Ireland Votes No

[Belushi]

People only want referendums or claim to be democratic when it suits them (ie when their aims would be met by having a referendum). But then we have a several massive threads on 42 day detentions saying how much this legislation should be opposed, yet would any of those people want a public referendum on the subject? No, never

I do.

 

[butchersapron]

People only want referendums or claim to be democratic when it suits them (ie when their aims would be met by having a referendum). But then we have a several massive threads on 42 day detentions saying how much this legislation should be opposed, yet would any of those people want a public referendum on the subject? No, never

Such rigour. I see no unsupported asumptions in this argument.

 

[CyberRose]

I agree, The first step should be a referendum of all EU Citizens to see if we want an EU and then we'll take it from there.

Well opinion polls show that most people in Europe (ie the EU) are in favour of the EU, so I guess I can be "democratic" and let the people "have their say" safe in the knowledge my preferred outcome will be met. Or do you mean have separate referendums in each country and the ones that have the most right-wing press can chose to leave the EU?

Oh wait, what's that? You think leaving the EU will be more "left wing"? If we leave the EU we will be living in some Tory wetdream so don't start wanking just yet - the EU might be workers' only defence against that kind of society...(but you can't see that can you?)

 

[phildwyer]

phildwyer, are you happy with the way the EU is run at the moment? Think it's perfect as it is? Or do you think it needs changing to make it better? The fact is, the EU needs reforming and unless you're fine with the current EU, then I don't see the logic in opposing reform in favour of maintaining the status quo?

That's not the point. The point is that the people of Ireland have rejected the treaty (as did the French and the Dutch, who have already been ignored, and of course no-one else is even being asked). Therefore, under the rules in place, the treaty is rejected. It is a non-treaty.

The response of our leaders should be: "the people have spoken, we are here to serve the people, and so the treaty is rejected." It should not be: "oh shit, how can we find a way to ignore the will of the people, should we force them to vote again or should we just tell them to fuck off." Should it?

 

[butchersapron]

cyber rose is the official U75 EU-ballbag btw - he's the perfect voice for it's anti-democratic 'we know best so shut up' approach.

 

[Belushi]

Well opinion polls show that most people in Europe (ie the EU) are in favour of the EU, so I guess I can be "democratic" and let the people "have their say" safe in the knowledge my preferred outcome will be met. Or do you mean have separate referendums in each country and the ones that have the most right-wing press can chose to leave the EU?

No, one referendum acrross the EU.

Oh wait, what's that? You think leaving the EU will be more "left wing"? If we leave the EU we will be living in some Tory wetdream so don't start wanking just yet - the EU might be workers' only defence against that kind of society...(but you can't see that can you

No, I dont believe any of that, but dont let that stop you making up lies about me.

 

[CyberRose]

That's not the point. The point is that the people of Ireland have rejected the treaty (as did the French and the Dutch, who have already been ignored, and of course no-one else is even being asked). Therefore, under the rules in place, the treaty is rejected. It is a non-treaty.

And you think that means they should leave the EU as it is?

Ireland didn't vote on leaving the EU, and they didn't vote on leaving the EU as it is. They voted on what was in the Treaty and rejected it. Why does that mean there should be no more votes on a different Treaty?

The response of our leaders should be: "the people have spoken, we are here to serve the people, and so the treaty is rejected." It should not be: "oh shit, how can we find a way to ignore the will of the people, should we force them to vote again or should we just tell them to fuck off." Should it?

Maybe they could find out why the Irish rejected it and take it from there? Oh no cos that wouldn't be at ALL democratic would it?!

 

[CyberRose]

cyber rose is the official U75 EU-ballbag btw - he's the perfect voice for it's anti-democratic 'we know best so shut up' approach.

I don't buy into all the bullshit that's said about the EU, no

And I assume the "we know best so shut up" jibe is because you find it difficult to argue against me? So a quick slander in place of an argument is your tactic? Tut tut

 

[CyberRose]

No, I dont believe any of that, but dont let that stop you making up lies about me.

So what kind of society do you think we'll be in that takes us out of the EU?

 

[butchersapron]

I don't buy into all the bullshit that's said about the EU, no

And I assume the "we know best so shut up" jibe is because you find it difficult to argue against me? So a quick slander in place of an argument is your tactic? Tut tut

No it's because you do one thing and one thing only, you stuff words in other people mouth them declare them on the baisis of those words to be undemocratic - you just did it to belushi above. Every single EU thread. I can see why you're gettiing angrier each week as the 'project' unravels though.

Nice to know that the concerns of the european population about the EU are 'bullshit'. See it's easy.

 

[Belushi]

So what kind of society do you think we'll be in that takes us out of the EU?

Why do you keep assuming I want to leave the EU?

 

[Belushi]

Or do you mean have separate referendums in each country and the ones that have the most right-wing press can chose to leave the EU?

Hmmm, nice argument against democracy.

 

[butchersapron]

I wonder if CR would be so anti-democracy if it looked like there would be a yes vote for the lisbon 'treaty'?

 

[butchersapron]

Hmmm, nice argument against democracy.

This is his anti-democracy argument in a nutshell - made time after time. People are too thick to vote the correct way so they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

 

[CyberRose]

I wonder if CR would be so anti-democracy if it looked like there would be a yes vote for the lisbon 'treaty'?

My point exactly!

 

[CyberRose]

This is his anti-democracy argument in a nutshell - made time after time. People are too thick to vote the correct way so they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

To be honest, my opinion of the merits of referendums for deciding policy are based on the media. I just don't think referendums are the "will of the people" more like the "will of Murdoch".

 

[CyberRose]

Why do you keep assuming I want to leave the EU?

You don't? I guess I was wrong then

 

[Teaboy]

To be honest, my opinion of the merits of referendums for deciding policy are based on the media. I just don't think referendums are the "will of the people" more like the "will of Murdoch".

I'm not sure if I'm that bothered about the treaty, I'm not even sure I would have voted but something dosent sit right in the way this treaty is being ratified. It seems as if everyone was originally offered a choice and have essentually been told they made the wrong choice. Something stinks here.

 

[CyberRose]

Hmmm, nice argument against democracy.

This is his anti-democracy argument in a nutshell - made time after time. People are too thick to vote the correct way so they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

I've made my point on referendums many times. I don't really agree with them because I don't see them as democratic as you obviously see them. Referendums are prone to becoming dictatorship by media barons, hardly the most democratic way of deciding things no? For example, if everything were decided by referendums women wouldn't have the vote and foreigners wouldn't be allowed to step foot in the country. I can see why referendums are seen as "democratic" but not many people call for referendums on everything, only single issues they feel strongly about

 

[CyberRose]

I'm not sure if I'm that bothered about the treaty, I'm not even sure I would have voted but something dosent sit right in the way this treaty is being ratified. It seems as if everyone was originally offered a choice and have essentually been told they made the wrong choice. Something stinks here.

Well if you agree the EU needs reforming, but you also want to respect the Irish vote, then for me the only way to achieve both is finding out why it was rejected and changing something in the Treaty and see if that is ok with the Irish.

 

[butchersapron]

Or you could stick to the terms of the actual 'treaty' and chuck it out.

 

[CyberRose]

Or you could stick to the terms of the actual 'treaty' and chuck it out.

But that wouldn't deal with the need for reform would it?

 

[Teaboy]

But that wouldn't deal with the need for reform would it?

But this is just binary thinking. Can we not reform the EU in a way that the voters (ie the whole point of it's exisistance) are happy?

Why is it the treaty or no reform?

 

[butchersapron]

But that wouldn't deal with the need for reform would it?

So what? It would be stiicking to the ruless as stated- that's pretty bloody important in itself. The need for reform/destruction isn't tied to the that specific treaty either and as such it's absurd to argue that this nebulous 'good' reform must come and can only come through this treaty.

edit: teaboy has it right above.

 

[CyberRose]

But this is just binary thinking. Can we not reform the EU in a way that the voters (ie the whole point of it's exisistance) are happy?

Why is it the treaty or no reform?

Well the Treaty is the rule book of the EU and if you want to change the rules you need a new Treaty! I think the main reason for the Constitution/Treaty was to change how voting was done to get rid of unanimous voting in several areas and make the Parliament equal decision maker. The vetos would bog the EU down as they were only really intended for 15 countries, not the 27 we have now. More vetos = less action taken (supposedly!)

 

[CyberRose]

So what? It would be stiicking to the ruless as stated- that's pretty bloody important in itself. The need for reform/destruction isn't tied to the that specific treaty either and as such it's absurd to argue that this nebulous 'good' reform must come and can only come through this treaty.

edit: teaboy has it right above.

I don't understand what you mean by "sticking to the rules as stated"?

 

[butchersapron]

I don't understand what you mean by "sticking to the rules as stated"?

I rather think you do you know.

 

[butchersapron]

Well the Treaty is the rule book of the EU and if you want to change the rules you need a new Treaty! I think the main reason for the Constitution/Treaty was to change how voting was done to get rid of unanimous voting in several areas and make the Parliament equal decision maker. The vetos would bog the EU down as they were only really intended for 15 countries, not the 27 we have now. More vetos = less action taken (supposedly!)

And now you're trying the same trick with 'action' in place of 'reform' - come on, we can all spot a politicians trick by now.

 

[CyberRose]

I rather think you do you know.

Yes. That's why I asked you

ps you're a ballbag

 

[CyberRose]

And now you're trying the same trick with 'action; in place of 'reform' - come on, we can all spot a politicians trcik by now.

When I said action above I meant the ability to pass laws or take action on a particular issue. Nothing to do with reform. I suggest you take your own advise and stop trying to put words into people's mouths...