• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

EU Vote - When a vote can only be "Yes"...

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
125,746
Location
South East, UK
I've just been reading a report by the BBC of statements from Luxemburg’s Foreign Minister regarding his country’s up coming referendum on the EU (not a) Constitutional Treaty.

Luxemburg is to go ahead with a referendum despite the fact that the current treaty cannot be ratified. But een with that in mind it seems that he’s not that interested in what his country may vote since there can only be a “yes” answer:

"What is the alternative of those saying "No"? There is no alternative," he added."

(link):

New definition of a treaty referendum:

“You decide, vote "yes" for ratifying and vote "no" for ratifying"
 
Darat said:
I've just been reading a report by the BBC of statements from Luxemburg’s Foreign Minister regarding his country’s up coming referendum on the EU (not a) Constitutional Treaty.

Luxemburg is to go ahead with a referendum despite the fact that the current treaty cannot be ratified. But een with that in mind it seems that he’s not that interested in what his country may vote since there can only be a “yes” answer:

"What is the alternative of those saying "No"? There is no alternative," he added."

(link):

New definition of a treaty referendum:

“You decide, vote "yes" for ratifying and vote "no" for ratifying"
Click to expand...
That's a nice shiny straw man you've got there.
 
Re: Re: EU Vote - When a vote can only be "Yes"...

Kerberos said:
That's a nice shiny straw man you've got there.
Click to expand...

What strawman? He is saying there is no meaning to a "no" vote so it makes no sense for his government to hold a referendum on the matter.
 
Re: Re: Re: EU Vote - When a vote can only be "Yes"...

Darat said:
What strawman? He is saying there is no meaning to a "no" vote so it makes no sense for his government to hold a referendum on the matter.
Click to expand...
It's a straw man because he hasn't said he won't respect a no. What he said was that there is no (good) alternative to ratifying the treaty. Yes I know he didn't actually say good, but "there is no alternative" nearly always means only that there is no good alternative. Googling on "There is no alternative" gives among the top hits somebody saying that the US has no alternative to fighting OBL and the Economist endorsing Blair under the title "There is no alternative". In both cases "There is no alternative" clearly means "There is no good alternative".
 
(puzzled look) I don't think he means that literally, he just means that there is "no alternative" in the sense that he considers the ratification as the only reasonable or good option.
 
Well, it isn't like there isn't a history of repeating the vote until the people get it "right" -- c.f. Ireland 2002, for example.

The more cynical among us might conclude (from the above quotes and that history) that the governments involved simply plan to keep repeating the votes until the populace finally votes "yes."

N/A
 
IllegalArgument said:
Sounds like the guy has complete mental blinders on, can't accept the fact that there might be good reasons for voting no.
Click to expand...

Well he is taking about solving the problems.
 
asthmatic camel said:
Looks like it's all over bar the shouting. :D :D :D

http://www.ntlworld.com/partners/itn/world/story1167947.php
Click to expand...


That won't kill off the EU constitution, that only gets Blair (or Bliar) off the hook for a little longer. He and every New Labour apparatchik are so focused on "further integration" (ie destroying Britain's competitive advantage by turning every country in Europe into clones of France and Germany) that they will do just about anything to further that goal.

Why is it that when 1% of a country's population vote the answer is "yes" and when 99% vote its "no"?
 
Agammamon said:
That won't kill off the EU constitution, that only gets Blair (or Bliar) off the hook for a little longer. He and every New Labour apparatchik are so focused on "further integration" (ie destroying Britain's competitive advantage by turning every country in Europe into clones of France and Germany) that they will do just about anything to further that goal.

Why is it that when 1% of a country's population vote the answer is "yes" and when 99% vote its "no"?
Click to expand...

Can you remind me is it that Blair is a poodle of the USA and wants nothing more then the UK to be another state of the USA or that Blair wants a united states of Europe even more tightly integrated then the USA? ;)

I’m sorry but your criticism does not seem to be based on the facts.
 
Darat said:
Can you remind me is it that Blair is a poodle of the USA and wants nothing more then the UK to be another state of the USA or that Blair wants a united states of Europe even more tightly integrated then the USA? ;)
Click to expand...
That depends, Monday, Wednesday and Sunday he's Bush's poodle. Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday he's the Commisions bitch, didn't you get that memo? :p
 
Agammamon said:

Why is it that when 1% of a country's population vote the answer is "yes" and when 99% vote its "no"?
Click to expand...
And you base this on what? Three referendums on the constitutional treaty? If so you need a very basic course on statistics and statistical significance. Danish EU referendums have had uniformedly high turnouts, whether they resulted in a yes or a no.

REFERENDUMS HELD ON EUROPEAN MATTERS: [in Denmark]

1972: EU - Accession (Yes 63 % - No 37 % - Turnout 90 %)
1982: Greeland: Remain in the EC? (No 54 % - Yes 46 % - Turnout 75 %)
1986: Single European Act (Yes 56 % - No 44 % - Turnout 75 %)
1992: Treaty of Maastricht (No 52 % - Yes 48 % - Turnout 83 %)
1993: Treaty of Maastricht - including Danish Opt-Outs e.g. Euro (Yes 57 % - No 43 % - Turnout 86 %)
1998: Treaty of Amsterdam (Yes 55 % - No 45 % - Turnout 76 %)
2000: Introduction of the Euro (No 53 % - Yes 47 % - Turnout 88 %)
 
IllegalArgument said:
Sounds like the guy has complete mental blinders on, can't accept the fact that there might be good reasons for voting no.
Click to expand...

He doesn´t have an alternative - it´s his job not to get it. :)

No, don´t say anything. Us Germans, we weren´t even asked about the constitution, so it is my Darwin-given right to bitch about it endlessly.

We weren´t asked about the Euro either. Can you see a pattern here? ;)
 
Chaos said:
He doesn´t have an alternative - it´s his job not to get it. :)

No, don´t say anything. Us Germans, we weren´t even asked about the constitution, so it is my Darwin-given right to bitch about it endlessly.

We weren´t asked about the Euro either. Can you see a pattern here? ;)
Click to expand...
That's because you're untrustworthy and dangerous, just like WWII showed. So your constitution got a clause against referendums so you don't do anything stupid, and your politicians have to be foreigners so .

What do you mean your politicians are Germans, and Hitler was an Austrian? Now I'm confused.

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom