Disreputable sentiments in Europe

ixtlan

limklad wrote: »

The commissioner is a false non-issue because of NICE treaty- We have lost that in sometime in the future, maybe not Immediately, since we vote NO and in case the Lisbon Treaty is put to us again,

Yes, but surely you would acknowledge that it was a big reason many people voted no? And that it appears from Sinn Fein that they say it's item number one.

limklad wrote: »

Most Nations within the EU is part of NATO or want to join NATO, since Majority rule under Lisbon, our foreign policy will be NATO point of view. Therefore the foreign affairs High representative will give NATO point of view. We will no longer be neutral in world view.

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Sorry for the outburst but... there is no "Majority rule under Lisbon" for foreign policy or military matters. There is an absolute veto. To suggest there is "majority rule" is mis-information. In fact Lisbon did not really change anything for foreign affairs except to appoint a more specific representative to represent the unanimous view if there was one. In practice this guy or girl would only speak for us on matters where the 27 agreed, which would be no-brainer issues, like criticising Burma or China. For the disputed issues, eg Iraq war, there would never have been agreement.

I'm just trying to articulate that there were specific concerns that might be addressable within a slightly modified Lisbon. I thought these matters were fine already but some more concrete language could be found perhaps.

Ix.

limklad

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you accept that Coir might have got a 100k+ voters to the polls to keep out abortion,prostitution and hard drugs?How blind was that part of the vote?

I'd imagine theres at least a 100k mass goers who went into the ballot box with that attitude and then theres the people who wanted to stop European army conscription..how blind was their vote?

Finally-My own bank manager voted no because he went to the post office on the day of the poll to pay a €40 parking fine and was told he must pay €60 because he was 2 days late paying so he went to the polling station and voted no saying that will stuff them.
How inteligent is that?

It is call democracy. To deny anyone who is entailed to vote a chance a vote is far worse than a voter making a bad choice. Without democracy we are back to Dictatorship, etc. Under a Dictatorship etc, You could be that bank manager with more than a parking fine, jail sentence for not agreeing with them or worst in jail for life for parking in the wrong spot.

pwurple

limklad wrote: »

It is call democracy. To deny anyone who is entailed to vote a chance a vote is far worse than a voter making a bad choice. Without democracy we are back to Dictatorship, etc. Under a Dictatorship etc, You could be that bank manager with more than a parking fine, jail sentence for not agreeing with them or worst in jail for life for parking in the wrong spot.

Calling them stupid is hardly denying them the right to vote. It's expressing justified frustration at people taking a very serious constitutional responsibilty so lightly, and voting flippantly.

Crash

DeVore wrote: »

So instead you simply enforce it on the people? Because the politicians know better then their ignorant and pesky plebisites?

Wow. The implied arrogancy in that is stunning. Its quite shocking that people think its ok to force something everyone "knows" is "for the best" onto a populace who, God love them, dont know any better and need them to take care of us (or we drool....??)

DeV.

At the same time DeV, why the hell do we elect TD's if not that we are electing someone that we can trust to be well informed (In fact, SIGNIFICANTLY better informed than the average of the constituency) on Issues which we know little about, and will vote a way we believe in in relation to issues we DO know something about. Its part of a representative democracy, you essentially have to assume that the person that you voted for will be well informed on issues that are too complex to use direct democracy. There are hundreds of times a year when we consciously or subconsciously admit the fact that politicians know better than the average people. In fact, we bank on it. Without it our system is absolutely 100 percent ridiculuous, and we should be doing direct democratic voting for every issue, which is even more ridiculuous.

Red Alert

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd imagine theres at least a 100k mass goers who went into the ballot box with that attitude and then theres the people who wanted to stop European army conscription..how blind was their vote?

That comment is offensive and silly. I am a practicing catholic, I voted no. My no vote had nothing to do with abortion, drugs, neutrality or indeed the catholic church itself. I voted no because I was unhappy with the lack of information about the treaty from the yes side and because I was unhappy with the interference from Europe in our domestic electoral process.

Red Alert

Red Alert wrote: »

That comment is offensive and silly. I am a practicing catholic, I voted no. My no vote had nothing to do with abortion, drugs, neutrality or indeed the catholic church itself. I voted no because I was unhappy with the lack of information about the treaty from the yes side and because I was unhappy with the interference from Europe in our domestic electoral process.

It wasn't aimed at you then just as much as it wasn't aimed at catholic mass goers that voted yes.

I am also a mass goer and I was handed a cóir leaflet by an auld biddy at the door going out last sunday(not at the gate but at the actual door) pleading with me not to vote for abortion prostitution and hard drugs.

I found that offensive and silly to be honest.

You can be pretty sure and anecdotal evidence tells me this that she had her supporters and lots of them.

is_that_so

bug wrote: »

With all respect for the Irish vote, we cannot allow the huge majority of Europe to be duped by a minority of a minority of a minority.

-Axel Schafer

The only German political groups to welcome the result were the NDP(Neo Nazis) and the extreme left.

ateam

Red Alert wrote: »

That comment is offensive and silly. I am a practicing catholic, I voted no. My no vote had nothing to do with abortion, drugs, neutrality or indeed the catholic church itself. I voted no because I was unhappy with the lack of information about the treaty from the yes side and because I was unhappy with the interference from Europe in our domestic electoral process.

So you didn't vote on the merits of the Treaty. Information provided by the Yes side would have been biased anyway, it was up to you to find out about the Treaty and make an informed decision.

turgon

is_that_so wrote: »

The only German political groups to welcome the result were the NDP(Neo Nazis) and the extreme left.

Yeah, and the only political party here to support it were Sinn Fein. Yet there was still a majority no.


I think Brian Lenihan had the best quote of the campaign - "When the far-let and far-right take over you quickly find that free speech disappears"

pwurple

Red Alert wrote: »

I voted no because I was unhappy with the lack of information about the treaty from the yes side.

How can people post this 'lack of information' mumbo-jumbo on a message board? You've clearly got the whole of the internet at your disposal, and you couldn't find any information on the Lisbon treaty? Please.

Scofflaw

pwurple wrote: »

I voted no because I was unhappy with the lack of information about the treaty from the yes side.

How can people post this 'lack of information' mumbo-jumbo on a message board? You've clearly got the whole of the internet at your disposal, and you couldn't find any information on the Lisbon treaty? Please.

To be fair, I think he's making a different point - that there was a lack of information from the Yes side - the merits of the Treaty, what was good about it, etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

pwurple wrote: »

Calling them stupid is hardly denying them the right to vote. It's expressing justified frustration at people taking a very serious constitutional responsibilty so lightly, and voting flippantly.

It is their choice to vote whatever they want, complaining/degrading them is attacking their right to choose the way they want to vote. Taking your frustration at them is attack their rights to choose, otherwise their decision is not their choice but yours or others. That sitution is not democracy. To bully physically/verbally/emotionally them in to voting what way you want them will only lead to revolt.

Our Constitution was drawn up during a time (1930's) when major governing changes were made through Europe in various countries and our leaders decided to place the Constitution in the hands of the people, not in the Government, so our country would not be hi-jacked quickly by fascist, communism, dictatorship. Some elements were forming here in Ireland at the time.


It is stated that all powers of government "derive, under God, from the people"

Constitution Article 6 wrote:

1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.
2. These powers of government are exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of State established by this Constitution.

limklad

turgon wrote: »

Yeah, and the only political party here to support it were Sinn Fein. Yet there was still a majority no.


I think Brian Lenihan had the best quote of the campaign - "When the far-let and far-right take over you quickly find that free speech disappears"

Brian Lenihan Seat must be under pressure then at the next election with Sinn Fein will be the largest Party then.
His coments will come back to haunt him as many voters were Fianna Failers His own people!:eek: Yeap there is lots of Far Right and Far Right within Fianna Fail supports jumping onto the Sinn Fein bandwagon.:rolleyes:

FionnMatthew

limklad wrote: »

So you would ask us to blindly vote yes

I would certainly NOT ask you to do that, especially considering the fact that, as you have already had AMPLE opportunity to know at this stage, considering our previous exchanges, I DIDN'T VOTE, disliked both the YES and NO campaigns on the basis that they were disingenuous and simplistic, and would never tell someone how I think they ought to conduct their own vote, so reliant is such a thing on their own individual discretion, so long as they are inclined to exercise discretion, and not just squander their vote on a whim.

I'm partial to neither the YES nor the NO side, nor did I advocate, nor do I, a YES or NO viewpoint on the LISBON treaty, nor do I have any particular opinion on whether we should have voted YES or NO.

I'm far more interested in the fact that, by and large, nobody read the treaty, whether they voted YES or NO. YES voters, en masse, voted because they were told to, or because they were persuaded by second hand arguments from the government. NO voters, en masse, were swayed by disingenuous sensationalism that had nothing to do with the text of the treaty.

I'm not a "YES person."

and give away our rights without a word,

Where in the treaty are the words that give away our rights. I'm open to the idea that there are such, even having read it myself. I'm not convinced you've actually found anything of that sort there, however, since you've already admitted you couldn't understand (read: "didn't read") the treaty.

lying down and let our foolish government (not very smart in most cases)

I genuinely do think that you're right about this. A large proportion of elected officials in this country are unforgivably stupid people.

That very cheeky and snobbish and anti-democratic of you.

Well, since I haven't said anything of the sort, it's none of these things.

You might call me a snob, but it's because I think people ought to hold their votes less cheap than to throw them away on the slightest unwarranted suspicions, or the questionable words of others, whether they be partial arguments for either side of the divide.

And, please... Could you wise up on democracy, for goodness sake? If anything, I'm not being anti-democratic. What I'm lamenting is the lapse of democracy into populism. I'm lamenting the death of democracy. I'm longing for proper democracy. The last thing I'm being is anti-democratic.

It is when we vote NO does the YES people claim we are stupid and start with smears campaign.

Once again, and for the last time, I AM NOT A "YES PERSON."

With the most deliberate respect, you really do run the risk of sounding stupid by so clearly missing this point out. I suspect you are, in fact, simply not reading what I've written. I urge you to do so. It is nothing if not frustrating to be repeatedly straw-manned by you because, having picked up the mistaken impression that I'm a "YES person," you continue to ignore multiple and explicit indications to the contrary.

Please, for the love of reason, RTFP.

limklad

limklad wrote: »

It is call democracy. To deny anyone who is entailed to vote a chance a vote is far worse than a voter making a bad choice. Without democracy we are back to Dictatorship, etc. Under a Dictatorship etc, You could be that bank manager with more than a parking fine, jail sentence for not agreeing with them or worst in jail for life for parking in the wrong spot.

In this democracy though,one also has the right to pour scorn on peoples stupid reasons for voting one way or another as much as having the right to praise reasoned arguments.

Parking fines has to be one of the most pathetic reasons ever.

I'm of the view if people voted based on the thick Cóir document here in front of me that goes on about Lisbon legalising abortion,prostitution and hard drugs-they deserve scorn.
There could be a million mass goers in this country and if only 10% of them voted on those lies,It's time for dispair.
Don't get me started on the libertas lies.

I'm told the McEvaddy bros gave Cóir over 2 million for their campaign by the way and of course they are libertas supporters.
Libertas itself didn't disclose who it's donors were.

Goebbells would have been proud! The government on the other hand for their lack lustre campaign and the lateness of it's starting should be ashamed of themselves and rightly embarrassed.

Dirk Gently

Deleted User wrote: »

Libertas itself didn't disclose who it's donors were.

Goebbells would have been proud!

When is the deadline? I think they have to be disclosed pretty soon afaik. I look forward to following the paper trail on that list of dummy groups and companies.

by the way, Goebbells would have been proud of quiet a lot of the elections in this little country of ours. Libertas, obviously with their own agenda but also the main political parties do their fair share of misleading too. Our last general election for example was based on a lie about the state of the economy (a really obvious one to anyone half following the economic situation). Programmes for government where sold to the public based on over optimistic projections of growth during the coming period. None of the main parties had the decency to stand on a truthful platform, promising not money they wouldn't have but to manage our economy better in what would be a period of slump.

You can moan about Libertas till the cows come home (I despise them too) but when you talk about decieving the electorate you can't pick and chose the campaigns which are acceptable and unacceptable to deceive in.

nesf

clown bag wrote: »

You can moan about Libertas till the cows come home (I despise them too) but when you talk about decieving the electorate you can't pick and chose the campaigns which are acceptable and unacceptable to deceive in.

The thing is, there's a large gap between using an optimistic projection of economic growth (which was at least based on some grain of truth) and lying utterly about a document up for referendum. Whatever about worst and best case scenarios being abused in political debate it's a whole other thing to be uttering complete falsehoods that are demonstrably untrue. The problem is, groups like Cóir and Libertas are truly unaccountable. They can literally print any lie they want and post it through your letterbox or up on a telephone pole. This is a problem that's extremely hard to fix.

I agree with you that the main parties ain't angels but there's a matter of scale here with the extent of the misleading going on.

Dirk Gently

nesf wrote: »

there's a matter of scale here with the extent of the misleading going on.

Sure, there is a scale involved but I still reckon what went on in the GE was nothing more than purposely misleading the public, anything else is clutching at technical straws tbh.

Where scale comes into though is that Fridays vote was geopolitical, IMO more important than the GE. The GE was national and they were all up to the same thing anyway. Still, the willingness to mislead was the same, just the consequences greater.

murphaph

ixtlan wrote: »

Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Sorry for the outburst but... there is no "Majority rule under Lisbon" for foreign policy or military matters. There is an absolute veto.

...an absolute veto that will be respected like our referendum? I'll never believe the EU elite again with the way they're behaving now.

nesf

clown bag wrote: »

Sure, there is a scale involved but I still reckon what went on in the GE was nothing more than purposely misleading the public, anything else is clutching at technical straws tbh.

There's misleading by being overly optimistic and there's lying about something that cannot or does not exist. The growth figures presented in the GE could at least happen, it was just unlikely. The treaty on the other hand didn't in any way threaten our corporation tax or stance on abortion, it wasn't even a possibility, the treaty didn't change the status quo on these two issues. There's an important difference between the two I think.

clown bag wrote: »

Where scale comes into though is that Fridays vote was geopolitical, IMO more important than the GE. The GE was national and they were all up to the same thing anyway. Still, the willingness to mislead was the same, just the consequences greater.

Yes and no. The tactics used in this referendum bothered me a lot more than what went on in the GE.

clown bag

clown bag wrote: »

Our last general election for example was based on a lie about the state of the economy (a really obvious one to anyone half following the economic situation). Programmes for government where sold to the public based on over optimistic projections of growth during the coming period. None of the main parties had the decency to stand on a truthful platform, promising not money they wouldn't have but to manage our economy better in what would be a period of slump.

In fairness though none of them could have predicted the credit crunch and $150 a barrell oil either which is surely responsible for halving the growth rates on their own bat and seriously impacting exchequer returns.

Thats none of the parties fault either opposition or government.They could have had the luck of having none of those outside impacts and been able to impliment a lot of things.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

...an absolute veto that will be respected like our referendum? I'll never believe the EU elite again with the way they're behaving now.

Ok so.
I respect the general election of 1922 (we'll hold one every 100 years from now on).
As the rightfull Taoiseach being the descendant heir leader of Sinn Féin,will you give me a hand evicting the Taoiseach from his office tommorrow and moving Gerry Adams in ?

turgon

Well Black Briar lets not be overly simplistic. Larger party in bold.

1918 - Sinn Fein
1922 - Split into Sinn Fein and Cumman na Gaedhral (later Fine Gael)
1926 - This Sinn Fein then split into Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail
1970 - This Sinn Fein then split into Sinn Fein and ((now) The Workers Party)
1986 - This Sinn Fein then split into Sinn Fein and Republican Sinn Fein


Further splits and restarts during the Troubles.
Sinn Fein of 1922 does not equal Sinn Fein of 2008

limklad

FionnMatthew wrote: »

would never tell someone how I think they ought to conduct their own vote, so reliant is such a thing on their own individual discretion, so long as they are inclined to exercise discretion, and not just squander their vote on a whim.

You have no proof that most people squander their vote on a whim, certainly not more than 50%. Did you do a poll of NO voters on the reason why they voted NO? I can guess No, otherwise you would have mentioned it by now and publish the results, and therefore your comment is an assumption (guess) on your part, unless you vote on a whim in the past.

For anyone who does vote on a whim, it is their choice to vote whatever reason they see fit and excerise their right to vote. Voting is private so you cannot stop them doing so, not your or anyone else. There is no law against voting on a whim, it is a personal decision otherwise your risk the starting a mob similar like fascist or communism or what happen here over the decades until it was stomped out in the early 90's. World is not perfect, there is no perfect person. One person idea of perfection can be another person hell.

You have to admit that many people are piss off with the TD’s because they are not truly listening to them. They (TD's) failed to deal with their bosses (the electorate) issues before a very important Referendum to them. It does not mean they (the electorate) all voted NO because they are pissed off with the Politicians. Some are pissed off, others are truly against the treaty no matter what and the rest either made an inform decision or still unsure and did not believe the government arguements, therefore took a cautious NO vote.

I have more faith on the electorate than I do with the Politicians. Politicians should have learnt from the last 2 NICE treaty referendums and previous referendums that were rejected.

limklad

Deleted User wrote: »

In this democracy though,one also has the right to pour scorn on peoples stupid reasons for voting one way or another as much as having the right to praise reasoned arguments.

Parking fines has to be one of the most pathetic reasons ever.

I'm of the view if people voted based on the thick Cóir document here in front of me that goes on about Lisbon legalising abortion,prostitution and hard drugs-they deserve scorn.
There could be a million mass goers in this country and if only 10% of them voted on those lies,It's time for dispair.
Don't get me started on the libertas lies.

I'm told the McEvaddy bros gave Cóir over 2 million for their campaign by the way and of course they are libertas supporters.
Libertas itself didn't disclose who it's donors were.

Goebbells would have been proud! The government on the other hand for their lack lustre campaign and the lateness of it's starting should be ashamed of themselves and rightly embarrassed.

I stated before and stated again. It was not the NO Campaign claims that I voted NO. It was the Government responses to valid question from the media and others. Their failure to read and properly explain the treaty that the negotiated on our behalf, therefore the Government the reason why I voted no.

At work, if I was sent to negotiated on my company behalf on a merger and failed to read the agreement and foolishly signed the agreement and then went back to my company and told them to agree to it and admit that I never read and understand it to an extent to explain it properly, when they ask me questions about it, and if others within the company disagrees with it. I then verbally attacked them over their lies.
There are people within management would be against no matter what, another could be pissed off with the CEO and maybe one person is having a bad day and decided to vote no to the merger.
Do you think I still be in a JOB? No I would be fired.

Since 5% of the population voted either for the Far Right and Far left in the last election. It does not mean that they (50%) are Far Right and Far Left Now. Many people sussed a red herring or warning lights went up for similar or different reasons.

is_that_so

No laws against whims at all except that it runs the risk that we make a mockery of the referendum process. To my mind people should be mindful of what they are voting on and leave grudges and anything that is not relevant to a referendum outside and then vote as they choose based on the issues.

limklad

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Where in the treaty are the words that give away our rights. I'm open to the idea that there are such, even having read it myself. I'm not convinced you've actually found anything of that sort there, however, since you've already admitted you couldn't understand (read: "didn't read") the treaty.

Not everybody have time to read the treaty due to our busy lives. We expect those (our leaders) who negotiated the treaty to read and understood it after 7 years, since most of it from the failed constitution, to make sure our rights was not infringe on nor likely through some legal loop hole.

Who knows what could be lurking/hidden in the text than the average person could miss? If those people was working for me I would fired them on the spot.
While claims of our rights are enforced in one area of the text and in another could undermine it with certain conditional clauses, ie in the states under terrorism where their rights was undermined with the homeland security bills or some bills after 911 in one foul swoop.

ixtlan

murphaph wrote: »

...an absolute veto that will be respected like our referendum? I'll never believe the EU elite again with the way they're behaving now.

We have an absolute veto as regards Lisbon. The veto is on whether Lisbon can apply to Ireland. We vote no and it cannot apply to us.

We don't have a veto on what the other countries decide to do. They will be taking foreign policy decisions on that. Surely you do not want Ireland to interfere with their foreign policy decisions?

In reality though the EU will strive as always to find a consensus. However all options are open, stretching from leaving to EU to re-running Lisbon as is. The solution likely will be somewhere in the middle.

However, once again, foreign policy was going to remain a veto matter under Lisbon, just as it was under Nice.

Look at it like the common tax rate. We had a veto, it could not be forced on us, but 26 other countries could have decided to implement the same rate inside the EU (if we agreed to an enhanced co-operation group) or outside the EU (in any circumstances).

The vetos are on what we are forced to do, they are not really to stop other countries doing what they want. In fact if we could could stop them then in effect we would be refusing them their veto!

Ix.

ixtlan

limklad wrote: »

Not everybody have time to read the treaty due to our busy lives. We expect those (our leaders) who negotiated the treaty to read and understood it after 7 years, since most of it from the failed constitution, to make sure our rights was not infringe on nor likely through some legal loop hole.

Who knows what could be lurking/hidden in the text than the average person could miss? If those people was working for me I would fired them on the spot.
While claims of our rights are enforced in one area of the text and in another could undermine it with certain conditional clauses, ie in the states under terrorism where their rights was undermined with the homeland security bills or some bills after 911 in one foul swoop.

I take this point but... it is based on an attitude that the EU cannot be trusted and that treaties will be manipulated to mean something different from what it seemed when they were signed and voted on.

When has this ever happened in the past? And remember that this view you express has been brought up in every treaty we have voted on, and yet as far as I am aware there has never been a instance where the EU courts twisted meanings as you suggest.

As regards homeland security/911, the EU has always been traditionally far more liberal than the US, so I think such comparisons are unfair.

Ix

limklad

limklad wrote: »

I stated before and stated again. It was not the NO Campaign claims that I voted NO. It was the Government responses to valid question from the media and others. Their failure to read and properly explain the treaty that the negotiated on our behalf, therefore the Government the reason why I voted no.

Ah come on now.
They did "read" the treaty not in the telephone book way..but in the same way that they read the finance bill every year.They formulate it so they know it's purpose and what it doesn't do.

At work, if I was sent to negotiated on my company behalf on a merger and failed to read the agreement and foolishly signed the agreement and then went back to my company and told them to agree to it and admit that I never read and understand it to an extent to explain it properly, when they ask me questions about it, and if others within the company disagrees with it. I then verbally attacked them over their lies.
There are people within management would be against no matter what, another could be pissed off with the CEO and maybe one person is having a bad day and decided to vote no to the merger.
Do you think I still be in a JOB? No I would be fired.

Would you now.I suppose you would .
But I'll bet it's very rare that someone like you has to do that.
Consider a solicitor agreeing with a client a deal that contains reams of complex sub clauses over several hundred pages.
The solicitor will know that pages 45 to 145 contain the standard clauses attached to the document to ensure that X,Y and Z conditions are met.
Is he supposed to read that? Does he read that? No.

Since 5% of the population voted either for the Far Right and Far left in the last election. It does not mean that they (50%) are Far Right and Far Left Now. Many people sussed a red herring or warning lights went up for similar or different reasons.

Sure. I agree with you,A lot did (Wrongly in my view obviously and Rightly in yours).
I also proposed that religious zealots convinced a lot of people to vote for fear of hard drugs and prostitution.If that was even 10% of mass goers,it makes up a number equal to the no majority.
The remaining 90% of mass goers may either have voted no for legitimate reasons,not voted at all or voted yes.
Of the 3000 or so mass goers in my local area (about 25% of the catchment population I'd reckon) I'd be pretty confident that there would be 2 or 300 or more that were swayed by the cóir lies.
All it took was that picture of Pope Benedict there on the literature and it was all Gospel truth to them

They are perfectly entitled to believe lies and vote accordingly I suppose but it's sad.