The Next Referendum Vote Clock Is Ticking Down...

Scofflaw

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.

If voting is democratic, voting is democratic. Two votes cannot somehow be undemocratic. What it is is unfair, certainly, and a tactic that is available only to the government, and maybe it's a questionable use of the government's power to call referendums, but it's a public vote, and a public vote can't be undemocratic unless it's rigged.

Obviously, I appreciate saying "it's unfair" doesn't look good as such...

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

And following this line of reasoning

When (not if) we have the next vote and if it's a yes, would the government then be denying our democratic rights by not running the vote again?

I'm so confused by you yes people. No wonder I voted no. Maybe you should issue a pamphlet explaining your reasoning to me.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

My crystal ball is faulty.

It can't be that faulty. You must be short-sighted as well.

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

"You will vote until you give the right answer" is an abuse of power.

And, are the people being denied a vote? Where is the groundswell of opinion on the street demanding a re-run?

It may exist on boards.ie and the Dail but I don't hear people complaining they don't have another chance to exercise their democratic rights.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

It can't be that faulty. You must be short-sighted as well.

I'm pretty sure there will be another vote. I sincerely hope there will be another vote. But I don't know there will be another vote, and neither do you.

"You will vote until you give the right answer" is an abuse of power.

You described it as undemocratic, which it's not. Now it's an abuse of power. Make up your mind.

If we vote "no" again, Lisbon is finished. We have absolutely no idea what will take its place, but I can't imagine it being pretty for Ireland. Equally, if we don't vote again, Lisbon is finished, and the end result for us is also uncertain. With Lisbon we know what we're getting, despite all the lies and propaganda to the contrary. What's the alternative?

Ganley would have us believe that we can have a 25-page treaty. Where's his draft version? Sinn Féin tell us that we can negotiate a better deal. What constitutes a better deal, and what makes them so certain that every country will cheerfully sign up to it?

And, are the people being denied a vote?

Nope. But it seems you and others would rather they were.

Where is the groundswell of opinion on the street demanding a re-run?

Government policy should only be dictated by groundswells of opinion on the street?

Hitman Actual

oscarBravo wrote: »

What was wrong with it?

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I thought it lacked a conciseness in the way it was written. It didn't go far enough in emphasizing exactly what the changes would mean to Ireland, but instead concentrated more on the institutional changes in general. I don't think that's what people want to read, considering they don't know much about the institutions in the first place; they just want to know exactly how it will affect them.

Of course, as they commission was independent, maybe they had to write it that way. Also, I'm a bit harsh for me to say it was terrible, but I think it could have been better all the same.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

And following this line of reasoning

When (not if) we have the next vote and if it's a yes, would the government then be denying our democratic rights by not running the vote again?

I'm so confused by you yes people. No wonder I voted no. Maybe you should issue a pamphlet explaining your reasoning to me.

They would be choosing not to hold a vote. The decision as to whether to hold a vote on any given issue is a matter of Constitutional law, dictated by our Constitution. The government isn't acting illegally if it doesn't hold a vote when it is not required to hold a vote, nor is it acting undemocratically - in terms of the democracy we have set up.

If you have an issue here, it is with the fact that the power to call referendums lies entirely with the government (as dictated by our Constitution), and they are using that power tactically in a way that you consider unfair to your cause. You're not wrong there, but claiming a vote is undemocratic is bizarre.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

... 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.

Says who?

Ideally, everyone who votes would understand what they were voting on. In reality, that’s not going to happen, so all we can do is reduce the number of people ticking the box labelled “I don’t understand” in the post-referendum poll, regardless of whether they are voting ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

nhughes100 wrote: »

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.

It’s the same Eurobarometer poll that details the reasons given for voting ‘No’:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

nhughes100 wrote: »

Lisbon is not about membership of the EU by the way...

I don’t recall saying that it was?

nhughes100 wrote: »

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.

I’d be rather worried about our future in the EU if we vote ‘No’ again. What do you think should happen (realistically) if we don’t ratify Lisbon and all other 26 member states do? Do you really think the whole EU is going to grind to a halt because we keep shouting "No means no!" ?

dresden8 wrote: »

The yes side have surpassed themselves on this one.

I don’t speak for anyone other than myself.

dresden8 wrote: »

When (not if) we have the next vote and if it's a yes, would the government then be denying our democratic rights by not running the vote again?

If we vote ‘Yes’, Ireland ratifies the treaty, so what would a further referendum on the same treaty accomplish?

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I thought it lacked a conciseness in the way it was written. It didn't go far enough in emphasizing exactly what the changes would mean to Ireland, but instead concentrated more on the institutional changes in general.

But if it was too detailed, people would complain that it was too difficult to understand.

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I don't think that's what people want to read, considering they don't know much about the institutions in the first place; they just want to know exactly how it will affect them.

It pretty much won’t affect them – that’s the problem.

Furious-Dave

Maybe there should be a vote on "Should we hold another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?"
Then it would be democratic to hold a second referendum or not.

I think there should be a second referendum for the simple fact that in the first one people were either misinformed or not informed.

Eurosceptic2008

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Maybe there should be a vote on "Should we hold another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?"
Then it would be democratic to hold a second referendum or not.

I think there should be a second referendum for the simple fact that in the first one people were either misinformed or not informed.

And whose to say the yes voters weren't equally misinformed?

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there will be another vote. I sincerely hope there will be another vote. But I don't know there will be another vote, and neither do you.

Yes, yes I do and no matter how much you try to deny it, so do you.

Undemocratic/abuse of power. Effectively all the same to me. Maybe not to you but we'll have to agree to disagree.

But in a bizarre way I do hope there will be another referendum.

It looks as if the Greens will never pull out of this government because they're staring into an abyss, so we'll be stuck with this shower for another 3 years or so.

A referendum will give us a chance to give the government a good kicking.

Now that's democracy!

Furious-Dave

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

And whose to say the yes voters weren't equally misinformed?

No one. But is that not even more reason to hold another referendum where both sides are fully and honestly informed.

Let me just say at this point that I don't support FF, and think that they did an atrocious job with the referendum, hence why I would like another one but this time done properly.

dresden8, the Lisbon Treaty will still be there regardless of what government we have and I think it should not be used against them. The referendum should only be used for it's intended purpose, to ask whether or not we want then Lisbon Treaty. The government do have a lot to answer for, but lets deal with them separately.

nhughes100

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Of course it's an absurd argument, it's one that's made regularly by Pro-Lisbon posters on this forum.

Eurosceptic2008

Furious-Dave wrote: »

No one. But is that not even more reason to hold another referendum where both sides are fully and honestly informed.

Let me just say at this point that I don't support FF, and think that they did an atrocious job with the referendum, hence why I would like another one but this time done properly.

dresden8, the Lisbon Treaty will still be there regardless of what government we have and I think it should not be used against them. The referendum should only be used for it's intended purpose, to ask whether or not we want then Lisbon Treaty. The government do have a lot to answer for, but lets deal with them separately.

Why should it be treated separately? Surely domestic and EU issues overlap in the sense that bad judgement impacts on all policy-areas. I'm looking forward to the potential support for the no side of a myriad of protest groups this govt will have spawned by Autumn 2009 when Lisbon II will be up for the vote/axe.

oscarBravo

nhughes100 wrote: »

Of course it's an absurd argument, it's one that's made regularly by Pro-Lisbon posters on this forum.

Give me a link to just one post by a pro-Lisbon poster that claims there's anything in the Lisbon treaty about what happens if it's not ratified.

oscarBravo

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

Why should it be treated separately? Surely domestic and EU issues overlap in the sense that bad judgement impacts on all policy-areas. I'm looking forward to the potential support for the no side of a myriad of protest groups this govt will have spawned by Autumn 2009 when Lisbon II will be up for the vote/axe.

You're advocating that people's votes in a referendum should be informed by something other than the issue being voted on?

Is that your idea of democracy?

Villain

Just a quick one, how many times do the Yes side think the Irish people should have to vote until they Vote Yes, i.e. if the vote was No again would they look for a third referendum?

oscarBravo

I think we should get one more vote. I think that the "yes" camp should work a lot harder at selling the treaty. I think the lies and scaremongering should be shot down promptly.

If we vote "no" again, and especially if we vote "no" for reasons that are irrelevant to the treaty (as some "no" campaigners seem to be advocating), I think we need to consider our position in the EU.

A spell outside the Union, especially in the current economic climate, would be a much-needed wake-up call to the euroskeptics.

Villain

The lisbon treaty isn't a vote on been inside or outside though is it? and the Lisbon treaty is dead without all countries including Ireland passing it. So no-one knows what would happen if we vote again no again, people can guess and scaremonger what "might" happen of Lisbon fails but no-one knows.

Infact imo one could say that the No side are trying to scaremonger people into voting NO with lies and the YES side are trying to scaremonger people into voting YES by guessing what "Might" happen if the treaty fails?

djpbarry

Villain wrote: »

Just a quick one, how many times do the Yes side think the Irish people should have to vote until they Vote Yes, i.e. if the vote was No again would they look for a third referendum?

Probably not. I think people would be less likely to look for a second referendum if it was evident that people knew what they were voting on first time around.

turgon

Villain wrote: »

Infact imo one could say that the No side are trying to scaremonger people into voting NO with lies and the YES side are trying to scaremonger people into voting YES by guessing what "Might" happen if the treaty fails?

Absolutely. However what is interesting is that whereas the NO side had to rely on scarmongering (the only two main proper reasons to vote no, militerisation and democratic deficit, being insufficient to effect a nationwide 50%+1 no result), the YES side didnt, they could of run a mostly positive (Obamaesque) campaign focusing on the benifits such as tighter co-operation, increased internatioal presence etc.

Instead they just cast a negative outlook with all this talk of depression.

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

So no-one knows what would happen if we vote again no again, people can guess and scaremonger what "might" happen of Lisbon fails but no-one knows.

Correct. We were offered a choice between a known outcome - the ratification of Lisbon and all that entailed - and an unknown outcome. There were some who tried to sell a "no" vote as copperfastening the status quo.

Sure, we don't know what will happen if we reject Lisbon. But indulge me with a thought exercise: imagine we have a treaty that's good for Ireland, and that we and 25 other member states have ratified. Now we're waiting for (say) Malta to sign up to it. But Malta are playing silly buggers; they're refusing to ratify because someone vocal there is claiming that the treaty will force them to sacrifice virgins in a volcano, or something.

Two years later, the treaty - with all its benefits - is still being held up because of basless scaremongering. Do you (a) shrug and say fair enough, let's scrap the treaty because of Malta's well-founded volcano virgin concerns, or (b) tell Malta to sh*t or get off the pot?

molloyjh

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

And whose to say the yes voters weren't equally misinformed?

Does it matter if they were? Surely the point is that if the electorate are ignorant of the facts on what they vote on that there should be corrective action taken and a vote held again. It doesn't matter what way they voted, ignorance is ignorance. And if a substantial number of people were ignorant then we can't be sure the real will of the people was done. Whether those people voted Yes or No is utterly meaningless if they fall into the ignorance category.

molloyjh

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.

And here lies one of my major gripes with some of the No supporters on this forum. Had you paid close enough attention to the threads over the months you would have seen a number of Yes voters displaying ignorance and being called up over it by other Yes voters (it happened to me at the start while I was still coming to terms with the details of the Treaty). You will see some No voters with genuine informed reasons for voting No being applauded for bringing something to the discussion by some Yes voters (I personally did this on at least 2 occasions) and yet all of these things go completely unnoticed or forgotten in favour of BS rhetoric lke this.

At the end of the day most reasonable people accept that ignorance played a huge part in the result of this referendum. Both Yes voters and No voters were guilty of it. So therefore we cannot be in any way sure that the will of the people was actually done. Therefore No may not actually mean No, it may mean "Oh hang on it wasn't explained well enough the first tme around but on reflection it's a Yes". To be sure it was the last thing we need is just another referendum. The Government need to identify where the issues are and address them. They need to ensure as many people as possible are accurately informed before holding another vote. This way we would be sure that the will of the people is in fact done. If it is a No then so be it.

Now of course if some No voters don't want that then they can stop complaining about a lack of democracy right now. The only people adverse to giving people the vote in this country at this stage are those No voters. If there are genuine reasons why the Irish people would reject the Treaty then they will hold up in the face of the Governments push for a Yes and will again win through on the day. I'm not sure that there are given that all other 26 countries have ratified (have the Czechs ratified yet, I know their SC approved it), all worthwhile political parties in this country supported it and all major groups (employers groups, unions etc) supported it. I'm not sure how all of those people (plus almost half the voting population here) could have gotten it so wrong, but there you go.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

Correct. We were offered a choice between a known outcome - the ratification of Lisbon and all that entailed - and an unknown outcome. There were some who tried to sell a "no" vote as copperfastening the status quo.

Sure, we don't know what will happen if we reject Lisbon. But indulge me with a thought exercise: imagine we have a treaty that's good for Ireland, and that we and 25 other member states have ratified. Now we're waiting for (say) Malta to sign up to it. But Malta are playing silly buggers; they're refusing to ratify because someone vocal there is claiming that the treaty will force them to sacrifice virgins in a volcano, or something.

Two years later, the treaty - with all its benefits - is still being held up because of basless scaremongering. Do you (a) shrug and say fair enough, let's scrap the treaty because of Malta's well-founded volcano virgin concerns, or (b) tell Malta to sh*t or get off the pot?

I agree that other countries aren't just going to walk away and accept that things stay as they are, my point was that imo the YES side accused the NO of scaremongering while their camaign was at the same time was telling people that if they don't vote YES then Ireland will be cast aside and more or less end up being out of the Union.

Scaremongering is on both sides and its hard for some people to see through it and trust either side and I agree that people are been naive if they think by voting NO nothing will change but the YES are also guessing what might happen

nhughes100

Firstly try not to refer to other peoples opinion as BS, I don't do this to any other posters and it really doesn't lend anything to the debate.

For what it's worth I agree with you that both no and yes campaigns were not fully informed but there are a lot more posts in my opinion that attack the no side exclusively for telling lies and not being informed, implying again in my opinion that the Yes side did all their research and held the moral upper ground although I've been called Xenophobic for simply opposing Lisbon. People who voted no are accused of being racist, ignorant, uneducated, duped by Coir who in my opinion couldn't outsmart a goldfish but we were all tarred with the same brush. Now I don't pretend to have read every post on the treaty but I read a lot of them and debated them and found precious little to sway my vote from no. I'm not saying their wasn't good and interesting viewpoints but none that changed my mind.

Consider this, if the vote had been yes thanks to the party machines etc then we would not have been afforded a second vote. There would have been no investigation or polls as to why the yes vote was carried. This is the source of a lot of people's discontent regarding the democratic defecit.

I would put it to you that the groups you mentioned and TD's that supported Lisbon are out of touch with the Irish people and not for the first time - They all supported Nice1 as well. To support this argument, lets assume there was no referendum and there was a Dail vote, less then 10 TD's would have voted against Lisbon as opposed to almost 54% of the population voting it down. That is quite frankly a disturbing statistic.

oscarBravo

nhughes100 wrote: »

...lets assume there was no referendum and there was a Dail vote, less then 10 TD's would have voted against Lisbon as opposed to almost 54% of the population voting it down. That is quite frankly a disturbing statistic.

...as is the percentage of people who voted, by their own admission, out of ignorance.

I asked you a direct question, in case you missed it.

humanji

nhughes100 wrote: »

I would put it to you that the groups you mentioned and TD's that supported Lisbon are out of touch with the Irish people and not for the first time - They all supported Nice1 as well. To support this argument, lets assume there was no referendum and there was a Dail vote, less then 10 TD's would have voted against Lisbon as opposed to almost 54% of the population voting it down. That is quite frankly a disturbing statistic.

Probably because it's wrong, isn't it? Only about 28% of the electorate voted it down.

djpbarry

Villain wrote: »

I agree that other countries aren't just going to walk away and accept that things stay as they are...

So what happens if we uphold our 'No' vote?

Villain wrote: »

...my point was that imo the YES side accused the NO of scaremongering while their camaign was at the same time was telling people that if they don't vote YES then Ireland will be cast aside and more or less end up being out of the Union.

While I'm not sure those exact words have been used, if we do not ratify the treaty, then we will end up on the outside of those who do, i.e. the union according to Lisbon. So there is an element of truth in that statement. We want one union, everyone else wants a different union; there's only going to be one winner in that tug-of-war.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

I would put it to you that the groups you mentioned and TD's that supported Lisbon are out of touch with the Irish people and not for the first time - They all supported Nice1 as well.

And Nice II?

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

And Nice II?

There were notable differences between Nice 1 + 2.