Attitude of the yes campaign

rumour

K-9 wrote: »

Okay, get your point, so why exactly vote No to LISBON?

As an individual who pays taxes and is not dependent on the government to put a roof and food over my head and food on the table arguably in terms of outcome there is medium to long term net benefit in voting no. Voting yes provides and immediate benefit but no significant long term benefits.
Obviously as an individual if your circumstances are different you may have no choice but to worry about short term benefits.

ei.sdraob

as an individual who pays most likely more taxes than you

can you answer re

rumour wrote: »

in terms of outcome there is medium to long term net benefit in voting no.

what medium to long term benefit exactly are you talking about of voting no


there is no need to be so vague and tip toe, if there is a serious consequence of voting on Lisbon that you are aware of please do share

ixtlan

ei.sdraob wrote: »

there is no need to be so vague and tip toe, if there is a serious consequence of voting on Lisbon that you are aware of please do share

Not to put words in his mouth but if I read him correctly... he seems to be suggesting that we allow the economy to collapse, the IMF to intervene, and he figures that this will be better by forcing the government to cut costs and borrowing immediately rather than stretch it out over years as they will be able to with EU support.

Of course he doesn't really know what he is talking about because even without Lisbon the EU will support us. Yes or No will not result in immediate disaster, but I believe things will be better with a Yes.

Ix

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

Whether we allow our politicians away with the dog's dinner they made of our economy - with the enthusiastic support of much of the populace, it should be said - is entirely up to us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am indecisive on this point. Rarely do we get an opportunity as citizens to address the entire political system, this referendum presents that opportunity. We have seen already how the political system refused to accept the result of the first referendum. No matter what spin is put on this it is a form of disdain not to accept the will of the people.

How do you succeed in getting any message through to these people in a general election, we will be faced with the same people from the same parties comfortably installed in Leinster House in general it will be the same old faces taking home the same salries and expenses. To ask them to change is like asking Turkeys to vote for christmas.Nothing short of a revolution will change these people.

If we don't change our domestic circumstances the future is bleak. What causes my indecision is a moral judgement on whether it is correct to put domestic issues in front of European progress which I am in general in favour of.

I think on a post before I concluded to vote yes and emigrate and leave the country in a cess pool. If I took a conscious decision to vote no I should be prepared to live with the consequences.

rumour

ixtlan wrote: »

Of course he doesn't really know what he is talking about because even without Lisbon the EU will support us.

Ix

Emmmm, well as you've just put words in my mouth I'll add a few more. I just love the way you believe the EU are going to keep us afloat. You just believe that they'll continue lending to us with no conditions so we can pay our public servants more than anyone else in europe with no prospect of paying them back.

That kind of idiocy is what has the country in the state it is in.

rumour

ei.sdraob wrote: »

there is no need to be so vague and tip toe, if there is a serious consequence of voting on Lisbon that you are aware of please do share

I do not know exactly how the future will transpire, but believeing that we can borrow with no prospect of paying back is a peculiar norm I am unfamiliar with.

With or without Lisbon we face this problem, some argue that the goodwill we will generate by voting 'yes' will help us. In the short term we may recieve some gratitude in terms of credit for our acquiesence on Lisbon. This will be short lived, our governments failed to heed any warnings from the EU for years now we're in trouble and begging from the people we choose to ignore.
The money available to ireland via the ECB or any other lending institution will reduce in the future or we pay such a premium the only way we will manage that is by increased taxes. And that will be an interest only loan. Lots of people see no problem in that when the going is good (expanding economy) but we are in the complete opposite of that and worse where can our economy expand to.

ei.sdraob

rumour wrote: »

Emmmm, well as you've just put words in my mouth I'll add a few more. I just love the way you believe the EU are going to keep us afloat. You just believe that they'll continue lending to us with no conditions so we can pay our public servants more than anyone else in europe with no prospect of paying them back.

That kind of idiocy is what has the country in the state it is in.

perhaps you should move to Iceland and ask them what they think

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I am indecisive on this point. Rarely do we get an opportunity as citizens to address the entire political system, this referendum presents that opportunity. We have seen already how the political system refused to accept the result of the first referendum. No matter what spin is put on this it is a form of disdain not to accept the will of the people.

I have got so sick of correcting this and other misconceptions that I've decided to give up trying to explain to people that the Lisbon treaty was not written by Beelzebub himself and that voting no for all the irrelevant and untrue reasons that people are voting no for will do nothing but damage the country. I've resigned myself to the reality that there's almost certainly going to be another no vote despite what the Irish Times poll says (people who read the times would be more inclined to vote yes) and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it because no one is willing to listen to reason. All that happens, as usually happens when people can't back up their positions with facts, is that the person who's pointing out their error gets branded as arrogant for not pretending that they have a point and they become even more entrenched in their position. It doesn't matter that their position is that black is white, they won't change because their opponent wasn't nice about pointing it out (as if they would change it whatever way it was pointed out). I can picture right now the look of glee on thousands of people's faces as that no result is announced. The Irish people are like a kid who runs home from school and proudly declares "Look daddy, I got an F!"

I used to think that referendums were very important to democracy but as I watch a benign and beneficial treaty about to get voted down for the second time due almost entirely to misinformation, lies, irrelevancies and spite, I can't help but think that complex international treaties would be better left to the people whose job it is to understand them, as they did in the rest of Europe. Referendums are for social issues like divorce and abortion, Betty from Mayo doesn't have the time, the inclination or the expertise to give an informed opinion on the relative merits of the ordinary and simplified revision procedures of the European Union

rumour

ei.sdraob wrote: »

perhaps you should move to Iceland and ask them what they think

Yes or maybe Latvia. I believe they are protected by the EU having already ratified Lisbon. Is their situation really any different than Icelands?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have got so sick of correcting this and other misconceptions that I've decided to give up trying to explain to people that the Lisbon treaty was not written by Beelzebub himself and that voting no for all the irrelevant and untrue reasons that people are voting no for will do nothing but damage the country. I've resigned myself to the reality that there's almost certainly going to be another no vote despite what the Irish Times poll says (people who read the times would be more inclined to vote yes) and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it because no one is willing to listen to reason. All that happens, as usually happens when people can't back up their positions with facts, is that the person who's pointing out their error gets branded as arrogant for not pretending that they have a point and they become even more entrenched in their position. It doesn't matter that their position is that black is white, they won't change because their opponent wasn't nice about pointing it out (as if they would change it whatever way it was pointed out). I can picture right now the look of glee on thousands of people's faces as that no result is announced. The Irish people are like a kid who runs home from school and proudly declares "Look daddy, I got an F!"

I used to think that referendums were very important to democracy but as I watch a benign and beneficial treaty about to get voted down for the second time due almost entirely to misinformation, lies, irrelevancies and spite, I can't help but think that complex international treaties would be better left to the people whose job it is to understand them, as they did in the rest of Europe. Referendums are for social issues like divorce and abortion, Betty from Mayo doesn't have the time, the inclination or the expertise to give an informed opinion on the relative merits of the ordinary and simplified revision procedures of the European Union

Was that you communicating with me or a rant in general?:o The treaty itself is perhaps benign but how open is it to malign abuse. I know it may annoy you that someone as ordinary as myself thinks like this but you will just have to live with your annoyance. Infuriating as it may seem your very attitude is what validates (my Opinion) many in the 'no' camp. It is simply not good enough to address peoples concerns by telling them they are stupid and that you really shouldn't be allowed a say in the matter.

Take a leaf from the painfully methodical approach of Scoffaw which and it doesn't matter what side you are on here is consistent factula nad engaging. That involves discipline and hard work.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

The treaty itself is perhaps benign but how open is it to malign abuse.

Not at all, if you ask me. What makes you think otherwise?

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Was that you communicating with me or a rant in general?:o

It was a rant in general.

rumour wrote: »

The treaty itself is perhaps benign but how open is it to malign abuse.

It's not. The only people who interpret it that way are people who want it voted down. That's why we had to get guarantees to say that the treaty can't be interpreted in such ways, which of course people have said aren't legally binding even though they are and said that they don't matter because it's the same treaty, missing the entire point of the guarantees. But I'm not allowed say that because apparently telling someone who has missed the point that they have missed the point is arrogant.

rumour wrote: »

I know it may annoy you that someone as ordinary as myself thinks like this but you will just have to live with your annoyance. Infuriating as it may seem your very attitude is what validates (my Opinion) many in the 'no' camp. It is simply not good enough to address peoples concerns by telling them they are stupid and that you really shouldn't be allowed a say in the matter.

You see this is the major problem. Whether you like to hear it or not, many of the concerns of the no camp are stupid, such as the idea that rerunning the vote is undemocratic, that the guarantees aren't guarantees, that the fact that all our political leaders agree automatically means the treaty is bad, that it's appropriate or wise to vote no to punish Fianna Fail (it'll punish the country far more than it will FF) etc etc etc. The latest thing I've heard is the fact that Spain voted yes to something that never happened (the constitution) wrecked their economy.

People say the fact that the treaty hasn't changed is in some way relevant but the vast majority of the electorate on both sides had absolutely no idea what was in the treaty last time, the biggest reason for voting no was exactly that, so why the hell does it matter if it hasn't changed? What are they supposed to change to satisfy people who followed the mantra "if you don't know, vote no", ie the majority? Should they have picked random articles and moved a few commas around just to satisfy people that the treaty wasn't the same? Now that would show disdain!

This is a question I've been asking recently that I've yet to get an answer to: What do you suggest I do when someone says something that is not true or is misguided and which has been corrected hundreds of times, such as just now when you said that a second vote is undemocratic? I've tried this, which as far as I'm concerned is polite and not arrogant and it had no effect so what else can I do?

Blazer

The main problem is Ireland are in the middle of it's most serious recession ever.
Who's to blame? Fianna Fail, PDs, Green Party, Banks, Public Sector and ourselves of course but mostly FF.
Of course everyone is blaming Fianna Fail solely and I reckon most of the NO voters last time did this last time to punish FF.
I voted NO myself partly due to FF and about some concerns I had with worker rights etc.
This time around it's looked those points have been clarified so I'll be voting YES.
I still hate Fianna Fail and all they stand for...the mess they've made in this country is absolutely shocking and every one of them should be removed from politics and banned from ever running again.
But as they say I will look at the bigger picture and recognise that Ireland more than ever needs the EU than the other way round.
The EU is far from perfect...I'm not happy with any of those ridiculous laws they pass (straight bananas for fcuk's sake/forcing butchers to use decimal weights etc) to their accounts, where for the 15th year in a row not being signed off by the ECA...there is tremendous waste in the EU as well as the incredibly complex amount of bureaucracy.
In spite of all this I'll be changing my vote to YES as I have far more confidence in the EU recovering from the recession than Ireland can under FF.

Sam Vimes

Berkut wrote: »

The main problem is Ireland are in the middle of it's most serious recession ever.
Who's to blame? Fianna Fail, PDs, Green Party, Banks, Public Sector and ourselves of course but mostly FF.
Of course everyone is blaming Fianna Fail solely and I reckon most of the NO voters last time did this last time to punish FF.
I voted NO myself partly due to FF and about some concerns I had with worker rights etc.
This time around it's looked those points have been clarified so I'll be voting YES.
I still hate Fianna Fail and all they stand for...the mess they've made in this country is absolutely shocking and every one of them should be removed from politics and banned from ever running again.

Thank you for being able to separate your hatred of Fianna Fail from a European treaty. That doesn't make me want to throw my computer out the window. I hate them just as much as you.

Berkut wrote: »

straight bananas for fcuk's sake

That never happened, it was a rumour started by some journalists for the laugh.

edit: and apparently the decimal thing is a half truth too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6481969.stm

eightyfish

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I used to think that referendums were very important to democracy but as I watch a benign and beneficial treaty about to get voted down for the second time due almost entirely to misinformation, lies, irrelevancies and spite, I can't help but think that complex international treaties would be better left to the people whose job it is to understand them, as they did in the rest of Europe. Referendums are for social issues like divorce and abortion, Betty from Mayo doesn't have the time, the inclination or the expertise to give an informed opinion on the relative merits of the ordinary and simplified revision procedures of the European Union

+1

It depresses me.

I’m sick of the catholic and nationalist agenda of the self-righteous no-campaign liars, and I’m saddened that so many people believe them. If we vote no again, I'm seriously thinking of leaving Ireland and going to live in Europe.

Sam Vimes

eightyfish wrote: »

If we vote no again, I'm seriously thinking of leaving Ireland and going to live in Europe.

I was considering that myself tbh but unfortunately I've got commitments here for the moment anyway.

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You see this is the major problem. Whether you like to hear it or not, many of the concerns of the no camp are stupid, such as the idea that rerunning the vote is undemocratic, that the guarantees aren't guarantees, that the fact that all our political leaders agree automatically means the treaty is bad, that it's appropriate or wise to vote no to punish Fianna Fail (it'll punish the country far more than it will FF) etc etc etc. The latest thing I've heard is the fact that Spain voted yes to something that never happened (the constitution) wrecked their economy.

People say the fact that the treaty hasn't changed is in some way relevant but the vast majority of the electorate on both sides had absolutely no idea what was in the treaty last time, the biggest reason for voting no was exactly that, so why the hell does it matter if it hasn't changed? What are they supposed to change to satisfy people who followed the mantra "if you don't know, vote no", ie the majority? Should they have picked random articles and moved a few commas around just to satisfy people that the treaty wasn't the same? Now that would show disdain!

This is a question I've been asking recently that I've yet to get an answer to: What do you suggest I do when someone says something that is not true or is misguided and which has been corrected hundreds of times, such as just now when you said that a second vote is undemocratic? I've tried this, which as far as I'm concerned is polite and not arrogant and it had no effect so what else can I do?

Ranting again, as much as you are tired of stupidity I am tired of superiority complexes. Unfortunately for you democracy allows everyone to vote and does not impose IQ tests. The fact that you cannot overcome peoples fears in relation to this treaty real or not is not the problem of the electorate, it is the problem of the advocate of change. If you are tired of this tough luck and get something else to do. That is the nature of change it is not easy.

I have had a pretty open debate for the most part here on my thoughts in relation to this treaty, I've noticed that most of the posters here are so adamantly 'yes' and jump on everyone that the only way to enage is to purport to vote 'no'. I have sted numerous times that I haven't made up my mind but even when I do I have no obligation to post it here.

Do you not find it curious that the poll in boards.ie is predicting the same result as the last time. It suggests that people are still not convinced despite the many advocates here. It suggests poor ability to communicate rationally. The task is only a 2% swing to achieve your aim rather than ridiculing the entire 'no' concerns pick them off and address them. It is so much more constructive than ranting.

meglome

Berkut wrote: »

The EU is far from perfect...I'm not happy with any of those ridiculous laws they pass (straight bananas for fcuk's sake/forcing butchers to use decimal weights etc) to their accounts...

The straight bananas thing was the British tabloids jumping on the EU trying to properly categorise bananas, it was not about straight bananas. And as for the metric system welcome to the 20th Century.

I very much agree with you though we do need the EU to guide us out of recession because I wouldn't trust Fianna Fail to do it that's for sure.

rumour

eightyfish wrote: »

+1

It depresses me.

I’m sick of the catholic and nationalist agenda of the self-righteous no-campaign liars, and I’m saddened that so many people believe them. If we vote no again, I'm seriously thinking of leaving Ireland and going to live in Europe.

I think you'll probably have to do it anyway!!!!:)

Blazer

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Thank you for being able to separate your hatred of Fianna Fail from a European treaty. That doesn't make me want to throw my computer out the window. I hate them just as much as you.

That never happened, it was a rumour started by some journalists for the laugh.

edit: and apparently the decimal thing is a half truth too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6481969.stm

Sry..it was the crooked bananas and cucumbers they had a problem with

Stark

The bananas thing was to do with labelling for packaging purposes. If a class 1 banana was defined as having a certain curvature then it was easy for those making shipments to know they could pack x number of class 1 bananas in a certain container. Crooked bananas are still allowed, but they only qualify for class 2 labelling. There are also certain regulations on the quality of the banana. If the banana is bruised, it can't have an "extra class" label for example.

rumour

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Not at all, if you ask me. What makes you think otherwise?

I think I've gone through this before with you. How open is it to malign interpretation, I guess the answer to that I do not know. Who has access to its implemtation and what motivates them?

Overall communication on this issue is frightful with different european leaders spinning different stories about the benefits all over the place leaving the opportunity for any anti treaty side to exploit. For that very reason alone it is a mess, something Ireland is not responsible for.

As it is a European treaty do you not think every country in Europe would face the same internal debate. I think if this was voted on by the whole of Europe on one day with a corordinated information campaign in advance it would have served to make Europe feel as if it was acting as one and it would have passed. Unfortunately for various domestic political reasons timing never suited and then it was taken away from the electorate creating a perception of mistrust. This mistrust has only been amplified by the economic uncertainty. People are looking for certainty across europe, the message of this treaty is now so vague and lost in the many interpretations that its like putting the cat back in the bag trying to clarify it.

Is it open to malign interpretation I think yes. History provides precedent that powerful institutions do eventually become corrupt, why would this one be any different? Is it malign now, on balance I don't think so.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

I think I've gone through this before with you. How open is it to malign interpretation, I guess the answer to that I do not know. Who has access to its implemtation and what motivates them?

Overall communication on this issue is frightful with different european leaders spinning different stories about the benefits all over the place leaving the opportunity for any anti treaty side to exploit. For that very reason alone it is a mess, something Ireland is not responsible for.

As it is a European treaty do you not think every country in Europe would face the same internal debate. I think if this was voted on by the whole of Europe on one day with a corordinated information campaign in advance it would have served to make Europe feel as if it was acting as one and it would have passed. Unfortunately for various domestic political reasons timing never suited and then it was taken away from the electorate creating a perception of mistrust. This mistrust has only been amplified by the economic uncertainty. People are looking for certainty across europe, the message of this treaty is now so vague and lost in the many interpretations that its like putting the cat back in the bag trying to clarify it.

Is it open to malign interpretation I think yes. History provides precedent that powerful institutions do eventually become corrupt, why would this one be any different? Is it malign now, on balance I don't think so.

But I don't understand what parts of Lisbon are open to malign interpretation, as opposed to say Nice, if you can't explain that, then you have to admit the possibility you're just being paranoid.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Ranting again, as much as you are tired of stupidity I am tired of superiority complexes. Unfortunately for you democracy allows everyone to vote and does not impose IQ tests.

That's unfortunate for everyone mate, not just me. You have to live with the fallout of misinformed votes just as much as me, it's why we still have FF in power. The most common response I get when I point out an error is that they have a right to vote whatever they want and they don't have to justify themselves to anyone. I know that misinformed votes are inevitable but in this referendum ignorance is being put on a pedestal. People demand the right to vote but refuse to exercise their democratic responsibility to inform themselves of the issues beforehand and think this is somehow admirable

rumour wrote: »

The fact that you cannot overcome peoples fears in relation to this treaty real or not is not the problem of the electorate, it is the problem of the advocate of change. If you are tired of this tough luck and get something else to do. That is the nature of change it is not easy.

I have had a pretty open debate for the most part here on my thoughts in relation to this treaty, I've noticed that most of the posters here are so adamantly 'yes' and jump on everyone that the only way to enage is to purport to vote 'no'. I have sted numerous times that I haven't made up my mind but even when I do I have no obligation to post it here.

Do you not find it curious that the poll in boards.ie is predicting the same result as the last time. It suggests that people are still not convinced despite the many advocates here. It suggests poor ability to communicate rationally. The task is only a 2% swing to achieve your aim rather than ridiculing the entire 'no' concerns pick them off and address them. It is so much more constructive than ranting.

I don't find it curious that the results are the same this time, I find it depressing. The facts have been presented politely and rudely, forcefully and gently, arrogantly and humbly, rationally and emotively, backed up by mountains of evidence and just thrown out there. People. just. don't. want. to. hear. it. If someone says that, for example, the guarantees are not guarantees and I respond by conclusively proving they are and they don't change their position, that's not a problem with me, it's a problem with them that I unfortunately have to live with. They have already decided that the treaty is bad and they will latch onto anything that backs up that position regardless of how many times its proven wrong and hurl insults at the people who point out their errors because they don't think they were nice about it. As I've said before it reminds me very much of talking to religious people

I'm not here to mollycoddle people and patronise them by pretending that their point has some kind of validity to try to cajole them to accept the facts. If someone says something that's not true I'm going to tell them it's not true and if they want to brand me as arrogant instead of listening to me that's up to them but we'll all have to live with the consequences. The facts have been presented, people just refuse to believe them and if the dozens of organisations and individuals who are presenting these facts can't convince people I have little chance of swaying them. A perfect example of this was someone who said that the leaflets we got from the referendum commission were biased towards the yes side. They weren't biased, they just didn't include any of the no campaign's lies! What he was actually saying was that the truth has a yes bias, as was someone who said that the consolidated treaty has a yes bias. All that was actually happening was the consolidated treaty was more difficult to twist into something it's not

Could you answer my question btw? Since the majority of the Irish electorate did not know the contents of the treaty the first time around and this was the biggest reason for rejection, why should the EU have changed any of it and which parts should they have changed? And what is so wrong with simply giving the people more time to learn about the treaty and asking them again a year later, in the hopes that the "didn't understand it" reason for rejection would be reduced from the 42% it was last time?

meglome

rumour wrote: »

I think you'll probably have to do it anyway!!!!:)

You sure you're not Run_to_da_hills?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Could you answer my question btw? Since the majority of the Irish electorate did not know the contents of the treaty the first time around and this was the biggest reason for rejection, why should the EU have changed any of it and which parts should they have changed? And what is so wrong with simply giving the people more time to learn about the treaty and asking them again a year later, in the hopes that the "didn't understand it" reason for rejection would be reduced from the 42% it was last time?

I don't think you'll ever get the call as chief negotiator:rolleyes:. I still think the burden is to convince people, in doing so telling them they are wrong is hardly the best place to start. That is the peacful system of democracy we live in, we could have another thread on the benefits of democracy as a whole as it seems to be failing entirely in this country.

Anyway, in answer to your question, in principal nothing. But the end does not justify the means. The manner in which this treaty has been developed since its initial rejection by France and Holland has been a PR mess. Consider, the French and Dutch vote no and we have to re draft the constitution and present everyone with a new one. You know the rest. The perception has now been created that bigger countries can have changes but smaller ones can just have guarantees. Additionally the French Dutch changes were never put to the people again, so you have a politicians word for it that they are sorted. That is what we have in Ireland, whether the guarantees are real or not they are being sold by a leader that no one has confidence in. Would you buy a car from a dodgy dealer unless you were a car expert yourself?
Then there are the stratgeic concerns I'm not sure if this is everyones cup of tea but France Germany and the UK are experienced at this, we on the other hand sell anything we can for quick cheap political gain. Do you seriously think Mr Cowen and co have the strategic interests of Ireland at heart with a banking system of their creation collapsing around them?

Add these scenarios together and then ask people to vote, they are naturally suspicious, people vote against it, the result is not accepted and we are asked to vote again, these people become doubly suspicious. To add fuel to the fire, the first reaction of foreign leaders was to state that Ireland would pay a price(threat) and then to say something tantamount to we'll leave you behind. Earlier this year we were told that voting against Lisbon would wreck the economy (another threat), this has backfired as the economy is in a whole pile of crap without Lisbon but all it did was create further mistrust and confusion.

Add all of those together and you might begin to comphrehend how many people are confused scared and don't know who to trust. The nut jobs in the 'no' campaign with a desire to get on a soap box can easily exploit this, I would gamble confidentially that they represent less than 1% of the people who vote no. You are arguing with these idiots instead of responding rationally and communicating with the silent majority of whom only 2-3% are required to change their opinion.

Is it right that we should hold another referendum, on the circumstances described above I would say no, its all fubar.

Mother says

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I used to think that referendums were very important to democracy but as I watch a benign and beneficial treaty about to get voted down for the second time due almost entirely to misinformation, lies, irrelevancies and spite, I can't help but think that complex international treaties would be better left to the people whose job it is to understand them, as they did in the rest of Europe. Referendums are for social issues like divorce and abortion, Betty from Mayo doesn't have the time, the inclination or the expertise to give an informed opinion on the relative merits of the ordinary and simplified revision procedures of the European Union

So basically, anyone who agrees with you and votes yes is a well informed member of the intelligentsia and anyone who disagrees with you and votes no is a Betty Dumf*ck from the bogs and should just be glad that the geniuses are in charge and bow to their superior intellect. It's this kind of sycophantic snobbery that puts people off voting for Lisbon. The treaty is nether beneficial nor benign it is an inert piece of paper with words on it, it is the people who will implement it that voters are, and should be concerned about. They are people who think things like voting and peoples opinions get in the way of progress. People who are so delusional and intoxicated on their own sense of importance that they think they know better than the combined intelligence of 400 million people.
I'm sure if you head over to Germany they'll be waiting there to give you a lovely pat on the head and tell you what a clever little Mick you are for agreeing with their brilliance.

Scofflaw

Mother says wrote: »

So basically, anyone who agrees with you and votes yes is a well informed member of the intelligentsia and anyone who disagrees with you and votes no is a Betty Dumf*ck from the bogs and should just be glad that the geniuses are in charge and bow to their superior intellect. It's this kind of sycophantic snobbery that puts people off voting for Lisbon. The treaty is nether beneficial nor benign it is an inert piece of paper with words on it, it is the people who will implement it that voters are, and should be concerned about. They are people who think things like voting and peoples opinions get in the way of progress. People who are so delusional and intoxicated on their own sense of importance that they think they know better than the combined intelligence of 400 million people.
I'm sure if you head over to Germany they'll be waiting there to give you a lovely pat on the head and tell you what a clever little Mick you are for agreeing with their brilliance.

Enough. If you can't help being aggressive, you can at least help being rude. If not, help will be provided.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Mother says

Scofflaw wrote: »

Enough. If you can't help being aggressive, you can at least help being rude. If not, help will be provided.

moderately,
Scofflaw

That was pretty quick. Are you stalking me?

rumour

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

But I don't understand what parts of Lisbon are open to malign interpretation, as opposed to say Nice, if you can't explain that, then you have to admit the possibility you're just being paranoid.

Have you ever been surprised at a court ruling, have you ever seen a contract interpreted in a completely opposite direction to that of its apparent intention. Two case spring to mind albeit they were in England but the ECJ is adopting precedant as its rulings accumulate.
Check out a 1950's case that is still on of the leading cases in civil law on contract frustration I think its called the SUEZ case. Then have a look at the 1952 ruling in Donoghue v Stevenson, this case is perhaps the most significant case in recent history as it spawned the modern insurance industry and the concept of negligence as we understand it today. Even the court ruling by Lord Denning was not intended despite his benign intentions to create the litigious society we now live in.

There are people, very clever and entertaining people highly rewarded to sit around and come up with different meanings to things all in the interests of opportunity and exploitation. I have cannot predict the future any better than you, but I will refer you to a legal maxim.
'caveat emptor'