The Next Referendum Vote Clock Is Ticking Down...

Scofflaw

RedPlanet wrote: »

It doesn't matter what they may think, the people have said no, and it's their job to do our bidding.
Now, I'll ask the question again:
Have the irish government even attempted to win any sort of re-negotiation of the Lisbon treaty?
I'm not asking for reasons why they mighn't be attempting to re-negotiate it.

Quoting from the DFA White Paper:

When it became clear that the Constitutional Treaty could not be ratified by all Member States, the Government strongly supported the retention of as much as possible of the substance of that agreement. In particular, it did not want the institutional aspects of the Constitutional Treaty to be reopened as this was regarded as very balanced and also a particularly sensitive part of the 2004 agreement.

During the Reform Treaty negotiations, Ireland combined with other like-minded Member States to preserve the main substance of the Constitutional Treaty while agreeing to certain modifications. These included omitting certain elements of the Constitutional Treaty and redrafting it as a series of amendments to the existing EU Treaties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

RedPlanet wrote: »

It doesn't matter what they may think, the people have said no, and it's their job to do our bidding.

From the surveys taken after the referendum it's not clear at all that there's an obvious mandate from the people. One survey had a third believing that Lisbon would bring in conscription ffs.

If the surveys showed that people a) knew what they were voting on and b) wanted a different deal then I'd completely agree with you but all the surveys showed a lot of ignorance about the treaty which makes this a real mess. It's not even clear that these people would still vote the way they did (yes or no) if they understood the treaty! Rerunning the referendum, with guarantees on some issues like taxation, abortion etc from the EU might be the best step forward. If the people vote No again then it's clear that this treaty needs to be renegotiated, but if many people voted No because of issues that weren't really there then the problem might not actually be the treaty itself.

oscarBravo

Right, looking through the SF proposals for a revised Lisbon treaty:

• The Commission:
  • No reduction in the number of commissioners: one for every member state, even if it means having to invent silly jobs for them.
  • The Commission to become subservient to the European Council, rather than being independent.
  • Commissioners to be elected by member state parliaments.
  • Looks like all reference to the "Foreign Minister" are to be removed.
  • The President of the Commission can only ask a commissioner to resign with permission from either the EP, or the national parliament that elected the commissioner.
• QMV:
  • No change from Nice.
• Legal personality:
  • No legal personality for the Union.
• So-called "self-amending" articles:
  • All reference to these to be removed. Let's spend several years negotiating a whole new treaty every time we want to tweak the functioning of the Union.
  • A convention on treaty revision would include representatives of "civil society". Who are these people? Who gets to decide who they are?

• Subsidiarity:
  • There are a bunch of amendments to add "and the aims and values of the European Union" everywhere "the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality" is mentioned. Not sure why.
  • Article 7 is totally rehashed, to lower the threshold for national parliaments to object to legislation on the grounds of non-subsidiarity, and to constrain the Commission's response to such an objection.
• Citizen's initiative:
  • The Commission would be legally bound to respond to a citizen's initiative, either with a white paper or a treaty basis for not taking action.
• Common foreign and security policy
  • Start-up fund procedures to be subject to veto.
  • Various tweaks to dilute the language relating to common defence. Don't we have an opt-out here anyway?
  • Removal of the obligation to assist member states after a terrorist attack.
  • Council decisions to be subject to the UN charter.
  • A protocol on Irish neutrality.
• Workers' rights:
  • All legislative proposals to include a social and equality impact assessment.
  • Equal pay for equal work, or work of equal value. Measured how?
  • Economic freedom to be subservient to "social rights and social progress"; "social rights" defined as including "increasing their individual earnings".
• Public services:
  • Liberalisation of services subject to veto, and the permission of the EP.
  • "Services of general interest" renamed to "Vital public services".
  • "Vital public services" to be exempt from competition and state aid rules.
  • Some completely inappropriate language on "the division of Ireland".
• Taxation:
  • A protocol to the effect that "the sovereignty of the Irish people in relation to matters of tax policy will be fully respected." I can't see how this is remotely compatible with the treaties, especially given EU competence on indirect taxation. This is just silly.
• Euratom:
  • A protocol opting Ireland out of Euratom. Why?
• Common commercial policy:
  • "Eradicating global poverty and inequality" to be an EU objective, replacing the abolition of restrictions on international trade and foreign direct investment.

This isn't necessarily exhaustive, but it gives some idea where they're coming from.

Does anyone really think that this is realistic? That we can go back to the EU and say "this is what we want", and they'll say "sure, why not"? That, even supposing the EU member states are prepared to re-open negotiations, they'll concede everything here and look for nothing in return? If they do want something in return, what's to say it won't be a show-stopper when presented to the Irish people again?

For that matter, what guarantee do we have that a re-negotiated treaty would be accepted by the Irish people in another referendum? Isn't it entirely likely that we'll hear that the new proposal is 90% the same as the Lisbon treaty, which was 90% the same as the Consitution, and sure didn't France already vote down the Constitution, yadda yadda yadda?

Hitman Actual

RedPlanet wrote: »

It doesn't matter what they may think, the people have said no, and it's their job to do our bidding.
Now, I'll ask the question again:
Have the irish government even attempted to win any sort of re-negotiation of the Lisbon treaty?
I'm not asking for reasons why they mighn't be attempting to re-negotiate it.

Our 'bidding' in this case was that the constitution not be changed. And it hasn't.

Also, how would they know what areas to renegotiate? The polls since the referendum clearly show (non) issues over neutrality, tax, abortion etc, but these areas have already been negotiated to their satisfaction. Aside from declarations, there's not a lot more they can get here.

RedPlanet

If our poor and pitiful government is honestly trying, then why did they invite only a handful of No speakers to give submissions to the Oireachtas sub-committee on Ireland’s future in the European Union, while entertaining loads of Yes speakers?

And why freeze the public out of the consultation process entirely?
If they are so stuck, then surely they could throw open the doors and have public town-hall type meetings up and down the country.

It's a sham.
Since Lisbon the government have spent their time pouting, silencing and dis-crediting No parties and laying the groundwork for Lisbon II.
It's rather obvious.

Hitman Actual

RedPlanet wrote: »

If our poor and pitiful government is honestly trying, then why did they invite only a handful of No speakers to give submissions to the Oireachtas sub-committee on Ireland’s future in the European Union, while entertaining loads of Yes speakers?

I don't think this is right, but I stand to be corrected. Everyone who was perceived to have been involved in the respective campaigns was invited to give submissions (even that whack-job Eamonn Dunphy!). Of course, Coir elected to portray themselves as the feeble-minded idiots that they are, as is their wont, but still I don't think anyone was left out.

RedPlanet wrote: »

And why freeze the public out of the consultation process entirely?
If they are so stuck, then surely they could throw open the doors and have public town-hall type meetings up and down the country.

No, the time to do this was in the 12 months leading up to the IGC in June 2007, or the final signing in December 2007. So perhaps we've been let down in that regard. But I ask you, would anyone have had any real interest in actually attending those meetings then?

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's a sham.
Since Lisbon the government have spent their time pouting, silencing and dis-crediting No parties and laying the groundwork for Lisbon II.
It's rather obvious.

Well, there was an Oireachtas committee and a seperate internal (government) committee set up, as well as the poll commissioned in August and released in September. So I don't think they have been doing nothing. Also, discrediting the No campaign, where it merited being discredited, should have been done in April and May. Better late than never, I guess.

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, looking through the SF proposals for a revised Lisbon treaty:

Does anyone really think that this is realistic? That we can go back to the EU and say "this is what we want", and they'll say "sure, why not"? That, even supposing the EU member states are prepared to re-open negotiations, they'll concede everything here and look for nothing in return? If they do want something in return, what's to say it won't be a show-stopper when presented to the Irish people again?

Such is a negotiation tactic, arrive with an exhaustive shopping list, then whittle it down and count each one as a concession.

For that matter, what guarantee do we have that a re-negotiated treaty would be accepted by the Irish people in another referendum? Isn't it entirely likely that we'll hear that the new proposal is 90% the same as the Lisbon treaty, which was 90% the same as the Consitution, and sure didn't France already vote down the Constitution, yadda yadda yadda?

Sure, the same as Lisbon I. So on we go under Nice II. I don't see the problem there OB.

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote: »

Such is a negotiation tactic, arrive with an exhaustive shopping list, then whittle it down and count each one as a concession.

Why would the government bring Sinn Féin's shopping list to a treaty negotiation?

Sure, the same as Lisbon I. So on we go under Nice II. I don't see the problem there OB.

Yeah, no problem. We'll spend another eight years renegotiating the treaty, and if we reject it again, we'll spend another eight years renegotiating it again, and if we reject it again, we'll spend another eight years renegotiating it again...

And the rest of Europe will patiently sit on their hands and keep waiting for us to bring back exhaustive shopping lists. Because, at the end of the day, the EU exists for the sole and only purpose of keeping Irish special interest groups and assorted nutcases happy.

Right?

ShooterSF

Just a few quick ideas:

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, looking through the SF proposals for a revised Lisbon treaty:

• The Commission:
  • No reduction in the number of commissioners: one for every member state, even if it means having to invent silly jobs for them.
  • The Commission to become subservient to the European Council, rather than being independent.
  • Commissioners to be elected by member state parliaments.
  • Looks like all reference to the "Foreign Minister" are to be removed.
  • The President of the Commission can only ask a commissioner to resign with permission from either the EP, or the national parliament that elected the commissioner.

Don't see the point of this one to be honest but then again alot of the electorate want this(whether you like it or not) so I guess our government representing them should fight for it and not ignore them.

[*]QMV:

• No change from Nice.

I'd support this. I know the new system would give us a slightly stronger vote but we still have a very small vote and should be more concerned with keeping all our vetoes, where our strenght actually is.

[*]Legal personality:

• No legal personality for the Union.

I guess it keeps it one step back from becoming a superstate

[*]So-called "self-amending" articles:

• All reference to these to be removed. Let's spend several years negotiating a whole new treaty every time we want to tweak the functioning of the Union.
• A convention on treaty revision would include representatives of "civil society". Who are these people? Who gets to decide who they are?

It was never self-ammeding as many pointed out here so why not remove it. Most again were against this. Don't know about the second part. Random selection?

[*]Citizen's initiative:

• The Commission would be legally bound to respond to a citizen's initiative, either with a white paper or a treaty basis for not taking action.

NO NO NO NO! Get rid of it not make it worse! It's just a route for religious fruitcakes to want creationism taught in schools

[*]Common foreign and security policy

• Removal of the obligation to assist member states after a terrorist attack.
• Council decisions to be subject to the UN charter.
• A protocol on Irish neutrality.

Agreed. Protocol for neutrality afterwards is a bit ott

[*]Workers' rights:

• Equal pay for equal work, or work of equal value. Measured how?
  

Now that one is dumb. How given nations different economies and current wages do we suddenly increase or decrease everyones wages to one level?

[*]Public services:

• Some completely inappropriate language on "the division of Ireland".

Huh?

For that matter, what guarantee do we have that a re-negotiated treaty would be accepted by the Irish people in another referendum? Isn't it entirely likely that we'll hear that the new proposal is 90% the same as the Lisbon treaty, which was 90% the same as the Consitution, and sure didn't France already vote down the Constitution, yadda yadda yadda?

Im sure it would have a better chance than it's current form especially with the pointless commissioner that people want (again, whether you do or dont the majority seem to) and the removal of self-amendment which wasnt supposed to actually self-amend.

Wudyaquit

nesf wrote: »

From the surveys taken after the referendum it's not clear at all that there's an obvious mandate from the people. One survey had a third believing that Lisbon would bring in conscription ffs.

If the surveys showed that people a) knew what they were voting on and b) wanted a different deal then I'd completely agree with you but all the surveys showed a lot of ignorance about the treaty which makes this a real mess. It's not even clear that these people would still vote the way they did (yes or no) if they understood the treaty! Rerunning the referendum, with guarantees on some issues like taxation, abortion etc from the EU might be the best step forward. If the people vote No again then it's clear that this treaty needs to be renegotiated, but if many people voted No because of issues that weren't really there then the problem might not actually be the treaty itself.

If the initial vote had been yes would the government be trying to silence out the people's voice and have another referendum? The initial referendum was entirely pointless as it was impossible for the No side to win.
You can't run a democracy by giving people choice and when they make their choice claiming they didn't know what they were doing. If a new referendum is called, regardless of the content of an amended Treaty, a Yes vote would show the Government that it has the power to ignore people's democratic rights.

RedPlanet

I agree Wudyaquit.
From day one after Lisbon Sarkozy was there undermining Ireland's voice.
Instead of standing up for us and working the NO, Cowen and cowards were publicly pouting.
All this talk about a second Lisbon damages our democracy.

Heck, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is today talking about holding a 2nd constitutional referenda on ending Presidential term limits there; after the 1st one failed to garner the result he sought.
Have to wonder, is he taking a page from Fianna Fail's book?

Hitman Actual

Wudyaquit wrote: »

If the initial vote had been yes would the government be trying to silence out the people's voice and have another referendum? The initial referendum was entirely pointless as it was impossible for the No side to win.
You can't run a democracy by giving people choice and when they make their choice claiming they didn't know what they were doing. If a new referendum is called, regardless of the content of an amended Treaty, a Yes vote would show the Government that it has the power to ignore people's democratic rights.

RedPlanet wrote:

I agree Wudyaquit.
From day one after Lisbon Sarkozy was there undermining Ireland's voice.
Instead of standing up for us and working the NO, Cowen and cowards were publicly pouting.
All this talk about a second Lisbon damages our democracy.

Heck, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is today talking about holding a 2nd constitutional referenda on ending Presidential term limits there; after the 1st one failed to garner the result he sought.
Have to wonder, is he taking a page from Fianna Fail's book?

This is the sort of tabloid-style sensationalism that I have no respect for. I could just as easily say that a decision returned by an uninformed electorate is "damaging to democracy". Or one country out of 27 holding up a ratification process is "damaging to democracy". Or that the very notion of vetoes is "damaging to democracy".

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote: »

From day one after Lisbon Sarkozy was there undermining Ireland's voice.

Meaningless rhetoric. What does "undermining Ireland's voice" even mean?

Instead of standing up for us and working the NO, Cowen and cowards were publicly pouting.

"Working the NO"? What does that mean? The government negotiated a treaty on our behalf in good faith. The electorate rejected that treaty for a mishmash of reasons. There was no coherent message from the referendum.

All this talk about a second Lisbon damages our democracy.

It never ceases to amaze me that people consider the holding of a referendum to be detrimental to democracy.

Scofflaw

Wudyaquit wrote: »

If the initial vote had been yes would the government be trying to silence out the people's voice and have another referendum? The initial referendum was entirely pointless as it was impossible for the No side to win.
You can't run a democracy by giving people choice and when they make their choice claiming they didn't know what they were doing. If a new referendum is called, regardless of the content of an amended Treaty, a Yes vote would show the Government that it has the power to ignore people's democratic rights.

Actually, a Yes vote would only show the government that they can be persuasive if they're prepared to pull the finger out. Mind you, they must know that already, since we keep voting the feckers in.

resignedly,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, looking through the SF proposals for a revised Lisbon treaty:
[*]The Commission:

[*]No reduction in the number of commissioners: one for every member state, even if it means having to invent silly jobs for them.
[*]The Commission to become subservient to the European Council, rather than being independent.

That's probably the most important one from SF's point of view. It removes the core of Europe, and renders it purely an ongoing intergovernmental exercise.

oscarBravo wrote: »

[*]Commissioners to be elected by member state parliaments.

No objection to this, but there's nothing to prevent us doing this now, rather than forcing it on everyone through a Treaty obligation.

oscarBravo wrote: »

[*]Looks like all reference to the "Foreign Minister" are to be removed.
[*]The President of the Commission can only ask a commissioner to resign with permission from either the EP, or the national parliament that elected the commissioner.

Well, that follows along from removing the independence of the Commission.

oscarBravo wrote: »

[*]QMV:
[*]No change from Nice.
[*]No legal personality for the Union.

Because....?

oscarBravo wrote: »

[*]So-called "self-amending" articles:

[*]All reference to these to be removed. Let's spend several years negotiating a whole new treaty every time we want to tweak the functioning of the Union.
[*]A convention on treaty revision would include representatives of "civil society". Who are these people? Who gets to decide who they are?

The former is absolutely not a good idea. I can't see any reason why it's preferable to be unable to amend the treaties on a case by case basis. Presumably it's to ensure that that an Irish referendum is held for any change whatsoever, but it means that one can't vote clearly for or against any given change, but only a whole package.

oscarBravo wrote: »

[*]Subsidiarity:

[*]There are a bunch of amendments to add "and the aims and values of the European Union" everywhere "the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality" is mentioned. Not sure why.
[*]Article 7 is totally rehashed, to lower the threshold for national parliaments to object to legislation on the grounds of non-subsidiarity, and to constrain the Commission's response to such an objection.

Possibly.

oscarBravo wrote: »

[*]Citizen's initiative:

[*]The Commission would be legally bound to respond to a citizen's initiative, either with a white paper or a treaty basis for not taking action.

That looks positive, but essentially what ShooterSF said - plus, if the Commission is limited to those two options, the Creationists could send in a petition every year.

oscarBravo wrote: »

[*]Common foreign and security policy
[*]Start-up fund procedures to be subject to veto.
[*]Various tweaks to dilute the language relating to common defence. Don't we have an opt-out here anyway?

We do.

oscarBravo wrote: »

[*]Removal of the obligation to assist member states after a terrorist attack.
[*]Council decisions to be subject to the UN charter.
[*]A protocol on Irish neutrality.

The first one, as a request from SF, does make me laugh - probably a little unfair, but there you go. Council decisions to be subject to the UN Charter means essentially subjecting every EU country to the decisions of the UK, France, USA, China and Russia. I can't see that ever flying.

Nor do I see any need for a protocol on Irish neutrality when it's already protected in the text.

oscarBravo wrote: »

[*]Workers' rights:

[*]All legislative proposals to include a social and equality impact assessment.
[*]Equal pay for equal work, or work of equal value. Measured how?
[*]Economic freedom to be subservient to "social rights and social progress"; "social rights" defined as including "increasing their individual earnings".

[*]Public services:

[*]Liberalisation of services subject to veto, and the permission of the EP.
[*]"Services of general interest" renamed to "Vital public services".
[*]"Vital public services" to be exempt from competition and state aid rules.
[*]Some completely inappropriate language on "the division of Ireland".

That is, rather like Ganley's proposals, a heavily federalist tack. National parliaments will only be able to liberalise public services with the permission of the EP - which sets the EP above national parliaments, and MEPs above TDs, on a rather important matter of internal discretion.

Unless of course the change in terminology to "vital public services" will turn out to cover something entirely different?

oscarBravo wrote: »

[*]Taxation:

[*]A protocol to the effect that "the sovereignty of the Irish people in relation to matters of tax policy will be fully respected." I can't see how this is remotely compatible with the treaties, especially given EU competence on indirect taxation. This is just silly.

[*]Euratom:

[*]A protocol opting Ireland out of Euratom. Why?

It sounds scary?

oscarBravo wrote: »

[*]Common commercial policy:

[*]"Eradicating global poverty and inequality" to be an EU objective, replacing the abolition of restrictions on international trade and foreign direct investment.


This isn't necessarily exhaustive, but it gives some idea where they're coming from.

Does anyone really think that this is realistic? That we can go back to the EU and say "this is what we want", and they'll say "sure, why not"? That, even supposing the EU member states are prepared to re-open negotiations, they'll concede everything here and look for nothing in return? If they do want something in return, what's to say it won't be a show-stopper when presented to the Irish people again?

For that matter, what guarantee do we have that a re-negotiated treaty would be accepted by the Irish people in another referendum? Isn't it entirely likely that we'll hear that the new proposal is 90% the same as the Lisbon treaty, which was 90% the same as the Consitution, and sure didn't France already vote down the Constitution, yadda yadda yadda?

Unlikely - highly unlikely. Nor is there any mandate for the government to deliver an SF list.

Still, marks for effort - and if SF can produce this, why can Libertas not produce something?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Wudyaquit wrote: »

You can't run a democracy by giving people choice and when they make their choice claiming they didn't know what they were doing.

If they were just claiming it with nothing to back that claim up, yes it's a terrible way to run a democracy. If multiple polls and after vote interviews show that a substantial number of people either had false beliefs or felt that they didn't understand the treaty in question then it's not an empty claim and the these people should be made aware of the facts so that they can make an informed decision on the matter. I'm sorry but democracy can only work well when the voters make informed decisions in the ballet box. If they are not informed on what they are voting on we might as well just get a Supreme Court judge to flip a coin on every issue.

Wudyaquit wrote: »

If a new referendum is called, regardless of the content of an amended Treaty, a Yes vote would show the Government that it has the power to ignore people's democratic rights.

Eh, no.

Wudyaquit

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I could just as easily say that a decision returned by an uninformed electorate is "damaging to democracy".

This is not a decision that can be made after the referendum - if the Government were happy to proceed without being confident the electorate were informed, they can't then go back when they don't get the result they want.

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Or one country out of 27 holding up a ratification process is "damaging to democracy". Or that the very notion of vetoes is "damaging to democracy".

Please explain, how either of these issues in any way impact on whether or not Ireland should have a second referendum. The system might be flawed, but that's not our fault - we, like all the other countries were asked to vote yes or no on a treaty. We did this - now you're saying that because we didn't vote the way that was convenient for the process our voices should be ignored. Even if a second referendum is held, if a second No vote is returned, how will these problems be solved?

You've described my previous post as "tabloid style sensationalism" and then veered into tabloid style irrelevance, without any specific argument against what was said.

BlitzKrieg

fair play to sinn fein, at least they have gone some way to actually give a coherrent response at least.

how much of the no campaign would Sinn Fien's suggestion appease? That would be the issue that perks my interest.

oscarBravo

Wudyaquit wrote: »

This is not a decision that can be made after the referendum - if the Government were happy to proceed without being confident the electorate were informed, they can't then go back when they don't get the result they want.

Who says they can't? You? The Constitution? Jehovah?

...now you're saying that because we didn't vote the way that was convenient for the process our voices should be ignored.

Asking "are you sure?" isn't ignoring your voice.

Even if a second referendum is held, if a second No vote is returned, how will these problems be solved?

I don't know. Nobody knows. That's not a compelling argument for not having a second referendum.

Hitman Actual

Wudyaquit wrote: »

This is not a decision that can be made after the referendum - if the Government were happy to proceed without being confident the electorate were informed, they can't then go back when they don't get the result they want.

That's not how it works, they set the date about 6 months in advance, and plan to have the electorate suitably informed by the time it happens. I doubt they were confident at at all about the public being informed by the referendum date, but it's not like they could postpone it or anything. But there is nothing undemocratic about running another referendum (or if there is, can you point it out to me?).

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Please explain, how either of these issues in any way impact on whether or not Ireland should have a second referendum.

It was meant as a reply to RedPlanet about the other ways in which we could say "democracy is being damaged". There's too much rhetoric being thrown around about this.

Wudyaquit wrote: »

The system might be flawed, but that's not our fault - we, like all the other countries were asked to vote yes or no on a treaty. We did this - now you're saying that because we didn't vote the way that was convenient for the process our voices should be ignored. Even if a second referendum is held, if a second No vote is returned, how will these problems be solved?

Your voice isn't being ignored- the constitution hasn't been amended. And it's hard to know what a second No vote would bring- things won't go on under Nice rules indefinitely. But like it or not, a second No result does ask questions about where we want to be in Europe.

Wudyaquit wrote: »

You've described my previous post as "tabloid style sensationalism" and then veered into tabloid style irrelevance, without any specific argument against what was said.

Your post smacks of sensationalism, which I have no time for. Saying that the government is "trying to silence out the peoples voice", or "a Yes vote would show the Government that it has the power to ignore people's democratic rights" is silly in the extreme.

Wudyaquit

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who says they can't? You? The Constitution? Jehovah?

Ok they can. But there's absolutely no way a second referendum would have been called if the first vote had been Yes, regardless of whether or not the people were fully informed or not.
So while they can, it's seriously loading the chances of a Yes vote getting through, which isn't democratic.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't know. Nobody knows. That's not a compelling argument for not having a second referendum.

If nobody knows then what's the compelling argument for having a second referendum.

Wudyaquit

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Your post smacks of sensationalism, which I have no time for. Saying that the government is "trying to silence out the peoples voice", or "a Yes vote would show the Government that it has the power to ignore people's democratic rights" is silly in the extreme.

Perhaps the language was slightly over-the-top, but I fully stand over the sentiment. If the Government calls another referendum it is ignoring the voice of the people, if not silencing it.
Their job is to represent our wishes, not to question them or decide them for us.

As regards, calling a second Referendum not being democratic. Again, in itself a referendum is always democratic, but when the Government picks and chooses which to rerun and which not to, it means their own motives have always got a greater chance of being represented.

Scofflaw

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Ok they can. But there's absolutely no way a second referendum would have been called if the first vote had been Yes, regardless of whether or not the people were fully informed or not.
So while they can, it's seriously loading the chances of a Yes vote getting through, which isn't democratic.

That seems at first sight like a good argument, but on further examination there's a large hole in it.

On the available evidence, the dice are clearly loaded in favour of a No vote, not a Yes - after all, the first vote was a No. I'm not sure how one can claim a second referendum would be anything but a very hard uphill battle for the Yes side.

Wudyaquit wrote: »

If nobody knows then what's the compelling argument for having a second referendum.

We,, first, because we know where a Yes vote gets us to, and second, because our 26 partners want us to ratify. Fair enough if the second vote returns another No - it's then clearly not possible to persuade the Irish electorate to vote Yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wudyaquit wrote: »

Perhaps the language was slightly over-the-top, but I fully stand over the sentiment. If the Government calls another referendum it is ignoring the voice of the people, if not silencing it.
Their job is to represent our wishes, not to question them or decide them for us.

As regards, calling a second Referendum not being democratic. Again, in itself a referendum is always democratic, but when the Government picks and chooses which to rerun and which not to, it means their own motives have always got a greater chance of being represented.

Actually, the job of our government is most certainly not to represent our wishes or whims on a day to day basis, but to do what they believe to be best for the country. There isn't any way for events occurring at the government level to be relayed to the citizens in time for them to make an informed judgement on them, let alone transmit that judgement back to the government. That's the whole point of having representatives.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

let alone transmit that judgement back to the government.

Except in a referendum vote.

Which we had.

Wudyaquit

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the available evidence, the dice are clearly loaded in favour of a No vote, not a Yes - after all, the first vote was a No. I'm not sure how one can claim a second referendum would be anything but a very hard uphill battle for the Yes side.

It's going to be harder for the yes side, but the dice is still loaded in their favour as they've had 2 cracks at it when it should have been buried after the first vote. Had the result been Yes, No would not have had the benefit of a second go.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, the job of our government is most certainly not to represent our wishes or whims on a day to day basis, but to do what they believe to be best for the country.

What a bizarre thing to believe. You don't think that the government's job is to represent our wishes as clearly expressed in a referendum? What they believe is best for the country might be their job on a day to day basis, but applying their own interpretation to a national referendum is not. The choices were simple - yes or no, and there was a clear answer. What they think is best for the country on this doesn't come into it - it's not up to them.

oscarBravo

Wudyaquit wrote: »

The choices were simple - yes or no, and there was a clear answer.

The answer was "no". It wasn't "no, and don't ever, ever, ever ask me again".

Scofflaw

Wudyaquit wrote: »

It's going to be harder for the yes side, but the dice is still loaded in their favour as they've had 2 cracks at it when it should have been buried after the first vote. Had the result been Yes, No would not have had the benefit of a second go.

Sure - the government decides whether we have referendums. I've pointed out before that that is what is dictated in our Constitution.

Wudyaquit wrote: »

What a bizarre thing to believe. You don't think that the government's job is to represent our wishes as clearly expressed in a referendum? What they believe is best for the country might be their job on a day to day basis, but applying their own interpretation to a national referendum is not. The choices were simple - yes or no, and there was a clear answer. What they think is best for the country on this doesn't come into it - it's not up to them.

Of course it comes into it. They continue to think that what is best for the country is a Yes, but are not entitled to set aside our wishes to get one. They can only get that Yes by asking us, and so they are doing so - they propose, we dispose. That's democracy, as set up by our Constitution - however, if you'd like a Citizens' Initiative to be able to demand a referendum, I'll support you 100%.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

fair play to sinn fein, at least they have gone some way to actually give a coherrent response at least.

how much of the no campaign would Sinn Fien's suggestion appease? That would be the issue that perks my interest.

I might be a little more comfortable here. Though I'm still not sure yet. I don't agree with everything on their list and some points are ludicrous though one would hope they would be concession points to get the others through (Though this is all very hypothetical as FF are not going to be seen to be bowing to SF).
The major one for me, and you can all go on about my tinfoil hat, is the removal of the "self-amending" articles. I had serious problems with them and was assured that they weren't actually allowing them to amend the treaty without further referendum but if so take it out and leave the subject properly defined.
I know it means more hassle for any further changes but I don't care. My beliefs are that Europe in general wants (eventually) a European superstate and I don't expect my government to block it but fortunately currently they can't without asking us, and maybe with it in they still couldnt but I feel more comfortable as is and I'm happy to have the disadvantage of a slower evolving Europe in exchange for the safe knowledge that nothing can be done without our approval.
The legal entity issue is less important but I'd rather keep it without being a seperate legal entity. Also I agree on not coming to the support of others due to terrorist attack. Sorry I won't sugar coat it but here I'm happy to be everyone for themselves. (And don't give me the what if we're attacked line cause we wont because we keep our nose out).
I'd rather scrap the citizens initiative bollox. Nice idea but it doesnt work as if you make it mandatory you get the "creationism" issue and if you dont it's rather as pointless as handing a petition to them right now.
The QMV issue, as I stated I'd rather hold onto our vetoes than get a slight increase in voting because realistically our strenght would not be in our small vote percentage but in our veto.

Well now were in hypothetical land would the yes people vote this through (minus the absurd equal pay crap)?

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

if you'd like a Citizens' Initiative to be able to demand a referendum, I'll support you 100%.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah but they woulnt have to accept his demands