Lisbon 2 The Return!

RandomName2

eirebhoy wrote: »

A lot of what Sinn Fein and Libertas were telling us to vote No for has now been sorted. Even Mary Lou seems to have turned from listening to her on RTE.

I think it's ridiculous if someone votes No just because there's a 2nd vote.

It's more like a third vote all things taken into account.

Besides which there are a couple of things to consdier:

1. Lisbon gets passed and the symbolic strength of the Irish vote goes out the window (just fob them off with something not in the treaty and they'll be happy Danish style)

2. Although political leaders will be glad if Lisbon II gets passed for the small cost of the guarantees, the Irish 'no' vote on Nice I and Lisbon II will still mean that there will be a definitive effort to by-pass Crotty vs An Taoiseach in the future (noises have already been made about this)

3. There is the implication that Lisbon will be passed one way or the other. In the same way that there were promises before the first referendum that there would not be a second referendum, there are assurances given that there will not be a two-speed europe if there is a second 'no' vote.

4. Imagine if it was a 'yes' result first time and Sinn Fein had called for a second referendum. How we would have laughed!

Dinner

RandomName2 wrote: »

Besides which, what is a politician in Ireland except someone who was a lawyer, accountant or teacher who now is involved in state (and then, mainly tax related) administration? Or alternatively, someone who wants to be in an administrative position but failed to get either elected or appointed.

They are also Irish citizens who have to live with the resulting effect of the treaty passing, just like the rest of us. If this treaty is a bad deal for Irish people, then it is also a bad deal for the politicians who have to live here too.

The only difference is that they are paid to know what is in the treaty, whether that means reading it or being advised by legal experts.

RandomName2

Dinner wrote: »

They are also Irish citizens who have to live with the resulting effect of the treaty passing, just like the rest of us. If this treaty is a bad deal for Irish people, then it is also a bad deal for the politicians who have to live here too.

The only difference is that they are paid to know what is in the treaty, whether that means reading it or being advised by legal experts.

Yes, but the treaty specifically changes the political superstructure of the eu which will have a specific relivance for politicians that it will not have for the public.

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

In fact, the unanimity in support among politicans for Lisbon is actually something which has made me suspicious (the Tories are the only major party I know of who don't support it).

And that is a big, if not THE biggest problem yes proponents face.

You can see it in this thread. A lot of the reasons given for a No vote on here, aren't anything to do with the Treaty itself, just hatred of politicians in general. I don't know how that can be overcome but it probably damages EU elections far more than General Elections. It also seems to happen EU wide and featured in the French and Dutch No votes on the Constitution.

Such a level of cynicism is sad, but completely understandable.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

True, true, but what is good for a politician may not be good for a plebian. Indeed, if I were a politician I would probably support Lisbon as well (I would have to regardless of my feelings about it if I was a member of FF, FG, or Labour anyway).

This is true. Them supporting it does not automatically mean it's good but it does make it more likely that it's good.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Besides which, what is a politician in Ireland except someone who was a lawyer, accountant or teacher who now is involved in state (and then, mainly tax related) administration? Or alternatively, someone who wants to be in an administrative position but failed to get either elected or appointed.

It's not just politicians in Ireland saying it's good, it's politicians all over Europe, even small countries who would be effected by it in similar ways to us. Competent business people and NGO's are also supporting it. The only people against it are people who are against the entire concept of the EU.

RandomName2 wrote: »

In fact, the unanimity in support among politicans for Lisbon is actually something which has made me suspicious (the Tories are the only major party I know of who don't support it). Neither Sinn Fein nor the Socialists in Ireland can be, in my opinion, counted as true politicians (notwithstanding the fact that the term is pretty watered down to begin with).

Why would unanimous support, even from the people who most want the government gone, make you suspicious? It's one thing to say it doesn't effect your vote but I honestly don't understand why it would make you think the treaty is bad for the country

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

It's more like a third vote all things taken into account.

Besides which there are a couple of things to consdier:

1. Lisbon gets passed and the symbolic strength of the Irish vote goes out the window (just fob them off with something not in the treaty and they'll be happy Dutch style)

I don't think that is fair. Abortion, Neutrality, tax and workers rights where REAL Concerns for people in the last vote. That's very dismissive of REAL Concerns of people. Personally, I didn't think any of those was endangered by Lisbon, but some did. That doesn't lessen their concerns or right to get those concerns addressed.

RandomName2 wrote:

2. Although political leaders will be glad if Lisbon II gets passed for the small cost of the guarantees, the Irish 'no' vote on Nice I and Lisbon II will still mean that there will be a definitive effort to by-pass Crotty vs An Taoiseach in the future (noises have already been made about this)

My understanding is they couldn't do that without a referendum. I'm sure you believe that this is a concern, but to me it is scaremongering as it can't be achieved without the peoples consent.

Random Name2 wrote:

3. There is the implication that Lisbon will be passed one way or the other. In the same way that there were promises before the first referendum that there would not be a second referendum, there are assurances given that there will not be a two-speed europe if there is a second 'no' vote.

I would have thought that was a good thing.

Random Name2 wrote:

4. Imagine if it was a 'yes' result first time and Sinn Fein had called for a second referendum. How we would have laughed!

Well it is SF, but seriously, referenda don't really work that way. Divorce being an example.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, but the treaty specifically changes the political superstructure of the eu which will have a specific relivance for politicians that it will not have for the public.

What specific changes do this? This point keeps coming and personally I can't see it.

twinytwo

Dinner wrote: »

They are also Irish citizens who have to live with the resulting effect of the treaty passing, just like the rest of us. If this treaty is a bad deal for Irish people, then it is also a bad deal for the politicians who have to live here too.

The only difference is that they are paid to know what is in the treaty, whether that means reading it or being advised by legal experts.

Are you joking??... all the goverment will be sitting on their massive pensions you wont see any polititions on the dole ... the government dont give two fecks about the people of this country so long as they get paid (as is clear in todays paper.. the banks are putting up mortage rates and the government does nothing even though it was the people who saved the banks even after they got us in this mess along with others...) why should we listen to the wishes of morons when they wont listen to ours.. and all the die hard FF supporters can go kiss my ass

Dinner

twinytwo wrote: »

Are you joking??... all the goverment will be sitting on their massive pensions you wont see any polititions on the dole ... the government dont give two fecks about the people of this country so long as they get paid (as is clear in todays paper.. the banks are putting up mortage rates and the government does nothing even though it was the people who saved the banks even after they got us in this mess along with others...) why should we listen to the wishes of morons when they wont listen to ours.. and all the die hard FF supporters can go kiss my ass

What has any of that got to do with Lisbon?


Also, Here's my response to you from last night, if you would like to carry on that discussion.

Sam Vimes

Dinner wrote: »

'They' didn't make sure of anything. In the run up to the 2007 French General Election, Sarkozy made no secret of the fact that he would ratify Lisbon without a referendum. He was then elected. Now I know that people don't vote in a GE based solely on one issue, but since the election there has been no public outcry of people demanding a referendum, similarily, before the election there was no public outcry demanding one either.

And if anyone's going to do a public outcry it's the french

Run_to_da_hills

eirebhoy wrote: »

A lot of what Sinn Fein and Libertas were telling us to vote No for has now been sorted.

I think it's ridiculous if someone votes No just because there's a 2nd vote.

Nothing "has been sorted". There is not one iota of a change in the official text between Lisbon 1 and Lisbon 2. We are led to believe that there is this great "change" but it is in fact nothing has happened and it is the same old BS.

If there was this "great change" the whole treaty would have to go through the floor in every single country that previously ratified it. We are only getting the same old black bicycle dressed up in a different colour.

Dinner

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Nothing "has been sorted". There is not one iota of a change in the official text between Lisbon 1 and Lisbon 2. We are led to believe that there was a "change" but it is in fact the same old BS.

If there was this "great change" the whole treaty would have to go through the floor in every single country that previously ratified it. We are only getting the same old black bicycle painted up in a different colour.

When the issues with the treaty were not in the treaty, why should they change it?

Morzadec

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Nothing "has been sorted". There is not one iota of a change in the official text between Lisbon 1 and Lisbon 2. We are led to believe that there was a "change" but it is in fact the same old BS.

If there was this "great change" the whole treaty would have to go through the floor in every single country that previously ratified it. We are only getting the same old black bicycle painted up in a different colour.

So you admit that all the ridiculous reasons the No vote put forward last time for voting against the Treaty (abortion, loss of soverignty, prostitution, conscription and whatever other proposterous reasons there were), were all completely unfounded and were basically just scarmongering tactics then?

Point is there didn't need to be a 'great change' because pretty much every reason for voting No last time has been clarified as being unfounded BS.

KINGVictor

Morzadec wrote: »

So you admit that all the ridiculous reasons the No vote put forward last time for voting against the Treaty (abortion, loss of soverignty, prostitution, conscription and whatever other proposterous reasons there were), were all completely unfounded and were basically just scarmongering tactics then?

Point is there didn't need to be a 'great change' because pretty much every reason for voting No last time has been clarified as being unfounded BS.

Respectfully,...I think it is very wrong to assume that the reasons why there was a NO vote ..."the last time" was because of the aforementioned proposterous reasons..I would think the reasons would be as convoluted as much as the EU institution is.

The Govt ...admittedly in a very smart manner pushed through some unverifiable reasons for the No vote .I voted No and so the majority of folks and the reasons would be countless...so it would be very disingenious to say our reasons were unfounded and treat No voters as some sort of ignorant ,uneducated,irrational species.
You have your reasons for voting Yes...I have mine for voting NO.For the purpose of this discussion..(Lisbon 11)...I believe we can veridically say that most of the scaremongering is seemingly from the Yes camp.

Dinner

KINGVictor wrote: »

Respectfully,...I think it is very wrong to assume that the reasons why there was a NO vote ..."the last time" was because of the aforementioned proposterous reasons..I would think the reasons would be as convoluted as much as the EU institution is.

We don't have to assume anything, the statistics showed that about a quarter of no voters voted no for reasons that include the loss of a commisioner, neutrality and it being a bad deal. Those reasons make up most of the 26% with the remaining being issues like abortion and taxation. The biggest problem was people not knowing what the treaty was all about.

KINGVictor wrote: »

countless...so it would be very disingenious to say our reasons were unfounded and treat No voters as some sort of ignorant ,uneducated,irrational species.
You have your reasons for voting Yes...I have mine for voting NO.For the purpose of this discussion..(Lisbon 11)...I believe we can veridically say that most of the scaremongering is seemingly from the Yes camp.

The government, or anybody else, saying that some no voters voted no for ridiculous reasons is not scaremongering. It is the truth. Richard Greene and the like are walking proof of that. It is some of the no posters here who are suggesting and implying that a yes vote is a vote for FF. Thats closer to scaremongering than me saying that some no voters think abortion can be introduced through Lisbon. It is also some of the no posters here who still cling to the dying scaremongering arguement that Lisbon is self-amending so we won't ever need to have another referendum. That is scaremongering. I believe we can veridically say that most of the scaremongering is seemingly from the No camp.

Scrambled egg

Why is yes winning here by a slim majority and no is winning over in the politics fourm? Bloody interweb I tell ye !!!

K-9

Scrambled egg wrote: »

Why is yes winning here by a slim majority and no is winning over in the politics fourm? Bloody interweb I tell ye !!!

There has been a few politics.ie No campaigners invading the EU forum in the last few weeks!.

I'd say it will be very, very tight with a No victory.

KINGVictor

Dinner wrote: »

We don't have to assume anything, the statistics showed that about a quarter of no voters voted no for reasons that include the loss of a commisioner, neutrality and it being a bad deal. Those reasons make up most of the 26% with the remaining being issues like abortion and taxation. The biggest problem was people not knowing what the treaty was all about.



The government, or anybody else, saying that some no voters voted no for ridiculous reasons is not scaremongering. It is the truth. Richard Greene and the like are walking proof of that. It is some of the no posters here who are suggesting and implying that a yes vote is a vote for FF. Thats closer to scaremongering than me saying that some no voters think abortion can be introduced through Lisbon. It is also some of the no posters here who still cling to the dying scaremongering arguement that Lisbon is self-amending so we won't ever need to have another referendum. That is scaremongering. I believe we can veridically say that most of the scaremongering is seemingly from the No camp.

You said that a quarter of No voters (25%) voted on abortion,loss of commisioners etc....what about the remaining 75% ...like I said we dont have any verifiable statistical evidence to make the asumption that majority voted based on those objections...very hard to tell.
I am sure you not trying to suggest that the then Yes voters( and most possibly future Yes voters) have any idea what the treaty is all about...that would be simply false ...because...the Brian cowen and Dick roche both confessed as to never reading the treaty before putting it to the Irish voters.

Invariably a lot of people would be making decisions on how to vote based on the arguements that seems logical to them..not because they fully understand the implications/benefits of the treaty as such.

We have heard the repeated claims about how a No vote would be ungrateful/make us loose face/lead to a two-tier Europe/further weaken our economy etc...that is scaremongering IMOH....and those claims are not from the NO camp.

KINGVictor

K-9 wrote: »

There has been a few politics.ie No campaigners invading the EU forum in the last few weeks!.

I'd say it will be very, very tight with a No victory.

Real shame ...that came to my notice as well....I think its quite pathetic.

Dinner

KINGVictor wrote: »

You said that a quarter of No voters (25%) voted on abortion,loss of commisioners etc....what about the remaining 75% ...like I said we dont have any verifiable statistical evidence to make the asumption that majority voted based on those objections...very hard to tell.
I am sure you not trying to suggest that the then Yes voters( and most possibly future Yes voters) have any idea what the treaty is all about...

The rest of the No voters (as found by the Millward Brown study) was made up of:

42% - Lack of understanding/knowledge. Mostly yes camps fault I'm sure you'll agree but people do need to make the effort themselves.
20% - Any mention of attitudes to the referendum process. This included feelings of being bullied, don't have confidence in the government
16% - Loss of identity, loss of independence.

Those were the major findings for the no camp. (Yes that does add up to more than 100%, I believe people could give more than 1 reasons so there would be a certain amount of overlap, although I'd think there would be very little overlap with the 42% group and the others.)

For the yes voters, 22% followed advice, either by the government or friends and family. While 69% did it for a wide range of reasons from Europe has been good to us to increasing efficiency to being a supporter of EU integration.

KINGVictor wrote: »

that would be simply false ...because...the Brian cowen and Dick roche both confessed as to never reading the treaty before putting it to the Irish voters.

Do you honestly think that means they don't know whats in it? They have legal teams whose job it is, is to pour over the treaty and to analyse it and disect it! On top of that, and if I can steal an argument from another poster, does Stephen King flick to the end of his books after he's finished writing it to see who done it?

That is an awful reason to use to advocate a no vote. And to imply that our representatives don't know what we're voting on - that is scaremongering.

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

You said that a quarter of No voters (25%) voted on abortion,loss of commisioners etc....what about the remaining 75% ...like I said we dont have any verifiable statistical evidence to make the asumption that majority voted based on those objections...very hard to tell.
I am sure you not trying to suggest that the then Yes voters( and most possibly future Yes voters) have any idea what the treaty is all about...that would be simply false ...because...the Brian cowen and Dick roche both confessed as to never reading the treaty before putting it to the Irish voters.

Invariably a lot of people would be making decisions on how to vote based on the arguements that seems logical to them..not because they fully understand the implications/benefits of the treaty as such.

We have heard the repeated claims about how a No vote would be ungrateful/make us loose face/lead to a two-tier Europe/further weaken our economy etc...that is scaremongering IMOH....and those claims are not from the NO camp.

Well, that would be 25% and "not understanding" would bring it over 50%.

As I said earlier, Abortion and Neutrality are still real concerns for some. I don't like dismissing reasonable voters who had concerns over them or tax or the Commissioner.

We've always had a 20/25% No vote anyway and in fairness to the Govt., there probably isn't much they can do about that.

KINGVictor wrote: »

Real shame ...that came to my notice as well....I think its quite pathetic.

I'd guess it still leaves a small No majority still though.

limklad

dannym08 wrote: »

and3) I dont trust that ganley fella

He a Typical Business person who is involved with selling to the US Military. http://www.rivada.com/about/keypersonnel/declanjganley.htm

I trust Politicians even less, look at their recent history, they shown to be are spineless unless, they are robbing you bind, giving themselves large pay increases to then drop their pay a a small portion to pretend they are suffering like the rest of us. The TD's are paid far more than German MP's which has an economy that can support them and our economy is gone to crap.

I give you a profile of each grouping.

Fianna Fail - Well you say what they did to the economy in recent times and were in power for the last 10 years+ and are now raising now Taxes for blowing the Public Finances and to support bad banks. This is the Party that negotiated the Lisbon Treaty. Don't Forget the many Tribunals which involves party members for Financial corruption over the years, since Charles Haughey, still ongoing.

Fine Gael - Wants to drop neutrality and Join NATO
http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/22049/pkey/653
NATO,who is involved in an ongoing and never ending war in Afghanistan. If they were in Power 10 years ago and drop Neutrality then our soldiers would be in Afghanistan coming home if they are lucky in boxes otherwise suffering with post traumatic stress in having to shoot. With our destroyed economy and ever increasing Taxes to fund a War to occupy another Country and then pay out Claims when they come home. Remember the Army Deafness Claims.
Now Fine Gael hypocritically criticise Ganely for been a US puppet
http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/34157
Also former Leader John Bruton is now EU ambassador to the US

Labour - no good policies worth mentioning.

Green - Biggest U-TURN in political History and the Ink haven't dry on the Ballot Papers after the last election. They call it "Renewable decision making". They said during the election that they would not support Fianna Fail in Government and then once election counts are in, they get into bed with Fianna Fail. They are now known as the "Green Turn Coats" that blow in the direction of the un-environmental Fianna Fail wind. The only thing Green credentials about Fianna Fail is that the Party Colour and a token tax on Plastic Bags into the Black hole that is know as the Public Service. They should put Wind Turbines into the Dail chambers, we might get some money back with all that bull moving about in air of the Dail Chambers.

PD, Mary Harney: Minister of Health with the Health Service even worst when she took over with A&E trolleys increasing and now look like a MASH unit in a war zone and soon she will need a bed herself, if she keeps getting bigger, the poster board of health herself. The Dail is not doing her health any good. She has no power left that worth mentioning and if she goes no one will miss her, since the wipeout and demise of the PD's after the last election. They only reason she is still a minister is that no one wants the quagmire that is the Health Service.

Independents TD's support the government due to their own selfish reasons (in getting money for their own constituency) no matter what policies the government cone up with. Legal method of getting the brown paper bag to look the other way and Vote Yes..

The Rest are missing from the Dail chambers, Turn on the News or Political show report from the Dail show many empty seats or are crack pots.

History warn us that politicians normally fight to the last drop of everyone else’s blood and money.

Run_to_da_hills

A serious boards poll that is almost neck to neck.

ohandels

We fought for our independence and people died for it. To be told to vote a second time is a joke.

limklad

ohandels wrote: »

We fought for our independence and people died for it. To be told to vote a second time is a joke.

I do not mind voting again, I keep voting NO until the Government get the Answer right!

They a bit clueless, you will need to be patience. It is a handicap with their intelligence.
They believe they are the Boss,
The Irish Constitution states that we the voters are the boss as the Dail gets it power from the people. The Government Power is derived from the Dail.

They Forgot to go back one step in their logic. They blindly believe (Their Handicap) that just because you vote for them in election means that you vote on all of their policies even the Uturn policies. They just did not realise that the Voters were con as the candidates were the best of a bad bunch put before the voters in elections. So the Voters have to decide which candidate is less dubious than the other or which can get us more money for Roads, Local Clubs, Planning Permission etc.

síofra

Didn't vote last time, but will vote yes this time.Can't believe the poll is equal at the moment. Saying no doesn't always mean sovereignty, more like insularity. And if you don't understand it, why don't you start asking questions instead of using such a lazy excuse? If there is anyone out there who knows the ins and outs of the treaty, wheather they are for or against it, maybe they could make themselves known so that rather than relying on government information alone, we can learn from those who speak our language?

Sam Vimes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Nothing "has been sorted". There is not one iota of a change in the official text between Lisbon 1 and Lisbon 2. We are led to believe that there is this great "change" but it is in fact nothing has happened and it is the same old BS.

If there was this "great change" the whole treaty would have to go through the floor in every single country that previously ratified it. We are only getting the same old black bicycle dressed up in a different colour.

Nothing was changed because the vast majority of reasons given by no voters in a national survey weren't in the treaty. There was nothing to change mostly because "I couldn't be bothered finding out about it so I rejected it out of fear" is not an article in the treaty that can be negotiated

Which articles did you want changed and why?

KINGVictor wrote: »

Respectfully,...I think it is very wrong to assume that the reasons why there was a NO vote ..."the last time" was because of the aforementioned proposterous reasons..I would think the reasons would be as convoluted as much as the EU institution is.

The Govt ...admittedly in a very smart manner pushed through some unverifiable reasons for the No vote .I voted No and so the majority of folks and the reasons would be countless...so it would be very disingenious to say our reasons were unfounded and treat No voters as some sort of ignorant ,uneducated,irrational species.
You have your reasons for voting Yes...I have mine for voting NO.For the purpose of this discussion..(Lisbon 11)...I believe we can veridically say that most of the scaremongering is seemingly from the Yes camp.

Nobody's assuming anything. A national survey was done where the no voters told us why they voted no. We can say with 100% certainty that the vast majority of no voters did so for preposterous reasons

And we most certainly cannot say that most of the scaremongering is from the yes camp. The only thing I've seen described as scaremongering from the yes camp is that it will damage our position in Europe if we vote no which is a possibility. Contrast this with the no camp that will have the few babies that haven't been aborted conscripted into the EU elite's super army to force us to raise our corporation tax while simultaneously changing our entire legal system because we "gave up our veto" and forcing us to fight in world war 3 because we gave up our neutrality. Just because you ignore the scaremongering from the no side doesn't mean it's not there

Even the reason you gave on this thread is a form of scaremongering, that the fact that every political leader in Europe thinks the treaty is good makes you suspicious. Could you explain why that is please?

ohandels wrote: »

We fought for our independence and people died for it. To be told to vote a second time is a joke.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61284547#post61284547
An analogy to show the ridiculousness of the argument that being asked to vote again is undemocratic and is enough reason in itself to vote no

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61285634&postcount=215
In the real world people don't drop an entire 300 page document that took 5 years to write because a few people have a problem with a few paragraphs of it. Instead they find out what parts people object to, handle their objections and/or settle their fears and ask them to reconsider. It's not undemocratic, it's the essense of democracy.


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61287967&postcount=302
Ireland had two referendums on divorce. The first was overwhelmingly rejected and the second passed with a margin of 50.28%. Do you think it was undemocratic to have a second referendum and, more importantly, do you think that divorce should always and forever be illegal in Ireland because it was rejected in a referendum?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61287396#post61287396
The fact that we were asked to vote again doesn't "scare me" because the reasons for voting no were, by and large, bullsh!t. 77% of people no longer have a reason to vote no so a second referendum is more than justified

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61289006&postcount=311
With the divorce referendum time passed which made it "ok" to hold another one. But the above point shows that 77% of people now no longer have a valid reasons to vote no. Different circumstances but both are a valid reason to hold a second referendum. The point being, it's not as simple as "no means no"

twanda

I am living abroad but I would vote no. Shame on them for making the Irish people vote again. What a joke of a gvnt we have:mad:
If the last one had been a YES vote, those who weren't happy would have been told 'tough s**t'.

Sam Vimes

twanda wrote: »

I am living abroad but I would vote no. Shame on them for making the Irish people vote again. What a joke of a gvnt we have:mad:
If the last one had been a YES vote, those who weren't happy would have been told 'tough s**t'.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61284547#post61284547
An analogy to show the ridiculousness of the argument that being asked to vote again is undemocratic and is enough reason in itself to vote no

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61285634&postcount=215
In the real world people don't drop an entire 300 page document that took 5 years to write because a few people have a problem with a few paragraphs of it. Instead they find out what parts people object to, handle their objections and/or settle their fears and ask them to reconsider. It's not undemocratic, it's the essense of democracy.


http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61287967&postcount=302
Ireland had two referendums on divorce. The first was overwhelmingly rejected and the second passed with a margin of 50.28%. Do you think it was undemocratic to have a second referendum and, more importantly, do you think that divorce should always and forever be illegal in Ireland because it was rejected in a referendum?

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61287396#post61287396
The fact that we were asked to vote again doesn't "scare me" because the reasons for voting no were, by and large, bullsh!t. 77% of people no longer have a reason to vote no so a second referendum is more than justified

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61289006&postcount=311
With the divorce referendum time passed which made it "ok" to hold another one. But the above point shows that 77% of people now no longer have a valid reasons to vote no. Different circumstances but both are a valid reason to hold a second referendum. The point being, it's not as simple as "no means no"

I can keep doing this all day

twanda

limklad wrote: »

I do not mind voting again, I keep voting NO until the Government get the Answer right!

They a bit clueless, you will need to be patience. It is a handicap with their intelligence.
They believe they are the Boss,
The Irish Constitution states that we the voters are the boss as the Dail gets it power from the people. The Government Power is derived from the Dail.

LOL Absolutely. If there is a YES result this time, will there be another chance after 'time has passed', to reconsider and vote again?
To me it seems that with this referendum YES means 'yes' and NO means 'keep trying until you get a YES'

Sam Vimes

twanda wrote: »

LOL Absolutely. If there is a YES result this time, will there be another chance after 'time has passed', to reconsider and vote again?
To me it seems that with this referendum YES means 'yes' and NO means 'keep trying until you get a YES'

I refer the honorable gentleman to my previous post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61329975&postcount=420

And also this one:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61303803&postcount=382

I can't see [a third] referendum happening. This is not a case of the EU forcing us to vote again because they didn't like the result as the no crowd keep saying, the results of the last referendum were skewed by apathy, fear, misinformation and lies. As I keep pointing out, 77% of no voters don't have a valid reason to vote no anymore. The lies have been legally guaranteed to be lies and people have had two years to familiarise themselves with the treaty so they can't use the excuse that they don't understand it (although some people still spend more time saying they don't understand it than it would take to understand it)

In light of that, the second referendum will actually be the will of the people, not the will of the people who have been against the EU since we joined, who got their way by scaring people into rejecting the big bad treaty.

Another thing that would prevent another referendum would be if the people who are against the treaty could give one good, treaty related reason for why they're rejecting it. If we could do that, anything that we had an objection to could be renegotiated and we would be asked to vote on a new treaty with the bits we didn't like taken out (they're never going to throw out a 277 page document because we have a problem with a few paragraphs) but as it stands there's nothing to be renegotiated. "It's too big to read" just doesn't cut it as a reason to reject a piece of work that took 5 years and millions to produce I'm afraid.