Lisbon: Yes for Jobs?

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

Lisbon hasn't changed. It's still the same treaty that we rejected last time.
And there is still no reason why we're in such a rush to vote again.

Ah I see your tactic now.

1. Make a point
2. Wait for rebuttal
3. Ignore the rebuttal
4. Make the same point again

A fine tactic I'm sure. That is the first point you made and this was my response:

An analogy:

Someone comes to your door and offers you a rotten looking smelly old backpack. You say no and slam the door on him

He rings the doorbell again but this time he opens the bag and shows you the €1 million inside it.

You were offered the same thing both times but the first time you weren't fully aware of all the facts. Would you again slam the door in his face simply for having the cheek to ask you again?

your response:

squod wrote: »

It's the same treaty. Those assurances you got are the brick in the bag were the cash should be. No need to vote for a brick in a bag!

My reponse:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And it was the same bag. Your problem is now not that you were asked again, your problem is that you don't think the assurances are worth anything. If they were valuable of course it's acceptable to ask you again.

So why don't you think the assurances are worth anything?


btw, the treaty text may be the same but we will now keep our commissioner where if we had voted yes the first time we wouldn't (or if we vote no now for that matter). It's just that this change didn't require a change to the treaty text, an existing rule was used to make the change

Your reponse:

squod wrote: »

It matters little to me if we keep our commissioner. The structure of voting in Europe will change, we'll be influenced by these changes. If you want the structure to change vote yes, if you don't then vote no.

My response:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It matters little to you that we will keep our commissioner but you are not the entire Irish electorate. It mattered a great deal to at least 30% of no voters last time. The issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality and conscription also mattered to at least 30%. Where you see a brick in the bag, these people see the €1 million because their problems with the treaty have been addressed. Is that not justification to ask them if they've now changed their mind?

Yours:

squod wrote: »

Yes it mattered. The voting structures will still affect us. Having a commissioner is great. We already have one under nice. Why would I vote yes so? I'd vote yes if I wanted those structures changed. I don't. So i'm voting no.

Mine:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No we don't have a commissioner under Nice. Under Nice the size of the commission is being reduced in 2011. Lisbon just defined how it would be done. We will lose our commissioner in 2 years if we vote no.

And I asked you why you don't want the voting structures changed, I didn't ask you to restate that you don't.

And you're changing the subject now. This is how it went:

You: There's no justification for holding another referendum
Me: The justification is they've addressed many of the issues of previous no voters
You: Well they didn't address my issues
Me: You're not the whole country

Continue......

so do you want to answer the point or shall we go around the merry-go-round again?

And I'm not going to answer your questions for three reasons:

1. you keep avoiding my question
2. They miss the point of the second referendum
3. They misunderstand democracy

I might answer them when you answer mine but I don't think there will be any need because when you give an honest answer to my question you will be able to answer them yourself

squod

mickoneill30 wrote: »

What's the problem then? It'll be No again then.

Exactly, so why are we wasting money, during a recession, on voting for the same treaty? This is more about ego than democracy. Being told to vote again immediately after casting a democratic vote is bizzare IMO. There's no need to vote agian this soon on the same treaty.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

Exactly, so why are we wasting money, during a recession, on voting for the same treaty? This is more about ego than democracy. Being told to vote again immediately after casting a democratic vote is bizzare IMO. There's no need to vote agian this soon on the same treaty.

The point is that you're wrong, and an awful lot has changed since the first referendum despite the fact that the text of the treaty is still the same. That you keep ignoring me when I point this out does not stop it being true

meglome

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hey, what a way to sum up the 3rd Reich.

'Democracy isn't perfect.'

You brought up the 3rd Reich I didn't even mention it. I'm just generally saying that I know democracy has gone off the rails at different times in history and people have made all the wrong decisions for all the wrong reasons. Which is exactly what we did in the first Lisbon vote. Thanks for making the comparison.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Housekeep or we'll bankrupt you!

Who's saying that other than you?

meglome

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point is that you're wrong, and an awful lot has changed since the first referendum despite the fact that the text of the treaty is still the same. That you keep ignoring me when I point this out does not stop it being true

This is exactly the way every conversation goes with this guy in the conspiracy theory's forum. You are wasting your time.

squod

meglome wrote: »

This is exactly the way every conversation goes with this guy in the conspiracy theory's forum. You are wasting your time.

I can say exactly the same thing with regard to your posts also, it wouldn't stop you posting though would it?

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point is that you're wrong, and an awful lot has changed since the first referendum despite the fact that the text of the treaty is still the same. That you keep ignoring me when I point this out does not stop it being true

The points I'm making are correct and true, the text of the treaty is still the same.
Now how many more times do you wish to vote on the same treaty?

Once more?

Twice more?

Once per year?

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

I can say exactly the same thing with regard to your post also, it wouldn't stop you posting though would it?

You can say it in that no one will physically prevent you but you would be, again, wrong. You keep making the same point and ignoring all rebuttal. It's a logical fallacy called proof by assertion.

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

If you can't respond to my rebuttal, repeating the point I was rebutting does not make it any less invalid

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

The points I'm making are correct and true, the text of the treaty is still the same.

And if I said that the sky is blue that would be both correct and true but as irrelevant to this debate as your point.

I'm going to post this one more time in the vain hope that you will finally respond to it. I am not optimistic:

You: There's no justification for holding another referendum
Me: The justification is they've addressed many of the issues of previous no voters
You: Well they didn't address my issues
Me: You're not the whole country

Continue......

marco_polo

Yet again the head of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland stress the importance of a yes vote in terms of keeping Ireland as an attractive destination for foreign investors. But sure what would the head of an organisation of 600 companies that have invested nearly 100 Billion directly into the Irish Economy possible know about the subject.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/lisbon-is-vital-to-foreign-investors-1890196.html

Any suggestion that the Lisbon Treaty has nothing to do with our economy or our future economic success is wrong.

It is also wrong to say that foreign direct investment will not be affected by a second rejection of the treaty.

Multinational companies look for stability and certainty when investing overseas.

At a time when competition for foreign direct investment is very intense, a 'No' vote would have a negative impact on confidence and add to international concerns about our economy.

As president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ireland, I know that for many of our members, a crucial part of their strategy and reason for being here is that Ireland is a part of Europe.

Not only that, but Ireland is seen to have influence and power within Europe.

If there is any doubt about our commitment to Europe or our influence within the union, it could cause future investment to be lost to Ireland. Investing directly in mainland Europe would be considerably more attractive than investing in an island off the continent, which has little influence.

Multinational companies, including Intel, Pfizer, and Leo Pharma, have independently declared their support for a 'Yes' vote in the forthcoming referendum. These companies, together with the American Chamber and IBEC, are very clear about the importance of a 'Yes' vote to future jobs and investment in this country.

US multinationals have invested a total of $146bn (€99bn) in Ireland. Over 600 companies are responsible for the direct and indirect employment of almost 300,000 people. Some 40pc of Ireland's corporate tax take has been paid by multinational companies, and US firms contribute €13bn to the economy in terms of payroll and goods and services.

Continued investment by these companies will be critical to our economic recovery.

A 'Yes' vote is a vote for jobs and investment and will send a powerful signal to the global investment community that we remain committed members of the European Union.

RandomName2

meglome wrote: »

You brought up the 3rd Reich I didn't even mention it. I'm just generally saying that I know democracy has gone off the rails at different times in history and people have made all the wrong decisions for all the wrong reasons. Which is exactly what we did in the first Lisbon vote. Thanks for making the comparison.



Who's saying that other than you?

Okay - I can't be bothered doing multiple quotation so I'll address both you and Vimes here.

1. the NAZI party changed the constitution of Weimar Germany as they liked. This was what was undemocratic. They made decisions that could not be reverted by the democratic process (particularly when they legislated for a single party state and then effectively dissolved the Reichstag).

Someone please provide a cogent response as to how a political party ratifying Lisbon, and thereby changing their constitution, without recourse to the public, is not a similar breech.

Note: saying that the change is housekeeping, or that we shouldn't stick our noses into the affairs of others will not suffice.

2. Well, you don't seem to understand what was undemocratic about the nazi party. Their being elected was not undemocratic. Their lack of accountability was (as addressed above). So saying that the reasons for the public voting a certain way as being representative of democracy 'going off the rails' I contest is completely wrong. Now, people may have voted for the wrong reasons but it was not an undemocratic procedure. Of course, there are arguments against democracy which you will find no lack of in this forum and are inherent to the whole thing of a second referendum.

And why is a second referendum undemocratic? Because it makes a mockery of the first vote. Oh - and you can't really argue it simultaneously; either the people knew what they were talking about, and have had their concerns addressed, or they didn't know what they were talking about, and will do in the second vote. Now, neither of these arguments actually happen to be true, but it is more glaring in the second instance (hence the foaming at the mouth at the mention of COIR).

Don't make me quote myself as to why the guarantees in no way offset the negative implications to the democratic process within Ireland!

Oh, and Meglome, look at any of the Yes posters (although Vimes himself does not believe that Yes to Recovery implies that there will be no recovery if Lisbon is not ratified, I think that this is a conscious self-censure of his critical faculties). Edit: for christsakes the thread title is 'Yes for Jobs'...

Remember! If the Dail had its way, Ireland would not have had any referendum at all!

squod

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're not the whole country

Continue......

This is probably the most astonishing argument I've come accross.

Thank you and well done. Good one.

Sam Vimes

squod wrote: »

This is probably the most astonishing argument I've come accross.

Thank you and well done. Good one.

It seems my pessimism was well founded. Whatever mate, believe what you want

smokingman

squod wrote: »

This is probably the most astonishing argument I've come accross.

Thank you and well done. Good one.

I considered it quite concise, factual and to the point.

meglome

squod wrote: »

I can say exactly the same thing with regard to your posts also, it wouldn't stop you posting though would it?

The trick is to stop, read, consider and address the points made, then if you want make some new ones. Unfortunately I've never known you to do the address the points made part. Anyway I'll tuck my handbag away.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It seems my pessimism was well founded. Whatever mate, believe what you want

I did warn you.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

1. the NAZI party changed the constitution of Weimar Germany as they liked. This was what was undemocratic. They made decisions that could not be reverted by the democratic process (particularly when they legislated for a single party state and then effectively dissolved the Reichstag).

Godwin? Seriously?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Someone please provide a cogent response as to how a political party ratifying Lisbon, and thereby changing their constitution, without recourse to the public, is not a similar breech.

1. Governments are meant to make decisions for their people and if you don't like the decisions you vote out the government. Governments make decisions every day that have ramifications a hundred times greater than this treaty. Look at NAMA that's going through without one. That's how representative democracy works
2. Ireland is having a referendum because our constitution requires it but the other countries have no such clause. There is nothing odd about this treaty not being put to referendum in those countries, it's by far the norm. EU countries have had or planned referendums 15% of the times they could have
3. It's not up to us to tell those countries they should do it our way and put every treaty to referendum. If the people of those countries wanted one and were against this treaty being ratified they'd be out protesting and making it clear that they'd be voting their governments out if the treaty goes through. The fact that they're not says that they're happy for this to be one of the million things their governments decide for them
4. Not only do other countries not value referendums like we do, in Germany and The Netherlands they're illegal because they're so easy to abuse, as has happened here. Insisting that other countries have referendums is forcing Irish values on them

RandomName2 wrote: »

And why is a second referendum undemocratic? Because it makes a mockery of the first vote. Oh - and you can't really argue it simultaneously; either the people knew what they were talking about, and have had their concerns addressed, or they didn't know what they were talking about, and will do in the second vote. Now, neither of these arguments actually happen to be true, but it is more glaring in the second instance (hence the foaming at the mouth at the mention of COIR).

The people made a mockery of themselves by telling two separate independent polls that they voted on misconceptions and lies. I'm not sure why knowing what they're talking about is a requirement to having their concerns addressed. Can someone not be concerned about something unnecessarily and be reassured, without having to change the treaty

Also, are you accusing both Milward Brown and the independent EU survey of corruption?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh, and Meglome, look at any of the Yes posters (although Vimes himself does not believe that Yes to Recovery implies that there will be no recovery if Lisbon is not ratified, I think that this is a conscious self-censure of his critical faculties). Edit: for christsakes the thread title is 'Yes for Jobs'...

I didn't say no means no recovery. I said it will make recovery more difficult

marco_polo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay - I can't be bothered doing multiple quotation so I'll address both you and Vimes here.

1. the NAZI party changed the constitution of Weimar Germany as they liked. This was what was undemocratic. They made decisions that could not be reverted by the democratic process (particularly when they legislated for a single party state and then effectively dissolved the Reichstag).

Someone please provide a cogent response as to how a political party ratifying Lisbon, and thereby changing their constitution, without recourse to the public, is not a similar breech.

Note: saying that the change is housekeeping, or that we shouldn't stick our noses into the affairs of others will not suffice.

2. Well, you don't seem to understand what was undemocratic about the nazi party. Their being elected was not undemocratic. Their lack of accountability was (as addressed above). So saying that the reasons for the public voting a certain way as being representative of democracy 'going off the rails' I contest is completely wrong. Now, people may have voted for the wrong reasons but it was not an undemocratic procedure. Of course, there are arguments against democracy which you will find no lack of in this forum and are inherent to the whole thing of a second referendum.

And why is a second referendum undemocratic? Because it makes a mockery of the first vote. Oh - and you can't really argue it simultaneously; either the people knew what they were talking about, and have had their concerns addressed, or they didn't know what they were talking about, and will do in the second vote. Now, neither of these arguments actually happen to be true, but it is more glaring in the second instance (hence the foaming at the mouth at the mention of COIR).

Don't make me quote myself as to why the guarantees in no way offset the negative implications to the democratic process within Ireland!

Oh, and Meglome, look at any of the Yes posters (although Vimes himself does not believe that Yes to Recovery implies that there will be no recovery if Lisbon is not ratified, I think that this is a conscious self-censure of his critical faculties). Edit: for christsakes the thread title is 'Yes for Jobs'...

Remember! If the Dail had its way, Ireland would not have had any referendum at all!

I can't believe the Nazi card has been played. Perhaps because a constitutional change is not required in order for them to ratify Lisbon? For example Britain does not even have a formal written one. Just because we have the practice of putting in a specific reference for each treaty does not hold for all countries. And there is also a German Constitutional Court ruling that it is perfect ok for them to ratify it, once their new law has been passed. Which it has just this morning by the way. Similiarly in Britain last year it was ruled that the Ratification was perfectly legal.

RandomName2

I did give a pointer about not just giving a knee-jerk reaction of saying 'You can't talk in a critical fashion of the political processes of other countries' so I'll just cut that out for you

Sam Vimes wrote: »

1. Governments are meant to make decisions for their people and if you don't like the decisions you vote out the government. Governments make decisions every day that have ramifications a hundred times greater than this treaty. Look at NAMA that's going through without one. That's how representative democracy works
2. Ireland is having a referendum because our constitution requires it but the other countries have no such clause. There is nothing odd about this treaty not being put to referendum in those countries, it's by far the norm. EU countries have had or planned referendums 15% of the times they could have

The people made a mockery of themselves by telling two separate independent polls that they voted on misconceptions and lies. I'm not sure why knowing what they're talking about is a requirement to having their concerns addressed. Can someone not be concerned about something unnecessarily and be reassured, without having to change the treaty

Well, first of all, would there be a second vote if there was a majority yes?

Okay, that's a bit rhetorical, but necessary it seems.

Now, suppose that the majority of people voted yes, believing that there was a clause included in Lisbon whereby the EU gave $100 billion as a gift.
Okay, they'd be totally wrong, but it would still pass.

In fact, voter ignorance has NOTHING to do with a second referendum. Nothing at all. Nada. Zip. Zero. It is completely besides the point. Now, the shape that the guarantees take may have something to do with voter ignorance, that much is true, but the guarantees are in many ways (although not all) arbitrary.

The division came in terms of the competencies of the EU increasing. Now we are given guarantees that these competencies will not apply in certain areas. Is this enough? The governmental parties are taking no chances, and are also conducting a scaremongering campaign based on the economic recession.

Ah yes, another reason to vote: changed circumstances. Now... just think for a little bit why it is not terribly correct to argue that people should vote again because they are weaker.

So we have 3 great reasons to vote again
1. We are poor
2. We are ignorant
3. The majority of our 'concerns' have been addressed.

Which avoids the one reason hulking like an elephant in the room.

That we are not given the authority to veto Lisbon.

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, first of all, would there be a second vote if there was a majority yes.
Okay, that a bit rhetorical, but necessary it seems.
Now, suppose that the majority of people voted yes, believing that there was a clause included in Lisbon whereby the EU gave $100 billion as a gift.
Okay, they'd be totally wrong, but it would still pass.

If the yes side had won last time there would not have been another referendum but that's because, in my opinion, you don't need a reason to vote yes other than the other 26 countries of the EU want this change. Imagine you were out in a pub with 26 friends and they all got together, including you, and decided to go to a pub across the road (I say including you because the Irish government negotiated the treaty)

If all your friends want to go across the road, that's enough reason to go. You don't sit there saying "why should I go" and demand that your friends convince you why this other pub is better. They're 26 and you're 1 so at that point if you don't want to go you have to give a good reason and, as your friends, they will see if there's anything they can do to satisfy you. That's not to say that you have to do whatever the majority are doing but if you want to stop them doing what they want, you have to explain why.

With this current treaty, if Ireland stays put everyone else has to stay put too but that won't necessarily always be the case. A new treaty can be written that opts Ireland out to give everyone what they want. Everyone else can get the changes they want and Ireland can stay where it is, sitting in the pub, all on its own. Ireland will be left behind

RandomName2 wrote: »

In fact, voter ignorance has NOTHING to do with a second referendum. Nothing at all. Nada. Zip. Zero. It is completely besides the point. Now, the shape that the guarantees take may have something to do with voter ignorance, that much is true, but the guarantees are in many ways (although not all) arbitrary.

So you are accusing Milward Brown and the EU surveyers of corruption. That's a very serious allegation. Do you have any evidence of it?

RandomName2 wrote: »

That we are not given the authority to veto Lisbon.

Yes we do have the authority to veto it but we don't not have the right to veto it because extremists have convinced us that the treaty will eat our babies and because we don't like our government. If the surveys had shown decent reasons for rejection they would have been addressed but they didn't

Sam Vimes

RandomName2, this is a question I've asked probably ten people and they haven't been able to give me a decent answer. You say the government deliberately didn't address the issues of the people before putting it to a second referendum. Remember that they signalled their intention to put it to a second referendum before the recession hit so they couldn't have been planning to scare people into voting yes that way. Given that, what would they have to gain by deliberately not addressing the majority issues before having a second referendum? How could the result possibly be anything other than an even more resounding no?

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If the yes side had won last time there would not have been another referendum but that's because, in my opinion, you don't need a reason to vote yes other than the other 26 countries of the EU want this change. Imagine you were out in a pub with 26 friends and they all got together, including you, and decided to go to a pub across the road (I say including you because the Irish government negotiated the treaty)

If all your friends want to go across the road, that's enough reason to go. You don't sit there saying "why should I go" and demand that your friends convince you why this other pub is better. They're 26 and you're 1 so at that point if you don't want to go you have to give a good reason and, as your friends, they will see if there's anything they can do to satisfy you. That's not to say that you have to do whatever the majority are doing but if you want to stop them doing what they want, you have to explain why.

With this current treaty, if Ireland stays put everyone else has to stay put too but that won't necessarily always be the case. A new treaty can be written that opts Ireland out to give everyone what they want. Everyone else can get the changes they want and Ireland can stay where it is, sitting in the pub, all on its own. Ireland will be left behind


So you are accusing Milward Brown and the EU surveyers of corruption. That's a very serious allegation. Do you have any evidence of it?


Yes we do have the authority to veto it but we don't not have the right to veto it because extremists have convinced us that the treaty will eat our babies and because we don't like our government. If the surveys had shown decent reasons for rejection they would have been addressed but they didn't

No, no no. We do not have the power of veto. Nor did the French (they would have been made vote again, like us, if there not more referenda planned for Constitution Treaty). Now, the fact is, we are supposed to have the power of veto.

These 27 friends almost killed each other around half a century before - beat each other almost to death. And that wasn't the first time. Part of the solution as to how they mightn't get into a similar situation was for there to be unaminity. Now one of these 27 friends seems to have touretts as his mouth says 'no' yet his brain apparently says 'yes'. Should be asked again, I say.

The Milward Brown survey didn't really matter. They may have been honest, or not, it did not change the fact of a second referendum.

Remember all those guarantees we were given after Nice I, for Nice II.

You don't? That's because the government knew that all it needed was higher turnout... which it duly received.

And - why not have a public vote on NAMA (as long as there is an alternative strategy provided)? I would personally be in favour of it, but I would accept the majority's opinion if they went for Fine Gael's idea (which may or may not be put down on paper, as yet).

So... majority rule applies when talking about polticans (whether elected or no), but not when talking about electorates... as I have already said, vote for vote there are more votes cast against Lisbon across Lisbon so far than votes in favour of it.

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

RandomName2, this is a question I've asked probably ten people and they haven't been able to give me a decent answer. You say the government deliberately didn't address the issues of the people before putting it to a second referendum. Remember that they signalled their intention to put it to a second referendum before the recession hit so they couldn't have been planning to scare people into voting yes that way. Given that, what would they have to gain by deliberately not addressing the majority issues before having a second referendum? How could the result possibly be anything other than an even more resounding no?

Okay, fair enough.

I don't think that the government went out of its way to not address the public's concerns - it just didn't really give a damn what the public's concerns were in the first place.

And, okay, they didn't plan the reccession (although you might be mistaken for believeing so by looking at fiscal policy) but it has been damn convenient for them, and they have not been afraid to use it.

But if the real issue that came back to the government was a concern which was inimical to the entire nature of Lisbon (i.e. granting the eu more legislative power) there wouldn't be a damn thing that they could do other than concede the defeat of the treaty, which they were never going to do.

Edit: Besides which, this is the easiest option available to them at the moment. Anything else would require some means to get around Crotty (which isn't easy), and the thought of the Conservatives getting into power, unless Cameron pulls a John Major on it, is a very daunting prospect for the eu leaders wanting to get Lisbon signed, sealed and delivered. What exactly does FF lose with a Lisbon defeat? Very little. Fine Gael and Labour can just blame Fianna fail for Lisbon's defeat, catapulting them to a position which is already almost inevitable.

marco_polo

RandomName2 wrote: »

I did give a pointer about not just giving a knee-jerk reaction of saying 'You can't talk in a critical fashion of the political processes of other countries' so I'll just cut that out for you

Well, first of all, would there be a second vote if there was a majority yes?

Okay, that's a bit rhetorical, but necessary it seems.

There could be if you elect a Government that was so inclined. See the UK this time next year for reference

Now, suppose that the majority of people voted yes, believing that there was a clause included in Lisbon whereby the EU gave $100 billion as a gift.
Okay, they'd be totally wrong, but it would still pass.

If so no european treaty would ever be passed again. On the other hand Abortion and Neutrality have been consistantly used in every referendum and nothing as ever changed in this regard. Why people still give any creedance to this crap is beyond me.

In fact, voter ignorance has NOTHING to do with a second referendum. Nothing at all. Nada. Zip. Zero. It is completely besides the point. Now, the shape that the guarantees take may have something to do with voter ignorance, that much is true, but the guarantees are in many ways (although not all) arbitrary.

Just repeating this does not make it true. There is ample evidence to suggest it was a large factor in their decision and precisely none to suggest it wasn't.

The division came in terms of the competencies of the EU increasing. Now we are given guarantees that these competencies will not apply in certain areas. Is this enough? The governmental parties are taking no chances, and are also conducting a scaremongering campaign based on the economic recession.
.

The compentancies are what define the areas in which the EU has a role, along with the principals of Subsidary and Proportionality. I can say with absolute certainty that our national family law is secure because no such compenancy has been granted to the EU, and I can say with even more certainty that the Environment competency which we have granted to the EU cannot be used to change our family law, which is essentially what you are trying to suggest could happen. SInce you are so in tune with what the people want, which of the four new compatencies being added, the shared compatency Energy, the Supporting Competancies of Sport, Culture and Tourism were of most concern to voters?

Ah yes, another reason to vote: changed circumstances. Now... just think for a little bit why it is not terribly correct to argue that people should vote again because they are weaker.

The changed circumstances of this referendum are the guarantees + commissioner.

So we have 3 great reasons to vote again
1. We are poor
2. We are ignorant
3. The majority of our 'concerns' have been addressed.

Which avoids the one reason hulking like an elephant in the room.

That we are not given the authority to veto Lisbon.

We did veto Lisbon, and we can do so again if we wish. I hope that is not the case. What are the concerns that were missed and how could they have been addressed to your satisfaction?

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, no no. We do not have the power of veto. Nor did the French (they would have been made vote again, like us, if there not more referenda planned for Constitution Treaty). Now, the fact is, we are supposed to have the power of veto.

The french and dutch voted no, the parts of the treaty that they objected to were removed and then their governments ratified the new treaty. That's how democracy works. Something is proposed, you voice your objections and a compromise is reached. The distinct lack of protests in those countries suggests to me that this treaty is one more of the millions of things that they're happy for their government to decide for them.

They did veto the constitution, it no longer exists. And Ireland vetoed Lisbon because it would have set out how our commissioner would be removed and now he won't be. You don't just throw a 300 page document in the bin because a few people have an objection to a few paragraphs

RandomName2 wrote: »

The Milward Brown survey didn't really matter. They may have been honest, or not, it did not change the fact of a second referendum.

No, their survey showed the biggest reason by far for rejection was lack of understanding and loss of sovereignty was significantly under 10% (can't remember the exact figure) and the EU survey had similar findings. Either you're calling them corrupt or you're not. Are you accusing them of corruption or will you withdraw your assertion on this matter?

RandomName2 wrote: »

And - why not have a public vote on NAMA (as long as there is an alternative strategy provided)? I would personally be in favour of it, but I would accept the majority's opinion if they went for Fine Gael's idea (which may or may not be put down on paper, as yet).

I'll tell you why. Fine Gael's idea has been widely accepted as the most risky and least effective, even by current and former Fine Gael members. Imo they're only putting it forward to be seen to have a different idea to the government. NAMA is not perfect but its necessary. If it was put to a vote there would be a resounding NO and the banks would continue to lurch along until they collapsed, taking the Irish economy with it. Issues like this are why we have governments who employ industry experts. Betty from Mayo's opinion on how best to implement economic recovery isn't worth a whole lot

btw I've been mostly copying and pasting my responses to you all along because you're just repeating the same old stuff that's been refuted a million times

RandomName2

marco_polo wrote: »

There could be if you elect a Government that was so inclined. See the UK this time next year for reference

[...]

Just repeating this does not make it true. There is ample evidence to suggest it was a large factor in their decision and precisely none to suggest it wasn't.

With all due respect, none of what you said changes why there is a second vote. We didn't veto it. The Bill still exists hanging, waiting for our ratification. Indeed, other governments have ratified in the mean-time (quite cheekily).

And it would be very odd if there was a majority yes and for there to be a re-vote (not only to do with the outlook of the political classes). I for one would vote yes. Don't drag up the divorce referenda - they are not an accurate analogy on several grounds.

RandomName2

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Don't see any protests in UK they are oh-so happy with Lisbon being ratified.

As I said, Constitution only collapsed because of the number of referenda planned. You can ignore the Dutch vote (their government, in the long run, did ).

Edit: I noticed that politican ignorance isn't a concern, mind you

marco_polo

RandomName2 wrote: »

With all due respect, none of what you said changes why there is a second vote. We didn't veto it. The Bill still exists hanging, waiting for our ratification. Indeed, other governments have ratified in the mean-time (quite cheekily).

And it would be very odd if there was a majority yes and for there to be a re-vote (not only to do with the outlook of the political classes). I for one would vote yes. Don't drag up the divorce referenda - they are not an accurate analogy on several grounds.

They used the 2009 Lisbon Bill for the last referendum? Way to not answer any of my other points btw. It certainly would be strange if the people voted yes and then elected a euroskeptic government with a mandate to repeal the amendment.

What were peoples real concerns and where is your evidence for this assertion?

Sam Vimes

RandomName2 wrote: »

As I said, Constitution only collapsed because of the number of referenda planned. You can ignore the Dutch vote (their government, in the long run, did ).

If you're going to object to this treaty, could you please be the exception and try to say things that are actually true? I realise it's quite difficult to object to this treaty without saying things that aren't true but could you give it a shot anyway? Ta

ei.sdraob

RandomName2 wrote: »

Don't see any protests in UK they are oh-so happy with Lisbon being ratified.

Don't see any protests in UK they are oh-so unhappy with Lisbon being ratified.



anyways this is an Irish referendum, i couldn't give a rats arse what they do in Britain (as long as they keep their noses out of our affairs)

squod

meglome wrote: »

The trick is to stop, read, consider and address the points made,

I come accross some excellent points, made particularly by scofflaw. These points haven't changed my opinion overall though. It's a fact that none of you replys so far have been so worthy of my consideration. That is not my fault.