The Economist Magazine's Article About The No Vote & Reaction of the EU

nesf

auerillo wrote: »

France did, indeed, elect a president who said he would ratify the treaty? Were there any other serious candidates who said they would not ratify it? In any case, France's election of its leader was not a single issue and was more complex than that.

I could point out that Zimbabwe elected Mugabe as its leader, so technically the people of Zimbabwe agree with him murdering them, torturing them and terryfying them at this point.

...

marco_polo

It is up to the citizens of any country to petition their government on their own behalf and inappropriate for anyone else to do so, or encourage them to.

I accept the result of our referendum 100%. What I reject is the idea being put about by some that a majority of citizens in all the other 26 countries are right behind our decision, and are terribly unhappy with the decisions of their governments in any way. That is a very dangerous presumption to make and the price of being wrong for Ireland could be very high indeed.

molloyjh

auerillo wrote: »

By calling a second referendum on Lisbon, they are showing they do not accept the first result.

I'll be honest with you, I don't accept the first result. Not because of the result itself, but because it has become very clear that a large portion of the population just didn't understand the Treaty or didn't vote on anything relating to it at all. This is the case regardless of how people voted. I refuse, as a logical and reasonable person, to be led by ignorance. I steadfastly deny that this result was in fact the will of the people. If so many didn't understand it, how could it possibly be considered their will on the matter.

Again I will state that I will accept the outcome of a new referendum, regardless of the result, so long as the electorate understand what they are voting for. Obviously not everyone will, but the EU Commission survey suggested that 61% of the No voters alone fell into the ignorant bracket. While there is a possibility that this may be exaggerated, it likely isn't warped beyond reality. Even if only 50% of No voters were ignorant, thats a completely unnacceptable amount. Imagine that combined with the number of ignorant Yes voters. Best case scenario is 1/3 of the voters. How can we expect the people to have reached a reasonable and considered opinion when 30-40% had no idea what they were talking about?

auerillo

marco_polo wrote: »

It is up to the citizens of any country to petition their government on their own behalf and inappropriate for anyone else to do so, or encourage them to.

I accept the result of our referendum 100%. What I reject is the idea being put about by some that a majority of citizens in all the other 26 countries are right behind our decision, and are terribly unhappy with the decisions of their governments in any way. That is a very dangerous presumption to make and the price of being wrong for Ireland could be very high indeed.

I agree we simply don't know how many citizens of the EU are for or against the lisbon treaty, which is why I think it might be a good idea to find out for definite.

As I am not particularly nationalistic, I think its fine for anyone to petition my government, and I think its also fine for anyone to petition another government, and wouldn't limit it to only Irish citizens are allowed to petition the Irish government etc. Especially as we are all in the EU together, and national boundaries are less and less important. I welcome dialogue with people from all over the EU, especially where the issue relates to all of our involvement with the EU.

marco_polo

auerillo wrote: »

I agree we simply don't know how many citizens of the EU are for or against the lisbon treaty, which is why I think it might be a good idea to find out for definite.

Perhaps in a perfect world that would be the ideal. But the reality is that most government are ratifying this process by parliament. The think I find the most bizzare is that we seem to care about this far more than the citzens of these countries do.

As I am not particularly nationalistic, I think its fine for anyone to petition my government, and I think its also fine for anyone to petition another government, and wouldn't limit it to only Irish citizens are allowed to petition the Irish government etc. Especially as we are all in the EU together, and national boundaries are less and less important. I welcome dialogue with people from all over the EU, especially where the issue relates to all of our involvement with the EU.

I doesn't sound so bad whan you put it like that

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

Your "bar the usual suspects" says more about you than you perhaps intended. All people, whether the "usual suspects" or not, are entitled to have a say.

You say "if they want referendums, let them ask for them". How do you imagine that might happen in practice? Are you seriously suggesting that there are not millions of citizens in other countries who desire the opportunity to have a referendum? Your "let them ask for them" sounds remarkably like "let them eat cake". How do you propose they go about asking for them? Phone radio shows perhaps?
On a serious note, thats actually a very good point, and perhaps the time start petitioning other governments for referenda has come.

As other posters have pointed out, there are perfectly normal democratic channels by which people can put pressure on their governments to do something. In several cases, there are formal mechanisms for constitutional change - the Italians, for example, can (and regularly do) have referendums on constitutional change (such as this one in 2006) - yet they haven't bothered having one on removing their constitutional bar on ratifying treaties by referendum.

There are also already movements for EU-wide referendums you can either join, or sign petitions for. The first of those two groups organised the May Bank Holiday 'protests' which attracted a total of 100 people across the entire EU.

auerillo wrote: »

I have to say your response to this point is always the same, perhaps because you are afraid of the likely outcome of other referenda which would be a lot of other countries expressing a majority "no" vote.

That's entirely up to them. I wasn't upset by the French and Dutch no, because they would have borne any negative consequences.

auerillo wrote: »

So you retreat to a position that, even though the majority might want a no vote, the politicians should be allowed to ignore it and sign up to the treaty is spite of the wishes of their electorates.

Well, that is also up to them - and the majority of them, despite your continued claims to the contrary, don't appear to want referendums.

auerillo wrote: »

It's an interesting definition of democracy where the will of the people is subverted by those who purport to represent them. It is curious that you have constantly argued that this is the right and proper way for a democracy to operate.

My issue with that is that you have no backing for the claim that "the will of the people is subverted by those who purport to represent them" apart from wanting that to be the case. If you have some proof that it is so, put it forward - if you don't, you'll have to excuse my skepticism on the matter.

auerillo wrote: »

No amount of clever arguments can alter this central fact, and that you seem happy to argue that it is wrong for governments to represent the will of their people, on this issue, and to represent the opposite of what their people want, is perverse. To ignore the democratic will of their people and argue, as you seem to, that that is democratic merely exposes your own apparent bias.

Hmm. See above. No amount of argument alters the fact that there doesn't seem to be any proof of your assertion.

auerillo wrote: »

The only think which is a matter of record is that the irish people were asked whether or not they wanted to ammend the constitution and vote for or against the Lisbon treaty, and we voted that we did not want to do that.

So, essentially, we should not ask why people voted No; we should not attempt to move forward from a No; we should simply stop? For how long, exactly? Or should we not ask that either?

auerillo wrote: »

You seem unhappy with that outcome, as I suspect the desire to work out "why" the irish people voted as they did is the beginnings of an attempt to reverse it.

Actually, it's pointless me trying to "justify" a second referendum. It is both legal to hold another referendum, and it is increasingly obvious it will also be necessary to hold a second referendum - this time in the light of the alternative being some kind of reduction in our EU membership. The only point in 'justifying' it would be to protect the government from the political fallout of having to run a second referendum - and I have no interest in doing so.

auerillo wrote: »

It seems a curious definition of democracy to accept that it is legitimate for a government to do something which is diametrically opposed to the willof the people whom it is supposed to represent, and also a curious definition of democracy to not respect the democratically expressed will of the electorate and look for a means to overturn it.

Governments regularly look for ways around the opposition of the electorate (or Parliament) - usually by addressing a sufficiency of their concerns. It's called 'negotiation'.

auerillo wrote: »

I have to say I find your attempts to tell me why I voted are patronising. You refuse to accept that the irish people voted the way they did, so now you are on a journey to find an excuse to demonstrate that that vote was not legitimate and should really be held again.

I haven't expressed any opinion whatsoever on why you voted as you did. I fear you are falling into the trap of "le Non, c'est moi". I'm afraid you don't seem to be representative - indeed, it's hard to see what a representative No voter would be.

auerillo wrote: »

Quite apart from the fact that we are constantly told by all the politicians that opinion polls are irrevelant and there is only one opinion poll that matters, no one has explained how the questions in this particular poll were slanted as, no doubt we are all aware, its quite easy in an opinion poll to phrase a question, or ask it in a context, so it is more likely to produce the response one is looking for.

Then perhaps you should look at the source, where you will find the question:

"Q9. Please tell me what are the reasons why you voted “no” to the treaty?
% of all answers, Base: those who participated and voted NO in the Referendum on Thursday".

auerillo wrote: »

Are you really saying that this is now how we should run our democracy? That because some are unhappy with the result of democratic votes, that we must hunt around afterwards for reasons to show why the vote was not legitimate, and why it must be re-run until such times as those people are happy that enough of us vote the "correct" way?

Thats not democracy, and its a very slippery road you are on.

I am not the one assuming that everyone who voted the way I did, did so for the same reasons I did - nor am I the one projecting my views on referendums to the whole of Europe, as if they were incapable of choosing how to run their own countries.

regards,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, that is also up to them - and the majority of them, despite your continued claims to the contrary, don't appear to want referendums.

I make no claims for what other people may or may not want, but I do have a view that we should all be given an opportunity to vote specifically on the treaty.

Scofflaw wrote: »

My issue with that is that you have no backing for the claim that "the will of the people is subverted by those who purport to represent them" apart from wanting that to be the case. If you have some proof that it is so, put it forward - if you don't, you'll have to excuse my skepticism on the matter.

I agree with youi that neither of us knows what the will of the people of the EU is until they tell us what it is in the time honoured method of voting on the specific issue.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, it's pointless me trying to "justify" a second referendum. It is both legal to hold another referendum, and it is increasingly obvious it will also be necessary to hold a second referendum - this time in the light of the alternative being some kind of reduction in our EU membership. The only point in 'justifying' it would be to protect the government from the political fallout of having to run a second referendum - and I have no interest in doing so.

Governments regularly look for ways around the opposition of the electorate (or Parliament) - usually by addressing a sufficiency of their concerns. It's called 'negotiation'.

No one suggested that it is not legal to hold referenda ( except in Germany, apparantly). What I question is the "necessity" to have a second referendum, presumably so this time we can all vote the correct way. I think we should go further than this and have referenda in every EU country and not just in Ireland.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the domestic political fallout for the government might be interesting were a second referendum to also say"NO", which given the worsening economic climate might seem more and more likely. If nothing else, it should be interesting!

Scofflaw wrote: »

I haven't expressed any opinion whatsoever on why you voted as you did. I fear you are falling into the trap of "le Non, c'est moi". I'm afraid you don't seem to be representative - indeed, it's hard to see what a representative No voter would be.



Then perhaps you should look at the source, where you will find the question:

"Q9. Please tell me what are the reasons why you voted “no” to the treaty?
% of all answers, Base: those who participated and voted NO in the Referendum on Thursday".



egards,
Scofflaw

Perhaps you are falling into the trap of assuming I voted "no". When I said I was fed up being told by people why I voted, and the reasons I voted , I was speaking metaphorically.


What I find interesting is that you seem unable to accept the result, and want to explore the reasons to nullify it. What is important is the result, and it is patronising to assume you not only know why people voted "no", but also patronising to then say that their reasons are not valid.

I have to say if I was horrified by the result of the last general election, would it be right to now question the validity of the result by thinking people voted in a certain way and on criteris which I find unacceptable, or becasue I think they might have been misled by the winners of the election?

Scofflaw wrote: »

I am not the one assuming that everyone who voted the way I did, did so for the same reasons I did - nor am I the one projecting my views on referendums to the whole of Europe, as if they were incapable of choosing how to run their own countries.

I am not sure why you say you are not the one assuming that everyone voted the way you did, as the results clearly show that can't be the case. Also, I'm not sure what you intend to convey by saying you are not the one projecting your views on referendums to the whole of Europe.

I advocate letting the citizsens of the EU vote on this treaty, and if you disagree with that then thats is your perogative. Although one has to suspect that your disagreement stems more from what you think might be the awkward outcome from some other countries votes, rather than from a position of wanting to be democratic about it.

We simply are not going to agree on this point, and while I understand your position is one of not wwanting to open up the dreadful potential pandora's box of letting individuals vote on the specific issue, I am prepared to put up with that in teh short term for the betterment of the EU in the longer term

Scofflaw

I can see we're going to have to disagree on what I'm actually saying! I can't for the life of me see what's "patronising" about asking why people voted No. What should one do?

Nor is wondering why people voted No germane to the question of holding a second referendum - bar the collapse of the current ratification process, there simply isn't another option but another referendum, either now or later. It won't be held or not held on account of the reasons people voted No, although admittedly that's a handy face-saver.

We can either hold that referendum on exactly the same text as before, or the government can attempt to at least find out what would make people happier with it. It's not about getting a No or Yes vote by doing so, either - because I think it will be clear by that stage that the referendum is essentially a vote on whether we stay fully in the EU or not - which, in turn, is the necessity for holding a second referendum.

It's not a question of whether No is the "wrong" answer, or claiming it's "illegitimate" - it's simply an answer Ireland can't afford if the price tag is being left behind by the EU. Increasingly, it seems that is what the price tag says. That is why some other country voting No is not an issue for me, either - that's their problem, not ours (and perhaps why some of them prefer not to use referendums).

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

auerillo wrote:

Perhaps you are falling into the trap of assuming I voted "no". When I said I was fed up being told by people why I voted, and the reasons I voted , I was speaking metaphorically.

So you're saying that he fell into the trap of taking your words at face value? Thats disgraceful. He should obviously have realised that you didn't mean what you said*

For shame, Scofflaw.Believing the words of someone you were verbally sparring with...for shame, sir.

Incidentally, auerillo, I don't believe that anyone has suggested that a poll represents anything about the choices of an individual. If conducted properly, it produces a reasonably aaccurate overview of the reasoning of the totality.

Assuming you voted no, then if you believe that this is someone trying to tell you how you voted, I would suggest you are indicating a lack of understanding of what the nature of statistics are.

Assuming you voted yes, if you believe that this is someone trying to tell you how you voted, I would suggest that you are indicating both a lack of understanding of basic logic and the nature of statistics.

Assuming you didn't vote, then this makes you a liar on top of the implications of you voting yes.

Other than you deliberately spoiling your vote whilst insisting that counts as voting, I believe I've covered all options without making any assumptions about how you actually voted.

But please...don't let this get in the way of your righteousness. Carry on by all means. Indeed, feel free to express the utmost indignation at me pointing out the ridiculousness of this argument of yours.

*Of course, I'm sure that if we apply this reasoning to the rest of auerillo's commentary, I'm sure we'll be met with equal outrage for assuming that he didn't mean what he said. Its the arrogance, you see...believing people is arrogant...not believing them is arrogant...or maybe its just arrogant to disagree with them...

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

Life just got a little bit lonier for us today as expected Spanish congress have ratified the Lisbon Treaty by a massive majority of 322 to 6 to become the 20th country to formally ratify the treaty.

That is alot of politicians that must be completely out of touch with the people in Spain :eek:.

http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_103259/politics/AFTER-IRISH-lsquoNOrsquo-Spanish-Congress-ratifies-Lisbon/

Well, you have to bear in mind that Ireland has been a member of the EU longer than Spain has been operating as a democracy.

johnnyq

molloyjh wrote: »

I'll be honest with you, I don't accept the first result. Not because of the result itself, but because it has become very clear that a large portion of the population just didn't understand the Treaty or didn't vote on anything relating to it at all. This is the case regardless of how people voted. I refuse, as a logical and reasonable person, to be led by ignorance. I steadfastly deny that this result was in fact the will of the people. If so many didn't understand it, how could it possibly be considered their will on the matter.

Again I will state that I will accept the outcome of a new referendum, regardless of the result, so long as the electorate understand what they are voting for.

But are you willing to accept the results of general elections when some may say the result is based on "ignorance"?:p

Firstly, I don't think that the people who voted out of 'ignorance' as you say will suddenly become informed in a second vote. The treaty as it stands is unreadable without devoting much study to it and previous treaties, so unless the treaty changes the result will be based on the 'ignorance' issue you allude to.

Second, don't rule out those who will vote No (maybe they voted yes) simply because the first vote would have been essentially ignored. If that was the 60% reason to a second no vote, would you be calling for a third vote?

Third, the turnout alone makes this vote valid for whatever myriad of reasons people voted because of. Those who did vote did so because they had a strong enough opinion to cast a ballot in the first place. It's not up to you to judge those reasons. I would bet the house that if all the percentages were reversed (i.e. 60% voted yes but knew nothing) and the yes side had won, you would not be calling for a second vote. Could I be so bold as to suggest intellectual snobbery as your reason for a second vote or is it just a tantrum?

passive

thehighground wrote: »

Well, you have to bear in mind that Ireland has been a member of the EU longer than Spain has been operating as a democracy.

Err... So... we're tired of being in the EU? Or Spain is still a dictatorship? What do you mean exactly, or are you just throwing a shiny red ball away from the discussion?

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Well, you have to bear in mind that Ireland has been a member of the EU longer than Spain has been operating as a democracy.

Well the EU constitution, you know the one that the No side say is exactly the same as Lisbon, was accepted by Referendum in Spain.

Or do you not accept that?

molloyjh

johnnyq wrote: »

But are you willing to accept the results of general elections when some may say the result is based on "ignorance"?:p

Firstly, I don't think that the people who voted out of 'ignorance' as you say will suddenly become informed in a second vote. The treaty as it stands is unreadable without devoting much study to it and previous treaties, so unless the treaty changes the result will be based on the 'ignorance' issue you allude to.

Second, don't rule out those who will vote No (maybe they voted yes) simply because the first vote would have been essentially ignored. If that was the 60% reason to a second no vote, would you be calling for a third vote?

Third, the turnout alone makes this vote valid for whatever myriad of reasons people voted because of. Those who did vote did so because they had a strong enough opinion to cast a ballot in the first place. It's not up to you to judge those reasons. I would bet the house that if all the percentages were reversed (i.e. 60% voted yes but knew nothing) and the yes side had won, you would not be calling for a second vote. Could I be so bold as to suggest intellectual snobbery as your reason for a second vote or is it just a tantrum?

As I've said before General Elections aren't quite comparable given that they are fought on multiple unrelated issues and have dependancies on so many areas such as the economy (in terms of whether certain promises can be kept etc) compared to a Treaty that has far more specific aims and consequences and has limited competences. However I do have issues with how the Irish electorate goes about voting in General Elections too, but thats a whole other matter!

I don't think anybody will become suddenly informed about anything. Short of divine intervention that would be an impossbility. There are a number of factors to this issue. One being the Yes campaigns atrocious attempt to garner support for the Treaty. Rather than addressing the issue and the BS spouted by the No campaign, the majority of the Yes campaign was faces on posters saying "Ah go on, ya will!". Secondly, an in my mind more importantly, is the fact that along with the right to vote we have the responsibility to inform ourselves on the issue(s) at hand. Other people here did it, I did it. And while I can't speak for the others I really don't think I'm all that special in that regard - as much as it irks me to say it .

When it comes down to it people vote for reasons that are important to them. As long as they are informed about the issue(s) then I'm more than happy to accept that. Voting out of total ignorance (approx 20% voted No because they didn't understand the Treaty) means you don't have an opinion on the content of the Treaty.

If you review some of my posts from before the referendum you'll see I made the same points re the state of our democracy, so this is not a reaction to the result of the referendum. The result itself is not an issue for me, its the ignorance (and in some cases laziness) of the voting public (regardless of what way they voted) that is the problem. So this isn't a tantrum or intellectual snobbery, it is disappointment and frustration at the way in which we as a people approach democracy in general - and the issue isn't limited to Ireland, it is a Western Democracy issue IMO.

Oh and if the percentages were reversed I may not call for another referendum, however I would support calls from others to do so. I want the will of the people to be done, but to be sure it is the people need to know what they are on about first! :cool:

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can see we're going to have to disagree on what I'm actually saying! I can't for the life of me see what's "patronising" about asking why people voted No. What should one do?

Nor is wondering why people voted No germane to the question of holding a second referendum - bar the collapse of the current ratification process, there simply isn't another option but another referendum, either now or later. It won't be held or not held on account of the reasons people voted No, although admittedly that's a handy face-saver.

I completely agree that it's not patronising asking people how they voted, or wondering why they voted in the way they did. I've spend many happy hours pondering just that.

What i do consider patronising is telling them that they didn't really understand what they were voting on, and telling them they believed the lies of the other side and so on.

Scofflaw wrote: »

We can either hold that referendum on exactly the same text as before, or the government can attempt to at least find out what would make people happier with it. It's not about getting a No or Yes vote by doing so, either - because I think it will be clear by that stage that the referendum is essentially a vote on whether we stay fully in the EU or not - which, in turn, is the necessity for holding a second referendum.

It's not a question of whether No is the "wrong" answer, or claiming it's "illegitimate" - it's simply an answer Ireland can't afford if the price tag is being left behind by the EU. Increasingly, it seems that is what the price tag says. That is why some other country voting No is not an issue for me, either - that's their problem, not ours (and perhaps why some of them prefer not to use referendums).

To turn the situation where we have rejected one treaty into an “EU - in or out” referendum seems unusual and I’m not sure what the legal basis would be. Certainly, I know of no such legal obligation in previous EU treaties which would demand this course of action. There was no such suggestion when France voted “no” to the constitution, and no suggestion when Holland voted “no”.

Again, it’s not the case that Ireland will be “left behind” by the EU. The EU has no legal basis to proceed without all members consent.

One of the main planks in the “YES” campaign was that we had vetoes in a number of areas, guaranteed by the treaty, and this case was made to try to kick into touch the claims of some of the “no” campaign.

If the EU was to “proceed” (as you suggest) without us, then that would appear they would be doing so in breach of their existing laws. Do you really think the EU would do that?

molloyjh

What would you propose the EU does then? It is not functioning as well as it could and the rest of Europe wants a change (no public outcry from the vast majority of Europe would suggest this) and any additional members states will put extra pressure on a system that is already straining. Change is required to the way in which the EU works and Lisbon was the result of years of negotiating among the member states. Most EU leaders don't see how much more they can give us without those changes unravelling the whole Treaty. It is after all a finely balanced compromise among 27 countries.

Regardless of how well informed you were/weren't when you voted you must recognised that there were a lot of people (on both sides) that were no well informed......

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Well, you have to bear in mind that Ireland has been a member of the EU longer than Spain has been operating as a democracy.

And the revelance to this to the discussion at hand is what? Also are you seriously suggesting that the fitness of a democracy bears any relation to the length of time it has been in place? Or indeed that the date we joined the EU was some kind of a watershed date beyond which time any new democracies fomed will not function correctly?

The absence of logic in that statement is quite staggering.

johnnyq

molloyjh wrote: »

I don't think anybody will become suddenly informed about anything. Short of divine intervention that would be an impossbility. There are a number of factors to this issue.
One being the Yes campaigns atrocious attempt to garner support for the Treaty
Secondly, an in my mind more importantly, is the fact that along with the right to vote we have the responsibility to inform ourselves on the issue(s) at hand.

I get what you are saying, but really a second vote *on essentially the same thing again* won't really solve anything and could in fact make things much worse. I can understand that you're annoyed by the yes sides campaign just like I am by the likes of coir etc. but I don't think that justifies a damaging second vote regardless of the result.

I'd also be curious for the 20% didn't understand (your figures, I don't know what the actual figure is) to be asked if is was the *nature* of the document they railed against i.e. that such a ridiculous mish-mash was presented to them. I would imagine a large proportion were insulted that what was proposed couldn't be presented in a friendly understandable way.

molloyjh

johnnyq wrote: »

I get what you are saying, but really a second vote *on essentially the same thing again* won't really solve anything and could in fact make things much worse. I can understand that you're annoyed by the yes sides campaign just like I am by the likes of coir etc. but I don't think that justifies a damaging second vote regardless of the result.

I'd also be curious for the 20% didn't understand (your figures, I don't know what the actual figure is) to be asked if is was the *nature* of the document they railed against i.e. that such a ridiculous mish-mash was presented to them. I would imagine a large proportion were insulted that what was proposed couldn't be presented in a friendly understandable way.

I know what you mean, and yes the ignorance aspect isn't enough on its own to require a new referendum. The new circumstances we find ourselves in however probably does warrant it. I would certainly hope that the shower of gob-sheens we call politicians learn from this campaign and realise that they need to be a lot more infomative and a lot more aggressive to get through to the public. I heard Leo Varadkar say as much last week which was a positive point, however whether the rest of the establishment take it on board is another thing entirely.

As for the source for those figures, they came from a European Commission survey after the referendum. I posted the link before, but don't have time right now to dig it up. If/when I do I'll add it here. Someone else posted a link to the actual Commission results (a pdf doc) which I'll try and get too.

nesf

molloyjh wrote: »

I know what you mean, and yes the ignorance aspect isn't enough on its own to require a new referendum. The new circumstances we find ourselves in however probably does warrant it. I would certainly hope that the shower of gob-sheens we call politicians learn from this campaign and realise that they need to be a lot more infomative and a lot more aggressive to get through to the public. I heard Leo Varadkar say as much last week which was a positive point, however whether the rest of the establishment take it on board is another thing entirely.

As for the source for those figures, they came from a European Commission survey after the referendum. I posted the link before, but don't have time right now to dig it up. If/when I do I'll add it here. Someone else posted a link to the actual Commission results (a pdf doc) which I'll try and get too.

One would have imagined that Nice I did that to them but no, they dropped the ball again.

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

I know what you mean, and yes the ignorance aspect isn't enough on its own to require a new referendum. The new circumstances we find ourselves in however probably does warrant it.

I agree with that. If we start deciding that this or that reason for voting is "illegitimate" then we really are failing to respect the vote.

What makes a new vote necessary for Ireland is that it appears increasingly likely that the EU is going to go ahead with or without us. Under those circumstances there is a new question to be answered at referendum - "Lisbon or left behind?" - which in turn requires a new referendum, because that was certainly not clearly the choice in this one.

Obviously, this will be furiously denied by elements of the No side - if for no other reason than that by persuading us a No doesn't mean "left behind" they can achieve exactly that.

cordially,
if a little gloomily,
Scofflaw

turgon

Scofflaw, were not SO MANY Yes people giving out about No-siders voting on issues outside of the Lisbon Treaty like abortion? Having to vote on EU membership in the guise of a reform treaty would be a disgrace in my opinion. It would basically be "take our proposed reform or get out". How is that in any small possible way democratic?

The whole argument of the No-siders for the Treaty in 1922 is that people couldn't have voted properly because of the threat of war. This situation would be exactly the same.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Scofflaw, were not SO MANY Yes people giving out about No-siders voting on issues outside of the Lisbon Treaty like abortion? Having to vote on EU membership in the guise of a reform treaty would be a disgrace in my opinion. It would basically be "take our proposed reform or get out". How is that in any small possible way democratic?

The whole argument of the No-siders for the Treaty in 1922 is that people couldn't have voted properly because of the threat of war. This situation would be exactly the same.

How can a question be either democratic or undemocratic? If the other member states give us the choice between staying on board with Lisbon or not, then we can answer the question democratically by voting on it - I'm not sure how the question itself has any reflection on Irish democracy.

To be honest, it doesn't really have any reflection on the EU's democracy either - only on how strongly the other member states feel the EU requires the reforms in Lisbon. If they feel that the reforms are more necessary than sticking to the principle of unanimity, then that's what they feel - they may be wrong or right, but they thereby pose Ireland a question which requires an answer.

Nor is the situation the same as being threatened with war. It is the same as being told that an organisation we are part of must be reformed, by common agreement. If we cannot agree to allow reform, we may be asked to allow the others to reform without us. To claim such a thing is in breach of the rules ignores the nature of the club - one that exists only by virtue of the will of its members. There is no EU that is not the member states, for all the talk of an "EU superstate" - and that means the rules of the EU are subordinate to the will of the member states.


cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Scofflaw wrote: »

How can a question be either democratic or undemocratic?

Well if the motive of the question is sufficiently twisted than its literal meaning, and the non-elected representatives are threatening consequences for not doing what they want.

"Do you want the Lisbon Treaty?"
turns into
"Do you want the EU?"

Which is ridiculous. Why should a vote on the Lisbon Treaty be a vote on EU membership>

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Well if the motive of the question is sufficiently twisted than its literal meaning, and the non-elected representatives are threatening consequences for not doing what they want.

"Do you want the Lisbon Treaty?"
turns into
"Do you want the EU?"

Which is ridiculous. Why should a vote on the Lisbon Treaty be a vote on EU membership>

If (and only if) the other member states make it so. Our own government certainly has no right to threaten such a thing.

If that comes to be the case, would you agree the government have the duty to put that to referendum?

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

turgon wrote: »

Well if the motive of the question is sufficiently twisted than its literal meaning, and the non-elected representatives are threatening consequences for not doing what they want.

"Do you want the Lisbon Treaty?"
turns into
"Do you want the EU?"

Which is ridiculous. Why should a vote on the Lisbon Treaty be a vote on EU membership>

Of course it would be ridiculous, and not a little petulant, to turn "do you want the lisbon treaty" into "the EU - in or out".

While it is certain the politicians of the EU (even the vast majority of irish politicians) want to pass the lisbon treaty, it is far less certain that the people of the EU want to do so.

To many citizens in the Eu we are the heroes of the hour, and not the villians of the piece that some would lead us to believe.

What this does highlight is the apparant growing disparity of what the citizens of the EU want and what the politicians and bureaucrats want, and we ignore that at our peril.

passive

auerillo wrote: »

To many citizens in the Eu we are the heroes of the hour, .

Ugh... seriously.. Go play World of ****ing Warcraft, and leave the economic and political fate of our country to the grown-ups, okay?

molloyjh

auerillo wrote: »

Of course it would be ridiculous, and not a little petulant, to turn "do you want the lisbon treaty" into "the EU - in or out".

While it is certain the politicians of the EU (even the vast majority of irish politicians) want to pass the lisbon treaty, it is far less certain that the people of the EU want to do so.

To many citizens in the Eu we are the heroes of the hour, and not the villians of the piece that some would lead us to believe.

What this does highlight is the apparant growing disparity of what the citizens of the EU want and what the politicians and bureaucrats want, and we ignore that at our peril.

I don't see the citizens in the EU doing anything about the Lisbon Treaty. If they really do oppose it then surely there would be protests etc held if there were issues. You fail to mention also that one of the countries that did vote No to the Constitution subsequently elected a President who clearly stated in his agenda before the election that he would ratify Lisbon without a referendum. I'm not too sure where you're getting this "heroes of the hour" stuff from. Obviously there wil be people across the EU that don't like Lisbon, but there is absolutely no indication that the majority of EU citizens have any issue with it at all. If there was you would have provided some form of proof (I would hope).

We can only assume from the lack of reaction among the other member states that the citizens of the EU are in fact quite happy with the Treaty as it stands. Your complaints about democracy (or lack there-of) are somewhat disingenuous also in that case. If the member states come back to us to tell us that there is nothing more that we can get from this Treaty and that they all want to go ahead with it - which seems to be the will of the people of those member states - then what would you suggest we do? Tell them tough, it doesn't matter a damn what the other 496 million people want, we the 4 million have decided and they can just go shove it? Hardly democratic now is it? It makes a lot of sense (and is totally fair) for them to go ahead without us and leave us on our own at the fringes. After all 99% of the EU population seem to be happy with it, why should we, the 1%, dictate to them what they can and cannot do?

As Scofflaw has pointed out then the question will have changed from "Do we want Lisbon" to "Do we want Lisbon or be left out in the cold". 99% of the EU seem to want this, and if they want to go ahead without us then that is their perogative, and it is toally fair. We should consider ourselves lucky that we may get a second chance at all. In fact I would consider it more democratic if we do.

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

To many citizens in the Eu we are the heroes of the hour...

How many?

auerillo

passive wrote: »

Ugh... seriously.. Go play World of ****ing Warcraft, and leave the economic and political fate of our country to the grown-ups, okay?

Thank you for your mature, considered and polite response! It’s only a discussion board here and we don’t actually decide EU policy or the political fate of our country.

molloyjh wrote: »

I don't see the citizens in the EU doing anything about the Lisbon Treaty. If they really do oppose it then surely there would be protests etc held if there were issues. You fail to mention also that one of the countries that did vote No to the Constitution subsequently elected a President who clearly stated in his agenda before the election that he would ratify Lisbon without a referendum. I'm not too sure where you're getting this "heroes of the hour" stuff from. Obviously there wil be people across the EU that don't like Lisbon, but there is absolutely no indication that the majority of EU citizens have any issue with it at all. If there was you would have provided some form of proof (I would hope).

We can only assume from the lack of reaction among the other member states that the citizens of the EU are in fact quite happy with the Treaty as it stands. Your complaints about democracy (or lack there-of) are somewhat disingenuous also in that case. If the member states come back to us to tell us that there is nothing more that we can get from this Treaty and that they all want to go ahead with it - which seems to be the will of the people of those member states - then what would you suggest we do? Tell them tough, it doesn't matter a damn what the other 496 million people want, we the 4 million have decided and they can just go shove it? Hardly democratic now is it? It makes a lot of sense (and is totally fair) for them to go ahead without us and leave us on our own at the fringes. After all 99% of the EU population seem to be happy with it, why should we, the 1%, dictate to them what they can and cannot do?

.

Well, there haven't been angry mobs hurling petrol bombs, thats for sure. But to assume that, because there aren't angry mobs throwing petrol bombs equates to the citizens of Europe all being happy about the Lisbon treaty may not be correct. You claim that 99% of the citizens of Europe are happy about the Lisbon treaty. While I think that's unlikely, I guess we'll never know as they have been denied an opportunity to express their opinion.
There seems to be an argument that, because we are 4 million out of 500 million people, then we really shouldn’t have been allowed to vote “no”. If that is the case, then why bother to have held a referendum at all? That is what has happened in all the other countries, where there are great claims made that the treaty is supported by the people. So confident are teh politicians of this ( like Mr Sarkozy) that they wouldn't let their people express the level of their support with a referendum!

Certainly, the opinion polls across the EU don't support your claim that 99% of us would vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty, but polls are just polls and there is only one poll which counts, as we are always being told by politicians! The “I want a referendum” poll in the UK resulted in 89% saying “no” to Lisbon, it’s unlikely many in France would have changed their vote, but were denied an opportunity to vote Although opinion polls in France suggested a majority of voters would preferred to have another referendum, President Sarkozy has denied them the opportunity and pressed ahead for a speedy ratification without a referendum. Quite where your figure of 99% comes from is unclear, and it doesn’t seem credible.

My judgement is that we ignore the democratic deficit at our peril. You may judge differently, but I think there could well be petrol bombs in the streets at some time in the future if the EU project does not have the support and confidence of all of us.

oscarBravo wrote: »

How many?

Alas, we have been denied the opportunity to know how many as they haven't been allowed a referendum to tell us the number.