What Happens if No Wins again?

tolosenc

What happens if No wins again?

1) I'll loose what little fait I have in the Irish people.
2) I'll get the f*ck out of here.
3) I'll look into marrying a French girl while in France next year.
4) Ireland will go down the toilet.

I guarantee the first 3, the 4th is just a high probability.

Sam Vimes

ben bedlam wrote: »

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.

Sorry where did anyone say that?

Also, I seem to recall the no side saying that if we voted yes there would never be another referendum, would would "lose our veto", we would have to raise our corporate tax, we would have conscription, abortion and an EU superstate.

Unlike your list, mine are actual things said by the no side. The most I've seen the yes side say is it could effect the economy and goodwill in Europe if we vote no without good reason

oscarBravo

ben bedlam wrote: »

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.

Absolutely, the "yes" camp have been saying this. The "yes" camp in some "no" voters' vivid imaginations, that is.

tolosenc

ben bedlam wrote: »

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.

As opposed to a Yes vote winning, where we'll all lose the right to vote, be forced to have abortions, bring in conscription, wage war on random countries, set ridiculous tax rates, and feed the mysterious "european elite"?

P. Breathnach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Aw, now I won't get my question answered

So the ban changes nothing, then.

K-9

Tony EH wrote: »

No-one mentioned anything about "forcing". That's an idiotic statement.

Tony EH wrote: »

Don't be such bloody idiot. We're speaking in theoretical terms here. No-one's talking about marching in and forcing anyone to do anything. No-one on the board has the power to even do such a thing in the first place.

It's already been explained to you and OB why the "representative democracy" line is applicable to the likes of EU reforms.

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.

Tony EH wrote: »

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 wrote: »

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

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?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

I was going to reply to these quotes, but really, I'd be wasting my time, not you Sam!

I don't know why we want to force our constitutional requirements on other countries.

dyl10

If the treaty doesn't get passed, the EU will disband and be reformed with the Lisbon treaty as it's founding document.

ei.sdraob

dyl10 wrote: »

If the treaty doesn't get passed, the EU will disband and be reformed with the Lisbon treaty as it's founding document.

i dunno there is no clause to leave the EU currently (Lisbon introduces it ironically)

whatever happens politically would take time

but economically i dont know, uncertainty wouldnt help the economy

socially well, we are already socially bankrupt

Furious-Dave

This is slightly off topic but I found it amusing. I was talking to one of my non-irish friends last night about Lisbon and he said that if anything was proven after the last referendum it was that not everyone should be eligible to vote. He said that people should firstly have to do an IQ test to gain eligibility to vote and then when they are in the polling booths have to answer say 10 general questions about what they are voting on, be it an general election, a referendum or whatever. Then, only those who score 80% or above, i.e. those who have decent political awareness, have their votes counted. "If only!" was my reply

ei.sdraob

Furious-Dave wrote: »

This is slightly off topic but I found it amusing. I was talking to one of my non-irish friends last night about Lisbon and he said that if anything was proven after the last referendum it was that not everyone should be eligible to vote. He said that people should firstly have to do an IQ test to gain eligibility to vote and then when they are in the polling booths have to answer say 10 general questions about what they are voting on, be it an general election, a referendum or whatever. Then, only those who score 80% or above, i.e. those who have decent political awareness, have their votes counted. "If only!" was my reply

I can see it now

"Contrast and compare representative and direct democratic systems"

"Summarize the key points of the Irish constitution"

"Name X key points of the referendum you are about to vote"

"2 + 2 = ?"

"have you listened to British businessmen who want to undermine Ireland for personal profit such as Rupert Murdoch or Declan Ganley"

PopeBuckfastXVI

So basically Scofflaw would be the only person in the country with a vote?

Hmm... I could probably live with that!

The problem with any exams about the treaty would be; who evaluates the truthiness of the answer?

ei.sdraob

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So basically Scofflaw would be the only person in the country with a vote?

Hmm... I could probably live with that!

The problem with any exams about the treaty would be; who evaluates the truthiness of the answer?

we have a referendum on what questions to include

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

"Contrast and compare representative and direct democratic systems"

"Summarize the key points of the Irish constitution"

"Name X key points of the referendum you are about to vote"

"2 + 2 = ?"

"have you listened to British businessmen who want to undermine Ireland for personal profit such as Rupert Murdoch or Declan Ganley"

Damn! Can anybody help me with the fourth question?

Furious-Dave

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Damn! Can anybody help me with the fourth question?

Eh? UMM? 22?

tommym037

I will be voting no for a second time. Why? Because I simply don't know enough about it to give a "Yes" vote.

Perhaps if the government spent some time informing us the benefits to voting yes rather than telling us how disastrous it will be for Ireland to vote no they might get a better result.

A Yes vote is guaranteed anyway. Simply because the Irish are scared ****less.

ei.sdraob

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Eh? UMM? 22?

offtopic

if it was javascript ...

var x = '2' + '2'; //x= '22'


ok enough fun for today, back to work, the country needs me to pay more taxes! its my patriotic duty

tommym037 wrote: »

I will be voting no for a second time. Why? Because I simply don't know enough about it to give a "Yes" vote.

Perhaps if the government spent some time informing us the benefits to voting yes rather than telling us how disastrous it will be for Ireland to vote no they might get a better result.

A Yes vote is guaranteed anyway. Simply because the Irish are scared ****less.

a yes "if you dont kNow vote no" ignoramus excuse

uhm how many websites have to be setup to inform you?

or information leaflets send (there was one last week)

or even reading this forum would help you get to know the issue

/

Sam Vimes

tommym037 wrote: »

I will be voting no for a second time. Why? Because I simply don't know enough about it to give a "Yes" vote.

Perhaps if the government spent some time informing us the benefits to voting yes rather than telling us how disastrous it will be for Ireland to vote no they might get a better result.

A Yes vote is guaranteed anyway. Simply because the Irish are scared ****less.

Stop blaming the government for your own laziness and click this link:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lisbon+treaty

Furious-Dave

tommym037 wrote: »

I will be voting no for a second time. Why? Because I simply don't know enough about it to give a "Yes" vote.

Perhaps if the government spent some time informing us the benefits to voting yes rather than telling us how disastrous it will be for Ireland to vote no they might get a better result.

A Yes vote is guaranteed anyway. Simply because the Irish are scared ****less.

Why don't you find out for yourself? Or simply not vote at all? By voting No you are choosing a stance in something you admittedly don't know enough about.

tommym037

So they government aren't lazy?

Ha ha, thats rich.

Sam Vimes

tommym037 wrote: »

So they government aren't lazy?

Ha ha, thats rich.

I never said the government weren't lazy, I said their laziness doesn't excuse yours. Find out what you're voting on or don't vote, simple as that

PopeBuckfastXVI

tommym037 wrote: »

I will be voting no for a second time. Why? Because I simply don't know enough about it to give a "Yes" vote.

Perhaps if the government spent some time informing us the benefits to voting yes rather than telling us how disastrous it will be for Ireland to vote no they might get a better result.

A Yes vote is guaranteed anyway. Simply because the Irish are scared ****less.

Hi Tommy,

I'm not so sure that a 'yes' vote is guaranteed, there still seems to be a lot of people who are worried about what a 'yes' might mean, and might do the same as yourself and vote 'no' to be on the safe side.

A good place to start when examining the treaty is to look at the claims on both sides, where they are saying the treaty does 'X'. If you think about it, the 'No' side will be particularly on the ball with dissecting the treaty to find reasons to reject it.

If you examine any of their claims that worry you against the treaty itself
you will be able to judge whether their fears are well founded.

My advice to you is to use the annotated versions of the amended TEU and TFEU, as they are much more readable than just trying to plough through the
Lisbon treaty itself.

You can see RTÉ's annotated version here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/treaty_sections.html

It colour codes anything that is changed by Lisbon in the original treaties, and is very readable.

If you are having difficulty understanding a particular part of the treaty, then feel free to ask any questions here.

You've got ample time to find out what's in the Treaty, or if any of the things you've heard about that worry you are true.

Martin 2

tommym037 wrote: »

I will be voting no for a second time. Why? Because I simply don't know enough about it to give a "Yes" vote.

Perhaps if the government spent some time informing us the benefits to voting yes rather than telling us how disastrous it will be for Ireland to vote no they might get a better result.

A Yes vote is guaranteed anyway. Simply because the Irish are scared ****less.

The original expression is "when in doubt do nowt" not "when in doubt vote no", so if you can't decide between yes or no just abstain... I did that in a referendum before (not EU related tho') and in hindsight it was the best decision. A No vote is far from neutral...

I see it's your first post, so welcome to Boards and this forum, you'll probably find a lot of hyperbole here but there are also some very knowledgable and helpful people on the treaty

KINGVictor

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hi Tommy,

I'm not so sure that a 'yes' vote is guaranteed, there still seems to be a lot of people who are worried about what a 'yes' might mean, and might do the same as yourself and vote 'no' to be on the safe side.

A good place to start when examining the treaty is to look at the claims on both sides, where they are saying the treaty does 'X'. If you think about it, the 'No' side will be particularly on the ball with dissecting the treaty to find reasons to reject it.

If you examine any of their claims that worry you against the treaty itself
you will be able to judge whether their fears are well founded.

My advice to you is to use the annotated versions of the amended TEU and TFEU, as they are much more readable than just trying to plough through the
Lisbon treaty itself.

You can see RTÉ's annotated version here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/treaty_sections.html

It colour codes anything that is changed by Lisbon in the original treaties, and is very readable.

If you are having difficulty understanding a particular part of the treaty, then feel free to ask any questions here.

You've got ample time to find out what's in the Treaty, or if any of the things you've heard about that worry you are true.

Nice one Pope...
But same cannot be said about four other posters here who seem to imagine that the EU forum is a territorial domain...go about in packs and over-use the thanks button and are ready to jump on any post that has the slightest hint of being Anti-lisbon..

I agree that a lot of positions might sound illogical or incomprehensible ,but it is essential to show decorum at all times ( Like Pope and Scoff)...when you attack in groups..it shows weakness and stiffles debate.

Dinner

KINGVictor wrote: »

when you attack in groups..it shows weakness and stiffles debate.

You mean like you just did?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Dinner wrote: »

You mean like you just did?

I actually think he has a valid point.

It's understandable, there's a lot of frustration with encountering the same arguments over and over, but I think it's basic courtesy to treat every new poster, who is making a point for their first time, as essentially honest but mistaken (if it is an incorrect view in your opinion).

I've been guilty of jumping on people myself, so I won't hold myself up as better than anyone else, I think I have learned the error of my ways though :pac:

Scofflaw

Handbag warning!

moderately,
Scofflaw

Dinner

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I actually think he has a valid point.

It's understandable, there's a lot of frustration with encountering the same arguments over and over, but I think it's basic courtesy to treat every new poster, who is making a point for their first time, as essentially an honest mistake (if it is an incorrect view in your opinion).

I've been guilty of jumping on people myself, so I won't hold myself up as better than anyone else, I have learned the error of my ways though :pac:

As do I, but it's a bit ironic that he attacks a group of posters for attacking a group of posters.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Dinner wrote: »

As do I, but it's a bit ironic that he attacks a group of posters for attacking a group of posters.

You've misunderstood, he's pointing out, correctly, that when several people, shall we say, passionately, counter some new poster, who may be genuinely mistaken, it comes across as some sort of pack animal attack, however unintentionally.

The same couldn't be said if those counters were perhaps a little less passionate, and a little more trusting of the bona fides of the original poster.

Edit:
Just to say though, if someone proves themselves incapable of changing their arguments in the face of factual refutation, by all means, unleash hell!

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

You've misunderstood, he's pointing out, correctly, that when several people, shall we say, passionately, counter some new poster, who may be genuinely mistaken, it comes across as some sort of pack animal attack, however unintentionally.

The same couldn't be said if those counters were perhaps a little less passionate, and a little more trusting of the bona fides of the original poster.

I don't really see his point. As with all discussion forums, if someone says something that's wrong and several people disagree with it, they're either going to respond to the poster or thank someone else who did and I see nothing wrong with that. And the fact that several people disagree with someone certainly doesn't weaken their case. All I'm seeing is attacking the posters instead of the post

As for the tone with which they respond, that's a different issue which should be addressed

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't really see his point. As with all discussion forums, if someone says something that's wrong and several people disagree with it, they're either going to respond to the poster or thank someone else who did and I see nothing wrong with that. And the fact that several people disagree with someone certainly doesn't weaken their case. All I'm seeing is attacking the posters instead of the post

I think it's more about the method of disagreement, and whether some wayward soul wandering into the forum deserves the full brunt of passionate rebuttal, when some helpful advice or correction would be more constructive for all involved.

Keep the heavy guns for more deserving targets