Lisbon 2 The Return!

Fuhrer

Halla Basin wrote: »

I won't get bogged down with the presentation of the actual facts

Thats always a good sign when reading someones opinion.


"I want dally on whats true but I want to emphasise how I much I feel like im right"

Halla Basin

dan719 wrote: »

Any chance of a link. Or should we just take your word for it?:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Even the actual study wouldn't change you, you close-minded contrarian.

dan719

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We absolutely should point out yes voters who voted for invalid reasons. The fact is that the vast majority of people on both sides had no idea what they were voting on and it is unfair to the other 500 million people of Europe to stall what they consider to be progress without a good reason. The people were asked to vote on the Lisbon treaty and we have yet to do that because people were so uninformed the last time

edit: also it's not that we consider the no voters' opinions to be of little value, it's that the majority of reasons for voting no have been proven to be fictional. That's why we got the guarantees

You mean the politicians of Europe right? Since Ireland are the only country to hold a referendum on the treaty, you and I have no idea whether or not 500 million people think it is a good idea or not. The difference is, I'm not arrogant enough to claim I do.

Can we re-run every single election then too? I mean, were we to ask why someone voted for FF or FG, the answer would quite likely be;

'Because Mammy and Daddy said so'

No, no, no. We asked you to elect people on the issues. This election doesn't count, you didn't vote sufficiently informed blah blah.

If you wish to attach addendums to democracy, or block the great unwashed from voting, fine. But don't attempt to claim that is democracy. The hypocrisy of the yes side in this campaign is astouding.

dan719

Halla Basin wrote: »

Even the actual study wouldn't change you, you close-minded contrarian.

Or else the study doesn't exist.

Close minded contrarian?Hmm;

*Pro E.U.
*Voted Yes in the last referendum.:eek:

Also personal abuse reveals only your inability to debate rationally. Go cry to mammy.

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

You mean the politicians of Europe right? Since Ireland are the only country to hold a referendum on the treaty, you and I have no idea whether or not 500 million people think it is a good idea or not. The difference is, I'm not arrogant enough to claim I do.

That's how representative democracy works. You vote in a government and they represent your wishes. The NAMA legislation has implications a hundred times greater than the Lisbon treaty, which is in reality not that exciting. Why aren't you calling for a referendum on that?

dan719 wrote: »

Can we re-run every single election then too? I mean, were we to ask why someone voted for FF or FG, the answer would quite likely be;

'Because Mammy and Daddy said so'

No, no, no. We asked you to elect people on the issues. This election doesn't count, you didn't vote sufficiently informed blah blah.

If you wish to attach addendums to democracy, or block the great unwashed from voting, fine. But don't attempt to claim that is democracy. The hypocrisy of the yes side in this campaign is astouding.

We do re-run general elections every 5 years

edit: and people have called for a general election because the government were voted in on certain promises and don't have a mandate to enact their recessionary measures. That's not why people voted them in

Halla Basin

dan719 wrote: »

Or else the study doesn't exist.

Close minded contrarian?Hmm;

*Pro E.U.
*Voted Yes in the last referendum.:eek:

Also personal abuse reveals only your inability to debate rationally. Go cry to mammy.

mahahaha you lost your temper first! I'M SMARTER I'M SMARTER I'M SMARTER

dan719

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's how representative democracy works. You vote in a government and they represent your wishes. The NAMA legislation has implications a hundred times greater than the Lisbon treaty, which is in reality not that exciting. Why aren't you calling for a referendum on that?

We do re-run general elections every 5 years

I am. In fact I am generally in favour of the swiss model of direct democracy.
To claim that representitive democracy legitimises all decisions taken by a govenment is simply untrue, and ignores what is often a majority of dissent. What we do know is that many governments have the ability to ignore their citizens wishes with regard to Lisbon, an ability the Irish government is obviously jealous of.

O/T NAMA is an absolute mess, not a single economist agrees with it, and it s quite likely that it will not free up credit. Of course Lisbon is a handy distraction.

But the five year mandate is not valid. All us idiots were uninformed and so the vote should be held continuously. But I suppose that's not necessary when even uninformed voters give the correct result.

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

I am. In fact I am generally in favour of the swiss model of direct democracy.
To claim that representitive democracy legitimises all decisions taken by a govenment is simply untrue, and ignores what is often a majority of dissent. What we do know is that many governments have the ability to ignore their citizens wishes with regard to Lisbon, an ability the Irish government is obviously jealous of.

No representative democracy does not legitimise all decisions but I don't see mass protests all over Europe demanding a referendum. If people cared that much they'd be lobbying their ministers and telling them in large numbers that they won't vote for them if they put Lisbon through. These politicians care mostly about getting voted back in and if their people made it clear that the ratification of Lisbon was something that would prevent them being voted back in you can bet your ass they wouldn't ratify it.

Besides which, the method of ratification in other European countries is none of our business. You might not approve of it but that's just tough, that's how they've set up their political system and you have no right to tell them you know better.

dan719 wrote: »

O/T NAMA is an absolute mess, not a single economist agrees with it

False
http://www.businessandleadership.com/news/article/14162/leadership/imf-approves-of-nama

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote:

I think it might well have been rejected if it had been put to a vote in those countries because I look at the amount of misinformation and lies being spread about it, such as the idea that the elites are engaging in a state building project against the will of the people (btw I think its hilarious that you accuse the yes side of scaremongering and then come out with something like that) and acknowledge that the people of those countries might well have believed the lies and rejected it out of fear, just like we did last time. But that's an argument for it being ratified through parliaments by people who were involved in writing it and who understand its ramifications, not putting it to people who don't have the time, the inclination or the opportunity to properly inform themselves of the issues (no opportunity because of the lies being spread that they have to pick through)

You see that is the kind of elitist attitude that gets my and other no voters' back up. This notion that the people are too thick to understand complicated questions of national sovereignty and international treaties like Lisbon and that we have to leave it to what used to be called the "men of property" is a profoundly regressive attitude to hold in democratic terms. Edmund Burke would have had a similar attitude to what he called "the swinish multitude". I happen to share the view of Charlie McCreevy that the Irish people understand the workings of the EU better than countries that don't have referenda on EU issues. And as for so-called "lies/misinformation" etc. let me tell you this: A huge amount of what is contained in the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights is open to widely differing interpretation. Over a year of debate on this and other sites and in politics and the media is proof of that. Eminent constitutional lawyers disagree on the implications of the Charter, with Gerard Hogan in particular disagreeing with Senator Eugene Regan on its implications for national law. I would refer you to this article from the Irish Times before Lisbon I: Gerard Hogan said the Charter of Fundamental Rights could "eclipse" the Irish Supreme Court:

Irish Times wrote:

THE ROLE of national supreme courts and constitutional courts in the EU could, over time, be eclipsed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, according to a leading constitutional lawyer. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will become enforceable under the proposed Lisbon Treaty.
Gerard Hogan SC was speaking at a private conference of the Irish European Law Forum in UCD last January last.
At it he reiterated many of the issues he raised on previous occasions, including in The Irish Times, concerning the charter and its predecessor, the Declaration on Fundamental Rights.
He went on to say at the conference that much would depend on the interpretation given by the European Court of Justice to key phrases in the new charter that related to the implementation of EU law.
The charter states the rights it enshrines are only enforceable by the courts when EU law is being implemented.
Depending on how this is interpreted, the charter could amount to "the most profound change" in relation to judicial review and the protection of fundamental rights since the adoption of the Constitution, Mr Hogan said.
He questioned the inclusion of certain rights in the charter, as they do not fall under the competence of EU legislation.
One example is the right to marry and found a family. He pointed out there is no EU competence in relation to national marriage legislation, so it is unclear why such a right should be stated, as it is only enforceable if EU law is being implemented.
The same could be said of many of the other rights in the charter, he said, including the rights of the child, the right to criminal due process and the right to healthcare, he said.
Mr Hogan stated the charter had many positive aspects, including that it created a proper legal basis for a challenge to the validity of EU legislation on human rights grounds, but still contained problematic aspects.
In particular, it was unclear as to when a state would be "implementing Union law" and when it would be implementing purely domestic law, given the transposition of EU directives into domestic law.
The "implementation of EU law" condition could also be triggered by accidental factors like nationality or travel, he said."..

So understand this. There is much in the Treaty that is not black and white - that is open to differing interpretations, and that consequently, cannot be correctly written off as lies/misinformation etc. And as for representative-democracy, I think that if the politicians continue to flout public opinion as expressed in referenda such as these, then they risk discrediting that term as an oxymoron, as they will not be representing the people they claim to be representing. My concept of the role of direct-representative democracy in the Irish context is one where the people directly set the rules/constitution in which the politicians can act, while those elected politicians then act within those limits. I don't trust our politicians to hold absolute power over whether this country remains an independent state or not (insofar as it still is). 1800 and the Act of Union are a useful reference point in that regard. Remember what Pitt said: every man has his price.

Say the two of us were signing a contract that contained 5000 clauses and you objected to three of them. If I went back and redrew the contract with those three clauses taken out would you still refuse to sign it because the contract was "in essence" the same and would you accuse me of subterfuge for removing the only clauses that you objected to?

Ah but that's not a parallel with the EU constitution/Lisbon scenario. It was rejected in 3 nations. And it still hasn't been ratified in 4 countries. If it was just a matter of disagreement between me and you, it would depend on whether the questions that caused me to reject the contract in the first place had been addressed - and with Lisbon they haven't. What is happening here is more like holding a gun to two peoples heads and forcing them to sign a contract 95% identical to the provisions they rejected. For that is what we are being asked to do (metaphorically) with respect to the French and Dutch. We are being asked - albeit with the collaboration of their respective govts - to help foist on them provisions they did not want. And the polls in Holland clearly demonstrate that over 60% of them still don't want this. Never before has the EU crossed such a Rubicon. You referred above to Denmark and Maastricht. But that was just one country. This time, 3 nations have said no to the EU Constitution/Lisbon, and whereas before, any country that voted no got a second referendum before ratification, this time that is not what is happening. So we are in a completely new, and very disturbing situation.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

You see that is the kind of elitist attitude that gets my and other no voters' back up. This notion that the people are too thick to understand complicated questions of national sovereignty and international treaties like Lisbon and that we have to leave it to what used to be called the "men of property" is a profoundly regressive attitude to hold in democratic terms.

This is not an elitist attitude, it is something that has become apparent to me during the Lisbon debate and an opinion which is backed up by several surveys and much of the debate on boards. I see the same things being repeated over and over again no matter how many times they are corrected.

Not to mention the fact that ignorance of the treaty was used to great effect last time by the no campaign with their "if you don't know vote no" slogan and 42% of no voters gave that as their main reason.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is much in the Treaty that is not black and white - that is open to differing interpretations, and that consequently, cannot be correctly written off as lies/misinformation etc.

There really isn't. There are the facts and there are the people that refuse to accept the facts. Just because people keep repeating the same things that have been corrected over and over again does not mean that these things are open to interpretation, just that people are searching desperately for reasons to reject the treaty and won't take "your interpretation is wrong" for an answer. Even legally binding guarantees weren't good enough for them!

dan719

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No representative democracy does not legitimise all decisions but I don't see mass protests all over Europe demanding a referendum. If people cared that much they'd be lobbying their ministers and telling them in large numbers that they won't vote for them if they put Lisbon through. These politicians care mostly about getting voted back in and if their people made it clear that the ratification of Lisbon was something that would prevent them being voted back in you can bet your ass they wouldn't ratify it.

Besides which, the method of ratification in other European countries is none of our business. You might not approve of it but that's just tough, that's how they've set up their political system and you have no right to tell them you know better.



False
http://www.businessandleadership.com/news/article/14162/leadership/imf-approves-of-nama

Of course it isn't. But didn't you say earlier that we were being selfish by holding up what 500 million people saw as progress? If we must respect there method of making a decision (and we must), then they sure as hell have to respect ours, and the decision we finally make. But that means one of your original points is moot.

Regarding NAMA, find me a single named academic economist who is willing to stand up and say;

'This is the single best method of fixing our banking system, and is not simply a job for the boys exercise'

Or something to that effect. You'll have found me a liar too.

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There really isn't. There are the facts and there are the people that refuse to accept the facts. Just because people keep repeating the same things that have been corrected over and over again does not mean that these things are open to interpretation, just that people are searching desperately for reasons to reject the treaty and won't take "your interpretation is wrong" for an answer. Even legally binding guarantees weren't good enough for them!

For example yourself. It has been explained to you over and over again that the French and the Dutch rejected the constitution so it was renegotiated to take out the parts that they objected to, leaving only parts they had no problem with and that the French went on to elect a pro-Lisbon president. And yet your sig still says:

"90 per cent of it (EU Constitution) is still there…These changes haven’t made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004". (Dermot Ahern on Lisbon Treaty 25 June 2007)

You don't care that they were asked to vote on a revised treaty that had dealt with their objections, you're just looking for excuses

Dinner

dan719 wrote: »

And what about all the people who voted yes for equally 'invalid' reasons. Should we not point out this also. Perhaps we could send out leaflets saying;

'Please don't be a sheep and vote yes because the politicians told you so. Instead, inform yourself of the treaty and make a decision based on that'.

Absolutely, people who voted yes for stupid reasons like FF told me too should reexamine the treaty as much as someone who voted no because of taxation.

I don't think you'll find a yes voter that would disagree with me.

dan719 wrote: »

Why don't you stop talking sh*t and tell the truth;

'We feel your opinion is of little or no value. Shut up and do what you are told'

Is this the new tactic of the no camp? Ignore Lisbon and instead paint the yes side as some condescending elitist big bad wolf?

The only people who ever say anything that is even close to the bollox you said in your final line is no voters themselves.

Time and time again you see a small number of no voters saying "Yes voters think we're thick', "Just vote yes and don't worry your little head about it" etc.

Well, that's not true. I don't think anyone who voted no last time round for any reasons was stupid. Although, this time round my patience are being tried with the latest argument of 'Dey tuk er democracy'.

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

Of course it isn't. But didn't you say earlier that we were being selfish by holding up what 500 million people saw as progress? If we must respect there method of making a decision (and we must), then they sure as hell have to respect ours, and the decision we finally make. But that means one of your original points is moot.

All that means is they can't force us to take on the treaty. They can still ask us to reconsider because they consider the treaty very important.

Tell me, if you and 26 friends were planning a trip away and one of them said that he didn't want to go to the place that everyone else did but couldn't quite explain why, would you ask him what his objections were, attempt to address them and ask him to reconsider or would you instantly drop the plans to go to that place and wait until you get consensus?

dan719 wrote: »

Regarding NAMA, find me a single named academic economist who is willing to stand up and say;

'This is the single best method of fixing our banking system, and is not simply a job for the boys exercise'

Or something to that effect. You'll have found me a liar too.

Admittedly I get most of my information on it from Newstalk but I've found the general consensus to be that, while there might be some details to be ironed out, it's absolutely essential

Are you sure you're not just listening to the economists that agree with you?

Naikon

I don't care anymore. All the big decisions are not made through some
****ty electorial puppetry. Democracy is a fallacy people.

dan719

Sam Vimes wrote: »

All that means is they can't force us to take on the treaty. They can still ask us to reconsider because they consider the treaty very important.

Tell me, if you and 26 friends were planning a trip away and one of them said that he didn't want to go to the place that everyone else did but couldn't quite explain why, would you ask him what his objections were, attempt to address them and ask him to reconsider or would you instantly drop the plans to go to that place and wait until you get consensus?

Admittedly I get most of my information on it from Newstalk but I've found the general consensus to be that, while there might be some details to be ironed out, it's absolutely essential

Are you sure you're not just listening to the economists that agree with you?

Regarding your last point on NAMA. I have to spend most of my time listening to these people so I would consider that a fairly broad spectrum of economists. TBH I won't say anything more on NAMA as it's nothing to do with the debate.

Your analogy is again disingenuous. The EU is founded on the concept of consensus and Ireland has every right to say no. And to claim that Ireland is unable to tell the EU why we voted no, it equally untrue. Reasons were given, and these reasons were then dismissed. We were then asked to reconsider. What happens if people again vote no? Do we get to reconsider every six months?

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote:

Tell me, if you and 26 friends were planning a trip away and one of them said that he didn't want to go to the place that everyone else did but couldn't quite explain why, would you ask him what his objections were, attempt to address them and ask him to reconsider or would you instantly drop the plans to go to that place and wait until you get consensus?

It's news to me that 26 countries have ratified. When did President Klaus/Kaczynski/Kohler sign? Someone should tell their governments. :eek:

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

Your analogy is again disingenuous. The EU is founded on the concept of consensus and Ireland has every right to say no. And to claim that Ireland is unable to tell the EU why we voted no, it equally untrue. Reasons were given, and these reasons were then dismissed. We were then asked to reconsider. What happens if people again vote no? Do we get to reconsider every six months?

Many things in the EU are currently decided without consensus and Lisbon will move more things to QMV. Democracy is not founded on consensus, it's founded on what the majority want.

And I agree that Ireland has every right to say no and we exercised that right but along with that right comes the responsibility to give good reasons why we are voting no so that they can address them. It's ridiculous to suggest that a 300 page document should be thrown out because of objections to a few paragraphs without even being able to point to which paragraphs we object to.

As for reasons being given, the vast majority of people that I have come across have given reasons to do with not liking the current government, not understanding the treaty or things that weren't true. The things that weren't true were clarified and the EU can't do anything about our government or the fact that we're not bothered trying to understand the treaty. What exactly do you expect them to do?

And what reasons did you give for voting no?

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It's news to me that 26 countries have ratified. When did President Klaus/Kaczynski/Kohler sign? Someone should tell their governments. :eek:

They're holding off ratification until Ireland signs. But you don't care about that

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They're holding off ratification until Ireland signs. But you don't care about that

So technically, it isn't 26 against 1. We're not isolated then.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

So technically, it isn't 26 against 1. We're not isolated then.

Those countries have not refused to ratify it because they object to it, they have held off ratification partly to show solidarity and party because there's little point ratifying it until we do. But again, that shouldn't stop you repeating it

dan719

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Many things in the EU are currently decided without consensus and Lisbon will move more things to QMV. Democracy is not founded on consensus, it's founded on what the majority want.

And I agree that Ireland has every right to say no and we exercised that right but along with that right comes the responsibility to give good reasons why we are voting no so that they can address them. It's ridiculous to suggest that a 300 page document should be thrown out because of objections to a few paragraphs without even being able to point to which paragraphs we object to.
As for reasons being given, the vast majority of people that I have come across have given reasons to do with not liking the current government, not understanding the treaty or things that weren't true. The things that weren't true were clarified and the EU can't do anything about our government or the fact that we're not bothered trying to understand the treaty. What exactly do you expect them to do?

And what reasons did you give for voting no?

I voted yes previously. I will however vote no this time as I am about to be 'raped' by the EU when the new CFP comes in and says that while I working in a family business on an U10m boat am a threat to the enviroment, a 20m french/spanish trawler is entitled to fish with impunity. All the while the navy will continue to board my boat regularly while leaving the big boys alone. Why would I vote for a system which would further reduce Ireland's say in these discussions by furthering QMV?

When is it okay to say that the Lisbon treaty should be thrown out? How many times will we be expected to vote before the EU says feck this? These are questions neither you nor anybody else seems willing to answer?

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

I voted yes previously. I will however vote no this time as I am about to be 'raped' by the EU when the new CFP comes in and says that while I working in a family business on an U10m boat am a threat to the enviroment, a 20m french/spanish trawler is entitled to fish with impunity. All the while the navy will continue to board my boat regularly while leaving the big boys alone. Why would I vote for a system which would further reduce Ireland's say in these discussions by furthering QMV?

Just to be clear, the situation you're describing is currently happening? What effect do you think a no vote will have?

Would I be right in saying that your objection is to the general direction of the EU rather than specific articles of the treaty?

dan719 wrote: »

When is it okay to say that the Lisbon treaty should be thrown out? How many times will we be expected to vote before the EU says feck this? These are questions neither you nor anybody else seems willing to answer?

The Lisbon treaty is a massive document, 99% of which is not contentious in any way. Why should they ever throw out the 99% that no one objects to? That's called throwing out the baby with the bath water. As people voice valid objections to certain parts they will be renegotiated but there is no reason to throw out articles 1 through 37 just because someone objects to article 38

The End Of Days

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They're holding off ratification until Ireland signs. But you don't care about that

pwnd tbh.

I'll be voting no to save jobs in the long term. None of this silly populace pleasing short terminism's for moi.

Sam Vimes

The End Of Days wrote: »

pwnd tbh.

Sorry are you suggesting that I pwnd him or he pwnd me? Those countries had every intention of ratifying it and still have as soon as we do. There's just no point in ratifying it unless Ireland does. He knows this but forgets this fact because it doesn't fit with the invalid point he's trying to make, that Ireland is not alone in rejecting the treaty. At no point did I get pwnd.

leitrim lad

here is my plan you are welcome to agree or disagree with me,

we all vote no

we look to the french, and use their attitude towards the corruption that is a barrister and a solicitor leading our country into a bottomless swallow pit,

so the no vote means a general election ,and we all protest and block dublin to get the message across, and i just mean the general public including everyone , as we all are suffering, and our voice is at present falling on ears that dont give a **** about us aslong as they get votes,

then we the voters choose a government that will look after the people of the country ,not look after themselves at our expence , and only then will the rest of the world look at us as a nation of heroes who stud up for ourselves against the 50 or so corrupt individuals who have gotten us into this famine ,and are trying to force us to vote in another of their failed treatys, by running it a second time,

you can answer this question for me also

what will they do if we all vote no and it doesnt pass?

i predict they will get the dead and our pets to vote in our place and pass it anyway.

and all of this is coming from a member of fianna fail, who will never as long as there is grass in the fields vote for them again

dan719

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just to be clear, the situation you're describing is currently happening? What effect do you think a no vote will have?

Would I be right in saying that your objection is to the general direction of the EU rather than specific articles of the treaty?


The Lisbon treaty is a massive document, 99% of which is not contentious in any way. Why should they ever throw out the 99% that no one objects to? That's called throwing out the baby with the bath water. As people voice valid objections to certain parts they will be renegotiated but there is no reason to throw out articles 1 through 37 just because someone objects to article 38

Ireland provides 12% (in fact a little more) of the total fishing quota of the EU while the Irish fleet is entitled to just under 4% of the total quota. Restrictions introduced within Irish coastal waters regarding foriegn vessels are flouted. Unlike Scottish waters where the Royal Navy makes an attempt to protect fishing rights, the Irish Navy concentrates on Irish fisherman while ignoring the so called super ships.

A no vote to Lisbon is an attempt to ensure that Ireland is not further marginalised when it comes to deciding on the allocation of quota, since decision making will no longer be subject to consensus decisions and rather be down to QMV. I also strongly disagree with a situation where (nearly)landlocked countries have any say in the distribution of a fishing quota, for obvious reasons.

So the answer to my question is, we will vote cont. on the Lisbon treaty until we say yes?

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

Ireland provides 12% (in fact a little more) of the total fishing quota of the EU while the Irish fleet is entitled to just under 4% of the total quota. Restrictions introduced within Irish coastal waters regarding foriegn vessels are flouted. Unlike Scottish waters where the Royal Navy makes an attempt to protect fishing rights, the Irish Navy concentrates on Irish fisherman while ignoring the so called super ships.

A no vote to Lisbon is an attempt to ensure that Ireland is not further marginalised when it comes to deciding on the allocation of quota, since decision making will no longer be subject to consensus decisions and rather be down to QMV. I also strongly disagree with a situation where (nearly)landlocked countries have any say in the distribution of a fishing quota, for obvious reasons.

Right, so your objection is to a situation that currently exists that wouldn't exist if the Irish Navy was doing it's job properly. I can't see the connection to Lisbon tbh.

Which area of voting is moving to QMV that will effect fishing quotas btw? I'm not suggesting that it's not, just curious as to which area covers it and where it says it's moving to QMV?

dan719 wrote: »

So the answer to my question is, we will vote cont. on the Lisbon treaty until we say yes?

No, the answer is that no sane person would drop a 300 page document because someone has an objection to one paragraph of it. Instead they renegotiate the paragraph. It's how democracy works.

Seriously, why should they drop articles 1-37 if you say you don't like article 38? How does that make any sense?

Sam Vimes

leitrim lad wrote: »

here is my plan you are welcome to agree or disagree with me,

we all vote no

we look to the french, and use their attitude towards the corruption that is a barrister and a solicitor leading our country into a bottomless swallow pit,

so the no vote means a general election ,and we all protest and block dublin to get the message across, and i just mean the general public including everyone , as we all are suffering, and our voice is at present falling on ears that dont give a **** about us aslong as they get votes,

then we the voters choose a government that will look after the people of the country ,not look after themselves at our expence , and only then will the rest of the world look at us as a nation of heroes who stud up for ourselves against the 50 or so corrupt individuals who have gotten us into this famine ,and are trying to force us to vote in another of their failed treatys, by running it a second time,

Can we not do that anyway? Why does Lisbon even have to be mentioned? Is this plan any less valid:

we all vote no

we look to the french, and use their attitude towards the corruption that is a barrister and a solicitor leading our country into a bottomless swallow pit,

so the no vote means a general election ,and we all protest and block dublin to get the message across that we want a general election, and i just mean the general public including everyone , as we all are suffering, and our voice is at present falling on ears that dont give a **** about us aslong as they get votes,

then we the voters choose a government that will look after the people of the country ,not look after themselves at our expence , and only then will the rest of the world look at us as a nation of heroes who stud up for ourselves against the 50 or so corrupt individuals who have gotten us into this famine ,and are trying to force us to vote in another of their failed treatys, by running it a second time,

leitrim lad

yes ,i see what you have done , but my point was ,the people of the country want a new government , the existing one wont leave unlesss we open fire on them, so the only way to do this is vote no to lisbon, and then we have enough mounting pressure to make biffo and lenehan emigrate to the other side of the uneverse with that turkey mary coughlan,

and we should be already be on the streets protesting now ,we are too soft for our own good as a nation , our attitude is a sher maybe it will sort it self out, that is why we are being bullied into another waste of taxpayers money in this farce in october