Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why I'm thinking of voting yes this time to Lisbon
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
O'Coonassa wrote: »There are other issues of more importance inducing me to vote no, mistrust of the manipulative nature of the political elite is just one of them.
That is a distinct issue, seperate completely from the Treaty. You should be voting for or against the Treaty based on its merits and worrying about who represents us and how in the proper forum, i.e. elections and direct dealings with those representatives.O'Coonassa wrote: »As for "am I qualified" to be consulted on a treaty that directly effects my future and that of my line well I don't see how you think I could possibly not be qualified. Democracy you see, that's how it works, it's a Greek word or so I'm told, meaning the rule of the People. In a corporatist oligarchy on the other hand the People would not be consulted.
Were you consulted on the Cluster Munitions Treaty last year, the text of which was agreed here in Dublin? Would you have been qualified to do so? I know I wouldn't have been. And here-in lies one of the biggest mis-interpretations of the vote last year. You were not voting on the Treaty itself, but on the amendment to the Constitution that would be required for the Treaty to be ratified by Ireland. We are never called upon to vote on an international Treaty directly AFAIK.
And what was intended in the "are you qualified" comment was to point out that this is a complex legal document (remember all the fuss over how hard it is to read?) that references other complex legal documents relating to the governance of a union of 27 countries. I don't think I'm particularly qualified to vote on that, at least not without going through a period of educating myself as to the specifics of the Treaty itself.O'Coonassa wrote: »Ireland has not been involved in the drafting of the treaty, if it had you would know lots of people whose opinion had been canvassed as to what the content should be. There would have been public debate on the provisions to be made. Nor was any any other European nation consulted on the matter. That is why if it was put to vote in most other places the People there would also say no.
The Irish people weren't canvassed on the previously mentioned Cluster Munitions Treaty. Even the Good Friday Agreement was negotiated by our Government on our behalf. That's one of the things we elect them to do. It's part of the job profile. If you are not happy with that and want it changed there's little point in talking to Europe about that, it's a domestic "issue". Although I can't imagine you'll find any great support for getting national involvement in the ratification of all treaties!O'Coonassa wrote: »I feel as a democrat that even if I agreed with the treaty I still have a duty to those people to vote no because in their not being asked democracy itself is being thwarted.
It's nice that you can judge other sovereign nations procedures for governance like that. I can't imagine you'd be too impressed though if other countries were questioning our systems democracy using their own imperfect standards as the base-line!O'Coonassa wrote: »Yes you're right. It was a flourish of subjective opinion and I should have kept my mouth shut.
If you're not willing to discuss a point that you riased on a discussion board then maybe you should have on that one!?
O'Coonassa wrote: »But you see I don't care about the content of a treaty that people were not consulted on. Like I say, it could be the best treaty in the world and because of the anti-democratic way it has been arrived at I'd still have to vote no on behalf of those people who are being given no opportunity to do so.
So you would have voted No on the Cluster Munitions Treaty then? Wow! I mean, just wow! :rolleyes:O'Coonassa wrote: »So how then can people properly participate in a system of which they know little?
Educate themselves. The information is there.....just a thought.O'Coonassa wrote: »I don't believe that there is any in the current climate. Whatever elected representatives are on offer are funded by vested interest lobbies. Also the gap between elections is so long and capacity to bribe the electorate so entrenched as to render voting useless.
Sounds to me like you've a much bigger issue with our democracy as a whole. But if voting for our representatives is indeed useless then why bother getting involved at all, even in discussions on the topic?O'Coonassa wrote: »I will continue voting no until the document demonstrates that it has been arrived at with the wishes of the majority of the common people of Europe and when acceptance of it is put to a vote across Europe.
You can't, and the EU cannot, make this kind of demand. It is up to each member state to ratify as per their system and up to their people to change it if they are not happy. We did with Crotty 20 odd years ago. It seems that you cannot accept any other version of democracy other than your own, which itself is anti-democratic.O'Coonassa wrote: »Yes but you see "all member states" drafted the treaty. Therefore "all member states" can alter the treaty. What I am saying is that "all member states" is not a proxy for "the People of Europe" although it most certainly should be. Rather there is a cynical neo-liberal corporatist political class who are funded by people whose interests run contrary to the people of Europe. I do not accept that they represent the people they purport to represent and therefore agreeing to their treaty leaves the door open to them altering that treaty.
I have highlighted the important word there for you. And the State is as close as you can get to a proxy given that we elect those who speak on the States behalf. Anything closer and you're talking about removing the sovereign states in favour of a super-state EU where your voice and mine would be considerably weakened and concensus would be hard to come by given the broad range of cultures etc.My point exactly; opinions that are not based on fact are worthless. Take the example above regarding the budget. Suppose the entire population was polled on the subject and the result was that the majority of the population wanted to see a 50% increase in public spending combined with a 10% reduction in tax revenue; what then? Should the government bankrupt the country because an ignorant electorate says so? Or should they do what they think is best for the country?
Exactly.O'Coonassa wrote: »lol in a democracy the Government of course should do what the electorate says. Why is the electorate ignorant and how can there be democracy if the electorate is ignorant of the issues? That would only be a sham of a democracy surely?
In this case who is to blame for the ignorance though? In an age of unprecented access to information surely the electorate are the ones at fault? And so how can any of us expect to get "proper" representation, if we as a body of people are in no position to even know what that is????O'Coonassa wrote: »I'd say at least a third of the people of Europe don't even vote and in Euro elections around half don't bother AFAIK. I'd hazard a guess that they don't have any elected reps because they don't think too much of the ones on offer. It's not at all as representative as you're making out.
You can't blame the representatives for that now can you!?0 -
-
-
-
O'Coonassa wrote: »Indeed. All men are equal. That's the fairest way. I believe the Nazi's did not see things like this and unfortunately for me and my kind they won the second world war
If all opinions are equal, why bother with education, why do we need experts? For if that is truly the case then someone who never even attended secondary school is just as worthy to consult on the location of a nuclear power plant and the possible health risks as a nuclear scientist with 30 years studying in the field. The former informed by what he heard on Joe Duffy the latter informed by the latest peer reviewed scientific papers. It is illogical to treat both opinions as equal and by doing so you are proving you are blinded by an ideological utopian vision that can never work. I'm all for democracy but the most pragmatic form of democracy is one where representatives are elected and they in turn hire experts to advise and they work in combination to make decisions on our behalf.0 -
That is a distinct issue, seperate completely from the Treaty. You should be voting for or against the Treaty based on its merits and worrying about who represents us and how in the proper forum, i.e. elections and direct dealings with those representatives.
But the treaty is the product of people who I feel do not represent me or my interests. I don't see how the two can be compartmentalised as if they are seperate.Were you consulted on the Cluster Munitions Treaty last year, the text of which was agreed here in Dublin? Would you have been qualified to do so? I know I wouldn't have been.
So you are not qualified to say if dropping bomblets on civilian populations/areas is a good thing or a bad thing? Personally I feel that I am qualified and that it's very wrong. I fail to see how you are not qualified really, your opinion is what qualifies you.And here-in lies one of the biggest mis-interpretations of the vote last year. You were not voting on the Treaty itself, but on the amendment to the Constitution that would be required for the Treaty to be ratified by Ireland. We are never called upon to vote on an international Treaty directly AFAIK.
Well fair enough really that's just semantics and technically you're quite correct.And what was intended in the "are you qualified" comment was to point out that this is a complex legal document (remember all the fuss over how hard it is to read?) that references other complex legal documents relating to the governance of a union of 27 countries. I don't think I'm particularly qualified to vote on that, at least not without going through a period of educating myself as to the specifics of the Treaty itself.
And you do think your elected representatives are sufficiently educated? I admire your faith in them in the face of the current adversity. I do indeed remember all the fuss over how hard the treaty is to read. I don't for one second think that a treaty that is beyond the grasp of its signatories should be signed into law. Everybody should be fully aware of any small print IMO.The Irish people weren't canvassed on the previously mentioned Cluster Munitions Treaty. Even the Good Friday Agreement was negotiated by our Government on our behalf. That's one of the things we elect them to do. It's part of the job profile. If you are not happy with that and want it changed there's little point in talking to Europe about that, it's a domestic "issue". Although I can't imagine you'll find any great support for getting national involvement in the ratification of all treaties!
A more accountable form of democracy in which the people are consulted over big descisions is what I'm after really. Naturally because the talk here is of treaties we're latching onto ratification of treaties but the principal applies or should apply to any major legislative changes.It's nice that you can judge other sovereign nations procedures for governance like that. I can't imagine you'd be too impressed though if other countries were questioning our systems democracy using their own imperfect standards as the base-line!
To me 'sovereign nations' are merely instruments and inventions of the powerful. I do not see them as a natural organic unit like clan, tribe or family. Nationalism is a false division of the species that occured to serve the interests of an elite. What I'm saying is that I look at "other countries" as if their leadership is not really representative of the people who live in those countries.If you're not willing to discuss a point that you riased on a discussion board then maybe you should have on that one!?
Fair enough but in the end I did end up discussing what I meant by the comment in post #213.So you would have voted No on the Cluster Munitions Treaty then? Wow! I mean, just wow! :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:Educate themselves. The information is there.....just a thought.
You perhaps think then that the People should set up their own education system? The one they have that is run by the State is really not up to the job? So it would seem to me.Sounds to me like you've a much bigger issue with our democracy as a whole. But if voting for our representatives is indeed useless then why bother getting involved at all, even in discussions on the topic?
Merely to persuade others to withdraw their involvement or jam a stick in the spokes as best they can. Sedition lolYou can't, and the EU cannot, make this kind of demand. It is up to each member state to ratify as per their system and up to their people to change it if they are not happy. We did with Crotty 20 odd years ago. It seems that you cannot accept any other version of democracy other than your own, which itself is anti-democratic.
What I'm saying is that the people in many countries have not been given the chance to change it. For instance I know that the German people are generally unhappy with the provisions of the treaty yet they are not to be asked to ratify. How my stating that this is a bad thing amounts to me being anti-democratic is beyond me.I have highlighted the important word there for you. And the State is as close as you can get to a proxy given that we elect those who speak on the States behalf. Anything closer and you're talking about removing the sovereign states in favour of a super-state EU where your voice and mine would be considerably weakened and concensus would be hard to come by given the broad range of cultures etc.
Aside from the minor input of immigrant populations there is really only European culture in Europe. I don't elect anybody and nor do lots of other people. If there was 100% turnout the State may well then claim to speak on the peoples behalf but in the absense of that I don't believe it can, it speaks only for a subset.In this case who is to blame for the ignorance though? In an age of unprecented access to information surely the electorate are the ones at fault? And so how can any of us expect to get "proper" representation, if we as a body of people are in no position to even know what that is????
Well personally I blame the education system, shabby media and rampant materialism for this state of affairs. I can hardly blame the newborn for what they will turn out like. If the will existed it wouldn't be hard to educate them to be responsible citizens in a participatory democracy I feel.You can't blame the representatives for that now can you!?
No, only their calibre and the people backstage who fund them.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement