Lisbon 2 The Return!

uprising

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If they want to remove a concession, our country has to give them permission. If removing the concession would require a change to our constitution, it would require a referendum

And if the referendum said NO would it actually mean NO?, or keep trying with more crap till the initial NO became YESSSSSSSSSSS

K-9

uprising wrote: »

And if the referendum said NO would it actually mean NO?, or keep trying with more crap till the initial NO became YESSSSSSSSSSS

I think it's politically unlikely.

Still, say they addressed every single concern you had, would you want to vote again?

Sam Vimes

uprising wrote: »

And if the referendum said NO would it actually mean NO?, or keep trying with more crap till the initial NO became YESSSSSSSSSSS

In the real world people don't drop an entire 300 page document that took 5 years to write because a few hundred thousand people in a union of 500 million either don't like 5% of it or don't understand it. What they do is they find out which parts of it the people objected to and negotiate with them to remove those parts so that the rest, that they don't have a problem with, can pass.

Unfortunately after Lisbon the results showed that the majority of no voters gave reasons like they didn't understand the contents (42% of no voters) and 26% were voters who voted no because of neutrality, abortion, conscription and taxation or other similar reasons.

There is nothing that can be renegotiated with people who just didn't understand it and neutrality, abortion, conscription and taxation were never issues effected by the treaty

So they gave us extra time to familiarise ourselves with it, hopefully meaning people wouldn't say they didn't understand it anymore and gave us guarantees stating that the other issues were not effected by the treaty and asked us to reconsider now that our reasons for voting no no longer applied.

I don't see what the big problem is. Have you never tried to convince someone over something that you considered very important? It doesn't mean you're ignoring them, just that you want to convince them.

uprising

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You don't have to read it all, legal experts on both sides of the debate have read it for you. 99% of it is boring procedural changes and the 1% that is contentious has been all over the news for two years. So just read those parts and make your decision based on who makes the most compelling case and, more importantly, who's not making sh!t up like the people talking about conscription

OHHH so we dont have to understand it, the experts do that for us, well I was replying to somebody who said if you dont understand it then dont vote, so it will be only the experts voting so will it?

What I replied to was:
I think people should not be allowed vote if they know nothing about the treaty. Voting no because your parents do or the likes is not a good thing O.o

marco_polo

uprising wrote: »

And if the referendum said NO would it actually mean NO?, or keep trying with more crap till the initial NO became YESSSSSSSSSSS

There will still be two options on the ballot paper and you are completely free to mark whichever one you see fit.

uprising

marco_polo wrote: »

There will still be two options on the ballot paper and you are completely free to mark whichever one you see fit.

But what if the majority mark the wrong one, what happens then???

TheZohanS

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Here's ten:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60775332&postcount=57

Thanks Sam.

Also came across this post which is basically ten reasons to vote no when I read further along the thread.

Going to have to study this one in more depth, but not tonight!

marco_polo

uprising wrote: »

OHHH so we dont have to understand it, the experts do that for us, well I was replying to somebody who said if you dont understand it then dont vote, so it will be only the experts voting so will it?

What I replied to was:
I think people should not be allowed vote if they know nothing about the treaty. Voting no because your parents do or the likes is not a good thing O.o

Why not make you own mind up. If I you don't trust the politicians then why not inform yourself. There is ample material available at this stage.

Sam Vimes

uprising wrote: »

OHHH so we dont have to understand it, the experts do that for us, well I was replying to somebody who said if you dont understand it then dont vote, so it will be only the experts voting so will it?

What I replied to was:
I think people should not be allowed vote if they know nothing about the treaty. Voting no because your parents do or the likes is not a good thing O.o

If you don't understand it, ask people that do and try your best to understand it. And if you still don't understand it, then don't vote

Sam Vimes

uprising wrote: »

But what if the majority mark the wrong one, what happens then???

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61285634&postcount=215

marco_polo

uprising wrote: »

But what if the majority mark the wrong one, what happens then???

There is no wrong answer. If the vote is Yes then the proposed amendments will be inserted into the constitution, if it is a No then it will not be. Or am I missing something?

Sam Vimes

Look, uprising, it's not as simple as "no means no". No one can possibly have an objection to every single word in the treaty so the inevitable question is "no to what part?" so you explain the parts that you object to and if you make a good case, those parts are removed and the rest is salvaged. That's how democracy works

uprising

marco_polo wrote: »

Why not make you own mind up. If I you don't trust the politicians then why not inform yourself. There is ample material available at this stage.

Why not make YOU own mind up?? If I you??

I have made my mind up, read my first post, it says I'll be voting no, and in the 3rd, 4th, 5th,6th and 7th I'll still vote no

uprising

marco_polo wrote: »

There is no wrong answer. If the vote is Yes then the proposed amendments will be inserted into the constitution, if it is a No then it will not be. Or am I missing something?

You may be missing that we already voted no.

Sam Vimes

TheZohan wrote: »

Also came across this post which is basically ten reasons to vote no when I read further along the thread.

I can see why he would vote no but he has a very different world view to me and tbh it looks to me like he's just nitpicking. The parts about the death penalty and human cloning are fine if that's what he really believes but:

The parts about "degrading treatment" and a right to a private life are being misinterpreted, the Mohamed cartoons could not be considered degrading treatment and the press will still be able to investigate politicians. Similar laws exist on our own books already.

The part about a right to a family is serious nitpicking. So what if it's a private matter, why would anyone object to a law securing their right to do it

The part about freedom of thought, conscience and religion being bad goes against the very fundamentals of democracy, equality and free speech

marco_polo

uprising wrote: »

You may be missing that we already voted no.

And as I said our constitution has remained unchanged.

Sam Vimes

uprising wrote: »

Why not make YOU own mind up?? If I you??

I have made my mind up, read my first post, it says I'll be voting no, and in the 3rd, 4th, 5th,6th and 7th I'll still vote no

Do you have any reason to do so other than the list you put up earlier of things that were proven to be scaremongering lies long ago?

And again, it's not as simple as "no means no". No one can possibly have an objection to every single word in the treaty so the inevitable question is "no to what part?" so you explain the parts that you object to and if you make a good case, those parts are removed and the rest is salvaged. That's how democracy works

K-9

uprising wrote: »

You may be missing that we already voted no.

Which is why it is ridiculous for others to use this vote to kick out FF.

All we'll get is, we voted No twice!

PS. The assurances are new. They may not be to your taste but they maybe to others.

uprising

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Look, uprising, it's not as simple as "no means no". No one can possibly have an objection to every single word in the treaty so the inevitable question is "no to what part?" so you explain the parts that you object to and if you make a good case, those parts are removed and the rest is salvaged. That's how democracy works

But it would be really simple if the yes vote won, there wouldnt be a 3rd attempt, but if we vote no again will it go for a 3rd time?
Democracy means no means no and yes means yes, so wheres democracy now?, we voted no, but it wasnt accepted, some democracy.

Sam Vimes

uprising wrote: »

But it would be really simple if the yes vote won, there wouldnt be a 3rd attempt, but if we vote no again will it go for a 3rd time?
Democracy means no means no and yes means yes, so wheres democracy now?, we voted no, but it wasnt accepted, some democracy.

We voted on whether or not to ratify the Lisbon treaty. We voted no, the government has not ratified the treaty. Democracy does not mean no means no. Democracy means compromise and negotiation

Tell me, if the divorce referendum had gone the other way and divorce was still illegal in Ireland, would you fight any attempts to hold another referendum now on the basis that no means no?

uprising

K-9 wrote: »

Which is why it is ridiculous for others to use this vote to kick out FF.

All we'll get is, we voted No twice!

PS. The assurances are new. They may not be to your taste but they maybe to others.

Kicking out FF wont make an ounce of difference, all the politicians are a pack of two faced wannkbags no matter what badge they wear with their cheesy smiles and election promises.

thelordofcheese

uprising wrote: »

Kicking out FF wont make an ounce of difference, all the politicians are a pack of two faced wannkbags no matter what badge they wear with their cheesy smiles and election promises.

hey, if you want to do the teenage angst thing clearasil and hormones is thataway -->

marco_polo

uprising wrote: »

But it would be really simple if the yes vote won, there wouldnt be a 3rd attempt, but if we vote no again will it go for a 3rd time?
Democracy means no means no and yes means yes, so wheres democracy now?, we voted no, but it wasnt accepted, some democracy.

Their will be no further referendums on Lisbon, The actual issues at hand could not be any clearer now, we have recieved clarifications and guarantees pertaining to some (not all) of the concerns of the voters, and on that basis we are holding a new referendum.

marco_polo

uprising wrote: »

Kicking out FF wont make an ounce of difference, all the politicians are a pack of two faced wannkbags no matter what badge they wear with their cheesy smiles and election promises.

I have just noticed you appear to be a creationist\IDer as well, from experience there is not much point wasting time arguing with you any further eh?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

uprising wrote: »

So you actually fully understand every detail of this treaty, its a confusing piece of crap full of bullsh1t wording.

It's not that complicated actually... It's explained by a lot of people, you gotta search for it.

uprising

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We voted on whether or not to ratify the Lisbon treaty. We voted no, the government has not ratified the treaty. Democracy does not mean no means no. Democracy means compromise and negotiation

Tell me, if the divorce referendum had gone the other way and divorce was still illegal in Ireland, would you fight any attempts to hold another referendum now on the basis that no means no?

Divorce is a personal thing between 2 people, this affects us all, not just now but long into the future, personally I couldnt care less about divorce legal or not.
I believe people should be in control of their own destiny and a yes vote is another step away from this.

uprising

marco_polo wrote: »

I have just noticed you appear to be a creationist\IDer as well, from experience there is not much point wasting time arguing with you any further eh?

and WTF has that got to do with Lisbon??

TriceMarie

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The Socialist Party were also against it and I'd trust Joe Higgins over the likes of Brian Cowen any day personally.

The Workers Party are against it too as far as I know

uprising

Miriam Warm Men wrote: »

It's not that complicated actually... It's explained by a lot of people, you gotta search for it.

If its not that complicated why do you need it explained to you and search for what they say, just click here and read it yourself...
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EN:HTML

TriceMarie

uprising wrote: »

But it would be really simple if the yes vote won, there wouldnt be a 3rd attempt, but if we vote no again will it go for a 3rd time?
Democracy means no means no and yes means yes, so wheres democracy now?, we voted no, but it wasnt accepted, some democracy.

From what I've heard,this is basically a 3rd attempt.
Was the Nice Treaty not the same thing??