Why I'm thinking of voting yes this time to Lisbon

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

But they're going to have to fully think it through if we vote no anyway. It's far better that they think it through in advance of the referendum rather than afterwards. If they are planning to punish us by downgrading our status then wouldn't you rather know about that now, when we're in a position to do something to prevent it happening, rather than after the referendum when we would be almost powerless to do anything about it? A declaration from the EUers that they will punish us by downgrading our status if we vote the wrong way would be almost certain to result in a yes vote in the next referendum

Another rejection of Lisbon by Ireland would require the abandonment either of the proposed reforms or of the principle of a single speed EU. That's not a choice anyone wants to make - it's also a statement that the member states would absolutely not want to make. What you're asking is that the member states state in advance their 'nuclear option' - what they'd do when push comes to shove without push coming to shove.

I appreciate that many people (particularly on the No side) entirely discount the role goodwill in the operation of the EU, but they're wrong to do so, and discussing the nuclear option certainly would damage goodwill - like discussing divorce in advance.

O'Morris wrote: »

I think you know that's nowhere close to being a truthful message. Unless you can explain why a no vote in November would be likely to paralyse the EU?

Sure. I'm not suggesting it would lead to institutional paralysis, but a political paralysis as a result of having no clear way forward - the sort of paralysis that you find in a business after the failure of a major project.

O'Morris wrote: »

We don't yet know what the consequences will be so we can't say for sure whether we'll be able to afford them. In the absence of a statement of intent from the governments we'll just have to settle for speculation and scaremongering.

It's not wounded pride. It's fear and ignorance. I'm voting yes in the second referendum out of fear and ignorance of the consequences for our economy.

Well, no, I was referring to exactly that.

cordially,
scofflaw

Scofflaw

cozmik wrote: »

I'd like to thank democrates for his original post, which I thought described an interesting and rational response to the change in situation Ireland has experienced in the last six months.

This is your idea of "rational" discussion? lol

we now have the gun of economic crisis to our heads,

EU elite have no plan B except the promise of chaos and uncertainty.

we can easily (and to a degree justifiably) be blamed for the extent of recessions in member states

We alone would pay the price for disobediance

It's a rational response to the issues democrates identifies.

cozmik wrote: »

This is a clear attempt to scare us into voting yes.

By a No voter who is thinking - only thinking, now - of voting Yes.

regards,
Scofflaw

democrates

cozmik wrote: »

This is a clear attempt to scare us into voting yes.

I'm simply sharing views here, not trying to scare anyone, or even convince anyone of anything since I have no jurisdiction over anyone elses mind. On the contrary I'm interested in alternative views, I'm not omnipotent so I could be factually wrong or not have given fair weighting to some factors. It's a win win if we share the goodies.

Now, a lot of the points in this discussion centre on risk, here's a challenge since scaremongering is an issue you've expressed an interest in - pick any risk associated with Lisbon being adopted, and describe it in a way that can't be labelled as scaremongering.

cozmik

O'Morris wrote: »

It's far better that they think it through in advance of the referendum rather than afterwards. If they are planning to punish us

Punish us? There is no justification to "punish" us.

Under EU rules the treaty cannot enter into force if any of the member states fails to ratify it.

We didn't make the rules.If the EU elite don't like what has happened they have no one to blame but themselves.

Please! Enough of this fear-mongering tripe it's getting so tiresome.

iseethelight

I have the misfortune to work in an area that implements eu law regarding personal imports. This involves generally seizing stuff people are trying to import from outside the eu in an effort to avoid good old rip off Ireland.

As is often pointed out to me this is stuff thats freely available from shops here, but because its not imported correctly it can't come in.

In short eu law allready has a huge stranglehold on us and I see a yes vote as only worsening that situation and along with all the other existing arguments about democracy accountability etc I feel this is something else to consider.

I shall be voting no and can't see my mind changing allthough feel free to try

brianthebard

turgon wrote: »

That doesnt make sense, your insinuating that democrates decisions are based on keeping "the status quo." If hes going to vote for Lisbon, hes voting for change not the current system. You dont make sense.

No its nothing to do with the status quo, its not knowing what'll happen if he votes to change.

democrates

There's no status quo to be maintained, whether yes or no is the vote effect will follow cause, there will be reaction, Ireland and the EU are like shares on the stock market that are "in play".

It's a fair point that existing EU law means any member failing to ratify means Lisbon cannot be adopted by the EU. But those who are pushing for it, the people I call an elite because they avoid giving citizens direct democratic say, what will they actually do in the event of a second no from ireland - best guesses?

321654

TheParrot wrote: »

Obama is right, the world has changed. The people are getting shafted more than ever before. But one thing will never change, the lack of a backbone in most people.

Such as yourself for example. So you are going to bend over and take it? As everyone should know, the people are going to be given crisis after crisis until this treaty is passed. The dogs on the street know this.

Be a man.

My ass is theirs too. Im going to bend over this time too.

nesf

democrates wrote: »

But those who are pushing for it, the people I call an elite because they avoid giving citizens direct democratic say, what will they actually do in the event of a second no from ireland - best guesses?

An aside but I'm curious, when you say direct democratic say do you mean that having representatives in the European Parliament is not sufficient?

To answer your question, I think some parts of the treaty could be brought in through normal business though I can't think of any immediately off hand. Scofflaw might have a better idea.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

An aside but I'm curious, when you say direct democratic say do you mean that having representatives in the European Parliament is not sufficient?

To answer your question, I think some parts of the treaty could be brought in through normal business though I can't think of any immediately off hand. Scofflaw might have a better idea.

As far as I'm aware, virtually the entire treaty could be ratified through the Dáil - the exception is probably the mutual assistance clause. According to the terms of the Crotty judgement, the rest of the Treaty does not impinge on the sovereignty of the Irish people as exercised on their behalf by the Irish government.

People use 'sovereignty' very loosely - it generally seems to mean 'our ability to do whatever we like without interference'. It is this loose sense which occurs in claims that we're "losing our sovereignty to Brussels". However, that ignores the fact that 'sovereignty' has a legal meaning, and the sovereignty of the Irish people enshrined in Bunreacht has a legal meaning, and one that has been tested in court in cases like Crotty. The only part of Crotty's claims that passed the test of impinging on Irish sovereignty was in respect of the requirement in the SEA to consider the interests of other member states in constructing Irish foreign policy.

That being the case, it is quite possible the entire Treaty bar the mutual assistance clause could be ratified through the Dáil - indeed, quite possibly also that clause, since no specific action, or indeed, any action, is actually stipulated, which suggests that despite signing up to the clause, Ireland would retain its sovereign right to do nothing about other people's problems.

However, we can bet that if the government chose to ratify Lisbon through the Dáil, they would be doing a Michael Collins, and one that might well be subsequently reversed by a Crotty-like case. Nothing in the Crotty judgement set a bound to the further right of the Supreme Court to determine what constitutes sovereignty according to Bunreacht. The government would be expecting such a case to be taken very quickly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, virtually the entire treaty could be ratified through the Dáil - the exception is probably the mutual assistance clause. According to the terms of the Crotty judgement, the rest of the Treaty does not impinge on the sovereignty of the Irish people as exercised on their behalf by the Irish government.

People use 'sovereignty' very loosely - it generally seems to mean 'our ability to do whatever we like without interference'. It is this loose sense which occurs in claims that we're "losing our sovereignty to Brussels". However, that ignores the fact that 'sovereignty' has a legal meaning, and the sovereignty of the Irish people enshrined in Bunreacht has a legal meaning, and one that has been tested in court in cases like Crotty. The only part of Crotty's claims that passed the test of impinging on Irish sovereignty was in respect of the requirement in the SEA to consider the interests of other member states in constructing Irish foreign policy.

That being the case, it is quite possible the entire Treaty bar the mutual assistance clause could be ratified through the Dáil - indeed, quite possibly also that clause, since no specific action, or indeed, any action, is actually stipulated, which suggests that despite signing up to the clause, Ireland would retain its sovereign right to do nothing about other people's problems.

However, we can bet that if the government chose to ratify Lisbon through the Dáil, they would be doing a Michael Collins, and one that might well be subsequently reversed by a Crotty-like case. Nothing in the Crotty judgement set a bound to the further right of the Supreme Court to determine what constitutes sovereignty according to Bunreacht. The government would be expecting such a case to be taken very quickly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I was actually thinking of "EU normal business" rather than Dáil ratification. As far as I remember some of the changes with the office of President wouldn't necessarily require a treaty to push through. I could be wrong though.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

I was actually thinking of "EU normal business" rather than Dáil ratification. As far as I remember some of the changes with the office of President wouldn't necessarily require a treaty to push through. I could be wrong though.

Ah, I beg your pardon! I'm pretty sure most of the institutional changes require the Treaty - for example, the Presidency:

Article 203

The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that Member State.

The office of President shall be held in turn by each Member State in the Council for a term of six months in the order decided by the Council acting unanimously.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

iseethelight wrote: »

As is often pointed out to me this is stuff thats freely available from shops here, but because its not imported correctly it can't come in.

I know off topic, but maybe it serves as an example of the no side tripe I was referring to in post #2.

When importing stuff in anywhere, import tax must be payed. However thanks to the EU we no longer pay import tax within the common market, which means one can avoid the "rip of republic" to a certain extent. But yet this guy is criticizing the EU for making us pay import tax??? It just makes no sense.

And as regard the fear mongering: theres another example of crap one would only expect from anti-EU Irish people. Accusing a guy like Scofflaw of fear-mongering is akin to saying the EU has been bad for Ireland, one can picture everyone else in the vicinity looking at you and going "yes buddy, theres the door."

Rb

With regards to Democrates original post, I do believe it's a perfectly rational and understandable point of view. We're in a very uncertain time, our economy is in crisis and there is no end in sight.

Does that mean we should go from being a No to a Yes on the belief that voting No may bring more negative consequences? No, I don't believe it does and unfortunately the current climate is the ideal tool for the Yes side to further scaremonger those who are undecided or reserved into voting Yes.

On the run up to the referendum, there was an unbelievable amount of scaremongering by both sides. We were being told by one side that if we didn't vote Yes, we'd be booted out of the EU and would all be back farming our own veggies and living off the land. On the other hand, we were told that if we voted Yes, we'd all have chips implanted and signed up to serve in the European Army. There was a lot of lying involved, a lot of misinformation and an awful lot of bad air generated by it.

We voted No in the end. There was certainly a lot of ignorance going to the polls, but that should have no bearing now. What is done is done and we have our democratically decided result, Ireland said No, we don't want to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon.

Immediately we saw Sarkozy fly out to the undecided countries and have "private meetings" in an effort to pressure them into ratifying. We then heard of him saying we'll have to vote again and putting pressure on our Government to get us to do so.

This treaty should be dead, we shouldn't be discussing it, as I said earlier. We, the Irish, didn't make the rules in the Union stating that should a treaty be rejected by one member, it was effectively dead, but instead we are now seeing France and Germany, countries who really benefit from this treaty, breaking said rules.

The Irish government could not represent its people on this, it folded to the bullies in the EU and are doing what they're told, yet again. What else will the Irish Government fail to stand up for us on? What about tax harmonisation? People say that we can dodge it, but just look where we are right now, it may be in the "rules" that we can get out of it but if anything has become apparent over the past few months, it's that France and Germany are above the rules in this union.

As I mentioned above, the current climate is the perfect tool for the big member states leaders and our Government to use to get us to vote "right" this time around. If I were more of a skeptic, I would almost say it was too perfect...but I could put money on it that on the run up to the next referendum, we will hear claims such as voting yes is the only way to get us out of the situation we(and the rest of the world practically) is in, that if we vote No the EU will turn its back and we'll be screwed further economically etc etc.

I, however, won't buy into it. As with everyone, I hate the situation our country is currently in, it's truly horrendous and to hear of more job losses every day is so tragic. With that being said, as much as I hate the situation we're in, hate the situation voting Yes could put us in even more.

We may only lose a few vetoes here and there, but it's more about what the Treaty gives to states such as the UK, Germany and France than what we as a member lose. We've been through a recession before and survived fine, as we will with this one, but what we (or, more specifically, I) don't want is our country to commit further to something that I'm already skeptical about simply because we're in a bad situation that, at the end of the day, will eventually go away.

And sure, if things get too bad sure we can always emigrate

sink

May I ask what specifically the UK, Germany and France are gaining from the Lisbon treaty above and beyond what other members are gaining?

Scofflaw

Rb wrote: »

With regards to Democrates original post, I do believe it's a perfectly rational and understandable point of view. We're in a very uncertain time, our economy is in crisis and there is no end in sight.

Does that mean we should go from being a No to a Yes on the belief that voting No may bring more negative consequences? No, I don't believe it does and unfortunately the current climate is the ideal tool for the Yes side to further scaremonger those who are undecided or reserved into voting Yes.

On the run up to the referendum, there was an unbelievable amount of scaremongering by both sides. We were being told by one side that if we didn't vote Yes, we'd be booted out of the EU and would all be back farming our own veggies and living off the land. On the other hand, we were told that if we voted Yes, we'd all have chips implanted and signed up to serve in the European Army. There was a lot of lying involved, a lot of misinformation and an awful lot of bad air generated by it.

We voted No in the end. There was certainly a lot of ignorance going to the polls, but that should have no bearing now. What is done is done and we have our democratically decided result, Ireland said No, we don't want to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon.

Immediately we saw Sarkozy fly out to the undecided countries and have "private meetings" in an effort to pressure them into ratifying. We then heard of him saying we'll have to vote again and putting pressure on our Government to get us to do so.

This treaty should be dead, we shouldn't be discussing it, as I said earlier. We, the Irish, didn't make the rules in the Union stating that should a treaty be rejected by one member, it was effectively dead, but instead we are now seeing France and Germany, countries who really benefit from this treaty, breaking said rules.

The thing about that is there isn't any rule that says that EU treaties are dead the minute someone says No. Very few EU treaties have gone through without a hitch, any more than something like Kyoto did. So, really, there's no "we shouldn't even be discussing it" - that's completely false. It really doesn't matter how many times it gets said that the treaty should be dead - there is no rule that says the treaty is supposed to simply go away the minute there's a hitch.

Rb wrote: »

The Irish government could not represent its people on this, it folded to the bullies in the EU and are doing what they're told, yet again. What else will the Irish Government fail to stand up for us on? What about tax harmonisation? People say that we can dodge it, but just look where we are right now, it may be in the "rules" that we can get out of it but if anything has become apparent over the past few months, it's that France and Germany are above the rules in this union.

Following on from the above, there's no "folding to the EU bullies" about it. The Irish government has to do what it thinks is right for Ireland - even if we disagree with it. It's not there to simply do whatever our whim du jour happens to be - and the belief that it is perhaps explains the rather low quality of our political representatives.

Rb wrote: »

As I mentioned above, the current climate is the perfect tool for the big member states leaders and our Government to use to get us to vote "right" this time around. If I were more of a skeptic, I would almost say it was too perfect...but I could put money on it that on the run up to the next referendum, we will hear claims such as voting yes is the only way to get us out of the situation we(and the rest of the world practically) is in, that if we vote No the EU will turn its back and we'll be screwed further economically etc etc.

I, however, won't buy into it. As with everyone, I hate the situation our country is currently in, it's truly horrendous and to hear of more job losses every day is so tragic. With that being said, as much as I hate the situation we're in, hate the situation voting Yes could put us in even more.

We may only lose a few vetoes here and there, but it's more about what the Treaty gives to states such as the UK, Germany and France than what we as a member lose. We've been through a recession before and survived fine, as we will with this one, but what we (or, more specifically, I) don't want is our country to commit further to something that I'm already skeptical about simply because we're in a bad situation that, at the end of the day, will eventually go away.

And sure, if things get too bad sure we can always emigrate

Indeed - to any country in the EU with no questions asked.

regards,
Scofflaw

democrates

Rb: I agree with a lot of your points. Without claiming equvalence, seeing the crisis as a reason to accept the political certainty invested in Lisbon can be seen as having some similarity to 9/11 being used as a pretext for all sorts of measures.

It's true that the recession will pass, and hopefully in the way Eddie Hobbs predicts rather than via depression (aside-if he's right then his advice on gold as a refuge is suspect since it would plummet when stock markets take off again).

Though November is a ways off it looks like the recession will be in full swing when we vote. We're not the only one's who want certainty during this time, the rest of the EU members want it too. If we vote no they won't be at all happy and memories are interesting things, if someone mentions Sarkozy or d'Estaing to you in ten years time will it be all forgiven and forgotten? The phrase comes to mind "friends come and go but enemies accumulate".

The current crop of politicians will go too, but their replacements from the same stables are coming up through the ranks now and observing, the EU isn't a federal government just yet so there'll be no Obama to promise a unified new direction and ensure Ireland is not adversely affected.

As for what they can legitimately do it's like your workmates, your action or inaction at various times can help or hinder their progress without breaking any rules or getting caught for breaking rules, there's more than one way to skin a cat. It's difficult to square placing faith in EU rules to protect us on the one hand, when a major criticism of the EU is it's lack of transparency and accountability.

There's no doubt the final option of emigrating is a pressure release valve that could mitigate our plight in the short term by reducing the social welfare bill, though it would also put us further behind Greece on national debt per employee which is I believe a key indicator for ratings agencies in evaluating our credit-worthiness and cost of borrowing.

Those at the lower end of the market who leave have the dubious privilege of competing on price, and those armed with education and experience would be a brain drain that reduces our capacity to recover. Those left behind, families with kids in school etc., would not be looking at a very rosy future.

A successful investor (Warren Buffet I think) said that in evaluating options, his prime focus was never on how much profit it could make, but how much it could cost you if it went wrong, he avoided businesses with potential poison pills like the plague. My attitude to risk is similarly low, but I accept that others are natural born risk takers and will take a different tack.

democrates

nesf wrote: »

An aside but I'm curious, when you say direct democratic say do you mean that having representatives in the European Parliament is not sufficient?

Exactly. Add to that our ministers at the council, commissioners, and heads of national legislatures and it's still not enough. This seemingly irrational discontent arises from having read up on the Swiss system of direct democracy and realising just what is proven to be possible.

I personally wouldn't want to go to that extent with the principle of subsidiarity primarily because it can allow extreme groups to flock together in a local area and adopt obnoxious measures, we've seen reports of virtual xenophobic enclaves there and who knows what else is going on, we may yet hear of a Swiss Warren Geoffs.

Direct democracy would need to be brought in over a long period starting with local government so people learn and then take it to the national level. Had EU member states been doing so there'd be confidence in referenda and we wouldn't be straight in at the deep end on the likes of Lisbon, which obviously isn't going in the direction I've outlilned.

nesf wrote: »

To answer your question, I think some parts of the treaty could be brought in through normal business though I can't think of any immediately off hand. Scofflaw might have a better idea.

That wouldn't surprise me at all and interesting replies from Scofflaw there, instead of one big step it can be a lot of steps, each small enough to slip under the threshold of irresistable mass opposition.

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

it's also a statement that the member states would absolutely not want to make. What you're asking is that the member states state in advance their 'nuclear option'

Exactly. The nuclear option is used to threaten and frighten, not to punish. Now is the time for them to use the option not afterwards when its use is unlikely to have much affect. If they're planning to do bad things to us if we vote no then I think we should know about this in advance so that we can avert it by voting yes.

Scofflaw wrote:

and discussing the nuclear option certainly would damage goodwill - like discussing divorce in advance.

It would damage goodwill but it would really only be the goodwill that Ireland feels towards the EU. Goodwill has already been heavily damaged by the scaremongering about the consequences.

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, no, I was referring to exactly that.

I was expecting you to react differently when I wrote that I'm planning to vote yes out of fear and ignorance. I was expecting you to react in the same way you would react if I had said I was planning to vote no out of fear and ignorance.

I suppose as long as people vote the right way that's all that matters. The reasons are irrelevant.

Scofflaw wrote:

The thing about that is there isn't any rule that says that EU treaties are dead the minute someone says No. Very few EU treaties have gone through without a hitch, any more than something like Kyoto did. So, really, there's no "we shouldn't even be discussing it" - that's completely false. It really doesn't matter how many times it gets said that the treaty should be dead - there is no rule that says the treaty is supposed to simply go away the minute there's a hitch.

The Irish no vote was just a hitch?

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

Exactly. The nuclear option is used to threaten and frighten, not to punish. Now is the time for them to use the option not afterwards when its use is unlikely to have much affect. If they're planning to do bad things to us if we vote no then I think we should know about this in advance so that we can avert it by voting yes.

It would damage goodwill but it would really only be the goodwill that Ireland feels towards the EU. Goodwill has already been heavily damaged by the scaremongering about the consequences.

Hmm. Again, no, I don't agree. However, I've been over the role of goodwill in cooperative systems like the EU quite enough times - clearly you don't see it as relevant, so we'll just have to agree to differ.

O'Morris wrote: »

I was expecting you to react differently when I wrote that I'm planning to vote yes out of fear and ignorance. I was expecting you to react in the same way you would react if I had said I was planning to vote no out of fear and ignorance.

I suppose as long as people vote the right way that's all that matters. The reasons are irrelevant.

I'm disappointed, and expressed my disappointment already. You chose to take it that I meant something else, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm disappointed. However, I obviously think a Yes vote is important, and the reasons put forward by democrates for voting Yes are rather more rational than your description of them as 'fear and ignorance' suggests. Fear of possible consequences you are uncertain of is somewhat different from fear of a document you are ignorant of.

O'Morris wrote: »

The Irish no vote was just a hitch?

Somewhat like the bride not turning up at the church.

regards,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm disappointed, and expressed my disappointment already. You chose to take it that I meant something else, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm disappointed.

Would you agree that a no vote based on a full understanding of the publically-stated consequences of that vote is better than a yes vote based on ignorance and fear of the consequences of the vote? Or do you think getting the Lisbon Treaty passed is so important that's it worth maintaining the uncertainty about the consequences?

Scofflaw wrote:

However, I obviously think a Yes vote is important, and the reasons put forward by democrates for voting Yes are rather more rational than your description of them as 'fear and ignorance' suggests.

I wasn't describing anyone's views but my own. I'm voting yes out of fear and ignorance of the consequences. I'm afraid of the consequences of a no vote and I'm ignorant of the economics and of EU law to know whether the economic consequences of a second no will be as bad as some people predict.

My decision to vote yes has nothing to do with anything contained in the Lisbon Treaty. If I was voting purely on the the Lisbon Treaty document itself I would be voting no.

Scofflaw wrote:

Fear of possible consequences you are uncertain of is somewhat different from fear of a document you are ignorant of.

It isn't really all that different when you consider what it is we're voting on. The last time we voted on the text of the treaty and we voted no because most of us didn't understand the treaty and decided to err on the side of caution. In the next referendum we'll be voting on the "consequences-of-a-second-no" and so we'd better be very clear on what those consequences will be. Someone who votes yes in a second referendum in the belief that we'll be kicked out of the EU if we vote no is just as deserving of contempt as someone who voted no the last time because they believed the treaty would lead to conscription into an EU army.

nesf

democrates wrote: »

Exactly. Add to that our ministers at the council, commissioners, and heads of national legislatures and it's still not enough. This seemingly irrational discontent arises from having read up on the Swiss system of direct democracy and realising just what is proven to be possible.

I personally wouldn't want to go to that extent with the principle of subsidiarity primarily because it can allow extreme groups to flock together in a local area and adopt obnoxious measures, we've seen reports of virtual xenophobic enclaves there and who knows what else is going on, we may yet hear of a Swiss Warren Geoffs.

Direct democracy would need to be brought in over a long period starting with local government so people learn and then take it to the national level. Had EU member states been doing so there'd be confidence in referenda and we wouldn't be straight in at the deep end on the likes of Lisbon, which obviously isn't going in the direction I've outlilned.

Is direct democracy better though? Are the people in a better position than their representatives to weigh and judge complex pieces of legislation such as treaties? Direct democracy works fine if and only if the people can understand the question being put to them.

democrates wrote: »

That wouldn't surprise me at all and interesting replies from Scofflaw there, instead of one big step it can be a lot of steps, each small enough to slip under the threshold of irresistable mass opposition.

Except that politicians usually aren't dumb enough to pass legislation that'll anger the majority of people. See the present strings being attached to the bank recapitalisation as a current example.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

Would you agree that a no vote based on a full understanding of the publically-stated consequences of that vote is better than a yes vote based on ignorance and fear of the consequences of the vote?

To put it more simply, a vote based on a full understanding of the treaty is better than a vote based on ignorance, regardless of whether that vote is a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’.

O'Morris wrote: »

Or do you think getting the Lisbon Treaty passed is so important that's it worth maintaining the uncertainty about the consequences?

I would be reasonably confident that if the electorate fully understood the treaty, any objections would be minimal (in my opinion), eurosceptics aside.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

Would you agree that a no vote based on a full understanding of the publically-stated consequences of that vote is better than a yes vote based on ignorance and fear of the consequences of the vote?

A fully informed voter, whether Yes or No, is obviously going to be better than one basing their decision on ignorance and fear - it's better for democracy, and it's better for Ireland in general that Irish voters should fully inform themselves rather than voting in the dark.

That doesn't mean that a 'fully informed' No vote is the better vote for Ireland, however.

O'Morris wrote: »

Or do you think getting the Lisbon Treaty passed is so important that's it worth maintaining the uncertainty about the consequences?

Your assumption that the only reason we're not being told the consequences is to generate fear, uncertainty, and doubt is just that - your assumption. I would say that the uncertainty about the consequences comes from uncertainty about the consequences, and the other member states (a) not being certain what they would do if push came to shove without push actually having come to shove, and (b) not being willing to create further fear and doubt by discussing the possible consequences.

Lack of a plan B might be reprehensible, but you're assuming there is a plan B and we're just not being told it. All the evidence suggests you're wrong, and that there simply isn't one.

O'Morris wrote: »

I wasn't describing anyone's views but my own. I'm voting yes out of fear and ignorance of the consequences. I'm afraid of the consequences of a no vote and I'm ignorant of the economics and of EU law to know whether the economic consequences of a second no will be as bad as some people predict.

Everyone is - the whole point is that we don't know what will happen, because the actors involved don't know what they would actually do.

O'Morris wrote: »

My decision to vote yes has nothing to do with anything contained in the Lisbon Treaty. If I was voting purely on the the Lisbon Treaty document itself I would be voting no.

You're voting on the possible consequences to Ireland, which seems reasonable to me, given you're an Irish voter. That you don't know exactly what those consequences are is a natural result of them being in the future - you are entitled to believe that they would be negligible, as others here are doing.

O'Morris wrote: »

It isn't really all that different when you consider what it is we're voting on. The last time we voted on the text of the treaty and we voted no because most of us didn't understand the treaty and decided to err on the side of caution. In the next referendum we'll be voting on the "consequences-of-a-second-no" and so we'd better be very clear on what those consequences will be.

Someone who is completely certain of exactly what the consequences of a second No would be is someone whose belief is stronger than their rational faculties.

O'Morris wrote: »

Someone who votes yes in a second referendum in the belief that we'll be kicked out of the EU if we vote no is just as deserving of contempt as someone who voted no the last time because they believed the treaty would lead to conscription into an EU army.

People are not 'deserving of contempt' for voting either way on the basis of erroneous beliefs like conscription or being kicked out of the EU. People who push those lines, knowing them to be false, are liars, but those who vote on those views in the honest belief that they're true are honest. I'm appalled that you don't see the difference.

somewhat dismayed,
Scofflaw

democrates

nesf wrote: »

Is direct democracy better though? Are the people in a better position than their representatives to weigh and judge complex pieces of legislation such as treaties? Direct democracy works fine if and only if the people can understand the question being put to them.

Is there really a valid doubt over direct democracy when it's working away in Switzerland for all to see though? It's not an unproven idealistic theory, it's proven in practice, and I don't believe the Swiss are a master race and the rest of us a sub-species, we are capable of rising to that level over time.

Your point is well taken though, we're not adequately prepared to deal with these issues right now, which is why I was describing one possible learning process - start local with minor risk, when ready go national, finally international.

The situation isn't helped by the way the treaty has been presented, so inaccessible a contrivance that our own legislators didn't read it. In fairness that's why advice is needed since few of our legislators can match the attorney general for legal expertise, but that advice could equally be presented to the public.

nesf wrote: »

Except that politicians usually aren't dumb enough to pass legislation that'll anger the majority of people. See the present strings being attached to the bank recapitalisation as a current example.

True, it is notable that they've altered course on various other issues eg the medical card for over-70's, avoiding punishment at the ballot box means we have a definite level of effective democracy here. In addition more decision-making processes include a public consultation, and local government reform also holds promise, so within Ireland I see good reason for optimism.

I think it's well needed as I don't believe everything elected representatives do is by some fluke for the greater good, I'd find that assumption naive given all the corruption uncovered in this country and elsewhere for starters. Many argue that direct democracy could never work because nimbyism would block every measure that is for the wider good, however the Swiss example shows this not to be the case in practice, they have learned the role goodwill plays in realpolitik as Scofflaw has emphasised.

Amberman

democrates wrote: »

faith in the invisible hand of the unregulated market seems to be generally evaporating. It may pave the way for more change than we've seen for decades so Lisbon may not mark the holiday from institutional reform for as long as it's architects had anticipated.

Interesting times .

If you think that this current economic crisis is because of a failure in the markets, you are flat out wrong. This crisis comes directly from government intervention to stave off a necessary cleansing cycle in capitalism...its called a recession and its needed once in a while to recycle misallocated capital due to irrational exuberance.

Irelands is deeper than most other countries becuase it has much less control over its monetary policy than previously was the case and becuase it is more subjected to wage arbitrage than many other countries due to teh transient nature of high tech jobs and teh high dependence on the housing sedctor. Thats why Ireland is suffering, not becuaes markets dont work.

Interest rates were held too low for too long causing the monetary spigots to blow open and pump up specualtive bubbles which led to mal investment. The readjustment and rebalancing needed, if allowed to happen, would sort it out in a painful correction, but political intervention isn't allowing that to happen.

We dont need lower interest rates here, we need higher interest rates to replenish the savings of the nation so that the banks can lend again and create productive capacity.

The market hasnt failed. If governments would get the hell out of the way, the painful correction would be painful to be sure, but it would be a lot faster than trying in vain to stop it.

Amberman

Scofflaw wrote: »

The thing about that is there isn't any rule that says that EU treaties are dead the minute someone says No. Very few EU treaties have gone through without a hitch, any more than something like Kyoto did. So, really, there's no "we shouldn't even be discussing it" - that's completely false. It really doesn't matter how many times it gets said that the treaty should be dead - there is no rule that says the treaty is supposed to simply go away the minute there's a hitch.

How many treaties have been rolled back once they have been voted through compared to how many have been hit democratic "hitches" and been repackaged to get the desired outcome?

This is normally a one way street and shouldn't be comforting to any thinking person.

Scofflaw

Amberman wrote: »

How many treaties have been rolled back once they have been voted through compared to how many have been hit democratic "hitches" and been repackaged to get the desired outcome?

This is normally a one way street and shouldn't be comforting to any thinking person.

Since EU treaties operate by amending previous treaties, the question of whether treaties are rolled back is somewhat irrelevant. Any treaty can contain provisions that 'roll back' provisions in a previous treaty, so it's not really a one-way street.

By the way, interesting to see the gathering of No proponents again for this particular thread. Did I miss the No symbol being projected on the clouds?

regards,
Scofflaw

nesf

democrates wrote: »

Is there really a valid doubt over direct democracy when it's working away in Switzerland for all to see though? It's not an unproven idealistic theory, it's proven in practice, and I don't believe the Swiss are a master race and the rest of us a sub-species, we are capable of rising to that level over time.

The Swiss system is a special type of direct democracy, I'd argue that it doesn't lend weight towards anything but it's own specific implementation (not a criticism of their system which I very much like, more of a don't overgeneralise from a very specific example).

You cannot however discount the strong historical element of their system (i.e. transplanting it into another country mightn't give pleasing results, though I think you're getting at this anyway). What I like about the Swiss system is that it combines the good side of representative democracy and the concept of a public veto. I'm unsure if it's strictly needed if one has a suitably politically active populace (i.e. who'll punish and reward at the ballot box) and whether a simple majority is a good standard for overturning laws (would 60% be better and if not, why?). Should 51% of the populace get to dictate everything over the wishes of the minority?

democrates wrote: »

Your point is well taken though, we're not adequately prepared to deal with these issues right now, which is why I was describing one possible learning process - start local with minor risk, when ready go national, finally international.

Which is partially why I dislike our current system.

democrates wrote: »

The situation isn't helped by the way the treaty has been presented, so inaccessible a contrivance that our own legislators didn't read it. In fairness that's why advice is needed since few of our legislators can match the attorney general for legal expertise, but that advice could equally be presented to the public.

You start getting into problems like whether the advice is intelligible to people and serious issues about whether it can be boiled down into soundbites or whether it's going to be a document that requires careful reading. Let's face it, the people aren't going to sit down with a nuanced four page argument and work through it. Part of the problem of direct democracy is that the people need to take it on themselves to educate themselves on the issue at hand. This isn't happening here at the moment, on both sides and is something that we need to address if we're going to have a functioning direct democratic system with respect to things like the Lisbon Treaty.

democrates wrote: »

True, it is notable that they've altered course on various other issues eg the medical card for over-70's, avoiding punishment at the ballot box means we have a definite level of effective democracy here. In addition more decision-making processes include a public consultation, and local government reform also holds promise, so within Ireland I see good reason for optimism.

Should the most vocal dictate policy? I think we've a long way to go in terms of effective democracy but yeah hopefully we'll see some movement on local government which bluntly is fairly crap at the moment. Though personally I think the Seanad needs reform first but that'll be tougher to bring through.

democrates wrote: »

I think it's well needed as I don't believe everything elected representatives do is by some fluke for the greater good, I'd find that assumption naive given all the corruption uncovered in this country and elsewhere for starters. Many argue that direct democracy could never work because nimbyism would block every measure that is for the wider good, however the Swiss example shows this not to be the case in practice, they have learned the role goodwill plays in realpolitik as Scofflaw has emphasised.

You block nimbyism by forcing widespread rather than local votes but similarly you need to protect against the majority of the country dumping everything into one corner of it and screwing over that minority. Direct democracy brings with it the tyranny of the majority and we need to be aware of this. The double majority needed for constitutional change in Switzerland being an example of designing a system to limit this.

democrates

Amberman wrote: »

If you think that this current economic crisis is because of a failure in the markets, you are flat out wrong. This crisis comes directly from government intervention to stave off a necessary cleansing cycle in capitalism...its called a recession and its needed once in a while to recycle misallocated capital due to irrational exuberance.

Irelands is deeper than most other countries becuase it has much less control over its monetary policy than previously was the case and becuase it is more subjected to wage arbitrage than many other countries due to teh transient nature of high tech jobs and teh high dependence on the housing sedctor. Thats why Ireland is suffering, not becuaes markets dont work.

Interest rates were held too low for too long causing the monetary spigots to blow open and pump up specualtive bubbles which led to mal investment. The readjustment and rebalancing needed, if allowed to happen, would sort it out in a painful correction, but political intervention isn't allowing that to happen.

We dont need lower interest rates here, we need higher interest rates to replenish the savings of the nation so that the banks can lend again and create productive capacity.

The market hasnt failed. If governments would get the hell out of the way, the painful correction would be painful to be sure, but it would be a lot faster than trying in vain to stop it.

Markets can work and must work, I don't believe in extremes though, be it the central command model with minimal individual freedom or the purist market model espoused by the Cato institute et al in which freedom itself (money=choices) becomes increasingly concentrated with the wealthy elite.

As for interest rates I accept that since joining the Eurozone Ireland has been on the opposite cycle to the EU aggregate. As to the general case that interest rates have been too low for too long it is only fair to observe that they are set in response to market conditions, and feeds back into them, so we saw the ~trillion dollar yen carry trade (based on aggregate closing positions at the Chicago Merc.) spring up from Japans 0% policy and unwinding that exposure looked like a big issue when that rate began to inch upward.

It is also interesting to note that house prices are now excluded from many inflation calculations so that the full economic reality faced by households is not reflected in monetary policy, however the artificially low rates suited the money markets just fine and allowed them to further exacerbate asset price inflation. Central banks tend to be too cosy with the private banks.

So granted interest rates have been too low for too long but I see those policies as corrupt, in favour of the few at the expense of the many.

I agree that "irrational exhuberence" had a role, it caused the credit crunch. The ninja loans of gangster capitalists Greenspan also warned about ("developments of particular concern") percolated throughout the international financial system via collateralised debt obligations and credit default swaps. The brilliant idea promoted by hedge funds of spreading risk throughout the system backfired badly when it provided a means to pump in vast amounts of hidden risk. "Only when the tide goes out will we see who's been swimming naked" as the oracle observed.

So the credit crunch was a direct result of market action in concert with investor-friendly central banks, but also the inaction of regulators. The SEC among other regulatory authorities now stand accused of being asleep on the job, which I think is giving the benefit of the doubt that they weren't influenced by vested interests. What was needed to prevent this mess was more regulatory intervention, not less.

Now I'm well aware that some market fundamentalists think that more banks should have been let fail, they seem to positively salivate at the prospect of seeing the weak perish and the strong survive. The blood lust, anger, and absolute lack of care for the well being of others sets them apart from the majority of human beings. Many are just immersed in the ideology of anarcho-capitalism, others appear to be clinical psychopaths.

Letting the market run it's course and allowing more banks to fail would clearly intensify the already dire consequences for the wider economy and the welfare of the many. Most people would prefer a salary cut to losing their job, your get it over with quickly but more severely argument is hardly appealing. I'm never surprised when the well heeled prescribe painful corrections for the less well off, and I'm always amused at middle-class believers who like to talk the talk of predators when they are in fact among the working stock prey.

I'm glad government intervention is finally bringing some humanity into the equation, those who don't like it can whistle dixie.