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

amendments to lisbon treaty.

Options
  • 29-09-2009 2:18pm
    #1
    suimhneas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭


    ok, so we voted no last time well i did, then the government goes off to the big boys in europe and asks them if its ok to add a few ammendments to the lisbon treaty. who asked for these particular ammendments? im hearing over and over again that these are the very things that prompted the irish to vote no last time, who actually asked us why we voted no?

    none of the stupid reasons outlined in the new amendments are the reason i voted no.

    also if i remember the polls right last time around the polls before the vote always had the yes side winning i think whoever they are polling are obviously the wrong people.

    im off to place my bet with paddy power


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    There were no amendments, you are mistaken.

    Now ask yourself, what else might you be mistaken about...


  • Options
    #3
    suimhneas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 153 ✭✭suimhneas


    god your attitude, you know full well what i am talking about the "additional legal guarantees and assurances " you will see who is mistaken by the end of this week.


  • Options
    #4
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    suimhneas wrote: »
    ok, so we voted no last time well i did, then the government goes off to the big boys in europe and asks them if its ok to add a few ammendments to the lisbon treaty. who asked for these particular ammendments? im hearing over and over again that these are the very things that prompted the irish to vote no last time, who actually asked us why we voted no?

    none of the stupid reasons outlined in the new amendments are the reason i voted no.

    also if i remember the polls right last time around the polls before the vote always had the yes side winning i think whoever they are polling are obviously the wrong people.

    im off to place my bet with paddy power

    OK, firstly sorry if your reasons aren't addressed.

    The Govt. commissioned polls and there was a Oireactas Committee set up.

    AFAIK, not understanding enough was a big reason and Abortion, Euthanasia, Taxation etc. did come up as concerns.

    If the majority don't agree with this, the Treaty will be rejected.

    Unfortuantely, they cannot address all concerns.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #5
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    suimhneas wrote: »
    im hearing over and over again that these are the very things that prompted the irish to vote no last time, who actually asked us why we voted no?
    none of the stupid reasons outlined in the new amendments are the reason i voted no.

    So what were your reasons? :confused:


  • Options
    #6
    Nozebleed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭Nozebleed


    prinz wrote: »
    So what were your reasons? :confused:

    the fact that it was unreadable....numerous government ministers didnt bother to read it. and then proceed to lie about so called guarantees that never existed in the first place.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    the fact that it was unreadable....numerous government ministers didnt bother to read it. and then proceed to lie about so called guarantees that never existed in the first place.

    It's not unreadable, many people in this very forum have read it. It's boring, yes but not unreadable.

    And just because a number of our government ministers didn't read it doesn't mean that they didn't know whats in it. some of them even helped write it. Others consulted their paid legal advisors whose job it is is to read complex legal documents such as Lisbon and highlight key areas.


    And I don't really understand your last point.


  • Options
    #8
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    the fact that it was unreadable....numerous government ministers didnt bother to read it. and then proceed to lie about so called guarantees that never existed in the first place.

    Many people seem to be capable of reading it.

    The second sentence doesn't seem to make any sense.


  • Options
    #9
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    the fact that it was unreadable....numerous government ministers didnt bother to read it. and then proceed to lie about so called guarantees that never existed in the first place.

    Are you suimhneas?

    Do you read the Finance Act? The Criminal Justice Acts? etc. Have you read the Lisbon Treaty? It's there for you if you want to read it....

    O, and the guarantees exist.


  • Options
    #10
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    prinz wrote: »
    .......and the guarantees exist.


    These guarantees won't be printed on the ballot, and are so not conditional................blah, blah, blah.

    Another of the hundred times this is brought up.


  • Options
    #11
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Many people seem to be capable of reading it.

    The second sentence doesn't seem to make any sense.

    It's quite obvious.

    Nozebleed voted No in the first referendum, because he travelled forward in time and discovered the politicians would provide guarantees to address the concerns of the people, and when the country presumably voted 'yes' in the second referendum, it turned out they had lied about the guarantees. Perhaps the EU at that point, sometime in the future, introduced abortion into Ireland.

    Which sort of begs the question, if he had been to the future and learned all this, why did he bother to vote at all?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    squod wrote: »
    These guarantees won't be printed on the ballot, and are so not conditional................blah, blah, blah.

    Another of the hundred times this is brought up.

    ???


  • Options
    #13
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    squod wrote: »
    These guarantees won't be printed on the ballot, and are so not conditional................blah, blah, blah.

    Another of the hundred times this is brought up.

    It could be debated and it has.

    The reality is the No campaigners have to question the guarantees, otherwise Neutrality, Abortion, Euthanasia, Taxation, Health and Education become null and void points.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #14
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    squod wrote: »
    These guarantees won't be printed on the ballot
    Neither will the treaty


  • Options
    #15
    Nozebleed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭Nozebleed


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    It's quite obvious.

    Nozebleed voted No in the first referendum, because he travelled forward in time and discovered the politicians would provide guarantees to address the concerns of the people, and when the country presumably voted 'yes' in the second referendum, it turned out they had lied about the guarantees. Perhaps the EU at that point, sometime in the future, introduced abortion into Ireland.

    Which sort of begs the question, if he had been to the future and learned all this, why did he bother to vote at all?

    yeah its true...i voted no. and obviously im voting no again. why because its the same treaty. word for word. except for the guarentees..they're a bonus.


  • Options
    #16
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    yeah its true...i voted no. and obviously im voting no again. why because its the same treaty. word for word. except for the guarentees..they're a bonus.

    you may have mentioned this before but which parts of the treaty do you think should have been changed?


  • Options
    #17
    Nozebleed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭Nozebleed


    i dont think it should be changed...it should be scrapped.


  • Options
    #18
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    i dont think it should be changed...it should be scrapped.

    You want it scrapped for no other reason than you haven't bother to read it?


  • Options
    #19
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    i dont think it should be changed...it should be scrapped.

    Why?


  • Options
    #20
    Nozebleed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭Nozebleed


    prinz wrote: »
    You want it scrapped for no other reason than you haven't bother to read it?

    it should be scrapped because it undermines democracy. the people said no..


  • Options
    #21
    Daftendirekt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Daftendirekt


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    it should be scrapped because it undermines democracy. the people said no..

    Doesn't it undermine democracy even more to claim that people should never be allowed to change their minds?

    Edit: And incidentally, do you think we should ban divorce, since it took two referendums to make it legal?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    it should be scrapped because it undermines democracy. the people said no..

    Should Divorce be repealed? Should we never have a vote on abortion again?

    After all, the people said no and if there's one thing I've learned from reading this forum, it's that NO MEANS NO!


  • Options
    #23
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    it should be scrapped because it undermines democracy. the people said no..

    Which part undermines democracy?

    You can say that the re-vote undermines democracy (you'd be wrong though, as the supreme court ruled) but why vote no in the first place?


  • Options
    #24
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,213 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    K-9 wrote: »

    The reality is the No campaigners have to question the guarantees, otherwise Neutrality, Abortion, Euthanasia, Taxation, Health and Education become null and void points.

    On the primetime special last week when Pat Cox was debating Mary-Lou McDonald, he finished by pointing out that the Good Friday agreement was an international treaty just as the current guarantees are.

    Unfortunately there was no time for her to respond.

    As Pat was saying this I could see on her face ... embarrassment... She knew that she was pushing a lie in calling the guarantees worthless. It seems for Sinn Fein the end justifies the means.

    Ix.


  • Options
    #25
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Dinner wrote: »
    Should Divorce be repealed? Should we never have a vote on abortion again?

    After all, the people said no and if there's one thing I've learned from reading this forum, it's that NO MEANS NO!

    Also we voted in Fianna Fail so we should keep them forever. The people have spoken right?


  • Options
    #26
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    it should be scrapped because it undermines democracy. the people said no..

    But a while back you said you voted no because it was unreadable.

    Now either (A) you read the unreadable Treaty and you find it undermines democracy or (B) readability is irrelevant because someone else told you it undermines democracy or (C) you're clutching at straws and regurgitating soundbites you got from Mary Lou McDonald etc without any actual reasoning behind any of the objections. Which is it?


  • Options
    #27
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    So you vote No for no particular reason, other than you weren't bothered to read the treaty and expect that people will pay attention to your wishes? Why, you haven't bothered paying attention to the question, so I think the government are absolutely right to not pay attention to your answer.

    Meanwhile, out in the grown up world, people will continue to find out each others wishes and attempt to build a consensus around them.


  • Options
    #28
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Dinner wrote: »
    Should Divorce be repealed? ...

    Yeah, repeal it. I don't want Herself to escape my desperate clutches.


  • Options
    #29
    Nozebleed
    Registered Users Posts: 1,727 ✭✭✭Nozebleed


    Dinner wrote: »
    Should Divorce be repealed? Should we never have a vote on abortion again?

    After all, the people said no and if there's one thing I've learned from reading this forum, it's that NO MEANS NO!



    are you aware that a yes vote cannot be repealled? your points on divorce and abortion are irrelevant. pointless in fact.


  • Options
    #30
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    are you aware that a yes vote cannot be repealled? your points on divorce and abortion are irrelevant. pointless in fact.

    A yes vote can indeed be repealed, it would just be a bit of a procedural mess. I don't really see how the points on abortion and divorce are irrelevant. We had two referendums on divorce and many people want one on abortion. Was the seond divorce one undemocratic and would a second abortion one be undemocratic?

    Also would you mind answering my question:

    Which part undermines democracy?

    You can say that the re-vote undermines democracy (you'd be wrong though, as the supreme court ruled) but why vote no in the first place?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Nozebleed wrote: »
    are you aware that a yes vote cannot be repealled? your points on divorce and abortion are irrelevant. pointless in fact.

    No they're not. They are merely inconvenient to the point you are trying to make.

    In any case, I voted No last time and will be voting Yes this time. Am I not allowed change my mind? Must I stick by my one frame of mind forever?


Advertisement