The Next Referendum Vote Clock Is Ticking Down...

oscarBravo

jhegarty wrote: »

Yes there is.

What evidence is there of this? Given that the government are tiptoeing around the idea of a second referendum, a third would be political suicide.

FF don't have a hope in hell of getting re-elected, getting this passed will guarantee some nice European jobs for the newly unemployed td's after the next election.

What nice European jobs? Or is this just a cynical throwaway remark in lieu of actually discussing the topic?

BlitzKrieg

What evidence is there of this? Given that the government are tiptoeing around the idea of a second referendum, a third would be political suicide.

Not to mention a 3rd referendum will officially make the lisbon treaty and referendums in general an election issue in the next general election which will be a nightmare for all the major parties as it will give alot of the smaller parties a banner to rally under.

which is a good thing/bad thing depending on your point of view.

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK: same question to you that two other people have refused to answer - do you think there's the political will to hold three referenda on Lisbon?

I dont. No. Then again I would have said the same about Nice 2 before it was ran. There's no evidence to show either way as we haven't been in this situation before. I wouldnt rule it out though.

Scofflaw

jhegarty wrote: »

FF don't have a hope in hell of getting re-elected, getting this passed will guarantee some nice European jobs for the newly unemployed td's after the next election.

Really? What "nice European jobs" are these, and what TDs have been given them in the past? Do you mean they can stand as MEPs, like Mary-Lou or Patricia McKenna? Or be appointed Commissioner - but only one of them?

I think this is the laziest kind of "argument" used in these debates. There are no plum European jobs in the gift of the Irish government except that of Commissioner - a single job, and one that comes available midway through our election cycle. The argument that all our TDs (bar Sinn Fein's) are motivated solely by personal greed in respect of Europe requires at least some vague nod in the direction of evidence - which has not to date been forthcoming.

regards,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Really? What "nice European jobs" are these, and what TDs have been given them in the past? Do you mean they can stand as MEPs, like Mary-Lou or Patricia McKenna? Or be appointed Commissioner - but only one of them?

I think this is the laziest kind of "argument" used in these debates. There are no plum European jobs in the gift of the Irish government except that of Commissioner - a single job, and one that comes available midway through our election cycle. The argument that all our TDs (bar Sinn Fein's) are motivated solely by personal greed in respect of Europe requires at least some vague nod in the direction of evidence - which has not to date been forthcoming.

regards,
Scofflaw

Agreed. If your going to be skeptical about FF's motives may I put forward a different angle. By handing over more power to Europe they can claim the credit when things go right and explain that their hands were tied by brussells when things fo wrong.
The best of both situations

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Agreed. If your going to be skeptical about FF's motives may I put forward a different angle. By handing over more power to Europe they can claim the credit when things go right and explain that their hands were tied by brussells when things fo wrong.
The best of both situations

No, I've never considered that argument as anything other than ridiculous. It involves the politicians really giving up power, you see....which contradicts the entire history of politics, or maybe even human history. By and large, politicians are cautiously and grudgingly willing to share power where they see benefits in doing so, and sharing that responsibility does indeed give them a way to hide their individual responsibility - giving it up, though, no.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, I've never considered that argument as anything other than ridiculous. It involves the politicians really giving up power, you see....which contradicts the entire history of politics, or maybe even human history. By and large, politicians are cautiously and grudgingly willing to share power where they see benefits in doing so, and sharing that responsibility does indeed give them a way to hide their individual responsibility - giving it up, though, no.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Our own government did abolish itself in 1801 to be fair. This isnt a productive area of discussion though.

Eurosceptic2008

Can we have a new poll on the Lisbon treaty asking how you would vote if we got declarations on taxation, abortion, neutrality and the Commissioner, i.e.

voted yes still voting yes
voted no still voting no
voted yes now voting no
voted no now voting yes

I would still vote no because the Charter is the big deal for me. It will become part of EU law and the ECJ will use it in court cases as an excuse to meddle even more in our affairs. This is the court that gave us the Chen and Metock cases in 2004 and 2008 respectively.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Our own government did abolish itself in 1801 to be fair. This isnt a productive area of discussion though.

The Act of Union was quite different, though: Ireland gained 100 seats in the House of Commons and 32 seats in the House of Lords - a total of 132, and the vote for Union was 158. That means that with 26 exceptions (who may well already have been peers of both Ireland and England), those who voted Yes were not giving up power. That arithmetic doesn't work for the EU at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Act of Union was quite different, though: Ireland gained 100 seats in the House of Commons and 32 seats in the House of Lords - a total of 132, and the vote for Union was 158. That means that with 26 exceptions (who may well already have been peers of both Ireland and England), those who voted Yes were not giving up power. That arithmetic doesn't work for the EU at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's some spin.

What about Scotland?

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

That's some spin.

No spin at all - they weren't giving up power.

dresden8 wrote: »

What about Scotland?

Direct bribery, largely - the amounts concerned are well known. However, the Court party also simply transferred their seat of power to the English court. Scottish seats in the house of Commons are what allow Labour to form the government of the UK.

I don't see what's so bizarre about this. Both those Acts of Union are well-studied, and the relevant motivations have been picked over repeatedly. However, there is no evidence whatsoever for the oft-repeated assertion that our TDs vote for EU treaties because they are either (a) being bribed with money, or (b) being rewarded with "plum EU posts". Indeed, the latter is immediately dismissable, because there aren't sufficient posts, and what there is haven't been given to Irish TDs. If it comes to the post I'm commenting on, it's even sillier, because anyone who thinks FF TDs will get voted out over their support for Lisbon really is living in fantasyland.

Personally, I think our TDs vote for European treaties because they're good deals for Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

I take a much more simplistic view of these things. Life is rarely complicated. The rich and powerful are, if anything more motivated by fear and greed than the rest of us.

The rich and powerful call upon patriotism and nationalism as long as it suits them.

As soon as they think they can make an extra buck they will sell out everything they "believe in" and fuck over everyone else.

Two obvious examples quoted above.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

I take a much more simplistic view of these things. Life is rarely complicated. The rich and powerful are, if anything more motivated by fear and greed than the rest of us.

The rich and powerful call upon patriotism and nationalism as long as it suits them.

As soon as they think they can make an extra buck they will sell out everything they "believe in" and fuck over everyone else.

Two obvious examples quoted above.

That's essentially an ideological position. Or possibly a psychological one. I don't consider it credible, because there are simply too many counter-examples. Also, of course, because life is almost always complicated - usually a good deal more complicated than even the most in-depth analysis can cover - and the simple answers are usually wrong.

Further, and perhaps more importantly, it's a position from which very little of value has been achieved.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's essentially an ideological position. Or possibly a psychological one. I don't consider it credible, because there are simply too many counter-examples. Also, of course, because life is almost always complicated - usually a good deal more complicated than even the most in-depth analysis can cover - and the simple answers are usually wrong.

Further, and perhaps more importantly, it's a position from which very little of value has been achieved.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Details may be complicated, but most human behaviour is simplistic, it is predicated upon fear and greed. The two examples above stand that test.

The Stock Exchange and international trade is horrendously complicated but two elements of it are well known and universal, the above mentioned fear and greed. Not to mention the herd instinct.

There really is nothing new under the sun.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Details may be complicated, but most human behaviour is simplistic, it is predicated upon fear and greed. The two examples above stand that test.

The Stock Exchange and international trade is horrendously complicated but two elements of it are well known and universal, the above mentioned fear and greed. Not to mention the herd instinct.

There really is nothing new under the sun.

Again, the idea that most human behaviour is predicated on fear and greed is not merely simplistic, but wrong. Fear and greed explain very little of human history - or indeed the bulk of our economy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, the idea that most human behaviour is predicated on fear and greed is not merely simplistic, but wrong. Fear and greed explain very little of human history - or indeed the bulk of our economy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Property bubble = greed.

Property crash = fear.

Both were seperated by very few months and very few changes in the fundamentals. The fundamentals were the same.

Only the perception changed.

Too much borrowing to get "in". No looking at the complications behind the dead cert money.

Economist really should look at the phenomenon of Cheltenham Race Course.

Every year there is a frenzy to put money on horses that nobody ever heard of. Somebody's friend got a tip off some randomer on the bus.

A lot of people are afraid not to back that horse unless they lose out on the "free money".

That's what the world's economy has been for the last few years, a pyramid scheme where everybody was afraid they'd miss out on the free money.

From the highest to the lowest they all fell for the free money scam.

Now the fear has kicked in.

That's why the banks aren't lending any more. Greed has given way to fear.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Property bubble = greed.

Property crash = fear.

Both were seperated by very few months and very few changes in the fundamentals. The fundamentals were the same.

Only the perception changed.

Too much borrowing to get "in". No looking at the complications behind the dead cert money.

Economist really should look at the phenomenon of Cheltenham Race Course.

Every year there is a frenzy to put money on horses that nobody ever heard of. Somebody's friend got a tip off some randomer on the bus.

A lot of people are afraid not to back that horse unless they lose out on the "free money".

That's what the world's economy has been for the last few years, a pyramid scheme where everybody was afraid they'd miss out on the free money.

From the highest to the lowest they all fell for the free money scam.

Now the fear has kicked in.

That's why the banks aren't lending any more. Greed has given way to fear.

Well, if what you meant was that the actions of banks are primarily governed by fear and greed, I'm not arguing. People don't go into finance for spiritual growth, or out of a desire to help their fellow man. However, that's a very low standard to judge the human race by.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

dresden8 wrote: »

The rich and powerful call upon patriotism and nationalism as long as it suits them.

TD's are "rich and powerful"? Relative to?

dresden8 wrote: »

Details may be complicated, but most human behaviour is simplistic, it is predicated upon fear and greed.

If that were the case, civilisation would collapse overnight.

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

TD's are "rich and powerful"? Relative to?

There's a whole strand of opinion that equates government by elected representatives with government by an unelected oligarchy. It's a strand of society that either doesn't vote, or votes for fringe micro-parties, and regards the mainstream parties elected by the majority as an oligarchy sustained by propaganda, bread and circuses - rather than recognising that they are the genuine preference of a self-aware electorate.

It's a very satisfying narrative, particularly if you're prone to regard humanity as acting from the basest motives, or as very heavily influenced by propaganda. Means you're not one of the sheeple, and you're immune to the propaganda - clever old you. Part of the narrative is the control of society by the wealthy and powerful - and since the TDs have power, they must be part of the controlling group. Since they're on the inside anyway, they're quite happy to hand power over to the EU, because that really retains power in the controlling group while distancing it from the voter.

There's a grain of truth in the narrative, since democratic systems are not the same as egalitarian systems, and to some extent the power of the demos is opposed by the tendency for the levers of power (wealth, influence, connections) to wind up in a small group of hands.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a whole strand of opinion that equates government by elected representatives with government by an unelected oligarchy. It's a strand of society that either doesn't vote, or votes for fringe micro-parties, and regards the mainstream parties elected by the majority as an oligarchy sustained by propaganda, bread and circuses - rather than recognising that they are the genuine preference of a self-aware electorate.

Except when it relates to Lisbon. In which case the people are a bunch of dumb-asses who get panicked by Ganley shouting Abortion! and Conscription! apparently.

Which side are you arguing here Scofflaw?

sink

dresden8 wrote: »

Except when it relates to Lisbon. In which case the people are a bunch of dumb-asses who get panicked by Ganley shouting Abortion! and Conscription! apparently.

Which side are you arguing here Scofflaw?

Speaking for myself agreeing with Scofflaws post, the electorate directly feel the impact of good or bad government policies and act accordingly which might explain the current governments severe hammering in the poles. I do however have more faith in elected representatives, for whom it is a full time job and who can avail of public resources to carry out analysis, to formulate a coherent strategy for the country rather than an ill informed reckless and emotive public who more often act on a blind whim than with any great thought.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Except when it relates to Lisbon. In which case the people are a bunch of dumb-asses who get panicked by Ganley shouting Abortion! and Conscription! apparently.

Which side are you arguing here Scofflaw?

Neither - I'm pointing out that the Irish electorate knows full well what it's doing in respect of political party voting. You know what you're getting with FF - and people vote for that. After all, it's the same thing you're getting every time.

Referendums are a different ballgame - different question every time, and you're being asked to make the decision yourself rather than delegate. Plenty of room for confusion there.

Most of us would have no difficulty nominating who we would trust to analyse a phone contract on our behalf. That does not translate into being able to tell which of two alternative phone contracts is actually better, and so we easily succumb to the phone companies' headline marketing instead.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Darragh29

And its official!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/1211/1228864663269.html

Looks like I was right to vote no!

Scofflaw

Darragh29 wrote: »

And its official!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/1211/1228864663269.html

Looks like I was right to vote no!

You were right to vote No because you knew that if you did there would be another referendum?

Interesting.

what can one say?
Scofflaw

Darragh29

Scofflaw wrote: »

You were right to vote No because you knew that if you did there would be another referendum?

Interesting.

what can one say?
Scofflaw

I voted no on Lisbon because last time I was asked to vote in a treaty referendum, it was clear to me that the EU wouldn't accept our democratic decision.

This EU has a major difficulty with democratic decisions, hence why referendums are avoided where they can be and where they cannot be, they are rerun until the correct response is given.

Stand for nothing and you'll fall for anything. The only reason this is being forced on us is because the British will hold a referendum if the Conservatives are back in power in 2010.

I'm voting no because I simply DO NOT TRUST these c*nts...

You simply cannot say that you respect a decision given by a country in a referendum and then say from the other side of your mouth that the same country must hold another referendum. This isn't credible, it doesn't make sense, it's a complete contradiction!

O'Morris

Darragh29 wrote: »

And its official!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/1211/1228864663269.html

An interesting quote from the article:

EU leaders are expected to specify that Ireland must ratify the Lisbon Treaty before the term of the current European Commission ends on October 31st, 2009.

Shouldn't that be "Ireland must ratify the Lisbon Treaty if the Irish people vote yes in the second referendum".

dresden8

O'Morris wrote: »

Shouldn't that be "Ireland must ratify the Lisbon Treaty if the Irish people vote yes in the second referendum".

You'd imagine, wouldn't you?

oscarBravo

Darragh29 wrote: »

I voted no on Lisbon because last time I was asked to vote in a treaty referendum, it was clear to me that the EU wouldn't accept our democratic decision.

So you didn't bother to try to understand the treaty, or its provisions, or the consequences of ratification, or the consequences of failure to ratify, or anything that, y'know, had anything to actually do with the subject on which you were asked to vote. You voted based on what was clear to you from a previous vote.

And this is your interpretation of "democracy", yeah?

I'm voting no because I simply DO NOT TRUST these c*nts...

What c*nts don't you trust?

djpbarry

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'm voting no because I simply DO NOT TRUST these c*nts...

If these are such undemocratic times that we live in, then why are you bothering to vote at all? Sure won't all the "elitist EU bureaucrats" ignore you anyway? Then they'll force Lisbon on you whether you like it or not, conscript you into their army, knock up your sister then force her to have an abortion, legalise heroine which your sister will inevitably turn to in order to deal with her loss, legalise euthanasia so you can put your sister out of her misery, etc., etc...

Darragh29 wrote: »

You simply cannot say that you respect a decision given by a country in a referendum and then say from the other side of your mouth that the same country must hold another referendum. This isn't credible, it doesn't make sense, it's a complete contradiction!

No, this is a complete contradiction: referenda are undemocratic.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Shouldn't that be "Ireland must ratify the Lisbon Treaty if the Irish people vote yes in the second referendum".

You'd imagine, wouldn't you?

No need to imagine - the Treaty can't be ratified without such a vote! Still, feel free to beat yourselves up over slightly sloppy journalism.

amused,
Scofflaw