No to Lisbon

dresden8

Deleted User wrote: »

I personally think that leaving the EU would be a bad thing for Ireladn, but that's an opinion.

Haven't you heard?

Because Ireland can't be thrown out of the EU there is a notion going around that the other EU countries will all leave instead and we'll be the only country left in the EU.

Check the million other threads on Lisbon for this little gem.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Because Ireland can't be thrown out of the EU there is a notion going around that the other EU countries will all leave instead and we'll be the only country left in the EU.

I challenge you to find a single post where anyone has said that this will happen.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

I challenge you to find a single post where anyone has said that this will happen.

I like the emphasis on the will.

Not denying that the idea had been floated though.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

I like the emphasis on the will.

Your wording.

Not denying that the idea had been floated though.

As a counter to the suggestion that we can permanently dictate the future direction of the entire Union, and that there's nothing anyone can do about it - yes. It has been stated that it is a possibility, albeit a highly unlikely one.

It's telling that you feel the need to misrepresent that position.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

It has been stated that it is a possibility, albeit a highly unlikely one.

I challenge you to find those posts.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's telling that you feel the need to misrepresent that position.

What is it telling?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

I challenge you to find those posts.

You first.

What is it telling?

That you'd still rather take sophistic potshots from the sideline than contribute anything useful to a debate.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

You first. .

You claimed I'm wrong. You prove it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

That you'd still rather take sophistic potshots from the sideline than contribute anything useful to a debate.

I was informing him of the possibility of the rest of the EU nations leaving the EU. That wasn't my notion, it was the pro-Lisbon posters, bizarrely.

T Corolla

I think if Ireland votes yes they will benefit even more economically from such an outcome but socially it will end up more like the UK. There will be a more influx of foreign people into the country who will not integrate into the community and Irish people will eventually live in the affluent parts of Ireland while the immegrents will live in the less affluent. I base my theory on the Western Rail Corridor. I can accept the fact of a rail line from Limerick to Galway north of Galway !!!!!. The EU will move people to Ireland give them jobs and homes in return for their land and will harness oil,gas along with any other high value materials that can be extracted from the ground. Dont get me wrong I believe that everyone is entitled to live and be be eduacated and prosper but they must be willing to Integrate with the Irish live along side them instead of living among there own. When the Irish emigrated to other countries they worked at whatever job they got but they got along with the Amercians and English and built up relationships with them and there were many success stories told of such. I will vote YES to the treaty but I would call on the Government to step up there Integration policies before October and try an at least bring the natives and immegrents together so they can understand each other cultures and try and get along better.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

You claimed I'm wrong. You prove it.

Oh, I'm sorry - did I ask you to back up something you said? How stupid of me, I forgot who I was talking to.

I was informing him of the possibility of the rest of the EU nations leaving the EU. That wasn't my notion, it was the pro-Lisbon posters, bizarrely.

Are you saying that it's impossible?

Oh, silly me: I just asked you a direct question again. Forget I said anything.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, I'm sorry - did I ask you to back up something you said? How stupid of me, I forgot who I was talking to. Are you saying that it's impossible?

Oh, silly me: I just asked you a direct question again. Forget I said anything.

Oh Oscar, I've missed you badly.

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

I challenge you to find a single post where anyone has said that this will happen.

This has already been played out here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58077657&postcount=148
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58077852&postcount=149
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58077866&postcount=150

OB, likes to trot out this threat that the EU will ditch us and create an entirely new entity, just to exclude us.:rolleyes:
He squirms out of it when put to test.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58088796&postcount=155

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote: »

This has already been played out here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58077657&postcount=148
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58077852&postcount=149
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58077866&postcount=150

Yes, it has played out before: I have been accused of claiming that something will happen, when I said nothing of the kind.

OB, likes to trot out this threat that the EU will ditch us and create an entirely new entity, just to exclude us.:rolleyes:

That's a blatant, bare-faced lie. If you have to lie through your teeth to make a point, you don't have a point worth making.

He squirms out of it when put to test.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58088796&postcount=155

If by "squirm out of it" you mean point out that you and dresden8 are liars: sure.

molloyjh

RedPlanet wrote: »

This has already been played out here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58077657&postcount=148
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58077852&postcount=149
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58077866&postcount=150

OB, likes to trot out this threat that the EU will ditch us and create an entirely new entity, just to exclude us.:rolleyes:
He squirms out of it when put to test.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58088796&postcount=155

This may seem like a silly point but those posts you link to are, not only one conversation despite the fact that on first glance it looks as though you're picking multiple examples, ones that do not say anything at all about what will happen. They say what could happen, i.e. that there is nothing preventing it from happening. Perhaps that's why you didn't directly quote them!?

oscarBravo wrote: »

But there's nothing to stop them entering into another treaty, to which we are not a party.

Does not say they will, just that there is nothing to prevent it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a threat, it's a statement of fact, unless you can demonstrate that it's untrue.

Pointing out that it is a fact that this could happen. He still hasn't said it will.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I didn't say there was a threat. I made a simple statement of fact. If you don't think it's true, demonstrate why not.

As above, and providing the option to disprove the point.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Think of it as a testable hypothesis. I've stated that there's nothing to stop them - all you have to do to prove me wrong is show just one thing that could prevent 26 sovereign states from entering into an agreement among themselves.

The point there being that showing something does exist, i.e. something to prevent them choosing a particular course, is a lot easier than proving its non-existance. For example you can definitivley prove the existance of horses, but cannot definitivley prove the non-existance of, say, big-foot. Just because we "know" he doesn't exist doesn't mean we can prove it beyond doubt.

Nowhere in that did OB say anything definitely, without doubt will happen.

It should also be pointed out that a few posts down from there OB says the following:

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think it's necessarily all that likely, and I don't think it would be easy - but I also think we're utterly kidding ourselves if we think that we get to sit back and dictate the future of the EU all by ourselves.

Satisfy your little challenge dresden8? And given that you made the initial claim re the content of certain threads the onus is on you to back up your claims. This childish "You first" carry on is a bit sad really.

turgon

I wonder does anyone else see the irony of the No siders accusing the Yes side of spouting unfounded claims.

And if the 26 were to leave the EU, who would blame them? Reasons for No vote included - Abortion :rolleyes:, EU Army :rolleyes:, Harmonized Tax :rolleyes:, what May Lou said :rolleyes: and what Declan Ganley said :rolleyes: Are the rest of the EU supposed to put up with such downright ignorance?

molloyjh

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

I will be voting NO on this again. The people are scared because of the economy right now and the government are using that to their benefit to try to pass Lisbon. My opinion.....

Either Lisbon is the right thing or it isn't, regardless of the Governments tactics to get it through. If you're not happy with them voice it in the proper forum. The EU forum is not it.

GuanYin

RedPlanet wrote: »

OB, likes to trot out this threat that the EU will ditch us and create an entirely new entity, just to exclude us.:rolleyes:
He squirms out of it when put to test.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58088796&postcount=155

Redplanet, if you are going to make an accusation, link to the actual quote where OB said what you are claiming. Don't link to you saying the same thing you are saying here.

We have rules on this forum about mis-representation. It doesn't sparkle with me.

Secondly, to be fair to OB, his claim is "there is nothing stopping the EU".

That isn't a provable hypothesis. You can disprove it by finding something that would stop the EU taking that action. In that case, the burden of proof is on you guys, because you're making the counter claim.

I'm going to be sitting on this thread carefully, so I expect nice play.

nesf

If memory serves the above came from some people on the No side claiming that the EU can't move on without us. The reality is that it could and people should be aware of this though it's unlikely to happen.

This has been turned into being a "threat" that the rest of the EU will leave us behind if we don't tow the line.

Now the first paragraph does not equal the second. End of.

dresden8

Can we settle on possibly will/ maybe will/might/sorta/coulda/shoulda all leave the EU and leave us on our own.

I personally don't think changing any of the words above makes a blind bit of difference, the Yes posters postulated this theory to spread fear about "our future in Europe" if we have the cheek to vote No again.

It's OB's pedantry, badgering and overt hostility that I missed when I was taking a break from the EU forum.

It's good to be back.

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

I personally don't think changing any of the words above makes a blind bit of difference, the Yes posters postulated this theory to spread fear about "our future in Europe" if we have the cheek to vote No again.

Of course it makes a ****ing difference. "The Government will cut social welfare payments in the mini Budget" and "The Government may cut social welfare payments in the mini Budget" have completely different meanings.

dresden8

nesf wrote: »

Of course it makes a ****ing difference. "The Government will cut social welfare payments in the mini Budget" and "The Government may cut social welfare payments in the mini Budget" have completely different meanings.

Ok, ok, you and Oscar win. I'll retract the will

I'll repharase;

"The rest of the EU might all resign and leave us on our own as the only country left in the EU"
was a ridiculous scaremongering story put about by pro-Lisbon posters to try and scare us into voting Yes to Lisbon next time.

Does that fit your criteria?

I still think the use of the word "liars" and "****" were excessive in this context though. Very unbecoming. Perhaps you should change your blood pressure medicine.

p.s And on your above quote, you can bet your @rse they do mean the same thing.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Ok, ok, you and Oscar win. I'll retract the will

I'll repharase;

"The rest of the EU might all resign and leave us on our own as the only country left in the EU"
was a ridiculous scaremongering story put about by pro-Lisbon posters to try and scare us into voting Yes to Lisbon next time.

No, it wasn't. It was a counterpoint to the idea that Ireland can sit on the sideline and refuse indefinitely to co-operate with all of the other EU member states, and that there isn't a damn thing that they can do about it; that we're effectively and permanently in a position to dictate EU policy in perpetuity.

Of course, you know perfectly well that that's what it was, and the fact that you are still trying to misrepresent other people rather than, y'know, contribute anything interesting to the forum is getting rather tedious.

I still think the use of the word "liars" and "****" were excessive in this context though. Very unbecoming. Perhaps you should change your blood pressure medicine.

You think the word "liars" is excessive in a situation where someone is lying?

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

I still think the use of the word "liars" and "****" were excessive in this context though. Very unbecoming. Perhaps you should change your blood pressure medicine.

Perhaps you should try correctly representing the positions of others.

RedPlanet

Oh Of course you people will play a pathetic game of pedantics whether OB articulated an implicit or explicit threat that the EU would up and leave and take their ball home with them.

DId OB formulate a post whereby he listed the possible courses of action the EU may entertain? Where the idea that they would form another, different EU to exclude Ireland was but one course among the possibilities?
No.
Of course he made an implicit threat and whether that threat is implicit or explict changes nothing.
The fact is, no EU minister is even so much as suggesting that the EU dissolve and create an entirely new arrangment just because little ol Ireland spoke up. And to raise the idea is nothing else than scaremongering.

nesf

RedPlanet wrote: »

The fact is, no EU minister is even so much as suggesting that the EU dissolve and create an entirely new arrangment just because little ol Ireland spoke up. And to raise the idea is nothing else than scaremongering.

We did it before with the Euro. It's been historically the way the EU has dealt with situations where some countries don't want to join in with the rest. I don't see it happening and have said so much throughout the debate on this.

Equally though I don't see Ireland being allowed to dictate terms to the rest of the EU. We will have to compromise on some issues whether we like it or not, just like the other countries.

Is this scaremongering to you?

GuanYin

RedPlanet wrote: »

Oh Of course you people will play a pathetic game of pedantics whether OB articulated an implicit or explicit threat that the EU would up and leave and take their ball home with them.

I'm going to infract you and I'm going to very publicly explain why.

I made a moderating decision, I made it clearly and I made it impartially. I have no vested interest in the EU nor your treaties. I made the call on what you posted, which is what you are responsible for.

You questioned my moderation, in a thread, which is a no-no here and you should well know that. If you do that again or continue to question or make comments about my moderation, I will ban you. The only response I want to this part of the post, is that you understand it.

DId OB formulate a post whereby he listed the possible courses of action the EU may entertain? Where the idea that they would form another, different EU to exclude Ireland was but one course among the possibilities?
No.
Of course he made an implicit threat and whether that threat is implicit or explict changes nothing.

I'm not sure he threatened anything. This is my first time reading the threads in question and I simply read it as a possible worst case scenario, even a counter to a reverse argument.

To imply that OB stated as certainty some doomsday scenario is way off the mark and mis-representation to serve your point, which I will get to now.

The fact is, no EU minister is even so much as suggesting that the EU dissolve and create an entirely new arrangment just because little ol Ireland spoke up. And to raise the idea is nothing else than scaremongering.

A valid and worthwhile point, that stands by itself and doesn't require any of the other nonsense that has been brought forth, it isn't definitive proof, but certainly if this is true, there are no intentions to do anything so drastic as exclude Ireland thus far, which still doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but at least suggests that diplomacy is the way forward.

Now, I sincerely hope I need no further moderation on this.

dresden8

How about this one from Sink


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055446422&page=3

Post number 44 (Don't know how to do the single post quote so bear with me)

What could be their motivation? I am sure they value their jobs but they're risking loosing them by calling a second referenda. Whatever their motivation it must be pretty strong. As outlined in this report if Ireland fails to move forward in any sort of fashion the other members states will in no doubt seek an agreement excluding Ireland. There are only four likely scenarios.

A ‘New’ Lisbon Treaty with an Altered Ratification Process without Irish involvement
Denunciation of Existing Treaties and Adoption of New Treaty excluding Ireland
Leaving EU as Empty Shell in Two-Tier Europe isolating Ireland
Ireland Moving from EU to EEA

Of course I lyingly, grossly misrepresented this post as well, somehow. The emphasis is mine by the way.


I see the warnings and infractions are building up for those who are in disagreement with the prevailing wind.

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

How about this one from Sink

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055446422&page=3

Post number 44 (Don't know how to do the single post quote so bear with me)

Right click the post number on the right and select copy link.

dresden8 wrote: »

Of course I lyingly, grossly misrepresented this post as well, somehow. The emphasis is mine by the way.

You're not misrepresenting sink there. That's fine, and I disagree with him on the issue. The only thing that is seriously frowned upon in this context is intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting what someone said. It doesn't matter which side it's on or who said it. If someone starts misquoting you I'll give them the same warnings.

dresden8 wrote: »

I see the warnings and infractions are building up for those who are in disagreement with the prevailing wind.

If you have a problem with the moderation take it to the Help Desk. Questioning it here will just earn you a ban.

GuanYin

dresden8 wrote: »

How about this one from Sink


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055446422&page=3

Post number 44 (Don't know how to do the single post quote so bear with me)



Of course I lyingly, grossly misrepresented this post as well, somehow. The emphasis is mine by the way.

What has this to do with your claims of what PB was saying?

I see the warnings and infractions are building up for those who are in disagreement with the prevailing wind.

banned. Take a week off.

sink

Just to clarify my position since i've been dragged into this debate, let me highlight a critically important part of the post referenced.

sink wrote: »

What could be their motivation? I am sure they value their jobs but they're risking loosing them by calling a second referenda. Whatever their motivation it must be pretty strong. As outlined in this report if Ireland fails to move forward in any sort of fashion the other members states will in no doubt seek an agreement excluding Ireland. There are only four likely scenarios.

That is to say if Ireland fails to reach a compromise with the other member states and refuses to move from our current position in any shape or form, the other member states will have little choice but to work towards the exclusion of Ireland. This should only be viewed as a counter point to the regularly touted NO argument that we can maintain the status quo ad infinitum. It is in my view not a likely scenario to occur due to the extremely likelihood of a compromise being found before we reach that point. But to emphasise again, the entire argument is only to illustrate that the status quo cannot be maintained.

sink

Just to point out that I am not the original author of this opinion, it is clearly outlined in the report referenced. In case anyone is not bothered to read it let me share the six scenarios outlined therein that will have to be rejected before we reach the four scenarios referenced in my previous post.

Scenario 1: Second Referendum
Scenario 2: Ratification by Dáil Vote
Scenario 3: All or Nothing Style Referendum
Scenario 4: Disaggregation of the Treaty and Adoption by Other Means
Scenario 5: A ‘Mini Treaty’
Scenario 6: Renegotiation