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
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    What? Are you trying to tell people that you really don't understand the difference?
    Don't patronise me.
    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.
    Let me get this straight: you're claiming that the average person would rather not vote on a Finance Bill because it's too complicated, but would be perfectly content to vote on an international treaty between 27 sovereign states, because it's much simpler?

    Once again, I don't suppose you have any evidence for this?
    A finance bill just wouldn't be on most peoples radar...
    Yeah, the budget barely gets a mention on page 7 of the paper. :rolleyes:
    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.
    Perhaps we should ratify Lisbon, and if it goes badly for us we can make a case for putting it to the people afterwards.


  • Options
    #153
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    right finance bills are great

    can you get back to the point!


    and btw just in case - pixies and fairies on the moon are great too
    so again get back on point
    and stop sidetracking things


  • Options
    #154
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Because, if ratified, it changes our Constiution and that triggers the need for a referendum here.
    Wrong. Try again.
    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    have you bothered before?


    pixies on the upper side of jupiter! ;)
    That's your idea of a useful contribution?
    Tony EH wrote: »
    I agree with conchubhar1

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60903033&postcount=141

    Your moderation and contribution is a joke.
    As I said to him - if you have a problem with my moderation, take it to the Help Desk. If you have a problem with my contributions, refute them intelligently.


  • Options
    #155
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    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's

    I don't think there's any particular line or lines in the proposals that triggered a referendum. It's simply the fact that it's been proposed.


    From Wiki...
    A 1987 decision of the Supreme Court established that ratification by Ireland of any significant amendment to the Treaties of the European Union requires an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland. All Constitutional amendments require approval by referendum.


  • Options
    #156
    reunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    and stop sidetracking things

    agreed, but i do have to ask about the finance bills, i mean, why should we vote on lisbon but not that? Because we have elected a government who appoint a minister for finance to run the finances for the country!!! AND the other countries in the EU appoint people to ratify the Lisbon treaty, so i hope we can agree that if their isn't any visible evidence of people being against the Lisbon treaty in these countries, we can presume that the majority of people are for it.


    The referedum arises from a legal precedent that to do otherwise would violate the Irish Constitution. This precedent was established by a 1987 Irish Supreme Court decision that ruled that significant changes to national sovereignty included in the Single European Act require the permission from the Irish voters in the form of a referendum. The Treaty seeks to amend the Single European Act. A part of the the Supreme Court decision is that the State's power to determine its foreign relations is held in trust from the people and may not be alienated by the government without their approval.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Treaty#Referendum


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    As I said to him - if you have a problem with my moderation, take it to the Help Desk. If you have a problem with my contributions, refute them intelligently.

    No, do you know what. I'm just going to ignore you. Your contribution is farcical and serves only to cloud the issue rather than actually constructively further it.

    What you add, simply turns a thread in circles and is exactly the equine excrement that I called it earlier.


  • Options
    #158
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    hi i would like to bring up the no confidence bills

    what do these say for lisbon?

    any other bills that have no relevance to lisbon to cloud the issue, add them right on in here


  • Options
    #159
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you have a problem with my contributions, refute them intelligently.
    Tony EH wrote: »
    No, do you know what. I'm just going to ignore you.
    Or, y'know, don't.


  • Options
    #160
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    right so we have to refute things intelligently


    whereas you can dispute them with ''i dont care''

    that doesnt matter because creatures on the moon are ''possible also''

    and bringing in ireelevant points to cloud the discussion


  • Options
    #161
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    ''custodiam ipsos custodes''

    indeed


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    reunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    Tony EH wrote: »
    I agree with conchubhar1

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60903033&postcount=141

    Your moderation and contribution is a joke.


    How is his moderation a joke? if i was him i would have banned you account on page 2 of this thread for vulger language. But hey, maybe thats why his moderation is a joke....

    Tony, i have to say, so far, all you have done is attack other people as opposed to bringing evidence, which frankly, i don't want to see anymore or be a victim of.


  • Options
    #163
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Discussion of moderation is off-topic. conchubhar1 banned for a week for refusing to accept this.


  • Options
    #164
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    But Reunion, there hasn't been any evidence brought.

    There has been no solid reason why reforms such as Lisbon shouldn't be put to a public vote in the 27 member states.


  • Options
    #165
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    There has been no solid reason why reforms such as Lisbon shouldn't be put to a public vote in the 27 member states.
    Why does the fact that some member states never put treaties to referendum even enter into your calculations?


  • Options
    #166
    reunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    right so we have to refute things intelligently


    whereas you can dispute them with ''i dont care''

    that doesnt matter because creatures on the moon are ''possible also''

    and bringing in ireelevant points to cloud the discussion

    I believe he stated he did not care how the other countries in the EU are run, and how they ratify the Lisbon treaty.

    Can we please drop the ridicule of oscarBravo, from something both you conchubhar and tony read differently to what he meant. AND he posted clearing it up afterwards.


    So can we please get back on track here??

    Tony EH wrote: »
    But Reunion, there hasn't been any evidence brought.

    There has been no solid reason why reforms such as Lisbon shouldn't be put to a public vote in the 27 member states.



    EH?!!!!


    how about how their countries are run??? Seems if their governments ratify the treaty, the people agree, if not CAN I SEE SOME EVIDENCE??


  • Options
    #167
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Why does the fact that some member states never put treaties to referendum even enter into your calculations?

    Ignored.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60903279&postcount=157


  • Options
    #168
    reunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Ignored.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60903279&postcount=157

    ok i'll say it so,

    Why does the fact that some member states never put treaties to referendum even enter into your calculations?


  • Options
    #169
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Ignored.
    Knock yourself out, but it's not going to stop me pointing out what I see as the illogic of your position.


  • Options
    #170
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    reunion wrote: »


    how about how their countries are run??? Seems if their governments ratify the treaty, the people agree, if not CAN I SEE SOME EVIDENCE??

    There's a difference between excuses and reasons Reunion.

    The EU Constitution was put to a referendum in France and Holland and would heve been put to a referendum here too, but it was abandoned before it could.

    So why not put the Treaty of Lsbon (the EU Constitution's bastard child) before a referendum too?


  • Options
    #171
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Knock yourself out, but it's not going to stop me pointing out what I see as the illogic of your position.

    Ignored.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=157


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    So why not put the Treaty of Lsbon (the EU Constitution's bastard child) before a referendum too?
    Including in those member states that didn't have, and wouldn't have had, a referendum on the Constitution?


  • Options
    #173
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    reunion wrote: »
    ok i'll say it so,

    Why does the fact that some member states never put treaties to referendum even enter into your calculations?

    That's not point Reunion. That's no reason why it shouldn't be put to the people.


  • Options
    #174
    reunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    Tony EH wrote: »
    There's a difference between excuses and reasons Reunion.

    The EU Constitution was put to a referendum in France and Holland and would heve been put to a referendum here too, but it was abandoned before it could.

    So why not put the Treaty of Lsbon (the EU Constitution's bastard child) before a referendum too?


    It wasn't abandoned because it was not needed in the first place by French and Dutch governemnt to ratify the lisbon treaty!!!

    The treaty of lisbon, has been modified so it does NOT require a reforendum in France and Holland, even if it is similar to the EU constitution, the French were asked in the vote

    Approuvez-vous le projet de loi qui autorise la ratification du traité établissant une Constitution pour l'Europe ?"Do you approve the bill authorising the ratification of the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005


    The Dutch were asked

    Bent U voor of tegen instemming door Nederland met het verdrag tot vaststelling van een grondwet voor Europa?"Are you in favour of or against approval by the Netherlands of the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_referendum_on_the_European_Constitution


    So they do NOT approve of the establishing a constitution for Europe. The lisbon treaty, is NOT a constitution, so that vote can not be used as evidence to be against the lisbon treaty.





    OK we get it, you're ignoring oscarbravo, but you do NOT need to say it to every post, just do not reply to his post. Saying ignored to each and every post he posts, is irrelevant, pointless and by saying ignored, you are just clarifying you HAVEN'T ignored his post and you either

    1. don't want to argue with people who are bringing relevant points
    or
    2. Attempting to bully oscarbravo


  • Options
    #175
    reunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    Tony EH wrote: »
    That's not point Reunion. That's no reason why it shouldn't be put to the people.


    ok hear me out here, it was put to the people indirectly by the people they voted to government.

    The reason why it shouldn't be put to vote in all 27 member states, is because they have legislation or a previous referendum in which they gave their government the power to make this choice for them.

    Also i say whatever oscarbravo says (if you ignore it) so save me time and just assume i'm going to repost what oscarbravo says (i.e only ignore what you believe is off topic and irrelevant and not something that is a valid point)


  • Options
    #176
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    That's no reason why it shouldn't be put to the people.
    But it does imply that there's a certain way of doing things, and that therefore there needs to be a really compelling reason to do them differently. Do you have such a reason?


  • Options
    #177
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    reunion wrote: »
    ok hear me out here, it was put to the people indirectly by the people they voted to government.

    That's rubbish.

    The idea that people can vote in domestic politicians with a view that they'll vote "the right way" on future reforms that haven't even been drafted yet is rdiculous Reunion.

    It's just a logical fallacy.


  • Options
    #178
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    reunion wrote: »

    Also i say whatever oscarbravo says (if you ignore it) so save me time and just assume i'm going to repost what oscarbravo says (i.e only ignore what you believe is off topic and irrelevant and not something that is a valid point)

    Don't bother. you haven't made the slightest bit of sense so far and I doubt OB wants you to speak on his behalf, TBH.


  • Options
    #179
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Tony EH wrote: »
    The idea that people can vote in domestic politicians with a view that they'll vote "the right way" on future reforms that haven't even been drafted yet is ridiculous Reunion.

    I think anyone with any bit of political interest could predict which parties would ratify Lisbon, or not, if they were in the majority.

    Also, what do you have to say to the fact that one of Sarcozys election promises was to ratify the treaty?


  • Options
    #180
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    What about future reforms?

    That's what I'm talking about.

    No one can possibly know what changes could be proposed in a year, or two, or three.

    Something may come along that voters of a certain party may feel strong for, or against, but they'll have no say on the matter because it mightn't be put to them.

    It's an absolute impossibility to predict how a given person may vote on an issue, years from now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    reunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    Tony EH wrote: »
    What about future reforms?

    That's what I'm talking about.

    No one can possibly know what changes could be proposed in a year, or two, or three.

    Something may come along that voters of a certain party may feel strong for, or against, but they'll have no say on the matter because it mightn't be put to them.

    It's an absolute impossibility to predict how a given person may vote on an issue, years from now.

    Well thats how the people of EVERY other country in the EU seems to think is the correct way of doing it.

    IF you think that is wrong, then you have a problem with how their countries are run.

    Also how do you know when you vote for someone in a general election that they will vote the way you like? SO either you have a problem with how long candidates are elected for, or else you have a problem with not voting for every single issue (could you tell us WHAT criteria would call for a vote? i mean a change to child allowance could warrent a vote, but you would probably insult me if i said it so im leaving you tell me the criteria)(criteria like changes the constitution, not vague like if its a "major reform", as different people have different opinions on what a major reform is).


    and if you are going to ignore him (on the assumption OB is a guy (sorry if your not)), i'm sure he would, because you know he would like HIS say on the matter. Does that make sense? i think it does, if you don't understand or agree with what i've said, then please do not insult what i said.

    So i am asking, if you call my arguement, "logical fallacy" where is your arguement that has better reasoning and proof?


Advertisement