How will history record the Lisbon Referendum?

yiddo_til_i_die

Rb wrote: »

Well, if the EU continues to expand then there will be more reform treaties as the Union will have to change to accomodate the new members. So, like the other things the nay-sayers have kicked up a fuss over for nothing, it will fade into history and will only ever be referenced by political historians mapping the structural changes in the union.

A lot bigger things, such as the Euro, have happened and a lot bigger things will happen. We may as well embrace it and remain at the heart of it, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know dude, the formation of the EU as a seprarte counrty pretty much and the bestowing of the title of citzens on the people is pretty big

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Keep telling yourself that mate. All the experts are wrong and Sinn Fein, Coir, Declan Ganley and the communists are right.

yes for jobs isn't rubbish no?

lets say we reject again, the country is suddenly hit by drought, will lisbon 3 advertise itself as a rainmaker?
your just playing on current insecurities and you lot will never admit that FACT

yiddo_til_i_die

Really-Stressed wrote: »

At the heart of Europe.

Not geographically or politically.

Politcal gombeenism. We have no influence over the eu now at all really.

the people do in fairness though, i mean we kind of hold the future of this treaty in our hands

marco_polo

fligedlyflick wrote: »

my conceptions of the eu, pre or non pre are every bit as valid as your desire for a centrally controlled EEC, free from actually just concerning itself with dreary trade laws,
does the belief that this new treaty is not warranted not lack any conviction with you lot?
leading european economists reckon that we will do fine with already established treaties.
(i know how valued the opinions of faceless businessmen mean here so i'll just pop this in)

"The advent of 12 new Member States has not made the negotiation of new EU laws more difficult since they joined the EU. On the contrary, a study by the Science-Politique University in Paris calculated that new rules have been adopted a quarter times more quickly since the enlargement from 15 to 27 Member States in 2004 as compared with the two years before enlargement. The study also showed that the 15 older Member States block proposed EU laws twice as often as the newcomers. Professor Helen Wallace of the London School of Economics has found that the EU institutions are working as well as they ever did despite the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 27 members. She found that “the evidence of practice since May 2004 suggests that the EU’s institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly to the impact of enlargement.” The Nice Treaty voting arrangements thus seem to be working well."

Are you going to quote the rest of her conclusions from that paper, about how the increased efficency could very well be attributed to other changes in the decision making process within the EU, and her findings should not nescessarly lead to the premature conclusion that reform was not needed?

yiddo_til_i_die

Rb wrote: »

If we vote No on Friday things could be different though, as we'll be the gobshites who shot down a necessary reformation treaty without any legitimate reason to do so.

I don't knwo dude, taking a stand for democracy is a pretty legitimate reason.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

my conceptions of the eu, pre or non pre are every bit as valid as your desire for a centrally controlled EEC, free from actually just concerning itself with dreary trade laws,
does the belief that this new treaty is not warranted not lack any conviction with you lot?
leading european economists reckon that we will do fine with already established treaties.
(i know how valued the opinions of faceless businessmen mean here so i'll just pop this in)

"The advent of 12 new Member States has not made the negotiation of new EU laws more difficult since they joined the EU. On the contrary, a study by the Science-Politique University in Paris calculated that new rules have been adopted a quarter times more quickly since the enlargement from 15 to 27 Member States in 2004 as compared with the two years before enlargement. The study also showed that the 15 older Member States block proposed EU laws twice as often as the newcomers. Professor Helen Wallace of the London School of Economics has found that the EU institutions are working as well as they ever did despite the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 27 members. She found that “the evidence of practice since May 2004 suggests that the EU’s institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly to the impact of enlargement.” The Nice Treaty voting arrangements thus seem to be working well."

Looking up that quote gives me:

www.eiregobrach.ie - Hardcore nationalists
www.wiseupjournal.com - Appear to be conspiracy theorists
www.brusselsjournal.com - "The voice of conservatism in Europe"
www.teameurope.info - An article by Anthony Coughlan who at the very least has been proved wrong many times
nationalplatform.wordpress.com - Hardcore nationalists


Now that is certainly a reliable and rational group if ever I've seen one

yiddo_til_i_die

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

The Referendum will be noted for it's campaigns of ignorance and irrelevance.

I actually think it could prove historically to be the last time there is this much campaigning allowed by law, well maybe hope.

It can't be allowed to continue:
Vote 'Yes' for this thing you want.
Vote 'No' for this thing you don't want.

When neither of those things are directly related to the treaty.

probably right, sure your man Joe Noonan, the expert witness in the Crotty case came out and said that this could, in all reality be the last referendum of its kind, because of the nature of the treaty

fligedlyflick

marco_polo wrote: »

Are you going to quote the rest of her conclusions from that paper, about how the increased efficency could very well be attributed to other changes in the decision making process within the EU, and her findings should not nescessarly lead to the premature conclusion that reform was not needed?

no

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

yes for jobs isn't rubbish no?

lets say we reject again, the country is suddenly hit by drought, will lisbon 3 advertise itself as a rainmaker?
your just playing on current insecurities and you lot will never admit that FACT

No yes for jobs is not rubbish. A yes vote creates confidence and a no vote creates uncertainty. Recovery is built on confidence and recessions are built on uncertainty.

And no, the treaty cannot make it rain.

And putting the word fact in capitals does not make it a fact

yiddo_til_i_die

meditraitor wrote: »

The mechanisms of Government in those countries dont require the population to vote. They have government to decide such matters and these government were elected by the people to do such things .....

So in effect the people who were ELECTED to decide matters like this are making the decision. Like it or not this is how they do it and have done it for a generation! It is a democratic process.....

thats not what in effect means. in effect it is the government who are making the decision.

France and Holland both voted against this but it still got ratified by their parliaments - that kind of goes against the democratic process

Daftendirekt

fligedlyflick wrote: »

my conceptions of the eu, pre or non pre are every bit as valid as your desire for a centrally controlled EEC, free from actually just concerning itself with dreary trade laws,
does the belief that this new treaty is not warranted not lack any conviction with you lot?
leading european economists reckon that we will do fine with already established treaties.
(i know how valued the opinions of faceless businessmen mean here so i'll just pop this in)

"The advent of 12 new Member States has not made the negotiation of new EU laws more difficult since they joined the EU. On the contrary, a study by the Science-Politique University in Paris calculated that new rules have been adopted a quarter times more quickly since the enlargement from 15 to 27 Member States in 2004 as compared with the two years before enlargement. The study also showed that the 15 older Member States block proposed EU laws twice as often as the newcomers. Professor Helen Wallace of the London School of Economics has found that the EU institutions are working as well as they ever did despite the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 27 members. She found that “the evidence of practice since May 2004 suggests that the EU’s institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly to the impact of enlargement.” The Nice Treaty voting arrangements thus seem to be working well."

Do you have to make decisions at the EU level on a daily basis? Do you negotiate the terms of international agreements with delegates from other EU states? Do you regularly interact with the main institutions of the EU, and understand intimately the process or methods that they use when debating proposals or legislation?

I know I don't. But I do have to ask, why in hell would the member states have spent years drafting the Constitution and the Treaty, waste the time and money it takes to ratify it through their parliaments, and then go to the trouble of giving us legally binding agreements to make the Irish electorate more comfortable with it, if none of this was warranted? For the fun of it?

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No yes for jobs is not rubbish. A yes vote creates confidence and a no vote creates uncertainty. Recovery is built on confidence and recessions are built on uncertainty.

And no, the treaty cannot make it rain.

And putting the word fact in capitals does not make it a fact

it's the digital equation of shouting dontchknow.
that reply was straight out of the michael martin book on irony, threats and maybes.

the treaty cannot make it rain and it cannot and will not cure the recession which befell us under the watchful eye of the eu nor will it provide jobs. these are bedtime stories for idiots.

Sam Vimes

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Do you have to make decisions at the EU level on a daily basis? Do you negotiate the terms of international agreements with delegates from other EU states? Do you regularly interact with the main institutions of the EU, and understand intimately the process or methods that they use when debating proposals or legislation?

I know I don't. But I do have to ask, why in hell would the member states have spent years drafting the Constitution and the Treaty, waste the time and money it takes to ratify it through their parliaments, and then go to the trouble of giving us legally binding agreements to make the Irish electorate more comfortable with it, if none of this was warranted? For the fun of it?

So they can set up the new world order and stealz our democraciezzz, duh :rolleyes:

fligedlyflick

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I know I don't. But I do have to ask, why in hell would the member states have spent years drafting the Constitution and the Treaty, waste the time and money it takes to ratify it through their parliaments, and then go to the trouble of giving us legally binding agreements to make the Irish electorate more comfortable with it, if none of this was warranted? For the fun of it?

ummmmm, to placate us in our rejection of a federal european blueprint maybe

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

it's the digital equation of shouting dontchknow.
that reply was straight out of the michael martin book on irony, threats and maybes.

the treaty cannot make it rain and it cannot and will not cure the recession which befell us under the watchful eye of the eu nor will it provide jobs. these are bedtime stories for idiots.

I never said it would cure the recession, I said it would help. Your complete unwillingness to believe irrefutable facts and expert opinion on the economy merely because it contradicts this fantasy you have of an evil EU is truly mind boggling.

Tell me, if the EU are as evil as you say they are, what's to stop them punishing Ireland for having the gall to vote no?

Daftendirekt

fligedlyflick wrote: »

ummmmm, to placate us in our rejection of a federal european blueprint maybe

Even though there isn't a federal European blueprint in existence?

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I never said it would cure the recession, I said it would help. Your complete unwillingness to believe irrefutable facts and expert opinion on the economy merely because it contradicts this fantasy you have of an evil EU is truly mind boggling.

Tell me, if the EU are as evil as you say they are, what's to stop them punishing Ireland for having the gall to vote no?

Nothing.

The word is democracy, its assumed they respect it. Although this is not always obvious.

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So they can set up the new world order and stealz our democraciezzz, duh :rolleyes:

fligedlyflick wrote: »

ummmmm, to placate us in our rejection of a federal european blueprint maybe

Bingo! Everyone's in on the conspiracy except the people who have no evidence whatsoever to back up anything they say, didn't you know that!?!?

MrMatisse

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Even though there isn't a federal European blueprint in existence?

See the sig.

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So they can set up the new world order and stealz our democraciezzz, duh :rolleyes:

is that a sly dig towards my intellect sam? or is it the general opinion by yes voters what the "ignored last time" voters sound like?

how charming to be subjected to such ill conceived hilarity

marco_polo

fligedlyflick wrote: »

no

That is what I thought, I might dig them out myself in that case.

Sam Vimes

Really-Stressed wrote: »

Nothing.

The word is democracy, its assumed they respect it. Although this is not always obvious.

Then I wonder why it is that the same people who talk about the EU as if they were lying, cheating, power hungry dictators are so opposed to the idea that they might punish us for a no vote, calling the idea lies and rubbish. The two ideas are totally at odds with each other......

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Tell me, if the EU are as evil as you say they are, what's to stop them punishing Ireland for having the gall to vote no?

they are leaving veiled threats, whats to stop them enacting them, i think it's called bullying

MrMatisse

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then I wonder why it is that the same people who talk about the EU as if they were lying, cheating, power hungry dictators are so opposed to the idea that they might punish us for a no vote, calling the idea lies and rubbish. The two ideas are totally at odds with each other......

'opposed to the idea that they might punish us for a no vote'

If they did that they would be undemocratic

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

is that a sly dig towards my intellect sam? or is it the general opinion by yes voters what the "ignored last time" voters sound like?

how charming to be subjected to such ill conceived hilarity

No it was a prediction of what you would say in response to that question and since you did actually respond in that vein, I think it was pretty accurate

fligedlyflick

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Even though there isn't a federal European blueprint in existence?

may i stoop to 1337 speak and add a few LOLs, and indeed LOL.
there sam, does that fulfill your idea of a no voter?

i don;t believe in a federal european state arising from lisbon but i wanted to make you happy

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

they are leaving veiled threats, whats to stop them enacting them, i think it's called bullying

Really-Stressed wrote: »

'opposed to the idea that they might punish us for a no vote'

If they did that they would be undemocratic

Most of the no campaign are already calling them undemocratic bullies. So why are you so sure they will act democratically and responsibly in this regard?

oscarBravo

yiddo_til_i_die wrote: »

I don't know dude, the formation of the EU as a seprarte counrty pretty much...

"Pretty much"? Try "not at all". Don't take my word for it, ask the German constitutional court.

...and the bestowing of the title of citzens on the people is pretty big

I've been a citizen of the EU since 1992. Haven't you?

Daftendirekt

Really-Stressed wrote: »

See the sig.

And?

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Most of the no campaign are already calling them undemocratic bullies.

with good reason.