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
Sarkozy: Ireland needs to vote on Lisbon again
Options
Comments
-
Some_Person wrote: »The nerve of Barroso and Sarkosy, trying to bully and threaten us out of our freedom.We said NO, we mean it and it's final.
The other 26 countries want to press ahead would you prepared to leave the EU and let them, since you can't give even one good reason what wrong with the treaty?0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »The other 26 countries want to press ahead would you prepared to leave the EU and let them, since you can't give even one good reason what wrong with the treaty?
ALL 27 countries politicians certainly want to press ahead, that's a fact. Although, in the only country which has been balloted, the people did not want what the politicians wanted. A conundrum.
No one has been balloted in the other 26 countries, so we have no idea what their people want either.
The growing problem here is the disconnect between politicians and the people they are supposed to represent, and simply saying that because the politicians in all 27 countries want something, then that is what the people of Europe want, simple flies in the face of the facts.
If the politicians are so convinced that is what their people want, then why not ask them? We all know that none of them will risk it for fear of finding out their people do not want it.
The main thing which the lisbon treaty exercise demonstrates is that our democracy is being compromised by politicians who are not interested in what the people think when it invonveniently disagrees with them, and we ignore that at our peril.0 -
Given that neither Germany nor Italy can ratify the treaty by referendum, what do you suggest they do?No one has been balloted in the other 26 countries, so we have no idea what their people want either.
That may be a valid point in the rarified atmosphere of an ivory tower, but you're equally content to ignore the fact that the number of people who, by their own admission, didn't understand what they were voting on substantially outweighs the margin of the result. Surely that should factor into your assessment?The main thing which the lisbon treaty exercise demonstrates is that our democracy is being compromised by politicians who are not interested in what the people think when it invonveniently disagrees with them, and we ignore that at our peril.
I'd also be curious to hear your thoughts on post #137 in this thread, which nobody seems to want to answer.0 -
ALL 27 countries politicians certainly want to press ahead, that's a fact. Although, in the only country which has been balloted, the people did not want what the politicians wanted. A conundrum.
No one has been balloted in the other 26 countries, so we have no idea what their people want either.
The growing problem here is the disconnect between politicians and the people they are supposed to represent, and simply saying that because the politicians in all 27 countries want something, then that is what the people of Europe want, simple flies in the face of the facts.
If the politicians are so convinced that is what their people want, then why not ask them? We all know that none of them will risk it for fear of finding out their people do not want it.
The main thing which the lisbon treaty exercise demonstrates is that our democracy is being compromised by politicians who are not interested in what the people think when it invonveniently disagrees with them, and we ignore that at our peril.
It does nothing of the sort. It demonstrates how good campaigns can win the vote and how few of us really care enough to go out and vote on it anyway, notwithstanding the fact that a good number of people who did vote had no idea what they were voting on.
Democracy is of the people and we need to be involved in it as well. It is a two way street and if we don't involve ourselves we fully deserve what we get. Some of us show up every four years , mark our numbers on a page, go away and then spend the following four years moaning about what they didn't do for us.
This question of "asking the people" really only rears its head when we are upset about something. We choose politicians to make judgements and we presumably trust them. We can't then go back to them and say that we don't like what they've done. That says far more about our own initial judgement.0 -
ALL 27 countries politicians certainly want to press ahead, that's a fact. Although, in the only country which has been balloted, the people did not want what the politicians wanted. A conundrum.
I think it may be prudent to wait until September to see what the people really wanted. This is when the results of the study the Government have commissioned will be released and then we may have a more accurate reflection of the actual Irish position. Up until now all any of us have done is assumed things based on the result and a survey of 2,000 people. The result itself doesn't tell us all that much really, and the study into that result is needed to put the No vote into some form of context.No one has been balloted in the other 26 countries, so we have no idea what their people want either.
Very true, however given that we haven't seen much in the way of outrage from the people on the continent, certainly not in any significant numbers anyway, then there isn't much evidence to suggest that they are unhappy with Lisbon. Again we can draw conclusions from this, but that doesn't mean that we would be correct. As I have stated before though if the people in the rest of the EU are not happy then they need to express that fact now. It would be the perfect time given that Lisbon has stalled due to our vote. If they don't speak up then we can only assume they are happy enough with things the way they are.The growing problem here is the disconnect between politicians and the people they are supposed to represent, and simply saying that because the politicians in all 27 countries want something, then that is what the people of Europe want, simple flies in the face of the facts.
Again while I agree that there is certainly a disconnect between the people and our representatives I also believe that we have a responsibility to let them know where their plans differ from our wants. I don't think it should be up to them to continually check with us after we have voted in support of their mandate. I know people have said that politics is local and that people don't think about the EU when voting in GEs but I don't see how that is the politicians fault. Surely thats our own problem, in that we are not looking at the whole picture?
Its like trying on a pair of shoes that are a size too big, telling the shop assistant you liked the look of them and you'll take them, buying them and getting home to find that they are a size too big. Should the shop assistant have asked you whether they fit if all you said was they look good? Or should you have told the shop assistant that while they look good they are a bit big? I suppose the answer is personal opinion, of which mine is its up to you to say the shoes are a size too big.If the politicians are so convinced that is what their people want, then why not ask them? We all know that none of them will risk it for fear of finding out their people do not want it.
Thats a bit of a bold statement. We don't know that for a fact at all. Some countries are not putting it to referendum because in that country it is illegal to do so. Some countries are not doing it because there is no legal obligation to. Most leaders believe that it is too complex for the average citizen to have to vote on, something that the Gallup survey of our referendum would seem to back up. After all the politicians have full time legal advisors to go through the Treaty in detail for them, we don't have that luxury.
Its also a bit far fetch (IMHO) that 27 different national Governments with 27 different individual agendas, some of which are nationalistic Governments, and all of which depend on their people to re-elect them would all agree on a Treaty that was counter to to the will and needs all of their electorates. I would see where the possibility of it would exist if the Treaty was designed by a seperate EU body, but as the Governments (which I'm fairly sure you'll agree really only give a monkeys about getting re-elected) were the ones who came up with it then the likelihood of this decreases substantially.The main thing which the lisbon treaty exercise demonstrates is that our democracy is being compromised by politicians who are not interested in what the people think when it invonveniently disagrees with them, and we ignore that at our peril.
I'm not so sure about that. I would come to a different conclusion, in that it is becoming clear to many of the EU member states that this idea of unanimity is very anti-democratic. Again we must assume for the time being (and I'm in no way saying this is fact) that there isn't significant opposition to the Treaty on the continent. Given that we have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise there is really no other conclusion we can come to for the time being. So what you have now is a case of 870,000 deciding the direction of 500,000,000 despite the fact that there is little to no evidence that these 870,000 have any form of popular support within the other member states. I know these are the rules, and I do agree with the idea of unanimity on these matters and think the rules of the EU are quite just and fair in that regard, but we may well start to see a push away from this sort of system as a result of our No vote. Not because it does't suit the politicians, but because it seems (from everything we have seen so far), to be the very antithesis of democracy and could be viewed as working against the best interests of the people of the EU.
While much of this is based on the assumption that there is no significant opposition to Lisbon in Europe, I fail to see how we could think any different or come to any other conclusions, but if there is something I'm missing then call me on it.0 -
Advertisement
-
is_that_so wrote: »
This question of "asking the people" really only rears its head when we are upset about something. We choose politicians to make judgements and we presumably trust them. We can't then go back to them and say that we don't like what they've done. That says far more about our own initial judgement.
It seems hard to define democracy, but if you are trying to argue that it is more democratic not to allow the people to vote, then I simply can't agree with you.
I actually laughed out load at your claim that we all trust politicians - do you really think that to be the case? In virtually every study ever conducted, politicians, journalists and estate agents invariably fight it out to be the least trusted professionals. After all the tribunals we have had here, the fiddling of expenses by EU politicians, the fact that the EU budget contains such fraud that it can't be audited and so ion and so. Are you able to say what lead you to the conclusion that most of us trust politicians?
You say "we can't go back to them and say that we don’t like what they have done”, but that is precisely what everyone who disagrees with the “no” verdict is attempting to do to our democratic process.I think it may be prudent to wait until September to see what the people really wanted.
I was under the impression that the referendum we had was meant to establish what the people really wanted?
Again while I agree that there is certainly a disconnect between the people and our representatives I also believe that we have a responsibility to let them know where their plans differ from our wants. I don't think it should be up to them to continually check with us after we have voted in support of their mandate. I know people have said that politics is local and that people don't think about the EU when voting in GEs but I don't see how that is the politicians fault. Surely thats our own problem, in that we are not looking at the whole picture?
The problem with this argument is that all the irish politicians wanted to ratify the EU treaty, with 6 exceptions. How should I have voted in the last general election to stop the Dáil ratifying the Lisbon treaty?
No one is suggesting that the politicians should continually check, (although why not in this age of electronic easy communication. For example, I wonder how we would all have voted at the proposed increase the taoiseach’s salary to the €300 000 plus the TD’s voted for, the quid pro quo being the TD's also got impressive increases).
But to not continually check does not mean we should never check.
The Lisbon treaty is of a different magnitude to most government decisions in that it was taking powers away from the people of the country and giving them to the EU, to either elected or non elected officials.
In effect, without a referendum we would have been denied an opportunity to make a decision, as the last general election was not an option for the reasons explained above.
I'm not so sure about that. I would come to a different conclusion, in that it is becoming clear to many of the EU member states that this idea of unanimity is very anti-democratic. Again we must assume for the time being (and I'm in no way saying this is fact) that there isn't significant opposition to the Treaty on the continent. Given that we have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise there is really no other conclusion we can come to for the time being. So what you have now is a case of 870,000 deciding the direction of 500,000,000 despite the fact that there is little to no evidence that these 870,000 have any form of popular support within the other member states.
It is simply flawed logic to say that, because there is no evidence (ie no one else has had a referendum on it), we must accept there is no opposition. If you really believe that, were there a referendum held on the treaty in, for example, the UK, that they would all vote “yes”, then I have to say it appears we live on different planets.
No one is claiming that everyone is against Lisbon, but you do seem to be claiming that, in Europe, 870 000 are against and 499 130 000 are positively for it. Absence of evidence could mean the remaining 499 130 000 are for it, or are against it. We simply don’t know, and the more likely explanation is that some are for it and some are against it.
The truth is we will never know because they are not going to be asked.0 -
It seems hard to define democracy, but if you are trying to argue that it is more democratic not to allow the people to vote, then I simply can't agree with you.
I actually laughed out load at your claim that we all trust politicians - do you really think that to be the case? In virtually every study ever conducted, politicians, journalists and estate agents invariably fight it out to be the least trusted professionals. After all the tribunals we have had here, the fiddling of expenses by EU politicians, the fact that the EU budget contains such fraud that it can't be audited and so ion and so. Are you able to say what lead you to the conclusion that most of us trust politicians?
God forbid that we did. No, my point is that we make our choice in politicians and by making that choice have a degree of trust in them however tenuous and at that time we trust own decision.You say "we can't go back to them and say that we don’t like what they have done”, but that is precisely what everyone who disagrees with the “no” verdict is attempting to do to our democratic process.
Cowen could call a snap election in the autumn and even another one next year. That is also our democratic process but would undoubtedly be a political decision albeit not one that we would necessarily welcome. It does not pervert our system in any way but it would not be terribly wise.
I don't want to get back on the merrygoround of what Lisbon was or wasn't but the political reality of the Lisbon vote is that there is a problem and a way needs to be determined to resolve it.0 -
It really doesn't matter how many times these ridiculous arguments are blown out of the water, does it? People are still going to use them without any evidence whatsoever to support their claims....the fact that the EU budget contains such fraud that it can't be audited and so ion and so.
Was it?I was under the impression that the referendum we had was meant to establish what the people really wanted?
Suppose your boss asks you to compile a report on a particular issue. You go away, work on the report for two weeks and present your findings to him. You ask him if he is happy with your work and he gives you a one word answer; "No!".
Now, you tell me; how the **** are you supposed to know what to do next?
:rolleyes:The Lisbon treaty is of a different magnitude to most government decisions in that it was taking powers away from the people of the country and giving them to the EU, to either elected or non elected officials.
Please explain how, with reference to specific articles of the treaty.
Nobody said anything of the sort. What has been said is that there appears to be no SIGNIFICANT opposition. If you know something we don't, please share.It is simply flawed logic to say that, because there is no evidence (ie no one else has had a referendum on it), we must accept there is no opposition.0 -
I was under the impression that the referendum we had was meant to establish what the people really wanted?
No, the referendum was to establish if they did or did not want Lisbon. Thats not quite the same thing as a No vote doesn't say what they do want, but rather what they don't. What I said was that the study will put the result into context. There was no one single reason that every No voter voted No and so the study will tell us what problems there were with the Treaty that led to the No vote. Maybe then we can go into the why's of the result and the possible options facng us with more certainty than we have right now.The problem with this argument is that all the irish politicians wanted to ratify the EU treaty, with 6 exceptions. How should I have voted in the last general election to stop the Dáil ratifying the Lisbon treaty?
Again, as I have repeatedly said, you vote for someone who best represents your views. That doesn't for a single second mean they represent exactly all of your views. That is why politicians have public offices, public phone numbers and public e-mail addresses. They need to get feedback from the people they represent. How else can they possibly represent your opinion unless you communicate it to them? There's no point in them putting something like Lisbon to referendum to get your views because at that stage they have (potentially) wasted years at negotiating tables etc getting something they think you want only to find out it is not what you want at all. They need to know before-hand what it is you want from them.It is simply flawed logic to say that, because there is no evidence (ie no one else has had a referendum on it), we must accept there is no opposition.
I agree, which is why I said it was an assumption that I made. Can you tell me what other conclusion I could reach given the facts at hand?If you really believe that, were there a referendum held on the treaty in, for example, the UK, that they would all vote “yes”, then I have to say it appears we live on different planets.
No they would not all have voted Yes and nowhere did I say they would. Note my word "significant", i.e. large enough to make a difference. I never said there was no opposition.No one is claiming that everyone is against Lisbon, but you do seem to be claiming that, in Europe, 870 000 are against and 499 130 000 are positively for it. Absence of evidence could mean the remaining 499 130 000 are for it, or are against it. We simply don’t know, and the more likely explanation is that some are for it and some are against it.
I agree, and while I made an apology yesterday for being combative I'm very close to retracting that because your entire post has (seemingly) willfully twisted the contents of my post. All I said was that the absence of evidence to suggest large scale opposition to the Treaty on the continent would suggest that large scale opposition does not exist, that doesn't mean that it doesn't, just that it wouldn't appear to. You have taken my post as me saying that because the evidence isn't there of large scale opposition I refuse to accept that there is any opposition at all, which is simply not the case, and I stated as much within the post. And I have said in several other posts that to suggest no opposition exists in any state is madness.
You need to pay close attention to subtle lines like:
"we can draw conclusions from this, but that doesn't mean that we would be correct" - re my own conclusion
"Again we must assume for the time being (and I'm in no way saying this is fact) that there isn't significant opposition to the Treaty on the continent." - note the "assume" and the admission it is not fact
"little to no evidence that these 870,000 have any form of popular support" - not any support at all, popular support.
"While much of this is based on the assumption that there is no significant opposition to Lisbon in Europe" - again I state it is an assumption, not fact0 -
molloyjh, do us all a favour and don't allow auerillo to rile you. He claims to be interested in a debate, but in reality merely wishes to spout rhetoric about "democracy" while refusing to engage with the more inconvenient points that are put before him.0
-
Advertisement
-
They also were not very informed. Democracy was subverted by ignorance. We would never get a finance bill passed if there had to have a referendum.Although, in the only country which has been balloted, the people did not want what the politicians wanted. A conundrum.
I am sure Sinn Fein agree.The growing problem here is the disconnect between politicians and the people they are supposed to represent, and simply saying that because the politicians in all 27 countries want something, then that is what the people of Europe want, simple flies in the face of the facts.
Yes the politicians are on a secret agenda to draw up 400 page legal documents so that they can laugh at you and ruin your life while they have an amazing life in their merc's and bmw's laughing at you working a 40 hour week and getting about 2 holidays a year.The main thing which the lisbon treaty exercise demonstrates is that our democracy is being compromised by politicians who are not interested in what the people think when it invonveniently disagrees with them, and we ignore that at our peril.
Heck, we should all become politicians, sounds like a great life.
You haven't one intelligent reason why reject Lisbon or one intelligent reason for a way forward.0 -
No, the referendum was to establish if they did or did not want Lisbon. Thats not quite the same thing as a No vote doesn't say what they do want, but rather what they don't. What I said was that the study will put the result into context. There was no one single reason that every No voter voted No and so the study will tell us what problems there were with the Treaty that led to the No vote. Maybe then we can go into the why's of the result and the possible options facng us with more certainty than we have right now.
It seems no harm to find out, I suppose, and apologies as I didn’t understand that from your previous post.
Again, as I have repeatedly said, you vote for someone who best represents your views. That doesn't for a single second mean they represent exactly all of your views. That is why politicians have public offices, public phone numbers and public e-mail addresses. They need to get feedback from the people they represent. How else can they possibly represent your opinion unless you communicate it to them? There's no point in them putting something like Lisbon to referendum to get your views because at that stage they have (potentially) wasted years at negotiating tables etc getting something they think you want only to find out it is not what you want at all. They need to know before-hand what it is you want from them.
I wasn’t making a point about how to contact our politicians to make our views know to them. I was posing a question which stems from the argument that it is fully democratic to have the governments of the other 26 member states to make the decision on behalf of the people. Quite plainly in this country the government would have ratifies the treaty if they were not forced to hold a referendum, and no doubt they woul also have claimed to be representing the will of the irish people when they did so.
It does seem curious to argue that not letting people vote is more democratic than letting them vote on what is an important issue.
I agree, which is why I said it was an assumption that I made. Can you tell me what other conclusion I could reach given the facts at hand?
It’s not possible to come to a conclusion in the absence of evidence. The point is none of us have the facts, as the facts are not available, so any conclusion either or any of us reach is no more than guesswork.
No they would not all have voted Yes and nowhere did I say they would. Note my word "significant", i.e. large enough to make a difference. I never said there was no opposition.
What you did say was that... So what you have now is a case of 870,000 deciding the direction of 500,000,000 despite the fact that there is little to no evidence that these 870,000 have any form of popular support within the other member states.
It’s impossible to quote the numbers and say that it’s 870 000 deciding the direction of 500 000 000. We simply don’t know how many in the 500 000 000 agree or disagree with the Lisbon treaty. It could be 300 000 000 think yes and 200 000 000 think no. We simply don’t know what the other think because they have not been allowed to vote.
I’m not naïve enough to think that politics is a clean wonderful place, and politicians will always try to manipulate things their own way. It would be unusual if they didn’t. But that doesn’t mean we have to like it or applaud it.
I dislike the dishonesty in not allowing people the option to vote, and am constantly amazed that guys here seem to argue that its somehow more democratic to not let people vote on the issue across Europe.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »They also were not very informed. Democracy was subverted by ignorance. We would never get a finance bill passed if there had to have a referendum.
Your are right, and I was only partly serious. I quite like the Roman idea of democracy which is interesting.Tim Robbins wrote: »
I am sure Sinn Fein agree.
I have no idea about sinn fein so bow to your knowledge here.Tim Robbins wrote: »
Yes the politicians are on a secret agenda to draw up 400 page legal documents so that they can laugh at you and ruin your life while they have an amazing life in their merc's and bmw's laughing at you working a 40 hour week and getting about 2 holidays a year.
Heck, we should all become politicians, sounds like a great life.
You haven't one intelligent reason why reject Lisbon or one intelligent reason for a way forward.
It's not up to me whether or not lisbon was rejected and one of the flaws in our democracy is that a vote is a vote and we don't negate a vote because it might be intelligent or not. Hell, I agree that most of our elections don;t come up with intelligent results ( how about the last general election for a start), but we are as we are and have to cope with all sorts of intelligences voting.0 -
I'm a very infrequent poster on boards.ie, so first of all greetings to all here.
I'd like to take the opportunity to repost below a post I contributed yesterday to a similar conversation in after hours. I modestly think that it sums up the situation in which we find ourselves. What concerned me a little is that no-one there was prepared to debate the points I make on their merits. I'll say no more at this stage. This is what I wrote.
---
Could we just stand back for a minute and look at the whole situation on its merits?
First, Sarkozy shouldn't have been so foolish the other day; he made his remarks behind closed doors to members of his own party and we must assume there is a good chance that he did not expect to be quoted. Let's face it, putting a revised set of proposals to Ireland and asking us to vote on them is obviously a likely outcome. Everyone knows that. The man erred in his judgement, but I reckon most of us have had our words come back to haunt us unexpectedly the odd time.
Secondly, we are entitled to our view. But are we entitled to decide the course of 26 other countries into the long term? I really don't think so. So we cannot go around thinking that our 'no' can just decide matters and everyone else will have to like it or lump it. That really is megalomania. Our no has put Europe into a situation where it needs to come to an arrangement with us and I'm sorry, but as one country in 26, it's just not living in the real world to think we will dictate every line, comma and apostrophe of the compromise that's put before us.
There's no getting around this; if the others want to go ahead, we can't really stop them. We signed up to the Treaty of Rome and its successors which commit us to an ever closer union of European states. If we no longer want to commit to that process, then it would be quite reasonable of the others to request us to leave if we reject the compromise that is brokered on Lisbon. We are entitled to decide our fate but not to dictate the fate of hundreds of millions of others. Just think about it.
People can go on about lack of respect, voting no out of spite etc... all they want. One thing I know is that if we left the EU, we would have to negotiate a relationship with the bloc on a basis that is entirely new and without precedent. No state has ever left before. You can only negotiate effectively from a position of strengh. What exactly would our strength be in that scenario? The reality is that Europe would dictate its relationship with us on its terms, way more than it ever could if we were at the table itself.
We've got to get our heads around the real consequences here and accept that many of the things we take for granted would change completely if we were to leave or were effectively chucked out of the EU.0 -
-
[QUOTE=auerillo;56607712
It's not up to me whether or not lisbon was rejected and one of the flaws in our democracy is that a vote is a vote and we don't negate a vote because it might be intelligent or not. Hell, I agree that most of our elections don;t come up with intelligent results ( how about the last general election for a start), but we are as we are and have to cope with all sorts of intelligences voting.[/QUOTE]
I agree. A simple multiple choice question before you could vote to make sure that people knew some simple basics, would be a very good idea. I could someone like you being the President of Europe, if not the world, someday.0 -
Really?auerillo wrote:It’s not possible to come to a conclusion in the absence of evidence.
There is no evidence that the Taliban are in fact a group of Terminators from the year 2029; are you saying it is unreasonable for me to conclude that the Taliban are not Terminators?
Well, technically, you ought to be agnostic about it. Also invisible teapots, dragons, Santa Claus...the usual suspects.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I'd confidently wager my house that the other 24 nations would provide ample NO votes in addition to ours so as not to even require Germany and Italy to have to vote but they'd be free to use their representative method as to me it would highlight even more how the political elite simply don't listen-imagine 25 NO votes through referndum and 2 YES votes through parliamentarians. It's academic anyway because Lisbon was engineered to remove it from the referendum table for as many states as possible-do you disagree that this was the case?oscarBravo wrote: »Given that neither Germany nor Italy can ratify the treaty by referendum, what do you suggest they do?
As many many people who didn't understand the treaty voted YES so shouldn't it cancel itself out or close enough? Nobody really knows if more NO or YES voters didn't understand the treaty.oscarBravo wrote: »That may be a valid point in the rarified atmosphere of an ivory tower, but you're equally content to ignore the fact that the number of people who, by their own admission, didn't understand what they were voting on substantially outweighs the margin of the result. Surely that should factor into your assessment?0 -
Agree with all that except the bit in bold because we do have some idea about the desires of France and the Netherlands (a sizable chunk of the EU population, some 75million people out of 426million) as they already rejected a constitution which was very similar to the Lisbon Treaty albeit written in a different way. It is entirely reasonable to suppose that there is at least a good chance that the french and dutch would have vote NO again.ALL 27 countries politicians certainly want to press ahead, that's a fact. Although, in the only country which has been balloted, the people did not want what the politicians wanted. A conundrum.
No one has been balloted in the other 26 countries, so we have no idea what their people want either.
The growing problem here is the disconnect between politicians and the people they are supposed to represent, and simply saying that because the politicians in all 27 countries want something, then that is what the people of Europe want, simple flies in the face of the facts.
If the politicians are so convinced that is what their people want, then why not ask them? We all know that none of them will risk it for fear of finding out their people do not want it.
The main thing which the lisbon treaty exercise demonstrates is that our democracy is being compromised by politicians who are not interested in what the people think when it invonveniently disagrees with them, and we ignore that at our peril.0 -
I'd confidently wager my house that the other 24 nations would provide ample NO votes in addition to ours so as not to even require Germany and Italy to have to vote but they'd be free to use their representative method as to me it would highlight even more how the political elite simply don't listen-imagine 25 NO votes through referndum and 2 YES votes through parliamentarians.
In all honesty I am not sure you have looked into this too closely and regrettably you'd probably lose your house. 70% of the Poles favour the EU, 60% of Germans and AFAIK over 60% of Spaniards along with the Belgians, Luxembourgois and even the Danes are starting to look more favourably on the EU. I also believe that that many of the Eastern States could also be expected to come in with a positive vote. The Czechs are not necessarily against it, although their main Eurosceptic party is. The only country who might be expected to vote against are the French. Even there one could see it going close and a good reasoned appeal to their innate chauvinism could bring in a positive there as well. Hardly the ringing endorsement you are looking for.
It also begs the question as to why you would ignore the 47% who did not vote NO in this country. Now that's hardly democratic either, is it?
So why bring it up?Nobody really knows if more NO or YES voters didn't understand the treaty.0 -
Advertisement
-
I wouldn't necessarily disagree that some of the changes from the Constitution treaty to the Lisbon treaty were intended to remove the necessity of referenda. I would disagree with the implication that this is evidence of the underlying evil of the so-called "EU elite". I note that no-one has answered my question as to how many European treaties France has ratified through referendum. Care to hazard an answer?It's academic anyway because Lisbon was engineered to remove it from the referendum table for as many states as possible-do you disagree that this was the case?
Rubbish. Both "yes" and "no" voters were asked why they voted the way they did. By far the most common "no" answer was because they didn't understand it. How many people said that they voted for it because they didn't understand it?As many many people who didn't understand the treaty voted YES so shouldn't it cancel itself out or close enough? Nobody really knows if more NO or YES voters didn't understand the treaty.0 -
It's very unfortunate for the 'Yes side' that, of all European leaders to be coming here at this time as EU president, it's Sarkozy. There's something intensely unlikable about the man-his arrogance, vanity, lack of self-awareness etc. .
You forgot: his charisma, his intelligence, his commitment, his energie, his willigness to find solutions ... oh, and his wife! Sometimes it pays off to be arrogant
0 -
We are supposed to be a pro-EU country too! We voted NO. Being in favour of 'some sort of european partnership' (and this whole sorry episode is making this look less of a partnership to me) does not mean the populaces of the above named states would vote in favour of 'this kind of european partnership'. For heaven's sake-I am a staunch NO voter who is in favour of 'some kind of european partnership'.is_that_so wrote: »In all honesty I am not sure you have looked into this too closely and regrettably you'd probably lose your house. 70% of the Poles favour the EU, 60% of Germans and AFAIK over 60% of Spaniards along with the Belgians, Luxembourgois and even the Danes are starting to look more favourably on the EU. I also believe that that many of the Eastern States could also be expected to come in with a positive vote. The Czechs are not necessarily against it, although their main Eurosceptic party is. The only country who might be expected to vote against are the French. Even there one could see it going close and a good reasoned appeal to their innate chauvinism could bring in a positive there as well. Hardly the ringing endorsement you are looking for.
Yes, it is I'm afraid. It's not the same as a government which is duty bound to represent everyone, even those who didn't vote for them. This is a YES/NO referendum-one side must lose outright. To be honest, I was expecting a YES result and was fully prepared to take it on the chin and watch my country take another step on the road to a more militarised, federal Europe which might lead to God knows what....but I was pleasantly surprised that we voted NO and it should be the end of the matter but it isn't-we are told we got it wrong and must vote again (make no mistake-we will be voting again until we vote YES).is_that_so wrote: »It also begs the question as to why you would ignore the 47% who did not vote NO in this country. Now that's hardly democratic either, is it?
I didn't.is_that_so wrote: »So why bring it up?0 -
Why engineer the treaty to remove the referendum option from as many european citizens as possible then? In answer to your question....I don't know.oscarBravo wrote: »I wouldn't necessarily disagree that some of the changes from the Constitution treaty to the Lisbon treaty were intended to remove the necessity of referenda. I would disagree with the implication that this is evidence of the underlying evil of the so-called "EU elite". I note that no-one has answered my question as to how many European treaties France has ratified through referendum. Care to hazard an answer?
Very few, but they will have given fuzzy answers such as "I voted yes because I thought it would be good for the country" which doesn't mean they understood it! VERY FEW voters on either side can claim to have FULLY understood the treaty.oscarBravo wrote: »Rubbish. Both "yes" and "no" voters were asked why they voted the way they did. By far the most common "no" answer was because they didn't understand it. How many people said that they voted for it because they didn't understand it?0 -
Very few, but they will have given fuzzy answers such as "I voted yes because I thought it would be good for the country" which doesn't mean they understood it! VERY FEW voters on either side can claim to have FULLY understood the treaty.
This may be true, but there are also some clear indications in the preliminary poll as to the knowledgeability of both camps:3. The retention of Ireland’s identity:
• Even more “no” voters (83%) were in agreement that the result meant that Ireland could keep its neutrality, an opinion supported by only half (51%) of “yes” voters
• There were similar results (79% of “no” voters and 50% of “yes” voters) on the question as to whether the “no” vote would allow Ireland to keep its tax system
• The numbers in agreement were smaller on the issue of the “no” vote allowing Ireland to keep its current legislation on abortion, gay marriages and euthanasia: 60% of “no” voters and a third (36%) of the “yes” camp agreed on this matter.
Anyone who had even basic knowledge of the treaty would have known we weren't under threat in these major area's, yet the No voters clearly believed otherwise in much greater numbers.0 -
Because most European countries don't ratify international treaties by referendum. The concept of putting every treaty to the people is just alien, both to the governments and to the people. The reaction to the Constitution referendum in France was largely (in effect) "I don't know why you're asking me about this, but I'm pissed off at the government so whatever the question was, the answer is no."Why engineer the treaty to remove the referendum option from as many european citizens as possible then?
I do. Want to hazard a guess as to whether it was more or less than half of the European treaties they have ratified in total? Want to have a stab at whether the treaty of Rome itself was put to referendum?In answer to your question....I don't know.
...as distinct from those on the "no" side who didn't claim not to have understood it, but who voted for reasons completely unrelated to the treaty?Very few, but they will have given fuzzy answers such as "I voted yes because I thought it would be good for the country" which doesn't mean they understood it!
Can't you see that that's a less than compelling argument for letting them vote on it?VERY FEW voters on either side can claim to have FULLY understood the treaty.0 -
is_that_so wrote: ».....notwithstanding the fact that a good number of people who did vote had no idea what they were voting on.
Are you including people who voted "yes" in that statement ? Those sheep who voted yes because the politicians told them to ?
That's what annoys me about the yes camp; they're extremely patronising when it comes to the opinions (the informed as well as uninformed) of those who disagree with them.We choose politicians to make judgements and we presumably trust them. We can't then go back to them and say that we don't like what they've done. That says far more about our own initial judgement.
Surely the reverse is also true; the politicians give us a vote and we use it, so they should trust our opinions and respect our decisions, and (to quote your own phrase in the reverse context) "can't then go back .... and say that they don't like what we've done".
They are chosen to represent us, not for us to blindly rubber-stamp what they decide. And TBH, given their track record, I wouldn't trust the FF shower an inch at this stage......if they told me that it was raining I'd have to go out and check for myself......
And before anyone asks "is that why you voted no - it had nothing to do with Lisbon", consider this; SF were advocating a no vote, and I trust them even less than FF, so it wasn't a factor; I simple didn't know the pros and cons and was in favour of "no change", which (we're being told now) wasn't an option.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »Can't you see that that's a less than compelling argument for letting them vote on it?
Most people interested in politics will go on and on about how voting is a "right" and an "obligation"; where do you reckon them "letting" us vote on it comes into it ?
Either you want people to be interested in politics or you don't.0 -
I'm talking about the reasons people themselves gave for voting. I'm not claiming that people voted "no" because they didn't understand the treaty - they are claiming that. Add in the people who gave reasons for voting that are completely unrelated to the treaty itself, and you have a result informed by ignorance.Liam Byrne wrote: »Are you including people who voted "yes" in that statement ? Those sheep who voted yes because the politicians told them to ?
That's what annoys me about the yes camp; they're extremely patronising when it comes to the opinions (the informed as well as uninformed) of those who disagree with them.
Voting is a right. Like all rights, it carries commensurate responsibilities: you have a duty to inform yourself on the issues and vote intelligently. There is no obligation to vote.Liam Byrne wrote: »Most people interested in politics will go on and on about how voting is a "right" and an "obligation"; where do you reckon them "letting" us vote on it comes into it ?
As for "letting" us vote: they don't let us vote on the annual budget, which has an immediate and direct impact on all our lives. How come nobody's complaining about the lack of democracy there?0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »Are you including people who voted "yes" in that statement ? Those sheep who voted yes because the politicians told them to ?
That's what annoys me about the yes camp; they're extremely patronising when it comes to the opinions (the informed as well as uninformed) of those who disagree with them.
Surely the reverse is also true; the politicians give us a vote and we use it, so they should trust our opinions and respect our decisions, and (to quote your own phrase in the reverse context) "can't then go back .... and say that they don't like what we've done".
They are chosen to represent us, not for us to blindly rubber-stamp what they decide. And TBH, given their track record, I wouldn't trust the FF shower an inch at this stage......if they told me that it was raining I'd have to go out and check for myself......
And before anyone asks "is that why you voted no - it had nothing to do with Lisbon", consider this; SF were advocating a no vote, and I trust them even less than FF, so it wasn't a factor; I simple didn't know the pros and cons and was in favour of "no change", which (we're being told now) wasn't an option.
But the party voting lines don't support that line.
FF about 60/40 Yes
FG about half
Labour and Green more No voters.
SF were actually the party that had 95% following the party line.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0
Advertisement