Lisbon defeated what happens next ?

you notice the political commentators who aggreed with Lisbon are so indignant now. See the reason there was a no vote according to them is that the moronic sun reading lower working/classes were duped by Ganley the Shinners and the Murdagh press (and because they are naturally stupid anyway comming from as they do working class areas (what ever the hell that means in postmodern ireland). If only Dunlaorigh were not Ireland we would not be in this mess. Oh what are we going to with all those inconvinient working class folk and their mindless stupidity).
 

Thats the most sense I heard all day . Was surprised to hear areas being described as working class. Now I don't know what class I'm in. I regrett not getting myself an edumacation
 
Well for a start, as has been pointed out, proceeding with ratification where one country has rejected it is against the terms of the Treaty, although it wouldn't be the first time the eurocrats deceived us.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If Italy for example want to ratify the Treaty then they have every right to. Contrary to what some people might have claimed, you weren't voting no for the whole of Europe, just Ireland. They can ratify any treaty they please, and its no business of the Irish if they do or don't.

I think what will happen now is that the other 26 countries will go ahead, and we will get a bolted on legal agreement to opt out of various elements, as they were planning with Denmark for Maastricht. Then the Irish people can decide just how involved they want to be, and the rest of Europe can plough on with the project, leaving us hanging on to their coat tails.
 
not nonsence. in order for the treaty to come into force all eu countries must ratify it and as one has not logically whats the point in moving on unless we are going to be ignored which completly makes a mockery of the EUs own rules.
 
Sn@kebite said:
Hardly agreeing with you.
Click to expand...

And if the guy is not aggreeing with me let him offer a coherent counter argument rather than a somewhat banal sentence that actually means very little. My point is that certain political commentators seem to see this result a a working class rabble saying no for no reason other than their own stupidity and fears. I think thats a pretty simplictic analysis.
 
starlite68 said:
thats exactly right....the argument is yes vs no....so it dose not matter how many people are on what side.......there has to be an equal 50/50 balance
Click to expand...
That is clearly the RTE position. But is that right? It's certainly not the position of any other of the media. That's why I posed the rather extreme "ban on murder" referendum. Would RTE give Grisly, the only No supporter, the same air time as everybody else put together?
 
Political commentators have never been anything special anyway. If you (or anyone else) voted 'no' and are offended by them calling you stupid (which I am in no way insinuating) then that imo is quite stupid and infantile. They are merely "attention-seeking". It is rhetoric they speak constantly to promote themselves and get people to reffer to them like you are now and I am. "Controversy sells", and this is what they are creating. We are only doing them a favour by talking about them. Just my personal view.
 

I am not a constitutional lawyer but i dont think Murder is actually in our constitution. Referendum in irish law are used in order to change parts of the constitution. So in this resect it is very important to get the two sides of the argument.

And taking your murder example into account. I'd like to think our politicians/media/unions/church would be able to convince people with 50% of the time that indeed murder is wrong. Maybe not given thier track record
 

It is the position of all broadcast media. Print media are not under the same obligation as was evidenced by their overwhelming support for the Yes side.
 


All broadcast media are by law responciple for ensuring 50/50 coverage as far as i know. Im not sure about printed media.
 
Lisbon defeated what happens next ?

I think there will be another referendum before the year is out. It will be on the existing Lisbon Treaty with a lot of opt-outs for Ireland tagged on. However, the Czech Republic may take the heat off Ireland, as their President (a eurosceptic) believes the Treaty is 'dead', and ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Czech_Republic
 
well put television
 
Pat Rabbitte stated emphatically on Friday's Today with Pat Kenny show that the RTE "50/50 stopwatch coverage" was NOT based on any statutory obligation. He said also that no other broadcaster operated this policy.

He added caustically that if there is ever a referendum to outlaw paedophilia that RTE would presumably feel the need to put on a pro-paedophile representative any time the matter was discussed.
 
Sounds good but Rabbitte is playing to gallery I think. He knows full well that Referenda are used tochange our constitution. And would obviously never be used with such matters. It actually means noothing. As Far as iwas concerned the 50/50 necessaty came about because of something called the "mecenna Judgement".Im open to contradiction on that.
 
The McKenna judgement concerned government spending on referendum campaigns. It had nothing to do with broadcasters.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2008/jun/15/ten-reasons-why-ireland-said-no-to-lisbon/

 
"nothing to do with broadcasters"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!As RTE is run with taxpayer money Id say the mecenna judgement has something to do with levels of coverage.

And I really am so alarmed at the tribunes coverage of this yesterday. Froma so called serious broadsheet.
 
television said:
"nothing to do with broadcasters"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!As RTE is run with taxpayer money Id say the mecenna judgement has something to do with levels of coverage.
Click to expand...
I would be interested in reading any links you can provide to support your contention on this issue.

ps why all the exclamation marks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register