The Next Referendum Vote Clock Is Ticking Down...

BlitzKrieg

'd rather that we were outside the EU than be a part of an organisation that calls this democracy.

representative democracy actually.

Vote09ireland

I may have a bias in mentioning this but the European Parliamentary elections are in june and Lisbon two won't be before it. Maybe we should be concentrating on that. It may be far more important than lisbon two
In fact, some might say, the english government staying in power is more important to Ireland's prospects in europe than either votes. But the European elections have to be in june even if our government won't set a date.
Maybe the government is thinking that with all this lisbon talk that mentioning the elections or the referendum could prove fatal in june

nhughes100

Here's a conspiracy theory for you. Maybe the government are delaying the second referendum until after the Euro elections so they can sell us Lisbon 2 on the basis that a lot of the changes won't come into affect for another 4 years?

oscarBravo

nhughes100 wrote: »

Here's a conspiracy theory for you. Maybe the government are delaying the second referendum until after the Euro elections so they can sell us Lisbon 2 on the basis that a lot of the changes won't come into affect for another 4 years?

Many of the changes that would have been delayed for several years by Lisbon will come into effect next year, under the provisions of Nice. I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

ChocolateSauce

And I'm getting impatient. I want to tell the EU and the government that I resoundingly support the treaty by voting yes a second time.
My biggest regret is that the constitution never made it to our doorstep.

DeVore

Here's my prediction:

If they make a serious alteration to the treaty (reviewing the rotation of commissioner, clarifying the tax thing, whatever.. it doesnt really matter what), then it will pass.

If they simply re-present the treaty as was, then it will fail by a landslide. Indeed, I was a waiverer in the last one and eventually didnt vote but I will register myself and make sure I vote no if they simply re-present it. It will have become a vote on something far more important that a treaty referendum if thats the case.

DeV.

oscarBravo

DeVore wrote: »

If they make a serious alteration to the treaty (reviewing the rotation of commissioner, clarifying the tax thing, whatever.. it doesnt really matter what), then it will pass.

Not really an option. The treaty has been signed by all 27 member states; now it needs to be ratified by them all. If even a word of the treaty is changed, it needs to be re-signed by all members, and those who have ratified it already need to re-ratify it.

I can see an argument for such a process, but I don't really see the merits of that argument.

If they simply re-present the treaty as was, then it will fail by a landslide. Indeed, I was a waiverer in the last one and eventually didnt vote but I will register myself and make sure I vote no if they simply re-present it. It will have become a vote on something far more important that a treaty referendum if thats the case.

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to vote on the same proposal again, as long as a decent campaign is mounted to counter the bare-faced lies of the "no" campaign last time out.

DeVore

The doubt have been raised (and to be fair,there are some very odd bits about reworking the treaty post-vote in the treaty itself) and no amount of "an no sure thats not what it means at all" is going to convince us, the irish, to accept this way of being treated.

If not a word is changed, it will be defeated on principle. A principle which, to be fair, is a lot more important then anything in that treaty. You can quote me on that.

DeV.

djpbarry

DeVore wrote: »

If not a word is changed, it will be defeated on principle. A principle which, to be fair, is a lot more important then anything in that treaty.

What principle is that? "I already said 'NO' because I don't understand! Now don't ask me again!"?

Scofflaw

DeVore wrote: »

The doubt have been raised (and to be fair,there are some very odd bits about reworking the treaty post-vote in the treaty itself) and no amount of "an no sure thats not what it means at all" is going to convince us, the irish, to accept this way of being treated.

If not a word is changed, it will be defeated on principle. A principle which, to be fair, is a lot more important then anything in that treaty. You can quote me on that.

DeV.

I would have to agree with the poster who said that since most of the arguments over the Treaty were about the interpretation of it, a set of Declarations stating the intended meaning of the disputed articles would address a lot of the uncertainty over the Treaty. It doesn't seem outrageous to me to ask the question again with far greater clarity on what we're voting on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Declarations and protocols I have no issue with, beyond the pedant in me wondering how often things have to be tautologically restated.

Having to re-negotiate a rather well-worked treaty to counter the lies of Libertas and stark raving psychosis of Cóir, I most certainly would have a problem with.

oscarBravo

DeVore wrote: »

The doubt have been raised (and to be fair,there are some very odd bits about reworking the treaty post-vote in the treaty itself) and no amount of "an no sure thats not what it means at all" is going to convince us, the irish, to accept this way of being treated.

At the risk of being seen to bully you on this...

This is an interesting example of what I (and others) find frustrating about the "no" campaign: the fact that the seed of a doubt is planted through the use of a blatantly misleading and emotive term that has gained much currency; in this case, the so-called "self-modifying" articles of the treaty.

Several posters, notably Scofflaw, are blue in the face explaining that the only such provision that the treaty contains is the ability to make amendments to the existing treaties without the requirement to negotiate and ratify an entirely new treaty every single time some aspect of the EU framework requires tweaking. In the same way that we have constitutional amendments every few years, rather than having to redraft the entire constitution, Lisbon provides for the possibility of incremental changes to the treaties.

Here comes the science bit: any such modification would require unanimous ratification by every single member state, in accordance with that member state's individual legal ratification requirements, exactly as is the case right now.

Did the "no" campaign make that clear when they were banging on about a self-modifying treaty? Nope.

What needs to be added to the treaty to clarify this fact, when it is already abundantly clear to anyone who isn't hell-bent on distorting the facts? Buggered if I know.

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

What principle is that? "I already said 'NO' because I don't understand! Now don't ask me again!"?

YAWN, and of course all 47% of the people who voted yes understood the treaty absolutely, indeed debated it with their friends in the evenings and wrote letters to their MEP asking for clarification on any matters of confusion.

The problem is that if we vote YES this time around we won't be asked again - I'd love to see the government commission a poll at the taxpayers expense to see why people voted yes. The virginal purity of the yes campaign might be called into doubt then.

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

At the risk of being seen to bully you on this...

This is an interesting example of what I (and others) find frustrating about the "no" campaign: the fact that the seed of a doubt is planted through the use of a blatantly misleading and emotive term that has gained much currency; in this case, the so-called "self-modifying" articles of the treaty.

Several posters, notably Scofflaw, are blue in the face explaining that the only such provision that the treaty contains is the ability to make amendments to the existing treaties without the requirement to negotiate and ratify an entirely new treaty every single time some aspect of the EU framework requires tweaking. In the same way that we have constitutional amendments every few years, rather than having to redraft the entire constitution, Lisbon provides for the possibility of incremental changes to the treaties.

Here comes the science bit: any such modification would require unanimous ratification by every single member state, in accordance with that member state's individual legal ratification requirements, exactly as is the case right now.

Did the "no" campaign make that clear when they were banging on about a self-modifying treaty? Nope.

What needs to be added to the treaty to clarify this fact, when it is already abundantly clear to anyone who isn't hell-bent on distorting the facts? Buggered if I know.

The first Prime Time Special on the Lisbon treaty some months ago said that the Treaty would allow the govt to give up more vetoes on top of those explicitly given up under the Treaty using the self-amending provisions, and the RTE woman specifically stated that this included taxation. And there is no guarantee that if Lisbon goes through, our "constitutional requirements" would necessarily require a referendum.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

The first Prime Time Special on the Lisbon treaty some months ago said that the Treaty would allow the govt to give up more vetoes on top of those explicitly given up under the Treaty using the self-amending provisions, and the RTE woman specifically stated that this included taxation. And there is no guarantee that if Lisbon goes through, our "constitutional requirements" would necessarily require a referendum.

Correct. So, the issue with the so-called "self-amending provisions" is that changes to the EU treaties might be ratified by our parliament, rather than by popular vote of the people.

This is a prospect that upsets people, because they don't trust our elected representatives to make the right choices on our behalf. That's an argument that would carry more weight with me, if I thought we could trust the people to make the right choices on our behalf. The multitude of reasons given for voting against the treaty give me little confidence that they're capable of, or interested in, doing so.

I want to pick up on a point that you snuck in there: "...the RTE woman specifically stated that this included taxation." Of course, this raises the old bogeyman about our corporation tax being under threat, because we can't trust our government not to give away the family jewels. But, as always, it ignores the fact that direct taxation is not, and is unlikely anytime soon to become, an EU competence.

Eurosceptic2008

oscarBravo wrote: »

Correct. So, the issue with the so-called "self-amending provisions" is that changes to the EU treaties might be ratified by our parliament, rather than by popular vote of the people.

This is a prospect that upsets people, because they don't trust our elected representatives to make the right choices on our behalf. That's an argument that would carry more weight with me, if I thought we could trust the people to make the right choices on our behalf. The multitude of reasons given for voting against the treaty give me little confidence that they're capable of, or interested in, doing so.

I want to pick up on a point that you snuck in there: "...the RTE woman specifically stated that this included taxation." Of course, this raises the old bogeyman about our corporation tax being under threat, because we can't trust our government not to give away the family jewels. But, as always, it ignores the fact that direct taxation is not, and is unlikely anytime soon to become, an EU competence.

Other elements of taxation are already a shared-competence though.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Other elements of taxation are already a shared-competence though.

Yup. VAT is a specific example. The UK just lowered their standard VAT rate, while we just raised ours.

Pesky meddling EU.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

YAWN, and of course all 47% of the people who voted yes understood the treaty absolutely...

Well that's not really the point, is it? A large number of voters have stated that they voted 'No' because they did not understand what they were voting on. Now, logically, if these same people were educated on the content of the treaty, "not understanding" is no longer a valid reason for voting as they do. They may of course still vote 'No' for some other reason. However, what I cannot understand is this insistence that people will vote 'No' on the basis of some sort of "principle", as if it were their democratic duty to consistently vote 'No' to something that they have been to lazy to educate themselves on. I have simply no idea how to appease people like that.

nhughes100 wrote: »

I'd love to see the government commission a poll at the taxpayers expense to see why people voted yes.

It's already been done, but your point is irrelevant as nobody has ever claimed that every (or even most) 'Yes' voter fully understood the treaty. Hell, I voted 'Yes' and I'd be lying if I said I understood every single tiny little aspect of the treaty. Anyone who tells you they do is lying (unless they happen to be named Scofflaw).

The point is (the same point that has been made ad nauseam for the last number of months) that the rest of the EU wants to move on and they want a definitive answer from us; are we in or not? Now, I think it's worth asking the people about Lisbon again, considering so many did not know what they were voting on and a rather large number of 'No' voters believed that the treaty could be renegotiated, which it clearly will not be.

The reason behind the opposition from sceptics to another referendum is obvious – they’re afraid people might change their mind and they want to deny them the right to do so.

Furious-Dave

djpbarry wrote: »

The reason behind the opposition from sceptics to another referendum is obvious – they’re afraid people might change their mind and they want to deny them the right to do so.

What? People's rights being denied? But that's...undemocratic! :rolleyes:

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

Well that's not really the point, is it? A large number of voters have stated that they voted 'No' because they did not understand what they were voting on. Now, logically, if these same people were educated on the content of the treaty, "not understanding" is no longer a valid reason for voting as they do. They may of course still vote 'No' for some other reason. However, what I cannot understand is this insistence that people will vote 'No' on the basis of some sort of "principle", as if it were their democratic duty to consistently vote 'No' to something that they have been to lazy to educate themselves on. I have simply no idea how to appease people like that.
It's already been done, but your point is irrelevant as nobody has ever claimed that every (or even most) 'Yes' voter fully understood the treaty. Hell, I voted 'Yes' and I'd be lying if I said I understood every single tiny little aspect of the treaty. Anyone who tells you they do is lying (unless they happen to be named Scofflaw).

The point is (the same point that has been made ad nauseam for the last number of months) that the rest of the EU wants to move on and they want a definitive answer from us; are we in or not? Now, I think it's worth asking the people about Lisbon again, considering so many did not know what they were voting on and a rather large number of 'No' voters believed that the treaty could be renegotiated, which it clearly will not be.

The reason behind the opposition from sceptics to another referendum is obvious – they’re afraid people might change their mind and they want to deny them the right to do so.

Well you see that is the point, people have been slating the no side on this board for not educating themselves regarding the treaty and who were duped by the propaganda of Coir and the likes but so long as you voted yes it didn't really matter, you were just being a good European and doing what your td told you to do. So what short of reading the treaty line by line on prime time radio and tv are they going to do to change our minds? The referendum commission sent an easy to read booklet to every house in the land, ran tv and radio campaigns - you'd have wanted to have been living in a cave not to have heard some discussion on the subject. Could you please forward us on the poll on why people voted yes, I'd be very interested in reading it and must admit never to have heard of it.

Lisbon is not about membership of the EU by the way, by their own rules of their own making the decision has to be unanimous. But again please show us the part of the treaty where it says that if you vote no to this treaty you will then have to make a decision about leaving the EU.

Your last point is bordering on conspiracy theory, as has been correctly pointed out, if the treaty is presented as it was last time out it will be slaughtered, The EU will need to take a good long hard look at itself and it's direction in the event of another Irish no vote. It will also reveal how committed the EU is to it's word regarding unanimity, something I would be very interested in finding out.

oscarBravo

nhughes100 wrote: »

But again please show us the part of the treaty where it says that if you vote no to this treaty you will then have to make a decision about leaving the EU.

That's an absurd argument. How can a treaty contain a provision about what happens if it's not ratified? Think about it.

rvd156

The government put the country into a recession on purpose, so that when we all go to vote on this they will make out that if we vote yes that it will bring us out of a recession!! :rolleyes:

dresden8

djpbarry wrote: »

The reason behind the opposition from sceptics to another referendum is obvious – they’re afraid people might change their mind and they want to deny them the right to do so.

That's a brilliant piece of newspeak.

Following the result of the vote is undemocratic.

Well done. The yes side have surpassed themselves on this one.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

That's a brilliant piece of newspeak.

Following the result of the vote is undemocratic.

Well done. The yes side have surpassed themselves on this one.

Arguing from your conclusion. You've decided the "no" vote means "never, ever, ever under any circumstances should we be asked to vote on this again" (which wasn't written on my ballot paper), and that any suggestion that another vote is in the offing isn't "following the result of the vote".

The vote was on whether to amend the constitution. The result was "no". The constitution hasn't been amended.

Is that really so very hard to understand?

dresden8

Yawn.

So what will the next vote be on? The constitution perhaps.

What if after the next General Election FF get their arses handed to them? Will they run an Oireachtas committee to examine the result of the vote and, in the interests of democracy, give us another chance to vote.

How democratic would that be.

The yes side is stretching reason beyond acceptable limits to get their vote re-run.

Unfortunately we all know it will be re-run. This "exploration of the reasons for the no vote" is a con-job. Let's not pretend it isn't.

Hitman Actual

nhughes100 wrote: »

Well you see that is the point, people have been slating the no side on this board for not educating themselves regarding the treaty and who were duped by the propaganda of Coir and the likes but so long as you voted yes it didn't really matter, you were just being a good European and doing what your td told you to do. So what short of reading the treaty line by line on prime time radio and tv are they going to do to change our minds? The referendum commission sent an easy to read booklet to every house in the land, ran tv and radio campaigns - you'd have wanted to have been living in a cave not to have heard some discussion on the subject. Could you please forward us on the poll on why people voted yes, I'd be very interested in reading it and must admit never to have heard of it.

In fairness to djpbarry, he acknowledged that Yes voters weren't necessarily 100% knowledgeable on the Treaty either. But which is better: voting Yes for the reason that your elected representative supports the Treaty, and because you believe that the country will continue to do well in it's ties with Europe; or voting No because of mistaken beliefs of abortion, loss of neutraility, conscription, detention of children, etc, etc.

Also, the Referendum Commission booklet was terrible; did you actually read it? And they've been continuously slated for their effort since the referendum, as have been the Yes campaigners in general (and deservedly so). The "discussion on the subject", which you seem to think was adequate for an informed decision by the electorate, was a bundle of lies and half-truths by the No campaign, and lacklustre rebuttle attempts by the Yes side. Don't you think the electorate deserves better than that in making such an important decision?

nhughes100 wrote: »

Lisbon is not about membership of the EU by the way, by their own rules of their own making the decision has to be unanimous. But again please show us the part of the treaty where it says that if you vote no to this treaty you will then have to make a decision about leaving the EU.

Your last point is bordering on conspiracy theory, as has been correctly pointed out, if the treaty is presented as it was last time out it will be slaughtered, The EU will need to take a good long hard look at itself and it's direction in the event of another Irish no vote. It will also reveal how committed the EU is to it's word regarding unanimity, something I would be very interested in finding out.

The unanimity issue in ratifying the Treaty is more to do with International Law than to do with the EU's own rules and regulations, as far as I know. It can't be ratified without all member states agreeing. But what's to stop the member states in favour of Lisbon adopting a similar Treaty amongst themselves (a form of enhanced co-operation), and leaving the rest behind with a series of major opt-outs? As alluded to in your posts you would have no problem with that happening, but do you really think the majority of the electorate would be in favour of that? Like it or not, rejecting Lisbon (twice, if it happens), makes a statement of where we (Ireland) are going in the EU, and all the polls indicate that Irish people still want to be a big part of Europe, despite what you think the No vote indicates.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Yawn.

I'm sorry. I know facts are less exciting than fanciful claims, but them's the breaks.

So what will the next vote be on? The constitution perhaps.

The next vote, if there is one, will be on a proposed amendment to the constitution.

Is there some part of this that's unclear to you?

What if after the next General Election FF get their arses handed to them? Will they run an Oireachtas committee to examine the result of the vote and, in the interests of democracy, give us another chance to vote.

We get a chance to vote on a new government every five years or so. Sometimes we get to vote on one more often than that. Sometimes the same government gets returned. Sometimes it changes.

How democratic would that be.

Yeah, voting is so utterly, disgustingly undemocratic.

Stop making us vote for things, you fascist dictators!

The yes side is stretching reason beyond acceptable limits to get their vote re-run.

Only if you redefine "reason". Which you seem perfectly content to do.

Unfortunately we all know it will be re-run. This "exploration of the reasons for the no vote" is a con-job. Let's not pretend it isn't.

So basically you don't think there should be any exploration of reasons for a "no" vote? You think that the result of the referendum should be permanently and irrevocably binding on us? No matter what the cost, no matter what the consequences, we should be denied an opportunity to ever express an opinion on the subject again?

How democratic would that be?

oscarBravo

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Also, the Referendum Commission booklet was terrible; did you actually read it?

What was wrong with it?

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

The next vote, if there is one,

Still keeping up the old pretence that there may not be a re-run of the vote eh?

I'll go out on a limb here and say there definitely will be one. I know I could be talking crazy here, but that's just the type of guy I am.

Con-job I tells ya!

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Still keeping up the old pretence that there may not be a re-run of the vote eh?

My crystal ball is faulty.

I'll go out on a limb here and say there definitely will be one. I know I could be talking crazy here, but that's just the type of guy I am.

Con-job I tells ya!

You've yet to explain how denying people a vote is more democratic than letting them vote.