Lisbon 2 The Return!

uprising

Dinner wrote: »

Your post, where you say you want all countries to vote on Lisbon says otherwise.
quote]

Here's What your quoting

"And I think the whole of europe should be allowed vote, after all it is them who will ultimately be the recievers of this treaty."

Can you translate how you came to this conclusion, how you read it, where I WANT the whole of europe.

I read SHOULD be allowed, are Want and Should the same?.

uprising

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Except of course every Treaty has increased the powers of the European Parliament...you know that democratic institution that is directly elected by the oh what were they called...Oh yes! the PEOPLE! You know the one where we just had a direct input by electing our MEPS.

And guess what Lisbon continues that trend by increasing the powers of the European Parliament even more in comparison to the other institutions of the EU. Not in comparison with national parliaments though which still hold vastly more power considering they not only are the direct link with their own member state but are also represented directly in two of the four central eu institutions.). So of the four central EU institutions. Three of them are chaired by members directly elected by people, either europe wide ala Parliament or by the people of each individual member state ala the Council of Ministers and European Council. The only one not directly elected by people is the Commission, which is appointed via its President (who is appointed by the European Council) and is required to be approved by the European Parliament.

Gee...So Undemocratic.

Bahhhh...................................................

Bahhhh...................................................

BlitzKrieg

uprising wrote: »

Bahhhh...................................................

Bahhhh...................................................

at least your honest about your livestock origins...

uprising

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

at least your honest about your livestock origins...

Yea I'm a sheeple, seems to be cool now,plenty here, half people, half sheep, we go around in herds, going where the shepard directs us, no questions asked, bahhh......, bahhhhh.....?, he's a nice man, feeds us, gives us sex, fattens us...... then weighs us in at the abattoir.

BlitzKrieg

uprising wrote: »

Yea I'm a sheeple, seems to be cool now,plenty here, half people, half sheep, we go around in herds, going where the shepard directs us, no questions asked, bahhh......, bahhhhh.....?, he's a nice man, feeds us, gives us sex, fattens us...... then weighs us in at the abattoir.

well its all you seem to want so might as well leave you to it.

uprising

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

well its all you seem to want so might as well leave you to it.

Were you out drinking in your hat again?, what on earth does that actually mean?.

BlitzKrieg

you seem happy in your ignorance so I see no need to discuss issues with you.

indough

i think it means he found your post ridiculous or something

edit: got there too late

Screaming Eagle

the no camp has me nearly saying yes

darkman2

the yes camp has me saying no

K-9

Screaming Eagle wrote: »

the no camp has me nearly saying yes

In fairness this thread does them NO favours. Love the scarey You tube videos though.

Bajingo

dresden8 wrote: »

Then you're letting the fnckers win. Whoever your own particular fnckers might be.

Even if you'revoting wrong.

Always vote for the wrong reason, never not vote for the right reason.

The politicians will think they've got it right. Never let the pr1cks think that.

Vote the fnck!

Well put mate I agree with you on that one and it is for that reason I believe we should have this treaty vote again..

There was a poor turnout and a lot of confused voters.

I'll be voting yes. But if this time around we are asked to vote again because it's a 'No' vote ill be pretty angered at the government not taking our vote seriously..I may agree with a 'Yes' vote but if Ireland doesnt want Lisbon end of story.

This_Years_Love

I'm still voting no. I don't trust the Irish government or the EU. The EU has way too much power over us already, I'm not going to let them have anymore so my vote is staying no.

Jim236

Bajingo wrote: »

There was a poor turnout

Yeh can't really put it down to people not coming out to vote, turnout was 53% which is high enough. Fair enough turnout should be 100%, but only 67% turned out to vote in the 2007 general election, so should there be another election because 33% of voters decided not to bother their arse voting? Even if the other 47% of people decided to turnout, what makes you think they'd have all voted Yes?

Bajingo wrote: »

and a lot of confused voters.

See thats the kind of arrogance that made a lot of people vote No. Who are you to say that just because you vote No you're confused? What makes you think every Yes voter knew everything about the treaty and knew exactly what they were voting on? Just as there were a lot of people who voted No because they didn't know anything about the treaty, there were just as many who voted Yes without knowing anything about the treaty.

Bragadin

I'll be voting yes again. I researched it as well as i could the last time and i discussed it with as many people as i could to try and get a balanced oppinion.
Same ballot, same treaty. I'll vote a hundred times if need be, keep my democracy muscle fit (it's in my trousers).

I hope it doesn't turn into an anti FF protest vote

I also hope that the above comment isn't taken as an assumption that a 'no' result will be due to protest voting

G_R

NBB Bohs wrote: »

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

sorry, you can only vote once

K-9

dannym08 wrote: »

sorry, you can only vote once

How democratic. Hitler preyed on this and he loved Referenda!

Sorry!

Bajingo

Yeh can't really put it down to people not coming out to vote, turnout was 53% which is high enough

I got my figures wrong sorry I thought it was only 43%, my apologies.53% is still a bad turn out in my opinion.

Even if the other 47% of people decided to turnout, what makes you think they'd have all voted Yes?

I said in my post that it's not about them voting 'yes' or 'no'. It's just about them voting. I also said if the turn out is high and we still say 'no' the government should listen to us..I believe last years vote may been an unfair view of the how the Irish feel about the treaty as there was confusion and a poor turn out.

See thats the kind of arrogance that made a lot of people vote No. Who are you to say that just because you vote No you're confused?

I never once said that a confused vote was a 'no' vote so I dont know where you're coming from with that statement. I also don't think you can argue with the fact that there were actually a lot of confused voters out there, many of which I believe chose not to vote.

However, with such a big deal being ,made about it since last year I think a lot more people are informed about this time around and will be able to make a more well informed decision(whether that decision be 'yes' or 'no').

ben bedlam

The government are presenting us with the identical treaty again, so Im going to give them an identical answer: NO.
The main reason I am voting no is that I want to p.iss off a bunch of posh snobs in government and industry.

humanji

For those not willing to read the treaty (can't be many of you as you were all meant to read it the first time! :P ) this was posted in the Politics forum:

http://www.jasonomahony.ie/The_Improved_Spoofers_Guide_To_The_Lisbon_Treaty.pdf

It explains it all in simple terms (and has pictures too!).

Jim236

Bajingo wrote: »

I never once said that a confused vote was a 'no' vote so I dont know where you're coming from with that statement. I also don't think you can argue with the fact that there were actually a lot of confused voters out there, many of which I believe chose not to vote.

However, with such a big deal being ,made about it since last year I think a lot more people are informed about this time around and will be able to make a more well informed decision(whether that decision be 'yes' or 'no').

Your own words were:

"I believe we should have this treaty vote again..

There was a poor turnout and a lot of confused voters."

So thats where my reply came from. If you meant that to both sides fair enough, but in fairness I've never heard anyone argue Yes voters were confused, always the No side.

I'm also not argueing that a lot of voters were confused, again I just don't think it was limited to the No side, I think just as many people were confused on the Yes side but went ahead and voted Yes anyway. You never hear the Yes side admit that though...

granite man

I'm also not argueing that a lot of voters were confused, again I just don't think it was limited to the No side, I think just as many people were confused on the Yes side but went ahead and voted Yes anyway. You never hear the Yes side admit that though...[/quote]

You never hear the Yes side admitting to much, the basis of their arguements are we are right, and you're an idiot if you don't conform to that belief. The No side, although far from perfect too, consists of many people who have researched the downsides of the treaty, have listened to their fellow Euro citizens(France and Holland) opinions being discarded as was the case with the European Constitution when they were asked to vote on that, have kinda noticed that the Lisbon Treaty is the same document bar European national anthem and name, have noticed our referendum vote of no wasn't what the corporate,political, industrial, financial centres of greed want, and are not happy voting for a federal state of Europe.(again)
Most yes voters I have spoken with list the point that the treaty does away with a lot of the beaurocratic red tape and decision making will be made easier as there main point for a yes, this I agree with, its a farce as it stands. The Yes side also seem to think our huge problems linked with the recession will magically go away.
How do they think this will be overcome? Are we not a part of Europe anyway with its already bankrupt banking system, is a yes vote going to change that? Is a yes vote going to correct a failed system based on debt (that we the Irish people are just about to sign up for another 90 Billions worth of through Nama whether we like it or not)? I seriously doubt it.

Another point I'd like to raise is who was actually asked what we didn't like about the treaty in the first place? As usual the government got it completely wrong, so if you think they can send 1 (ONE!) commisionaire(if the appropriate authorities outside our control accept him/her that is) to represent us, a whole nation of people often with conflicting ideas, can you guarantee Europe will get the message of the ordinary Irish person. Something tells me not, they don't get much, if anything, right and with they're on a bad run right now, would you put money on a horse thats come last in its last ten races?
Most people are up for a democratically run model of European Nation States, free trade and all that, thats what we thought we'd signed up for not a federal state of Europe. Now we know what they're up to we have a chance to help change it. Voting Yes and seeing things aren't the rosy garden we expected will be a much bigger disaster than a no vote which will force Europe back into dialogue, in the meantime changes can be made to the beaurocratic problems we face now. Think about it!

Bajingo

Jim236 wrote: »

Your own words were:

"I believe we should have this treaty vote again..

There was a poor turnout and a lot of confused voters."

So thats where my reply came from. If you meant that to both sides fair enough, but in fairness I've never heard anyone argue Yes voters were confused, always the No side.

I'm also not argueing that a lot of voters were confused, again I just don't think it was limited to the No side, I think just as many people were confused on the Yes side but went ahead and voted Yes anyway. You never hear the Yes side admit that though...

Yes they were my words but still ''I never once said that a confused vote was a 'no' vote''.

I can say that I am confused by the treaty. I dont think many people out there can say that they're not confused by it even the 'yes' voters.

You never hear the Yes side admitting to much, the basis of their arguements are we are right, and you're an idiot if you don't conform to that belief.

When?
The basis of their arguement is that we 'keep our neutrality' and our 'stance on abortion' among other things, if anything.

It seems like a lot of 'no' voters think that 'yes' voters are looking down on them in some way. I dont think that's the case.

Another point I'd like to raise is who was actually asked what we didn't like about the treaty in the first place?

I think the voters(and non voters) made their concerns pretty clear when the vote came around last year.

granite man

It seems like a lot of 'no' voters think that 'yes' voters are looking down on them in some way. I dont think that's the case.

I don't agree with you, most no voters are looked at as if they are 'conspiracy nuts', its a case of eyes wide shut.



I think the voters(and non voters) made their concerns pretty clear when the vote came around last year.[/quote]

Yes the voters made it very clear. Does anyone have the exact figures for the amount of people in Ireland actually voted yes? Quite a considerable minority I think. What if all the one's that didn't vote (47% of the voting population) actually turned up and voted no. Would it still be ran again? Probably. The whole thing stinks of outside interference and I don't believe it is in Irish interests to agree with something the vast majority of the population hasn't got much more than a fanciful idea about.

Bajingo

granite man wrote: »

It seems like a lot of 'no' voters think that 'yes' voters are looking down on them in some way. I dont think that's the case.

I don't agree with you, most no voters are looked at as if they are 'conspiracy nuts', its a case of eyes wide shut.



I think the voters(and non voters) made their concerns pretty clear when the vote came around last year.

Yes the voters made it very clear. Does anyone have the exact figures for the amount of people in Ireland actually voted yes? Quite a considerable minority I think. What if all the one's that didn't vote (47% of the voting population) actually turned up and voted no. Would it still be ran again? Probably. The whole thing stinks of outside interference and I don't believe it is in Irish interests to agree with something the vast majority of the population hasn't got much more than a fanciful idea about.[/quote]

I agree with your statement 100% and i'll be apart of the protests that would inevitably occur if we are made to vote a third time just because the government didnt like our answer. This time around I think the poll results will represent the countries wishes, which I dont think was the case last time around.

Yes or no we shouldnt have to see this treaty vote a third time.

Resi12

18, haven't voted yet and I am gladly voting no simply for the fact we already gave a no vote. This is them bullying us into a yes vote(And don't say it isn't because why else would there be a second referendum).

Podman

scumbag bullies in suits are still scumbag bullies. It is still a "No" from me.

Bajingo

Resi12 wrote: »

18, haven't voted yet and I am gladly voting no simply for the fact we already gave a no vote. This is them bullying us into a yes vote(And don't say it isn't because why else would there be a second referendum).

Ya should probably read the treaty first..well the basics of it at least.

Resi12

NBB Bohs wrote: »

Because after Ireland rejected the treaty, they went about seeing why people rejected, it turns out the 'concerns' were non-existent in the treaty(conscription :rolleyes: abortion:rolleyes:) and we have been given assurances. now its up to the irish people to inform themselves of the treaty and see what happens.

I don't mind abortion actually? It is the fact I won't be pressured into voting yes.

Dinner

Resi12 wrote: »

I don't mind abortion actually? It is the fact I won't be pressured into voting yes.

It is nothing to do with being pressured.

After the first vote surveys indicated that a vast amount of no voters voted no because they didn't understand the treaty. It also showed that about a quarter did so for reasons such as neutrality, conscription, taxation, the Commissioner etc.

So the government went to the EU with these issues and negotiated the legally binding protocols. What they do is highlight what is not in the Treaty. For example it states that Lisbon has no affect on Ireland's ability to stay neutral. With these guarantees in hand, there should be no shame to run the treaty again. This time with a better run campaign to inform the voters on what the treaty actually does. That will (hopefully!) solve the voters lack of understanding issue, while the protocols solve the issues of many other voters.

Running a referendum again isn't a new idea. Denmark rejected Maastricht, so they negotiated some guarantees of their own and put it to vote again. After Nice was rejected in Ireland something similar happened.

So it isn't 'undemocratic' at all, quite the opposite. Find out the voters issues and try solve them.