Vote yes, sure you can trust all politicians..

K-9

tonycascarino wrote: »

You can add in a new one for this time around which I know will influence No voters.

Democracy - Ignored the last time which many people won't take kindly to.

Largely because they were ill informed, both yes and no.

I don't think my points show why a referendum shouldn't be run again? What you think?

cooperguy

tonycascarino wrote: »

You can add in a new one for this time around which I know will influence No voters.

Democracy - Ignored the last time which many people won't take kindly to.

Surely though its the perfect demonstration of democracy.
The Government put something to the people.
The people say no for several reasons.
The Government then deal with those issues.
The Government then put the question to the people again after dealing with the problems.

Surely thats the voice of the people being heard?

rcecil

to be the same corrupt, self serving people who tried to ram through the last one. So in a treaty we're supposed to say yes for "Assurances" from gangsters and banksters. Sinn Fein is the only honest opposition party.

conchubhar1

we do not know sinn féins outlook on lisbon2

they are waiting on the assurances, afaik

cooperguy

rcecil wrote: »

to be the same corrupt, self serving people who tried to ram through the last one. So in a treaty we're supposed to say yes for "Assurances" from gangsters and banksters. Sinn Fein is the only honest opposition party.

What gangsters and since when was treaties written by bankers! Also how exactly did they try "ram" through the last one.

If you want to make a point sure. But try make one with a bit of evidence in it

oscarBravo

rcecil wrote: »

to be the same corrupt, self serving people who tried to ram through the last one.

Asking people to vote on something is ramming it through?

"Would you like a cup of tea?"

"STOP TRYING TO RAM YOUR HOT DRINKS THROUGH ME!!"

Fascist question-askers.

Soldie

I understand that, in the countries where the treaty has been ratified, it has been done legally and by way of representational democracy. Hypothetically speaking, though, would it pass a referendum if it were to be voted on in each country? The answer is probably no. On that note, how much gravity does the 'It was ratified legally' statement actually hold? Gordon Brown surely knows that the treaty wouldn't pass a vote in the UK, but he went ahead with ratifying it anyway. In light of that, it is with great bemusement that I watch the EU leaders fumble around in an attempt to create some guarentees for Ireland in order to get the treaty passed on its second attempt. So I'm curious; are they trying to pull the wool over our eyes or are they lying to themselves? They know that the treaty wouldn't pass if it was to be voted on in each country, yet their solution is to create some guarentees for Ireland as opposed to questioning the fundamentals of the treaty. The whole charade leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

For the sake of not wanting my post to be misinterpreted, I'd like to point out that I'm not firmly in either camp.

conchubhar1

well the uk would pretty much definitley vote no - for the wrong reasons maybe
but still

oscarBravo

Soldie wrote: »

Hypothetically speaking, though, would it pass a referendum if it were to be voted on in each country? The answer is probably no.

I agree. The point is, though, that the EU isn't an organisation with 500,000,000 members; it's an organisation with 27 members.

The responsibility for negotiating treaties is, generally, vested in a national government. That's the same government that's entrusted with the well-being of its citizens, in terms of taxation, internal and external security, provision of public services, etc. People put a lot of faith in their governments - some of it misplaced, to be sure.

There is a body of opinion that says the people should have the ultimate say, even if their decisions are made for the wrong reasons. I disagree with that. If Lisbon were put to a referendum in the UK, it would be voted down - and very, very few of the reasons for voting against it would be relevant to the treaty itself. Hell, it would make our last referendum look like an informed choice.

Does anyone really think this would be a good thing?

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well the uk would pretty much definitley vote no - for the wrong reasons maybe
but still

But still, what? Voting for the wrong reasons is a very bad thing.

conchubhar1

the uk is a special case - it has conistently had a strong and now stronger anti eu presence in parliment(s)

that vote - would be 80% ish on how they dislike the eu and very little on the treaty, if any mesaurable size at all

conchubhar1

drugs are bad, sometimes.

but it should be peoples choice.......

they also sometimes make bad choices in candidates (nick arsewipe of the bnp prime example)
but they made that choice - its a democratic union, right or wrong choosing thats what it is

Sparks

oscarBravo wrote: »

Voting for the wrong reasons is a very bad thing.

Very true - but not respecting the outcome of a vote is an even worse thing...

conchubhar1

voting yes for the wrong reason is also a bad thing

(thought id make a full circle to include most bad things relevant to lisbon, not including spiders and the likes)

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Asking people to vote on something is ramming it through?

"Would you like a cup of tea?"

"STOP TRYING TO RAM YOUR HOT DRINKS THROUGH ME!!"

Fascist question-askers.

'Would you like a cup of tea - everyone else here wants a cup of tea. Noone can have a cup of tea if you don't have a cup of tea. You should say "yes" to a cup of tea. Particularly after all that Tetley and Lions have done for you - don't they deserve some graification for the nice tea they have made? Anyone who would reject a cup of tea must have been taken in by all the lies'
"STOP TRYING TO RAM YOUR HOT DRINKS THROUGH ME!!"
'Now that's no way to behave :mad:! Look, would you like it with more sugar?'

- 'Hey gov, Britannia is starting to wake up'
'Crap, that's all we need! Now Eire, I will ask you again, nicely, and if you are good you can have a bikkie. You wouldn't like to have to leave the Nursing Community would you? It's very cold outside.'

cooperguy

What ever you do dont drink the tea. It is bad for you and your unborn children. The people at tetley actually have a hidden agenda to go to war with the people at Lyons and they will make you fight with them. Everybody also knows that the devil himself enjoys a cup of tea so it even goes against Jesus

Sparks

I love a cup of earl grey, but this tetley "blend" tastes like someone swept up the leavings from making the real boxes of tea and packaged it...

conchubhar1

can i have coffee? just a simple coffee or tea actualy

does the job, does need more strength it tatses good now

if you dont have some warm drink we can't

be fair to the pickers
dispose of the waste fairly

.........
.........

analogys are bad - deal with the points directly

oscarBravo

Sparks wrote: »

Very true - but not respecting the outcome of a vote is an even worse thing...

Absolutely - which is why it's good that the outcome of the vote was respected. Unless we ratified Lisbon while I wasn't looking.

K-9

Sparks wrote: »

Very true - but not respecting the outcome of a vote is an even worse thing...

The Govt. got assurances on the more specific issues in Lisbon, taxation and the Commissioner being the main new ones. If they can run a good informative campaign this time which should be easier without Libertas red herrings, that is a lot of the No sides concerns addressed.

In a way, they have respected the outcome and it's democracy in action.

conchubhar1

on the one hand you have the yes side using the concessions as reason for the second vote

then in other instances they say they are obvious in the treaty

so really the reason for a second vote is they are unhappy with how the electorate voted wrong.....

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

on the one hand you have the yes side using the concessions as reason for the second vote

then in other instances they say they are obvious in the treaty

so really the reason for a second vote is they are unhappy with how the electorate voted wrong.....

Or it was because lack of understanding which many openly admit to?

conchubhar1

mix of both
but the point i made is rarely discused

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

mix of both
but the point i made is rarely discused

Probably wonder why some, admittedly a small percentage, voted on abortion and Neutrality reasons when there is already protocols there.

The Govt, FG, Labour and some Greens want Lisbon passed, that much is clear. The option still remains to vote No like the last time and No, there will not be a third referendum as it's politically dead.

conchubhar1

well if the yes side can actualy function like any form of a group and actualy inform the people
i dont see why the vote wont pass

not everyone voted fianna fáil,gael,labour or some greens.....
so those people would be free to read up or make up their mind any other way they chose fit

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

on the one hand you have the yes side using the concessions as reason for the second vote

then in other instances they say they are obvious in the treaty

Do you have any specific examples of a given individual espousing both points of view?

Speaking for myself, I think the "assurances" are unnecessary or even negative, so I'm certainly not using them as a reason for a "yes" vote. I'll still vote "yes", because on balance it's still a good deal for us - just not as good as the first time round.

conchubhar1

i stated that they say its obvious

but use them to state its no the same treaty, it has these added extras (which they claim are uselss and uneeded)

if you cant see the conflict there, i dunno what to do

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

not everyone voted fianna fáil,gael,labour or some greens.....

Obviously and a huge section who did, voted No.

SF had the biggest party loyal support.

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i stated that they say its obvious

but use them to state its no the same treaty, it has these added extras (which they claim are uselss and uneeded)

if you cant see the conflict there, i dunno what to do

Well would it be better ignoring peoples concerns?

conchubhar1

well their vote was ignored

you cant have it both ways - its either or! ffs