Lisbon 2 The Return!

Sam Vimes · 24-07-2009 2:09am

uprising wrote: »

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.

But I thought that in democracy no meant no? Are you saying that if divorce had been kept illegal at the last referendum, that people shouldn't be prevented from ever changing their minds and that it would be acceptable to hold another referendum, overturning the previous decision?

Seems awfully undemocratic to me, having two referendums on the same issue and allowing people to change their minds

Sam Vimes · 24-07-2009 2:10am

TriceMarie wrote: »

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

No, we ratified Nice

Sam Vimes · 24-07-2009 2:12am

uprising wrote: »

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

The treaty is long and boring so it helps to read shortened versions and to have important parts highlighted

uprising · 24-07-2009 2:13am

thelordofcheese wrote: »

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

Coming from thelordofcheese who makes vidja games, haha

marco_polo · 24-07-2009 2:18am

uprising wrote: »

and WTF has that got to do with Lisbon??

A tendancy to show subborness in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 24-07-2009 2:20am

uprising wrote: »

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

Who said I needed it shortened... you were the one whining that it is over complicated. :rolleyes:

marco_polo · 24-07-2009 2:21am

uprising wrote: »

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

Thanks but the consolidated version is much better.

uprising · 24-07-2009 2:25am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But I thought that in democracy no meant no? Are you saying that if divorce had been kept illegal at the last referendum, that people shouldn't be prevented from ever changing their minds and that it would be acceptable to hold another referendum, overturning the previous decision?

Seems awfully undemocratic to me, having two referendums on the same issue and allowing people to change their minds

Divorce should never have been illegal in the first place, poxy catholic church riding kids, telling us right from wrong.
Listen your getting confused here, this has nothing to do with divorce, stick to the topic.

marco_polo · 24-07-2009 2:27am

uprising wrote: »

Divorce should never have been illegal in the first place, poxy catholic church riding kids, telling us right from wrong.
Listen your getting confused here, this has nothing to do with divorce, stick to the topic.

It is exceptionally relevant. We have discovered that a second referendums is ok only when you are in favour of it.

uprising · 24-07-2009 2:27am

marco_polo wrote: »

A tendancy to show subborness in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.

PLEASE show me how I am wrong in voting NO,

uprising · 24-07-2009 2:30am

marco_polo wrote: »

It is exceptionally relevant. We have discovered that a second referendums is ok only when you are in favour of it.

Sorry where did I say I was in favor of a 2nd referendum, I said there shouldnt have been a need for a first, two different things completely.
So stop assuming on my behalf.

Sam Vimes · 24-07-2009 2:32am

uprising wrote: »

Divorce should never have been illegal in the first place, poxy catholic church riding kids, telling us right from wrong.
Listen your getting confused here, this has nothing to do with divorce, stick to the topic.

It has everything to do with the topic. You are saying that in democracy no means no but had the divorce referendum gone the other way you would not object to another one being held and in fact would have encouraged it because you think it should never have been illegal. You can say it shouldn't have required any referendums because it should never have been illegal but the fact is that it was illegal and a referendum was held to change that

Seems to me that no only means no when you're on the no side. Does no mean no in democracy or doesn't it?

marco_polo · 24-07-2009 2:33am

uprising wrote: »

Sorry where did I say I was in favor of a 2nd referendum, I said there shouldnt have been a need for a first, two different things completely.
So stop assuming on my behalf.

But the first was rejected so that should have been that. No divorce forever.

Because it is a proven scientific that people never ever ever change their minds about anything.

marco_polo · 24-07-2009 2:36am

uprising wrote: »

PLEASE show me how I am wrong in voting NO,

That would be like playing a tennis match against a wall. I am meerly here to correct some of your inaccurate statements about the democratic nature of referendums.

Sam Vimes · 24-07-2009 2:38am

marco_polo wrote: »

But the first was rejected so that should have been that. No divorce forever.

Because it is a proven scientific that people never ever ever change their minds about anything.

I didn't realise there were two divorce referendums, I was speaking hypothetically. That's just perfect

By your own logic divorce should still be illegal uprising, no means no

marco_polo · 24-07-2009 2:45am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I didn't realise there were two divorce referendums, I was speaking hypothetically. That's just perfect

By your own logic divorce should still be illegal uprising, no means no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Perhaps it is eight years that is an acceptable time span?

uprising · 24-07-2009 2:46am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It has everything to do with the topic. You are saying that in democracy no means no but had the divorce referendum gone the other way you would not object to another one being held and in fact would have encouraged it because you think it should never have been illegal. You can say it shouldn't have required any referendums because it should never have been illegal but the fact is that it was illegal and a referendum was held to change that

Seems to me that no only means no when you're on the no side. Does no mean no in democracy or doesn't it?

Listen again!, I said i couldnt care less about divorce or the law surrounding it, I didnt say I would support or reject another if it went the other way.
Theres a big difference between divorce and lisbon.
If you cant understand my one or two liners, HTF can you try undersand lisbon as you claim to.

marco_polo · 24-07-2009 2:51am

uprising wrote: »

Listen again!, I said i couldnt care less about divorce or the law surrounding it, I didnt say I would support or reject another if it went the other way.
Theres a big difference between divorce and lisbon.
If you cant understand my one or two liners, HTF can you try undersand lisbon as you claim to.

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

Looks like we took the same old crap option for divorce

Dinner · 24-07-2009 2:52am

marco_polo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Perhaps it is eight years that is an acceptable time span?

Rather than choosing an arbitrary number of years to deem 'acceptable', surely a better method would be either;

1) A percieved shift in public opinion large enough to warrent a re-examination of the issue. Or

2) Significant changes on the issue itself that could have an effect on public opinion.

In the first instance is divorce. Society changed a lot in the years between the referenda and public opinion shifted in favour of divorce.

In the second is Lisbon. The issues that caused people to vote no were examined and addressed. Therefore it is reasonable to have another referendum since these issues were addressed.

I don't have a problem with either.

marco_polo · 24-07-2009 2:54am

Dinner wrote: »

Rather than choosing an arbitrary number of years to deem 'acceptable', surely a better method would be either;

1) A percieved shift in public opinion large enough to warrent a re-examination of the issue. Or

2) Significant changes on the issue itself that could have an effect on public opinion.

In the first instance is divorce. Society changed a lot in the years between the referenda and public opinion shifted in favour of divorce.

In the second is Lisbon. The issues that caused people to vote no were examined and addressed. Therefore it is reasonable to have another referendum since these issues were addressed.

I don't have a problem with either.

Coiuldn't have said it better myself.

Sam Vimes · 24-07-2009 2:55am

uprising wrote: »

Listen again!, I said i couldnt care less about divorce or the law surrounding it, I didnt say I would support or reject another if it went the other way.
Theres a big difference between divorce and lisbon.
If you cant understand my one or two liners, HTF can you try undersand lisbon as you claim to.

You said you don't care but you also passionately stated that it should never have been illegal so you obviously do care

The differences between divorce and lisbon in this case are irrelevant. You said that in democracy no means no but if the country worked that way it would mean that divorce would still be illegal in Ireland and would always be illegal, something which you would be dead set against

Does that not show you why this insistence that it's "undemocratic" to allow people to change their minds is flawed?

Sir Molle · 24-07-2009 2:58am

Voting no just to piss off the yes voters and the rest of Europe.

uprising · 24-07-2009 3:02am

marco_polo wrote: »

Looks like we took the same old crap option for divorce

If you cant find any difference between divorce and lisbon then you shouldnt be here.
Your sounding like somebody going into a butchers to buy clothes.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 24-07-2009 3:05am

Sir Molle wrote: »

Voting no just to piss off the yes voters and the rest of Europe.

Our country is definately going somewhere with this kind of thinking :rolleyes:

marco_polo · 24-07-2009 3:05am

uprising wrote: »

If you cant find any difference between divorce and lisbon then you shouldnt be here.
Your sounding like somebody going into a butchers to buy clothes.

I would be much more worried that you cannot see the parrells. We are discussing a very specific point about the issue of referendums being put to the public again so the similarities are highly relevant.

Sam Vimes · 24-07-2009 3:07am

uprising wrote: »

If you cant find any difference between divorce and lisbon then you shouldnt be here.
Your sounding like somebody going into a butchers to buy clothes.

In terms of the results of a referendum and no meaning no what is the difference exactly? In 1986 the will of the people was overwhelmingly that divorce should stay illegal so why ever ask them again?

marco_polo · 24-07-2009 3:07am

Sir Molle wrote: »

Voting no just to piss off the yes voters and the rest of Europe.

I am sure the whole of europe will be collectively shaking their fist at you. And the best bit is the ballot is secret so they'll never even know it was you.

Sam Vimes · 24-07-2009 3:08am

Sir Molle wrote: »

Voting no just to piss off the yes voters and the rest of Europe.

To be honest that reason is a lot better than most. At least it's not based on misconceptions and lies

x MarK x · 24-07-2009 3:09am

snyper wrote: »

I'd expect you not to be voting again.

I believe it will be passed this time around.

My favourite thing about the Lisbon treaty is the load of bollox the no side vcome out with...

"If you vote Yes to Lisbon the EU will force all Irish people to sacrafice their first child to the spagetti monster in the sky while chanting the lyrics of Beyonces crazy in Love backwards!"

Eh wha??

"Yea!! Its true!! THERES NOTHING IN THE TREATY TO SAY THIS CANT HAPPEN!!!!So it cant be ruled out"

Lets hear your arguments for a yes vote then Einstein. Wait till i strap myself in. Quantitive, and qualitive arguments please.

uprising · 24-07-2009 3:12am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You said you don't care but you also passionately stated that it should never have been illegal so you obviously do care

The differences between divorce and lisbon in this case are irrelevant. You said that in democracy no means no but if the country worked that way it would mean that divorce would still be illegal in Ireland and would always be illegal, something which you would be dead set against

Does that not show you why this insistence that it's "undemocratic" to allow people to change their minds is flawed?

If people called for another referendum it would be one thing, but they didnt, its been forced on us, same as no divorce was forced on us at that time.
I havent seen nor heard of mass demonstrations calling for another go at lisbon, I'm all for power to the people, so stop the crap about divorce and your assumptions of how I think, whatever the people oppose I see as undemocratic.

Lisbon 2 The Return!

Comments