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
No to Lisbon
Options
-
28-02-2009 4:18pm#1I'm definately voting no to Lisbon next time round. I voted yes before because our economic interests and all that but I can't in good conscience vote yes again. In times of economic hardship its vitally important to protect democracy, liberty and freedom but across Europe we've seen a wave of authoritarianism in the last ten years, especially the UK. If Europe is to integrate further, which it probably should, it should be on the basis of democracy and freedom to the individual. A massive centralised European state where Irish interests are sidelined is one thing, but a massive centralised European state where democracy has no real weight or authority is something I cannot vote for. The politicians need to get their heads together, write a liberal, democratic constitution, aspirational in nature, and put it to a European wide vote. It may take ten years for that to pass but any settlement below that is simply helping the creeping authoritarianism we've seen throughout Europe in the last ten years.4
Comments
-
*thump*
I'm sorry, that was just me keeling over laughing on the floor !
Are you going to post any evidence for you mad claims of an Authoritarian Europe or are we just supposed to take your word for it and vote no ?0 -
Obviously there isn't a totalitarian system in Europe at present, rather its a creeping force towards greater state control over private matters. The obvious cases being internet privacy, ID cards, national databases, 'assumed consent' etc. The proposed reformed Europe operates on a massive democratic deficit basis. Without transparant and accountible institutions there is a possible vacuum for buraucratic statism to take control. What use is there in having a democratic parliament that has no actual power or authority? Thats what the EU parliament at present is.0
-
Ok, Internet Privacy is needed to stop all those kiddie porn watchers out there.
ID cards help stop Identity theft.
And National Databases help Police solve crime faster. But to be honest I don't see how this ties in with the EU, all of the above you have mentioned are created by the Nations respective Government.
E.G why Britain has a National Database and we don't.
If you don't like the state barging its nose into your business then do us all a favour and don't vote for them but blaming the EU for an unliberal country is like blaming a shopkeeper because his employee is dipping her hand into the till.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Ok, Internet Privacy is needed to stop all those kiddie porn watchers out there.
Obviously some intrusion is needed on this because of the evil of child pornography. However, there are measures and degree's of extremity in terms of tackling the problem, and wholesale reversion of privacy isn't part of the deal.ID cards help stop Identity theft.
And curfews help prevent late night crime... Where does the crime/liberty equilibrium stop with you?And National Databases help Police solve crime faster. But to be honest I don't see how this ties in with the EU, all of the above you have mentioned are created by the Nations respective Government.
National databases help police solve crime faster - they also help totalitarian governments root out people who have read, say, 'The Communist Manifesto' or 'The Koran' and through them in camps! The potentialities of abuse are so mind boggling its almost pointless to articulate it. Thats just one extreme, there is also the possibility it can be hacked into/stolen, making identity theft much more problematic.If you don't like the state barging its nose into your business then do us all a favour and don't vote for them but blaming the EU for an unliberal country is like blaming a shopkeeper because his employee is dipping her hand into the till.
Not sure about that. The EU is formed of its members, and most if not all the members are reaching for a more and more statist approach to liberty. And you've ignored all I've said about the democratic deficit.0 -
I will be voting no again, although I shouldn't have to. My original vote should have been respected.0
-
Advertisement
-
Obviously there isn't a totalitarian system in Europe at present, rather its a creeping force towards greater state control over private matters. The obvious cases being internet privacy, ID cards, national databases, 'assumed consent' etc.
Hmm. You've made the point yourself, but not followed the logic through. Member states (most of them) have made moves towards increased state security capabilities - and they have made some of them through Europe (in most cases, doing them through Europe has resulted in, if anything, a reduction in the original extremism of the security proposals, or additional riders and protections not suggested originally - a good example is the watering down of Irish/UK proposals on data retention).
If member states are making moves towards totalitarian levels of control, they would be making them in the absence of the EU - the EU, therefore, isn't relevant, and it's hard to see why on earth you would vote on that basis.
The only reason I could see would be if Europe offered no protection of privacy rights, whereas our Constitution did - however, the reverse is the case.The proposed reformed Europe operates on a massive democratic deficit basis. Without transparant and accountible institutions there is a possible vacuum for buraucratic statism to take control.
Since the EU, or rather EC, started as a purely bureaucratic statist mechanism with absolutely no democratic input, the trend is the reverse of the one you fear.What use is there in having a democratic parliament that has no actual power or authority? Thats what the EU parliament at present is.
No, that's not what it is - that's what it used to be. The Parliament has powers of assent and amendment over about 80% of EU legislation and budget currently, and would have those powers over 95% under Lisbon. Since the EUP actually uses those powers - rejecting things like the Software Patents Directive, for example - they are effectively a good deal more democratic and powerful than the Dáil, which exists solely to rubber-stamp the decisions of the government. When was the last time the Dáil defeated a government Bill?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
I will be voting no again, although I shouldn't have to. My original vote should have been respected.
Your original vote was respected, as is your right to change - or not change - your mind. We have people on these boards who have changed their minds, and public opinion polls also suggest that people have changed their minds in large numbers. Why is your right not to change your mind to be respected to the exclusion of other people's right to do so?
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Your original vote was respected, as is your right to change - or not change - your mind. We have people on these boards who have changed their minds, and public opinion polls also suggest that people have changed their minds in large numbers. Why is your right not to change your mind to be respected to the exclusion of other people's right to do so?
regards,
Scofflaw
No, it wasn't respected. If it was respected, I wouldn't have to vote again. It negates my original vote. Your logic is skewed, biased and revolting. I can assure you, if we campaigned for a re-run of the campaign if there was a yes vote originally, you would be quick to condemn us.0 -
If more people got the answer right you wouldn't have had to vote again either! You do realise that this isn't the first time that a referendum has been held twice? A bit OTT calling his logic 'revolting'. You said his logic is biased because he mentioned the rights of people who, unlike you, changed their mind. I smell irony.0
-
Who said anything about intrusion ? You still haven't provided any sources to back up your claims.Obviously some intrusion is needed on this because of the evil of child pornography. However, there are measures and degree's of extremity in terms of tackling the problem, and wholesale reversion of privacy isn't part of the deal.
Indeed they do, as for my stance on the Crime/Liberty equilibrium, I agree with the if you don't have anything to hide then you don't have anything to fear stance.And curfews help prevent late night crime... Where does the crime/liberty equilibrium stop with you?
Obviously Curfews affect innocent people. so I would be against that.
That’s funny, as a past reader of "The Communist Manifesto", "Das Kapital" and "Mein Kampf" as well as being a member of "The Socialist Party" I would be a prime selection for the Concentration Camp selection. But OMG I'm still here !! Guess my tinfoil hat is keeping the Eurocrats from reading my mind with their satellites.National databases help police solve crime faster - they also help totalitarian governments root out people who have read, say, 'The Communist Manifesto' or 'The Koran' and through them in camps! The potentialities of abuse are so mind boggling its almost pointless to articulate it. That’s just one extreme, there is also the possibility it can be hacked into/stolen, making identity theft much more problematic.
Seriously though these databases are usually guarded pretty well, so there’s no need for alarm.
Sorry, I had to lol at this. Are you complaining that the Union is undemocratic after voting to reject the Lisbon Treaty, the Treaty that increases the powers of the Democratically elected European Parliament while cutting the number of eurocrats in the nonelected European Commission ?Not sure about that. The EU is formed of its members, and most if not all the members are reaching for a more and more statist approach to liberty. And you've ignored all I've said about the democratic deficit.
P.S is Statist a word ?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
There is no irony whatsoever. I claimed my vote wasn't respected, and it is 100% accurate and factual. If it was respected, I wouldn't have to vote twice on the exact same issue.
As for people changing their mind - look at the current economic climate and try and tell me that people are not changing their mind out of fear. His logic is revolting because it would not be applicable if it was a yes vote originally.0 -
What would needed to be changed to make you vote yes?
Nothing. The damage is already done. Central power from within Europe controlled internal politics within Ireland. Our politicians are no longer accountable. I stated time and time again that the EU put would political pressure on our Government to re-run the Lisbon campaign. Sarkozy slimes his way over here, has a stern word with the heads that be and low and behold, re-run of Lisbon treaty is on the books.
My fear of the EU dictating Irish affairs was 100% validated when the Government announced it's intentions to re-run a referendum on an issue that had already been voted on.0 -
No, it wasn't respected. If it was respected, I wouldn't have to vote again. It negates my original vote. Your logic is skewed, biased and revolting. I can assure you, if we campaigned for a re-run of the campaign if there was a yes vote originally, you would be quick to condemn us.
I can assure you I wouldn't - you're welcome to do so at any time. However, I certainly don't think much of your rather personal definition of "respected", which precludes others changing their minds simply because you won't change yours.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
Lets get to basics here.
1) The common attitude of 'If you haven't done anything wrong then there is no need to worry' is completely wrong. My privacy is a fundamental human right - tampering with it is an act of tyranny. No state has the right to put my DNA into a national computer database or force me to carry a national ID card so police can stop me at any time in order to produce it.
2) The democratic deficit - OK, its not as bad as it once was, but should the democratically elected parliament not be completely sovreign? The Dáil may be a rubber stamp but thats because we have stupid voters who keep voting in the crooks and liars of Fianna Fáil. A government in majority effectively controls its house. Simple as that. The EU parliament is too diverse for party government to work effectively, so thats why it holds bigger debate. In other words, we still have the power to pick and choose our leaders, and any change in our constitution is protected by our right to vote.
3) Go easy on the Lols and think about what I'm saying. It is possible for a state to be partly democratic and partly authoritarian. Mugabe is known as the democratic dictator because he held elections, allowed some sort of constitutional opposition, but made sure to withold food and beat the hell out of people who would vote against him!
4) About the EU being undemocratic, no, its not, yet. But Hitler wasn't undemocratic until he seized complete power for himself. Citizens have an obligation to protect and maintain transparant, democratic institutions. Lisbon would have perpetuated the current system of illiberal and undemocratic institutions. 'The Commission' even sounds like something written by Orwell.
5) As for not needing to alarm over national databases, the UK recently lost two in a year.
6) Sources? Go to hell, I'm not writing essays for you. Everything I've said can be checked by even a rudimentary knowledge of the facts or a two second internet search. If I'm wrong about something pull me up on it, don't expect me to spoonfeed you.0 -
It's very simple really Scofflaw.
Person votes on issue.
Issue passes or fails.
Government respects vote and moves on.
Not, Government waits until economy is in crisis and uses it as an opportunity to swing votes out of fear.
So no, my vote was NOT respected and you pitter-pattering around that fact will not change one thing, or my vote.0 -
It's very simple really Scofflaw.
Person votes on issue.
Issue passes or fails.
Government respects vote and moves on.
Not, Government waits until economy is in crisis and uses it as an opportunity to swing votes out of fear.
So no, my vote was NOT respected and you pitter-pattering around that fact will not change one thing, or my vote.
Hitting the return key too often does not equal a better argument. It seems almost paranoid that you think the government was intently waiting for the recession just so they could bring around the second Lisbon referendum in order to get "fear" votes as you so eloquently put it. Is there any evidence for this claim? I seriously doubt it.
Your initial vote was respected hence the Lisbon treaty not being passed. However, it became apparent that people voted no despite not knowing much about the treaty and on Libertas' campaign of misinformation. Based on these facts, it is reasonable that they should ask us again, do we want the treaty passed?
Regarding your no stance, have a read of the Lisbon II thread somewhere in the After Hours forum and you will find every single reason for voting no, rationally and systematically debunked.0 -
Hitting the return key too often does not equal a better argument. It seems almost paranoid that you think the government was intently waiting for the recession just so they could bring around the second Lisbon referendum in order to get "fear" votes as you so eloquently put it. Is there any evidence for this claim? I seriously doubt it.
Your initial vote was respected hence the Lisbon treaty not being passed. However, it became apparent that people voted no despite not knowing much about the treaty and on Libertas' campaign of misinformation. Based on these facts, it is reasonable that they should ask us again, do we want the treaty passed?
Regarding your no stance, have a read of the Lisbon II thread somewhere in the After Hours forum and you will find every single reason for voting no, rationally and systematically debunked.
I fear that will make little difference.It's very simple really Scofflaw.
Person votes on issue.
Issue passes or fails.
Government respects vote and moves on.
Not, Government waits until economy is in crisis and uses it as an opportunity to swing votes out of fear.
So no, my vote was NOT respected and you pitter-pattering around that fact will not change one thing, or my vote.
"Government respects vote and moves on" - that happened, though, although they moved on to our European partners to get assurances on issues that had been found to be of concern.
What you're asking for, though, is for your vote to be absolutely recognised as the only answer on Lisbon, immutable and eternal - and there isn't even a precedent for that. Treaties don't generally fall at the first refusal.
regards,
Scofflaw0 -
you will find every single reason for voting no, rationally and systematically debunked.
Sure why go through all that messy politics malarkey at all, if we can just determine a 'correct' answer to supposedly-political questions? I for one welcome our new omnicognizant decision-making overlords!Why is your right not to change your mind to be respected to the exclusion of other people's right to do so?
For one thing, it is not a symmetrical situation. If we had the right to change our minds again after a 'Yes', this would carry more weight as an argument (since the rights would be equivalent) but this seems...unlikely. The right to change one's mind applies one way, but not the other. Hence, the complaints that votes are not respected; a No can and will be re-voted, a Yes will not.
Ratification is pursued as a ratcheting process, or the old-fashioned lobster-pot: easy in but not so easy out.
When democracy is managed in this manner, there's a cost; manipulation irritates people.0 -
Lets get to basics here.
1) The common attitude of 'If you haven't done anything wrong then there is no need to worry' is completely wrong. My privacy is a fundamental human right - tampering with it is an act of tyranny. No state has the right to put my DNA into a national computer database or force me to carry a national ID card so police can stop me at any time in order to produce it.
I agree completely. The phrase "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" has to be simultaneously the most vacuous and dangerous slogan of recent times.2) The democratic deficit - OK, its not as bad as it once was, but should the democratically elected parliament not be completely sovreign?
Hmm - while it seems like the obvious answer is "yes of course!" it's not as simple as that. I agree with a lot of No voters when they point out that there's no European demos as such - which makes the democratically elected EUP a poor choice to be the sovereign institution. It's a good body to act as a democratic control or opposition to the other institutions, and that's fine by me.
If you think about it, a sovereign EUP elected by a European electorate would give the EU the form of federal state.The Dáil may be a rubber stamp but thats because we have stupid voters who keep voting in the crooks and liars of Fianna Fáil. A government in majority effectively controls its house. Simple as that. The EU parliament is too diverse for party government to work effectively, so thats why it holds bigger debate. In other words, we still have the power to pick and choose our leaders, and any change in our constitution is protected by our right to vote.
Yes, and in turn that means that we are able to choose the Irish part of the Councils of the EU, and in turn thereby determine who picks the "Irish" Commissioner.
That's part of the reason why the EUP shouldn't be completely sovereign - we already democratically elect the governments that sit on the Councils, and that mandate is stronger in terms of Irish governance than that of the EUP.3) Go easy on the Lols and think about what I'm saying. It is possible for a state to be partly democratic and partly authoritarian. Mugabe is known as the democratic dictator because he held elections, allowed some sort of constitutional opposition, but made sure to withold food and beat the hell out of people who would vote against him!
Undeniable.4) About the EU being undemocratic, no, its not, yet. But Hitler wasn't undemocratic until he seized complete power for himself. Citizens have an obligation to protect and maintain transparant, democratic institutions. Lisbon would have perpetuated the current system of illiberal and undemocratic institutions. 'The Commission' even sounds like something written by Orwell.
Lisbon modifies the existing less than perfectly democratic institutions, but in the direction of more democracy, not less. That it doesn't simply eliminate all democratic deficits is a pity, but realistically the governments of the EU members are not ready to do so, because that subjects each national government to democratic control by a European demos.
I do think people should look at the history of the EU before claiming that it's heading in an undemocratic direction. It started with no Parliament, and added one without powers. It has progressively given greater powers to the Parliament, which is the opposite of undemocratic - and Lisbon would have continued that trend, giving the Parliament powers of assent and amendment over everything bar foreign and defence matters. A lot of people probably won't recognise that as a hugely significant step, but foreign and defence matters were the last prerogatives of the constitutional monarchs to be handed to the democratic assemblies.5) As for not needing to alarm over national databases, the UK recently lost two in a year.
6) Sources? Go to hell, I'm not writing essays for you. Everything I've said can be checked by even a rudimentary knowledge of the facts or a two second internet search. If I'm wrong about something pull me up on it, don't expect me to spoonfeed you.
Well, I'm perfectly happy to do so.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
Your original vote was respected, as is your right to change - or not change - your mind. We have people on these boards who have changed their minds, and public opinion polls also suggest that people have changed their minds in large numbers. Why is your right not to change your mind to be respected to the exclusion of other people's right to do so?
regards,
Scofflaw
Will the government respect the people who changed their mind on their votes in the last general election ?0 -
There's no point in fighting it. It seems as though Lisbon will be ratified, even if it takes numerous referenda to pass it.0
-
Sure why go through all that messy politics malarkey at all, if we can just determine a 'correct' answer to supposedly-political questions? I for one welcome our new omnicognizant decision-making overlords!
You'll still be voting, no?For one thing, it is not a symmetrical situation. If we had the right to change our minds again after a 'Yes', this would carry more weight as an argument (since the rights would be equivalent) but this seems...unlikely. The right to change one's mind applies one way, but not the other. Hence, the complaints that votes are not respected; a No can and will be re-voted, a Yes will not.
I accept that point, but that's the way our Constitution has it - there is no mechanism for a citizen-led referendum. If you want to push for one, I'd support that completely.
It's fair to point out, though, that if we elected a government that wanted a No, they would be equally able to rerun a Yes vote, so the tilt of the playing field is determined by democratic choices already made - we elect pro-EU governments.Ratification is pursued as a ratcheting process, or the old-fashioned lobster-pot: easy in but not so easy out.
Well, yes - that's because when we ratify, we're signing up to a legal agreement. Marriage is "easy in but not so easy out" as well - it's hardly either new or sinister.When democracy is managed in this manner, there's a cost; manipulation irritates people.
Government consists of managing a country (although evidence for that is thin on the ground recently) - when that country is democratic, the government has to "manage democracy" when it wants to get something done. The government is constantly in the business of "managing democracy" - the only alternative is pure direct democracy on absolutely every decision.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Will the government respect the people who changed their mind on their votes in the last general election ?
I imagine that they hope to persuade them that they were right to vote FF, rather than pull a snap election. If you're asking me whether the government will step if the vote is against it at the next election, the answer should be obvious.
I have to say, by the way, that this word "respect" is marvelously stretchy. Is there any reason I can't claim that my Yes vote wasn't "respected" because the government didn't go ahead and ratify Lisbon like I wanted them to do?
amused,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Good point, because general elections and referendums are pretty much exactly the same.Will the government respect the people who changed their mind on their votes in the last general election ?
Should the Opposition try to force the government out through a vote of no confidence? Or should they "respect" the vote at the last election?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Definite yes from me. I will be 18 by the time of the next one.0
-
I have to say, by the way, that this word "respect" is marvelously stretchy. Is there any reason I can't claim that my Yes vote wasn't "respected" because the government didn't go ahead and ratify Lisbon like I wanted them to do?
amused,
Scofflaw
I would say that due to the common rules of majoritarian democracy, your failed Yes vote has been respected but discarded. However the No vote should have been respected and upheld, which it was not.0 -
brianthebard wrote: »I would say that due to the common rules of majoritarian democracy, your failed Yes vote has been respected but discarded. However the No vote should have been respected and upheld, which it was not.
When you say "upheld", you mean the government should have taken the No as dictating their policy?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
1) I very much so doubt that will ever happen in Ireland so no need to worry. And I imagine if it did happen there would be a huge public backlash.1) The common attitude of 'If you haven't done anything wrong then there is no need to worry' is completely wrong. My privacy is a fundamental human right - tampering with it is an act of tyranny. No state has the right to put my DNA into a national computer database or force me to carry a national ID card so police can stop me at any time in order to produce it.
2) So by saying it's not as bad as it once was are you saying it is getting better ?2) The democratic deficit - OK, its not as bad as it once was, but should the democratically elected parliament not be completely sovereign? The Dáil may be a rubber stamp but that’s because we have stupid voters who keep voting in the crooks and liars of Fianna Fáil. A government in majority effectively controls its house. Simple as that. The EU parliament is too diverse for party government to work effectively, so thats why it holds bigger debate. In other words, we still have the power to pick and choose our leaders, and any change in our constitution is protected by our right to vote.
Also if the Irish people are Stupid Voters who don't know what’s good for them doesn’t that justify a second referendum ? As for the Parliament being to diverse isn't that why the parties join up into groups ?
3) Are you Comparing the European Union to Mugabe's Zimbabwe, are you saying it could potentially become that if the Lisbon Treaty is passed ?3) Go easy on the Lols and think about what I'm saying. It is possible for a state to be partly democratic and partly authoritarian. Mugabe is known as the democratic dictator because he held elections, allowed some sort of constitutional opposition, but made sure to withhold food and beat the hell out of people who would vote against him!
4) Never mind point 3) you've already answered that.4) About the EU being undemocratic, no, its not, yet. But Hitler wasn't undemocratic until he seized complete power for himself. Citizens have an obligation to protect and maintain transparent, democratic institutions. Lisbon would have perpetuated the current system of illiberal and undemocratic institutions. 'The Commission' even sounds like something written by Orwell.
5) A Euro wide Database would be allot larger and less mobile than the British one.5) As for not needing to alarm over national databases, the UK recently lost two in a year.
6) It's generally considered good etiquette to back up your "Facts" with sources to prove they are "Facts" and not Opinions (Big Difference), P.S it is also good etiquette to refrain from telling you opposer to "Go To Hell" as you politely called it.6) Sources? Go to hell, I'm not writing essays for you. Everything I've said can be checked by even a rudimentary knowledge of the facts or a two second internet search. If I'm wrong about something pull me up on it, don't expect me to spoonfeed you.0
Advertisement