Vote yes, sure you can trust all politicians..

oscarBravo

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

A simple "no" would have sufficed.

conchubhar1

if i wanted to say no
i would have

again, do you add to debate or do you attack statement made by others costantly?

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well their vote was ignored

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

No. You are having it both ways.

Some People voted No because of concerns over Abortion, Neutrality, Taxation and the Commissioner.

How is putting in specific reasons to address these concerns, people being ignored?

conchubhar1

they voted no...

but we get these special extras - but most claim they are useless

so, the main reason running it again is the no sides lies

which could have been debunked by the government and most of the opposistion
and saved us all a load of hassle

but that blame is passed on - pass the blame and the gov. just run it again

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

they voted no...

but we get these special extras - but most claim they are useless

so, the main reason running it again is the no sides lies

which could have been debunked by the government and most of the opposistion
and saved us all a load of hassle

but that blame is passed on - pass the blame and the gov. just run it again

How are they being ignored?

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

which could have been debunked by the government and most of the opposistion
and saved us all a load of hassle

They were debunked. But the textual basis of the debunking meant the debunking wasnt accepted. So this lays it out in simpler terms.

conchubhar1

had they done this - simpler terms not the extra agreements - the first time round like they were there to do it would have saved so much hassle

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

had they done this - simpler terms not the extra agreements - the first time round like they were there to do it would have saved so much hassle

Yes but they didn't know in advance that Coir and Libertas would outright lie about the contents of the treaty, and what their lies would be.

Personally I think you're right to a degree, and they should copy and paste these guarantees onto every future treaty, and they should have learned that lesson after Nice 1 and 2.

conchubhar1

ah ya, and once the lies started it was too late?

come one - they had plenty of time, power and backing to easily debunk all claims that could indeed be debunked

BlitzKrieg

Yes but they didn't know in advance that Coir and Libertas would outright lie about the contents of the treaty, and what their lies would be.

Personally I think you're right to a degree, and they should copy and paste these guarantees onto every future treaty, and they should have learned that lesson after Nice 1 and 2.

not to mention that running up to Lisbon EU approval was high, there was no issue at the general election over lisbon and the treaty itself didnt have any obvious *omgwtf* issues in it like expansion in nice.

have this sort of situation with a government that can be simply described as Lazy, then it was a recipet for disaster.

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ah ya, and once the lies started it was too late?

come one - they had plenty of time, power and backing to easily debunk all claims that could indeed be debunked

Yes they dropped the ball on that one for sure, and I'm nearly as mad at FF/FG/Lab for messing up the 'yes' campaign as I am at Coir and Libertas for making a mockery of the truth.

However they could have debunked away, but it still wouldn't have given them the power to go back in time and insert the guarantees into the treaty.

At least try to keep the goalposts in one place Conchubhar

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

How are they being ignored?

I hope you aren't ignoring this question!

Can we agree that inserting assurances to satisfy some voters concerns is not ignoring them?

the_dark_side

The bile-filled assault on Irish voters who rejected the Lisbon Treaty shows just how corrupt and undemocratic the EU is.

How can the Irish be so ungrateful? That is the question being asked by EU officials (in private) and by EU supporters (in public) as the Irish went to the polls to vote on whether to accept the Lisbon Treaty on the expansion of European Union institutions. The fact that the ‘No’ lobby seemed to be gaining ground – in a country that has benefited enormously from EU subsidies! – led to an orgy of bile-ridden attacks on Irish voters.

The message is clear: the Irish should know their place in the European set-up and slavishly bow and scrape before their paymasters in Brussels. Anything else would be ‘extraordinarily ungrateful’, according to one commentator. Welcome to the ‘democratic’ EU – where most countries are bypassing their electorates and simply ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, and where the one country that is holding a referendum – Ireland – has been subjected to financial, political and emotional blackmail.

In 2002, under extreme pressure from the EU, the Irish state found a neat way to get around the inconvenient fact of a ‘No’ vote to the Nice Treaty – it simply held a second referendum (in a shameless act of political Double Jeopardy) and devoted its political and media machinery to demanding that voters make the ‘right decision’ this time. Pro-Nice posters reminded the ungrateful Irish about everything they had received from the EU. ‘Thirty billion Euros since 1973’, the posters said, while Irish ministers warned ominously that a second rejection of Nice could ‘return Ireland to poverty’. This time, the ‘Yes’ lobby won: in October 2002, 62.89 per cent of voters supported Nice.

The attacks on Irish voters for being ‘extraordinarily ungrateful’ – both for initially rejecting Nice in 2001 and for even thinking about saying ‘No’ to Lisbon – reveal a great deal about ‘democracy’ in the EU. The EU’s bureaucrats and backers seem dumbfounded that they cannot buy Irish people’s support; they find it ‘hard to fathom’ that a people who have received subsidies worth billions of Euros are not falling in line behind their rulers. It is the mark of corrupt, degenerate and anti-democratic elitism to believe that you can buy people’s votes. Indeed, in many civilised, democratic countries it is illegal for political parties to offer voters financial reward for their ballots. Yet, Mafioso-style, EU backers are telling the Irish: ‘You’ve received your monies – now do as we say.’

The assaults on Irish voters also show what it means to be a ‘democratic citizen’ in the EU: that is, someone who is financially cared for by caring-but-faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, and who should be ‘overflowing with appreciation’ for the EU elite’s grace and favour. This is the very opposite of political citizenship; it is a distortion of the traditional relationship between citizens and their governing bodies. In place of free and open debate, in which citizens are treated as adults who can have political views independent of any welfare they might receive from the authorities, we have a situation where those who dare to criticise or complain or say ‘No’ are denounced as ‘extraordinarily ungrateful’ and even ‘treacherous’. This is the kind of relationship a child has with his guardian, or a mentally ill person with his carer – it has nothing whatever to do with democracy.

Indeed, the use of that T-word – treacherous – to describe Irish voters who have rejected EU treaties tells you everything you need to know about the EU elite’s view of the European masses. The EU clearly considers itself lord of all Europe, and the people its nodding serfs.[/B] That it can be described as ‘treachery’ to make a certain political choice inside the ballot booth shows the extent to which Lisbon, like Nice before it, is an already agreed document that parliaments and the people are merely expected to rubber-stamp. How dare the ungrateful, wretched, deceitful Irish jeopardise the EU elite’s already agreed-upon and carefully thought-through plans?

The expectation that the Irish should say ‘Yes’ to Lisbon gives the lie to the idea of equality in the EU. In Brussels and across the pro-EU commentariat it is assumed that poorer countries in particular – Ireland, and also southern states such as Spain and Portugal, and the new Eastern European entries – should behave like ‘the best pupils of the European class’ because they receive generous subsidies from their masters. When the awarding of financial support becomes a key determinant in how states should relate to Brussels, then any notion of sovereign equality goes out the window. Richer states such as Britain, Germany and France can afford a more robust relationship with Brussels, whereas poorer states are told to be grateful, gracious, obedient and unquestioning. In the creaking, oligarchical bureaucracy that is the EU, the citizens of poorer member states are effectively disenfranchised, or certainly are ‘less equal’ than citizens in states that are not so reliant on EU subsidies.

The Irish referendum has struck the fear of God into the EU and its supporters – and with good reason. The fact that the ‘No’ vote is gaining ground shows that, even in nations that have for the past 35 years effectively been bribed with subsidies by EU officials, the EU has not been able to win any sense of affinity and loyalty. It is still seen by large sections of the European people as an aloof, distant and authoritarian institution to which we should say ‘No’, ‘Non’, ‘Nein’; the EU has come to embody people’s bigger sense of dislocation from political institutions today. The Irish referendum is exposing the thin veneer of the EU’s legitimacy and stripping away its democratic masquerade, leaving it exposed as shrill, undemocratic, unequal and corrupt. Who wouldn’t want to say ‘No’ to that?

PopeBuckfastXVI

tl;dr

Get yourself a blog if you want to write articles...

skearon

realismpol wrote: »

Seriously vote yes..sure you can trust all politicans. I can't believe they are doing this but they are. They are pushing through a second referendum. It should be clear to all people who a decent amount of i.q now whats going on. We don't have leaders who respect the will of the people anymore. The only difference between our leaders and those in iran or north korea is they are at least open about their dictatorship.

Utter bullsh*t.

You ignore the fact that the politicans you complain about where democratically elected by the people.

You ignore the fact that all parties (bar the cynical self serving Shinners) support Lisbon.

This is proof of democracy in action, not dictatorship, in fact by mentioning such you are trying to insult and devalue everyone's vote in the recent general election.

In fact it proves we have leaders, from all the major political parties, that they are putting the Country's interests first and before their own party political interests.

P. Breathnach

the_dark_side wrote: »

go hang

At least I read that one. The preceding harangue seemed unreadable to me.

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

At least I read that one. The preceding harangue seemed unreadable to me.

Seeing a definition of treachery put me off.

RandomName2

the_dark_side wrote: »

The bile-filled assault on Irish voters who rejected the Lisbon Treaty shows just how corrupt and undemocratic the EU is.

A reasonable enough expression of distaste at the way te Irish electorate were treated in Lisbon I - albeit in the form of polemic.

Nice II was launched ostensibly on the basis of poor turnout - which was true [something like 36%?]

I personally didn't vote on Nice - I was in favour of Eastern Bloc countries joining - but not all at once. I didn't like the idea of the loss of Commissioner - but thought that it was somewhat irrelevant. Moreover I didn't feel that a No vote would be respected by Europe. With Nice II, had I voted it would have been against it: though the politicians had a point about low turnout it set a precedent whereby any Irish No vote would subsequently count for nothing - as everyone said running up to Lisbon I: 'Sure if we say no they'll only make us vote again'.

I was half expecting the results of the referendum on Lisbon I to be falsified if it was a No majority. The politicians were so cock sure that it would be an overwhelming 'yes' that they arbitrarily insulted the public on very numerous occasions and did not bother presenting any cojent arguments in favour of the treaty. At least they are currently seeming to eat humble pie now, even if Lisbon II is a re-hash.

the_dark_side

the_dark_side wrote: »

The bile-filled assault on Irish voters who rejected the Lisbon Treaty shows just how corrupt and undemocratic the EU is.

How can the Irish be so ungrateful? That is the question being asked by EU officials (in private) and by EU supporters (in public) as the Irish went to the polls to vote on whether to accept the Lisbon Treaty on the expansion of European Union institutions. The fact that the ‘No’ lobby seemed to be gaining ground – in a country that has benefited enormously from EU subsidies! – led to an orgy of bile-ridden attacks on Irish voters.

The message is clear: the Irish should know their place in the European set-up and slavishly bow and scrape before their paymasters in Brussels. Anything else would be ‘extraordinarily ungrateful’, according to one commentator. Welcome to the ‘democratic’ EU – where most countries are bypassing their electorates and simply ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, and where the one country that is holding a referendum – Ireland – has been subjected to financial, political and emotional blackmail.

In 2002, under extreme pressure from the EU, the Irish state found a neat way to get around the inconvenient fact of a ‘No’ vote to the Nice Treaty – it simply held a second referendum (in a shameless act of political Double Jeopardy) and devoted its political and media machinery to demanding that voters make the ‘right decision’ this time. Pro-Nice posters reminded the ungrateful Irish about everything they had received from the EU. ‘Thirty billion Euros since 1973’, the posters said, while Irish ministers warned ominously that a second rejection of Nice could ‘return Ireland to poverty’. This time, the ‘Yes’ lobby won: in October 2002, 62.89 per cent of voters supported Nice.

The attacks on Irish voters for being ‘extraordinarily ungrateful’ – both for initially rejecting Nice in 2001 and for even thinking about saying ‘No’ to Lisbon – reveal a great deal about ‘democracy’ in the EU. The EU’s bureaucrats and backers seem dumbfounded that they cannot buy Irish people’s support; they find it ‘hard to fathom’ that a people who have received subsidies worth billions of Euros are not falling in line behind their rulers. It is the mark of corrupt, degenerate and anti-democratic elitism to believe that you can buy people’s votes. Indeed, in many civilised, democratic countries it is illegal for political parties to offer voters financial reward for their ballots. Yet, Mafioso-style, EU backers are telling the Irish: ‘You’ve received your monies – now do as we say.’

The assaults on Irish voters also show what it means to be a ‘democratic citizen’ in the EU: that is, someone who is financially cared for by caring-but-faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, and who should be ‘overflowing with appreciation’ for the EU elite’s grace and favour. This is the very opposite of political citizenship; it is a distortion of the traditional relationship between citizens and their governing bodies. In place of free and open debate, in which citizens are treated as adults who can have political views independent of any welfare they might receive from the authorities, we have a situation where those who dare to criticise or complain or say ‘No’ are denounced as ‘extraordinarily ungrateful’ and even ‘treacherous’. This is the kind of relationship a child has with his guardian, or a mentally ill person with his carer – it has nothing whatever to do with democracy.

Indeed, the use of that T-word – treacherous – to describe Irish voters who have rejected EU treaties tells you everything you need to know about the EU elite’s view of the European masses. The EU clearly considers itself lord of all Europe, and the people its nodding serfs.[/b] That it can be described as ‘treachery’ to make a certain political choice inside the ballot booth shows the extent to which Lisbon, like Nice before it, is an already agreed document that parliaments and the people are merely expected to rubber-stamp. How dare the ungrateful, wretched, deceitful Irish jeopardise the EU elite’s already agreed-upon and carefully thought-through plans?

The expectation that the Irish should say ‘Yes’ to Lisbon gives the lie to the idea of equality in the EU. In Brussels and across the pro-EU commentariat it is assumed that poorer countries in particular – Ireland, and also southern states such as Spain and Portugal, and the new Eastern European entries – should behave like ‘the best pupils of the European class’ because they receive generous subsidies from their masters. When the awarding of financial support becomes a key determinant in how states should relate to Brussels, then any notion of sovereign equality goes out the window. Richer states such as Britain, Germany and France can afford a more robust relationship with Brussels, whereas poorer states are told to be grateful, gracious, obedient and unquestioning. In the creaking, oligarchical bureaucracy that is the EU, the citizens of poorer member states are effectively disenfranchised, or certainly are ‘less equal’ than citizens in states that are not so reliant on EU subsidies.

The Irish referendum has struck the fear of God into the EU and its supporters – and with good reason. The fact that the ‘No’ vote is gaining ground shows that, even in nations that have for the past 35 years effectively been bribed with subsidies by EU officials, the EU has not been able to win any sense of affinity and loyalty. It is still seen by large sections of the European people as an aloof, distant and authoritarian institution to which we should say ‘No’, ‘Non’, ‘Nein’; the EU has come to embody people’s bigger sense of dislocation from political institutions today. The Irish referendum is exposing the thin veneer of the EU’s legitimacy and stripping away its democratic masquerade, leaving it exposed as shrill, undemocratic, unequal and corrupt. Who wouldn’t want to say ‘No’ to that?

I have just deleted the definition of treachary K-9, your right... its better without it. Sorry if this seems excessively wordy, I felt it needed to be said. It offers a bit more than the usual Punch and Judy 'vote no'..'vote yes'...'vote no' dialogue

P. Breathnach

the_dark_side wrote: »

I have just deleted the definition of treachary K-9, your right... its better without it. Sorry if this seems excessively wordy, I felt it needed to be said. It offers a bit more than the usual Punch and Judy 'vote no'..'vote yes'...'vote no' dialogue

Sorry: I still can't get through it. The opening sentence sets a tone that does not chime with me. Polemic, to be effective, needs to be very well done.

conchubhar1

do not comment if you are not going to read it (all) ^

Mario007

the_dark_side wrote: »

I have just deleted the definition of treachary K-9, your right... its better without it. Sorry if this seems excessively wordy, I felt it needed to be said. It offers a bit more than the usual Punch and Judy 'vote no'..'vote yes'...'vote no' dialogue

dude i think you're really taking it over the top and being a bit too melodramatic, though you're right at least its not the 'vote no' or 'vote yes' only comment that doesnt really say anything else or doesnt even give a reason.
with regards to why are we voting again on lisbon, i set up a thread about that, where i tried to actually explain it, you might want to check it out

conchubhar1

we are voting again because we voted the wrong way and the government wants it implemented

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

we are voting again because we voted the wrong way and the government wants it implemented

yes obviously...its in their program...but its legal, its democratic and if the irish show that they indeed mean to say 'no' then there shouldnt be any worry about it.

conchubhar1

you left out the ''we voted the wrong way part''

but yeah, im not debating its legal and if indeed we still want it or not that will be decided

but the economic crisis can be used and i have no doubt it will be used to scare just as much as cóir and libertas lied and scared to help a no vote
except this time it will suit and be perpertrated by the govt (in part)

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

you left out the ''we voted the wrong way part''

but yeah, im not debating its legal and if indeed we still want it or not that will be decided

but the economic crisis can be used and i have no doubt it will be used to scare just as much as cóir and libertas lied and scared to help a no vote
except this time it will suit and be perpertrated by the govt (in part)

ya i know and in fact, even though i'm pro lisbon, this kind of thing that should not be used in a campaign, just like libertas should not have used their lies last year.
thats why i think these complex treaties should be approved by the dail and seanad...something like the anglo-irish treaty...have all the TDs and senators go back home and have them have meetings with their voters and the voters will express their opinions and then TDs and senators vote on the issue...

conchubhar1

indeed, there was a lot of foul play on both sides last time

i still firmly believe in referendums


on your other point, that was a different time

call me cynical, but that was a time when you could trust our politicians..... now dont get me wrong i trust a lot of them now - but this is a big big treaty
and deserves much debate and discussion and in my opinion a national vote..

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

indeed, there was a lot of foul play on both sides last time

i still firmly believe in referendums


on your other point, that was a different time

call me cynical, but that was a time when you could trust our politicians..... now dont get me wrong i trust a lot of them now - but this is a big big treaty
and deserves much debate and discussion and in my opinion a national vote..

well there's a lot of that out there, the mistrust in our politicians and indeed it should have a discussion of its own,but you're right...i suppose we need new blood in politics to restore credibility.
in a case of a national vote we should probably get a panel of experts from russia and america who would tell us the pluses and minuses of the treaty so as to avoid bias...because thats one thing that i dont like about all this campaigning...its tends to be very very bias and mostly populistic lies

conchubhar1

i really really like that idea (panel of worldwide experts

---

instead of sheep politicians - minus mckenna and a few others who thought out their posistions besides just voting along party lines)

that could work - not going to happen but in the future thats a solid idea

Mario007

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i really really like that idea (panel of worldwide experts

---

instead of sheep politicians - minus mckenna and a few others who thought out their posistions besides just voting along party lines)

that could work - not going to happen but in the future thats a solid idea

thanks:D now we should get mark little from primetime to this debate as well and maybe he'll manage to arrange something:rolleyes: