream about how Mugabe is a tyrant.

The EU grows less democratic everyday. There is an ultimate goal here....see the bigger picture ffs.

I'll wait for the Guards and Army to come around and beat you up first.

murphaph wrote: »

Blind trust in our elected represetnatives to 'look after us' is unwise in the extreme.

Blind cynicism is just as bad.