why are we voting again

conchubhar1

i question anyone to give one proper democratic reason why we are being asked to vote on a done issue.

really, the irish people voted no.
that should be the end of it.

USE

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i question anyone to give one proper democratic reason why we are being asked to vote on a done issue.

Because you are voting for the new conditions of the treaty. You are not voting for the same thing twice.

I would also add that the decision made with major argument "I don't know what the treaty says" should not be the one that shapes the future of half a billion EU citizens.

Rb

USE wrote: »

Because you are voting for the new conditions of the treaty. You are not voting for the same thing twice.

I would also add that the decision made with major argument "I don't know what the treaty says" should not be the one that shapes the future of half a billion EU citizens.

So those who haven't read or understand the treaty, yet are voting in favour of it because their parents are/told them to or the party they are in favour of are encouraging them to, should be the ones shaping the future of half a billion EU citizens?

And let us not, for a moment, pretend the above are in a minority. I would say that the numbers are even in terms of "blind voters" on the Lisbon Treaty yet these people make up the majority of both sides, at the same time. Should these people, be it pro or against the treaty, be those who should be shaping Europes future?

However, I cannot blame those who err on the side of caution as opposed to voting in favour for something they know nothing about, I cannot blame them for a second and would go so far as to say it's the "safe" thing to do.

To be honest, the only real answer is a pan-european referendum on the treaty and let the entire EU decide as a whole, and we can all then live with the consequences, as opposed to our Island making the choice and everyone else having to deal with it, regardless of the result.

ionix5891

lets have a vote on whether to have another vote

conchubhar1

it would get rejected ^

molloyjh

Ah here conchubar, how many threads do you need to have this discussion on?

Mods - we're having this discussion on 2 other threads with the same individual, and it's on a topic that's been discussed on at least several dozen others. Do we really need another thread on it?

conchubhar1

plus add party politics vote

most people will vote it as labour, gael and fáil are for it - not for it's merits

conchubhar1

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah here conchubar, how many threads do you need to have this discussion on?

one, this one.

the other thread went off in that direction. off topic

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it would get rejected ^

how would you know without a "democratic" vote :pac:

you keep failing to answer my question (in yet another thread)

why and what gives you and Libertas and SF the right to prevent Irish people exercising their democratic and constitutional rights?

USE

Rb wrote: »

So those who haven't read or understand the treaty, yet are voting in favour of it <...>

The analysis held a few months after the referendum showed that 42% of those who have voted "no" said that their arguments for doing this were lack of knowledge about the treaty. 46% who haven't voted at all, said the same.

Lack of knowledge about the treaty was the major argument for voting "no".

conchubhar1

again they did, months ago

and voiced a no


this is the last time i will answer that question

conchubhar1

lack of a knowledge about candidates was also a factor in the elections on fireday

doesnt take awat from the results

molloyjh

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i question anyone to give one proper democratic reason why we are being asked to vote on a done issue.

really, the irish people voted no.
that should be the end of it.

Alright so. Because there are additional clauses regarding those areas that we highlighted as issues 12 months ago being introduced, therefore fundamentally altering the Treaty from an Irish perspective.

Pretty good reason if I do say so myself.:P

ShooterSF

ionix5891 wrote: »

how would you know without a "democratic" vote :pac:

you keep failing to answer my question (in yet another thread)

why and what gives you and Libertas and SF the right to prevent Irish people exercising their democratic and constitutional rights?

Sure let's have a referendum on every topic so.
Said the no to lisbon voter to the yes to lisbon one :pac:

USE

conchubhar1, if you want to discuss don't flood the topics with you serial one-sentence posts.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

lack of a knowledge about candidates was also a factor in the elections on fireday

doesnt take awat from the results

Haven't you mentioned only a part of my first post in this thread?

That is clear that you have new conditions and therefore there is a logical reason to ask you to vote again. The "lack of knowledge" was a moral argument, but not the one of law.

Thread closed.

Rb

USE wrote: »

The analysis held a few months after the referendum showed that 42% of those who have voted "no" said that their arguments for doing this were lack of knowledge about the treaty. 46% who haven't voted at all, said the same.

Lack of knowledge about the treaty was the major argument for voting "no".

Absolutely, I don't deny yet there are countless amounts of people who voted No for good reasons after studying the text and there are a few on this site who made excellent arguments against the treaty at the time.

I didn't deny that, what I said was I'd imagine the numbers are equal on both sides and could you not agree that voting in favour of something you have no idea about, is a lot more "risky" than voting against it?

Also, you do have to take into consideration those who voted yes, despite knowing nothing about it, yet won't admit to it as in reality it does seem like a bit of a silly notion.

I'm tired of seeing people claiming there was only a No out of ignorance or protest votes yet failing to acknowledge that ignorance would have made up a large chunk of the yes vote, if not an equal or greater amount due to party/peer/family pressure.

PopeBuckfastXVI

USE wrote: »

The analysis held a few months after the referendum showed that 42% of those who have voted "no" said that their arguments for doing this were lack of knowledge about the treaty. 46% who haven't voted at all, said the same.

Lack of knowledge about the treaty was the major argument for voting "no".

Indeed, people have the right to make an informed decision, if that's what they want, which opinion polls suggest they do.

That's why we *should* have a second vote.

However we are having one because of a combination of the above, and the fact that FF want to have one, and it is within their rights as the Government party to follow through on that desire.

Now you can argue the toss back and forth all day, but the fact of the matter is the Government has the right to have a second one.

You have the right to dislike that, and you don't have to vote 'yes' at the second asking, and you don't have to vote for FF at the next election.

That's how our particular wonderful little constitutional democracy works.

Dyr

USE wrote: »

The analysis held a few months after the referendum showed that 42% of those who have voted "no" said that their arguments for doing this were lack of knowledge about the treaty. 46% who haven't voted at all, said the same.

Lack of knowledge about the treaty was the major argument for voting "no".

When did analysis carried out on behalf of the EU take precedence over a democratic vote?

conchubhar1

exactly we voted no

that suprisingly enough means no


personal attacks on me wont get answers

molloyjh

Rb wrote: »

Absolutely, I don't deny yet there are countless amounts of people who voted No for good reasons after studying the text and there are a few on this site who made excellent arguments against the treaty at the time.

I didn't deny that, what I said was I'd imagine the numbers are equal on both sides and could you not agree that voting in favour of something you have no idea about, is a lot more "risky" than voting against it?

Also, you do have to take into consideration those who voted yes, despite knowing nothing about it, yet won't admit to it as in reality it does seem like a bit of a silly notion.

I'm tired of seeing people claiming there was only a No out of ignorance or protest votes yet failing to acknowledge that ignorance would have made up a large chunk of the yes vote, if not an equal or greater amount due to party/peer/family pressure.

I'm in agreement somewhat with Rb here. The levels of ignorance all round was hardly going to make the referendum itself a particularly resounding one regardless of the result. People are doing a lot of shouting about democracy at the moment, but the big issue here I think is education. Democracy can't be expected to work properly with an ill-informed electorate. If 100% of the people voted that black was white then should we respect that result or should we look into ensuring the people are properly equipped to return a reliable and sensible result?

USE

It is really strange how people does not listen for those parts of my posts what are not comfortable for them and responds only on those parts that they think they can to argue.

New conditions means new decisions therefore means new vote.

That is it, short and simple answer.

The rest is for the childrengarden where I won't participate.

ionix5891

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sure let's have a referendum on every topic so.
Said the no to lisbon voter to the yes to lisbon one :pac:

sure lets have a referendum every week on the thousands of issues debated by our elected representatives

it will only be democratic

see how absurd it sounds? we especially would have alot of fun with the budgets

ShooterSF

ionix5891 wrote: »

sure lets have a referendum every week on the thousands of issues debated by our elected representatives

it will only be democratic

see how absurd it sounds? we especially would have alot of fun with the budgets

Anything less would "prevent Irish people exercising their democratic and constitutional rights."
:D

Rb

USE wrote: »

It is really strange how people does not listen for those parts of my posts what are not comfortable for them and responds only on those parts that they think they can to argue.

New conditions means new decisions therefore means new vote.

That is it, short and simple answer.

The rest is for the childrengarden where I won't participate.

Funny how you selectively ignored any points I made that you appear to disagree with and went on to post some stats from the "EU" which served to only "back up" the points you've already tried to make.

I think if you're going to take such an attitude, you might want to find another site to post on.

conchubhar1

no one is saying we have a vote on everything

but not everything changes how the eu operates does it?

ionix5891

ShooterSF wrote: »

Anything less would "prevent Irish people exercising their democratic and constitutional rights."
:D

alot of the politics forum members would have no issues with voting every week and participating in a direct democracy as we are aware of the issues and the lies

unfortunately without some sort of efficient electronic voting system this would be too expensive and time consuming for the majority of the populace (what was turnout at last weeks elections?) so you ll end up with a small group of people making decisions, and that's not really "democratic" eh?

that's why we elect representatives that share our views, but it seems some people have trouble telling apart the different styles of democracy :cool:

Rb

Rb wrote: »

I'm tired of seeing people claiming there was only a No out of ignorance or protest votes yet failing to acknowledge that ignorance would have made up a large chunk of the yes vote, if not an equal or greater amount due to party/peer/family pressure.

I prefer to see it as people having the right to say yes or no in absolute terms and to ignore anybody else in coming to that decision.

As a yes voter,I'm still unconvinced by the No campaign of the last referendum.
If something persuasive comes up in the next one,I'll have a look at it.

conchubhar1

not everyone agress with all aims and outlooks of their chosen candidate

and on such a changing piece of legislation, a vote to the people was needed

granted and rejected.

end of story - well it should be....

molloyjh

conchubhar1 wrote: »

not everyone agress with all aims and outlooks of their chosen candidate

and on such a changing piece of legislation, a vote to the people was needed

granted and rejected.

end of story - well it should be....

So FF should stay in power indefinitely then? After all a vote was needed, granted and FF elected. End of story - well it should be....apparently....

conchubhar1

no

a parliment and a referendum are different


this is not a politics 101 class - and i know you know the difference



the tds are elected every 5 years - a referendum is not a recurring item. especially not a year after the first one

dvpower

conchubhar1 wrote: »

again they did, months ago

and voiced a no


this is the last time i will answer that question

The most recent opinion polls suggest the people may have now changed their minds.