why are we voting again

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I honestly respect people's right to change opinion (though the flip-flopping issue yesterday stands). Like the Yes side if a second treaty passes though I will bitch and moan about it :pac:
What I am scared of though is voter apathy (Think that's the right word) where some people against Lisbon will look at this as the government will always get their way. If not this time then with Lisbon 3/4/5/Balboa. I fear these people will see their effort to vote as inevitably fruitless. I fear that with that in mind they won't bother. I fear that will skew the end result.

I appreciate what you're saying, but one could equally well apply that argument to the fashionability of a No in the first referendum. I don't understand people voting (or not voting) to be on the 'right side' of a result, but it certainly happens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rabble

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

This government has the legal right to hold the referendum.

If the will of the people is firm, why are you so scared of it?

And what if the will of the people is just to give FF a kicking irrespective of Lisbon? There were a lot of reasons people voted Yes or No last time -only a few of those reasons had to do with what was in the Lisbon Treaty.

Rb

This thread is going around in circles.

Scofflaw

Rb wrote: »

This thread is going around in circles.

It's about Lisbon - what else can be expected? Many of the arguments, after all, are just recycled from the Nice Treaty, so it's hardly as if the issues behind the arguments can actually be resolved - and as long as they're not resolved, the epi-discussion will keep going round in circles.


regards,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

I appreciate what you're saying, but one could equally well apply that argument to the fashionability of a No in the first referendum. I don't understand people voting (or not voting) to be on the 'right side' of a result, but it certainly happens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't get that either. Seems very odd considering the whole secret ballot thing. I guess it had a rebellious undertone which along with alot of non-issues came into play.
Do you suggest that Brian Cowen team up with Enda Kenny to make a remake of P-Diddly's "Vote or die". Surely that would make the yes side more fashionable?

O'Morris

molloyjh wrote:

So the fact that our concerns have been addressed is irrelevant is it? The fact that the country seems to be changing its mind is irrelevant is it?

I don't think the country is changing its mind about the Lisbon Treaty. I think people were content with the outcome of the last referendum. If the government hadn't decided to hold a second referendum I don't think you would have seen people banging down the doors of Leinster house to get the government to hold a second one.

If people have changed their minds about how they're going to vote a second time it's not because they've changed their minds about the treaty. It's because they've fallen for the scare-mongering about the economic and political consequences of a second no vote. There are a lot of people in this country, even intelligent people, who seem to genuinely believe that we will be punished if we don't vote the way the EUers want us to. The people who are pushing for a yes vote are deliberately playing on these fears.

If it was possible for us to vote anonymously as a nation then I've no doubt that the majority would continue to vote no. Unfortunately it's not possible for us to vote anonymously and so we'll just have to be good Europeans and vote in the same way our peasant ancestors voted back before the days of the secret ballot.

molloyjh wrote:

They themselves who are shouting about democracy and respecting the people are the only ones in the country that want to deny the people the right to vote and are refusing to respect the peoples right to change their minds.

What if it was the other way around and people had voted yes to the treaty but then changed their minds a few months later? Would you support a re-run of the referendum for the sake of those people?

molloyjh wrote:

It's blind hypocracy and I for one am tired of it.

We'll soon see who the hypocrites are when the result has been declared after the next Lisbon Referendum. If the result is a yes I think we can be fairly certain that the yes people won't be all that concerned about letting people change their minds.

evercloserunion

We had an interesting discussion about it overn on P.ie http://www.politics.ie/lisbon-treaty/39421-right-re-run-constitutionally-protected.html

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think the country is changing its mind about the Lisbon Treaty. I think people were content with the outcome of the last referendum. If the government hadn't decided to hold a second referendum I don't think you would have seen people banging down the doors of Leinster house to get the government to hold a second one.

An argument that mysteriously is not applied to the French and the Dutch.

O'Morris wrote: »

If people have changed their minds about how they're going to vote a second time it's not because they've changed their minds about the treaty. It's because they've fallen for the scare-mongering about the economic and political consequences of a second no vote. There are a lot of people in this country, even intelligent people, who seem to genuinely believe that we will be punished if we don't vote the way the EUers want us to. The people who are pushing for a yes vote are deliberately playing on these fears.

So the government will do exactly what failed to work last time? The claims that the government were engaged in intimidation and scaremongering reached such a hysterical pitch in the last referendum it's hardly possible to claim they'll be able to do more this time.

O'Morris wrote: »

If it was possible for us to vote anonymously as a nation then I've no doubt that the majority would continue to vote no. Unfortunately it's not possible for us to vote anonymously and so we'll just have to be good Europeans and vote in the same way our peasant ancestors voted back before the days of the secret ballot.

An interesting concept, but we'd have to keep the result secret from ourselves as well, you see. Love the implication that we're being treated like peasants, though.

O'Morris wrote: »

What if it was the other way around and people had voted yes to the treaty but then changed their minds a few months later? Would you support a re-run of the referendum for the sake of those people?

We'll soon see who the hypocrites are when the result has been declared after the next Lisbon Referendum. If the result is a yes I think we can be fairly certain that the yes people won't be all that concerned about letting people change their minds.

Personally, I'll say then what I say now - if you want another referendum, you'll need to get a government elected whose policy it is to hold one on leaving the EU, since that's what would be required. A referendum is something that happens when the government wants something that involves changing the Constitution. They don't just descend from the heavens onto a disinterested government who then passes them to us to see what we make of them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

O'Morris wrote: »

What if it was the other way around and people had voted yes to the treaty but then changed their minds a few months later? Would you support a re-run of the referendum for the sake of those people?

If the an anti-EU government were elected, and they had a policy of withdrawal from the EU, I certainly wouldn't support holding a referendum for same, but I'd accept it.

Also I wouldn't waste time moaning about whether having the referendum was fair or not, I'd get busy campaigning against it.

molloyjh

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think the country is changing its mind about the Lisbon Treaty. I think people were content with the outcome of the last referendum. If the government hadn't decided to hold a second referendum I don't think you would have seen people banging down the doors of Leinster house to get the government to hold a second one.

Maybe not, but a second referendum was always on the cards anyway so who knows. Either way as one of the negotiators of the Treaty, and given their Constitutional rights, the Government is allowed to hold a second referendum regardless. And you're just as free to vote No as the last time so what does it matter?

O'Morris wrote: »

If people have changed their minds about how they're going to vote a second time it's not because they've changed their minds about the treaty. It's because they've fallen for the scare-mongering about the economic and political consequences of a second no vote. There are a lot of people in this country, even intelligent people, who seem to genuinely believe that we will be punished if we don't vote the way the EUers want us to. The people who are pushing for a yes vote are deliberately playing on these fears.

Again quite possibly. However the No campaign preyed on plenty of fears also. And there are likely to be negatiove consequences if we don't ratify the Treaty anyway. To point that out, if its fact, is not really scare-mongering. But scare-mongering, like elites, has become such a buzz word these days hasn't it. It's hard not to use it when you have the opportunity eh!?

O'Morris wrote: »

If it was possible for us to vote anonymously as a nation then I've no doubt that the majority would continue to vote no. Unfortunately it's not possible for us to vote anonymously and so we'll just have to be good Europeans and vote in the same way our peasant ancestors voted back before the days of the secret ballot.

Well its nice you're so sure. I'm not though. Convince me.

O'Morris wrote: »

What if it was the other way around and people had voted yes to the treaty but then changed their minds a few months later? Would you support a re-run of the referendum for the sake of those people?

I've said all along that I would rather an educated No than an ignorant Yes. Personally I feel there is no point in holding another referendum unless we can be sure the electorate know what they are voting on. That's not because there's a potential for another No, but purely because how can we ever be sure the will of the people is being done if they don't understand the question!? Most people who change their minds do so due to ignorance. That doesn't mean they are any the wiser after changing their minds, but the point remains that education is the key to putting this to bed once and for all.

O'Morris wrote: »

We'll soon see who the hypocrites are when the result has been declared after the next Lisbon Referendum. If the result is a yes I think we can be fairly certain that the yes people won't be all that concerned about letting people change their minds.

What, like the No people now you mean? The ones who want to prevent people voting? You're happy with the result as is and don't want another referendum. Any Yes voter doing the same after a Yes vote is no different to you.

See above re my position. If ignorance again plays a factor, regardless of the result, then there should be another referendum, but only after the electorate has been educated. To be honest I don't think there should be a second until they are, but it's not looking likely now.

Dyr

molloyjh wrote: »

M

See above re my position. If ignorance again plays a factor, regardless of the result, then there should be another referendum, but only after the electorate has been educated. To be honest I don't think there should be a second until they are, but it's not looking likely now.

If ignorance was a factor then the pro yes side had it's opportunity before the vote to put their case forward and dispel that ignorance, thats how a referendum works.

Note though the stalinist tint to the idea of "educating" the electorate until you get your way

Scofflaw

Bambi wrote: »

If ignorance was a factor then the pro yes side had it's opportunity before the vote to put their case forward and dispel that ignorance, thats how a referendum works.

Note though the stalinist tint to the idea of "educating" the electorate until you get your way

Did you not enjoy re-education camp?

less than hysterically,
Scofflaw

Dyr

Nope

And less of the condescending sign off there's a good chap.
Bambi

Scofflaw

Bambi wrote: »

Nope

And less of the condescending sign off there's a good chap.
Bambi

Well, it is just a little hysterical to suggest that informing voters about what they're voting on is the equivalent of 're-education camps', would you not say?

Besides, given the state of most people's knowledge of the EU, it's hardly re-education.

amused,
Scofflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

USE wrote: »

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

It's the same treaty. Not one word or one comma has been changed in it.

Dyr

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, it is just a little hysterical to suggest that informing voters about what they're voting on is the equivalent of 're-education camps', would you not say?
Scofflaw

I said that where now?

Scofflaw

Bambi wrote: »

I said that where now?

Here:

Note though the stalinist tint to the idea of "educating" the electorate until you get your way

Unless history is wrong, and Stalin did not in fact send ideological opponents to re-education camps? Or was it home-schooling?

Or is there perhaps another explanation that can be given for the remark? Like Jens-Peter Bonde's mention of abortion, it was accidental?

cordially,
Scofflaw

sceptre

Alan Rouge wrote: »

It's the same treaty. Not one word or one comma has been changed in it.

They put the new stuff into the Croatian Accession Treaty:) Military neutrality, taxation and abortion guarantees. Not that it actually needed to be guaranteed under the Lisbon Treaty provisions but that's paranoia for you. Oh and the feckless lackies agreed to keep one commissioner per member state.

Seriously, I can't be the only one who reads all this stuff.

Dyr

Scofflaw wrote: »

Here:



Unless history is wrong, and Stalin did not in fact send ideological opponents to re-education camps? Or was it home-schooling?

Or is there perhaps another explanation that can be given for the remark? Like Jens-Peter Bonde's mention of abortion, it was accidental?

cordially,
Scofflaw

You misread. Stalinist tint ]. It's a reference the egotistic mindset that led to a policy of re-education camps not the policy itself.

Scofflaw

Bambi wrote: »

You misread. Stalinist tint. It's a reference the egotistic mindset that led to a policy of re-education camps not the policy itself.

So the intention was to highlight the similarities, but you weren't drawing a parallel, even though Stalinist 're-education' wasn't actually a process of informing people, but of forcible political re-orientation...easy mistake to make, I'm sure you'll appreciate.

Seriously, though, do you really think it's a bad idea for the electorate to be informed on the issues they're voting on?

seriously,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's about Lisbon - what else can be expected? Many of the arguments, after all, are just recycled from the Nice Treaty, so it's hardly as if the issues behind the arguments can actually be resolved - and as long as they're not resolved, the epi-discussion will keep going round in circles.


regards,
Scofflaw

some people weren't around for nice - so . . . . many is a bit harsh

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If the an anti-EU government were elected, and they had a policy of withdrawal from the EU, I certainly wouldn't support holding a referendum for same, but I'd accept it.

Also I wouldn't waste time moaning about whether having the referendum was fair or not, I'd get busy campaigning against it.

anti lisbon does not equal anti eu

i am sick of people saying this

ShooterSF

sceptre wrote: »

They put the new stuff into the Croatian Accession Treaty:) Military neutrality, taxation and abortion guarantees. Not that it actually needed to be guaranteed under the Lisbon Treaty provisions but that's paranoia for you. Oh and the feckless lackies agreed to keep one commissioner per member state.

Seriously, I can't be the only one who reads all this stuff.

So wait one of the reasons we were asked to pass Lisbon was it clarified the commission reduction issue we agreed on in Nice. Now if we pass Lisbon (Im not going where you think Im going with this) the Croatian treaty will be upon us and we will be asked to vote yes to get the provisions made for Lisbon?
Does anyone see the problem here? Each treaty seems to "need" the next one passed to work as some little part of it clears up the last one, while changing more stuff, which we will need to pass the next treaty to clarify.
It's like an in-built reason to ask for a Yes vote for the next treaty in every treaty.

molloyjh

Bambi wrote: »

If ignorance was a factor then the pro yes side had it's opportunity before the vote to put their case forward and dispel that ignorance, thats how a referendum works.

I sorry but I competely refuse to accept that as a reasonable argument. If a Yes is what an educated electorate want then why should they be punished for a poor campaign from the political parties? That really is a case of "well I got my way so I don't care about the electorate".

And please Bambi try and read my posts in full before commenting on them would you.

You said:

Bambi wrote: »

Note though the stalinist tint to the idea of "educating" the electorate until you get your way

Yet I said:

molloyjh wrote: »

I've said all along that I would rather an educated No than an ignorant Yes.

...and...

molloyjh wrote: »

If ignorance again plays a factor, regardless of the result, then there should be another referendum, but only after the electorate has been educated. To be honest I don't think there should be a second until they are, but it's not looking likely now.

I've highlighted the important bits in case you missed them again. I love the way certain No supporters leap to massive and fanciful conclusions about Yes supporters while totally ignoring what was actually said. A retraction would be nice, but I won't be holding my breath.

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

anti lisbon does not equal anti eu

i am sick of people saying this

Two things:
1. Anti Lisbon does not neccessarily mean Anti EU, however Anti EU absolutely does mean Anti Lisbon. It can be hard to tell them apart, seeing as they are perpetually stealing each others arguments.

2. If Lisbon is passed the only way to reverse it is to withdraw from the EU, so it would take an Anti-EU government elected on a platform of withdrawal from the EU to reverse it. That's the 3rd referendum scenario.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Now if we pass Lisbon (Im not going where you think Im going with this) the Croatian treaty will be upon us and we will be asked to vote yes to get the provisions made for Lisbon?

I don't believe we vote on the Croation treaty, that's between them and the EU as a whole?

Open to correction on that?

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Two things:
I don't believe we vote on the Croation treaty, that's between them and the EU as a whole?

Open to correction on that?

I could be wrong. I remember talk of putting Lisbon and Croatia together so we would be blocking their entry by rejecting Lisbon. Maybe that's where I got the idea from. Though I'm nearly sure we had to vote before on the enlargement of the EU.

OT how much is the sig for sale? I have an old one lying around

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

OT how much is the sig for sale? I have an old one lying around

Small price... a mere 'yes' on Lisbon 2

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If the an anti-EU government were elected, and they had a policy of withdrawal from the EU, I certainly wouldn't support holding a referendum for same, but I'd accept it.

Also I wouldn't waste time moaning about whether having the referendum was fair or not, I'd get busy campaigning against it.

So you think whether a referendum is fair or not should be an after thought, a side issue?

Tell me, if your side/position then lost this hypothetical referendum, would you insist on a second one on the same topic?

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

So you think whether a referendum is fair or not should be an after thought, a side issue?

Tell me, if your side/position then lost this hypothetical referendum, would you insist on a second one on the same topic?

1. The referendum is legal, fair (in my opinion) and more than likely happening. The pragmatists on the 'No' side are prepairing for it, not complaining about it.

2. No, because I'd be on the boat out of here.

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

1. The referendum is legal, fair (in my opinion) and more than likely happening. The pragmatists on the 'No' side are prepairing for it, not complaining about it.

2. No, because I'd be on the boat out of here.

Then why not just leave now? I'll take your flippant answer as an indicator that you realise forcing a second referendum isn't that democratic or good.

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

Then why not just leave now? I'll take your flippant answer as an indicator that you realise forcing a second referendum isn't that democratic or good.

Because we haven't voted to pull out of the EU.

You are incorrect to assume what my answer means I 'realise'.