Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Attitude of the yes campaign
Options
Comments
-
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. 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'
That's all well and good, but you haven't explained why Lisbon is different to Nice in this regard, so my assumption about your reasoning will have to remain, unfortunately.0 -
But what if they are wrong? What do you think I should say to someone who has just said something wrong and will not accept it when I correct them?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.
The problem here is that this is becoming like groundhog day. This has been explained over and over and people just won't listen. The french and the Dutch got changes because they told the EU what parts of the treaty they objected to. All the Irish people said was "we didn't understand it". What exactly were they supposed to change? The only objection that was given on a wide scale that was actually in the treaty was the commissioner issue and we got that changed, it just didn't require a change to the treaty to implement. I'd really like an answer to this because people keep saying the treaty hasn't been changed and when I ask them which parts should have been changed they invariably shrink away, and maybe call me arrogant before disappearing.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.
The French and the Dutch can read the treaty for themselves and if they objected to it they'd be out on the streets demanding their governments cancel it, especially the french who bring the country to a standstill over anything. And yes I know that no one trusts Brian Cowen and that's why I tell people to ignore them and wish they would shut up. There are dozens of unbiased, trustworthy sources of information on the treaty and failing that, people can read it for themselves. They don't have to take anyone's word for it.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?
Again, they don't have to be suspicious, the contents of the treaty are out there for them to read.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.
I think it will damage the economy more. Ireland needs the EU a hell of a lot more than the EU needs Ireland and we would be bankrupt right now if we couldn't go to the ECB to get money to bail out the banks. Ireland is developing the reputation as the ignorant naysayers of Europe and that is not a reputation that is conducive to foreign investment or goodwill. As I keep saying, if we had valid reasons to reject the treaty there would be no problem but pretty much all we have is ignorance and spiteTo 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.
I know why people are scared and don't know who to trust. There has been a constant stream of misinformation from groups with anti-EU agendas and the whole yes campaign has been spent putting these fires out. Add that to the fact that the treaty is not all that exciting so there's not much to put on a poster to entice people and the yes campaign are fighting an impossible battle. And then add the fact that FF are a pack of gobsh!tes that no one trusts. That's why it was rejected last time, it was nothing to do with the contents of the treaty and that's the whole point I'm making. The Irish people are holding Europe up, not because we don't like the treaty, but because extremists have made us afraid of it and that makes the Irish people look bad.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.
I have tried correcting the misconceptions, Jesus tap dancing Christ I have tried but what can I do when I give someone the facts and they won't believe me because they're convinced the EU and the government is trying to pull the wool over their eyes? How do I convince them that it's actually the no campaign that's pulling the wool over their eyes?0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »That's all well and good, but you haven't explained why Lisbon is different to Nice in this regard, so my assumption about your reasoning will have to remain, unfortunately.
I don't have the time to do a comparison to Nice, quickly put though Nice created a precedant that now appears to apply to every GOVERNMENT backed referendum. I think we were told at the time that this would not be the case?
If the yes camp win this time can the no camp avail of this legal precedant? Make it best two out if three?0 -
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.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61993586&postcount=2155
Nobody's saying that at all... But...seriously, read this and following posts. Should this person be deciding our fate?0 -
I don't have the time to do a comparison to Nice, quickly put though Nice created a precedant that now appears to apply to every GOVERNMENT backed referendum. I think we were told at the time that this would not be the case?
If the yes camp win this time can the no camp avail of this legal precedant? Make it best two out if three?
That's got nothing to do with the interpretation of EU law.
Nice did not set a legal precedent, no law was changed to allow a second referendum, multiple referenda on the same issue are allowed, and always have been, under our constitution.
There's no need to jump to a different discussion, just because your position is logically indefensible.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, anyone who insists on holding onto something that has been conclusively proven wrong hundreds of times is a Betty........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.
This is not a case where everyone's opinion is as valid as everyone else's. If someone, for example, says that the guarantees are not really guarantees, they. are. wrong. End of story. There is no debate. There is no "I'm entitled to my opinion", there is no "it's open to interpretation". They're just wrong. People call me arrogant for saying things like that but the sentence above is not arrogant, it's correct and it's confused with arrogance by people who refuse to accept that it's correct.0 -
The perception has now been created that bigger countries can have changes but smaller ones can just have guarantees.
Very quotable sentence. Sounds convincing at first. But... what changes would the Irish people want? Permanent commissioner... done. No abortion... not in the treaty. Tax control... not in the treaty. No conscription... not in the treaty. No privatisation of health service... not in the treaty. No privatisation of banks... not in the treaty.
The reason they could put the same treaty up again unchanged with "only" guarantees that cover the fears of the electorate was because the electorate were fearing things that didn't exist! They believed the lies. The lies are up everywhere again, on every lamp-post in every city in the country. The scaremongering has begun again.0 -
You are correct. Can we just weed out all these people now before the vote? Imagine if her vote has the same value as yours - bloody democracy!http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61993586&postcount=2155
Nobody's saying that at all... But...seriously, read this and following posts. Should this person be deciding our fate?0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »That's got nothing to do with the interpretation of EU law.
Nice did not set a legal precedent, no law was changed to allow a second referendum, multiple referenda on the same issue are allowed, and always have been, under our constitution.
There's no need to jump to a different discussion, just because your position is logically indefensible.
I may be missing what you are trying to get at regarding NICE and LISBON. Isn't the point now that NICE was an entire waste of time since only a couple of years later we want to change the whole bloody thing as guess what it doesn't work that well? Maybe the Irish electorate were right the first time about NICE, as maybe they are right about this one perhaps it does lack the required transparancy and as such may be unworkable.
But thanks for the reply, what do you think about best two out of three since it is not ruled out and seems fair? or is this facility just for Government backed proposals?0 -
I may be missing what you are trying to get at regarding NICE and LISBON. Isn't the point now that NICE was an entire waste of time since only a couple of years later we want to change the whole bloody thing as guess what it doesn't work that well? Maybe the Irish electorate were right the first time about NICE, as maybe they are right about this one perhaps it does lack the required transparancy and as such may be unworkable.
But thanks for the reply, what do you think about best two out of three since it is not ruled out and seems fair? or is this facility just for Government backed proposals?
Elect a government that wants a third go out and a third go out is fair, or at least constitutional.
My point is that you have what I consider unfounded, and by your own admission inexplicable fears about malign interpretations of Lisbon.
All I am asking is what is different about Lisbon, that it is open to malign interpretation, whereas an equally (if not more so) complex treaty like Nice is not?
If you cannot answer it, I think that you should admit your position is based on (perhaps healthy, as you might see it) paranoia, and has no logical basis.0 -
Advertisement
-
But thanks for the reply, what do you think about best two out of three since it is not ruled out and seems fair? or is this facility just for Government backed proposals?
It depends on the reasons why it is accepted. If it turns out that there are some damaging parts of Lisbon that have been overlooked or it gets interpreted in the way that the no campaigners are saying it will, I will join you on the streets to demand another referendum. It probably won't be on Lisbon itself because that would be messy but it could be on changing the offending parts. We could even use the simplified revision procedure to do it more easily.
But remember that "the EU has been good to us" and "it might help the economy" are not reasons to run another referendum because the EU has been good to us so in the absence of a major reason to reject a treaty, that's a fine reason to accept it and it might just help the economy by improving Ireland's reputation. We already pay more for our credit than the rest of Europe because we're deemed a bigger risk. I'm not saying that will definitely change but it might. This is in contrast to no campaign things like the idea that the EU might go back on the guarantees. That's not going to happen, ever. It's a lie
so what would be the justification for another referendum?0 -
eightyfish wrote: »Very quotable sentence. Sounds convincing at first. But... what changes would the Irish people want? Permanent commissioner... done. No abortion... not in the treaty. Tax control... not in the treaty. No conscription... not in the treaty. No privatisation of health service... not in the treaty. No privatisation of banks... not in the treaty.
The reason they could put the same treaty up again unchanged with "only" guarantees that cover the fears of the electorate was because the electorate were fearing things that didn't exist! They believed the lies. The lies are up everywhere again, on every lamp-post in every city in the country. The scaremongering has begun again.
Did anybody ask the irsh people if they liked this treaty or if they wanted it? I thought they did that in the referendum, but no they actually voted on comissioner, tax control, abortion, conscription. Who determined this?
These are all political soundbites and reduce debate to a base level. The tackle idiots like COIR, do you really think COIR and the likes represent 50% of the last turnout or even 25% of the population of ireland.
I do not know how we determined the reasons for a no vote but I suspect they were deeply flawed and entirely politically motivated. A complete refusal to consider any other reason for the rejection of Lisbon other than the yes campaign findings is flawed or at the very least as flawed as the arguments you put forward. They believed lies as opposed to the vertiable truth of our politicians, 'the funadmentals of the economy are sound' 'we're in for a soft landing' 'we're going to be at the heart of europe'. Come on lies are peddeled all over the place I try to avoid them and look for reason.0 -
You are correct. Can we just weed out all these people now before the vote? Imagine if her vote has the same value as yours - bloody democracy!
:rolleyes: *hides his stormtroopers and gas chambers in the wardrobe*
And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling jacool! Now I shall never be able to summarily execute the dissidents! Gyah! Hiss!
But seriously, I'm not saying she shouldn't have the right to vote, but as she is willfully uninformed, and has no desire to actually learn about the topic at hand, and holds opinions that in no way relate to the arguments for, or against, the treaty of Lisbon, do you think it is unreasonable to have a "sneering attitude" concerning this person, and the many others like her (showing de gubberment and de bankers) or prefer that they stayed home on the day? (as an obvious plan B, plan A being vote for, or against, Lisbon based on things that in some way relate to Lisbon, Ireland, Europe, Reality)0 -
I do not know how we determined the reasons for a no vote but I suspect they were deeply flawed and entirely politically motivated. A complete refusal to consider any other reason for the rejection of Lisbon other than the yes campaign findings is flawed or at the very least as flawed as the arguments you put forward.
Well to be fair to the poll it was independent, and you are calling into question the abilities, or the bona fide's of the pollsters, not the 'yes campaign'.
I don't see the gain in making up concerns that weren't there, and addressing them, as you won't change anyone's mind, which is kind of the objective...
As far as I can tell from our previous conversation, you don't even have a concrete objection yourself. You're worried about 'malign interpretations', all we can do for you is never write another treaty, and tear up the existing ones, to quiet your paranoia.0 -
Mother says wrote: »That was pretty quick. Are you stalking me?
No - I'm a moderator.
moderately,
Scofflaw0 -
Did anybody ask the irsh people if they liked this treaty or if they wanted it? I thought they did that in the referendum, but no they actually voted on comissioner, tax control, abortion, conscription. Who determined this?
These are all political soundbites and reduce debate to a base level. The tackle idiots like COIR, do you really think COIR and the likes represent 50% of the last turnout or even 25% of the population of ireland.
I do not know how we determined the reasons for a no vote but I suspect they were deeply flawed and entirely politically motivated. A complete refusal to consider any other reason for the rejection of Lisbon other than the yes campaign findings is flawed or at the very least as flawed as the arguments you put forward. They believed lies as opposed to the vertiable truth of our politicians, 'the funadmentals of the economy are sound' 'we're in for a soft landing' 'we're going to be at the heart of europe'. Come on lies are peddeled all over the place I try to avoid them and look for reason.
An independent company called Milward Brown whose existence depends on giving accurate results did the survey. http://www.millwardbrown.com/
This is another question that I'd like answered because it keeps getting avoided. The government were trying to find out why people voted no so they could take those objections to the EU and get them addressed. What would they have to gain from deliberately commissioning a flawed survey that didn't actually tell them why people voted no? If they deliberately don't address any of the issues and then run another vote, how can the result possibly come out any different?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
Did anybody ask the irsh people if they liked this treaty or if they wanted it? I thought they did that in the referendum, but no they actually voted on comissioner, tax control, abortion, conscription. Who determined this?
These are all political soundbites and reduce debate to a base level. The tackle idiots like COIR, do you really think COIR and the likes represent 50% of the last turnout or even 25% of the population of ireland.
I do not know how we determined the reasons for a no vote but I suspect they were deeply flawed and entirely politically motivated. A complete refusal to consider any other reason for the rejection of Lisbon other than the yes campaign findings is flawed or at the very least as flawed as the arguments you put forward. They believed lies as opposed to the vertiable truth of our politicians, 'the funadmentals of the economy are sound' 'we're in for a soft landing' 'we're going to be at the heart of europe'. Come on lies are peddeled all over the place I try to avoid them and look for reason.
http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/final%20-%20post%20lisbon%20treaty%20referendum%20research%20findings.pdf
Sample of some answers to question 19
Q.19 Which of the following do you think are included in the Lisbon Treaty? (Percentage are people who answered yes)
Ending of Ireland’s right to decide its own corporate tax rate - 43 %
The introduction of conscription to a European army - 33%
The end of Ireland’s control over its policy on abortion - 34%
The erosion of Irish Neutrality - 42%
More people believed that the treaty affected our neutrality and corporation tax than believed it contained the Charter of Fundamental Rights. (Note these figures applies to both Yes and No voters) All anybody wants is an open an honest debate based around the serious questions that are truely relevant to the treaty.
There is little in there that could be directly mapped to treaty changes TBH.0 -
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.
You are somewhat distorting what Manual Barrosa (who is head of the commission and not a foreign leader)said (before the referendum and not after). He said there would be a price to pay for all countries and the EU, if reform could not be completed. He did not say that Ireland alone would pay a price for voting no, though some elements of the media portrayed in in that way.
"If there was a 'No' in Ireland or in another country, it would have a very negative effect for the EU," he said.
"We will all pay a price for it, Ireland included, if this is not done in a proper way," he warned.
As for the leave you behind, my recollection is that this was something said by many Irish politicans, and indeed ironically this is the logical outcome of a No vote. For example on energy policy. That could proceed without Ireland. We could leave the room when the EU was discussing getting better gas prices and security of supply with Russia.
Ix.0 -
PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
I don't see the gain in making up concerns that weren't there, and addressing them, as you won't change anyone's mind, which is kind of the objective...
.
I do, it is much easier for Mr Spineless Cowen to go to Europe and say that Ireland voted no because of traditional old subjects that any one could have dug out of the cupboard, rather than give a resolute answer and say Ireland has rejected your treaty because they remain deeply suspicious of the content.
Also who paid for this independent survey? I'm pretty sure the government didn't trust Libertas to come up with the funding, what other party decided to fund this survey for the good of their health?0 -
But how would that get him the yes vote he wanted!?I do, it is much easier for Mr Spineless Cowen to go to Europe and say that Ireland voted no because of traditional old subjects that any one could have dug out of the cupboard, rather than give a resolute answer and say Ireland has rejected your treaty because they remain deeply suspicious of the content.
edit: and he did say they were suspicious of its content. They said that 42% voted no because the didn't understand it and gave a big list of other things that they thought the treaty did. If we actually knew what was in the treaty we wouldn't have to be suspicious of its content, we would know its content0 -
Advertisement
-
You are somewhat distorting what Manual Barrosa said. He said there would be a price to pay for all countries and the EU, if reform could not be completed. He did not say that Ireland alone would pay a price for voting no, though some elements of the media portrayed in in that way.
"If there was a 'No' in Ireland or in another country, it would have a very negative effect for the EU," he said.
"We will all pay a price for it, Ireland included, if this is not done in a proper way," he warned.
As for the leave you behind, my recollection is that this was something said by many Irish politicans, and indeed ironically this is the logical outcome of a No vote. For example on energy policy. That could proceed without Ireland. We could leave the room when the EU was discussing getting better gas prices and security of supply with Russia.
Ix.
You may vilify me for my distortion, but go down on the street this afternoon and ask someone of their recollection. The message it conveyed is the one that sticks in peoples minds. Objectively you are right but how many people remember the exact details he would have been better to keep his mouth shut on the future outcome.0 -
You may vilify me for my distortion, but go down on the street this afternoon and ask someone of their recollection. The message it conveyed is the one that sticks in peoples minds. Objectively you are right but how many people remember the exact details he would have been better to keep his mouth shut on the future outcome.
Yes and it was deliberately distorted to ensure that it made exactly that impression, as with most of the no campaign. And the problem we're facing is that when we tell people the objective truth no one believes us because it doesn't fit their their preconceived notion of this treaty as the harbinger of doom0 -
You may vilify me for my distortion, but go down on the street this afternoon and ask someone of their recollection. The message it conveyed is the one that sticks in peoples minds. Objectively you are right but how many people remember the exact details he would have been better to keep his mouth shut on the future outcome.
I'm not villifying you, just correcting you.
This shows the dilemma faced by the EU dealing with Ireland. After all, should he have said that it doesn't matter what way we vote? Or not mention Lisbon at all for the duration of the campaign? Despite it being the most critical EU issue of the time?
Actually your wish has obviously come true, it seems all EU people are keeping quiet this time. Except for some Irish EU officals being attacked by the NO side for daring to show their faces around the country.
It's very sad... they are constantly referred to as nameless, faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. Then when they tried to show a face and tell us their names the No side told them to get lost. Obviously it feels safer having them nameless and faceless. It would never do to have people understand that there are Irish people actually working in the EU civil service.
ix.0 -
But how would that get him the yes vote he wanted!?
edit: and he did say they were suspicious of its content. They said that 42% voted no because the didn't understand it and gave a big list of other things that they thought the treaty did. If we actually knew what was in the treaty we wouldn't have to be suspicious of its content, we would know its content
Yes using that argument we'd never need lawyers, curious how that one works. Our constitution demands referenda on these subjects he was an idiot to get involved in the first place and ought to have explained our constituional circumstances to the EU and let them fund the campaign. Politically he could have avoide the flak by using the constitution. Instead like an idiot he, acting for europe, while his responsibility was to the Irish state, positioned the irish government directly in the line of a referendum. When it all goes wrong it's pretty natural that a politician looks for cover especially in Ireland. He needed an explanation for something he was to dumb to see coming at him in the first place.0 -
eightyfish wrote: »... If we vote no again, I'm seriously thinking of leaving Ireland and going to live in Europe.
Me, I'd prefer to stay in Ireland and live in Europe.
I do not say that merely as a weak effort at a witticism: the EU is us, along with the people of 26 other states.0 -
A complete refusal to consider any other reason for the rejection of Lisbon other than the yes campaign findings is flawed or at the very least as flawed as the arguments you put forward.
What do you mean "yes campaign findings"? Do you mean the European Commission investigation? This was a survey to find out why people votes no so the issues could be addressed. Why would they lie?0 -
Yes and it was deliberately distorted to ensure that it made exactly that impression, as with most of the no campaign. And the problem we're facing is that when we tell people the objective truth no one believes us because it doesn't fit their their preconceived notion of this treaty as the harbinger of doom
If your motivation is malign it is simple to misconstrue even the most straightforward of issues. This is a challenge to the yes campaign but a deliberate policy of calling the 'no' campaigners liars I think will backfire. It is now another negative message. The positive messages need to come accross clearer.0 -
Yes using that argument we'd never need lawyers, curious how that one works. Our constitution demands referenda on these subjects he was an idiot to get involved in the first place and ought to have explained our constituional circumstances to the EU and let them fund the campaign. Politically he could have avoide the flak by using the constitution. Instead like an idiot he, acting for europe, while his responsibility was to the Irish state, positioned the irish government directly in the line of a referendum. When it all goes wrong it's pretty natural that a politician looks for cover especially in Ireland. He needed an explanation for something he was to dumb to see coming at him in the first place.
It's all predicated on Millward-Brown being corrupt (as you are accusing them of taking money to fabricate a result) though.
As well as that FF are so stupid they would run a second referendum without any attempt at either genuinely finding out or attempting to address the concerns of the first one (more believable!), in order to placate their intergovernmental partners, who are incapable of fully rewarding or punishing FF specifically, as opposed to Ireland in general.
It's a nice piece of fiction, but probably belongs in the CT forum rather than the EU forum, as it hypothesises Conspiracy between FF and MB to fool both the EU leaders and the Irish electorate, though for no specific gain...0 -
eightyfish wrote: »What do you mean "yes campaign findings"? Do you mean the European Commission investigation? This was a survey to find out why people votes no so the issues could be addressed. Why would they lie?
Who conducted the European Commission Investigation? I thought the Irsih Government went to Europe with its own findings0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes using that argument we'd never need lawyers, curious how that one works. Our constitution demands referenda on these subjects he was an idiot to get involved in the first place and ought to have explained our constituional circumstances to the EU and let them fund the campaign. Politically he could have avoide the flak by using the constitution. Instead like an idiot he, acting for europe, while his responsibility was to the Irish state, positioned the irish government directly in the line of a referendum. When it all goes wrong it's pretty natural that a politician looks for cover especially in Ireland. He needed an explanation for something he was to dumb to see coming at him in the first place.
Sorry I'm lost. This is the scenario as I see it- Ireland votes no
- Cowen finds out why
- Takes those reasons to the EU and gets them addressed
- Asks people if their minds have changed
- Enough people have had their fears settled to vote yes
Where yours seems to be- Ireland votes no
- Cowen knows that it's because the people have objections to specific articles but instead of trying to renegotiate them he engineers a survey that says we voted no for non-treaty related reasons
- He takes this engineered survey to the EU and gets these non-issues addressed
- Asks people if their minds have changed
- Of course their minds haven't changed, he didn't address their actual issues.
- An even more overwhelming no
It doesn't make any sense to me. Also, could you tell me which parts of the treaty you would have liked changed?0
Advertisement