Nicolas Sarkozy plans to bypass Irish no vote

nobody

don't leave this one behind;)

m.

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

I think a major problem I had here and which made me post was the notion that I and all other eu citizens should be thankful to ireland that they voted against the treaty on our behalf, cause we are in the claws of our governments and couldn't help ourselves. WHILE FACTUALLY the main reasons that the irish voted 'no' are in most cases domestic and almost only concern Irish interests.
yet, even the title of helen's other threat suggests that she thinks she was voting on the behalf of other nations, while she is mostly concered with irish neutrality and sovereignty!!! (the reason, I guess, she thinks she did all of europe a favour might be that in the future europe might possibly become a dangerous superpower, that's the only reason that I can remember that goes beyond irish policy)

:rolleyes: Just when I thought we were all starting to get along... you go and do it again :eek: completely ignoring everything I've said and made up reasons as to why I voted no. LGT mentioned sovereignty yesterday and I SPECIFICALLY Said that was a road I wasn't going to go down. Neutrality has been discussed at length and was NOT even close to one of my main reasons... even so, I don't think sovereignty and neutrality are something that you could understand... if they WERE the reasons. And FACTUALLY???? HUH? Please, if you want to continue this discussion, show some respect for the reasons given here.

nobody

Heineken Helen wrote:

:rolleyes: Just when I thought we were all starting to get along... you go and do it again :eek: completely ignoring everything I've said and made up reasons as to why I voted no. LGT mentioned sovereignty yesterday and I SPECIFICALLY Said that was a road I wasn't going to go down. Neutrality has been discussed at length and was NOT even close to one of my main reasons... even so, I don't think sovereignty and neutrality are something that you could understand... if they WERE the reasons. And FACTUALLY???? HUH? Please, if you want to continue this discussion, show some respect for the reasons given here.

it was more like a summary statement...
and why am I ignoring you???
I said that a reason for voting no for you was that irish soverignty was something that is dear to you and that you are a afraid to lose...and now you say that's the case...how am I ignoring or misinterpreting you...

and you are ignoring parts of what I said too...
namely that you though the Irish are speaking for europe, while I say, they decided to vote no because of mere domestic reasons...not because they wanted to save europe...
is that false? can't we agree on that???

by the way...you said numerous times that you think the decision abut neutrality will go from the people to the governemtn...
you even said at one point that the lisbon treaty will subsitute the irish constitution!

m.

nobody

your threat title says
HOW DO YOU WANT ME TO VOTE FOR YOU EUROPEANS???

you didn't vote for europe, but for ireland...

m.

Rhinocerous Surprise

nobody wrote:

your threat title says
HOW DO YOU WANT ME TO VOTE FOR YOU EUROPEANS???

you didn't vote for europe, but for ireland...

m.

I think the thread was started to get a feel for how people across felt about the treaty, not to sway our own votes one way or the other.

nobody

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I think the thread was started to get a feel for how people across felt about the treaty, not to sway our own votes one way or the other.

yeah, but also in the thread it kept coming up, that ireland did europe a favour and so forth...that's all I'm saying...also in my little summary post;)

m.

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

it was more like a summary statement...
and why am I ignoring you???
I said that a reason for voting no for you was that irish soverignty was something that is dear to you and that you are a afraid to lose...and now you say that's the case...how am I ignoring or misinterpreting you...

and you are ignoring parts of what I said too...
namely that you though the Irish are speaking for europe, while I say, they decided to vote no because of mere domestic reasons...not because they wanted to save europe...
is that false? can't we agree on that???

by the way...you said numerous times that you think the decision abut neutrality will go from the people to the governemtn...
you even said at one point that the lisbon treaty will subsitute the irish constitution!

m.

You said:

WHILE FACTUALLY the main reasons that the irish voted 'no'

and:

she is mostly concered with irish neutrality and sovereignty!!!

Both of those quotes pretty much ignore everything I've said... and again you say:

I said that a reason for voting no for you was that irish soverignty was something that is dear to you and that you are a afraid to lose...and now you say that's the case...how am I ignoring or misinterpreting you

you are ignoring and misrepresenting me cos what I said WAS:

I SPECIFICALLY Said that was a road I wasn't going to go down

How exactly does that translate to mean that it's something dear to me and that I'm afraid to lose? see where I'm coming from?

And of COURSE we're going to vote for Domestic AND European reasons... several reasons have been given for BOTH of those. So no, we can't agree on that... and I'm not ignoring you because all these arguments have been given several times... and it's like you just can't see them or somethign?

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

yeah, but also in the thread it kept coming up, that ireland did europe a favour and so forth...that's all I'm saying...also in my little summary post;)

m.

well like I said, I'd quite a few people in Cardiff thank me at the weekend... let's not discuss figures but you have to admit there are quite a few people throughout Europe who were pissed off with their governments and wanted us to vote no. That's undeniable... now, whether there are more people throughout europe who wanted a yes than a no, we cannot discuss... cos we have no way of knowing.

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I think the thread was started to get a feel for how people across felt about the treaty, not to sway our own votes one way or the other.

I think the implication from that statement was rather that the other Europeans had not a say on Lisbon, neglecting the fact that 18 parliaments already ratified it and therefore, 18 countries already had their say.

The implication was that only a referendum expressed the true will of the people. Then we had the whole issue of the "truer form of democracy".

Which is completely false, because parliamentary democracy is equally democratic. And it was pointed out how referenda can be used for demagogic purposes as the mood of the people can manipulated in different ways [that's why it is illegal basically in Germany for federal matters]

lgt

Heineken Helen wrote:

well like I said, I'd quite a few people in Cardiff thank me at the weekend... let's not discuss figures but you have to admit there are quite a few people throughout Europe who were pissed off with their governments and wanted us to vote no. That's undeniable... now, whether there are more people throughout europe who wanted a yes than a no, we cannot discuss... cos we have no way of knowing.

we could always do a European poll on how people feel on the outcome of the Irish no to Lisbon Treaty!

Rhinocerous Surprise

nobody wrote:

yeah, but also in the thread it kept coming up, that ireland did europe a favour and so forth...that's all I'm saying...also in my little summary post;)

m.

That's how some other Europeans feel about it - that's not why I voted no though. Just like you thinking Lisbon was a good thing didn't get me to vote yes.

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

I think the implication from that statement was rather that the other Europeans had not a say on Lisbon, neglecting the fact that 18 parliaments already ratified it and therefore, 18 countries already had their say.

The implication was that only a referendum expressed the true will of the people. Then we had the whole issue of the "truer form of democracy".

Which is completely false, because parliamentary democracy is equally democratic. And it was pointed out how referenda can be used for demagogic purposes as the mood of the people can manipulated in different ways [that's why it is illegal basically in Germany for federal matters]

Or maybe it was to see how they felt about it in comparison to how their governments decided - what it basically boils down to is wanting to see how the people feel. Surely you can agree that not everyone would have been happy with their government's decision?

I'll say this: I'm extremely happy Ireland has to have referenda on these issues. I didn't vote for any of the three parties that are in power in Ireland right now, so I wouldn't feel represented by their decision at all.

nobody

lgt wrote:

I think the implication from that statement was rather that the other Europeans had not a say on Lisbon, neglecting the fact that 18 parliaments already ratified it and therefore, 18 countries already had their say.

The implication was that only a referendum expressed the true will of the people. Then we had the whole issue of the "truer form of democracy".

Which is completely false, because parliamentary democracy is equally democratic. And it was pointed out how referenda can be used for demagogic purposes as the mood of the people can manipulated in different ways [that's why it is illegal basically in Germany for federal matters]

exactly!!!

and Helen: sorry to point that out to you, but you have said things like those:
the treaty will subsitute the Irish constition -> loss of sovereignty
you are afraid big countries will have to much of a say ->loss of sovereignty
you were greatly worried that in the future the government could decide about your neutrality ->neutrality
you say you want Ireland to stay Ireland and not be socially and politically integrated into europe furhter ->sovereignty
the will of the people isn't respected, only in ireland ->all other countries should have referendums too...

that basically are the point you repeat making, or not?
what are the other reasons then, make a short list, except for the one that you think europe will become too powerful...

m.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

I think the implication from that statement was rather that the other Europeans had not a say on Lisbon, neglecting the fact that 18 parliaments already ratified it and therefore, 18 countries already had their say.

The implication was that only a referendum expressed the true will of the people. Then we had the whole issue of the "truer form of democracy".

Which is completely false, because parliamentary democracy is equally democratic. And it was pointed out how referenda can be used for demagogic purposes as the mood of the people can manipulated in different ways [that's why it is illegal basically in Germany for federal matters]

Again... let's agree to disagree on which is the most democratic? Cos I really cannot see your side and I don't think you can see mine either... so it's pointless.

And there was no implication... I wanted to get the feeling from other 'Europeans' and invite them to discuss it... which is the same reason I looked up foreign news sites to see if ours were in any way biased or leaving out information or if I could LEARN more from them.

Specifics

silly little irish b'stards, supposed to vote yes.

keep your heir on..:p

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

we could always do a European poll on how people feel on the outcome of the Irish no to Lisbon Treaty!

well polls have no standing so what's the point?

Heineken Helen

nobody wrote:

exactly!!!

and Helen: sorry to point that out to you, but you have said things like those:
the treaty will subsitute the Irish constition -> loss of sovereignty
you are afraid big countries will have to much of a say ->loss of sovereignty
you were greatly worried that in the future the government could decide about your neutrality ->neutrality
you say you want Ireland to stay Ireland and not be socially and politically integrated into europe furhter ->sovereignty
the will of the people isn't respected, only in ireland ->all other countries should have referendums too...

that basically are the point you repeat making, or not?
what are the other reasons then, make a short list, except for the one that you think europe will become too powerful...

m.

Yes ok, they were SOME of my points... the treaty will NOT replace the constitution... but would overrule it in a lot of cases and can be amended by parliamentary ratification in the future. Nothing to do with loss of sovereignty... but power to governments (just pretend to understand for a moment how important we consider referendums to be... PRETEND)

Big countries having too much of a say, well yes I guess that could be loss of sovereignty.

Government could decide about neutrality in the future - yip! NOT my main point again as I said.

I don't want Ireland to integrate socially and politically? I have never answered that one cos it's just too big for me right now.

I've made several other reasons... you've read the posts... you know what they are... you're asking me to repeat myself and start again? :eek: and you wonder why I get frustrated?

lgt

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Or maybe it was to see how they felt about it in comparison to how their governments decided - what it basically boils down to is wanting to see how the people feel. Surely you can agree that not everyone would have been happy with their government's decision?

But then it should have been worded differently.

And yes, I never said that everyone is happy with their government's decision. Of course, you would find Eurosceptics in any EU state.

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I'll say this: I'm extremely happy Ireland has to have referenda on these issues. I didn't vote for any of the three parties that are in power in Ireland right now, so I wouldn't feel represented by their decision at all.

That's fine. I agree referenda can be a useful tool but in very limited circumstances.

For instance, in Italy you can only have referenda to abolish current laws not to propose new ones.

It should make you think why ex-fascist regimes are wary of the use of referenda. They can be easily manipulated by whatever faction or whatever issue. Propaganda and persuasion at work.

Heineken Helen

lgt wrote:

But then it should have been worded differently.

Why? It's just a title... and an invite to 'Europeans' to join the discussion... and some of you found it

Rhinocerous Surprise

lgt wrote:

But then it should have been worded differently.

And yes, I never said that everyone is happy with their government's decision. Of course, you would find Eurosceptics in any EU state.

But she explained in the very first post that she was voting no, and that it was just to get a idea of how the people of Europe felt. Asking me "How would you like me to vote for you?" isn't the exact same as saying "I'm gonna vote whichever way this poll goes".

lgt wrote:

That's fine. I agree referenda can be a useful tool but in very limited circumstances.

For instance, in Italy you can only have referenda to abolish current laws not to propose new ones.

It should make you think why ex-fascist regimes are wary of the use of referenda. They can be easily manipulated by whatever faction or whatever issue. Propaganda and persuasion at work.

Okay, I'll give you an example of why I think a referendum on particular issue would be a good thing. Say I just turned 18 - legal voting age - a few months ago, and I've never voted in a general election. I'm in no way democratically represented by the government. Yet, if they make the decision on Lisbon, their choice will impact on me for a lot longer than it does on them.

I know you'll say that it's just how democracy works, but I think that something that changes the core of how the EU works could be seen as an exceptional case.