99 is higher than average IQ... A cording to some educators I worked with.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
These referenda you refer to are simple, simple things that any modern country has already got rid of without the need of the will of the people. We are not Pakistan ffs.
My opinion on those simple, simple referenda is had they been put to me I would be embarrased they were still law.
Lest we forget. When you had the same referendum as us you voted out as well. Although you were not allowed to leave either.
Since no one is willing to speculate, I will how about we make this offer
If we promise to be good would you be kind enough to give us Article 50 back?
presumably if it had gone the other way you would have been open to that argument from the leave faction and the demand for another vote
A few facts maybe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2001
It wasn't the same referendum, it was about modifying the constitution so as to accept the Nice treaty.
Such as a law, dating back 1200 years that one must be a member of a particular family and obey a specific religion to be head of state?..
No the questions as put may be simple but the consequences are profound, so in these cases, the Government put in place consultation fora over a few years, in which both experts, and concerned laypeople could discuss in as unconfrontational a way as possible the plausible implications. Our law requires that once a question is called that unbiased information be circulated ,usually written by judges ,on the effect and consequences of a constitutional change. Of course State money cannot be used by any party to affect the change, and parties ,which are entitled to canvass must use their own resources.
Please be specific as to what referendum the Irish people voters in to LEAVE the EEC or EU... I am including both, because I am not aware of any such. And I am old enough and did vote for Ireland's accession to the EEC
PS thank you Kiwi.. . You will note the significantly different results between the first and second NICE related treaty agreements. The substantial difference was the clause relating to joint military activities. The Irish people wish to retain autonomy ,and with our strong adherence to UN principles and association with their peace keeping activities , did not want to be drawn into a Balkan type war. We did however provide police and army services once there was a ceasefire arranged there.
Last edited:
Given Junckers undoubted skills, he'd probably persuade the Commonwealth to join Luxembourg.
.
Last edited:
You can't expect someone who doesn't understand how the EU works to understand how Ireland works Dan...
Yes, because as I've said from the outset, Cameron should have set an agreed minimum margin and an agreed minimum proportion of the electorate for such a momentous change or status quo decision to be made.
For just over a quarter of the population and just over a third of the registered electorate to make that decison with under 4% margin is ridiculous.
And that would have been just as true if the decision had gone the other way as Cameron hoped.
.
Pity you can`t get your facts right, the Irish have been shafted Twice via Referendums!
To the surprise of the Irish government and the other EU member states, Irish voters rejected the Treaty of Nice in June 2001.
Then...
The first referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon held on 12 June 2008 was rejected by the Irish electorate, by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%, with a turnout of 53%. The second referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon held on 2 October 2009 and the proposal was approved by 67.1% to 32.9%, with a turnout of 59%.
Asking the Irish to vote again on the Lisbon treaty is arrogant, insulting and undemocratic
Sat 13 Dec 2008 16.00 GMT
In June this year, 53.4% of Irish voters rejected the Lisbon treaty, against 46.6% who supported it (giving the "No" camp a "sweeping victory" similar to Obama's). Yet now the Irish will be asked to vote again. EU officials' behind-doors deal to force a second referendum in Ireland reveals their utter contempt for Irish voters, and for democracy itself. It is an historic sucker punch against the sovereignty of the people.
As soon as the Irish people's ballots were counted in June, their rejection of Lisbon was treated as the "wrong" answer, as if they had been taking part in a multiple-choice maths exam and had failed to work out that 2+2=4. Now, they will be given a chance to sit the exam again, "until [they] come up with the right answer," says George Galloway, attacking EU elitism. The notion that the Irish "got it wrong" exposes gobsmacking ignorance about democracy in the upper echelons of the EU. The very fact that a majority of Irish people said no to Lisbon made it the "right answer", true and sovereign and final. "No" really does mean no.
The Irish were subjected to a tirade of slanderous abuse when they dared to reject officials' carefully crafted and profound (in truth, overlong and turgid) document on the future of the EU. One Brussels official described them as "ungrateful bastards", on the basis that Ireland has received lots of handouts from the EU and thus should be more obedient to its paymaster. Pro-EU commentators blamed "populist demagogues" for cajoling the Irish into voting no, and said the EU's plans should not be "derailed by lies and disinformation".
It was widely claimed that the Irish simply didn't understand the treaty, and may have been confused by its "technocratic, near incomprehensible language" (well, they are ignorant Paddies, after all). Some claimed that the Irish mistakenly, possibly even illegitimately, had used the referendum to register disgruntlement with their own ruling parties. Margot Wallström, vice-president of the European Commission, said officials should try to "work out what the Irish people had really been voting against". I would have thought that was obvious: they were handed the Lisbon treaty; they said no to it.
We've been here before. When French and Dutch voters rejected the European constitution in 2005 (and according to Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the current Lisbon treaty is the "same as the constitution"), they were sneeringly insulted by their betters in Brussels. Neil Kinnock said it was a "triumph of ignorance". Andrew Duff, Liberal Democrat MEP, labelled the "rejectionists" as an "odd bunch of racists, xenophobes, nationalists, communists, the disappointed centre left and the generally pissed off". He asked whether it is wise to "submit the EU Constitution to a lottery of uncoordinated national plebiscites".
Yes, we'd offer to walk away and not be a nuisance any more.
I'm sure they'd accept.
.
Cameron was an idiot offering the referendum,he compounded his stupidity by not specifying a clear margin to win,maybe 20% in front.....that would have meant 3.5 million on 17.5 million.
We could have had the ridiculous situation that Leave or Remain won by 2 votes,despite umpteen recounts....who would have won then??
It was effectively a draw and with all the legal problems and Boris/Farage/Gove lies should have been declared void.
KudosDave
We could have had the ridiculous situation that Leave or Remain won by 2 votes,despite umpteen recounts....who would have won then??
It was effectively a draw and with all the legal problems and Boris/Farage/Gove lies should have been declared void.
KudosDave
Luxembourg is the home of Amazon....enough said!!!
If UKIP had not got itself in such a mess it would have been in a position to exploit the current situation and a lot may move towards it. And while we are talking about the vagaries of our voting system, is it not true that in the 2015 election ukip polled 3,881,099 votes 12.6% and got one seat Lib dems 2,415,916 7.9% and got 8 seats SNP 1,454,436 4.7%. and got 56seats Seems to me that the referendum gave a much more democratic result than any GE. Cameron made it part of his manifesto to give the country a referendum. (I don't think he expected to win but was left with no option but to deliver)
They said they would honour the result. In the 2016 GE both main parties stood on a platform of leaving the EU, and we know how that's ended up. People on here who are calling people who voted leave idiots are vilifying the wrong people, who did as they were asked. They were promised the outcome would be respected and all the talk about it not being representative is not correct in the context of the referendum I wouldn't be surprised to see another party emerge from the chaos and people may well gravitate towards it
.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
And like me you know what happened between the first and second referendum, a couple of clauses of the treaty were rewritten according to Irish wishes. And there were no lies told by the "No" camp in the campaign running up to the referendum? Remind you of something?
Thank-you that is correct now - there were TWO !
(you could of course have mentioned that to begin with, but it wouldn`t have suited your narrative)
Thankfully the DUP won`t be inheriting your Stockholm Syndrome !