What Happens if No Wins again?

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

In fact yes. Both suggestions are not comparing like with like.

Look, I have no problem with people who want to dismiss the point with a wave of the hand and say "representative democracy will handle that for us..." But, that's simply not good enough. There is absloutely no sound reason why EU reforms cannot be put to the people of the member states (in part or in whole).

I don't accept the "finance bill" and "representative democracy" whitewash of what I consider a serious point.

The sound reason is that the system of government in those countries does not call for it to be put to a referendum. If you want to change that, go to those countries and campaign for their system of government to be changed. You can accept that or not but that is the answer to your question.

edit: and one other good reason is that it avoids the problems Ireland had where it was rejected, not because the treaty was bad, but because people believed lies about it and because they don't like Fianna Fail. Our politicians are trusted to make laws every day of the week, it's their job, and there is no reason why this treaty should be any different

Tony EH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Is or is not the fact that other countries are not having referendums a factor in your decision to vote no?

Who said I was voting No?

Besides, the majority of people (both Yes and No) that I have talked to about the Lisbon treaty over the last year or so, from different Countries, have said that they find the lack of a referendum on the likes of Lisbon to be a serious issue.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

Who said I was voting No?

Are you voting no?

Tony EH wrote: »

Besides, the majority of people (both Yes and No) that I have talked to about the Lisbon treaty over the last year or so, from different Countries, have said that they find the lack of a referendum on the likes of Lisbon to be a serious issue.

Why? Why is Lisbon so different to, say, the criminal justice bill that was just passed in the Dail?

Tony EH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The sound reason is that the system of government in those countries does not call for it to be put to a referendum. If you want to change that, go to those countries and campaign for their system of government to be changed. You can accept that or not but that is the answer to your question.

edit: and one other good reason is that it avoids the problems Ireland had where it was rejected, not because the treaty was bad, but because people believed lies about it and because they don't like Fianna Fail. Our politicians are trusted to make laws every day of the week, it's their job, and there is no reason why this treaty should be any different

I don't accept bullshit, no.

Countries that are not holding referenda on Lisbon, have held referenda before.

The reason why governmental bodies of Europe are not putting Lisbon to the people is because the fear a No return.

I find that to be completely undemocratic.

Tony EH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Are you voting no?

I don't know yet.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Why? Why is Lisbon so different to, say, the criminal justice bill that was just passed in the Dail?

That's been explained to you before.

ei.sdraob

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't accept bullshit, no.

Countries that are not holding referenda on Lisbon, have held referenda before.

The reason why governmental bodies of Europe are not putting Lisbon to the people is because the fear a No return.

I find that to be completely undemocratic.

You mean your opinion? reasoning implies working and deducting off the available facts (something you have shown to be incapable of doing in this thread btw), do you have facts to backup this opinion?

P. Breathnach

Tony EH wrote: »

...That's been explained to you before.

Any argument that boils down to "because I say so" is not an explanation.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't accept bullshit, no.

Countries that are not holding referenda on Lisbon, have held referenda before.

The reason why governmental bodies of Europe are not putting Lisbon to the people is because the fear a No return.

I find that to be completely undemocratic.

I'm afraid that only one of us is talking bullshit. Taken from this thread

Treaty of Paris
0/6 Referenda, 6/6 Representative Ratification

Treaties of Rome
0/6 Referenda, 6/6 Representative

Single European Act
2/12 Referenda, 10/12 Representative

Maastricht Treaty
3/12 Referenda, 9/12 Representative (First time there was a 2nd Referendum, Denmark)

Amsterdam Treaty
2/15 Referenda, 13/15 Representative

Nice Treaty
1/15 Referenda, 14/15 Representative (Second time there was a 2nd Referendum, Ireland)

Constitution
10/27 Referenda (Planned or Held), 17/27 Representative (First time a treaty was rejected by more than one country, France; Netherlands)

Lisbon
1/27 Referenda, 26/27 Representative (Third time there will be a 2nd Refernedum, Ireland)

So this leaves us over all EU Treaties with the following number of possible Referenda:
6 + 6 + 12 + 12 + 15 + 15 + 27 + 27 = 120

And all Referenda either planned or held:
0 + 0 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 10 + 1 = 19


So in the history of the EU we have had (or planned) Referenda 15.8% of the time we could have.

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't know yet.

So could you answer my other question:

If the fact that other countries are holding referendums was a factor in a decision to vote no, would you or would you not be effectively holding these countries to ransom by refusing to ratify the treaty until they change this particular aspect of how they run their countries?

Tony EH wrote: »

That's been explained to you before.

I think I missed that bit. Could you explain it again?

Tony EH

Do you have anything to show that it isn't?

Two can play that silly game.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

That's been explained to you before.

Calling an argument "bullshit" isn't an explanation.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

Do you have anything to show that it isn't?

Two can play that silly game.

The burden of proof is always and forever on the person making the claim

Tony EH

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Any argument that boils down to "because I say so" is not an explanation.

That can be said for both sides.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

That can be said for both sides.

It really can't. Your opponents in this debate are explaining exactly why you are wrong and you just keep telling us we're wrong with various colourful language without explaining why we are. Saying "that's bullshit" doesn't explain why I am wrong

Tony EH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The burden of proof is always and forever on the person making the claim

And ei.sdraob is CLAIMING that it's simply my opinion.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

And ei.sdraob is CLAIMING that it's simply my opinion.

I don't get your point....

ei.sdraob

Tony EH wrote: »

And ei.sdraob is CLAIMING that it's simply my opinion.

there's difference, my "claim" is based on facts and logic, yours is not

my claim is deduced given your postings in this thread, just read the thread again and your posts in it...

what are your claims based on? specifically what is the below opinion based on??

Tony EH wrote:

The reason why governmental bodies of Europe are not putting Lisbon to the people is because the fear a No return.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

And ei.sdraob is CLAIMING that it's simply my opinion.

If you're not interested in discussing the topic like an adult, don't post. That's not a request, it's a moderator instruction. There's a rule on this forum about soapboxing, and that's what you're doing.

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're not interested in discussing the topic like an adult, don't post. That's not a request, it's a moderator instruction. There's a rule on this forum about soapboxing, and that's what you're doing.

Nonsense. I am making a point...and so far I haven't seen a decent counter point to it.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

Nonsense. I am making a point...and so far I haven't seen a decent counter point to it.

You are repeating your point ad nauseum and ignoring all criticism, dismissing it as "not a good point to make" or "bullshit" without backing up your point in any way.

It's called the proof by assertion logical fallacy

"Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam)"

You keep saying that the "representative democracy" point is bullshit but you have yet to explain why that is. And you have ignored the fact that referendums have only been used 15.8% of the times they could have and that this method of ratification is by far the norm in Europe

Tony EH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You keep saying that the "representative democracy" point is bullshit but you have yet to explain why that is.

You need to go back and read the the thread Sam. Both I and KingVictor have explained why the "representative democracy" point doesn't wash.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

You need to go back and read the the thread Sam. Both I and KingVictor have explained why the "representative democracy" point doesn't wash.

I'd really rather you explained it again. I've read the thread and have not seen any explanation for why that is.

Could you answer my other point:
You have ignored the fact that referendums have only been used 15.8% of the times they could have and that this method of ratification is by far the norm in Europe.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

Nonsense. I am making a point...and so far I haven't seen a decent counter point to it.

Don't discuss moderator instructions on this forum. That's one of the rules in the charter that I asked you to read when I gave you an infraction for calling someone an idiot earlier.

Read that charter now, please, and make sure you understand the rules. If you break them again, I'll remove your access to the forum.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH, you say that countries should be having referendums for the Lisbon treaty. Let's say I agree with you for the moment.

What exactly do you want done about it?

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

Don't discuss moderator instructions on this forum. That's one of the rules in the charter that I asked you to read when I gave you an infraction for calling someone an idiot earlier.

Read that charter now, please, and make sure you understand the rules. If you break them again, I'll remove your access to the forum.

Yep, like you don't have form banning people with opposing points.

Tony EH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Tony EH, you say that countries should be having referendums for the Lisbon treaty. Let's say I agree with you for the moment.

What exactly do you want done about it?

That's another issue Sam and to be honest, I wouldn't know where to proceed on that.

Perhaps asking the people of those Countries if the wish to see referenda for items such as EU reforms might be a good start? I seen polls suggesting that the French would be in favor of a referendum on Lisbon. But polls aren't teh be all-end all of course.

ei.sdraob

arguing with tony is getting nowhere while he has spuds in his ears

anyways can we get back on topic?


in my opinion (based on being a company director and still luckily being in business)

consequence of another No vote would be:

* loss of confidence in our government, and since we are representative (ha! ) democracy, this reflects on us the people, voting in pro Lisbon candidates a month ago in fair democratic (i see now why No siders like using this word so much ) elections and then voting against them puts us as a nation in bad light, but what will the result be of this? i dont know but remember that the stock market crash last autumn and irish banks loosing 9x% of value occurred because of a loss of confidence in the markets and the banks, i dont know what the consequences would be for Ireland Inc but it surely wont be positive

* uncertainty, alot of people in ireland dont know about uncertainty, we loose your jobs we have a social net to fall into, thats certain
in business uncertainty is bad, it makes it hard to make decisions, and stops investment and expansion, to give an example my small Irish SME nearly went under last winter because of uncertainty, we didnt know if next month will get worse and if we would ever break even again, it was a very dark and stressful time for me and others



now that i explained them 2 points, the message that "Yes is good for economy" is correct based on my opinion and past experiences in business, now you might say your opinion is worth ****, fair enough but what about the opinions of almost every professional organization in Ireland? or opinions of top business people such as Oleary who provide so much employment here? are their opinions and experiences worth ****?? if thats the case then maybe we deserve whatever we get

i wont be sticking around if the things get much worse economically, its already at a point where im better of getting the dole than working for nothing trying to keep the ship afloat


sorry for long post but i taught we need to get back on track here

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

That's another issue Sam and to be honest, I wouldn't know where to proceed on that.

Perhaps asking the people of those Countries if the wish to see referenda for items such as EU reforms might be a good start? I seen polls suggesting that the French would be in favor of a referendum on Lisbon. But polls aren't teh be all-end all of course.

Right, so you are saying that you don't agree with the method of government in those countries and that you would like to see it changed. Is it not up to the governments of those countries to ask their people or perhaps for the people of those countries to tell their politicians that they want one and maybe vote them out if they don't get one? It's just that I'm not sure why the opinion of Tony EH from boards.ie is relevant to the internal affairs of these countries?

And in relation to the treaty, do you think the fact that they're not getting referendums means we should vote no? If so, are you not telling them how to run their countries and if not, why bring it up in a Lisbon debate?

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

Yep, like you don't have form banning people with opposing points.

Banned for a week.

Sam Vimes

oscarBravo wrote: »

Banned for a week.

Aw, now I won't get my question answered

I knew the ban hammer was coming, I just hoped I'd get my answer before it struck

ben bedlam

If the no side wins again, according to the yes camp the oceans will rise, and the skies and heavens will fall. Entire continents will shread, tear, and be uplifted. Billions will perish in floods, fires and catastrophies of biblical proportions. The world will end if it is a no vote again, just like the world ended after the last no vote.