Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Resolving disagreement
Options
-
24-06-2008 8:45pm#1No two democracies are the same but in any democratic process it is very important that disagreements can be resolved (or handled) otherwise the democratic process has failed.
Many no voters insist that every country must have a referendum, otherwise the treaty is not democratic. But if they think that they must answer how disagreements on the treaty would be resolved, if every country had to have a referendum.
There are only two possible ways:
1. 500 million must have a direct say in the negotiation
or
2. Politicans must keep guessing what exactly no voters want and keep running subsequent referenda until a yes vote is passed.
There is no other logical possible course of action and either of the above two would mean it would take infinity to get anything done.
To me this is very simple logic. But every single no voter I have discussed, debated or heard in the media can't grasp this simple concept. In fact, most of them haven't even thought about it.
So no voters, who insist every country must have a referendum, care to tell us how you think disagreement should be resolved?0
Comments
-
Tim Robbins wrote: »There are only two possible ways:
1. 500 million must have a direct say in the negotiation
or
2. Politicans must keep guessing what exactly no voters want and keep running subsequent referenda until a yes vote is passed.
Maybe they shouldn't keep trying to guess what 500 million people want. Perhaps they should ask them.0 -
Maybe they shouldn't keep trying to guess what 500 million people want. Perhaps they should ask them.
Well in a representative democracy the people are "asked" when they elect their government. If they are not concerned enough to make the EU an election issue then the implied consensus is that they are happy with how the EU is being handled.
You may scoff at that, but the reality is that there are no protests in Europe demanding a vote. Let's exclude the handfuls of people who "protested" outside the Irish embassies. Where the protests like the fishermen, or the truckers, or the students in France over the employment law?
If you survey people of course they will say they want to vote. If someone walks up to me and tells me about this "important treaty" which I've never heard of, which the Irish are voting on, of course I will say I would like to vote. I'll look rather disinterested if I say no. However the real question to ask is whether that European voter will ask their politicians about it at the next election, and whether it would sway their vote? In this regard, the majority of EU citizens don't want to vote.
Ix.0 -
Ok they ask them how? Everyone writes a little essay? Everyone answers a multiple choice survey? Then when disagreement manifests, how is it resolved?Maybe they shouldn't keep trying to guess what 500 million people want. Perhaps they should ask them.
You haven't solved the problem, you have just added another layer of useless rhetoric.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »Ok they ask them how? Everyone writes a little essay? Everyone answers a multiple choice survey? Then when disagreement manifests, how is it resolved?
You haven't solved the problem, you have just added another layer of useless rhetoric.
How come more No voters haven't contributed to this debate?
They are great at telling us they voted no, they people have spoken but about you engage in discourse about how to move forward?0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »How come more No voters haven't contributed to this debate?
They are great at telling us they voted no, they people have spoken but about you engage in discourse about how to move forward?
I categorise the no voters (who post here) as follows:- Those who voted no for specific, well-understood reasons connected with the content of the treaty.
- Those who voted no due to misinterpretation of parts of the treaty/misunderstanding of how the EU works. (Keeping commissioner/Abortion/Youth in Asia/etc)
- Those who voted no due to insufficient information.
- Those who voted no because of local political issues. ("Screw FF"/"I feel I'm being bullied into voting yes"/etc)
- Those who voted no because there was no EU-wide referendum.
- Those who voted no because they mistrust the EU.
- Those who voted no because they're against the EU being anything other than an economic alliance.
- Those who voted no because they're against the whole EU project.
The ones you primarily need to deal with in order to adjust the Lisbon Treaty in order to move forward are those in category 1. There are a few of them who post here, but I suspect they're tired of expressing their views over and over to have them drowned out by the noise.
As for the other categories, well 2, 3, 4 and 5 can be dealt with by better education as to the issues and/or better involvement by the political parties. I doubt they're particularly useful to the EU in terms of trying to persuade no voters into voting yes. Certainly, many of their issues can't be fixed at EU level.
For the 6th category, the EU can't do much other than try and reform itself into an organisation which is more likely to be trusted by them. Unfortunately this requires their cooperation which makes it something of a catch-22 situation.
The 7th and 8th categories may as well be ignored (provided they don't make up a large enough minority - I don't believe they do) since they're going to vote no all the way. They don't have anything constructive to bring to the table, so it's better to listen to the helpful no voters instead.0 -
Advertisement
-
Good post. Here's a good letter from todays IT.I categorise the no voters (who post here) as follows:Madam, - Where were all the "No" commentators and letter-writers when we were discussing the EU project at the National Forum for Europe?
There were about 100 plenary meetings in Dublin and a similar number in the regions, leading to about 50 reports. The meetings were open to the public, and were well advertised. The difficulties involved in getting agreement from the leaders of all the EU states to sign a document, which was basically a compromise, would have been made clear to these latecomer experts.
A substantial proportion of the voters who are said to have "not understood" the Lisbon Treaty are well capable of analysing a document. The fact is they did not try, at least not until the last minute. The question is, should the future of the European Union be decided upon by the uninformed? As Kirkegaard put it, sometimes "the crowd is untruth". As I asked at the Forum, "where is representative democracy in all of this"? - Yours, etc,
Prof NOEL MULCAHY,
Lochlua,
Ballina/Killaloe,
Co Clare.
What's very worrying is that we now have a brand of "never" in this county who did not want to make any constructive suggestions even when there has been ample opportunity to.0 -
46. At 4:03pm on 25 Jun 2008, 1OUTTA27 wrote:
@Russelyates2?To continue ahead with the Treaty is correct.
You cannot stop because one group of people rejected the Treaty on the basis of unfounded and irrational fears.
The fact that 52% of No voters voted No because they didn?t understand the Treaty says it all. You cannot stop because people couldn?t be bothered to read it and chose instead to listen to scaremongerers and business leaders who have an interest in protecting their own profits and newspaper editors who sell fear on a daily basis.?Mr Yates, what planet do you inhabit? At least, what country?
You cannot be from Ireland, as your ignorance of the issues and the role of the media in the pre-referendum campaign is simply breathtaking (ironic, in light of your reference to people who ?couldn?t be bothered to read it?).
Why did NO voters reject the treaty? The EU Commission carried out a survey shortly after the vote which sought to explain the reasons for a NO vote. Obviously the results must be taken with a pinch of salt, as those being surveyed were asked to choose from a range of options provided by the canvassers i.e. representatives of the EU itself. The main findings about the NO camp were:
22% voted NO because they felt they didn?t know enough about the treaty to give it their approval (BTW Mr Mardell, where did you get the 52%, was it gleaned from your ?Irish colleague? perchance, the colleague who fed you the rubbish about phone-ins?).
12% wanted to protect Irish identity.
6% to protect Irish neutrality (I?m aware that Ireland?s provision of pitstops to US troops at Shannon shreds our neutrality).
6% because they don?t trust our politicians (surprisingly low, IMHO).
6% to retain a full time commissioner.
6% to protect our tax system.
5% against a unified Europe.
4% to protest against the government?s policies.
4% to avoid the EU speaking with one voice on global issues.
4% because large states dictate on EU matters.
3% to protect the influence of small states.
2% (THIS MUST BE NOTED by those in denial of the result), only 2% mentioned EU legislation on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage.
1% (NOTE) to avoid an influx of immigrants.
1% because the EU doesn?t need fixing.
14% another reason (those provided by the canvassers not covering all bases).
3% didn?t wish to respond.
Item 1, the 22% who felt they didn?t understand the treaty: those on the YES side had better realise that this does not attest to an intellectual inability to read text or an unwillingness to do so. At a major press conference in the lead-up to the vote, the Chairman of the Referendum Commission, a High Court judge no less, was asked to explain a particular section of the treaty. After an embarrassing 4 minute silence, during which he tried to formalise a reply, he admitted that he simply could not offer an explanation of the text.
The text is deliberately devoid of clarity, so as to enable groups as diverse as Big Business and Europe?s Green parties, employers organisations and trades unions, to argue the case for Lisbon. They cannot all be correct, and, if history shows us anything, it is that the Rich and Powerful rarely fail to identifiy the path to greater wealth and privelege. If people smell a rat as a result of this, they should not be castigated for failing to read the entire document. Furthermore, 51% of the YES vote came from people who felt that it was in the best interests of Ireland, or that Ireland had benefitted from the EU, hardly an indication that they?d deeply explored the document themselves.
Lay off on the accusations of ignorance. Others in the YES camp should ditch the bogus references to the scaremongering of the catholic fascists of Coir, as they represent nobody but themselves, 50 maniacs with 3 gorilla suits and a big banner (1% of NO voters doing so on an anti-abortion/euthanasia ticket). Lay off with your accusations of anti-Lisbon scaremongering by Irish newspaper editors, evidence of which I ask you for a single instance. Quit whingeing about business leaders who were likewise spreading scare stories, as one could count them on one hand.
It?s time for the losers to grow up and face the real reasons for the NO vote. People smelled a rat, didn?t like being bullied by our ?leaders?, by the Irish Times, the Irish Independent, RTE (more subtly, of course), didn?t like being bullied by Eurocrats, didn?t like MEPs voting recently to keep secret their expenses (at our expense, of course), didn?t like the lies so helpfully alluded to by Giscard d?Estaing, didn?t want an EU superstate to continue to kiss US butt a la EU support for US policies in the middle east etc etc etc.
We simply don?t trust our political elites, at home or in the EU. Why, because they refuse to trust us, evidenced by their refusal (Ireland excepted) to ask us for our permission to enact this deliberately misleading treaty. We don?t want to give our democratic voices to them, forever. I?d encourage our true friends in Europe to safeguard their own democratic voices, gained in many cases at great human cost.
Get off your backsides, and make your voices heard, before it?s too late.
Long live Europe, and long live democracy.
I like this reference and in particular this post. Quite well written I think.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/06/the_fate_of_the_lisbon.html
Vincent Browne on his show tonight made a good point. Valerie Giscard D'Estang has said the Irish vote must be ignored. Vincent made a simple point. This guy is a retired politician who has no input into anything telling us what we must do. Rev up and eff off Valerie!0 -
Valerie Giscard D'Estang has said the Irish vote must be ignored. Vincent made a simple point. This guy is a retired politician who has no input into anything telling us what we must do. Rev up and eff off Valerie!
VGE commands more respect in political circles than the entire No camp combined.0 -
-
I think that just about sums it up.
Because he's one of the people who count? The rest of us should shut up and do what we're told? 'Cos we're just plebs?
No, because he's been there and done that. He has negotiated stuff rather than just fighting it.
He has credibility around the EU because he has spent something like 30 years working on improving it, something which none of the No campaigners can claim.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, because he's been there and done that. He has negotiated stuff rather than just fighting it.
He has credibility around the EU because he has spent something like 30 years working on improving it, something which none of the No campaigners can claim.
Rather an interesting article in today's IT:Lara Marlowe wrote:Here is the excerpt in question, which was Mr Giscard's warning of what should not be done, as published in this newspaper on June 20th, 2007: "The latest brainwave is to preserve part of the innovations of the constitutional treaty, but hide them by breaking them up into several texts. The most innovative provisions would become simple amendments to the treaties of Maastricht and Nice. The technical improvements would be regrouped in a colourless, harmless treaty.
"The texts would be sent to national parliaments, which would vote separately. Thus public opinion would be led to adopt, without knowing it, the provisions that we dare not present directly."
The last sentence was quoted by No campaigners Declan Ganley and Patricia McKenna in this newspaper during the referendum campaign and has appeared on No posters. None, however, quoted the subsequent two sentences: "This process of 'dividing to ratify' is obviously unworthy of the challenge at stake. It may be a good magician's act. But it will confirm European citizens in the idea that the construction of Europe is organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats."
...
Ms McKenna added a quotation that is not in Mr Giscard's article: ". . . all the earlier proposals will be in a new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way . . . what was difficult to understand will become utterly incomprehensible, but the substance has been retained".
So...that famous Giscard quote...used throughout the campaign...is an out-of-context-quote, with another quote stuck on. Interesting - the Creationists do a lot of this kind of work, but I don't know whether we'll reach the same stage of an actual published booklet of "useful quotes" as the Creationists have.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Anyone got the original French version of what he said?
I'd heard it was also poorly translated.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »So no voters, who insist every country must have a referendum, care to tell us how you think disagreement should be resolved?
Ok then, the way it could work is essentially the MCQ approach you suggested, where different aspects of the treaty could be accepted e.g. climate change competency but other aspects like militarisation etc.. could be rejected without having to throw the baby out with the murky bath water.
This could be done by grouping the relevant articles together under their headings and only the unanimous new proposals would go ahead.
Personally, a certain % of the treaty was grand to me but I had to vote no because it did not outweigh other areas I had serious problems with. And yet now it appears i'm being held to random - vote yes next time or get out of Europe.:rolleyes: Of course, I will vote no again if my concerns haven't been dealt with.
Clear wording of the ballot paper should be fairly easy to achieve. But this whole exercise would be pretty pointless based on how the treaty is currently structured. They need to come half way:)0 -
Ok then, the way it could work is essentially the MCQ approach you suggested, where different aspects of the treaty could be accepted e.g. climate change competency but other aspects like militarisation etc.. could be rejected without having to throw the baby out with the murky bath water.
This could be done by grouping the relevant articles together under their headings and only the unanimous new proposals would go ahead.
Personally, a certain % of the treaty was grand to me but I had to vote no because it did not outweigh other areas I had serious problems with. And yet now it appears i'm being held to random - vote yes next time or get out of Europe.:rolleyes: Of course, I will vote no again if my concerns haven't been dealt with.
Clear wording of the ballot paper should be fairly easy to achieve. But this whole exercise would be pretty pointless based on how the treaty is currently structured. They need to come half way:)
The problem with the MCQ approach is that accepting part of the treaty and rejecting another may not be politically acceptable to the other member states.
A rejected part could have been the quid pro quo for something which we wanted. For example, maybe Ireland got the French/Germans/British/Italians to agree to the Lisbon QMV system in return for not demanding the removal of the military parts of the treaty.
We can't just pick and choose from the treaty. It's a product of negotiation. We're going to have to accept some parts which are unpleasant to us in return for getting what we want out of the treaty. If what we want out of the treaty is unacceptable to the other member states then our only real option is to leave the EU.0 -
Advertisement