lisbon in other countries

CiaranC

I propose we run general elections over and over until FF get less than 10%. Its clear that people are too stupid to be trusted to fill in the ballot paper correctly and keep electing crooks and morons.

How could denying people this opportunity to vote over and over be undemocratic? The more votes, the more democracy.

ionix5891

CiaranC wrote: »

I propose we run general elections over and over until FF get less than 10%. Its clear that people are too stupid to be trusted to fill in the ballot paper correctly and keep electing crooks and morons.

How could denying people this opportunity to vote over and over be undemocratic? The more votes, the more democracy.

i would be more than happy to go and vote tomorrow in a general election

so will a lot of people in order to get FF out of here

but im still waiting on @conchubhar1 to answer as to why should we not be allowed to vote in a democracy

conchubhar1

haha ^

i am looking forward to see how they handle that one

but of course the crooks sorry govt wont keep running that issue - because the irish people have spoken and must be respected

when it suits them

molloyjh

CiaranC wrote: »

I propose we run general elections over and over until FF get less than 10%. Its clear that people are too stupid to be trusted to fill in the ballot paper correctly and keep electing crooks and morons.

How could denying people this opportunity to vote over and over be undemocratic? The more votes, the more democracy.

Haha....a part of me almost agrees with that. Well in fact a good portion of me agrees with the crooks and morons bit. But at the end of the day they are quite different prospects in that a treaty is a very limited document with very limited abilities all of which are immediately obvious on reading. It is a far simpler issue that a GE would be given the multiple factors, both seen and unseen, that play a part.

CiaranC

ionix5891 wrote: »

i would be more than happy to go and vote tomorrow in a general election

so will a lot of people in order to get FF out of here

but im still waiting on @conchubhar1 to answer as to why should we not be allowed to vote in a democracy

Then if the general election doesnt go my way, would you be happy to keep going back again and again until it does? Or would you find that notion undemocratic and patently absurd?

conchubhar1

ionix5891 wrote: »

but im still waiting on @conchubhar1 to answer as to why should we not be allowed to vote in a democracy

one more time?
please?

i am growing accustmed to that question - can it be your sig?

ionix5891

CiaranC wrote: »

Then if the general election doesnt go my way, would you be happy to keep going back again and again until it does? Or would you find that notion undemocratic and patently absurd?

if the majority of the people vote for anti Lisbon representatives such as SF then yes having a referendum would be absurd

but yesterday we all overwhelmingly voted for pro Lisbon politicians with SF losing votes and Libertas doing diabolically

indicating that people are for Lisbon (otherwise why would they vote for anyone whos policies they disagree with it)

conchubhar1 wrote: »

one more time?
please?

i am growing accustmed to that question - can it be your sig?

im still waiting on answer, ive no issues answering questions but you do as you logic doesnt stack up

gizmo555

molloyjh wrote: »

Well not really given that we're talking about an indirectly elected President. Ours is directly elected (that is when there are actually people bothering to contest it!).

There's not all that much difference - you can't stand for election here unless you're nominated by 20 Oireachtas members or 4 local authorities (or a former or sitting president can run on his/her own nomination). This has been used in the past to allow the political parties to put forward an agreed candidate and avoid letting the people vote directly. We didn't get a vote on Mary McAleese's 2nd term for exactly this reason - she nominated herself and the parties didn't want the expense and hassle of an election campaign.

molloyjh wrote: »

How so? All I said was that the Parliament is more representative of the people in the Czech Republic, but that either way how they choose to go about ratification is their business and it's not our place to judge it.

Well at the risk of going round in further circles, saying that the Czech Parliament is "more representative of the people" is expressing a judgment on their ratification process and Klaus's decision not to sign the Lisbon Treaty. Klaus's decision is legal and constitutional - end of story.

conchubhar1

you are skweing things

labour are pro lisbon - but that was not de rossas main stand point
therefore to say people voted for him purely on libon is silly

conchubhar1

klaus has the right to deny it

so does the govt have the right to force a second vote


doesnt mean either is right? no

force eleven

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

*sigh*

Lisbon is not the Constitution....

'The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content.'

Valery Giscard D'Estaing 2007

Just sayin'.....

conchubhar1

pro lisbon mep elected - does not translate to people who voted for that mep are pro lisbon

that is absurd to assume

molloyjh

conchubhar1 wrote: »

pro lisbon mep elected - does not translate to people who voted for that mep are pro lisbon

that is absurd to assume

Probably, but it looks like no anti-Lisbon MEP (who isn't already anti-EU) is getting elected. And given that Lisbon is so pivotal to the future of the EU this is evidence to suggest that there is little support left behind the opponents of the Treaty. It may not be proof, but it is evidence.

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

pro lisbon mep elected - does not translate to people who voted for that mep are pro lisbon

that is absurd to assume

then why did they vote for something the don't support?

molloyjh wrote: »

Probably, but it looks like no anti-Lisbon MEP (who isn't already anti-EU) is getting elected. And given that Lisbon is so pivotal to the future of the EU this is evidence to suggest that there is little support left behind the opponents of the Treaty. It may not be proof, but it is evidence.

a proof or disproof would require a referendum due to our constitution, but seems @conchubhar1 above doesn't like the idea or accept the fact that alot of people voted predominantely NO as they had no idea about treaty (SF's vote NO if you dont kNOw campaign springs to mind) as evidenced in surveys of said people

.

conchubhar1

candidates have more issues than the lisbon treaty - so they didnt vote on the lisbon treaty they voted on a candidate

the people spoke and said no. shift to meps who are pro lisbon is not a show that people now believe we should have ratified it

fianna fáil, gael and labour made up the vast majority before - why did people not then see that people were behing the pro camp?

because people voted no in the rederendum - it was there to deal wit that issue and that alone


again we had a rerendum - that should be the end of story

molloyjh

ionix5891 wrote: »

SF's vote NO if you dont kNOw campaign springs to mind

Yeah that was pricelss. It wasn't "If you don't know log onto the following site/read the following documentation and educate yourself", instead it was "If you don't know maintain that level of ignorance because we need it to get what we want".

conchubhar1

they never said dont read up on the treaty

but in anything that brings change i would advocate that if you dont know about the issue

a - read up on it
b - dont vote
c - vote no

basic stuff - i dont think anyone would advocate people would vote on something they havent read

no wait brian cowen springs to mind

molloyjh

conchubhar1 wrote: »

candidates have more issues than the lisbon treaty - so they didnt vote on the lisbon treaty they voted on a candidate

the people spoke and said no. shift to meps who are pro lisbon is not a show that people now believe we should have ratified it

fianna fáil, gael and labour made up the vast majority before - why did people not then see that people were behing the pro camp?

because people voted no in the rederendum - it was there to deal wit that issue and that alone


again we had a rerendum - that should be the end of story

But given that Lisbon is so crucial to Europe and such a big issue, opposition to it should have impacted the result of the European election. It didn't. At all. 2 of the 3 French Libertas candidates were existing MEPs who lost their seats. None of the Libertas crowd look like they are getting in here and seem to have gotten only 4-5% of the total vote in the country.

The referendum dealt with Lisbon, the EU dealt with the feedback we gave them with the added declarations and now we will be asked if we think those declarations dealt with our concerns properly.

So in essence, and I'll make this nice and big for you given that you've missed/ignored it everywhere else:

IT IS NOT THE SAME THING

We had problems with it, they were addressed. In theory we should now be happy with it. And so we will be asked if we are. If anything this is a great example of just how fair and decent the whole thing was. After all the EU listened to less that 1% of its population and took on board our complaints and actuallt listened to them and dealt with them. I have no idea what your issue with it is.....

Hitman Actual

gizmo555 wrote: »

Sorry, I'm a bit puzzled by this. Why is it undemocratic when President Klaus declines to sign in exercise of the constitutional powers conferred on him by the Czech people when they elected him, but not undemocratic when President Sarkozy declines to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

It was something of a throw-away comment tbh. My point is that, for all the talk about democracy in the EU, you could have just one person out of 500 million stopping the Treaty, especially after it was approved in both houses of the Czech government. Hardly democracy in action.

Regarding Sarkozy, the French knew before they elected him that he wasn't going to hold a referendum on Lisbon. And when you say he 'declines' to hold one, who is asking for one? I don't see much clamour in the streets for one.

gizmo555

Hitman Actual wrote: »

It was something of a throw-away comment tbh. My point is that, for all the talk about democracy in the EU, you could have just one person out of 500 million stopping the Treaty, especially after it was approved in both houses of the Czech government. Hardly democracy in action.

It's democracy Czech-style in action. As I've already said, if the Czech constitution didn't envisage parliament and the president ever disagreeing, there would have been no point giving the president this power.

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Regarding Sarkozy, the French knew before they elected him that he wasn't going to hold a referendum on Lisbon.

All the major parties here are in favour of Lisbon, yet we're still able to distinguish between voting for a political party in a general election and voting against a proposition that that party favours in a referendum

Hitman Actual wrote: »

And when you say he 'declines' to hold one, who is asking for one? I don't see much clamour in the streets for one.

Is there much clamour in the streets of Prague at Klaus's refusal to sign the treaty?

conchubhar1

libertas does not speak for all or even a mjority of the people who voted no
that is france not ireland


the treaty is the same - if or when we ratify it we will get concessions

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

again we had a rerendum - that should be the end of story

So you believe that we should never, ever vote again on the same issue, even if the attitude in the country is clearly swinging towards a strong level of support of the Treaty? Shouldn't the people who are changing their minds get a chance to vote to that extent?

Also, there was clearly a high level of ignorance involved in the first vote (from both Yes and No voters, in case you think I'm singling out the No side). For a decision on such an important issue, as you've been calling it yourself, are you happy that our position is based on a lack of knowledge of the Treaty?

Dinner

conchubhar1 wrote: »

libertas does not speak for all or even a mjority of the people who voted no
that is france not ireland

When does your campaign to repeal Divorce start?

conchubhar1

not a year later...

i have stated above it can be revisited later - much like we have done with other referendums

conchubhar1

Dinner wrote: »

When does your campaign to repeal Divorce start?

miss the point much? that wasnt my point, my point is that it can be revisited

but if a vote is held now, and is rejected asking a year later is silly and un called for

conchubhar1

some voted on lack of knowledge

but they voted no, whereas cowen didnt read it and was advocating a yes


do you see the similarities - both are not good reasons to advocate a certain vote

Dinner

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but if a vote is held now, and is rejected asking a year later is silly and un called for

As I'm sure has already been mentioned, it is not silly and uncalled for if a large part of the population didn't know what they were voting on and just voted no to be on the safe side. It is only reasonable to put it to the people again but explain it better this time.

Does that not seem reasonable to you at all?

molloyjh

conchubhar1 wrote: »

miss the point much? that wasnt my point, my point is that it can be revisited

but if a vote is held now, and is rejected asking a year later is silly and un called for

Except for the fact that opinion in the country is changing and there are the additional declarations to consider. Not that either matter though eh.

And I never said the Treaty was different, I said "in essence" the Treaty is different. In other words there is enough in the declarations for it to be material to Ireland. It's amazing the impact one or two words can have here and there.

conchubhar1

they are changing - maybe

but why are they changing, i doubt many went back and read it this time

they are scared about the economy... libertas didnt represent the large number of voters of the no vote as is shown in them have one mep running in ireland

sinn féin has 10% or so of support in ireland - even if all of them voted no


ireland, as a whole made a decision to vote, or not and the outome was no.....

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

some voted on lack of knowledge

but they voted no, whereas cowen didnt read it and was advocating a yes


do you see the similarities - both are not good reasons to advocate a certain vote

Would you please give over with the references to Cowen not reading the Treaty? It's a silly argument. He may not have read it from cover to cover, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have an intimate understanding of it and its implications for Ireland. He was involved in the negotiations, ffs! And he also has legal staffers to advise him on the details of the Treaty. It's fair to assume he has a much better knowledge of the Treaty than most people in the country.