I had been leaning towards yes for the last few days but this article may have made

hatrickpatrick

up my mind:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0919/1224254860514.html

I'm heading off to vote in about half an hour. I'd like to see some opinions on this. My personal opinion is that if people like this absolute disgrace of a politician are to be given any more power whatsoever, the answer must be a firm and solid no. And if he wants to ask us again why we voted no, he can look at his own remarks for the answer. It's an absolute disgrace. No country has any right to bully any other country and the fact that Sarkozy wants this treaty passed so much says a lot, considering the fact that he's clearly a power mad despot.

Sorry for the rant, but this particular article really pissed me off, just caught my eye now. anyone want to try and defend this guy, or should I just ignore him and vote yes (which is the usual cry from the yes side even though they frequently cite the campaigners on the no side as a reason not to side wit hthem?)

cornbb

It is a pretty cheeky thing for Sarkozy to say. I wouldn't defend the guy (although I wouldn't go so far as to call him a despot, he was properly elected after all) but I wouldn't base my vote on what some angry shortarse has to say. There's nothing in the Lisbon treaty that would give Sarkozy himself more power, after all. And the fact that Sarkozy (and Cowen, and a few other miserable failures of politicians) support the treaty, doesn't mean that the treaty is a bad thing.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

up my mind:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0919/1224254860514.html

I'm heading off to vote in about half an hour. I'd like to see some opinions on this. My personal opinion is that if people like this absolute disgrace of a politician are to be given any more power whatsoever, the answer must be a firm and solid no. And if he wants to ask us again why we voted no, he can look at his own remarks for the answer. It's an absolute disgrace. No cuntry has any right to bully any other country and the fact that Sarkozy wants this treaty passed so much says a lot, considering the fact that he's clearly a power mad despot.

Sorry for the rant, but this particular article really pissed me off, just caught my eye now. anyone want to try and defend this guy, or should I just ignore him and vote yes (which is the usual cry from the yes side even though they frequently cite the campaigners on the no side as a reason not to side wit hthem?)

Sarkozy is President of France. I have no idea why you think the actions of the President of France should have any effect on which way you vote. Why not accuse Klaus of bully-boy tactics in going against the wishes of those who elected him? Why not accuse Cameron of interference for writing to Klaus to urge him to do so?

The answer seems to be, I'm afraid, that you only find such actions deplorable when they are aimed against the result you emotionally lean towards.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sarkozy is President of France. I have no idea why you think the actions of the President of France should have any effect on which way you vote. Why not accuse Klaus of bully-boy tactics in going against the wishes of those who elected him? Why not accuse Cameron of interference for writing to Klaus to urge him to do so?

cordially,
Scofflaw

In fairness no one seems very pushed about Sarkozy other than the French. I think he needs to shut his big flappy mouth. Although that said I basically couldn't care less about what he has to say generally.

hatrickpatrick

^ Actually no, I think it's a disgrace for Klaus to refuse to sign as well, although he is to be commended for publicly stating that he will respect the outcome of the Irish vote... But Sarkozy was also the one who more or less "ordered" us to have a second referendum. He may not be a despot in France but he certainly acts like one in Europe.

EDIT: Also there's a huge difference in their behaviour. Klaus is simply delaying ratification and Cameron was commending him. Yes, it's the wrong thing to do. But neither of those politicians has threatened anyone else. What "consequences" was Sarkozy referring to? And do they apply to us if we vote no?

ei.sdraob

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sorry for the rant, but this particular article really pissed me off

how do you feel about

UKIP telling Irish people how to vote and sending manure to each home

?

Rb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Actually no, I think it's a disgrace for Klaus to refuse to sign as well, although he is to be commended for publicly stating that he will respect the outcome of the Irish vote... But Sarkozy was also the one who more or less "ordered" us to have a second referendum. He may not be a despot in France but he certainly acts like one in Europe.

EDIT: Also there's a huge difference in their behaviour. Klaus is simply delaying ratification and Cameron was commending him. Yes, it's the wrong thing to do. But neither of those politicians has threatened anyone else. What "consequences" was Sarkozy referring to? And do they apply to us if we vote no?

Really? Is he really to be commended?

He is abusing his position in his country and their supposedly democratic system.

utick

considering ukip pay taxes towards the eu id say they have a right to campagn as much as any of the pro lisbon groups outside of ireland

hatrickpatrick

I'm not saying he's to be commended for refusing to sign. He's to be commended for insisting that the Irish result be respected.

I think the UKIP should damn well keep their noses out of our country to be perfectly honest. But did they ever threaten to "punish" us if we didn't vote no?

cornbb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Also there's a huge difference in their behaviour. Klaus is simply delaying ratification and Cameron was commending him. Yes, it's the wrong thing to do. But neither of those politicians has threatened anyone else. What "consequences" was Sarkozy referring to? And do they apply to us if we vote no?

"Consequences" doesn't necessarily imply a threat. There will be some sort of consequence whether we vote yes or no. If I drink 10 pints tonight and the barman warns me "there will be consequences" he is not threatening me, he is pointing out that I might not be making the best choice. The word "punish" isn't in there either, you are just choosing to perceive it. Sarkozy doesn't even have any sort of power to "punish" the Czechs. Although I agree with you that he should have kept his trap shut.

My name is URL

Sarkozy's a wanker

and no I can't back up that claim with links =p

utick

Rb wrote: »

Really? Is he really to be commended?

He is abusing his position in his country and their supposedly democratic system.

while i kinda agree he is abusing his powers he is doing things by the book not breaking any rules, you could say the smae thing about alot of the pro lisbon politicians acrsoss europe, so it is nice to see it go the other way for a change

hatrickpatrick

cornbb wrote: »

"Consequences" doesn't necessarily imply a threat. There will be some sort of consequence whether we vote yes or no. If I drink 10 pints tonight and the barman warns me "there will be consequences" he is not threatening me, he is pointing out that I might not be making the best choice.

He didn't say "there will be consequences", he said "they must face the consequences".

Sarkozy wrote:

“It will be necessary to draw the consequences – but those will be the subject of another meeting,” added Mr Sarkozy, who did not spell out any of the potential consequences that could face the Czech Republic.

That's not talking about the fallout from a rejection, that's talking about directly penalizing them.

cornbb

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

He didn't say "there will be consequences", he said "they must face the consequences".

Its the same thing, he's just pointing out that they will have to deal with the outcome of their actions, albeit in a blunt way. Its not necessarily a threat.

hatrickpatrick

cornbb wrote: »

Its the same thing, he's just pointing out that they will have to deal with the outcome of their actions, albeit in a blunt way. Its not necessarily a threat.

Read the article. He specifically talks about "drawing up the consequences at a future meeting". If that's not a reference to some sort of sanction or penalty, what the hell is it?

marco_polo

sarkosy = michael o' leary neither to be taken too seriously. He is but one of 27 heads of state of the eu. Not the boss

meglome

utick wrote: »

considering ukip pay taxes towards the eu id say they have a right to campagn as much as any of the pro lisbon groups outside of ireland

They have no representation or support in Ireland. The vast majority of Irish people like the EU and UKIP want to destroy the EU. They are only one step off the BNP.

If elected groups in Ireland get monetary assistance to run their campaigns that's one thing but the likes of UKIP can fúck right off.

hatrickpatrick

marco_polo wrote: »

sarkosy = michael o' leary neither to be taken too seriously. He is but one of 27 heads of state of the eu. Not the boss

Yet we're increasing his voting weight on the council of ministers whilst decreasing our own. You can't say his opinions are irrelevant. And that is actually in the text of the treaty.

marco_polo

maybe they will be the odd ones out in the 26 man commission instead of us

ei.sdraob

marco_polo wrote: »

sarkosy = michael o' leary neither to be taken too seriously. He is but one of 27 heads of state of the eu. Not the boss

They do have a few nuclear weapons tho

eoina

any one else have trouble voying today? i couldnt cos my name wasnt on the register even though for Lisbon I it was. I kicked up a bit of a fuss up there and all the guy could tell me was it was a possible clerical error and that its been happening quite a bit today (ha)?? im not a conspiracy nut but cork north central was one of the biggest no vote area last time round n ppl are disappear in off the register ha! im sure Bush done something similar in florida way back when. I just think at this stage its getting passed regardless! boo! shamon the nos!!

floydmoon1

Why are ye guys trying to defend Sarkozy.He already refused to listen to his own people and now he is trying to force others into the way he is thinking.

marco_polo

did you check the register? And why spoil this thread?

hatrickpatrick

For what it's worth, I wasn't sent a polling card or anything but neither was my dad and he says he was allowed to vote. So if it's just a matter of not having the card, bring ID and they'll check the register right there for you in the polling station.

rebelmind

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

up my mind:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0919/1224254860514.html

I'm heading off to vote in about half an hour. I'd like to see some opinions on this. My personal opinion is that if people like this absolute disgrace of a politician are to be given any more power whatsoever, the answer must be a firm and solid no. And if he wants to ask us again why we voted no, he can look at his own remarks for the answer. It's an absolute disgrace. No country has any right to bully any other country and the fact that Sarkozy wants this treaty passed so much says a lot, considering the fact that he's clearly a power mad despot.

Sorry for the rant, but this particular article really pissed me off, just caught my eye now. anyone want to try and defend this guy, or should I just ignore him and vote yes (which is the usual cry from the yes side even though they frequently cite the campaigners on the no side as a reason not to side wit hthem?)

Ha!

Typical, hopefully more don't-knows see this.

K-9

floydmoon1 wrote: »

Why are ye guys trying to defend Sarkozy.He already refused to listen to his own people and now he is trying to force others into the way he is thinking.

Don't think any of "ye guys" defended.

Sarkozy = Bono, shoe lifts and all.

Thank God the Irish usually run rings around the French in Brussels.