Extraordinary Reaction to my thread !!!

isocket

Dinner wrote: »

Ah, so NO doesn't actually mean NO. Now we're getting somewhere.

Divorce was run again 9 years after the first one because it was felt that there was a significant shift in public opinion during that time.

Lisbon was rejected. In the year and a bit since the first vote the government and the EU have tackled the issues that the public had.

Is it all democratic so far?

Now, the government feels that since the issues have been solved and there has been a shift in public opinion the only democratic thing to do is to put it to referendum again.

Reject Vote -> Solve issues -> vote again

Perfectly democratic.

Now I don't expect this seems democractic to you because in your world no means no except when it mean ask us again but not until an arbitrary time period has passed.

You're the one that needs to brush up on your democracy because there is NOTHING undemocratic about having a second a referendum. You can thrtow your toys and slogans around all you want. But that won't make it true.

We are being forced to vote on the SAME TREATY.
What part of that sentence do you not understand?

BlitzKrieg

Omeceron wrote: »

We are not voting on the same Lisbon treaty as last time. The last one was rejected, the government renegotiated a new one and thats what we are voting on.

Its not the same treaty as the European Constitution. But the Lisbon Treaty has been unchanged between these two referendums.

The question needed to be asked though is, did it need to be changed. Polls after the first Lisbon treaty and the No campaign of the first referendum, showed that issues such as aboriton, the commissioner and Neutrality were the main concerns.

With the exception of the commissioner, none of these other issues actually come up in Lisbon and in fact a few of them had failsafes in already protecting them.

For example Abortion has had a protocol protecting the irish right to life for over 12 years.

The problem rose that the campaign was played in such a manner that it appeared confusing and open to interpetation. That if politcion A was manipulative and cunning he could argue that point A cancels out point B and that point C is irrelevent because A is here and C is there. (which is the case with aboriton and the charter of human rights)


So with the exception of the commissioner, the EU drew up a series of Gaurantee's that legally bind them to not manipulate the treaty in these manners, even though there is no evidence that it is possible to do so anyway.

And then there is the commissioner which doesnt need to change the treaty because there was already and article outlining that the European Council agreeing in unamity and going by their constitutional processess can change the number of commissioners.

So it is the same treay + reassurances that the issues that concerned the majority in the last referendum have been dealt with.

Dinner

isocket wrote: »

We are being forced to vote on the SAME TREATY.
What part of that sentence do you not understand?

I understand all of it. You seem to be incapable of realising that we are voting on the Lisbon Treaty + the legally binding guarantees.

It's a simple concept.


Also to preepmt what is usually the next argument from people with the same opinion as you, the guarantees are leaglly binding. And saying they aren't won't make it true.

Omeceron

Whose forcing you? You have a democratic right to vote or NOT to vote.

Scofflaw

isocket wrote: »

Do you really want another quote from the EU on that?

No, isocket, we don't. Argument by quotation is not really acceptable. Anyone's words can be taken out of context, and since the person quoted isn't here to explain what they meant, it's essentially a form of argument from authority. Use your own words, not other people's - you're here to explain yourself, they're not.

moderately,
Scofflaw

meglome

isocket wrote: »

Excuse me.
The electorate have already made their minds up in June 2008.
That is the democratic process.
It is a travesty of democracy to then ask us again, in fact it is Fascism!
What part of NO do you not understand?
Obviuosly you are a yes voter, but your argument defies all logic.
Did you vote the last time?
Are you seriously arguing that if the last referendum was a yes vote the powers-that-be would be asking us again?

To be exact 28% of the electorate voted No. Of those the majority voted No because they didn't know what was in the treaty, stuff that wasn't in the treaty to begin with or the commissioner which was addressed.

Your argument defies all logic...

meglome

isocket wrote: »

We are being forced to vote on the SAME TREATY.
What part of that sentence do you not understand?

This is really tiresome. Did someone come round to your house and threaten you? You can vote any way you like, vote No again.

If the view of the Irish people hasn't changed then it will be another No vote but, as people in here are suggesting, their views have changed due to the new package then there will be a Yes vote. Either way it's democratic, just like it was democratic for the government to call another referendum.

BlitzKrieg

You are answering your own question by quoting me.

But maybe 'their' words might be of further assistance to you -

*sigh*

ok let me try this again.

My first post in this thread.

I asked you:

prove to me how its undemocratic, with sources. Say one example of legaslation from any democracy in the wrold (present or past) where a 2nd referendum on any issue is undemocratic. Failing that an example of how someone's democratic rights whas denied by lisbon 2?

I'll address your quotes, but I rather you answer me then deflect the question:

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
V.Giscard D'Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

well the le monde article is for registered users use only so I had to go via the sunday telegraph from 1st july 2007: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556175/New-treaty-is-just-constitution-in-disguise.html


strange how

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly

Is not quoted, it seems to have magically appeared out of nowhere

full quote:

Mr d'Estaing insisted that "all the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way".

He added that while the treaty was a "step backwards for the European spirit, because the flag and anthem have been removed", it was "good in terms of substance as it will be very, very near to the original".

"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments... A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy,at meeting of senior MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007

EUobserver 14 november 2007: http://euobserver.com/?aid=25127

This is the only article from EUobserver that mentions sarkozy's name on that date

As you can see it has nothing to do with the quote. So unless someone can show otherwise, thats another quote with no source.

"They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception....imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say 'Look, you see, it's absolutely unreadable, it's the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.' Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new."
Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007

well thankfully we actually have a source for this one (cheer)

but its open europe, who if its believed that the irish times are bias, then open europe are not only bias but so far against the EU that given a box of matches they would burn everything to the ground.

but in their defence

we have an article: http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/loathsome-smugness.html

and we have a audio recording: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/amato.mp3

recommand downloading the audio cause the website has a bad time playing it back.

I think it be better if people listen to it from his own mouth rather then text (though sadly I only have that piece of audio and cannot find the rest of his speech so its obviously out of context)


So in the end we have 1 quote which has magically grown a malicous extra few lines that are unexplained. One that is completely MIA and one that sounds like its from someone who is annoyed that his constitutional treaty got dumped, rather then smug that he is tricking people.

isocket

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

"prove to me how its undemocratic, with sources. Say one example of legaslation from any democracy in the wrold (present or past) where a 2nd referendum on any issue is undemocratic. Failing that an example of how someone's democratic rights whas denied by lisbon 2?"

Your post is considered & forensic, I will answer it in a number of posts beginning with this. (Though quoting quotations from other quotations would not stand up in court, simply serves to cloud the issues. As regards V.Giscard D'Estaing & The Lisbon Treaty, why the subterfuge at all, why the cloak & dagger BS?, but I will get to that).

On your initial Q -

Without getting into political science, I presume you are aware of the dictionary definition of democracy?
To propose to the Irish electorate a treaty, identical in every way, to the original treaty proposed only 15 months earlier, is an inversion of democracy, as the intention behind the second proposal is a refusal by the EU & Irish political/business interests to take no for an answer.
That is not democracy.
There is a long & sorry history of EU contempt for the democratic process.
Consider the Nice Treaty.
So, please can you offer an example of where the EU has shown such concern for the democratic process by rejecting a yes vote to its many treaties?
The EU has proven, time & again, that it cares a toss for the opinion of its populace.

isocket

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

well the le monde article is for registered users use only so I had to go via the sunday telegraph from 1st july 2007: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556175/New-treaty-is-just-constitution-in-disguise.html


strange how

Is not quoted, it seems to have magically appeared out of nowhere

full quote:

Strange indeed!
Strange how you are quoting the sunday telegraph from 1st july 2007 quoting V.Giscard D'Estaing & NOT THE ORIGINAL SOURCE.
That proves nothing apart from the F A C T that V.Giscard D'Estaing, an EU visionary, nay mystic no less, has nada but contempt for the unwashed.

marco_polo

isocket wrote: »

Your post is considered & forensic, I will answer it in a number of posts beginning with this. (Though quoting quotations from other quotations would not stand up in court, simply serves to cloud the issues. As regards V.Giscard D'Estaing & The Lisbon Treaty, why the subterfuge at all, why the cloak & dagger BS?, but I will get to that).

On your initial Q -

Without getting into political science, I presume you are aware of the dictionary definition of democracy?
To propose to the Irish electorate a treaty, identical in every way, to the original treaty proposed only 15 months earlier, is an inversion of democracy, as the intention behind the second proposal is a refusal by the EU & Irish political/business interests to take no for an answer.
That is not democracy.
There is a long & sorry history of EU contempt for the democratic process.
Consider the Nice Treaty.
So, please can you offer an example of where the EU has shown such concern for the democratic process by rejecting a yes vote to its many treaties?
The EU has proven, time & again, that it cares a toss for the opinion of its populace.

May I see the defination of democracy that make repeat referendums democratic only at some point in time that is greater than 15 months but less than 9 years?

Indeed a defination of democracy that makes reference to referenda at all would be a start. For they are meerly an instrument of one particular form of direct democracy, not all versions of democracy.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0903/breaking62.htm

The State’s argument the people could be asked more than once to vote on an issue was “compelling” because, if the people could decide a matter only once, that would effectively disenfranchise people in the future from expressing their view.

Issues change and it would be “highly surprising” to read the Constitution as preventing people expressing a view on an issue previously voted upon. The Constitution contained no such provision.

The people are “well capable” of deciding an issue on a second occasion and it was for the people to express their view on October 2nd next, he concluded. That was democracy working at its “most fluid”.

Hitman Actual

isocket wrote: »

Without getting into political science, I presume you are aware of the dictionary definition of democracy?
To propose to the Irish electorate a treaty, identical in every way, to the original treaty proposed only 15 months earlier, is an inversion of democracy, as the intention behind the second proposal is a refusal by the EU & Irish political/business interests to take no for an answer.
That is not democracy.
There is a long & sorry history of EU contempt for the democratic process.
Consider the Nice Treaty.

I'll take the opinion of a high court judge over yours any day, tbh.

Mr Justice Liam McKecknie wrote:

Mr Justice McKecknie said that 'the constitution did not prohibit a question being put to the people on a second occasion. If people have decided on one occasion, it is for the people, not the courts, to express their view on a second occasion. This is democracy working at its most fluid.'

Edit: Marco polo got there first.

RandomName2

humanji wrote: »

You're the one trying to stop people from exercising their right to vote. Isn't that a tad more facist than letting people vote?

I have heard this more than a few times now.

And there are two things going on here, so I'll address them both.

Preamble: It was not I who dragged up the fasces in this instance.

1. First thing is about whether people should have a 'right' to vote again.

2. Second, that the 'no' campaigners are fascist or fascist-esque for attempting to deny the people this right.

1. This is a bit complex, but made ironic by its circumstances. Ireland not only is unique in its right to vote (by referendum - for the benefit of the resident pedants) but gets to vote twice.

Why is Ireland voting? Because it is in the constitution. The majority of TDs are opposed to the Irish getting a vote.

Why is Ireland voting again? Because there was not a majority of yes votes in the referendum.

Why are there guarantees? Because there was such a high turnout that a pow-wow of yes voters is no guarantee of passing the bill in a second vote (like Nice) but a bid is needed to flip voters.

Essentially the bottom line of the first vote is that lack of ratification is a stumbling block that has to be overcome. A second vote is the easiest method devised, so far, to get past this stumbling block. Well might people wax lyrical about the democratic merits of a second vote whilst being fundamentally against the concept of a vote in the first place

That isn't even getting into a lack of vote in the other EU states, or the vetoing of the same (vast majority of the same - pedants) documentation by the French public.

2. Fascism. Well, leaving aside the nationalist-socialist ideology of one or two of the 'no' political groups; attempting to tie in protestations of the lack of authority granted to the Irish referendum (either nationally or internationally) to fascistic methodology or ideology is strange and (well, quite obviously) puerile. I know that many 'no' campaigners like to predict an absolute disintegration of the Lisbon Treaty if there is another 'no' vote, for morale and all that, but realistically we all know this is not the case. If there is another 'no' vote, EU leaders will find some method to get around this obstacle, and there are a number of options available to them. Moreover, in terms of the ramifications of this vote, there is an obvious carrot-and-stick methodology being employed by the government and the supragovernment combined (be nice, and you get a commissioner, be naughty and you get permanent recession- or some other rubbish along these lines). In essence, the political zeitgeist of the second referendum is that of psychological implication - isolationist vs openness, regressive vs progressive, etc. but this is backed up with intimations of punishment, honour, independence, and duty.

In fact, the yes-side has become imbued with a neo-nationalism; where respect to the supra-national compact should take precedence over limited, nationalistic outlooks. Forget your princely allegiance, and look instead to your monarch - forget the bickering pre-renaissance states, and look instead to the glorious age of imperial might. Err - a sort of transition from the German states to the second Reich, if you will.

And to a limited extent, seeing a link between nationalism and fascism is correct, in the same way that you find a link between Plato and Mao's Little Red Book - dig hard enough and you can find a common root. But to link protestations about the second Irish vote and fascism? Why not shout about enforced abortions becoming mandatory following Lisbon, whilst we are on such a historically accurate streak?

BlitzKrieg

isocket wrote: »

Strange indeed!
Strange how you are quoting the sunday telegraph from 1st july 2007 quoting V.Giscard D'Estaing & NOT THE ORIGINAL SOURCE.
That proves nothing apart from the F A C T that V.Giscard D'Estaing, an EU visionary, nay mystic no less, has nada but contempt for the unwashed.

That was the source you provided.

V.Giscard D'Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

And the problem is unless we have someone here who has a subscription to Le Monde who can confirm what that article said. Judging that the quote does not give a location or event either then we are very much at the descretion of the newspapers here.

We only have the 2nd source, provided by you to go by. That source does not have D'Estaing's contempt for the unwashed as you put it.


If its provided as a source (again by you) and that source has a different quote that has none of the contempt that riles people up

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it" does not at the moment have no basis in reality until someone can provide a source for it.

Unless of course you are using quotes you have not researched yourself, which is just bad form then.

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

That was the source you provided.



And the problem is unless we have someone here who has a subscription to Le Monde who can confirm what that article said. Judging that the quote does not give a location or event either then we are very much at the descretion of the newspapers here.

We only have the 2nd source, provided by you to go by. That source does not have D'Estaing's contempt for the unwashed as you put it.


If its provided as a source (again by you) and that source has a different quote that has none of the contempt that riles people up

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it" does not at the moment have no basis in reality until someone can provide a source for it.

Unless of course you are using quotes you have not researched yourself, which is just bad form then.

And here we are in a discussion of sources, and the completeness or incompleteness of quotes, never mind what the person quoted actually meant. This is exactly the kind of thing that makes argument from quotation so utterly pointless.

Enough arguing about the quotes and their sources - and the next person who pulls this kind of post-o-quotes will be banned until after the vote.

(im)moderately,
Scofflaw

isocket

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

That was the source you provided.



And the problem is unless we have someone here who has a subscription to Le Monde who can confirm what that article said. Judging that the quote does not give a location or event either then we are very much at the descretion of the newspapers here.

We only have the 2nd source, provided by you to go by. That source does not have D'Estaing's contempt for the unwashed as you put it.


If its provided as a source (again by you) and that source has a different quote that has none of the contempt that riles people up

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it" does not at the moment have no basis in reality until someone can provide a source for it.

Unless of course you are using quotes you have not researched yourself, which is just bad form then.

Ok, unless both Le Monde & The Sunday Telegraph, & other news organisations, are in cahouts with the no voters in France, Netherlands & now Ireland by making all this up, does it not bother you, & your fellow EU ideologues on this forum, that such an establishment figure would actually show such contempt for democracy?
We could, of course, go through all of the quotes I have used &, it seems, none of the meaning & intention in what these elitists say bothers you, & others, in the least?
Frankly this is unbelieveable !

BlitzKrieg

Ok, unless both Le Monde & The Sunday Telegraph, & other news organisations, are in cahouts with the no voters in France, Netherlands & now Ireland by making all this up, does it not bother you, & your fellow EU ideologues on this forum, that such an establishment figure would actually show such contempt for democracy?

No because I dont believe they showed such contempt for democracy because as I already pointed out 1 quote doesnt exist, 1 quote has been altered between the newspaper and your post and the third has a completely different meaning when you listen to it from the man himself in audio.

Finally and most important

What is being quoted

IS NOT IN THE TREATY!

If you have a problem with Lisbon and truth liberty and apple pie is on your side then you can prove it to me by discussing the treaty, using article quotes and showing the undemocratic flaws in its design.

Resorting to *those* quotes when you were already shown wrong on your original points is a problem. Everything you stated in your original post has had holes the titanic can sail through put through them and instead of patching them up you throw out quotes going *LOOK LOOK EVIL!*

Scofflaw

isocket wrote: »

Ok, unless both Le Monde & The Sunday Telegraph, & other news organisations, are in cahouts with the no voters in France, Netherlands & now Ireland by making all this up, does it not bother you, & your fellow EU ideologues on this forum, that such an establishment figure would actually show such contempt for democracy?
We could, of course, go through all of the quotes I have used &, it seems, none of the meaning & intention in what these elitists say bothers you, & others, in the least?
Frankly this is unbelieveable !

Enough arguing about the quotes and their sources. Why am I repeating myself?

moderately,
Scofflaw

WeeBushy

isocket,

I may be butting in here, but you have been asked many times on this thread to back up your viewpoints with references from the lisbon treaty, not what other people may/may not have said. Would you be able to that for us?

Oh and btw way I was the one who asked if you were from Coir, mainly because of the above reason; you spout a lot of sensationalist nonsense with no references to the actual treaty itself.

isocket

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

No because I dont believe they showed such contempt for democracy because as I already pointed out 1 quote doesnt exist, 1 quote has been altered between the newspaper and your post and the third has a completely different meaning when you listen to it from the man himself in audio.

Finally and most important

What is being quoted

IS NOT IN THE TREATY!

If you have a problem with Lisbon and truth liberty and apple pie is on your side then you can prove it to me by discussing the treaty, using article quotes and showing the undemocratic flaws in its design.

Resorting to *those* quotes when you were already shown wrong on your original points is a problem. Everything you stated in your original post has had holes the titanic can sail through put through them and instead of patching them up you throw out quotes going *LOOK LOOK EVIL!*

Clearly nothing is going to get through to you.
You are as committed to the defense of persons, I presume, you do not know as a child is to the belief in Santa Claus.
My purpose in using quotations from some of the major characters on the EU stage was to illustrate to you how you cannot trust these people.
For any sentient adult, a rule of thumb, when considering power, is that it is always by deception.

BlitzKrieg

My purpose in using quotations from some of the major characters on the EU stage was to illustrate to you how you cannot trust these people.
For any sentient adult, a rule of thumb, when considering politics, is that it is invariably always by deception.

Seriously now, are you incapable of reading.

I refuse to pass judgement on someone's character based on faulty quoting

AGAIN

I HAVE SHOWN YOU THAT

1 OF YOUR QUOTES DOES NOT EXIST. The source given to it comes back with zip zadda nothing!

1 OF THEM HAS BEEN ALTERED. THe source again GIVEN BY YOU! does not contain half the quote you give, that happens to be the first half that gives the overall quote its malicous tone.

Finally the third quote does exist, sadly the only source for it is a well known euroskeptic group and when compared to the audio, the tone of the speaker suggests that his comments are a criticism of the national parliaments. Sadly because neither the well known euroskeptic group or the originators of the actual meeting wrote down the entire speech, the quote is out of context.

For the love of whatever diety could possible exist, do you not see this whole line of discussion is a dead end not because of me putting on blinkers, but because the origin of the quotes can easily be called into question and are clearly being used politically.

THEY ARE IRRELEVENT!

So irrelevent that disproving them is a waste of time

discussing them is a waste of time

and promoting them is a waste of time.

NOW

THE F!CKING TREATY!

is not irelevent.

Try and discuss your position on it please.

Scofflaw

Sigh. Thread closed. I'll make the point again - do not use this kind of argument-by-quotation again, unless you're prepared to put forward a single quote in the OP and discuss that to death.

moderately,
Scofflaw