I think the 'yes' lot have nicked it on away goals.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Lisbon Treaty - How do you want the Irish to vote.
- Thread starter little al
- Start date
I think the 'yes' lot have nicked it on away goals.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,826
such ignorance. "forget loss of powers", generation across europe have thought differently. past that history there are good reason we shouldn't want to be part of a federal europe, our law and way of life is different. im all for free trade, the ECC made so much sence. but why should i want an unelected, unrespresentitive, bureacratic "government" based in Brussels/Strasbourg deciding what is best for people as far apart, cultrally, politically, economically and socially as Athens and Aberbeen, Madrid and Manchester? ffs they cant even settle on one location, so spend vast amounts of money to dwarf the recent Westminster fraud moving between them. the corruption, expenses and inefficiency makes Westminister look sainted.
fork me
I have changed this
I was SO tempted to sign up a "Tony Benn" or even a "Mr. Benn" account at this point....
ATFC Seagull
Aberystwyth Town FC
Christ there is some retarted stuff on here.
Firstly, the original vote was a bit of a nothing referendum, as it was basically a vote of confidence on the policies of the government at the time (a bit like how Britain would most likely vote against Brown if he pushed a referendum on puppies for orphans). The majority of Irish voters always supported the treaty from day one, with only SF really opposing. Which I disagree with despite my usual support for them (Spanish, am I still on "thin ice"??).
Secondly, if you really think the Irish vote is so irrelevent, you are an idiot. Someone mentioned ITALY as one of the "big/important" EU countries. The impoverished South of Italy siphons more EU money that anywhere in Ireland, Portugal or even eastern Europe.
Thirdly - whats wrong with the treaty? Not a lot will change, but the EU will become less bureaucratic and more logical to the European people. I have yet to hear someone who actually UNDERSTANDS what its about give a logical reason against it. But who needs logic when you have the British tabloids?
Firstly, the original vote was a bit of a nothing referendum, as it was basically a vote of confidence on the policies of the government at the time (a bit like how Britain would most likely vote against Brown if he pushed a referendum on puppies for orphans). The majority of Irish voters always supported the treaty from day one, with only SF really opposing. Which I disagree with despite my usual support for them (Spanish, am I still on "thin ice"??).
Secondly, if you really think the Irish vote is so irrelevent, you are an idiot. Someone mentioned ITALY as one of the "big/important" EU countries. The impoverished South of Italy siphons more EU money that anywhere in Ireland, Portugal or even eastern Europe.
Thirdly - whats wrong with the treaty? Not a lot will change, but the EU will become less bureaucratic and more logical to the European people. I have yet to hear someone who actually UNDERSTANDS what its about give a logical reason against it. But who needs logic when you have the British tabloids?
ATFC Seagull
Aberystwyth Town FC
They could all be classed as "internal" problems. Foreign policy isn't really relevant to any of them.
Throughout history in Europe we have knocked the shit out of each other every 10 years or so. In 1945 Europe was more divided and ready for conflict than ever. Sharing resources has put such an atmosphere as a thing of the past.
Can you imagine fighting a war against France/Germany/Russia anytime soon? 70 years ago, you'd have thought of nothing else. Thats the difference the EU has made.
I think the only post that qualifies as 'retarded' is Don Quixote's one, for the rest I don't see retards, I just see people who resent having the wool pulled over their eyes and resent the creation of a bloated, bureacratic European superstate by stealth. This 'Treaty' is almost identical to the 'Constitution' that was rejected by the French and the Dutch. They didn't bother asking the French and Dutch people this time and the Irish, and by rejecting it the first time, have at least wrung some concessions out of the EC. (Would they have voted 'Yes' if the Irish economy was in better shape? I wonder.) Meanwhile our Government weasles out of a pledge to hold a referendum and Peter Hain lies and says it's "just a tidying-up exercise".
I'm guessing that most of us aren't actually 'anti-European'; I'm certainly not, but if there was a British referendum tomorrow and the option was 'ratify the treaty or get out of the EC' I'd vote for exit.
You have just proved my point my friend. I noticed you've totally ignored (and not copied) the second part of my original post. That's because you cannot give me one good reason - you just spout the usual Sun/Daily Mail crap about Europe. I could go on but I cant be arsed - just read ATFC Seagulls last two posts and you might acutally learn something.
And I might acutally learn how to spell actually!
Why do you think that everybody opposed to the silent expansion of the EC and the slow suffocation of democracy reads the Sun and The Mail?
What 'slow suffocation of democracy'? Examples please.
I know one Irish person who voted No, and he's intelligent, and reads neither the Sun or the Mail, so perhaps a bit less stereotyping from the likes of Martinf is in order?
Ok. Fair enough. Half my family is Irish and I know some would have voted no. The point I'm trying to make (probably badly) is that I'm not seeing reasoned argument, most of the time, from the no crowd - just the type of stuff that you see in those newspapers. If someone can give me ten things that I could do before we joined the EU that I cant do now that has affected my standard of living then I'll join the no crowd.
User removed 4
New member
nato and a common enemy in the warsaw pact kept peace in western europe, it was nothing to do with the EU.Do you know I really miss the good old days when we had a good, honest, world war every 20 years or so.
It might have slaughtered millions of our finest, but at least it taught Johnny Foreigner who was the boss man.
This whole peace and prosperity thing is hugely overated
Hunting 784561
New member
- Jul 8, 2003
- 3,651
NATO was certainly part of the mix, but one of the main reasons France and Germany came together originally, was the idea that if you had common economic goals, then you were less likely to fight one another to take over the other's resources.
To that end the last 60 years in Europe has worked well, and the EU has been a major part of that.
User removed 4
New member
that's certainly the reason it was set up, because the poodle french shit themselves at thought of yet another german invasion, but I'm saying that because of nato and the threat from the eastern bloc that we would have remained at peace anyway, I bought a second hand french army rifle on ebay yesterday, its never been fired and only dropped once !!
Hunting 784561
New member
- Jul 8, 2003
- 3,651
yeah and I bought an italian tank on ebay today with 1 forward and 5 reverse gears.
boom-tish...
as I said - this whole peace and prosperity thing is way over rated
User removed 4
New member
what's the french national flag again ? A white cross on a white background isn't it ?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,826
firstly, i didnt quote the second part because im not against free trade with europe, i see no reason to "get out of europe" in that sence. Im against further political union. As for apparently spounting the Sun and Mail line, i dont read them. I really doubt they go into the conceptual difference between English Common Law and French style of prescriptive "nepoleonic" law. I am also agains the undemocratic way the EU is run and constructed, so that the so called European parliament is little more than a (expensive) talking shop with no real power. just look at this treaty, a backdoor way to achieve the aims of EU elite which was thrown out by popular votes; dress it up differently to placate some or in the case of Britain and others so we have to have referendum as its a "treaty" not a consitution. This is how politics works EU style, power resides with a group of appointees with no balance or oversight. Would you support a committe of 30 Lords being the govenrment in UK?
I would like to see actual, cast-iron proof that further political integration is necessary or beneficial to either our economy or politics, without resorting to claims that anyone against EU is nationalistic or "little Englander" who only read the Mail. It funny, because alot on the left are against Europe too, so its certainly not really a Mail reader issue.