Lisbon and other "do it again" referenda

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

For the record, I'm not actually anti-Treaty; like most people, I was in the No camp simply because no-one had convinced me what the changes were, what was in our interest, and what we would be giving up (compromise is part of politics, but only if you know what you're gaining and losing).

No-one explained what we were gaining & losing, so the vote was therefore to maintain the status quo. Not to exit the EU, not to give it two fingers, just to say "our Government may not have negotiated properly, we're not sure, but they DEFINITELY didn't bother explaining anything - they arrogantly said 'Just vote yes' and expected us to be sheep".

I actually don't believe you.
Anyone as regular as you reading the EU forum and scofflaws posts must have had some reason other than whats in the treaty for voting no.
Every No argument was blown out of the water here.

My biggest issue is actually the attitude since - with the APPARENT pre-vote "it's democratic, we need it ratified by EVERYONE" suddenly changing to "we'll go ahead without ye" or "ye'll probably have to vote again"; that's my biggest issue with the whole process and shows a contempt for democracy.

If the politicians couldn't come up with - or even simply sell - an idea they've supposedly spent 7 years coming up with, then fire them and get someone else to negotiate on our behalf....it wasn't us that screwed up, it was THEM.

Looks like you've two of your reasons there for voting no and both have noting to do with either the contents or affects of the treaty.

Your post is typical disingenousness in that in your first paragraph you claim that you were in the no camp because you didn't know what the treaty meant [despite it being explained to the nth degree here where you frequent regularally] ... and then you breeze in as if it would be un noticed with 2 of your real un related to the treaty and frankly pathetic reasons for voting no at the end.
The fact that you've posted that bit in conjunction with the rest given it exposes what you first said as nonsense is astounding to be honest.

molloyjh

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No-one explained what we were gaining & losing, so the vote was therefore to maintain the status quo. Not to exit the EU, not to give it two fingers, just to say "our Government may not have negotiated properly, we're not sure, but they DEFINITELY didn't bother explaining anything - they arrogantly said 'Just vote yes' and expected us to be sheep".

My first question to you is: Do you need to be hand-held through everything or can you do the work yourself?

To my mind voting is a right that many people across the word do not have and we are all lucky to have been born into a democratic country. However I also firmly believe that while everyone has the right to vote, they also have the responsibility to inform themselves of the issue(s) if they choose to utilise that right. If they do not inform themselves of the issues then there is little point in them voting. Waiting to be told what to do by others or be convinced one way or another by others is fundamentally flawed as you may find yourself being convinced by someone who is not being very forthright. The most convincing people aren't always the most honest after all. If you want to have your say then it should be yours and not someone elses. Research the topic yourself. Plenty of others do. Then make up your mind after reviewing the information. Ignore the politicians and the privately funded groups as they are not always entirely trust-worthy and some have hidden agendas that may not match what you want.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

My biggest issue is actually the attitude since - with the APPARENT pre-vote "it's democratic, we need it ratified by EVERYONE" suddenly changing to "we'll go ahead without ye" or "ye'll probably have to vote again"; that's my biggest issue with the whole process and shows a contempt for democracy.

Secondly proceeding ahead shows no contempt for democracy at all. A veto power being held by less than 1% of the EU population is not in any way democratic, and the EU itself doesn't really work by democracy anyway, certainly not in a pure way, as it tries to weight votes to allow smaller nations (i.e. minotrities) have a slightly greater say so as to achieve a fairness that true democracy couldn't do. If they were to force us against our will to join the Lisbon Treaty then it would show contempt for democracy, but to leave us out entirely would respect our will, as well as the will of the rest of the EU.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If the politicians couldn't come up with - or even simply sell - an idea they've supposedly spent 7 years coming up with, then fire them and get someone else to negotiate on our behalf....it wasn't us that screwed up, it was THEM.

Really? How? What did they do wrong at the negotiating table? Did they prevent you in any way from discovering the truth of the matter for yourself? Is it ther fault that you were too lazy to do a bit of research? I'm sorry if this is being harsh, but you can't just sit there and wait to be spoonfed, you're an adult. With being an adult and with being a cog in the democratic wheel comes responsibilities. Maybe, just maybe, those people who voted No out of ignorance, despite the fact that there was information there for them to review, were in fact the ones that screwed up. Who's to say what way we would have voted if at least a respectable number of people bothered their back-sides to educate themselves on the issue? Maybe we would have gotten a resounding No with a consistant message and a list of viable reasons for its rejection. Or maybe we would have voted Yes. Sadly we may never know the true answer to this question.

bill_ashmount

Deleted User wrote: »

Every No argument was blown out of the water here.

lol

bill_ashmount

molloyjh wrote: »

Secondly proceeding ahead shows no contempt for democracy at all.

lol again.

bill_ashmount

molloyjh wrote: »

If they were to force us against our will to join the Lisbon Treaty then it would show contempt for democracy, but to leave us out entirely would respect our will, as well as the will of the rest of the EU.

The lisbon treaty is dead, perhaps you should go back and read it and see how it can never come into play now. No matter how much certain people residing in Europe want to force it through...

Deep Easterly

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but there is an interesting article in the Irish Times charting the "class" inclinations of voters:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0710/breaking44.htm

Key points:

Working class No voters
Middle class Yes voters.

The article then puts this in another way:

Uneducated voted No, Educated voted yes.

A reflection of a democratic society? reflecting on a fair vote?, or, an insult to everyone who voted no, who did so on the knowledge they read and listened to?

I think it is pretty obvious that there will be another referendom, and the propaganda is starting. Anyone who voted no were misimformed or unsure, while those who voted yes are fully informed and educated.

What a load of ****.

bill_ashmount

bill_ashmount wrote: »

lol

yeah...
Everytime I elect a representative to the Dáil,thats all they do in the Dáil,they go lol like you.
They don't discuss anything at all like you just did there like.

forgive me for my sarcasm but your post is worthless as it contains not a kalfworth of either information or discussion.

Given that I referred to the many many hundreds of posts in this forum blowing all no arguments out of the water ...perhaps you could come back to us here and be more credible with references to where you disproved any of scofflaws posts?

I never saw you here before and no post of yours ever engaging in discussion on the subject comes to mind.

Perhaps we should run a country like that and say lol anytiem we introduce a discussion on new laws and just introduce them and leave it at that.
That seems to be the policy that you endorse.

Deep Easterly

Deep Easterly wrote: »

What a load of ****.

How so?
Would you be happy that people vote without knowing what it is the hell they are voting on ?
Say the finance bill?
It's total mumbo jumbo untill it's explained..
Should we close down government untill everybody understands the mimbo jumbo?

Deep Easterly

Deleted User wrote: »

How so?
Would you be happy that people vote without knowing what it is the hell they are voting on ?
Say the finance bill?
It's total mumbo jumbo untill it's explained..
Should we close down government untill everybody understands the mimbo jumbo?

How do you mean "not knowing"? Are you assuming that those that did not vote in accordance with you were did so because the are ignorant?

According to most opinion polls a large amount were ignorant of the treaty yes.

Deep Easterly

That explains then why there was a relatively high yes count then. Ignorance is bliss.

I think you'll find you have to discuss things in this forum Deep Easterly rather than use one liners-you won't get away with a cut and run post like elsewhere.

For instance I've apparently been saved from prostitution and hard drugs.
I was accosted by a lady outside my local church telling me Lisbon was bringing this in.
Absolute lies Goebels style and loads believed it of course.

Deep Easterly

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you'll find you have to discuss things in this forum Deep Easterly rather than use one liners-you won't get away with a cut and run post like elsewhere.

You mean something like this

Deleted User wrote:

According to most opinion polls a large amount were ignorant of the treaty yes

Talk about rhetorc, simply becasue the "opinion" polls are in accordance with your own point of view, (or is it really yours? )

I just posted a link about how the class breakdown of voting was analysed, and gave my own point of view on it. When I want your advice I will ask for it. Perhaps you would like to give your opinion on the actual article rather than telling me how to discuss it?

Deep Easterly

Deep Easterly wrote: »

You mean something like this



Talk about rhetorc, simply becasue the "opinion" polls are in accordance with your own point of view, (or is it really yours? )

I just posted a link about how the class breakdown of voting was analysed, and gave my own point of view on it. When I want your advice I will ask for it. Perhaps you would like to give your opinion on the actual article rather than telling me how to discuss it?

Would you like to address Lisbon at all or the undeniable fact that there were a lot of lies propegated about it and that there was a lot of uninformed voters voting no because they knew nothing about it.
Theres no morality in parading them as part of one angle against the treaty.

Also I engaged your opinion and you ran away with a meaningless one liner.
Thats not debate Sir.

nesf

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but there is an interesting article in the Irish Times charting the "class" inclinations of voters:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0710/breaking44.htm

Key points:

Working class No voters
Middle class Yes voters.

The article then puts this in another way:

Uneducated voted No, Educated voted yes.

A reflection of a democratic society? reflecting on a fair vote?, or, an insult to everyone who voted no, who did so on the knowledge they read and listened to?

I think it is pretty obvious that there will be another referendom, and the propaganda is starting. Anyone who voted no were misimformed or unsure, while those who voted yes are fully informed and educated.

What a load of ****.

People generally vote on class lines, what's your point? Just because there was a stronger tendency to vote No in the working class and among the less educated is simple statistics and nothing else. Just because a majority of type A people voted Yes and a majority of type B voted No, doesn't mean that all A's voted Yes or that all No voters are B's or anything silly like that.

heyjude

Deleted User wrote: »

According to most opinion polls a large amount were ignorant of the treaty yes.

I assume you mean that a large number of those that voted No were ignorant of the treaty, however AFAIK, all the opinion polls taken since the referendum concentrated on why people voted No and the conclusion was that many people voted No because they didn't understand the Treaty.

How does anyone know though, whether just as large a proportion of those that voted Yes weren't equally ignorant, but just decided to do as they were advised by the major political parties and voted YES ?

Or is everyone just making the assumption that it was a cut and dried case of - informed - Voted Yes, ignorant - Voted No. I would suspect that the political establishment couldn't care less whether the people understand the treaty or not, so long as they vote Yes, as they were told to do.

Given the record of the current and previous governments for getting things wrong/making mistakes, is relying on them by slavishly trusting what the government and major political parties say, any less ignorant ?

heyjude

heyjude wrote: »

How does anyone know though, whether just as large a proportion of those that voted Yes weren't equally ignorant, but just decided to do as they were advised by the major political parties and voted YES ?

Undoubtedly theres a significant proportion of the yes vote willing to accept the analysis of over 80% of the Dáil.
Thats an acceptable position to take given that it was cross party.
Cross party support would be unlikely to be given if a pup was being sold rather than something good.
Also pups usually aren't sold in full view of the public.Every single fact in relation to this treaty was accessable to the public and the No campaign.
Unfortunately a lot of the no campain chose non facts because in my opinion...if they had to rely on the text of the treaty or the spirit of it,they'd have little if anything to go on.

Or is everyone just making the assumption that it was a cut and dried case of - informed - Voted Yes, ignorant - Voted No. I would suspect that the political establishment couldn't care less whether the people understand the treaty or not, so long as they vote Yes, as they were told to do.

Again,that would hold if the opposition were saying vote no.
For it to hold,you'd have to believe in a conspiracy which doesn't hold water

Given the record of the current and previous governments for getting things wrong/making mistakes, is relying on them by slavishly trusting what the government and major political parties say, any less ignorant ?

Again,I doubt any opposition would resist an opportunity to oppose a major issue like this if they thought it was bad for the country.
Of course politicians make mistakes but usually they get called up on it by their opposite numbers - To suggest that there was no calling by the opposition this time because they were in league with a mistake or part of a conspiracy doesn't hold water.

Deep Easterly

nesf wrote: »

People generally vote on class lines, what's your point? Just because there was a stronger tendency to vote No in the working class and among the less educated is simple statistics and nothing else. Just because a majority of type A people voted Yes and a majority of type B voted No, doesn't mean that all A's voted Yes or that all No voters are B's or anything silly like that.

My point is that the Irish Times article I posted is using the social stratification card for the no vote is both biased and insulting. The word "uneducated" is aligned with the working class position, the word "uninformed" is aligned with the working class. Eductaed+Middleclass=yes and so forth. I am aware that type A people don't all vote type A blah blah. My point is the manner in which this piece is written. There isn't acceptance of the No vote by both the media and the politics, as should be the case in a normal democratic society. There is however, blame, accusation of lies and ignorance on the majority of voters. A differnece.

Now, what exactly is your point?

nesf

Deep Easterly wrote: »

The word "uneducated" is aligned with the working class position, the word "uninformed" is aligned with the working class. Eductaed+Middleclass=yes and so forth.

Nope. The two were noted separately and no alignment or link was drawn explicitly or from what I can see, implicitly unless you want to apply the logic that the article was equally aligning all women and young people as being working class and men and older people as middle class etc.

You seem to have misread the article and it's tone.

Deep Easterly

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you like to address Lisbon at all or the undeniable fact that there were a lot of lies propegated about it and that there was a lot of uninformed voters voting no because they knew nothing about it.
Theres no morality in parading them as part of one angle against the treaty.

Also I engaged your opinion and you ran away with a meaningless one liner.
Thats not debate Sir.

Yes, but you still have not given me a debate on my original post. A nice deflection all the same. Are you a politician BB?

Deep Easterly

nesf wrote: »

Nope. The two were noted separately and no alignment or link was drawn explicitly or from what I can see, implicitly unless you want to apply the logic that the article was equally aligning all women and young people as being working class and men and older people as middle class etc.

You seem to have misread the article and it's tone.

Nope, just highlighting certain points. Working class, women and young people Vs Middle class middle aged men.

I think not.

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually don't believe you.
Anyone as regular as you reading the EU forum and scofflaws posts must have had some reason other than whats in the treaty for voting no.
Every No argument was blown out of the water here.

Based on past experience, I presume it's your right not to believe me. That doesn't make you right, mind you - just that I mustn't have made my position clear enough for you, and therefore you haven't accepted it - ironically the same issue that helped lead to the defeat the Lisbon Treaty.

Looks like you've two of your reasons there for voting no and both have noting to do with either the contents or affects of the treaty.

I've admitted this already. The pros and cons weren't made clear so my preference was to maintain the status quo, given that we were told that every country had to agree to the proposal in order for it to proceed.....that democratic point alone seems to have been sidelined.

Yes, it's true that it might be unfair that one country could sideline the treaty, but it wasn't presented as a "majority" scenario, so that rule was common knowledge; changing that rule now simply because the result doesn't suit the suits, means that they ARE showing a contempt for democracy.

Finally, as pointed out by other posters above, anyone who implies that "NO = ignorant" and "YES = informed" is wrong; it's probably true to say that, loads of "uninformed" people voted "NO" because it wasn't clear, but likewise loads of uninformed people voted "YES" simply because the Government said so.

Loads of people voted no when it became clear that Government/EU ministers didn't understand it either - is that "informed" enough ?

Anyways, the original post was about the approach to referenda......why it's OK to present a referendum and then - at least - leave open the possibility of re-presenting it at a later date only if it's defeated and the result doesn't "suit" the Government, but not if it's passed.

nesf

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Nope, just highlighting certain points. Working class, women and young people Vs Middle class middle aged men.

I think not.

Eh, if the voting pattern was that way, what's the problem in reporting it? It's hardly a polemic article decrying all No voters as knuckle dragging, low brow working class Dubs, it's just reporting the findings of the study which happen to show a difference in voting patterns between the working and middle classes and the most and least educated. These groups tend to vote differently anyway so it shouldn't be surprising. The fact that the voting pattern was very similar between rural and urban constituencies is more odd and far more interesting to be honest.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Based on past experience, I presume it's your right not to believe me. That doesn't make you right, mind you - just that I mustn't have made my position clear enough for you, and therefore you haven't accepted it - ironically the same issue that helped lead to the defeat the Lisbon Treaty.

Well I didn't believe it when you said I was going on ignore either Wasn't I right then?
I'm glad I'm not to be honest.

I've admitted this already. The pros and cons weren't made clear so my preference was to maintain the status quo,

Regardless of whether you did or not-repeating it in the post I replied to conflicted with the rest of the post.

given that we were told that every country had to agree to the proposal in order for it to proceed.....that democratic point alone seems to have been sidelined.

Whats wrong with that part of the treaty-it was made that way on the assumtion of being drawn up for all the countries.
It could be tweaked in this post Irish lisbon vote era to apply to 20,15 66 or whatever without comprimising the bulk of it.

Yes, it's true that it might be unfair that one country could sideline the treaty, but it wasn't presented as a "majority" scenario, so that rule was common knowledge; changing that rule now simply because the result doesn't suit the suits, means that they ARE showing a contempt for democracy.

Actually I'd have thought ,you'd have said the opposite given the tweaking would be to exclude Ireland on the basis of the No vote.

Finally, as pointed out by other posters above, anyone who implies that "NO = ignorant" and "YES = informed" is wrong; it's probably true to say that, loads of "uninformed" people voted "NO" because it wasn't clear, but likewise loads of uninformed people voted "YES" simply because the Government said so.

In fairness not even I mantained that view.
All I've said is there is a considerable number that voted no because they simply didn't bother to inform themselves in the face of plenty opportunities and resources.
I have already proffered good reason why a proportion of yes voters were satisfied to accept the considered view of over 80% of the elected representatives of this country.

Loads of people voted no when it became clear that Government/EU ministers didn't understand it either - is that "informed" enough ?

It's a mistaken view that elected reps weren't informed enough on the treaty.
The accusation of them not reading it was nailed as a total non sequitor by scofflaw and others on the EU forum and by the politicians them selves.
They won't have read reams of the various finance bills word for word either.

The "not read it" accusation became a sound byte as icing on the big no cake of mis information deceipt [the commissioner thing and the drugs and prostitution thing etc].

Anyways, the original post was about the approach to referenda......why it's OK to present a referendum and then - at least - leave open the possibility of re-presenting it at a later date only if it's defeated and the result doesn't "suit" the Government, but not if it's passed.

But thats always the way.
It's the way with divorce.
You want a referendum in this country ,you have to get a significant political lobby elected to support you.
This particular treaty falls into the same bracket as the finance bill in terms of unsuitability for referenda because of its technical language.

astrofool

A lot of people say they voted no on the basis of getting the treaty modifed to give Ireland a better deal.

A lot of people say they voted no because they didn't understand it.

If either of the above changes, should it not be put to a referendum again?

Also, on France + Holland, both parties that are in power ran on a yes to Lisbon campaign, and they won and when in power they said yes to Lisbon.

Scofflaw

astrofool wrote: »

A lot of people say they voted no on the basis of getting the treaty modifed to give Ireland a better deal.

I think that's quite an important point. If 70% of No voters thought the Treaty could be renegotiated, and the Treaty cannot be renegotiated, then 70% of No voters voted No under a rather important misapprehension.

Anyways, the original post was about the approach to referenda......why it's OK to present a referendum and then - at least - leave open the possibility of re-presenting it at a later date only if it's defeated and the result doesn't "suit" the Government, but not if it's passed.

The best answer that was given to that question was that once the government has ratified a Treaty it's not a simple matter to reverse the decision - an argument that is implicitly used by the No side when they say "why sign something you don't understand?".

If it were equally simple to have a referendum reversing a treaty, then people might as well 'suck it and see', because they could always back out. However, we all know (you included) that a treaty is legally binding, and can't be reversed by a simple No after the Yes, so the question you're asking is either naive or disingenuous - it's not a case of 'keeping going until we get the result the government wants', but a case of the question being open until a legally binding international commitment is made.

Further, there's no evidence that the government would 'keep going' - the most we've had is a single 'repeat', and more has not been shown to be politically feasible. I would consider the chance of a third 'repeat referendum' to be absolutely negligible - Nice provides a precedent for a second, and at Nice I we all knew we'd be asked again (and I voted No on that basis).

More generally, referendums are run either when there is an external necessity (such as an EU treaty), or a perceived internal desire to make constitutional change. I'm not sure the government is necessarily 'happy' with the current position on abortion (I'm not sure why exactly they're supposed to be happy with the current position on divorce either), but they evidently perceive no strong desire to change that position, so we have had no referendum - but if that desire became noticeable, I would expect another abortion referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bill_ashmount

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think that's quite an important point. If 70% of No voters thought the Treaty could be renegotiated, and the Treaty cannot be renegotiated, then 70% of No voters voted No under a rather important misapprehension.


cordially,
Scofflaw

But 70% of NO voters didn't think that. Have you gone out and asked all the NO voters? No you haven't. Such bulls*it made up statistics prove nothing.

bill_ashmount

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps we should run a country like that and say lol anytiem we introduce a discussion on new laws and just introduce them and leave it at that.
That seems to be the policy that you endorse.

Democracy won, you can try and obscure that all you want by saying you had the better argument or other people don't understand. It won't change anything, the treaty is dead, tough.

Just a pity that the average citizen hasn't got your intelligence :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

bill_ashmount wrote: »

But 70% of NO voters didn't think that. Have you gone out and asked all the NO voters? No you haven't. Such bulls*it made up statistics prove nothing.

Why would I? There's a Eurobarometer Flash survey of 2000 people taken just after the vote - you can access the preliminary results here. The relevant bit from the summary results:

In the “no” camp, voters thought that the result would put Ireland in a strong position to renegotiate the treaty, to allow Ireland to maintain its neutrality and to keep its tax system (all backed by three-quarters of voters or more)

Like yourself, I dislike made-up statistics - unlike you, I would bother finding out whether they were made up before I started dishing out the insults.

regards,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

bill_ashmount wrote: »

lol again.

Constructive......:rolleyes: