Official Thumped position on Lisbon (3 Viewers)

[pad]

I voted yes on Maastricht 1 and no the second time around on the basis that I was annoyed that the first vote was ignored.

Even if I had voted yes to Lisbon 1 (which I didn't) I'd be voting no now for the same reason I voted no to Maastricht 2.

i would agree with this if nothing had changed. I voted yes the first time round and would vote no if they presented us with the same treaty in the same context as they did before. But...things have changed. They have legal assurances now to assuage people's concerns about the treaty, so that's not really a good enough argument to vote no anymore.

 

[shitepipe]

I'd could see that if it were just one law or one discrete group of them but its literally hundreds of amendments to a series of existing treaties - many in contradiction to each other - neither "yes" of "no" or, indeed, anyone can figure out the full implications - which I think was what Cowen hinted at in his having said he hadn't read the whole thing.

For an auld philosophy student like me self voting yes would surely a complete leap of faith in the classical Kirkegaardian sense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith

(and kinda admirable in that particularly freaky sense...tho' I doubt thats how they'll be selling it!)

In a Europe that was truly democratic - simple yes/no binaries on a massive raft of complex legislative changes wouldn't arrise I guess.

On the other hand we're the only country who even get that

Provided we vote the right way of course

I guess we will eventually?

right?

kp

kp

totally agree- the combination of 10/15/20/whatever changes to existing procedures leads to so many permutations of what is/isn't possible under the lisbon treaty that it is almost impossible to forecast exactly how it will effect the people of europe

 

[nooleen]

Isn't this voting no the first time kind of equivalent to the way it used to be considered polite to refuse a cup of tea at least twice before accepting?

refuse a cup of tea??? TWICE??!!

 

[nooleen]

they issued a leaflet to every house before the last referendum. people still didnt bother to read it.

i did but i forgot what it said

 

[Bunny]

Everyone will vote yes this time, as we're in the poor house.

Thats the word on the street. And I'm always a walkin the streets, fighting crime

 

[MDR]

It will be comfortably carried all right. Nobody is in the mood for picking a fight with the EU, especially since EIB loans are helping to bail out Saab.

 

[Kermit McDermott]

The fact that so many people think the current economic situation, in Ireland, is as a direct result of the No to Lisbon result, makes me think it will pass this time.

That and the veiled treat of economic isolation if we don't vote the way the EU top brass want.

 

[krossie]

rat monkey

Not in the Indiana Jones sense?

No actually that summarises Kirkegaarde's leap of faith very well in fact the indy picture could save ya a pile of reading there!

Boken arm

totally agree- the combination of 10/15/20/whatever changes to existing procedures leads to so many permutations of what is/isn't possible under the lisbon treaty that it is almost impossible to forecast exactly how it will effect the people of europe

Even more interestingly voting yes might not lead to increased integration maybe even the opposite - its anyones guess!

kp

 

[GO]

Everyone will vote yes this time, as we're in the poor house.

Thats the word on the street. And I'm always a walkin the streets, fighting crime

God Bless you Bunny.

 

[IFF]

Because Kathy Sinnott says if you don't know, vote no.

also, according to ms sinnott, if you vote yes, you go to hell

 

[therealjohnny]

i would agree with this if nothing had changed. I voted yes the first time round and would vote no if they presented us with the same treaty in the same context as they did before. But...things have changed. They have legal assurances now to assuage people's concerns about the treaty, so that's not really a good enough argument to vote no anymore.

but they haven't changed one bit-word for word it's the exact same treaty as before


the Irish have been given assurances on things that were never an issue in the first place

 

[nooleen]

also, according to ms sinnott, if you vote yes, you go to hell

well that's win-win then, isn't it?

 

[Froog]

It will be comfortably carried all right. Nobody is in the mood for picking a fight with the EU, especially since EIB loans are helping to bail out Saab.

something tells me you're a SAAB man.

 

[ratmonkey]

also, according to ms sinnott, if you vote yes, you go to hell

You sure that's not Dana? That sounds more like her thing.

 

[Milker]

if it gets thru will it be the last time we get to vote on eu stuff?

 

[spuded]

For any one who wants to give it a go!
Libertas have the full treaty on their webpage:

http://www.libertas.eu/docs/The_Lisbon_Treaty.pdf

Bear in mind that awe inspiring 336 pages of gobbeldy gook is the official so called reader friendly version!!!

)

336 pages and not a single mention of legalising the blemmer, fuck lisbon

 

[rettucs]

if it gets thru will it be the last time we get to vote on eu stuff?

Yes. Thats one thing I do know about it. Theres a little clause in there somewhere that puts us in the same boat as the rest of Europe. For this treaty we're the only country that has to ratify it by vote because our constitution says that the constitution itself can't be changed without putting it to the people (written in Pearse's blood I do believe). Now that all changes. From now on, assuming it will be ratified (which it will be cos we're weak-assed that way), we'll be Europe's bitch for all eternity, or at least until we join the league of Arab nations.

Jesus, Irish people can be so infuriating sometimes. Imagine it carries. We'll be the laughing stock. Something is put to us. We refuse it. So its put to us again, without anything having changed. We accept it. What a shower of fucks we are. Really. Regardless of whats in the treaty or the rights or wrongs of it, the above is just not right.

 

[pad]

but they haven't changed one bit-word for word it's the exact same treaty as before


the Irish have been given assurances on things that were never an issue in the first place

they have been given assurances on things that were an issue for many of the voters. things like neutrality, abortion, divorce and taxation. the treaty might not have changed, but the context and the outcome of the treaty has changed dramatically for Irish voters.

 

[Red_Dog]

I remember really trying to find out what this was about the last time and all I could find was way over simplified info that i didnt trust.I asked a lot of people in work etc and most people didnt hae a clue.One or two people said they'd read up on it and it was all ok but i found after questioning them that they were unable to explain it and were just trying to sound clever by taking the intelectually highground and were actually as clueless as everyone else.

Hopefully this time there will be more info and not just scare mongering from both sides.

 

[rettucs]

they have been given assurances on things that were an issue for many of the voters. things like neutrality, abortion, divorce and taxation. the treaty might not have changed, but the context and the outcome of the treaty has changed dramatically for Irish voters.

I don't get that though. It was the treaty that people wouldn't accept. The treaty hasn't changed. Assurances sound weak in my book. To address the concerns of the Irish electorate the parts of the treaty *we weren't happy with should have been changed. Once the treaty comes into being, whats to say the assurances can't change/will be honoured?


* referring to those that actually know whats in the treaty.