European freedom

turgon

Sink, I could interpret what you said as you believing that the Government "knows better", and that the citizens thoughts aren't important. But Im sure I'm misunderstanding your point - democracy is their so that a few elites cannot claim power.

molloyjh. in 2004 a number of countries (France, Netherlands, Spain) had referenda. They could have refernda now. And even if such referenda were illegal they could have a non-legally binding vote to gauge the publics' opinion.

"Sure if the Government could decide whether or not to have referenda they never have them!". That just supports my point.

molloyjh

turgon wrote: »

molloyjh. in 2004 a number of countries (France, Netherlands, Spain) had referenda. They could have refernda now. And even if such referenda were illegal they could have a non-legally binding vote to gauge the publics' opinion.

"Sure if the Government could decide whether or not to have referenda they never have them!". That just supports my point.

Those countries had referenda because it wasn't a Treaty that they were voting no and therefore different rules applied. The Governments could have an "illegitimate" referendum to guage public support, but that would mean educating and holding a referendum which costs time and money. Given the level of impacts that the Treaty would have on a day to day basis for the average citizen and given that they would be setting a very dangerous precedent I would hardly deem it worth the effort. Suddenly the precedent is set for any and every decision the Government ever makes. Either way I'm not sure if running a non-leagally binding referendum is itself legal or possible? And even if it is the Government would likely get abuse from certain corners saying "well its not legally binding so whats the point".

ShooterSF

sink wrote: »

The point the yes campaigners are trying to make but somehow missing is that we don't have to deal with electorate of the 26 other countries we do have to deal with their governments. So by default what their governments think is far more important to us than what their electorate thinks. That is if you narrow down your point of view as to what Ireland should get out of it. However civic duty would have us do what is best for all concerned regardless of what their governments think, and in my opinion the treaty is good for all concerned. I am not a fan of referenda on such complex treaties and therefore I accept that other countries prefer to leave it up to their national governments.

Even so, they need to respect our constitutional right to decide whether we ratify it or not and if not they have to accept we had just as much right to block it as anyone else. THEM'S THE RULES RIGHT?

If they're gonna become like spoilt children cause they don't get what they want that's their problem not ours. It's not our job to cater to outside bullies on either side trying to influence our decision.

turgon

molloyjh wrote: »

Those countries had referenda because it wasn't a Treaty that they were voting no and therefore different rules applied. The Governments could have an "illegitimate" referendum to guage public support, but that would mean educating and holding a referendum which costs time and money. Given the level of impacts that the Treaty would have on a day to day basis for the average citizen and given that they would be setting a very dangerous precedent I would hardly deem it worth the effort. Suddenly the precedent is set for any and every decision the Government ever makes. Either way I'm not sure if running a non-leagally binding referendum is itself legal or possible? And even if it is the Government would likely get abuse from certain corners saying "well its not legally binding so whats the point".

Ok, fair enough. I am just saying the for democratic legitimisy, at least in this case considering it is reforming, referenda should have been staged. But I can see why you think not.

sink

turgon wrote: »

Sink, I could interpret what you said as you believing that the Government "knows better", and that the citizens thoughts aren't important. But Im sure I'm misunderstanding your point - democracy is their so that a few elites cannot claim power.

The term 'elite' to describe representatives in a democracy is a fallacy. Anyone can become a politician and get elected. I reject the notion that somehow they managed to grab power without the will of the people. The reason I don't like referenda on complex treaties is because the public debate is rarely about the treaty itself. Unfortunately a thousand words of dull, dry legal speak is too boring for most people to think about, even the slimmed down summaries are too boring for some. So instead of voting on the treaty they vote on emotive issues which have nothing to do with the treaty e.g. jobs, abortion, neutrality. The elected representatives on the other hand are generally very interested in politics and are far more likely to put effort into understanding the treaty and it's ramifications, they should be the ones to decide on it in the interests of the people.

turgon

sink wrote: »

The term 'elite' to describe representatives in a democracy is a fallacy. Anyone can become a politician and get elected. I reject the notion that somehow they managed to grab power without the will of the people. The reason I don't like referenda on complex treaties is because the public debate is rarely about the treaty itself. Unfortunately a thousand words of dull, dry legal speak is too boring for most people to think about, even the slimmed down summaries are too boring for some. So instead of voting on the treaty they vote on emotive issues which have nothing to do with the treaty e.g. jobs, abortion, neutrality. The elected representatives on the other hand are generally very interested in politics and are far more likely to put effort into understanding the treaty and it's ramifications, they should be the ones to decide on it in the interests of the people.

Yeah I totally see where you are coming from. But just because some (maybe most) are irresponsible doesn't mean that we should all be stripped of the vote. And I think what fraction of the No voters are voting out of ignorance is overrated. Instead of dealing with the concerning issues, it is handy for the Yes side to claim all the No voters were ignorant.

molloyjh

turgon wrote: »

Ok, fair enough. I am just saying the for democratic legitimisy, at least in this case considering it is reforming, referenda should have been staged. But I can see why you think not.

There are 2 main reasons (and the little bit of devils advocacy that I'm doing admittedly):
1. Those Governments were elected by their electorate to do numerous things, one of which is negotiate and ratify treaties on their behalf. Its their job to do that. You have to remember that if not for the Crotty case we wouldn't even be voting for this either. So the only reason we are is because somebody somewhere here stood up and was counted. And fair play to him. There is nothing in the world stopping other EU citizens doing the same in their country. But its up to them to do it, and if they don't they can't expect anything more than what they've got. It goes back to the apathy in modern Western democracy really.

2. There are a large number of other, mainly domestic, issues that affect our day to day lives far more than the Lisbon changes would. Things like Health Service reform, Budgets etc. If every citizen should have their say in Lisbon, then why shouldn't they have their say on these other matter too? And if they were to would we ever get anything done?

molloyjh

turgon wrote: »

Yeah I totally see where you are coming from. But just because some (maybe most) are irresponsible doesn't mean that we should all be stripped of the vote. And I think what fraction of the No voters are voting out of ignorance is overrated. Instead of dealing with the concerning issues, it is handy for the Yes side to claim all the No voters were ignorant.

While it certainly true that not all No voters are ignorant, it is my experience that are a lot either mis-informed or truly ignorant of the details of the Treaty. I think the No campaign was deliberately misleading and the Yes campaign was nothing short of awful which only served to confuse matters and compund these issues. There is a certain amount of this on the Yes side too obviously. However my concern on that is that this race is going to be a tight one to call and that ignorance could make all the difference one way or another. And thats a sad reflection on our electorate and on our democracy.

oscarBravo

turgon wrote: »

Instead of dealing with the concerning issues, it is handy for the Yes side to claim all the No voters were ignorant.

For someone complaining about sweeping generalisations, you're very fond of them.

There's no question that much of the No vote is driven by ignorance; the polls have clearly indicated that. As for dealing with the concerning issues, several posters here have been doing so tirelessly for weeks now. It doesn't seem to be helping.

ShooterSF

molloyjh wrote: »

There are 2 main reasons (and the little bit of devils advocacy that I'm doing admittedly):
1. Those Governments were elected by their electorate to do numerous things, one of which is negotiate and ratify treaties on their behalf. Its their job to do that.

The problem here is ,and I can only speak for Ireland as I'm not versed on the political landscapes of other nations, to reject the current lisbon treaty by selecting our government which without referendum would have been to elect Sinn Fein into power, now I know most people dislike some of their domestic polocies. So should we have to choose between our european preferences or our domestic?
See both solutions have inherent problems.

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's no question that much of the No vote is driven by ignorance; the polls have clearly indicated that.

What polls have indicated that the No vote is driven by ignorance?

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

For someone complaining about sweeping generalisations, you're very fond of them.

There's no question that much of the No vote is driven by ignorance; the polls have clearly indicated that. As for dealing with the concerning issues, several posters here have been doing so tirelessly for weeks now. It doesn't seem to be helping.

It can be said alot of people voting yes have said so because of party affiliation or because europe has been good to us in the past... these points are equally as ignorant are they not?

As for the dealing with the concerning issues I empathize with ya man but the problem is you can't change them

VoidStarNull

O'Morris wrote: »

What polls have indicated that the No vote is driven by ignorance?

The Irish Times/MRBI poll in whch the NO side was ahead, showed that the most commonly cited reason for voting NO (30% of no voters) was lack of knowledge or understanding about what the treaty is about.

molloyjh

ShooterSF wrote: »

The problem here is ,and I can only speak for Ireland as I'm not versed on the political landscapes of other nations, to reject the current lisbon treaty by selecting our government which without referendum would have been to elect Sinn Fein into power, now I know most people dislike some of their domestic polocies. So should we have to choose between our european preferences or our domestic?
See both solutions have inherent problems.

Well thats looking at it a bit backwards. I'm assuming that a Government represents the interests of the people (or at least the majority of the people) and therefore has been given the right by the people to speak for them. This does not mean that the Government will always be in agreement with the people on every issue, nor does it mean that the Government are elected on the basis of their stance on every single issue. Your scenario presents the logic that if they are on our side on this issue then surely we are on their side in all issues and if they are against us on this issue they are against us on all, which is inherently inaccurate.

ShooterSF

molloyjh wrote: »

Well thats looking at it a bit backwards. I'm assuming that a Government represents the interests of the people (or at least the majority of the people) and therefore has been given the right by the people to speak for them. This does not mean that the Government will always be in agreement with the people on every issue, nor does it mean that the Government are elected on the basis of their stance on every single issue. Your scenario presents the logic that if they are on our side on this issue then surely we are on their side in all issues and if they are against us on this issue they are against us on all, which is inherently inaccurate.

I guess hindsight does have it's issues . I actually think we have a great system better than the rest of Europe in this situation where we elect a government but if they want to do anything against our current constitution they have to ask our acceptance to change it.

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

It can be said alot of people voting yes have said so because of party affiliation or because europe has been good to us in the past... these points are equally as ignorant are they not?

Not quite. I haven't heard too many people saying "I don't know, so I'm voting 'yes' to be safe." Voting because of party affiliation is more lazy than ignorant, and voting yes because Europe has been good to us is arguably an expression of confidence that this treaty is a continuation of the trend to date, which has worked out well.

I don't accept that either of these is a good reason for voting, but they're marginally better than voting without a clue of the consequences either way.

As for the dealing with the concerning issues I empathize with ya man but the problem is you can't change them

My point would be that they don't need to be changed, because most of the concerns have been shown to be groundless.

claudiog

molloyjh wrote: »

There are 2 main reasons (and the little bit of devils advocacy that I'm doing admittedly):
1. Those Governments were elected by their electorate to do numerous things, one of which is negotiate and ratify treaties on their behalf. Its their job to do that. You have to remember that if not for the Crotty case we wouldn't even be voting for this either. So the only reason we are is because somebody somewhere here stood up and was counted. And fair play to him. There is nothing in the world stopping other EU citizens doing the same in their country. But its up to them to do it, and if they don't they can't expect anything more than what they've got. It goes back to the apathy in modern Western democracy really.

2. There are a large number of other, mainly domestic, issues that affect our day to day lives far more than the Lisbon changes would. Things like Health Service reform, Budgets etc. If every citizen should have their say in Lisbon, then why shouldn't they have their say on these other matter too? And if they were to would we ever get anything done?

I think that simple things works better than complex things. To say that making simple laws let people to understand and take a decision, while at the same time are easy to manage, and to catch who attempts to circumvent, or worst violates, the rules.

2. I think that Lisbon do the changes in day to day lives. And yes, the citizens should have the right to say about on all the matter that involves theirselves. Is there no direct democracy in Eire?

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not quite. I haven't heard too many people saying "I don't know, so I'm voting 'yes' to be safe." Voting because of party affiliation is more lazy than ignorant, and voting yes because Europe has been good to us is arguably an expression of confidence that this treaty is a continuation of the trend to date, which has worked out well.

I don't accept that either of these is a good reason for voting, but they're marginally better than voting without a clue of the consequences either way.

I don't see how either are any less ignorant if you haven't bothered to read up on the issues. Voting yes because something was once good to us is not only ignorant but sheepishly dangerous! (Brings the drug dealer that gives you a first freebie to mind :eek: )

molloyjh

claudiog wrote: »

I think that simple things works better than complex things. To say that making simple laws let people to understand and take a decision, while at the same time are easy to manage, and to catch who attempts to circumvent, or worst violates, the rules.

2. I think that Lisbon do the changes in day to day lives. And yes, the citizens should have the right to say about on all the matter that involves theirselves. Is there no direct democracy in Eire?

The point that I was trying to make though is that we vote for our politicians (all of us) to represet us and make decisions for us. If we have to ratify everything that they do then they would never get anything done. The Lisbon Treaty will have little to no effect on our day to day lives yet the Budget that the Minister for Finance comes up with every year has huge impacts on our day to day lives. If we're going to vote for something that has very little effect on our lives (Lisbon) why would we not vote for things that have huge impacts on our lives (Budgets, laws etc)? Where does it end?

ShooterSF

molloyjh wrote: »

The point that I was trying to make though is that we vote for our politicians (all of us) to represet us and make decisions for us. If we have to ratify everything that they do then they would never get anything done. The Lisbon Treaty will have little to no effect on our day to day lives yet the Budget that the Minister for Finance comes up with every year has huge impacts on our day to day lives. If we're going to vote for something that has very little effect on our lives (Lisbon) why would we not vote for things that have huge impacts on our lives (Budgets, laws etc)? Where does it end?

Yes molloyjh but the great thing in this country is no matter what party get's into power it's not just unquestionable power they still answer to the rules set out in our constitution and if they want to change them they have to ask us. I know lisbon wasn't the perfect thing to have a referendum on but it was affecting our constitution and if we let them change the rules without asking us, then to repeat yourself, "Where does it end?"

claudiog

molloyjh wrote: »

The point that I was trying to make though is that we vote for our politicians (all of us) to represet us and make decisions for us. If we have to ratify everything that they do then they would never get anything done. The Lisbon Treaty will have little to no effect on our day to day lives yet the Budget that the Minister for Finance comes up with every year has huge impacts on our day to day lives. If we're going to vote for something that has very little effect on our lives (Lisbon) why would we not vote for things that have huge impacts on our lives (Budgets, laws etc)? Where does it end?

Sorry, I fully disagree with u. The Lisbon Treaty *do* will have an high impact on your day to day lives. At minimum because it will affect the level of taxation.
I'm really surprised that many of you, folks, have not pointed out this fact.
Actually right now the EU structure has a strong impact on your dat to day lives.

Claudio G.

oscarBravo

claudiog wrote: »

Sorry, I fully disagree with u. The Lisbon Treaty *do* will have an high impact on your day to day lives. At minimum because it will affect the level of taxation.
I'm really surprised that many of you, folks, have not pointed out this fact.

Lots of people have pointed it out. Lots more have pointed out that it's not a fact at all.

molloyjh

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yes molloyjh but the great thing in this country is no matter what party get's into power it's not just unquestionable power they still answer to the rules set out in our constitution and if they want to change them they have to ask us. I know lisbon wasn't the perfect thing to have a referendum on but it was affecting our constitution and if we let them change the rules without asking us, then to repeat yourself, "Where does it end?"

Sorry Shooter, I wasn't trying to say that we shouldn't have voted on Lisbon. However I was trying to say that many people here have said that all EU citizens should have had the right to decide if the Lisbon Treaty was a good deal or not because it impacted them. And this is a very flawed reason for a referendum given that everything politicians do impacts the people. The logic that "it impacts me so I should be able to vote on it" would mean we'd be voting non-stop.

Caludio, the Lisbon Treaty does not change the right to veto any proposals on tax issues so we're protected from the CCCTB thing through this.

claudiog

molloyjh wrote: »

Caludio, the Lisbon Treaty does not change the right to veto any proposals on tax issues so we're protected from the CCCTB thing through this.

Oh yes, let me tell me skeptical: this is theory, in practice I think there are several ways to swallow a bitter pillow :rolleyes:

molloyjh

claudiog wrote: »

Oh yes, let me tell me skeptical: this is theory, in practice I think there are several ways to swallow a bitter pillow :rolleyes:

No it is fact. We still have our right to veto any tax proposals, as do all other member states. There are several others including the UK that are opposed to tax harmonisation of any sort. Lisbon will have no impact on our direct taxation. Now from what I can see tax harmonisation may be a medium to long term reality (Although look at the US, they don't have tax harmonisation there) however Lisbon will have nothing to do with this.