why are we voting again

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no i dont - but if it had the flag and anthem in, why would you vote for it never mind the fact it was called a constitution.....

your opionion is no less valid then mine :cool:

Because I believe in the commonality of the EU, and I believe it should be officially recognised, with an official flag and anthem, and lastly, thank you!

conchubhar1

with a constitution - flag and anthem

correction you believe in the united states of europe.

that is not a crackpot theory - it would have all the mechanisms of a country and governent only difference would be name



again - back to lisbon - an if you do this thank you aswel

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

with a constitution - flag and anthem

correction you believe in the united states of europe.

that is not a crackpot theory - it would have all the mechanisms of a country and governent only difference would be name



again - back to lisbon - an if you do this thank you aswel

I've never made any bones about being a European Federalist, and again, my wish is as valid as anyone's.

My response on the Flag & Anthem issue was in direct response to your claim that no 'right thinking' person would want such a thing.

You may disagree with my wishes, but you don't have a right to say I am not 'right thinking'.

conchubhar1

you want a federalist eu state with a flag, constitution an anthem

so you want a large country essentialy?

sorry, i dont see how you could justify having this. yes its your opinion blah de blah
but come on...

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

you want a federalist eu state with a flag, constitution an anthem

so you want a large country essentialy?

sorry, i dont see how you could justify having this. yes its your opinion blah de blah
but come on...

Yes I do, I want a large EU which consists along the lines of the USA and the relationship between the Federal Government and the individual States.

How I justify it is that I personally believe we have more to join us than to separate us, and that we are stronger together than divided.

I'm not inclined to deliver a 'speech' in favour of federalisation at 4 in the morning, I'm not out to convince anyone right now, but you asked and that's the first reason that popped into my head.

Given that, I'm well aware that my opinion is the minority one within the EU, however, that doesn't make me wrong, and I would appreciate it if you retracted your statement that no 'right thinking' person could want such a thing.

helios12

The question was raised as to why we are being asked to vote again with regards to democracy was asked. That question cannot be answered by statistics that may or may not be true about the motivations of the no voters. Further, the fact that concessions are being made to secure a yes vote from Ireland begs the questions of how fair that is to the millions of Europeans who never got a vote or the opportunity to be appeased into a yes. The EU is a good thing but building it any further on the back of political arrogance or in our case a few carrots is not the way forward. If the vote had carried a yes and the 'statistics' showed that a large portion did not know what they voted on..would we be here?:rolleyes:

conchubhar1

okay i accept your thinking - but i wont retract the statement

if you know your us history the relationship with the federal system was not without its major problems and they had much in common to

we cn still negotiate and be as one without being a federalist state/s

conchubhar1

helios12 wrote: »

If the vote had carried a yes and the 'statistics' showed that a large portion did not know what they voted on..would we be here?:rolleyes:

no of course not - because we have to accept peoples vote

amendent 32 of the corbett report on the lisbon treaty

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i wont retract the statement

That's disappointing, I actually expected more from you.

conchubhar1

i dont see how one would advocate becoming more federalist
looking at us history it worked but with great sacrifices and problems

but to me the eu works as is and we can work for a better europe but still be countries not states of the union

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i dont see how one would advocate becoming more federalist
looking at us history it worked but with great sacrifices and problems

but to me the eu works as is and we can work for a better europe but still be countries not states of the union

I agree that the EU works as is, I personally feel it could work better, but I still don't deny you are 'right thinking'.

conchubhar1

it doesnt really need to work better if the idea to make it better is to make us federal states....

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it doesnt really need to work better if the idea to make it better is to make us federal states....

I respectfully disagree.

Though I'm still irked by the fact that you think I'm not 'right thinking' because I hold a different opinion from yours.

Still, while you may think that about me, I know otherwise.

conchubhar1

you want a federalist europe - fine

i respectfuly diagree that that is what is best for europe

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

you want a federalist europe - fine

i respectfuly diagree that that is what is best for europe

But you can't bring yourself to retract your statement that I am not 'right thinking'?

That's fine, it says more about you by now than it does about me.

conchubhar1

it says what it says

back on the thread topic?? thanks

Seaneh

USE wrote: »

Lack of knowledge about the treaty was the major argument for voting "no".

And that lack of knowledge hasn't changed!
Lack of knowledge which has been enforced by the EU. This video explains a lot, not the best bit of film making ever but raises very valid points.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4291770489472554607&hl=en

gizmo555

Scofflaw wrote: »

I also have to say I'm impressed that you would have voted No in Lisbon because of how you feel the No vote was treated after Lisbon - I do hope that you apply those powers of foretelling beneficially in other areas of your life.

One didn't need to be a clairvoyant to predict the reaction to our "No" vote to Lisbon . . . . it was pretty obvious in light of our experience with Nice.

force eleven

It doesn't matter anyway,the next treaty is on the assembly line to supercede this one and copperfasten EU sovereignty over Irish sovereignty in more areas - and don't say we haven't ceded in some areas (albeit ones that probably don't rate in most people's daily lives...yet) we certainly have. I don't hold much truck with the yet to be revealed 'guarantees'...if we were a Germany or a France, we get opt outs written in,but because we are little ole Ireland, we get a reassuring pat on the head and a piece of paper to placate us.

I believe in EU integration in an economic sense - i.e trade/business/travel, single currency,but that's as far as it needs to go. I just always get the impression of the wish for Brussels to grab as much as they can and create this one super state EU, with their laws superceding ours. A warped and incorrect view? Perhaps,but it seems to me we are on that path and that things are accelerating that way.

If people are happy with that,fine, but I am not. :mad:

Scofflaw

force eleven wrote: »

It doesn't matter anyway,the next treaty is on the assembly line to supercede this one and copperfasten EU sovereignty over Irish sovereignty in more areas - and don't say we haven't ceded in some areas (albeit ones that probably don't rate in most people's daily lives...yet) we certainly have. I don't hold much truck with the yet to be revealed 'guarantees'...if we were a Germany or a France, we get opt outs written in,but because we are little ole Ireland, we get a reassuring pat on the head and a piece of paper to placate us.

I believe in EU integration in an economic sense - i.e trade/business/travel, single currency,but that's as far as it needs to go. I just always get the impression of the wish for Brussels to grab as much as they can and create this one super state EU, with their laws superceding ours. A warped and incorrect view? Perhaps,but it seems to me we are on that path and that things are accelerating that way.

If people are happy with that,fine, but I am not. :mad:

"Brussels" does not write the treaties. They are written by the member states. It is impossible, therefore, for "Brussels" to use the treaties as a way of 'grabbing' power from the member states.

So, yes, that has to be an incorrect view, because it cannot be correct - and that applies whether one is happy with it or not.

repeatedly,
Scofflaw

View

force eleven wrote: »

I believe in EU integration in an economic sense - i.e trade/business/travel, single currency,but that's as far as it needs to go.

Fair enough, but Ireland is a member of the EU not EFTA. Furthermore, Ireland is a member because the electorate approved the decision to join the EU (or the then 3 European Communities to be more specific). They also approved the subsequent Treaties which set out the objectives of the EU.

These are:

1. Economic (i.e. the EEC stuff, Euro etc)
2. CFSP (i.e. speak with one voice if possible)
3. EU citizenship
4. JHA (Police Cooperation, Frontex etc.)
5. to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it (i.e. to have new Treaties such as Lisbon)

And it is in precisely those areas that the EU works and that Treaties such as Lisbon deal with.

force eleven wrote: »

I just always get the impression of the wish for Brussels to grab as much as they can and create this one super state EU, with their laws superceding ours. A warped and incorrect view?

Yes, your view is warped and incorrect but that is of course the view promoted by Eurosceptics including Ireland's home grown ones (The "We are pro-Europe just against everything the EU does" brigade).

The Governments of the member states write the EU Treaties. As such if "Brussels" has any powers in a given area, it is because the member states decided they could have it. And, the member states aren't about to abolish themselves anytime soon.

oscarBravo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's coming uncomfortably close to the Irish view that a constituency "needs" a Minister. And that sort of view underpins the popular contention that Ireland "needs" a Commissioner. In both cases, it is in the expectation that the person will distort business to deliver something for the folks at home.

Exactly. It's telling that, no matter how often it's pointed out that commissioners do not represent the interests of their home country - and even that commissioners have been known to act entirely contrary to their home government's wishes - people are still determined to believe that a commissioner will act in a biased manner, and as such, we need one full-time. We seem to be incapable of breaking the parish-pump mould.

That's why I make the comparison with the US: commissioners are reasonably analogous to cabinet secretaries, and there is no suggestion that they should (or do) have loyalty to their home states.

KINGVictor wrote: »

...it has been imposed on me and the other Irish people to vote again.

It was imposed on me and the other Irish people to vote in the first place. The mechanism for that imposition is identical in both cases: the government wants to hold a referendum; it gets to do so.

I can't get my head around the idea that someone would answer "no" to a question without considering the ramifications of their answer, simply out of pique at being asked the same question twice.

K-9

force eleven wrote: »

It doesn't matter anyway,the next treaty is on the assembly line to supercede this one and copperfasten EU sovereignty over Irish sovereignty in more areas - and don't say we haven't ceded in some areas (albeit ones that probably don't rate in most people's daily lives...yet) we certainly have. I don't hold much truck with the yet to be revealed 'guarantees'...if we were a Germany or a France, we get opt outs written in,but because we are little ole Ireland, we get a reassuring pat on the head and a piece of paper to placate us.

I believe in EU integration in an economic sense - i.e trade/business/travel, single currency,but that's as far as it needs to go. I just always get the impression of the wish for Brussels to grab as much as they can and create this one super state EU, with their laws superceding ours. A warped and incorrect view? Perhaps,but it seems to me we are on that path and that things are accelerating that way.

If people are happy with that,fine, but I am not. :mad:

Unfortunately it's unlikely our Govt. could or indeed would negotiate that for you. I think there has always been about 15/20% of the electorate that are Anti EU anyway and there is no way their view will be represented in the upcoming Referendum. Neither should it be!

gizmo555

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't get my head around the idea that someone would answer "no" to a question without considering the ramifications of their answer, simply out of pique at being asked the same question twice.

It has been pointed out ad nauseam here that the government has a legal and constitutional right to rerun a referendum as often as it likes, and that is accepted.

However, you ought to accept - even if you don't share the view yourself - that notwithstanding the legalities of the matter a small but significant minority of voters do not feel the government is politically justified in re-running the referendum and intend to vote no on that basis. Dismissing their views as "pique" is the height of arrogance and hardly likely to win anyone round to your point of view.

P. Breathnach

gizmo555 wrote: »

... Dismissing their views as "pique" is the height of arrogance and hardly likely to win anyone round to your point of view.

There are some no-sayers who are simply not for turning.

Some among them give reasons that, to any reflective person on either side of the debate, are irrelevant to the issues. It's like rejecting a present unopened because you don't like the wrapping paper.

gizmo555

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There are some no-sayers who are simply not for turning.

There are some yes-sayers who are simply not for turning. Can you honestly say that you can envisage any argument which might persuade you to vote "no"? There's nothing wrong with coming to a decision and sticking to it.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Some among them give reasons that, to any reflective person on either side of the debate, are irrelevant to the issues. It's like rejecting a present unopened because you don't like the wrapping paper.

This is more of the same attacking voters for holding views you don't agree with - OB says it's "pique", you imply they're not "reflective".

I don't personally, although I voted no last time, have an issue with a re-run, but there's no one right answer as to when it's politically as opposed to legally justified. Even if I don't agree with these voters, I would not feel justified - as you and OB seem to - in dismissing their views as being thoughtless and emotionally based.

K-9

gizmo555 wrote: »

There are some yes-sayers who are simply not for turning. Can you honestly say that you can envisage any argument which might persuade you to vote "no"? There's nothing wrong with coming to a decision and sticking to it.



This is more of the same attacking voters for holding views you don't agree with - OB says it's "pique", you imply they're not "reflective".

I don't personally, although I voted no last time, have an issue with a re-run, but there's no one right answer as to when it's politically as opposed to legally justified. Even if I don't agree with these voters, I would not feel justified - as you and OB seem to - in dismissing their views as being thoughtless and emotionally based.

But the point is the Govt. wants some No voters to vote Yes, not the other way round! People who will always vote No for whatever reason aren't a target for the Govt.

P. Breathnach

gizmo555 wrote: »

There are some yes-sayers who are simply not for turning. Can you honestly say that you can envisage any argument which might persuade you to vote "no"? There's nothing wrong with coming to a decision and sticking to it.

I was responding to your implying that OB should tailor posts so as to be more persuasive. I see no point in expending effort in trying to convert certain types of no-voter. It's no more than an efficiency issue.

It's unlikely that I would be persuaded to vote no. I have given some thought to arguments that have been presented why I should before deciding that the weight of argument persuades me that yes is the better choice. Lisbon is not perfectly in line with my wishes, but mine is but one small voice among many.

Most (but not all) of the arguments on the no side are poor.

This is more of the same attacking voters for holding views you don't agree with - OB says it's "pique", you imply they're not "reflective".

Read what I said. I indicated that my comment applied to some no-sayers, and I also indicated that there are reflective people on both sides of the debate.

vibe666

at the end of the day, the 1st lisbon vote was a very close run thing with a lot of people having objections to a few points of the treaty that have since been changed to accomodate them.

the governing body of the EU has a very strong belief that things need to change quite drastially for the EU to continue functioning and to provide them with the tools they need to run it efficiently with it's current level of member states and have spent many years finding a way to make those changes happen and they do have to happen.

they came very close to getting it right enough for the people of ireland to accept it with the first referendum with only a few thousand votes in it, but due to a combination of a few small areas that needed amending and a very bad sales pitch by the irish government it failed.

they think they've fixed enough for people to accept it now and the government thinks so too, and that it's time to try again.

gizmo555

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I was responding to your implying that OB should tailor posts so as to be more persuasive. I see no point in expending effort in trying to convert certain types of no-voter. It's no more than an efficiency issue.

OK, well to clarify the main point I was trying to make is that dismissing voters as being driven by "pique" is insulting and arrogant. I stand over that comment. The second half of the point was merely an add on, suggesting that that even at a pragmatic level OB doesn't help further the "Yes" case with such arrogance.

"I see no point in expending effort in" such gratuitous insults. Do you suggest that voters are only deserving of respect if you have some hope of persuading them to your point of view?