The people of Ireland have spoken.

dresden8

Rest assured I am pissed off that FF have been in power for 11 years now. I feel the voters were ill-informed, stupid and lazy, but I've had to suck it up.

Now that's respecting the vote.

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

Rest assured I am pissed off that FF have been in power for 11 years now. I feel the voters were ill-informed, stupid and lazy, but I've had to suck it up.

Now that's respecting the vote.

Dresden, noone is talking about the vote right now. They are talking about what must/should happen now that the result has come in, i.e. that feedback must be presented so we can figure out where to go from here.

Dyr

molloyjh wrote: »

Given that the No vote is, in a sense, destructive, given that it halts the reform that the EU has been working towards, it is only fair that those who turn it down explain why and what they would rather see in its place, if anything. Its the grown-up mature thing to do. The whole "No means No" and blocking your ears and refusing to say anything other than No is quite child-like.

But in a more real sense the no vote wasnt destructive. The govt asked for permission to change the constitution, they failed to make a compelling case for the changes and permission was denied, maintaining the status quo is not destructive. The voters do not have to come up with some alternative path to get this country to where you'd like us to go.

And where did this idea of "fair" come from? That the voters of this country should be called to account by the self appointed abritrars of all that is right thinking as though they're naughty children is nonsense.

The thing that a lot of people either don't understand or don't want to see is that voters have responsibilities as well as rights. Along with our right to vote we have the responsibility to inform ourselves on the matter(s) at hand and the responsibility to inform our representatives of why we voted the way we did if we voted against something. How can they represent us otherwise?

Is that enshrined in the constitution or law? You're just making it up at this stage, the voters of this country have the right to vote as they see fit, they're not answerable to you or to our politicians, quite the opposite in fact.

tbh the yes camp are starting to sound like children who didnt get their way. "but why not" "but its not fair". Boo hoo.

djpbarry

Bambi wrote: »

The voters do not have to come up with some alternative path to get this country to where you'd like us to go.

They have to come up with something - how else are the government to know what to do next?

Bambi wrote: »

You're just making it up at this stage, the voters of this country have the right to vote as they see fit, they're not answerable to you or to our politicians, quite the opposite in fact.

So the all-knowing voters of this country can not be questioned under any circumstances? Strange...

The all-knowing voters elect the government, who then negotiate a treaty that they feel accurately reflects the wishes of the all-knowing. The all-knowing voters then reject said treaty. So either the voters were not quite so infallible when they elected the government or they were not quite so infallible when they voted on the treaty, or both.

molloyjh

Bambi wrote: »

The voters do not have to come up with some alternative path to get this country to where you'd like us to go.

I never said they did. I did say that for our representatives to actually be able to represent us they need to know what we as a people found so bad about the Treaty. How else could they possibly represent us? Its not like divine inspiration is an option, although by refusing to discuss why you voted No it would seem that there's very little else in the way of options available to them.

Bambi wrote: »

That the voters of this country should be called to account by the self appointed abritrars of all that is right thinking as though they're naughty children is nonsense.

It would be, luckily I never said anything of the sort. See above.

Bambi wrote: »

Is that enshrined in the constitution or law?

Are manners or common decency and courtesy enshrined anywhere in law or in the Constitution? If not then why should anyone practice them? It's just logical and reasonable that if you vote you know what you're talking about and if you're vote doesn't match what you representatives think, that you tell them where the difference is so they can do their job.

Bambi wrote: »

they're not answerable to you or to our politicians, quite the opposite in fact.

I never said they were, I just said that for the system to work right there are things that voters must do. It is not a legal thing but a logical step to ensure we get the most from our system.

Bambi wrote: »

tbh the yes camp are starting to sound like children who didnt get their way. "but why not" "but its not fair". Boo hoo.

Yes, how dare we question a decision and have minds of our own. I don't wsee anywhere in my post that says a No vote is "not fair" though. Yet again more drama, little real content.

Kama

Given that the No vote is unlikely to form a coherent interest bloc ( no I don't *know* this, but it seems a safe bet :rolleyes:) asking for a 'What No's Want' proposal to substitute for the Lisbon Treaty seems a request designed not to be answered. At most, people can voice their objections to the Constitution/Reform Treaty content; the demand to produce a superior treaty seems rhetorical rather than productive.

As has been said before, the onus on the Yes remains to convince the rest of us; the trend toward denigrating the voters does the exact opposite for me anyway tbh.

djpbarry

Kama wrote: »

...the onus on the Yes remains to convince the rest of us...

I would be of the opinion that many on the 'No' side (certainly on the evidence of what I have read here) do not want to be convinced. The majority of "reasons" given for voting 'No' (e.g. lack of available information on the treaty) are not reasons at all, but excuses.

Scofflaw

Bambi wrote: »

But in a more real sense the no vote wasnt destructive. The govt asked for permission to change the constitution, they failed to make a compelling case for the changes and permission was denied, maintaining the status quo is not destructive. The voters do not have to come up with some alternative path to get this country to where you'd like us to go.

That might be the case if there were no external pressure - but there is.

It is not the Yes camp that requires a solution or way forward here, but another 26 countries. The Irish No is quite sufficient to stop Ireland seeking a way forward for itself, but has no application in preventing our 26 partners from doing so. Thus, we remain under external pressure, and a reiterated "no means no" is entirely inadequate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Kama wrote: »

Given that the No vote is unlikely to form a coherent interest bloc ( no I don't *know* this, but it seems a safe bet :rolleyes:) asking for a 'What No's Want' proposal to substitute for the Lisbon Treaty seems a request designed not to be answered. At most, people can voice their objections to the Constitution/Reform Treaty content; the demand to produce a superior treaty seems rhetorical rather than productive.

You're right, there is no one cohesive No vote, however the No voters need to make their individual voices heard so that they can be counted. They have done already with the No, but they now need to say what was so wrong with the Treaty so that the Government can go about soming up with a plan for moving forward.

Kama wrote: »

As has been said before, the onus on the Yes remains to convince the rest of us; the trend toward denigrating the voters does the exact opposite for me anyway tbh.

I don't think the Yes side have any responsibility now really. Whats the point in convincing people after the fact? If another referendum is called then the Yes campaign will need to up their game, but until then it really is up to the No voters (given that they are the majority and are the ones who have made the decision regarding the Treaty) to put across their opinion in more detail.

I have tried (with varying degrees of success) to be as balanced as I can regarding the "sides" but these are the inescapable facts. We have to go somewhere from here and there's no point in me saying where as I do not represent the majority.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did you support the right of the majority Unionist electorate in Northern Ireland to say "Ulster Says No"? Was it OK to deny the minority civil rights, because the majority wanted to? My problem right now is with posters refusing to answer difficult questions, even when they're framed as simple "yes/no" ones.

dresden8 wrote: »

Rest assured I am pissed off that FF have been in power for 11 years now. I feel the voters were ill-informed, stupid and lazy, but I've had to suck it up.

Now that's respecting the vote.

Astonishingly, the direct yes/no question remains unanswered. I wonder why that is?

dresden8

Oh, OB, no, it wasn't right, you win, you're the smartest.

But by comparing a no vote to Lisbon with Gerrymandering, police brutality and state backed murder in the North you really are taking the piss.

All this was of course tolerated, enabled and encouraged by one of the governments you say we should acquiesce to and reconsider our vote for. A government who told the Irish government to f**k off when our government was investigating the largest case of mass murder in the south. A government who knew well their people were involved.

Of course we should make things easy for them in the spirit of friendliness and taking it up the ass.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Oh, OB, no, it wasn't right, you win, you're the smartest.

But by comparing a no vote to Lisbon with Gerrymandering, police brutality and state backed murder in the North you really are taking the piss.

All this was of course tolerated, enabled and encouraged by one of the governments you say we should acquiesce to and reconsider our vote for.

Wait a second - you're saying the majority is always unquestionably right, unless it happens to be a majority you disagree with?

Isn't that precisely what you've been accusing me of?

dresden8

I'm convinced.

The minority should rule.

dresden8

Preferably the rich. They're so much smarter than all us plebs. Preferably rich Germans because they're so smart and efficient.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

I'm convinced.

The minority should rule.

I'm not sure why you're convinced of that, since I certainly haven't advocated it.

Or was it just a smart-arsed throwaway remark to avoid having to deal with the fact that your position has been shown to be hypocritical?

My entire point, all along, has been that majorities are not infallible, and that that is the inescapable flaw in democracy. The good news is that a liberal democracy permits the minority to question the majority, that people are allowed to change their minds, and that people are allowed to persuade people to change their minds.

Of course, some people will never change their minds, even when their position has been clearly demonstrated to be inconsistent and illogical, but that's life.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Preferably the rich. They're so much smarter than all us plebs. Preferably rich Germans because they're so smart and efficient.

I don't care whether someone is rich or poor, German or Irish. I'd much rather deal with a poor Irish person who's prepared to open his mind than a rich German who's so entrenched in his position he refuses point-blank to even entertain a reasoned discussion.

dresden8

What you're advocating is that the vote should be overturned as soon as possible because no voters are idiots who don't understand, abortion, conscription, 12 year olds being forced to have abortions, Libertas yadda yadda ad bleedin' infinitum.

Kama

Oscar, I don't think anti-civil rights majoritarianism is a fair comparison. I agree the point, that a majority doesn't have to be an ethically superior position. But we haven't impinged on anyones civil rights by voting no; its an unnecessarily emotive comparison. No I don't support the Unionist policy, nor apartheid S. Africa. Neither did I support ther Lisbon Treaty. Equally, the majoritarian argument has been made in the opposite direction, that the Irish few cannot sabotage the European many.

Equally, it isn't that when one makes a decision you are infallible, Popes excepted. Question all you like; but its easier to convince others when you don't say 'you're illogical' or 'just plain wrong'. Its a unproductive approach, kicks in a load of lizard-brain territorial reactions.

djpbarry wrote:

I would be of the opinion that many on the 'No' side (certainly on the evidence of what I have read here) do not want to be convinced.

The debate sems pretty partisan to say the least; perhaps I should have been more long-winded and put 'of those who can be convinced'. Both sides will ofc have diehards, but thats not the point.

I can only speak for myself, was out of the country and missed it. Started with a strong pro-EU, pro-Europe bias, went medium-anti-EU during the course. My reasons aren't representative in *any* way: I'm not for our corporate tax regime, I consider it social dumping, and I'm relatively ok with a reduced voting weight. Most of my 'logic' was cumulative from the approach taken, rather than the content (which I found incomprehensible).

It wasn't designed to be read, this was a minus-one.

Reading the official info packets, minus-one. Utterly unbalanced, every minus was followed by a 'but thats alright because' phrase, which took as propagandistic. I've yet to find anything I consider independent and balanced in the whole time looking at this.

Seeing Libertas was against it, plus-one. The EU bringing in aborshuns sounds great to me, regard it as basic rights. Pity it ain't true hehe.

Barroso's visit, minus one. Wouldn't buy a used treaty from the man.

Avoidance of referenda, minus-one. Yes I know there is a cultural difference in the importance of referenda, I just have an irrational liking for it, and don't like to see it dodged.


Enough inchoate reasonings, they'd never end...Rephrased positively, my vague complaints would be asking for:

A readable treaty, that was passed by referendum, with an actual debate rather than Punch-and-Judy antics. Ah, idealism.

I haven't answered the main question: What do you want instead? As said, I'm in no way representative. But this debate has convinced me of the need for reform, though not in the manner put forward in Lisbon. Where others see 'efficiency', I see centralization of power; for 'common security' and 'progressive improvement' I see growth in EU military expenditures and support for our indigenous arms manufactures, and unquestioning NATO support; for 'competitiveness' I see a neoliberal executive and market fundamentalism.

Anyway...against my initial inclinations I've become a 'eurosceptic'.
Halp Plx!

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't care whether someone is rich or poor, German or Irish. I'd much rather deal with a poor Irish person who's prepared to open his mind than a rich German who's so entrenched in his position he refuses point-blank to even entertain a reasoned discussion.

Well then, when do we accept the vote?

Oh, when the answer is yes. How enlightened.

djpbarry

dresden8 wrote: »

Well then, when do we accept the vote?

Oh, when the answer is yes. How enlightened.

Congratulations for completely missing the point, yet again. The issue is not the vote itself, the issue is where does our relationship with the EU go from here. Considering that "leave everything as it is" is not an option, we (as a nation) cannot proceed until the 'No' side provides some input, which they are so far staunchly refusing to do.

Anyway, explain how the 'No' vote has not been "accepted"? Has Ireland ratified the treaty?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

What you're advocating is that the vote should be overturned as soon as possible because no voters are idiots who don't understand, abortion, conscription, 12 year olds being forced to have abortions, Libertas yadda yadda ad bleedin' infinitum.

I haven't advocated that. Your continuing refusal to discuss the subject rationally is doing more to prove my point than anything I could say.

dresden8 wrote: »

Well then, when do we accept the vote?

Oh, when the answer is yes. How enlightened.

We already have accepted the vote; we didn't ratify the treaty.

Unless by "accept the vote" you mean permanently and irrevocably reject any possibility of ever again contemplating the possibility of ratifying a single proposal contained in the Lisbon treaty. Which brings me back to another question I haven't had answered: is that what you want? That not a single article of the Lisbon treaty should ever be put to us, ever again?

Kama wrote: »

Oscar, I don't think anti-civil rights majoritarianism is a fair comparison. I agree the point, that a majority doesn't have to be an ethically superior position. But we haven't impinged on anyones civil rights by voting no; its an unnecessarily emotive comparison.

I don't think so. I'm challenging the absolutist position that has repeatedly been put forward in this forum: "no means no", "what part of no don't you understand?", and the repeated accusations of anti-democracy against anyone who had the temerity to ask "what now?".

Equally, it isn't that when one makes a decision you are infallible, Popes excepted. Question all you like; but its easier to convince others when you don't say 'you're illogical' or 'just plain wrong'. Its a unproductive approach, kicks in a load of lizard-brain territorial reactions.

I'm not going to polish a turd: some people are taking an approach to this debate (as they did to the vote) that's illogical, or just plain wrong. They might not like being told that, but I can't think of a single reason to pander to their wrongness.

There are people on the other side of this debate whom I respect. I disagree with them, but I respect them. There are others who refuse to engage in intelligent dialogue, because they resent having their illogical position pointed out to them.

dresden8

Ever since the vote there has been a concerted attack in the media, from Europe and even from people here saying why should people be allowed vote, they're stupid and lazy. Let their betters decide what's best for them.

This is by no means a polite academic discussion. This goes to the core of who rules, how they rule and what are the ruled allowed to contribute to.

Or as Stephen Collins might say, screw the vote, let the Dáil push it through anyway.

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

What you're advocating is that the vote should be overturned as soon as possible because no voters are idiots who don't understand, abortion, conscription, 12 year olds being forced to have abortions, Libertas yadda yadda ad bleedin' infinitum.

What are you talking about dresden? OB never even hinted anything of the sort. Noone said anything about overturning the vote so leave your paranoid ramblings out of what should be a grown-up and reasonable debate. If you really want to make those kind of baseless accusations then maybe you'd be better off on the politics forum on imdb. Address the actual points people make please, and stop making it up as you go.

dresden8 wrote: »

Well then, when do we accept the vote?

Oh, when the answer is yes. How enlightened.

If you read his post again you'll see nothing to do with voting, and find it was in fact to do with discussion, of which you have not partaken in at all, which only serves to prove OBs point.

dresden8 wrote: »

Ever since the vote there has been a concerted attack in the media, from Europe and even from people here saying why should people be allowed vote, they're stupid and lazy. Let their betters decide what's best for them.

This is by no means a polite academic discussion. This goes to the core of who rules, how they rule and what are the ruled allowed to contribute to.

Or as Stephen Collins might say, screw the vote, let the Dáil push it through anyway.

That's an amazing conclusion you've reached dresden. Full of plenty of melodrama, paranoia and BS assumptions. People have said that the result of the election may possibly have as much to do with ignorance on the issue as a real objection to the Treaty. This means nothing other than what it actually says and certainly does not mean we should revoke the vote from people. Sure one or two people have floated that idea, but most have disagreed with it. If you really read the posts properly you'd see that. Noone here has suggested ignoring the result or pushing it through anyway. And if this is all you can contribute then maybe you shouldn't even bother.

dresden8

molloyjh wrote: »

What are you talking about dresden? OB never even hinted anything of the sort. Noone said anything about overturning the vote so leave your paranoid ramblings out of what should be a grown-up and reasonable debate. If you really want to make those kind of baseless accusations then maybe you'd be better off on the politics forum on imdb. Address the actual points people make please, and stop making it up as you go.



If you read his post again you'll see nothing to do with voting, and find it was in fact to do with discussion, of which you have not partaken in at all, which only serves to prove OBs point.





That's an amazing conclusion you've reached dresden. Full of plenty of melodrama, paranoia and BS assumptions. People have said that the result of the election may possibly have as much to do with ignorance on the issue as a real objection to the Treaty. This means nothing other than what it actually says and certainly does not mean we should revoke the vote from people. Sure one or two people have floated that idea, but most have disagreed with it. If you really read the posts properly you'd see that. Noone here has suggested ignoring the result or pushing it through anyway. And if this is all you can contribute then maybe you shouldn't even bother.

Where have you been on this board since the vote? Have you read any newspapers at all? Have you heard the pronouncements from the French and Germans.

And now, if you had read my post properly you would clearly see I said that it was Stephen Collin's suggestion that the Treaty be pushed through the Dáil.

And you call no voters uninformed.

oscarBravo

dresden8, can you answer my question in #292? Ta.

dresden8

Unless by "accept the vote" you mean permanently and irrevocably reject any possibility of ever again contemplating the possibility of ratifying a single proposal contained in the Lisbon treaty. Which brings me back to another question I haven't had answered: is that what you want? That not a single article of the Lisbon treaty should ever be put to us, ever again?

Well.

Obviously questions can be asked again.

What I object to is the next day our "betters" (actually used by Martin Mansergh on Vincent Browne's show) decided the answer wasn't good enough and we would "get it right" next time.

This opens up a whole different question on timescale.

Referenda have gone back to the people. Usually where the question has been re-phrased or where a long enought time has passed for the demographics to have changed, more 18 year olds eligible to vote, older generations passed on and mindsets changing etc.

I don't know the proper timescale for when the time is right to re-ask the question.

But the next day isn't it.

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

Where have you been on this board since the vote? Have you read any newspapers at all? Have you heard the pronouncements from the French and Germans.

And now, if you had read my post properly you would clearly see I said that it was Stephen Collin's suggestion that the Treaty be pushed through the Dáil.

And you call no voters uninformed.

And if you read my post properly you would see the words "Noone here". See I can do what you do too.

If you have an issue with what Stephn Collins wrote then take it up with him. He isn't here so there's feck all point talking to us about it given that NOONE HERE has said anything of the sort.

Of course if you want to play that little game I could abuse you because a No voter was quoted as saying that Lisbon would lead to Irish men being conscripted into an EU army. What's it to be dresden?

Either way the fact remains that you are not answering any of the questions put to you or discussing the topic the rest of us are, you're just going off in a bizarre and futile tangent that just serves to illustrate the exact thing OB is talking about. If I didn't know better I'd say you were an OB alter ego, posting to back up his points.......I do know better OB!

dresden8

?

So you're saying Irish men are to be conscripted into an EU army?

That's not right at all.

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

?

So you're saying Irish men are to be conscripted into an EU army?

That's not right at all.

Ok thats is prove undeniable that you don't read posts properly at all. I said there was a No voter who was quoted as saying that and if you want to go down the road of knocking Yes voters using what 1 Yes voter says then I could easily do the same to you as a No voter. I've re-read my post and its in no way unclear. :rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

molloyjh wrote: »

And if you read my post properly you would see the words "Noone here"

molloyjh wrote: »

Ok thats is prove undeniable that you don't read posts properly at all.

He/she has a habit of doing that.