Lisbon 2 The Return!

K-9

The more I hear the scaremongering from some of the No side, the more I feel right in voting yes.

DigiGal

I am voting no because.....I voted no the first time
The country voted no
We had our say
You can't bully us into changing our minds thats not democracy

K-9

DigiGal wrote: »

I am voting no because.....I voted no the first time
The country voted no
We had our say
You can't bully us into changing our minds thats not democracy

So if they addressed all your reasons for voting No, you'd still vote No. Grand.

DigiGal

K-9 wrote: »

So if they addressed all your reasons for voting No, you'd still vote No. Grand.

They haven't addressed any of them so far..

so yes Grand

K-9

DigiGal wrote: »

They haven't addressed any of them so far..

so yes Grand

So vote no.

Maybe they addressed other NO voter concerns or does that not matter?

DigiGal

K-9 wrote: »

So vote no.

Maybe they addressed other NO voter concerns or does that not matter?

Eh...yes I am voting no....thats what I said originally

I don't know I dont know what their concerns are...I don't really care what anyone else votes.
Its their own choice, the info is out there they can decide..

K-9

DigiGal wrote: »

Eh...yes I am voting no....thats what I said originally

I don't know I dont know what their concerns are...I don't really care what anyone else votes.
Its their own choice, the info is out there they can decide..

Exactly, how do they decide if the guarantees are enough? By voting again!

The End Of Days

Vote NO for your childrens future.

Ireland can no longer be the "kid" still living at home, aged 38, still looking for handouts like some mammays boy.

Vote NO!

In all following votes.

Johnnnybravo

K-9 wrote: »

So vote no.

Maybe they addressed other NO voter concerns or does that not matter?

They did not address our concerns, and he doesnt have to justify to you or anybody else what way hes using his vote.

We might be being bullied into voting again but we wont be bloody well bullied by users on here or anywhere else into voting yes.


We voted NO so they decided to try again, some bloody democracy!

Sam Vimes

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

They did not address our concerns
...
We voted NO so they decided to try again, some bloody democracy!

42% voted no because they didn't understand it. They've now had two years to try to understand it and you're calling it undemocratic to ask again. Who else but the Irish would get offended at someone asking that they take a quick look at a treaty before throwing it in the bin :rolleyes:

Johnnnybravo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

42% voted no because they didn't understand it. They've now had two years to try to understand it and you're calling it undemocratic to ask again. Who else but the Irish would get offended at someone asking that they take a quick look at a treaty before throwing it in the bin :rolleyes:

There was a vote, NO was the outcome, and then your wondering why people are mad at it being voted on again???? Jesus chrsit, do you not see anything wrong with this??

Sam Vimes

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

There was a vote, NO was the outcome, and then your wondering why people are mad at it being voted on again???? Jesus chrsit, do you not see anything wrong with this??

The greatest reason by far for voting no was lack of understanding. Not any objection people had to the treaty itself, simply that they didn't understand it. They have now had two years to understand it. What's the problem?

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The greatest reason by far for voting no was lack of understanding. Not any objection people had to the treaty itself, simply that they didn't understand it. They have now had two years to understand it. What's the problem?

I understand your point though I'd bet a lot of yes voters knew nothing about the treaty too.
If there is a yes outcome to the second running will there be a poll to ask why people voted yes and if the answers do not correspond to actual articles in the treaty shall we go again?

J.Ball

I'll be voting no. We Said no the first time not ask again in a few months.

The government seem to want the yes vote so much it'll probably be rigged to yes this time no matter how we vote.

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

I understand your point though I'd bet a lot of yes voters knew nothing about the treaty too.
If there is a yes outcome to the second running will there be a poll to ask why people voted yes and if the answers do not correspond to actual articles in the treaty shall we go again?

you can't "unratify" a treaty but if any of the portents of doom from the no side come to pass, if it turns out the yes side are wrong then I would more than support further reforms to amend the offending parts of the treaty. There is no "final word" in democracy

edit:Lisbon actually makes it easier to do that btw

Sam Vimes

J.Ball wrote: »

I'll be voting no. We Said no the first time not ask again in a few months.

Has anyone ever seen the movie Groundhog day?

Johnnnybravo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The greatest reason by far for voting no was lack of understanding. Not any objection people had to the treaty itself, simply that they didn't understand it. They have now had two years to understand it. What's the problem?

Oh my god how many other ways can I write the same sentence so that you understand it! ok I am not happy because we said no already ok and now its being voted on again end of story thats my opinion nso dont ask me again what the problem is ok, in my opinion that is the problem, it was vote yes or vote no and we`l ask you to vote again. Ok Good night!

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you can't "unratify" a treaty but if any of the portents of doom from the no side come to pass, if it turns out the yes side are wrong then I would more than support further reforms to amend the offending parts of the treaty. There is no "final word" in democracy

edit:Lisbon actually makes it easier to do that btw

Fair point. Could the government not legally hold off on ratifying until they are sure the reasons the people vote yes are to do with the actual treaty though now that our actions are based on the reasons for a vote not the vote itself?

Sam Vimes

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

Oh my god how many other ways can I write the same sentence so that you understand it! ok I am not happy because we said no already ok and now its being voted on again end of story thats my opinion nso dont ask me again what the problem is ok, in my opinion that is the problem, it was vote yes or vote no and we`l ask you to vote again. Ok Good night!

I feel exactly the same way mate, I've tried to explain the nonsensical nature of being annoyed at voting again probably hundreds of times at this stage but people just don't want to hear it. Democracy is founded on compromise, where people work through their differences and come out at the end of it with something we can all agree on. It's not as simple as "no means no", especially when the majority of people didn't have any specific problem with the treaty.

Can you not see the ridiculousness of objecting to people asking that you make an attempt to understand something before throwing it in the bin?

Why should they flush 5 years of work and millions down the toilet just because the Irish people are too lazy to read the fcuking thing?

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair point. Could the government not legally hold off on ratifying until they are sure the reasons the people vote yes are to do with the actual treaty though now that our actions are based on the reasons for a vote not the vote itself?

The reasons on either side don't necessarily have to be directly related to articles of the treaty. Voting no because of a general objection to the EU is perfectly valid for example. Equally, voting yes because the person that you elected to represent you in politics says the treaty is good is perfectly valid. Most people don't know or care enough to go out and read the treaty for themselves so all they can do is trust other people's opinions. Or a belief that another no vote will damage Ireland's reputation could be valid too. It might not and some believe it won't but they can't say for sure it won't. It might not be an article in the treaty but it could be a result of it. Even a belief that the EU has been good to us is valid imo because they have been good to us so I don't need an overwhelming reason to accept the treaty but I do need one to reject it and I haven't been given one.

The problem beforehand was that the reasons on the no side were largely fictional and predicted doomsday scenarios that were never going to happen, that's why we got the guarantees. I realise I gave a lot more non-treaty related reasons on the yes side but that's because there are a lot more valid non-treaty related reasons for a yes vote. The only one on the no side imo is a general dislike of the EU but no treaty will satisfy someone who thinks like that. The other non-treaty related ones like a protest vote against FF just make me facepalm whenever I hear them tbh

dan719

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can you not see the ridiculousness of objecting to people asking that you make an attempt to understand something before throwing it in the bin?

Why should they flush 5 years of work and millions down the toilet just because the Irish people are too lazy to read the fcuking thing?

The reasons on either side don't necessarily have to be directly related to articles of the treaty. Voting no because of a general objection to the EU is perfectly valid for example. Equally, voting yes because the person that you elected to represent you in politics says the treaty is good is perfectly valid. Most people don't know or care enough to go out and read the treaty for themselves so all they can do is trust other people's opinions. Or a belief that another no vote will damage Ireland's reputation could be valid too. It might not and some believe it won't but they can't say for sure it won't. It might not be an article in the treaty but it could be a result of it. Even a belief that the EU has been good to us is valid imo because they have been good to us so I don't need an overwhelming reason to accept the treaty but I do need one to reject it and I haven't been given one.

The problem beforehand was that the reasons on the no side were largely fictional and predicted doomsday scenarios that were never going to happen, that's why we got the guarantees. I realise I gave a lot more non-treaty related reasons on the yes side but that's because there are a lot more valid non-treaty related reasons for a yes vote. The only one on the no side imo is a general dislike of the EU but no treaty will satisfy someone who thinks like that. The other non-treaty related ones like a protest vote against FF just make me facepalm whenever I hear them tbh

Can you not see the ridiculousness of accepting a treaty without even reading the fcuking thing?

And your next point is nothing short of hysterical.

'Hey Sam, just wondering why do you think that we should rerun Lisbon?'
'Well Dan it's because people voted on issues completely unrelated to the treaty'
'So Sam why should we vote yes?'
'Well I don't think that we necassarily have to vote on the treaty, we can vote on issues outside it, such as the nice warm feeling inside I get when I think of the EU'
:eek::eek::eek:

'But Sam I though we were only supposed to vote on the treaty, and not on things that had nothing to do with it'
'Nah Dan, that only applies when you vote no.'

Now I get it. :rolleyes:

Just out of interest Sam, would you mind declaring a vested interest (if one exists)? Are you a member of any pro Euro lobby parties, or political parties etc?

I'm not, although I have been mildly involged in Young FG from time to time. (Not anymore)

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The reasons on either side don't necessarily have to be directly related to articles of the treaty. Voting no because of a general objection to the EU is perfectly valid for example. Equally, voting yes because the person that you elected to represent you in politics says the treaty is good is perfectly valid. Most people don't know or care enough to go out and read the treaty for themselves so all they can do is trust other people's opinions. Or a belief that another no vote will damage Ireland's reputation could be valid too. It might not and some believe it won't but they can't say for sure it won't. It might not be an article in the treaty but it could be a result of it. Even a belief that the EU has been good to us is valid imo because they have been good to us so I don't need an overwhelming reason to accept the treaty but I do need one to reject it and I haven't been given one.

Wouldn't "better the devil I know" fall into the same category as some of those reasons. Especially considering,as you said, the EU has been good to us.

The problem beforehand was that the reasons on the no side were largely fictional and predicted doomsday scenarios that were never going to happen, that's why we got the guarantees. I realise I gave a lot more non-treaty related reasons on the yes side but that's because there are a lot more valid non-treaty related reasons for a yes vote. The only one on the no side imo is a general dislike of the EU but no treaty will satisfy someone who thinks like that. The other non-treaty related ones like a protest vote against FF just make me facepalm whenever I hear them tbh

I agree some were ludicrous but then in my opinion the gross geralisations of the yes side were just as bad. I agree about the protest vote and made a similar point about O'Leary asking for a yes vote to take power out of our government's hand.
However and this just pedantic as I'd rather neither, you could claim that this: "Equally, voting yes because the person that you elected to represent you in politics says the treaty is good is perfectly valid."is only as valid as the claim that one has no faith in the government who negotiated this treaty and fear they are not capable of negotiating with our best interests in mind.

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

Can you not see the ridiculousness of accepting a treaty without even reading the fcuking thing?

The answer to that is, of course, to read the fcuking thing, not to keep voting it down because you're too lazy to. And if you are too lazy then stop getting in everyone else's way and don't vote

dan719 wrote: »

And your next point is nothing short of hysterical.

'Hey Sam, just wondering why do you think that we should rerun Lisbon?'
'Well Dan it's because people voted on issues completely unrelated to the treaty'
'So Sam why should we vote yes?'
'Well I don't think that we necassarily have to vote on the treaty, we can vote on issues outside it, such as the nice warm feeling inside I get when I think of the EU'
:eek::eek::eek:

'But Sam I though we were only supposed to vote on the treaty, and not on things that had nothing to do with it'
'Nah Dan, that only applies when you vote no.'

That's not actually what I said. The treaty will have effects beyond the articles contained therein but most of the non-treaty related reasons on the no side were not effects, they were fictional.

dan719 wrote: »

Just out of interest Sam, would you mind declaring a vested interest (if one exists)? Are you a member of any pro Euro lobby parties, or political parties etc?

Yes everyone who doesn't agree with you is in on the conspiracy :rolleyes:

I work for a telecommunications company. I just get very irritated by stupidity and try to point out people's errors when they say stupid things. Alas it rarely works

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wouldn't "better the devil I know" fall into the same category as some of those reasons. Especially considering,as you said, the EU has been good to us.

I don't think so. That logic can and has been used for every treaty and every political change and the world has yet to collapse. It's even used....to keep FF in power :eek:

ShooterSF wrote: »

I agree some were ludicrous but then in my opinion the gross geralisations of the yes side were just as bad. I agree about the protest vote and made a similar point about O'Leary asking for a yes vote to take power out of our government's hand.
However and this just pedantic as I'd rather neither, you could claim that this: "Equally, voting yes because the person that you elected to represent you in politics says the treaty is good is perfectly valid."is only as valid as the claim that one has no faith in the government who negotiated this treaty and fear they are not capable of negotiating with our best interests in mind.

Then you don't have to look to them. There are other far more reliable sources in and out of politics than the FF government. I sincerely hope FF doesn't say a word coming up to the date and leaves the campaigning to others

dan719

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The answer to that is, of course, to read the fcuking thing, not to keep voting it down because you're too lazy to. And if you are too lazy then stop getting in everyone else's way and don't vote
That's not actually what I said. The treaty will have effects beyond the articles contained therein but most of the non-treaty related reasons on the no side were not effects, they were fictional.


Yes everyone who doesn't agree with you is in on the conspiracy :rolleyes:

I work for a telecommunications company. I just get very irritated by stupidity and try to point out people's errors when they say stupid things. Alas it rarely works

Regardless of whether or not they will vote yes? You are are again contradicting yourself. Just a few moments ago you stated that it was okay to vote yes on the advice of elected representitives if one was to lazy to read it. Now if someone is too lazy to read it, they shouldn't vote at all.

You can describe as fictional concerns raised by the no side. Equally, I can describe as fantasy your claims it will negativelyimpact our economy and cause people to question our sanity. If we vote no, we are naysayers, but if we vote yes how do you know that people will not describe us as flip-floppers, who have no idea what we want, and that we usually just do as we are told.


When have I ever mentioned a 'conspiracy'. You seem very pro Europe, most of my friends who are equally pro Lisbon are members of groups such as Gen Yes and Ireland for Europe and so on. I was merely curious as to whether you were also a member of such an organisation? I feel I have been civil towards you, and would appreciate such an attitude in return. I certainly don't wish to be called a crank or stupid, since that adds noting to the debate and merely diminishes your own argument.

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not they will vote yes? You are are again contradicting yourself. Just a few moments ago you stated that it was okay to vote yes on the advice of elected representitives if one was to lazy to read it. Now if someone is too lazy to read it, they shouldn't vote at all.

I haven't read the whole treaty, very few people have. I have read parts that have been highlighted to me. But then I am not saying that I'm going to reject the treaty because I don't understand it. I have a sufficient understanding of the treaty from the parts that I have read and from comment and opinion that there is nothing I object to in it. If someone feels they understand the treaty, has looked up relevant sections and satisfied themselves to their content and they have valid objections so they still want to vote no that's fair enough but we have had two years to read up on the treaty so there is no excuse for rejecting it because you don't understand it anymore. Here's a slogan for you, "If you don't know, find out"

dan719 wrote: »

You can describe as fictional concerns raised by the no side. Equally, I can describe as fantasy your claims it will negativelyimpact our economy and cause people to question our sanity. If we vote no, we are naysayers, but if we vote yes how do you know that people will not describe us as flip-floppers, who have no idea what we want, and that we usually just do as we are told.

I have no proof that it will negatively effect the economy so you are entitled to call it fantasy if you want. Neither of us can prove our positions. On the other hand, many of the reasons given by the no-side were provably wrong. They were red herrings introduced by anti-EU people to try to trick the Irish electorate into rejecting the treaty. They were lies.

tbh if people described us as flip-floppers who don't know what we want that would be fairly accurate and I'd rather that reputation than that of the people who keep voting no because they're too lazy to find out what they're voting on or because we don't like our government

dan719 wrote: »

When have I ever mentioned a 'conspiracy'. You seem very pro Europe, most of my friends who are equally pro Lisbon are members of groups such as Gen Yes and Ireland for Europe and so on. I was merely curious as to whether you were also a member of such an organisation? I feel I have been civil towards you, and would appreciate such an attitude in return. I certainly don't wish to be called a crank or stupid, since that adds noting to the debate and merely diminishes your own argument.

Sorry I got carried away. No I'm not a member of any such group, I just see what the EU has done for Ireland and won't reject a treaty from them unless there's a good reason to. I don't see any such reasons in Lisbon

K-9

Johnnnybravo wrote: »

They did not address our concerns, and he doesnt have to justify to you or anybody else what way hes using his vote.

We might be being bullied into voting again but we wont be bloody well bullied by users on here or anywhere else into voting yes.


We voted NO so they decided to try again, some bloody democracy!

How dare you speak for all NO Voters.

marco_polo

J.Ball wrote: »

I'll be voting no. We Said no the first time not ask again in a few months.

The government seem to want the yes vote so much it'll probably be rigged to yes this time no matter how we vote.

While it is frankly a bizzare suggestion that it would be rest assured that vote was rigged rest assured that all voters would be up in arms.

Flamed Diving

Ugh, I'm so tired of hearing about this treaty. I'll just vote YES to give them what they want, so I can get back to my life.

ShooterSF

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Ugh, I'm so tired of hearing about this treaty. I'll just vote YES to give them what they want, so I can get back to my life.

Cool. If someone tells me they are voting NO based on conscriptions and abortions I'll rationalise that it's cancels out your equally silly reason to vote

FutureTaoiseach

They wouldn't dare try a third referendum should we reject this again Flamed Diving.

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They wouldn't dare try a third referendum should we reject this again Flamed Diving.

I have not heard anyone suggest there would be a third referendum, save for those a few who claim we will be made vote ad infinum untill a yes vote is reached.

It abundantly clear that the Lisbon Treaty debate ends on the 2nd of October one way or another.