Are multiple referendums undemocratic?

SkepticOne

ionix5891 wrote: »

it doesnt have to amount to much

just the fact that we are not at the "heart of Europe" as promised by the No campaigners or knowing that Ireland is the odd one out might be very damaging especially for business

OK, I'm going to take it that your answer is that pretty much the most that is going to happen is that we won't be regarded as core EU Project enthusiasts. Please correct me if I am wrong here. I don't want to be accused of misrepresentation. Well, my response is: were we ever regarded thus? I mean, the main selling point of the treaty was the various derogations, vetoes, opt-outs and such that the negotiators managed to achieve for us. I think being at the heart of Europe was only ever something that our leaders wanted us to believe. I.n reality we've been looking out for ourselves - how much can we get out of Europe without giving too much away.

right now this uncertainty hanging in the air like bad smell is not good for business, bad enough theres a global downturn this No outcome just adds salt to the wound

Possibly, but I think the big damage now being done is due to the Yes voters not accepting the legitimacy of the recent result and are threatening to drag out the campaign and uncertainty until they get their way. We should accept the result and stand together as a country. A divided country that can't even abide by its own decisions is certainly not one I think businesses will find attractive.

ionix5891

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I fear we will miss out on Common Energy policy and collective bargaining power, leaving us to fend for ourselves while ~500,000,000 people club together to buy Oil & Gas.

this is a big one and directly affects the price of petrol at the pumps and more importantly (speaking from experience during previous employment in a certain large irish energy company) the gas that powers our powerplants and homes

the russians right now are playing each european country against each other, instead of bidding as one every country is currently bidding against the neighbours and the russians love it

PopeBuckfastXVI

SkepticOne wrote: »

We should accept the result and stand together as a country. A divided country that can't even abide by its own decisions is certainly not one I think businesses will find attractive.

Oh come on now... we haven't had a good old bust up since Saipan

*ducks for cover*

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

Ths uncertainty could definately have an impact on any new inward investment in the short to medium term.

But if the British, the Poles & the Lativians etc. all have to leave, we're going to have a labour shortage very quickly, so we might not want too much inward investment in the short to medium term. We could always direct them up to NI - if they got themselves up and running it would save us a few bob.

PopeBuckfastXVI

thehighground wrote: »

But if the British, the Poles & the Lativians etc. all have to leave, we're going to have a labour shortage very quickly, so we might not want too much inward investment in the short to medium term. We could always direct them up to NI - if they got themselves up and running it would save us a few bob.

We'll have a shortage of suitable labour you mean.

Some industries are choked looking for qualified candidates at the moment, and are shopping abroad.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ionix5891 wrote: »

this is a big one and directly affects the price of petrol at the pumps and more importantly (speaking from experience during previous employment in a certain large irish energy company) the gas that powers our powerplants and homes

the russians right now are playing each european country against each other, instead of bidding as one every country is currently bidding against the neighbours and the russians love it

It's probably my #1 fear to be honest (selfish as that is), I find it hard to see them giving us gas at 3 times the cost payed in the EU, it simply wouldn't be worth their while for such a small market next to such a big one.

This one, above all others, is what will f*ck us.

SkepticOne

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Oh come on now... we haven't had a good old bust up since Saipan

*ducks for cover*

I'm not suggesting a confrontational stance, if that is what you are getting at. What I'm suggesting is that when it comes to dealing with things external to the country we speak with one voice.

When we have elections we don't continue to fight among ourselves after the results are in. We accept the results (even if it goes against our personal wishes) and get on with it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a confrontational stance, if that is what you are getting at. What I'm suggesting is that when it comes to dealing with things external to the country we speak with one voice.

When we have elections we don't continue to fight among ourselves after the results are in. We accept the results (even if it goes against our personal wishes) and get on with it.

I was only having a badly needed laugh Skeptic

But on your second point we absolutely do, that's what the opposition in the Dáil do, day in day out.

thehighground

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

We'll have a shortage of suitable labour you mean.

Some industries are choked looking for qualified candidates at the moment, and are shopping abroad.

I'd say the British (our largest ethnic minority) are fairly highly qualified. I'd say if we needed IT people, for instance, Indians who are now our competitors, would have no problem moving to Ireland for work.

As for the low skilled jobs held by the Eastern Europeans - there are many asians/Africans who would just love to get into Ireland.

But at the end of the day, we are a very small population, we've come through very tough times in the past.

In all, it might be far more worrying for the EU if we asked people to leave. Ireland will never be poor as it was before!

ionix5891

SkepticOne wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a confrontational stance, if that is what you are getting at. What I'm suggesting is that when it comes to dealing with things external to the country we speak with one voice.

When we have elections we don't continue to fight among ourselves after the results are in. We accept the results (even if it goes against our personal wishes) and get on with it.

why not? isn't a continuing debate part of the democratic process?

btw as i mentioned in another thread i am a director and employer of a small company here with few employees, the current atmosphere stinks to be honest, very bad timing


@thehighground why would anyone want to come to Ireland after reading a few of the "blame the immigrants" threads in this very sub forum and hearing that majority of people voted NO due to immigrants

if we end up on the outside of the EU, i am out of here

thehighground

PopeBuckfastXVI, I read your worries.

No half full glasses with you, eh. I think you should just get it over and done with quickly

thehighground

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's probably my #1 fear to be honest (selfish as that is), I find it hard to see them giving us gas at 3 times the cost payed in the EU, it simply wouldn't be worth their while for such a small market next to such a big one.

This one, above all others, is what will f*ck us.

Chavez loves us I think. He has got oil

PopeBuckfastXVI

thehighground wrote: »

PopeBuckfastXVI, I read your worries.

No half full glasses with you, eh. I think you should just get it over and done with quickly

I was asked what's the worst that could happen, and what fear there was in a two track Europe.

PopeBuckfastXVI

thehighground wrote: »

Chavez loves us I think. He has got oil

We'll see how he feels when we realign with Britain & the US

thehighground

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

We'll see how he feels when we realign with Britain & the US

Well, if we are to realign with those two, they could probably sort us out with all our energy needs.

We always did good beef trade with the Arab countries in the Middle East anyway - beef for oil scheme. Probably timely because I read yesterday that the EU has set up trading links with Israel (and likely to be members in the next couple of year) which might have jopadaised our trading with Arab countries.

SkepticOne

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I was only having a badly needed laugh Skeptic

But on your second point we absolutely do, that's what the opposition in the Dáil do, day in day out.

They accept that Fianna Fail gets to form the government, don't they, even if they would rather it was themselves. They don't go on about how the electorate voted for the wrong (according to them) reasons.

Why do you think that is?

PopeBuckfastXVI

SkepticOne wrote: »

They accept that Fianna Fail gets to form the government, don't they, even if they would rather it was themselves. They don't go on about how the electorate voted for the wrong (according to them) reasons.

Why do you think that is?

They point out where Fianna Fail lied in their manifesto, in the hope that the electorate realise they were duped, I intend to do the same.

SkepticOne

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

They point out where Fianna Fail lied in their manifesto, in the hope that the electorate realise they were duped, I intend to do the same.

But we accept the result don't we.

I didn't like the campaigns on either side of this campaign but at the end of the day everyone had to consider the issues and make their decision. I would like to think that if I was on the other side I would have the maturity to respect the decision of the electorate even though I might prefer it was otherwise. I have greatest respect for those of the Yes side who, now that the decision has been made, accept that decision.

PopeBuckfastXVI

SkepticOne wrote: »

But we accept the result don't we.

I didn't like the campaigns on either side of this campaign but at the end of the day everyone had to consider the issues and make their decision. I would like to think that if I was on the other side I would have the maturity to respect the decision of the electorate even though I might prefer it was otherwise. I have greatest respect for those of the Yes side who, now that the decision has been made, accept that decision.

In fairness I'm not exactly picking up a gun am I?

Of course I accept the result, I don't want Lisbon foisted on us, I've already said that.

But in this country we have a right to free speech, and I'll exercise that right all day long thanks all the same.

SkepticOne

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

But in this country we have a right to free speech, and I'll exercise that right all day long thanks all the same.

If you think I'm trying to deny your right to speak you're missing the point I was trying to make.

kowloon

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Let me give you a metaphor to ponder guys (remembering that I feel there was a great deal of misinformation from some sections of the No camp, but by no means all).

• You are convicted of a murder you didn't commit based on circumstantial evidence.
• You have been in Jail for 6 months of a 25 Year sentance.
• It turns out that there was somebody framing you, and those people are outed by the press, with solid evidence.

Should you:

A. Get an immediate retrial.
B. Wait 9 - 19 Years, or some 'significant period of time' before your retrial.

Let me give you another metaphor.

You're not convicted of a murder you didn't commit but you "have a dodgy look about you".

Should you:

A. Get an immediate retrial.
B. Wait 9 - 19 Years, or some 'significant period of time' before your retrial.

PopeBuckfastXVI

SkepticOne wrote: »

If you think I'm trying to deny your right to speak you're missing the point I was trying to make.

I didn't miss your point, but I feel that fighting for another referendum, with more honest and understandable debate is in the best interests of the country, you disagree. We both agree that we want what's best for the country, we just disagree on what that is.

I think that reasonably sums up our positions?

SkepticOne

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I didn't miss your point, but I feel that fighting for another referendum, with more honest and understandable debate is in the best interests of the country, you disagree. We both agree that we want what's best for the country, we just disagree on what that is.

I think that reasonably sums up our positions?

Yes, that sums up our positions. I think that campaigning for another referendum within days of losing the first shows lack of respect for the electorate or the electorate's right to make a decision. Obviously I don't deny your right to do this. I think it is not in the interests of the country to have another referendum at present but moreover not in the interests of the Yes campaign. I think another referendum now or soon would result in an even more resounding No.

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I didn't miss your point, but I feel that fighting for another referendum, with more honest and understandable debate is in the best interests of the country, you disagree. We both agree that we want what's best for the country, we just disagree on what that is.

I think that reasonably sums up our positions?

True but I doubt what I bolded is possible And if a yes side won I'd probably swap places with you as I'd feel people we're mislead by the yes this time and would want a re-vote more openly debated for the greater good of the nation. Was it cognitive dissonance?

PopeBuckfastXVI

SkepticOne wrote: »

Yes, that sums up our positions. I think that campaigning for another referendum within days of losing the first shows lack of respect for the electorate or the electorate's right to make a decision. Obviously I don't deny your right to do this. I think it is not in the interests of the country to have another referendum at present but moreover not in the interests of the Yes campaign. I think another referendum now or soon would result in an even more resounding No.

I agree, but who knows if and when we'll get another shot, so I want to get organised as soon as possible.

I've mainly been involved in rebutting what I consider falsehoods on here, and discussing the potential implications of the 'No' vote. One of the falsehoods I've been mainly arguing against is this very thread, that multiple referenda are somehow undemocratic.

As for the two threads I did start one was asking people on the Yes side if they would consider campaigning if/when we get another shot. The other was asking if the mods could start a poll on peoples current attitudes.

I also feel it is important for the significant minority (46% remember) who voted 'Yes' to have their voices heard in any renegotiation, so that the 'No' lobby don't run away with the day and water down the treaty too much.

I am apt to vote 'No' next time if I feel that any renegotiation results in a bad deal for Ireland.

If there is to be a Renegotiation of Lisbon, and we see SF have gotten the ball rolling, I want my voice heard as loudly as yours, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

True but I doubt what I bolded is possible And if a yes side won I'd probably swap places with you as I'd feel people we're mislead by the yes this time and would want a re-vote more openly debated for the greater good of the nation. Was it cognitive dissonance?

Given that a major factor of the 'No' vote was the fact that many people claimed they couldn't understand the treaty and so couldn't vote for it, I don't think we could do any worse in the honesty and understandability stakes than the first one.

And I blame the 'Yes' campaign for that by the way.

SkepticOne

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Given that a major factor of the 'No' vote was the fact that many people claimed they couldn't understand the treaty and so couldn't vote for it, I don't think we could do any worse in the honesty and understandability stakes than the first one.

Hang on, they felt this was a sufficient reason and voted accordingly. a) Who are you to say what is or is not a valid reason? b) Do you think that telling them that they voted for the wrong reason will change their minds?

heyjude

O'Morris wrote: »

I have no problem with a second referendum provided we're offered a third referendum if the result of the next one is the different from the last one.

We should aim for the best of three.

What about having another General Election while we're at it ? I mean, we didn't get a chance to vote for a government led by Brian Cowen and the people may have changed their minds about their choice of government too.

PopeBuckfastXVI

heyjude wrote: »

What about having another General Election while we're at it ? I mean, we didn't get a chance to vote for a government led by Brian Cowen and the people may have changed their minds about their choice of government too.

I agree that we should have a General Election instead of an appointed leader.

PopeBuckfastXVI

SkepticOne wrote: »

Hang on, they felt this was a sufficient reason and voted accordingly. a) Who are you to say what is or is not a valid reason? b) Do you think that telling them that they voted for the wrong reason will change their minds?

I'm saying they might change their minds if more information is presented to them and they understand the treaty better. Including what's actually in, and actually not in it.
Edit: This is about the people who said that they felt not sufficiently informed in the first place.

I believe people have the right to change their minds in light of new evidence.

That's democracy. They can always vote 'no' again remember.