The people of Ireland have spoken.

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

For as much as I understand and sympathise with this view I still cannot bring myself to agree with it. I strongly believe that the one man one vote system can work. It just requires people taking an interest and living up to their end of the bargain as it were. I think education plays a part, i.e. there should be a strong emphasis on the whole subject of democracy and the responsibility of voters in secondary schools for example.

As soon as we start elevating certain members of society in such a way we will end up, IMO, with a disenfranchised (sp?) and enraged remainder, which has never worked out well before!

Hmm. As a university graduate, I have two votes.


cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. As a university graduate, I have two votes.


cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm suddenly feeling very disenfranchised and enraged!

Actually I did graduate from Trinity so I should really be electing people to the Seanad myself. Must suss that one out as I've never really bothered with it before now.....<hangs head in shame for not participating fully>

PHB

Does anyone know of any polling data on peoples perceptions of the Nice treaty in the years after it has passed?

bugler

My problem (in this case) isn't with the result, but with the trenchant refusal in certain quarters to entertain any discussion about the result. Slogans like "no means no" represent an abdication of the responsibility inherent in democracy.

Where do certain "quarters" come into it? There are no "quarters", only the people. The only "quarter" that matters is the electorate. The electorate was asked a question, they gave their answer. And what's the discussion about? What level of sophistication do the plebs have to attain with their reasons for why they rejected Lisbon before it can be accepted? Who'll judge it to be a fit enough reason? You?

FYI, I didn’t get to vote in the end, but was undecided. I don’t really think the vote amounts to a whole hill of beans, the EU will get to where it’s going, and I’m not particularly interested in the discussion of the treaty per se, but the light the No vote shone on Irish political culture is fascinating, and its response is what has my interest.

I respect the right of other people to have opinions that are dumb, founded on horse****, or just plain wrong. I refuse point-blank to respect those opinions themselves. Does that make me anti-democratic? I don't think so. Does it make me anti-democratic-fundamentalism? Probably.

It's your disdain and disrespect for people’s votes that make you anti-democratic. The votes must be justified to you, and if the reasons for the vote fail your test of sophistication then they’re to be deemed unworthy. If it had been a Yes vote, would you support the right of the No camp to demand an inquest, gauge the reasons for the Yes vote, ascertain the level of sophistication of the Yes voters, and generally call a big time out? Would you?

It's not really that complicated, despite all the pseudo-intellectual willy waving that goes on here. The electorate made a decision which a lot of people don't like. Those people (at all levels, from forum flies up) are now coming up with ways to circumvent that decision. Some are proffering the legal sorcery route (I had to laugh at the claims the No camp had been telling untruths, coming from a political editor. Was this The Onion I was reading, or the Irish Times? Then again, lie with dogs…between owning My Home and….actually the IT’s impotence and uselessness is another topic entirely) and some just want a plain old re-run.

They have many reasons why this must be so. The electorate aren't able to defend their decision (I didn't know they had to). They didn't understand the issues (they never do - if we re-ran every vote in which the electorate didn't grasp what was at stake De Valera would still be in office).

But the basic nub of it is this: The No vote was wrong. It wasn’t the choice of the electorate, but a blooper. It’s bad for the country. If you question this or, god forbid challenge the Prophets who have selflessly raised themselves to guardians of the country’s destiny, then you’re probably too dumb to be allowed to vote. You don’t understand the issues or what’s at stake, and you should leave important things like this to your betters.

By the way: “democratic-fundamentalism”? Just another bullshit term for bullshit-artists.

molloyjh

bugler wrote: »

What level of sophistication do the plebs have to attain with their reasons for why they rejected Lisbon before it can be accepted?

Personally I reckon they should know what they are voting on. The Gallup poll run after the referendum suggests that 22% of No voters voted No because they didn't understand the Treaty. That cannot be viewed as a rejection of the Treaty in my view. How can you say you don't understand but still disagree with it?

Now we'll never get to a point where 100% of voters know the full and total facts of what they are voting on, but surely in this case we should try and reduce it. If that 22% (assuming for now it is acccurate) had abstained, for example, the result would have been a Yes victory. We are talking about significant levels of ignorance, nay admitted ignorance. There were also reasons for voting No that were based on inaccurate info.

Yes the Irish people have spoken, but how many of them have really spoken about the Treaty and how many have spoken about things unrelated to or untrue of the Treaty? How many have spoken out of total ignorance, is that 22% accurate and how many of the Yes voters were similarly ignorant?

I've stated before, and I can only speak for myself, that the result itself isn't the point. It is how we got there. If it turns out that ignorance did not play a significant role in the result then fine, but if it did then why would anyone pay it any attention? It beggars belief. Surely it would make far more sense to educate the people properly (I have my doubts about our Governments ability to do that) and run a referendum once this has happened so that we can reduce the levels of ignorance and get a true reflection of what the Irish people make of the Treaty as it is, not how it was put across by the likes of the Shinners and Ganley.

bugler wrote: »

The votes must be justified to you...

I know this isn't directed at me but in the case of a No vote a certain amount of "justification" is needed. A Yes vote gives direction, a No vote doesn't. So to identify where we go from here we still need to identify what the issues were with the proposals.

bugler wrote: »

If it had been a Yes vote, would you support the right of the No camp to demand an inquest, gauge the reasons for the Yes vote, ascertain the level of sophistication of the Yes voters, and generally call a big time out? Would you?

Probably no, but as above it quite like a footbal match. Would you scream for a penalty to be awarded against your team? Regardless of how fair or unfair it may be? That's just human nature. From my perspective I was calling this thing a joke from before the referendum itself so either way I'd have a hard time denying anyone an inquest.

bugler wrote: »

Those people (at all levels, from forum flies up) are now coming up with ways to circumvent that decision.

Again I can only speak for myself and say I am doing no such thing. I just want to maek sure we know whether the Irish people want Lisbon or not. If it turns out that a significant number didn't know what they were voting on then we cannot, by a matter of simple logic, state that we know their opinion of the Treaty.

bugler wrote: »

I had to laugh at the claims the No camp had been telling untruths

They blatantly were though, and I don't find that funny. I honestly believe there should be some form of legislation there, similar to the whole idea of false and misleading advertising. This is not a popularity contest or a orating competition or anything of the sort and mis-information and distortions only serve to impede the Irish people in making a relevant decision.

djpbarry

Nice rant bugler. Really. Kudos.

bugler wrote: »

The electorate was asked a question, they gave their answer. And what's the discussion about?

bugler wrote: »

I don’t really think the vote amounts to a whole hill of beans, the EU will get to where it’s going...

And how will the EU get to wherever it's going without consulting Ireland? Our elected representatives negotiated this treaty on our behalf and then we rejected it; how can the EU move forward without discussion?

You're also conveniently overlooking the fact that we already agreed to certain institutional changes when we ratified the Nice Treaty; how can the EU implement those changes without discussion?

oscarBravo

bugler wrote: »

Where do certain "quarters" come into it? There are no "quarters", only the people. The only "quarter" that matters is the electorate. The electorate was asked a question, they gave their answer.

Yet again, this is an example of what I call democratic fundamentalism. The people have spoken ex cathedra; the people can do no wrong.

And what's the discussion about? What level of sophistication do the plebs have to attain with their reasons for why they rejected Lisbon before it can be accepted? Who'll judge it to be a fit enough reason? You?

Nice straw man. Clear something up for me: is it your contention that the "no" result in the referendum means that the entire Lisbon treaty must be utterly dismantled, with none of its provisions ever to see the light of day again?

Because that's the only useful definition of the slogan "no means no" that I can think of.

It's your disdain and disrespect for people’s votes that make you anti-democratic.

Another simple question for you: do you respect the opinions of people who believe the Earth is flat?

The votes must be justified to you, and if the reasons for the vote fail your test of sophistication then they’re to be deemed unworthy.

I didn't say that. Would it kill you to discuss what I'm saying instead of constantly beating the stuffing out of that poor straw man?

If it had been a Yes vote, would you support the right of the No camp to demand an inquest, gauge the reasons for the Yes vote, ascertain the level of sophistication of the Yes voters, and generally call a big time out? Would you?

If the "yes" campaign had been founded almost entirely on lies, misdirection and scaremongering, absolutely. Mind you, had that been the case, I can't imagine that I would have favoured a "yes" vote.

It's not really that complicated, despite all the pseudo-intellectual willy waving that goes on here. The electorate made a decision which a lot of people don't like.

The people have spoken ex cathedra. The people are infallible. How dare any individual challenge the divine authority of the people?

Those people (at all levels, from forum flies up) are now coming up with ways to circumvent that decision.

What ways? If you're talking about the possibility of the EU continuing without us, that's not a circumvention of the result of our referendum; if it happens, it will be a response to the result.

They have many reasons why this must be so. The electorate aren't able to defend their decision (I didn't know they had to).

You obvious chose to ignore my earlier point about the "kratos" part of "democracy" - if a despot refused to justify his decisions, would you laud that as an acceptable form of rule?

Another direct question for you: harking back to the glory days of majoritarianism in Northern Ireland (democracy's finest hour), would you have championed the Unionist majority's right to shout "Ulster Says No", and chastise anyone who had the temerity to suggest that "no" isn't actually a particularly constructive policy?

They didn't understand the issues (they never do - if we re-ran every vote in which the electorate didn't grasp what was at stake De Valera would still be in office).

Once again, democratic fundamentalism: the people are right, even when they don't have a clue.

But the basic nub of it is this: The No vote was wrong. It wasn’t the choice of the electorate, but a blooper. It’s bad for the country. If you question this or, god forbid challenge the Prophets who have selflessly raised themselves to guardians of the country’s destiny, then you’re probably too dumb to be allowed to vote. You don’t understand the issues or what’s at stake, and you should leave important things like this to your betters.

It's so much easier to resort to this sort of bitter sarcasm than to actually face up to the fact that democracy isn't always perfect, isn't it?

By the way: “democratic-fundamentalism”? Just another bullshit term for bullshit-artists.

I guess one thing's true of fundamentalists in every walk of life: they get terribly upset when anyone criticises their deity of choice.

O'Morris

molloyjh wrote:

Personally I reckon they should know what they are voting on. The Gallup poll run after the referendum suggests that 22% of No voters voted No because they didn't understand the Treaty.

Because 22% of no voters admitted to not understanding the treaty does not mean that the remaining 78% did understand it. From what I can see the people who voted no because they didn't the treaty were the people who didn't feel strongly enough about any aspect of the treaty in particular and so instead of voting for something they didn't understand they sensibly took the view that it's better to stick with the EU we have (which works and has been good for Ireland) rather than opt for some vague idea of a reformed EU that seems to offer no tangible benefits over what we have now.

I didn't understand the treaty but if asked I would have not given that as the reason for why I voted no. I voted no because I know enough about what is contained in the treaty to see that it will lead to a further erosion of our national sovereignty, a further weakening of our voice in the EU and a further step in the direction of a European superstate. I think people who hold my view probably outnumber the "don't understands" but they still seem to get more attention than us in the debate over the result of the referendum.

molloyjh wrote:

Now we'll never get to a point where 100% of voters know the full and total facts of what they are voting on, but surely in this case we should try and reduce it. If that 22% (assuming for now it is acccurate) had abstained, for example, the result would have been a Yes victory.

And what if the ignorant yes voters had abstained as well? Would the result still have been a yes victory?

molloyjh wrote:

There were also reasons for voting No that were based on inaccurate info.

Example?

molloyjh wrote:

how many of the Yes voters were similarly ignorant?

I don't think we'll find out by asking them. The only way to find out the true level of ignorance would be to test people on it so that we can objectively measure just how knowledgeable people really are. I think this might be a perfect opportunity for someone with a camera and a youtube account to stand outside Leinster house with a list of questions on the treaty that they can put to some of the people walking out.

molloyjh wrote:

Surely it would make far more sense to educate the people properly (I have my doubts about our Governments ability to do that) and run a referendum once this has happened so that we can reduce the levels of ignorance and get a true reflection of what the Irish people make of the Treaty as it is, not how it was put across by the likes of the Shinners and Ganley.

I have no problem with that. As someone who is opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, I'm confident that when the full facts are put in front of the people that they will see more clearly why the treaty is not in Ireland's interests. That's why I'm not opposed to the idea of a second referendum.

Have you considered the possibility that this might set a precedent though and that it might be used even when the result of a referendum does go the way that you want? If a second referendum did return a yes vote would you agree that we should consider the result as final only when it has been determined that ignorance did not play a decisive role in the outcome?

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

I voted no because I know enough about what is contained in the treaty to see that it will lead to a further erosion of our national sovereignty, a further weakening of our voice in the EU and a further step in the direction of a European superstate.

Is this the European superstate we were warned about in 1973, which hasn't materialised yet?

I'm reminded of the cults who repeatedly predict the end of the world, and who paradoxically emerge from each no-show with their faith strengthened.

As someone who is opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, I'm confident that when the full facts are put in front of the people that they will see more clearly why the treaty is not in Ireland's interests. That's why I'm not opposed to the idea of a second referendum.

Were you opposed to EEC accession in the first place? To Amsterdam? Maastricht? Nice?

How many of the dire predictions (which look hauntingly familiar in retrospect) made in advance of the ratification of those treaties have come to pass?

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

From what I can see the people who voted no because they didn't the treaty were the people who didn't feel strongly enough about any aspect of the treaty in particular and so instead of voting for something they didn't understand they sensibly took the view that it's better to stick with the EU we have...

There's absolutely nothing sensible about that at all, considering the EU is going to change whether Ireland ratifies Lisbon or not.

O'Morris wrote: »

I didn't understand the treaty...
...
I think people who hold my view probably outnumber the "don't understands"...

But you just said you didn't understand the treaty?

O'Morris wrote: »

molloyjh wrote: »

There were also reasons for voting No that were based on inaccurate info.

Example?

Euthanasia, drugs, abortion, losing commissioners, halving voting weights, neutrality, corporation tax, etc.

Been done to death in other threads.

molloyjh

O'Morris wrote: »

Because 22% of no voters admitted to not understanding the treaty does not mean that the remaining 78% did understand it.

Not nessecarily, it just means that 22% admitted to not understanding it. None of us can claim to know anything about the other 78% based on this one figure alone.

O'Morris wrote: »

From what I can see the people who voted no because they didn't the treaty were the people who didn't feel strongly enough about any aspect of the treaty in particular and so instead of voting for something they didn't understand they sensibly took the view that it's better to stick with the EU we have (which works and has been good for Ireland) rather than opt for some vague idea of a reformed EU that seems to offer no tangible benefits over what we have now.

Eevn if thats true what does it matter? They still didn't understand it. Sothe point remains the same.

O'Morris wrote: »

I didn't understand the treaty but if asked I would have not given that as the reason for why I voted no. I voted no because I know enough about what is contained in the treaty to see that it will lead to a further erosion of our national sovereignty, a further weakening of our voice in the EU and a further step in the direction of a European superstate.

That point is entirely disingenuous. You admit to not understanding it so how could you possibly know those things to be true? This is not the place for going through the truths and myths of the treaty as it would be off topic, but there are multiple other threads where you can find info on the Treaty and dispell or re-enforce your assumptions by reading them. One of the things I do intend to do however, should a second referendum be held, is go through the Treaty myself and set up a website explaining it. I don't care at this stage how long it takes me it needs to be done. I'll be sure to let you know where it is when/if I do it. You'll find reasons for voting No in there without doubt, but its up to you then to judge if they outweight the positives or not.

O'Morris wrote: »

I think people who hold my view probably outnumber the "don't understands" but they still seem to get more attention than us in the debate over the result of the referendum.

We don't really know that. However as long as the "don't understands" are a significant proportion of voters then it doesn't really matter. Ignorance should never play a significant role.

O'Morris wrote: »

And what if the ignorant yes voters had abstained as well? Would the result still have been a yes victory?

I don't know. None of us do. But I was not just refering to No voters when talking about ignorance, I was just using the 22% figure as it is the only one we have, and I was using it for illustrative purposes.

O'Morris wrote: »

Example?

Tax, neutrality, the loss of our Commissioner (which was due to happen anyway and all Lisbon did was delay it and even out the impact) and the whole abortion/gay marriage thing are the first 4 to spring to mind. According to the Gallup poll that accounts for another 20% (6, 6, 6 and 2 respectively).

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think we'll find out by asking them.

Probably true. I'm not sure I have a practical solution to that though.

O'Morris wrote: »

I have no problem with that. As someone who is opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, I'm confident that when the full facts are put in front of the people that they will see more clearly why the treaty is not in Ireland's interests. That's why I'm not opposed to the idea of a second referendum.

I find it a little strange that someone who admits to not understanding the Treaty is so confident that the full facts will back them up. Maybe they will, but maybe they won't. I do understand the Treaty, and while I recognise there are a number of reasons to vote No, on a whole I don't think they are enough to make me vote anything but Yes. I tend to be logical in the extreme and so I honestly believe if the people knew all fo the facts they would probably vote Yes overall.

O'Morris wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that this might set a precedent though and that it might be used even when the result of a referendum does go the way that you want? If a second referendum did return a yes vote would you agree that we should consider the result as final only when it has been determined that ignorance did not play a decisive role in the outcome?

To answer that I'll refer back to one of my previous posts. Have a read of the 4 points in it if you want and see what you think.

molloyjh wrote: »

3. If another referendum is run I feel it would be vital to hold another study regardless of the result to ensure that ignorance didn't factor into the second referendum, at least not significantly.

Kama

Democracy is the worst form of fundamentalism, except for all the others?
What fundamentalism would be a better one? Serious question.
If not in the people, where would you suggest the locus of power lie?

I don't think the Earth is Flat is quite fair. It is possible to disagree with Lisbon without being a Luddite conspiranoid cave-man. Argument on neither side was based on the sort of ideal speech and logic expected here. So either we go Jim Crow, and enforce a standard of logical thought (disenfranchisement ahoy!) or you accept a lot of 'noise'.

An example would be the neutrality issue; while not technically breached, we would be 'progressively increasing our military capability'. To some, compulsory increased militarization = end of neutrality. Its not correct, but its not entirely wrong either.

Or, while our tax status is to be preserved, Art. 2.79 of Lisbon puts 'and to avoid distortion of competition' into the TFEU on tax harmonization, which Coughlan argued gave definite wiggle room around unanimity. I'm not enough of a lawyer to argue with him; this has been my main complaint from the start, its faith-based decision-making eitherway. I'm a (I vainly think)semi-literate college graduate, with a small bit of law background (both parents, a few courses on European Law) and I couldn't make out wtf it was.

Scofflaw wrote:

which suggests that "No means No" is more like "Ulster says No!" - no discussion, no negotiation, no progress.

Agree on that. People tend to lock up in a paranoid-defensive mode when they perceive something as being put over them against their will. Rhetorical linkages like that reinforce the siege mentality; Fair Eire raped by the European Beast in this case, with an A is A short-circuit of thought. Good rhetoric, but bad for the brain.

Perhaps the solution is to take Lisbon, make it into something more legalistic and incomprehensible, and reduce the potential for referenda further? Third time's a charm...

oscarBravo

Kama wrote: »

What fundamentalism would be a better one? Serious question.

In my view, fundamentalism is bad. Fundamentalism in any form equates to a refusal to critically analyse the flaws in whatever is being presented.

If not in the people, where would you suggest the locus of power lie?

Honestly, I don't know. I think there's a certain amount to be said for representative democracy over direct democracy. That said, even representative democracy is quite badly broken in this country.

In many respects, I think the EU is better run than many of its member states, including Ireland. When a (relatively) undemocratic supra-national body works better than a (relatively) democratic national government, shouldn't we ask questions of democracy?

Or is it a sacred cow, above question and reproach?

I don't think the Earth is Flat is quite fair.

It was a case of reductio ad absurdum. I was accused of having contempt for democracy for having the temerity to suggest that it's OK not to respect stupid opinions, so I asked the accuser whether he respects some of the most stupid opinion there is. I actually didn't compare "no" voters to flat-Earthers, that would have been uncalled-for.

So either we go Jim Crow, and enforce a standard of logical thought (disenfranchisement ahoy!) or you accept a lot of 'noise'.

Or you find a shade of grey in between, and allow the noise to be heard, but call a spade a spade and refuse to buy the rather farcical notion that stupidity and lies deserve the same respect as reason and logic.

An example would be the neutrality issue; while not technically breached, we would be 'progressively increasing our military capability'. To some, compulsory increased militarization = end of neutrality. Its not correct, but its not entirely wrong either.

It's a nice piece of sophistry, but there are much more neutral countries in the EU than Ireland, and if it's good enough for them, it really ought to do us. Besides, at every referendum since 1972 we've been told that we're being sucked into a giant European army. It's a long time coming.

Or, while our tax status is to be preserved, Art. 2.79 of Lisbon puts 'and to avoid distortion of competition' into the TFEU on tax harmonization, which Coughlan argued gave definite wiggle room around unanimity. I'm not enough of a lawyer to argue with him; this has been my main complaint from the start, its faith-based decision-making eitherway. I'm a (I vainly think)semi-literate college graduate, with a small bit of law background (both parents, a few courses on European Law) and I couldn't make out wtf it was.

All of which ignores the fact that, in reality, the EU operates on consensus, and there just isn't going to be consensus on tax harmonisation.

Dyr

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is this the European superstate we were warned about in 1973, which hasn't materialised yet?

Stall the ball there, im old enough to remember when we were being told the EEC would never be anything but an economic union, That there would never be common currency and anyone who said otherwise was a communist and scaremonger. There will never be a european army, Softly softly catchee monkey.

The people have spoken ex cathedra; the people can do no wrong.

You dont get to decide when the people are wrong. Thats the circle the pro lisbon parties cant square.

oscarBravo

Bambi wrote: »

Stall the ball there, im old enough to remember when we were being told the EEC would never be anything but an economic union...

The EEC has never been only an economic union, despite the name.

That there would never be common currency and anyone who said otherwise was a communist and scaremonger.

I don't recall that having been an issue. That said, we were given the option of whether or not to join the common currency. Three other countries took that option, we didn't. So much for EU dictatorship.

There will never be a european army, Softly softly catchee monkey.

I guess we'll be conscripted into it at gunpoint, just like Denmark and the UK were forced into adopting the Euro.

Oh wait...

You dont get to decide when the people are wrong. Thats the circle the pro lisbon parties cant square.

Do you subscribe to the perfect infallibility of the people? Do you believe that the people can't possibly ever be wrong?

Dyr

You miss the point, its not for you or me to decide. It's put to the people and we abide by it. Or not if you're not into the whole constitutional democracy thing

The EEC has never been only an economic union, despite the name.

Nice rewrite, It was a cunning trick selling it as an economic community :pac:

oscarBravo

Bambi wrote: »

You miss the point, its not for you or me to decide. It's put to the people and we abide by it. Or not if you're not into the whole constitutional democracy thing

On the contrary, you're missing my point.

I agree that we abide by the decision of the people. I haven't said otherwise. My question is whether we take that decision at face value, and unquestioningly obey the tyrannical majority, whose representatives (here and elsewhere) seem to get rather offended at the idea that their input into the running of the country should involved anything more carefully planned than the single word "no".

I've asked a number of specific questions in my recent posts on this thread, which have largely gone unanswered. There's a visible tendency to drag the conversation back from awkward specifics to comfortable generalities: it's no wonder mindless slogans are so popular, they're easier than actually thinking.

I'll put one of those direct questions directly to you: if "no means no", does that mean that no provision contained in the Lisbon Treaty can ever be put to the people in referendum ever again, under any circumstances?

molloyjh

Bambi wrote: »

Nice rewrite, It was a cunning trick selling it as an economic community :pac:

You know why the EU was originally set up don't you? It was thought that shared economic interests between the major European powers would prevent another major war. It worked so well it just expanded from there. So the origins were solely political.

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote:

Is this the European superstate we were warned about in 1973, which hasn't materialised yet?

Yes, it's the same European superstate that we were warned about back then and that hasn't materialised yet. I think we're much closer to it now than we were in 1973 and I think we would have been even closer to it if we voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm reminded of the cults who repeatedly predict the end of the world, and who paradoxically emerge from each no-show with their faith strengthened.

I'm reminded of anti-nuclear campaigners who repeatedly warn about the dangers of nuclear war. Fortunately they've been proved wrong up to now but I don't think there scaremongering should be ignored either.

oscarBravo wrote:

Were you opposed to EEC accession in the first place? To Amsterdam? Maastricht? Nice?

I wasn't alive when we joined the EEC but if I was and if I had a vote I would have voted in favour of joining because I think it was good for our economic development to have gained access to those markets. I have no problem with the EU as a single market or a customs union or even as a talking shop where governments can agree on areas of co-operation that are to their mutual benefit. I do have a problem though with the EU as a formal political union that seeks to govern it's member states. I'm happy enough living in an Ireland ruled by Irish people.

oscarBravo wrote:

How many of the dire predictions (which look hauntingly familiar in retrospect) made in advance of the ratification of those treaties have come to pass?

I don't know. How many of the dire predictions made by demographers about the world's population explosion have come true? Does the fact that many of predictions have not yet come true prove that we shouldn't be concerned about unsustainable population growth?

oscarBravo wrote:

if "no means no", does that mean that no provision contained in the Lisbon Treaty can ever be put to the people in referendum ever again, under any circumstances?

Not at all, I would happily vote on either the entire treaty or parts of it again. There are many things in the treaty that I support and that I would like to see implemented. The greater role for national parliaments and the guidelines for withdrawal are just two that I would have no problem voting in favour of.

I wasn't aware that there are any plans to do that though. Were we not originally told that it's all or nothing?

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote:

There's absolutely nothing sensible about that at all, considering the EU is going to change whether Ireland ratifies Lisbon or not.

Not all change is the same. The EU might change without the Lisbon Treaty but the change will not be as drastic as it would be with the treaty. Without the Lisbon Treaty we hold on to our vetos, we maintain our voting weight in the parliament and we don't hand over competetence to the EU for Foreign Direct Investment.

djpbarry wrote:

But you just said you didn't understand the treaty?

I didn't understand all of the treaty. I understood some parts but most of it I found either unintelligible without having access to the other treaties being referred to, or too ambiguous worded to be able to make an informed decision. Read it and you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, I didn't vote the way I did because of those things I didn't understand. I voted no on the basis of those aspects of the treaty that I did understand. I voted no because of the loss of our voting weights (reduced from 2% to 0.8%), the loss of many of our vetos (whether the number is 30 or 60 it's still too many), increased powers being surrendered to the EU (particluraly over competition and immigration and the attraction of FDI), Article 48 of the treaty which allows the possibility that the treaty can be changed without another referendum, the commitment to increased military spending and the new posts of president and foreign minister which seem to give the EU the status of an embryonic nation state.

djpbarry wrote:

Euthanasia, drugs, abortion,

The people who used those as reasons to vote no were not saying that the Lisbon Treaty would directly lead to their introduction.

molloyjh wrote:

You admit to not understanding it so how could you possibly know those things to be true?

When I say that I don't understand it I mean that I don't understand it in it's entirety. I don't know what every single paragraph or article or clause in the treaty means or what change it proposes and so in that sense I don't understand the treaty. I think I know enough about the treaty to know that Ireland's voice in the EU will be weakened though.

I'll be honest and admit that I had made up my mind to vote no before I read the treaty. I made my decision based on the 8 reasons given by Libertas on their website. I only read the Treaty with a view to seeing if those reasons could be proved wrong. I found nothing in the Treaty to disprove any of them and nothing I've heard from the pro-treaty side has convinced me to change my mind either.

molloyjh wrote:

One of the things I do intend to do however, should a second referendum be held, is go through the Treaty myself and set up a website explaining it. I don't care at this stage how long it takes me it needs to be done.

I'll be sure to let you know where it is when/if I do it.

Can we do a double-act? I can draw up a list of questions based on passages in the Lisbon Treaty text and then you can clarify what each quote means.

molloyjh wrote:

You'll find reasons for voting No in there without doubt, but its up to you then to judge if they outweight the positives or not.

I think that's what happened in the last referendum. People just didn't find anything positive in the treaty to outweigh the negatives. I think even the yes side will admit this if they're being honest. The treaty just doesn't provide any real tangible benefits over what we have now. It does provide some tangible negatives though.

molloyjh wrote:

the loss of our Commissioner (which was due to happen anyway and all Lisbon did was delay it and even out the impact)

The Nice Treaty made a commitment to reduce the number of commissioners once the number of member states reached 27 but it didn't specify what form this reduction should take. It was still a matter to be decided up until the Lisbon Treaty.

If you read the reasons given by Libertas on their website for voting no you'll see that it wasn't the loss of a commissioner that they were complaining about, it was the specific proposal given in the treaty that would mean Ireland would be without a commissioner for 5 years out of every 15 years. To say that this would have happened even without the Lisbon Treaty is not accurate. There is still scope under the terms of the Nice Treaty to come up with an arrangement whereby each member state's representation on the commission is semi-permanent. We can definitely do better than 5 out of every 15 years.

molloyjh wrote:

and the whole abortion/gay marriage thing are the first 4 to spring to mind. According to the Gallup poll that accounts for another 20% (6, 6, 6 and 2 respectively).

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

If people who voted no to the Lisbon Treaty voted because they believed that it would directly lead to the introduction of gay marriage or abortion or euthanasia then those people were wrong and were clearly voting out of ignorance.

molloyjh wrote:

I find it a little strange that someone who admits to not understanding the Treaty is so confident that the

full facts will back them up.

The reason I know the facts will back me up is because of the absence of facts so far produced to back up the pro-treaty side's case.

For example, we're being told that it's a fact that the EU will not be able to interfere with our corporation tax but I've seen nobody yet produce any fact guaranteeing this. When all the facts in the Lisbon Treaty are laid out I'm confident that those facts will not undermine many of the arguments given for voting no.

molloyjh wrote:

I do understand the Treaty,

Honestly? Every single paragraph?

molloyjh wrote:

I tend to be logical in the extreme and so I honestly believe if the people knew all fo the facts they

would probably vote Yes overall.

I believe the result would be different but we can at least agree on the importance of presenting people with the facts. I would much rather people voted no out of a firm knowledge of the facts than vote yes out of an ignorance of those facts. I support any effort aimed at educating the ignorant yes voters and the ignorant no voters as well.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

Yes, it's the same European superstate that we were warned about back then and that hasn't materialised yet. I think we're much closer to it now than we were in 1973 and I think we would have been even closer to it if we voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.

The EU bears no resemblance to a federal superstate, and would have continued to bear no resemblance to one post-Lisbon.

I'm reminded of anti-nuclear campaigners who repeatedly warn about the dangers of nuclear war. Fortunately they've been proved wrong up to now but I don't think there scaremongering should be ignored either.

And I'm reminded of the anti-vaccination and anti-mobile phone mast scaremongers who repeatedly warn about all sorts of phantom dangers.

I wasn't alive when we joined the EEC but if I was and if I had a vote I would have voted in favour of joining because I think it was good for our economic development to have gained access to those markets. I have no problem with the EU as a single market or a customs union or even as a talking shop where governments can agree on areas of co-operation that are to their mutual benefit. I do have a problem though with the EU as a formal political union that seeks to govern it's member states. I'm happy enough living in an Ireland ruled by Irish people.

The EU doesn't govern its member states. The EU is an organisation whose member states agree to govern themselves in certain agreed ways. Ireland is ruled by Irish people.

O'Morris wrote: »

I voted no because of the loss of our voting weights (reduced from 2% to 0.8%), the loss of many of our vetos (whether the number is 30 or 60 it's still too many), increased powers being surrendered to the EU (particluraly over competition and immigration and the attraction of FDI), Article 48 of the treaty which allows the possibility that the treaty can be changed without another referendum, the commitment to increased military spending and the new posts of president and foreign minister which seem to give the EU the status of an embryonic nation state.

With respect, if those are your reasons for voting against the treaty, then your vote was almost entirely misinformed. All those points have been debated to death in the weeks prior to the referendum.

The Nice Treaty made a commitment to reduce the number of commissioners once the number of member states reached 27 but it didn't specify what form this reduction should take. It was still a matter to be decided up until the Lisbon Treaty.

If you read the reasons given by Libertas on their website for voting no you'll see that it wasn't the loss of a commissioner that they were complaining about, it was the specific proposal given in the treaty that would mean Ireland would be without a commissioner for 5 years out of every 15 years. To say that this would have happened even without the Lisbon Treaty is not accurate. There is still scope under the terms of the Nice Treaty to come up with an arrangement whereby each member state's representation on the commission is semi-permanent. We can definitely do better than 5 out of every 15 years.

Tell you what: why don't you come up with a mechanism that's better than that proposed by Lisbon, and that's compatible with Nice.

If people who voted no to the Lisbon Treaty voted because they believed that it would directly lead to the introduction of gay marriage or abortion or euthanasia then those people were wrong and were clearly voting out of ignorance.

I'm holding my breath waiting for someone to pounce on you and call you anti-democratic for daring to question the infallible wisdom of voters, who must never have their decisions second-guessed.

I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while.

The reason I know the facts will back me up is because of the absence of facts so far produced to back up the pro-treaty side's case.

For example, we're being told that it's a fact that the EU will not be able to interfere with our corporation tax but I've seen nobody yet produce any fact guaranteeing this.

Corporation tax is a direct tax. Direct taxation is not an EU competence. Those are facts.

K-9

O'Morris wrote: »

Anyway, I didn't vote the way I did because of those things I didn't understand. I voted no on the basis of those aspects of the treaty that I did understand. I voted no because of the loss of our voting weights (reduced from 2% to 0.8%)

Well you don't understand the voting arrangements either!

You missed the part where each member state has a vote.

molloyjh

O'Morris wrote: »

I voted no because ....

I'll PM you on this as it would be off topic. It has been discussed to death elsewhere, but perhaps a summary might be easier than searching through bundles of threads and hundreds of posts.

O'Morris wrote: »

The people who used those as reasons to vote no were not saying that the Lisbon Treaty would directly lead to their introduction.

Then what were they saying? And if the Treaty was not going to lead to their introduction why bother letting those things affect their view of the Treaty? Without being smart, you can't possibly know this for a fact.

O'Morris wrote: »

I think I know enough about the treaty to know that Ireland's voice in the EU will be weakened though.

I'll deal with this in the PM.

O'Morris wrote: »

I made my decision based on the 8 reasons given by Libertas on their website.

So did I initially. And then I saw that Declaration of Independance poster - the "people died for your freedom, don't giev it away" poster. And while that wasn't Libertas, it did make me question the No camp. So I started doing a bit of digging and reading up on the Treaty. I spent a few weeks looking at the likes of the Referendum Commissions info, lisbontreaty2008.ie etc and then came here a couple of weeks before the referendum with a few questions that I still needed answers to. The likes of Scofflaw and sink provided a lot of helpful info, and had the sources to back them up. It was during all of this that I went from a No to a Yes, and in the process realised that Libertas seriously misrepresented a lot of the points regarding the Treaty. I've grown to really distrust Ganley and become very suspicious of his motives.

O'Morris wrote: »

Can we do a double-act? I can draw up a list of questions based on passages in the Lisbon Treaty text and then you can clarify what each quote means.

Absolutely. It wouldn't be a half-bad idea to get someone both from "sides" involved. I had planned on a feedback section, but I can PM you with details of what I'm planning to do.....

O'Morris wrote: »

I think that's what happened in the last referendum. People just didn't find anything positive in the treaty to outweigh the negatives. I think even the yes side will admit this if they're being honest. The treaty just doesn't provide any real tangible benefits over what we have now. It does provide some tangible negatives though.

Again it would be off topic to go into the correctness or incorrectness of this, but I think its fair to say that the main positive was the fact the the EU would be more efficient, and surely something that is good would be better all round if more efficient.....

O'Morris wrote: »

The Nice Treaty made a commitment to reduce the number of commissioners once the number of member states reached 27 but it didn't specify what form this reduction should take. It was still a matter to be decided up until the Lisbon Treaty.

Again to deal with this would be to stray off topic.....PM.....it's going to be a long PM!!!

O'Morris wrote: »

The reason I know the facts will back me up is because of the absence of facts so far produced to back up the pro-treaty side's case.

For example, we're being told that it's a fact that the EU will not be able to interfere with our corporation tax but I've seen nobody yet produce any fact guaranteeing this. When all the facts in the Lisbon Treaty are laid out I'm confident that those facts will not undermine many of the arguments given for voting no.

For a start I think the burden of proof here should be on the people making the claim. Secondly it is very difficult to prove something isn't in the Treaty without quoting the entire thing. As OB said, corporation tax is a form of direct taxation, which is not a competancy of the EU and there was no change made to this in Lisbon. I can't show you that it's not there, but can you show me (or anyone show you) that it is.

O'Morris wrote: »

Honestly? Every single paragraph?

When I said I understood it I didn't mean I read the whole thing, but rather that I went through all of the independant summaries I could find (and some of the not so independant ones) and read the aspects of the Treaty that I felt these didn't explain well enough. I went through all of the contentious issues in greater detail for obvious reasons.

O'Morris wrote: »

I believe the result would be different but we can at least agree on the importance of presenting people with the facts. I would much rather people voted no out of a firm knowledge of the facts than vote yes out of an ignorance of those facts. I support any effort aimed at educating the ignorant yes voters and the ignorant no voters as well.

There I think most of us can agree - although there are people out there who don't. :cool:

Kama

Would appreciate a cc on the pm btw. Was out of the country for it, but basic position was it was undecidable on facts, or rather that the facts that were producedtended to echo initial positions, hence the debate on either side went the emotive route, trust/fear etc.

As to the 'better mousetrap plz' move, seems a consequence of the 'this or nothing' strategy adopted, which smelled of diktat to some, counterproductively...

Consolidated pro-anti would be sweet, heard it mooted before, haven't seen anything yet...

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote:

The reason I know the facts will back me up is because of the absence of facts so far produced to back up the pro-treaty side's case.

For example, we're being told that it's a fact that the EU will not be able to interfere with our corporation tax but I've seen nobody yet produce any fact guaranteeing this.

oscarBravo wrote:

Corporation tax is a direct tax. Direct taxation is not an EU competence. Those are facts.

Was out of the country for it, but basic position was it was undecidable on facts, or rather that the facts that were producedtended to echo initial positions, hence the debate on either side went the emotive route, trust/fear etc.

Hmm. Actually, the exchange above illustrates the general problem with the debate in terms of its factual content.

O'Morris is asking for something that specifically precludes a "what-if" scenario of the EU interfering with our corporation tax rate. oscarBravo correctly points out that the EU has no power to interfere with corporation taxes.

However, the fact that the EU has no such competence is not the same as such a guarantee, because the 'frame' of the questions is different.

O'Morris' question is in the context of "an EU that arrogates powers to itself without any hindrance" - therefore that the EU currently can't interfere with direct taxes is meaningless. What if the EU wakes up one morning and decides it wants to have power over tax, which because there is a further context of "an EU that relentlessly draws powers to itself (at the expense of the member states)", it inevitably will.

oscarBravo's answer, on the other hand, is framed in the context of "an EU that is only entitled to extend its own competences where they are directly implied by competences explicitly granted" and where the EU can only, in the final analysis, do what is allowed by the member states (who can, if necessary, change the treaties). That the EU has no competence on direct taxation, and that the member states have no intention whatsoever of granting it that competence, is, in that context, a guarantee that the EU will not be interfering with our corporation taxes.

So, not unlike some of the interminable debates on the religion boards, the argument does appear to come down to a matter of faith. And, much like those discussions, that impression is more apparent than real, but it requires a lot of technical research to show why that is so.

However, these were exactly the kind of what-if issues that dominated the debate - and the treaties, perhaps unsurprisingly, don't actually contain explicit guarantees against every single hypothetical.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suppose it was a sort of flippant response to dresden's flippant response.

Yes/No question got Yes/No answer. There's an almighty amount of ****e posted in the Politics forum, not all of it mine.

I thought an answer to a question might be refreshing.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Yes/No question got Yes/No answer. There's an almighty amount of ****e posted in the Politics forum, not all of it mine.

I thought an answer to a question might be refreshing.

If the question you answered "yes" to was "...if... 60% of all voters (Yes & No) didn't understand what they were voting for can we really say that their input reflects their real wishes on the matter?", then I think I preferred when I thought it was a flippant answer.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

My question is whether we take that decision at face value, and unquestioningly obey the tyrannical majority, whose representatives (here and elsewhere) seem to get rather offended at the idea that their input into the running of the country should involved anything more carefully planned than the single word "no".

Once again yes. The tyrannical majority is what voting is all about. It seems your problem is in letting people vote.

The answer was "no" because the question was framed "Yes/No".

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

Once again yes. The tyrannical majority is what voting is all about. It seems your problem is in letting people vote.

I didn't see any indication of this. I saw OB take issue with people who refused to put forward reason(s) for voting no and/or not being constructive after the fact. 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.

dresden8 wrote: »

The answer was "no" because the question was framed "Yes/No".

That was for the referendum itself. 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?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Once again yes. The tyrannical majority is what voting is all about.

Once again, I'll ask the question: 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?

It seems your problem is in letting people vote.

My problem right now is with posters refusing to answer difficult questions, even when they're framed as simple "yes/no" ones.

The answer was "no" because the question was framed "Yes/No".

And that's your vision of the infallible system that is democracy? "I said no, now bugger off and leave me alone, I have better things to do than think about the consequences of my decisions."