why are we voting again

PopeBuckfastXVI

TimHanley wrote: »

I voted NO the first time and I'll continue to vote No.

So it's not impossible to keep voting 'no' then? So you might say that the Government can ask the question as many times as they like, and no-one needs to vote 'yes' without having actually changed their minds?

TimHanley

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So it's not impossible to keep voting 'no' then? So you might say that the Government can ask the question as many times as they like, and no-one needs to vote 'yes' without having actually changed their minds?

Plato would be proud of such profound logic.

I say no more EU integration.

PopeBuckfastXVI

TimHanley wrote: »

I don't want to see further EU integration, infact I would perfer if we pulled out of the EU altogeather.

Ah, I understand where you're coming from!

Sorry I didn't assume that would be your attitude, as I keep getting told that 'no to Lisbon does not mean no to the EU'.

Well that being the case, there's really very little I'll be able to say to persuade you.

I do hope that other Eurosceptics are as honest as you are when setting out their stalls in the second vote.

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So it's not impossible to keep voting 'no' then? So you might say that the Government can ask the question as many times as they like, and no-one needs to vote 'yes' without having actually changed their minds?

That's a silly argument. "you won the last time so why don't you just keep voting?" Is that really how you think referenda should work?

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

That's a silly argument. "you won the last time so why don't you just keep voting?" Is that really how you think referenda should work?

I'm saying that if asked again there's nothing to stop you telling the government where to go, i.e. voting 'no' again.

Then turf them out at the next election.

Something stopping you?

TimHanley

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm saying that if asked again there's nothing to stop you telling the government where to go, i.e. voting 'no' again.

Then turf them out at the next election.

Something stopping you?

You are letting yourself down with posts like this.

PopeBuckfastXVI

TimHanley wrote: »

You are letting yourself down with posts like this.

How so?

You can vote 'no' in the next referendum, correct?

You can vote against Fianna Fáil in the next election, correct?

TimHanley

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

How so?

You can vote 'no' in the next referendum, correct?

You can vote against Fianna Fáil in the next election, correct?

Yes, however these people should do as the people tell them. They have been told what the people think.

PopeBuckfastXVI

TimHanley wrote: »

Yes, however these people should do as the people tell them. They have been told what the people think.

Well I suggest you start a campaign to change the constitution to stop them.

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm saying that if asked again there's nothing to stop you telling the government where to go, i.e. voting 'no' again.

Then turf them out at the next election.

Something stopping you?

You sound like a petulant child.
Besides that, all the main parties are pro-treaty so in this case 'turfing' out the government will have little or no effect.

TimHanley

brianthebard wrote: »

Besides that, all the main parties are pro-treaty so in this case 'turfing' out the government will have little or no effect.

True. And they say the people are stupid. Well every major political party, all media and all business organisations pushed for a YES vote. And yet the people still voted NO. Shows the total distaste people have for the EU.

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

personal insult
Besides that, all the main parties are pro-treaty so in this case 'turfing' out the government will have little or no effect.

Vote for Sinn Féin, lobby Labour or Fine Gael to let them know that the electorate don't wish any more referenda and they'd do well on a platform of not having any more. Set up your own political party.

I mean we're in the world of a hypothetical 3rd and many subsequent referenda at this stage right? I'd imagine any party promising to stop this outrageous waste of time would do very well.

Also as I've said previously you could start a campaign to have the constitution changed to prevent reruns of referenda within a fixed time period. If your view is widely shared you should have no problem getting it passed.

PopeBuckfastXVI

TimHanley wrote: »

Shows the total distaste people have for the EU.

Some 'no' voters on this forum have been at pains to point out that 'no to lisbon' does not mean 'no to the EU'.

gizmo555

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So it's not impossible to keep voting 'no' then? So you might say that the Government can ask the question as many times as they like, and no-one needs to vote 'yes' without having actually changed their minds?

This may bite the government in the ass - I don't have a problem in principle with a 2nd referendum (I'll just vote no again!), but many others do:

The vast majority of those opposed to the treaty say that it remained too complex and that there was a huge lack of information about what it means.

Many opposed also said they deeply resented being asked to vote a second time on the referendum.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elections/massive-54-per-cent-now-plan-on-voting-yes-to-lisbon-treaty-1764851.html

http://www.lansdownemarketresearch.ie/pdf/RTE%20Lansdowne%20Exit%20Polls%205th%20June%202009.pdf

Notwithstanding the majority support for the treaty in the Indo's poll, in a real referendum situation, what will be the stronger motivator to actually get out and vote a second time: general feelings of goodwill towards the EU, or "deep resentment" at having the first referendum result disregarded?

PopeBuckfastXVI

gizmo555 wrote: »

This may bite the government in the ass - I don't have a problem in principle with a 2nd referendum (I'll just vote no again!), but many others do:

The vast majority of those opposed to the treaty say that it remained too complex and that there was a huge lack of information about what it means.

Many opposed also said they deeply resented being asked to vote a second time on the referendum.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elections/massive-54-per-cent-now-plan-on-voting-yes-to-lisbon-treaty-1764851.html

http://www.lansdownemarketresearch.ie/pdf/RTE%20Lansdowne%20Exit%20Polls%205th%20June%202009.pdf

Notwithstanding the majority support for the treaty in the Indo's poll, in a real referendum situation, what will be the stronger motivator to actually get out and vote a second time: general feelings of goodwill towards the EU, or "deep resentment" at having the first referendum result disregarded?

Well in a few months we'll be able to step out of the hypothetical and into the reality on that one!

P. Breathnach

TimHanley wrote: »

Yes, however these people should do as the people tell them. They have been told what the people think.

You are letting yourself down with posts like this.

At the last three general election "the people" thought that FF should play the lead role in government. In the tradition of winning sports trophies, should they now be able to claim that three consecutive wins entitles the prize forever?

gizmo555

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well in a few months we'll be able to step out of the hypothetical and into the reality on that one!

Actually, the Indo story is rather simplistic in saying "The vast majority of those opposed to the treaty say that it remained too complex and that there was a huge lack of information about what it means."

28% of those polled said they would vote no and their reasons broke down as follows:

Lack of information,knowledge, understanding, treaty too complex: 31%
We should not be asked a second time / shouldn’t be a second referendum: 23%
Not convinced by Yes arguments: 15%
No confidence in Government: 15%
Lisbon treaty a bad deal, bad for Ireland: 14%
Loss of / diminution of Irish Neutrality: 12%
Loss of power, domination by large countries, dictated to by other countries: 12%
Loss of / threat to Ireland’s independence: 9%
Loss of Irish Commissioner on a rotating basis: 9%
I trust those who say we should vote in favour against: 2%
Other: 7%

So, 6.4% (28% x 23%) of voters feel there shouldn't be a 2nd referendum and intend to vote "No" accordingly - that's easily enough to swing it in a tight contest.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

You sound like a petulant child.

Brian, you know better than to post that kind of thing.

moderately,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

TimHanley wrote: »

Yes, however these people should do as the people tell them. They have been told what the people think.

Yes and they took that feedback to Brussles to see what could be done.

gizmo555 wrote: »

This may bite the government in the ass - I don't have a problem in principle with a 2nd referendum (I'll just vote no again!), but many others do:

The vast majority of those opposed to the treaty say that it remained too complex and that there was a huge lack of information about what it means.

Many opposed also said they deeply resented being asked to vote a second time on the referendum.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elections/massive-54-per-cent-now-plan-on-voting-yes-to-lisbon-treaty-1764851.html

http://www.lansdownemarketresearch.ie/pdf/RTE%20Lansdowne%20Exit%20Polls%205th%20June%202009.pdf

Notwithstanding the majority support for the treaty in the Indo's poll, in a real referendum situation, what will be the stronger motivator to actually get out and vote a second time: general feelings of goodwill towards the EU, or "deep resentment" at having the first referendum result disregarded?

As I've said before I don't think there should be another referendum until the electorate have been educated on the Treaty. Doesn't look good though at this stage.....

PopeBuckfastXVI

gizmo555 wrote: »

So, 6.4% (28% x 23%) of voters feel there shouldn't be a 2nd referendum and intend to vote "No" accordingly - that's easily enough to swing it in a tight contest.

Very much so, I wouldn't discount the evidence from this very forum though, of people who originally voted no making massive noise about how unfair a 2nd referendum is. I wonder what proportion of that 6.4% would ever have voted yes.

gizmo555

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I wonder what proportion of that 6.4% would ever have voted yes.

The exact number is of course unknowable - there are some though:

Madam, - I voted Yes. The people, however, voted No.
Unlike the Government, I will be respecting their position. - Yours, etc,

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/1217/1229035810507.html

Also, what way they voted first time around doesn't alter the facts that 6.4% of the electorate could easily be enough to swing it, and these people cannot be persuaded by more information, reassurances on tax & neutrality, etc.

PopeBuckfastXVI

gizmo555 wrote: »

The exact number is of course unknowable - there are some though:

Madam, - I voted Yes. The people, however, voted No.
Unlike the Government, I will be respecting their position. - Yours, etc,

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/1217/1229035810507.html

I don't doubt there are some.

I personally wouldn't be comfortable with voting 'on behalf' of someone else. What if, and it's a big if, I know, but what if a huge majority of those who voted no, changed their minds, but at the same time a huge majority of people who voted yes decided to vote no 'on behalf' of those no voters from the first referendum.

We end up with something defeated, that in reality, a vast majority support.

I think the safest thing to do is not guess at the positions of others and mimic them, but to use your vote to express your own opinion.

gizmo555 wrote: »

Also, what way they voted first time around doesn't alter the facts that 6.4% of the electorate could easily be enough to swing it, and these people cannot be persuaded by more information, reassurances on tax & neutrality, etc.

No, they are only enough to swing it if they aren't core 'no' voters already.

Scofflaw

gizmo555 wrote: »

The exact number is of course unknowable - there are some though:

Madam, - I voted Yes. The people, however, voted No.
Unlike the Government, I will be respecting their position. - Yours, etc,

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/1217/1229035810507.html

Also, what way they voted first time around doesn't alter the facts that 6.4% of the electorate could easily be enough to swing it, and these people cannot be persuaded by more information, reassurances on tax & neutrality, etc.

They are outnumbered by the 8.68% who don't feel they know enough to vote Yes...yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gizmo555

Scofflaw wrote: »

They are outnumbered by the 8.68% who don't feel they know enough to vote Yes...yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I believe this is a more significant block of opinion for a number of reasons:

(1) They are annoyed at a 2nd referendum being called, and as a result may be more motivated than average to vote and I would suggest certainly more likely to vote than people who feel they don't yet have enough information.

(2) As I've already said, in a tight vote this block could easily be crucial.

(3) Lastly and most importantly, their problem is with the fact of a 2nd referendum being called at all, so they are not amenable to persuasion on the merits or demerits of the treaty.

No doubt we will see a similar exit poll when the referendum takes place, but if it does turn out that this block decides the outcome, it ought to make future governments more cautious about re-running referenda on the same question.

Scofflaw

gizmo555 wrote: »

I believe this is a more significant block of opinion for a number of reasons:

(1) They are annoyed at a 2nd referendum being called, and as a result may be more motivated than average to vote and I would suggest certainly more likely to vote than people who feel they don't yet have enough information.

(2) As I've already said, in a tight vote this block could easily be crucial.

(3) Lastly and most importantly, their problem is with the fact of a 2nd referendum being called at all, so they are not amenable to persuasion on the merits or demerits of the treaty.

No doubt we will see a similar exit poll when the referendum takes place, but if it does turn out that this block decides the outcome, it ought to make future governments more cautious about re-running referenda on the same question.

I actually think that the government is extremely cautious about running this one. There's every sign that they won't go ahead unless they get the necessary guarantees from the other member states - and if they do get the necessary guarantees, then we're not voting on the same question any more, because the 'guarantees' are intended to be protocols which will amend the same treaties Lisbon amends - we won't be voting on Lisbon alone, but 'Lisbon Plus'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

i for one will be waiting till these additions come to light
''lisbon plus'' may be worth implementing

but - i extremely doubt that if it is passed there will be a lisbon 3

also we were told this is the best deal for ireland and for europe - yet look at what we are touted to get as extras if it is passed...

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

also we were told this is the best deal for ireland and for europe - yet look at what we are touted to get as extras if it is passed...

I think having 27 commissioners is actually a worse deal, as it's a waste of money and is a case of jobs for the boys.

I believe the guarantees on things like neutrality, abortion and taxes are totally unnecessary, as they are already implicit in, or untouched by, Lisbon, but whatever, if people need it in black and white fair enough.

Still, I can live with the 27 commissioners thing if it means Lisbon goes through and we can commit the EU to important stuff like fighting global warming, and getting us cheaper electricity.

conchubhar1

things have to be in black and white - and no harm is done
i will argue the commissioners comment - less said about that the better as that is nonesense

otherwise it can be taking and interpreted and if a court agrees to it, it is deemed legal.

this is what happened to the us, im not sure if this appies to the eu as law is surely not my strongpoint.

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i for one will be waiting till these additions come to light
''lisbon plus'' may be worth implementing

but - i extremely doubt that if it is passed there will be a lisbon 3

also we were told this is the best deal for ireland and for europe - yet look at what we are touted to get as extras if it is passed...

There can't be a Lisbon 3 if its passed. We can't say after Lisbon 2, ok we agree and then 18 months later say "wait a minute, we didn't really mean that". It's different to a No vote in that respect because we haven't changed anything by voting No. When you think about it, it would be unworkable if countries pass Treaties and then renege on them.

On the assurances we'll need to see them, but it appears it may just be keeping the Commissioner (which is ridiculous) and some more assurances on Neutrality and Abortion which we already have in Nice. The only thing actually new maybe a guarentee on Direct Taxes and the Commissioner issue.

K-9

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I think having 27 commissioners is actually a worse deal, as it's a waste of money and is a case of jobs for the boys.

I believe the guarantees on things like neutrality, abortion and taxes are totally unnecessary, as they are already implicit in, or untouched by, Lisbon, but whatever, if people need it in black and white fair enough.

Still, I can live with the 27 commissioners thing if it means Lisbon goes through and we can commit the EU to important stuff like fighting global warming, and getting us cheaper electricity.

Thing is if it's limited to 27, when Croatia joins and if/as more join we will eventually lose our Commissioner at some stage!

conchubhar1

so future generations are bound by past treaties and agreements?
the uk for example cant have a referendum to leave the eu?

anything that is added to this will be a good thing - of the items mentioned above
but we will hve to wait and see

PopeBuckfastXVI

K-9 wrote: »

Thing is if it's limited to 27, when Croatia joins and if/as more join we will eventually lose our Commissioner at some stage!

Sorry, I should say 1 commissioner per country.

And yes, it gets more wasteful every time a new country joins.

Conchubar,

Yes you absolutely can break out of the Lisbon treaty, but it involves leaving the EU.

Alternatively you negotiate a brand new treaty which rolls back the changes Lisbon has made and agree that with the other member states.

So while it's correct to say you can't have a straight up 'we roll back Lisbon on our own' referendum, you can still remove Ireland from it's provisions in either of those ways.

conchubhar1

but to have a commissioner, no matter how wasteful can not be worse than not having one

having one now is better than not having one - no matter in the future what may happen

P. Breathnach

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but to have a commissioner, no matter how wasteful can not be worse than not having one

having one now is better than not having one - no matter in the future what may happen

Why?

conchubhar1

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why?

ok - if you insist on that

why not? (it is obvious why it is better to have one)

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why not? (it is obvious why it is better to have one)

It's really not obvious conchubhar, given the role and responsibilities of an EU commissioner.

Edit:

Here look, because I'm such a kind hearted soul, I've gone and got the text of the Oath which each commissioner has taken.

I'm going to bold the bits which make it non-obvious why it's better for any particular member state to appoint a commissioner:

Solemn undertaking before the Court of Justice by the President and the new members of the European Commission wrote:

Having been appointed as a member of the Commission of the European Communities by the Council of the European Union, after the vote of approval by the European Parliament, I do solemnly undertake: to be completely independent in the performance of my duties, in the general interest of the Communities; in the performance of these duties, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties.

I formally note the undertaking of each Member State to respect this principle and not to seek to influence members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.

I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligations arising therefrom and in particular, the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance after I have ceased to hold office of certain appointments or benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Commissioner

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

so future generations are bound by past treaties and agreements?
the uk for example cant have a referendum to leave the eu?

anything that is added to this will be a good thing - of the items mentioned above
but we will hve to wait and see

If we pass Lisbon I believe there is a defined mechanism to leave, it's debatable if that's the current scenario, though I believe Greenland did leave the EC.

conchubhar1

but in practice buckfast? yes thats what they swea by and im not sating they are lieing but to say they dont in some way have irelands interest at heart wouldnt be true

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but in practice buckfast? yes thats what they swea by and im not sating they are lieing but to say they dont in some way have irelands interest at heart wouldnt be true

It very much would be true, given that any other country could have them removed from office at the slightest hint of favouritism.

Remember they derive their authority from the European Parliament and the Council, not from the Government that nominated them.

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but in practice buckfast? yes thats what they swea by and im not sating they are lieing but to say they dont in some way have irelands interest at heart wouldnt be true

I don't know about that at all. In the early '90's, Ray McSharry was vilified in Ireland for pushing through much-needed reforms in CAP when he was Commissioner for Agriculture (whatever about CAP now, it was an unmitigated disaster at that time).

And in the '70's, Patrick Hillary is credited with pushing through reforms in equal rights for women when he was Commissioner for Social Affairs (or whatever it was called at the time), reportedly to the consternation of the Government of the time; let's face it, the '70's weren't exactly a time of social equality for women in Ireland.

And what has Charlie McCreevy ever done that indicates he's looking out for Ireland's interests?

One thing that particularly annoys me about the Commissioner issue is that the people who say we need 'our' Commissioner are usually the first people to give out about the amount of legislation from the EU (that's not directed at you specifically, conchubhar1). The one thing that would make me switch to the No side is the fact that the Commission will remain bloated in Lisbon 2.

conchubhar1

they wont be outright and obvious about it

i still maintain having a commissioner from each country is not bad for any country

conchubhar1

yes
but having a commissioner is still not a bad thing - the amunt of eu laws is irrelevant

how they affect countries and whether they are good or bad is what is important

Hitman Actual

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes
but having a commissioner is still not a bad thing - the amunt of eu laws is irrelevant

how they affect countries and whether they are good or bad is what is important

The amount of EU laws does matter, although for me it's not the sovereignty issue that other posters have. Basically, more Commission-proposed legislation means more work for the Council(s) and parliament, more legislation committees required, or the same committees being over-worked, more time to get legislation passed, etc- this all leads to more cost and a greater potential for poor quality legislation. [Another point here is that more areas moving to co-decision in the Parliament isn't necessarily a good thing in Lisbon either.]

Honestly, the larger Commission is a disaster, imo. Ganley had some cheek to celebrate keeping 'our' Commissioner, while at the same time talking about the inefficient working of the EU.

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

they wont be outright and obvious about it

i still maintain having a commissioner from each country is not bad for any country

They won't do it, no matter what you think about human nature, or nods and winks.

Please use the correct terminology, a country doesn't 'have' a commissioner, they appoint one for approval by the council and parliament.

It's not 'bad' for a country to appoint a commissioner, it's also not 'good' for them at all.

It is, however, bad for everyone to have a bloated and wasteful commission of 27/28, many of whom, are sitting around getting fat salaries for doing what essentially amounts to a made up role, just so they have something to do.

Anyway, like I say, it's not a dealbreaker for me.

conchubhar1

quality over quantity

its the use and application of the laws that is most important

ganley had a lot of cheek in general....

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i still maintain having a commissioner from each country is not bad for any country

Do you think it's bad that there isn't a cabinet secretary from each state in the US government?

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you think it's bad that there isn't a cabinet secretary from each state in the US government?

That's coming uncomfortably close to the Irish view that a constituency "needs" a Minister. And that sort of view underpins the popular contention that Ireland "needs" a Commissioner. In both cases, it is in the expectation that the person will distort business to deliver something for the folks at home.

KINGVictor

I personally did not vote on the Lisbon treaty...but if I did I would have been inclined to vote NO.
My concern is the very undemocratic responce by Brussels and some european powers notably France and Germany towards the decision of the Irish.I recall a French minister going on air after the results were annouced and rained abuses on the Irish...talking about how the Irish were ungrateful and how the EU saved us from poverty and famine..TBH I thought that was very condesending.

The truth of the matter is ..it is stipulated in the EU constitution that if one country rejects the treaty..then the treaty is dead.After the results were announced most people assumed that the treaty was dead until Barroso,Sakorzy etc said it was an Irish problem and the Irish had to find a solution...how ironic!!!.Now lets hypothetically assume that it was the French or the Germans that held a referendum and voted No...we can be sure that the treaty would be dead.

This sort of flagrant disregard for democratic process is exactly why there is so much voter apathy in most EU countries when it comes to european elections... a lot of people can come on boards and justify the second vote for variety of reasons but the truth is Brussels as an institution do not respect Ireland when it comes to inner politics of the EU but neither do our own government...I seriously doubt if Poland or the Czech republic would have accepted such an insult.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

I personally did not vote on the Lisbon treaty...but if I did I would have been inclined to vote NO.
My concern is the very undemocratic responce by Brussels and some european powers notably France and Germany towards the decision of the Irish.I recall a French minister going on air after the results were annouced and rained abuses on the Irish...talking about how the Irish were ungrateful and how the EU saved us from poverty and famine..TBH I thought that was very condesending.

The truth of the matter is ..it is stipulated in the EU constitution that if one country rejects the treaty..then the treaty is dead.After the results were announced most people assumed that the treaty was dead until Barroso,Sakorzy etc said it was an Irish problem and the Irish had to find a solution...how ironic!!!.Now lets hypothetically assume that it was the French or the Germans that held a referendum and voted No...we can be sure that the treaty would be dead.

This sort of flagrant disregard for democratic process is exactly why there is so much voter apathy in most EU countries when it comes to european elections... a lot of people can come on boards and justify the second vote for variety of reasons but the truth is Brussels as an institution do not respect Ireland when it comes to inner politics of the EU but neither do our own government...I seriously doubt if Poland or the Czech republic would have accepted such an insult.

Let's try once again to clarify something - the idea that "it is stipulated in the EU constitution that if one country rejects the treaty..then the treaty is dead" is entirely false.

What is stated is that if all partners have not ratified the treaty by the end of a stated period, then the matter will be further considered by the Council. There is no 'death notice' for a treaty except its voluntary abandonment.

I also have to say I'm impressed that you would have voted No in Lisbon because of how you feel the No vote was treated after Lisbon - I do hope that you apply those powers of foretelling beneficially in other areas of your life. That we were mistreated by France, of all people, is of course particularly terrible, given that by all No campaign accounts, they were treated exactly the same.

cordially,
Scoflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

Scofflaw wrote: »

I also have to say I'm impressed that you would have voted No in Lisbon because of how you feel the No vote was treated after Lisbon - I do hope that you apply those powers of foretelling beneficially in other areas of your life. That we were mistreated by France, of all people, is of course particularly terrible, given that by all No campaign accounts, they were treated exactly the same.

cordially,
Scoflaw

Are you just being sarcastic there ?