The most respected nation in the EU

imeddyhobbs · 02-10-2009 12:44am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So the possibility of future respect can be gauged but the possibility of future confidence can't? From where I'm sitting people on the no side 'perceive' the yes side to be saying that it is a sure thing (or more commonly that if yes means jobs then no means no jobs) because it's much easier to dismiss a statement when you over simplify it.

imeddyhobbs there isn't using the words possibly, maybe or might, he said:

He is predicting the future much more confidently than the yes side are and yet the same people who dismiss the yes sides claims as lies and rubbish and demand a treaty article stating it will happen are here agreeing with him. I just find it interesting....

I am here for a second time asking people to vote no,i shouldn't have to do this but i am,i find that even more interesting...dont you?

prinz · 02-10-2009 12:45am

namloc1980 wrote: »

TOTAL YES 26,661,082 53.94%
TOTAL NO 22,668,594 46.06%

CCCP^ wrote: »

45,950,000 No.
20,180,000 Yes.

I am not wrong, infact I am correct. Twice as many people said No to the Constitutional Treaty than said Yes. Could you tell me how I am wrong Prinz?

Infacteh... what? Care to explain where your figures came from?

CCCP^ · 02-10-2009 12:46am

gambiaman wrote: »

Remember, the govt doesn't run itself on opinoin polls but re-running a referndum on one is okay.

Re-running a referendum based on the findings of a survey conducted by a global marketing company with taxpayers money is ok. Actually consulting the citizens why they rejected is not. If 42% of people who voted No said, when asked in this survey by Millward Brown, that they didn't understand the treaty, then how the hell can our government, based on those findings, seek assurances and guarantees from the EU which have nothing to do with how people voted and what their concerns genuinely were?

Why not create a national forum? Ask people what they thought? Seek to actually inform people as much as possible of the contents and consequences of Lisbon? Would that have been too much?

I guess so. Jesus, atleast they could have asked an Irish company and kept the money in Ireland.

Sir Oxman · 02-10-2009 12:46am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think that all no voters are on a par with those groups, I'm sure there are people who have their own reasons but anyone who ever talks about their reasons for voting no invariably, and I mean invariably, gives a big list of misconceptions and nonsense. Nonsense such as this short list:

Yes there are people with valid reasons to vote no but I have yet to meet them, and I have been doing my very best. In all this time the only relevant and valid treaty based reason I've come across to vote no is the move to QMV which is a just a different ideological position but even that is usually littered with misconceptions, such as the idea that it applies in all areas, that it's brand new or that it's a simple majority of 50% population to pass something. MY mind is not closed, it's very much open. I have listened to everything no voters have to say both on and off boards and, other than the move to QMV, I have rarely even heard anything that's true, never mind a valid reason. If a no vote passes the surveys will be done and they will be littered with the above nonsense and it will make the Irish people look like gobsh!tes. The valid reasons will be there but they will be drowned out by the noise of bullsh!t

Sam Vimes, you always omit the uber-reason why people will reject the overbearing lies, conceit and threatening yes campaign - and that is, respect our vote. Respect democracy.
The Yes side cannot ever claim the mantle of democracy over the No side purely and simply because the utter pressure now being brought to bear on a small country that said No.

You may as well be another Frank Ross (I immediately withdraw the inference that you are anything like that man, but you get my point), who voted in the EP to disregard the will of the Irish people.

That is what this vote is ultimately about.
That is why I will Vote No.

Rb · 02-10-2009 12:47am

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

I am here for a second time asking people to vote no,i shouldn't have to do this but i am,i find that even more interesting...dont you?

Perhaps, instead of coming here to ask people to vote no, you read through the numerous threads addressing the issue of a second vote and see how the whole argument has been entirely debunked?

Scofflaw · 02-10-2009 12:47am

CCCP^ wrote: »

45,950,000 No.

20,180,000 Yes.

I am not wrong, infact I am correct. Twice as many people said No to the Constitutional Treaty than said Yes. Could you tell me how I am wrong Prinz?

You're completely wrong, and I have no idea where you even got your figures from (adding populations, perhaps?):

Option|Spain|Luxembourg|France |Holland|Ireland|Total
Yes|10804464|124749|12806394|2.940.730|752451|24488058
No|2428409|95967|15450279|4.705.685|862415|18837070

Total is 24.4m Yes against 18.8m No, even counting Ireland's Lisbon vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach · 02-10-2009 12:48am

On an evening where the quality of discussion has fallen very low, this thread is probably the most disappointing of the lot.

vinylbomb · 02-10-2009 12:48am

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

The most respected nation in the EU,thats what Ireland will be if a no vote is the outcome of Lisbon 2

Well, you have successfully achieved the title of most laughable poster on boards in one fell swoop, good work.

AtomicHorror · 02-10-2009 12:49am

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

I get your point. It's wrong. I think they were pretty baffled about why we voted no the first time, since our cited reasons were a mixture of things not in the treaty and ignorance of its contents. So I reckon they think we're morons now. Voting yes now probably won't help much, but if if the opinions of the rest of Europe are our main concern it's the lesser of two evils.

Not a reason to vote either way really, and definitely a silly reason to vote no. If a person expresses an opinion to me that I know to be contradicted by evidence and I show the person the evidence, I will think worse of them if they refuse to change their position.

So on that basis we can get rid of the current irish government..because we were ignorant at the time when we voted them in?

It doesnt work like that,give us a real argument ffs

I think you've missed my point by a fair margin there. This has nothing to do with the validity of asking again, nor to do with our government. I don't know what point your response was supposed to make.

You hold that Europe will see us as weak if we change our minds and vote yes. My point is that if Europe thinks we voted no because we did not understand the treaty, they already view us as weak, or at least simply wrong. So a yes vote now will not harm us in the manner you are suggesting. That said, it may not help us much either. Either way, the damage is done.

The only way that you could be correct is if Europe believes that we voted no because we genuinely disagreed with the content of the treaty. The evidence suggests that this is not the case.

imeddyhobbs · 02-10-2009 12:50am

Im not sure how to go about this but can people please stay on topic?????

vinylbomb · 02-10-2009 12:50am

CCCP^ wrote: »

Ask people what they thought? Seek to actually inform people as much as possible of the contents and consequences of Lisbon? Would that have been too much?

They are. Its called a referendum.

procure11 · 02-10-2009 12:51am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On an evening where the quality of discussion has fallen very low, this thread is probably the most disappointing of the lot.

Typical one liners...usually no substance !!

CCCP^ · 02-10-2009 12:51am

prinz wrote: »

Infacteh... what? Care to explain where your figures came from?

I got mine from wikipedia and thralling other google searches and BBC news. Where did you get your facts from?

Sir Oxman · 02-10-2009 12:53am

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On an evening where the quality of discussion has fallen very low, this thread is probably the most disappointing of the lot.

Thanks for your high falutin contribution. As always.

Sam Vimes · 02-10-2009 12:53am

gambiaman wrote: »

Sam Vimes, you always omit the uber-reason why people will reject the overbearing lies, conceit and threatening yes campaign -

No no that's in the bullsh!t category.

The yes side are for the most part not lying. All the experts agree that a yes vote will help the economy. The only people who don't believe it are those who don't want to believe it
The "threats" are warnings of consequences. The Irish government will not be doing these things so they're not threats.
You're confusing conceit with being correct. People who are able to back up their positions with facts and evidence are often called conceited (or arrogant) by people who can't
The no side's "threats" are a thousand times worse
And most importantly, this treaty is not about who tells you to vote yes or no. It's up to you as a citizen to inform yourself. Voting no to spite someone else is only going to harm yourself and the country

gambiaman wrote: »

and that is, respect our vote. Respect democracy.

And another one. You do not understand democracy. Democracy is not "NO MEANS NO", it works through compromise and negotiation. The Irish people voted no, explained why and it turned out we voted no because we were fooled into thinking the treaty contained a load of things that it didn't. How embarrassing! Then the government got legally binding guarantees that these things are not in the treaty and now we won't believe they're legally binding. How embarrassing! what a bunch of ignoramuses.

vinylbomb · 02-10-2009 12:54am

imeddyhobbs wrote: »

Im not sure how to go about this but can people please stay on topic?????

OK. IMO, Ireland will most definitely not be the most respected country in Europe. We'll barely be in Europe.

I have a no idea how you came up with such a preposterous claim, and have nothing concrete to back it up.

Sir Oxman · 02-10-2009 12:55am

vinylbomb wrote: »

Well, you have successfully achieved the title of most laughable poster on boards in one fell swoop, good work.

oh, I want to do what you just did.

'Most cowardly, sycophantic, afraid of what the neighbours will think' post goes to.... so many.

Sir Oxman · 02-10-2009 12:56am

vinylbomb wrote: »

OK. IMO, Ireland will most definitely not be the most respected country in Europe. We'll barely be in Europe.

I have a no idea how you came up with such a preposterous claim, and have nothing concrete to back it up.

Sorry, you use the word presposterous and say that?

What precedent do you have for this, after all we are an equal member of a union, n'est pas?

prinz · 02-10-2009 12:56am

CCCP^ wrote: »

I got mine from wikipedia and thralling other google searches and BBC news. Where did you get your facts from?

Could you link those please? These are others..

France: http://www.admi.net/jo/20050604/CSCX0508486X.html

Luxembourg http://www.verfassung-fir-europa.lu/fr/referendum/resultat/index.html

Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005

Holland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005

namloc1980 · 02-10-2009 12:57am

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're completely wrong, and I have no idea where you even got your figures from (adding populations, perhaps?):

Option|Spain|Luxembourg|France |Holland|Ireland|Total
Yes|10804464|124749|12806394|2.940.730|752451|24488058
No|2428409|95967|15450279|4.705.685|862415|18837070

Total is 24.4m Yes against 18.8m No, even counting Ireland's Lisbon vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think the sums in that table don't quite add up but the basic assertion is correct. More ppl voted Yes than No

Sir Oxman · 02-10-2009 12:57am

Rb wrote: »

Ok, I've requested that you up the tone of your posts if you're going to continue addressing me and you've shown yourself to be incapable of doing so. Good luck with your incoherent rambling, I'm not engaging with you on the matter any further.

Au revoir, Mademoiselle.

AtomicHorror · 02-10-2009 12:58am

I love the "threat" argument.

My Doctor threatened me with death once. He's forcing me to take my asthma meds.

"Vote yes or we'll nuke Dublin." Threat.

"Vote yes or we'll have to consider moving forward without you guys." Not. A. Threat.

CCCP^ · 02-10-2009 12:58am

vinylbomb wrote: »

They are. Its called a referendum.

D'oh. No, I asked why didn't the government consult people why the voted No? Not just go and hold the referendum again until they get the answer right. Did you get my reasoning at all? How can they figure out what peoples concerns are if some private company, with no democratic mandate at all, is tasked to find out why people voted No, and found out because they didn't understand the treaty.

They've just gone and said "Hey, here are some things people in Ireland might be worried about!". That's not actually asking people, thats assuming, but in fairness I have to say, they picked peoples fears, things such as Ireland joining some kind of EU army or abortion becoming legal. They just picked our fears and said hey that'll do.

imeddyhobbs · 02-10-2009 12:59am

vinylbomb wrote: »

We'll barely be in Europe.

Please please dont be absurd

vinylbomb · 02-10-2009 1:01am

gambiaman wrote: »

oh, I want to do what you just did.

'Most cowardly, sycophantic, afraid of what the neighbours will think' post goes to.... so many.

????

I fail to see how these adjectives apply to me expressing my opinions. They guy made a claim which is derived from no factual source. Fair game.

Sycophantic - In a modern context a sycophant (from the Greek συκοφάντης sykophántēs) is a servile person who, acting in his or her own self-interest, attempts to win favor by flattering one or more influential persons, or by saying lies against a fellow citizen for gaining a kind of profit. These actions are executed at the cost of his or her own personal pride, principles, and peer respect.

Cowardly - In general terms, it is the perceived failure to demonstrate sufficient robustness in the face of a challenging situation. Cowards are usually seen to have avoided or refused to engage in a confrontation or struggle which has been deemed good or righteous by the wider culture in which they live.

procure11 · 02-10-2009 1:02am

One simple question and I honestly want a straight answer.

The Irish have been given guarantees that neccesitated the vote later today,
Are these guarantees included in the treaty we are voting on tommorrow?

namloc1980 · 02-10-2009 1:03am

procure11 wrote: »

One simple question and I honestly want a straight answer.

The Irish have been given guarantees that neccesitated the vote later today,
Are these guarantees included in the treaty we are voting on tommorrow?

They clarify the contents of the Treaty and are legally binding which has been discussed at length on this forum.

prinz · 02-10-2009 1:04am

procure11 wrote: »

One simple question and I honestly want a straight answer.

The Irish have been given guarantees that neccesitated the vote later today,
Are these guarantees included in the treaty we are voting on tommorrow?

We are voting on the amendment to the Constitution, those guarantees are legally binding and are incorporated under that amendment. So essentially yes we are voting to accept those guarantees.

CCCP^ · 02-10-2009 1:04am

prinz wrote: »

Could you link those please? These are others..

France: http://www.admi.net/jo/20050604/CSCX0508486X.html

Luxembourg http://www.verfassung-fir-europa.lu/fr/referendum/resultat/index.html

Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005

Holland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_European_Constitution_referendum,_2005

Seems we used the same exact page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3954327.stm

Just so the figures on wikipedia weren't made up, I checked around, and they seem to be right.

Basically what I did was, I found the percentages of people who voted No in each country, and then found out how many people that really was. There was an overwhelmingly No vote in Holland, a decent No in France.

While Spain had a good Yes victory, it had a terrible turnout. Luxembourg is a very small country, so it's kind of peanuts really. If more people voted Yes, then why wasn't it passed in more than Spain and Luxembourg?

Sir Oxman · 02-10-2009 1:04am

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No no that's in the bullsh!t category.
The yes side are for the most part not lying. All the experts agree that a yes vote will help the economy. The only people who don't believe it are those who don't want to believe it

The "threats" are warnings of consequences. The Irish government will not be doing these things so they're not threats.

You're confusing conceit with being correct. People who are able to back up their positions with facts and evidence are often called conceited (or arrogant) by people who can't

The no side's "threats" are a thousand times worse

And most importantly, this treaty is not about who tells you to vote yes or no. It's up to you as a citizen to inform yourself. Voting no to spite someone else is only going to harm yourself and the country

And another one. You do not understand democracy. Democracy is not "NO MEANS NO", it works through compromise and negotiation. The Irish people voted no, explained why and it turned out we voted no because we were fooled into thinking the treaty contained a load of things that it didn't. How embarrassing! Then the government got legally binding guarantees that these things are not in the treaty and now we won't believe they're legally binding. How embarrassing! what a bunch of ignoramuses.

See, you say the Irish people explained why, I don't see it that way.

Why then would a sovereign govt ( I presume, compos mentis) go and get 'legal' guarantees to offset things that don't even appear in the treaty in the first place? Doesn't that embarrass you? It will on Saturday.

You are accepting without equivocation, the reasons the govt have told you why we (the majority in June 2008) voted No.

I don't.

The most respected nation in the EU

Comments