Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
reason for any lisbon referendum?
Options
Comments
-
Tell you what - and I'm sure you'll feel this is an abuse of position - how about you stop calling things you disagree with "horseshit" and other scatological terms. You disagree with me - that's all you need to say to me or to any other poster. Keep it polite, or take it somewhere else.
Complaints to the Help Desk as usual.
moderately,
Scofflaw
I politely agreed to disagree Scofflaw. YOU decided to come back with more unnecessary content.0 -
I politely agreed to disagree Scofflaw. YOU decided to come back with more unnecessary content.
That's not what I'm requesting. I'm requesting you drop the scatological terms and the verbal aggression. I'm doing this as a moderator, but if I wasn't a moderator I'd be asking a moderator to do it on my behalf.
moderately,
Scofflaw0 -
Oscarbravo's post above is a perfect example of his slight of hand when discussing an issue.
OB accused me of claiming "...that most people want to vote on every bill that their respective parliaments pass."
I replied, "Where?", as I knew that wasn't what I said.
We can see that my actual quote of"SOME would. But most people would choose the right to have a say on the matter.
You cannot get away from that, no matter what hoops you try and jump through to suit your present argument."
...is NOT the same as saying that they want to vote on EVERY single bill, especially in the context of the discussion: The Lisbon Treaty, which is what I am talking about.
YOU are the only poster who has brought up the complete non sequitur of individual bills (finance or otherwise). It's a ridiculous and un necessary tangent to introduce nonsense like finance bills.
Asking someone to vote on a finance bill, is a very different thing to asking them their view on a thing like Lisbon's common defence plan.0 -
You can claim that's not what you meant, but you most certainly can't claim that it's not what you said. If you want to be understood, you should express yourself more clearly.Oscarbravo's post above is a perfect example of his slight of hand when discussing an issue.
OB accused me of claiming "...that most people want to vote on every bill that their respective parliaments pass."
That's an arbitrary distinction that you've decided to draw. You have decided that Lisbon has a greater impact on people's lives than the (at least) annual finance bills to which they are subject, and which will (in my view) impact them much more directly. You have also unilaterally decided that most people want to vote on Lisbon, although they don't appear to have wanted to vote on many other EU treaties, and you seem to accept that they don't want to vote on the other duties that their respective constitutions delegate to their elected representatives.YOU are the only poster who has brought up the complete non sequitur of individual bills (finance or otherwise). It's a ridiculous and un necessary tangent to introduce nonsense like finance bills.
Asking someone to vote on a finance bill, is a very different thing to asking them their view on a thing like Lisbon's common defence plan.
Most tellingly, you have yet to produce anything resembling evidence in support of any of your positions, preferring to rely on describing other people's positions as idiotic and ridiculous.
So, do you have any evidence? Or is my asking you to support your view "idiotic"?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »You can claim that's not what you meant, but you most certainly can't claim that it's not what you said. If you want to be understood, you should express yourself more clearly.
It becomes diffcult to remain completely clear where nonsense is continually introduced to derail a point.
Let's be VERY clear and put this "bill" nonsense to bed once and for all.
Having a say on an item such as the Lisbon treaty (which is made up of multiple items) is VERY different than an individual finance bill.
You introduced the nonsense idea that because people don't vote on individual finance bills, then it's ok that they shouldn't get a say on Lisbon either.
The analogy is silly, but you keep trying to drive it on.Most tellingly, you have yet to produce anything resembling evidence in support of any of your positions, preferring to rely on describing other people's positions as idiotic and ridiculous.
It's easy to point out your contribution as "...idiotic and ridiculous", because that is what it appears to be.
I have shown a poll stating that in France at least, 59% of people asked, wanted a referendum at that time. There are other polls with higher percentages. The Dutch turned out to vote on the EU Constitution to the tune of 65% or thereabouts, which shows that quite a number of them were happy to vote in a referendum for that. The British people are furious that they have been denied a vote (it's damaged Brown's cred terribly) and I can't see the Irish people being too happy if their opportunity for referendum was taken away either.
So, there is quite a bit of indication that people wish to have a say on items, such as the Lisbon Treaty.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's also difficult to have a reasonable discussion when one of the participants keeps throwing pejorative terms around.It becomes diffcult to remain completely clear where nonsense is continually introduced to derail a point.
...because, as we all know, a finance bill only contains one provision.Let's be VERY clear and put this "bill" nonsense to bed once and for all.
Having a say on an item such as the Lisbon treaty (which is made up of multiple items) is VERY different than an individual finance bill.
And you accuse me of nonsense?
Nice try, but that's not what I said.You introduced the nonsense idea that because people don't vote on individual finance bills, then it's ok that they shouldn't get a say on Lisbon either.
I made the point that people elect representatives to run the country for them, precisely so they don't have to make decisions on every legislative issue themselves. You tried to argue that, given a choice between voting and not voting, people will choose to vote every time, and claimed - whether you now accept it or not - that they would like the opportunity to vote on every piece of legislation.
Now you're rowing back and claiming that people don't want to vote on everything, but that they do want to vote on Lisbon. Since your "self-evident" argument has been shown to be hollow, on what do you base this?
So you keep saying. I live in hope that you'll rise above that sort of "debate", but not in expectation.It's easy to point out your contribution as "...idiotic and ridiculous", because that is what it appears to be.
That's four countries out of twenty-seven, one of which always ratifies EU treaties by referendum, and another of which can't.I have shown a poll stating that in France at least, 59% of people asked, wanted a referendum at that time. There are other polls with higher percentages. The Dutch turned out to vote on the EU Constitution to the tune of 65% or thereabouts, which shows that quite a number of them were happy to vote in a referendum for that. The British people are furious that they have been denied a vote (it's damaged Brown's cred terribly) and I can't see the Irish people being too happy if their opportunity for referendum was taken away either.
What percentage of Slovenians want a referendum? What percentage of Portugese?0 -
ok, eh well first off (as a neutral by-stander), this thread started out as a question as to why the constitution requires us to have a referendum. Has been answered, and has since been slowly turned into loads of negitive posts... Here is what i've gathered so far....
Tony EH believes the people of europe (be it the people of the France or whatever) should have the right to vote on issues that have a massive impact on their country (like affecting the soveignty).
However, my 2 cents here, there was a european election held recently, which i'm sure the Lisbon treaty was a big issue, so if the UK didn't want the Lisbon treaty they could vote in people who fight for the believes and issues. The constitution is there becuase of past work, we do not just throw that away because it is made more then ten years ago, we stick by it and update it.
The main reason (no evidence so you can really dismiss this) the vote was no, was because people didnt know enough about it, which means (in my opinion) you should NOT vote. Also it will be a yes this time, but mainly becuase of the economy, not because of people being educated in the matter.
I am personally surprised ireland, and not the eastern block has to vote on this, i would have thought they would be more power to the people as opposed to government.
(btw sorry for spelling errors)0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »...because, as we all know, a finance bill only contains one provision.
Finance bills and treaties such as Lisbon are not the same thing. But you know this already and continue to try and derail the point.oscarBravo wrote: »I made the point that people elect representatives to run the country for them, precisely so they don't have to make decisions on every legislative issue themselves. You tried to argue that, given a choice between voting and not voting, people will choose to vote every time, and claimed - whether you now accept it or not - that they would like the opportunity to vote on every piece of legislation.
Look, I was clear about this back in post #39.
I'll reiterate for, as you seem to be having some trouble with it.
I maintain that given the choice people would RATHER HAVE THE CHOICE TO VOTE THAN NOT HAVE A CHOICE AT ALL ON MATTERS SUCH AS LISBON.
Are you clear?
As for "elected representives (running) the country"...I didn't vote for Sarkozy, or Merkel, or Brown etc. Which is why I would like a say on the proposals they are for, or against in the EU.That's four countries out of twenty-seven, one of which always ratifies EU treaties by referendum, and another of which can't.
You asked...and of course reply in a blase manner because it doesn't suit your argument, which seems to be typical of you.
There is no political will to ask the people, because the power elite are afraid of a 'No' vote, because that's what they got on teh EU Constitution. That's why the people are being bypassed this time and it makes a lot of people rightfully uneasy about the direction that the EU is going in.
You don't care about this, re:Lisbon, because you are firmly in the 'Yes' camp and that's fair enough. But, say Ireland never had a constitutional requirement for a referendum and something was raised in future EU reforms that you felt strongly against but couldn't have a say on them.
You'd care then.0 -
ok, eh well first off (as a neutral by-stander), this thread started out as a question as to why the constitution requires us to have a referendum. Has been answered, and has since been slowly turned into loads of negitive posts... Here is what i've gathered so far....
Tony EH believes the people of europe (be it the people of the France or whatever) should have the right to vote on issues that have a massive impact on their country (like affecting the soveignty).
However, my 2 cents here, there was a european election held recently, which i'm sure the Lisbon treaty was a big issue, so if the UK didn't want the Lisbon treaty they could vote in people who fight for the believes and issues. The constitution is there becuase of past work, we do not just throw that away because it is made more then ten years ago, we stick by it and update it.
The main reason (no evidence so you can really dismiss this) the vote was no, was because people didnt know enough about it, which means (in my opinion) you should NOT vote. Also it will be a yes this time, but mainly becuase of the economy, not because of people being educated in the matter.
I am personally surprised ireland, and not the eastern block has to vote on this, i would have thought they would be more power to the people as opposed to government.
Funnily enough, those who have emerged from dictatorships are often a little more wary of referendums than those that have never suffered them.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Tony EH believes the people of europe (be it the people of the France or whatever) should have the right to vote on issues that have a massive impact on their country (like affecting the soveignty).
And I find it difficult to believe that anyone would have a problem with that, frankly.However, my 2 cents here, there was a european election held recently, which i'm sure the Lisbon treaty was a big issue, so if the UK didn't want the Lisbon treaty they could vote in people who fight for the believes and issues.
Unfortunately, when you have a leader of a Country who is denying his electorate a say on a EU teaty, even though he promised the electorate one. There's not much you can do about it, until a general election is called.0 -
Advertisement
-
Either way, the question of whether or not other countries have referendums doesn't change what's in Lisbon, doesn't change the pros and cons of Lisbon for Ireland, and voting on Lisbon makes no difference to whether other countries will in future hold referendums.
In a sense, though, I suppose it's nice to see that a pan-European demos has evolved to the point where the voting rights of others are a concern. The traditional Irish view was to congratulate ourselves on living in a country with a better constitution than others.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I maintain that given the choice people would RATHER HAVE THE CHOICE TO VOTE THAN NOT HAVE A CHOICE AT ALL ON MATTERS SUCH AS LISBON.
Yes but who decides when we vote on what? i mean i might want to have a vote on who the dail picks to cleaning the place, but as we can't have a vote for every small matter, the government which we elect is trusted with this job. And we also set out what we can vote on (like a new dail. but not a senate)As for "elected representives (running) the country"...I didn't vote for Sarkozy, or Merkel, or Brown etc. Which is why I would like a say on the proposals they are for, or against in the EU.
Actually you CAN'T vote for sarkozy, etc, because he represents the FRENCH people, but you are IRISH, vote for your european representitive to have your say on proposals they are for/against. i.e go VOTE, if you don't vote, you don't get a say, so if a lisbon treaty comes around, a referendum should not be needed as the people you voted to represent you are in Europe working for you.There is no political will to ask the people, because the power elite are afraid of a 'No' vote, because that's what they got on teh EU Constitution. That's why the people are being bypassed this time and it makes a lot of people rightfully uneasy about the direction that the EU is going in.
The EU Constitution was proposed to each country, and the French and Dutch governments vetoed it (because of the referendum), as it was against their laws/constitution (not sure what exactly).
So it was redrafted, now it does not affect their laws or constitution so the ELECTED government of these countries passed the lisbon treaty WITHOUT a referendum leaving everyone's political freedoms intact. Some people WOULD have liked to vote on this issue (I for one would rather it didnt have to go to a vote as we have people we elected for us to do this, so why are we paying them??), however it was no longer a reforendum issue in these countries and was now up to the publics elected representitives.
However there is a reforendum in Ireland. If the people of Europe have such a strong view of NO, then why don't they campaign here for a NO vote? or try to rally and change their government to do their bidding?You don't care about this, re:Lisbon, because you are firmly in the 'Yes' camp and that's fair enough. But, say Ireland never had a constitutional requirement for a referendum and something was raised in future EU reforms that you felt strongly against but couldn't have a say on them.
You'd care then.
NO i wouldn't care then, because i care now, and i vote for people i feel address the right issues and have the correct stance on issues, so they would raise these points in europe and have my say for me (and most of the population as they are elected...)0 -
Ok Reunion. First of all, none of the above...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60894961&postcount=129
...was actually a reply to your post, which I didn't have a problem with. I was replying to Oscarbravo's post. I think you've got mixed up.
However...Yes but who decides when we vote on what? i mean i might want to have a vote on who the dail picks to cleaning the place, but as we can't have a vote for every small matter
Who cleans the Dail is unimportant. Major reforms on how your country operates, is.Actually you CAN'T vote for sarkozy, etc, because he represents the FRENCH people...
OMG. That's not the point. If the people of the member states cannot vote on reforms like Lisbon, then they are not getting a say. People who weren't put into power by electorates of foreign nations are making decisions that affect those foreign nations, but the people of those nations are not getting a say on what refroms those people are pushing through.
Of course, Sarkozy represents the French people. But he's ratifying a treaty that many people across Europe don't agree with (either in part or in whole).
This isn't very well thought out. Nobody knows what reforms are going to be proposed up in the future. You cannot "vote somebody in" hoping that they'll vote in your way on a given set of issues 2 years from now. The electorate will only know about the reforms when there are proposed.vote for your european representitive to have your say on proposals they are for/against. i.e go VOTE, if you don't vote, you don't get a say, so if a lisbon treaty comes around, a referendum should not be needed as the people you voted to represent you are in Europe working for you.
The French and Dutch PEOPLE rejected it, not their governments and it wasn't against their "laws/constituion".The EU Constitution was proposed to each country, and the French and Dutch governments vetoed it (because of the referendum), as it was against their laws/constitution (not sure what exactly).
?So it was redrafted, now it does not affect their laws or constitution so the ELECTED government of these countries passed the lisbon treaty WITHOUT a referendum leaving everyone's political freedoms intact.NO i wouldn't care then, because i care now, and i vote for people i feel address the right issues and have the correct stance on issues, so they would raise these points in europe and have my say for me
NOBODY can possibly forsee what reforms will be proposed at EU level at a given future date, when they are voting for their domestic representatives.
I know quite a few Fianna Fail voters, who are disappointed with FF's stance on ratifying the Lisbon reforms. But they are getting a chance to voice their disapproval of the Lisbon Treaty. There are probably plenty of Germans who voted for Merkel who disagree with her stance on Lisbon. But they're NOT getting a chance to voice their disapproval.
See the point?0 -
By that simplistic dichotomy, a Finance Bill is unimportant?Who cleans the Dail is unimportant. Major reforms on how your country operates, is.
I know, I know, it bothers you that I keep bringing Finance Bills into the discussion - but you haven't explained to my satisfaction why you trust the government with managing the income and expenditure of the country, but don't trust them with a relatively minor restructuring of the EU's institutions.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »
What percentage of Slovenians want a referendum? What percentage of Portugese?
how many were asked?
they have no right or want unless they riot in the streets or storm the govt buidings?0 -
oscarbravo please stop bringing up side points!
this is not about a finance bill, nor is it about trusting fianna fáil/the government0 -
Ok Reunion. First of all, none of the above...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60894961&postcount=129
...was actually a reply to your post, which I didn't have a problem with. I was replying to Oscarbravo's post. I think you've got mixed up.
I know, i just replied to it anyway...Who cleans the Dail is unimportant. Major reforms on how your country operates, is.
Again how do you determine what we should vote on? Yes lisbon is a major reform, but who says we should vote on it? That is why previous laws/documents have been issued/approved by the people/government. (i'm not a minister so i don't know what is the EXACT name for these things..)OMG. That's not the point. If the people of the member states cannot vote on reforms like Lisbon, then they are not getting a say. People who weren't put into power by electorates of foreign nations are making decisions that affect those foreign nations, but the people of those nations are not getting a say on what refroms those people are pushing through.
I also didn't get a say on when the next referendum was being held, that was up to the government...
Oh wait i voted to elect people to speak for me, and THEY decided to have the election on that date...
(im not 100% sure if the government decides these dates but you get my point)Of course, Sarkozy represents the French people. But he's ratifying a treaty that many people across Europe don't agree with (either in part or in whole).
Ok so now what your saying is Sarkozy who represents the French people, wants to ratify the Lisbon treaty... And the french people have a say in europe through Sarkozy, one could presume the majority of France wants the Lisbon treaty ratified.
Yes maybe some people across Europe don't agree with it, i'm quite sure it would be hard to find someone to agree to everything in the Lisbon treaty, but it would be just as hard to find someone in Ireland to agree 100% to the Irish Constitution.
If people across europe don't agree with the Lisbon Treaty, then the people they have elected to their government will choose not to ratify the treaty.This isn't very well thought out. Nobody knows what reforms are going to be proposed up in the future. You cannot "vote somebody in" hoping that they'll vote in your way on a given set of issues 2 years from now. The electorate will only know about the reforms when there are proposed.
Ok if that is the case then we should have elections more frequently (like every year). NOT vote on every issue. We have agreed that every 5 years we vote for new MEP's, so we trust that they will follow what the people want, and if they don't they will not be re-elected.The French and Dutch PEOPLE rejected it, not their governments and it wasn't against their "laws/constituion".
Actually the Dutch could have pushed it through anyway, HOWEVER the government DID NOT ratify the constitution so the GOVERNMENT rejected the EU constituion. If we vote YES for lisbon, the government CAN still reject the treaty.
I don't know why the french had to have a vote, hence why i said
"(not sure what exactly)."
and it had to be against something, we don't have refendums for no reason.?
I don't know where you are having the problem with... maybe if you could give a bit of further explaination it might be good...
But i'll try refrase what i said... The EU constitution needed a reforendum in certain countries, so people had to vote on it. Now the Lisbon treaty has been made so it does NOT require reforendums in all the countries (bar Ireland). So nobody is losing their voice in europe, as this is no longer a reforendum matter (bar Ireland), and their voice is being acted through their government.NOBODY can possibly forsee what reforms will be proposed at EU level at a given future date, when they are voting for their domestic representatives.
I know quite a few Fianna Fail voters, who are disappointed with FF's stance on ratifying the Lisbon reforms. But they are getting a chance to voice their disapproval of the Lisbon Treaty. There are probably plenty of Germans who voted for Merkel who disagree with her stance on Lisbon. But they're NOT getting a chance to voice their disapproval.
There are also people who didn't vote for Merkel, and who agree with her stance on lisbon. They aren't getting a chance to voice their approval. Why? Because they didn't vote for her. The people who are currently unhappy with Merkel's stance on Lisbon should not have voted for her and should choose not to vote for her in the next election, simple as that.0 -
I don't know. I don't care. They are sovereign countries, and how they govern themselves is none of my business. I wouldn't dream of being so arrogant as to suggest that they change the way they ratify treaties.conchubhar1 wrote: »how many were asked?
Nope, sorry - I'm not going to let someone frame the discussion on their terms. Tony has claimed that Lisbon is such a life-altering cataclysm that the national constitutions of sovereign states should be overridden (how and by whom, he declines to suggest) to deal with it. He claims it as self-evident that the majority of the people of Europe desperately (albeit strangely silently) demand the opportunity to vote on this, while being perfectly content to allow their elected representatives make decisions that impact much more directly, and much more profoundly, on their lives.conchubhar1 wrote: »oscarbravo please stop bringing up side points!
this is not about a finance bill, nor is it about trusting fianna fáil/the government
It may be true - and there may be an invisible pink unicorn orbiting the moon. Until someone produces something resembling evidence, I'm not buying either.
Also, Tony has now introduced a scale of "importance", where the selection of janitorial staff is "low", and Lisbon is "high" - with Finance Bills apparently somewhere closer to the cleaning staff. I'd love to know exactly things get ranked on this scale.0 -
lsibon reforms the two previous treaties of the eu
that alone is why we should vote on it
but this is all getting quite off hand of the original question - what sepcificaly triggered the need for a referendum
in law!
there are numerous discussions with why it is happening and should it happen - ie the rest of the eu isnt voting why should we....
bull**** i know but0 -
words could not describe, oscarbravo
how did you ever get modship of a debating forum?
saying i dont care to everything is utterly useless
i am not framing the discussion
i am asking you not to cloud it with irrelavant points
and fanciful scenrios of unicorns and pixies..................0 -
Advertisement
-
conchubhar1 wrote: »how many were asked?
they have no right or want unless they riot in the streets or storm the govt buidings?
I wasn't asked if we should have a reforendum, these countries have their laws and bills etc in place and it doesn't require a reforendum to ratify the lisbon treaty.
AND yes, if the people they elected aren't doing what the people of the country want, thats what they might have to do. They chose to elect them for x years, and if they want them out, then that what they might have to do. (maybe not riot, but protest first)0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »By that simplistic dichotomy, a Finance Bill is unimportant?
I know, I know, it bothers you that I keep bringing Finance Bills into the discussion - but you haven't explained to my satisfaction why you trust the government with managing the income and expenditure of the country, but don't trust them with a relatively minor restructuring of the EU's institutions.
What? Are you trying to tell people that you really don't understand the difference?
Look, the majority of people would feel uncomfortable at best about making an informed vote on a finance bill. However, they wouldn't feel that level of discomfort about voting on issues that they feel will affect them in other ways, like how power is structured, a common defence/mutual assistance plan, how your country may opt in or opt out of given legislature, issues affecting neutrality (not that Lisbon does, but future changes might) or an EU President and who gets to elect him/her for example.
A finance bill just wouldn't be on most peoples radar, but the relatively high turnout for the Lisbon referendum shows clearly that people do want a say on issues like the treaty of Lisbon.
In any case, if a given finance bill is going bad for a particular country, then maybe there is a case that it should be put to the people to see if they want it changed or not.0 -
I know, i just replied to it anyway...
Again how do you determine what we should vote on? Yes lisbon is a major reform, but who says we should vote on it? That is why previous laws/documents have been issued/approved by the people/government. (i'm not a minister so i don't know what is the EXACT name for these things..)
I also didn't get a say on when the next referendum was being held, that was up to the government...
Oh wait i voted to elect people to speak for me, and THEY decided to have the election on that date...
(im not 100% sure if the government decides these dates but you get my point)
Ok so now what your saying is Sarkozy who represents the French people, wants to ratify the Lisbon treaty... And the french people have a say in europe through Sarkozy, one could presume the majority of France wants the Lisbon treaty ratified.
Yes maybe some people across Europe don't agree with it, i'm quite sure it would be hard to find someone to agree to everything in the Lisbon treaty, but it would be just as hard to find someone in Ireland to agree 100% to the Irish Constitution.
If people across europe don't agree with the Lisbon Treaty, then the people they have elected to their government will choose not to ratify the treaty.
Ok if that is the case then we should have elections more frequently (like every year). NOT vote on every issue. We have agreed that every 5 years we vote for new MEP's, so we trust that they will follow what the people want, and if they don't they will not be re-elected.
Actually the Dutch could have pushed it through anyway, HOWEVER the government DID NOT ratify the constitution so the GOVERNMENT rejected the EU constituion. If we vote YES for lisbon, the government CAN still reject the treaty.
I don't know why the french had to have a vote, hence why i said
"(not sure what exactly)."
and it had to be against something, we don't have refendums for no reason.
I don't know where you are having the problem with... maybe if you could give a bit of further explaination it might be good...
But i'll try refrase what i said... The EU constitution needed a reforendum in certain countries, so people had to vote on it. Now the Lisbon treaty has been made so it does NOT require reforendums in all the countries (bar Ireland). So nobody is losing their voice in europe, as this is no longer a reforendum matter (bar Ireland), and their voice is being acted through their government.
There are also people who didn't vote for Merkel, and who agree with her stance on lisbon. They aren't getting a chance to voice their approval. Why? Because they didn't vote for her. The people who are currently unhappy with Merkel's stance on Lisbon should not have voted for her and should choose not to vote for her in the next election, simple as that.
Sorry, but you are just way off the mark.0 -
conchubhar1 wrote: »lsibon reforms the two previous treaties of the eu
that alone is why we should vote on it
but this is all getting quite off hand of the original question - what sepcificaly triggered the need for a referendum
in law!
there are numerous discussions with why it is happening and should it happen - ie the rest of the eu isnt voting why should we....
bull**** i know but
Well if the rest of europe isn't voting, it doesn't mean we shouldn't vote. We aren't run like the rest of europe hence why we are voting.conchubhar1 wrote: »and fanciful scenrios of unicorns and pixies..................
he never said anything about pixies
0 -
If you have a problem with the way I moderate, take it up on the Help Desk - read the charter. Not that it's relevant, as what you're objecting to is the way I argue, not the way I moderate.conchubhar1 wrote: »how did you ever get modship of a debating forum?
I haven't said "I don't care" to everything; I've said that I don't care how other sovereign nations run their internal affairs.saying i dont care to everything is utterly useless
That's framing the discussion. I'm drawing analogies - you don't like those analogies, and are asking that I restrict myself to discussing things only on the terms that (who? you? Tony?) set out.i am not framing the discussion
i am asking you not to cloud it with irrelavant points
I didn't mention pixies, and if you don't understand the point of an analogy, perhaps you should stay out of the discussion. More to the point, if you have nothing more useful to contribute than petty criticism of how someone else posts, then perhaps you should stay out of it.and fanciful scenrios of unicorns and pixies..................0 -
-
conchubhar1 wrote: »lsibon reforms the two previous treaties of the eu
that alone is why we should vote on it
but this is all getting quite off hand of the original question - what sepcificaly triggered the need for a referendum
in law!
there are numerous discussions with why it is happening and should it happen - ie the rest of the eu isnt voting why should we....
bull**** i know but
Because, if ratified, it changes our Constiution and that triggers the need for a referendum here.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »No, you're way off the mark.
(Wow, debating is so much easier this way. Why bother with, y'know, reasoned arguments?)
have you bothered before?
pixies on the upper side of jupiter!
0 -
but - as asked and i think - cant quite remember among the mess - answered was
what exactly - which lines etc etc triggered it
its not in our constitution it was from a case from the 80's or 90's0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »No, you're way off the mark.
(Wow, debating is so much easier this way. Why bother with, y'know, reasoned arguments?)
I agree with conchubhar1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60903033&postcount=141
Your moderation and contribution is a joke.0
Advertisement