why are we voting again

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

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

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

Well then when why do you believe it is ok to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty but not a second one on this hypothetical leaving the EU referendum? Surely the latter is much more important, and requires your campaign?

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

Well then when why do you believe it is ok to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty but not a second one on this hypothetical leaving the EU referendum? Surely the latter is much more important, and requires your campaign?

I believe it is perfectly acceptable to hold either.

However I would have no interest in campaigning for a second immediately after leaving the EU, as I imagine I would be extremely disillusioned, and I would be highly doubtful the other states in the EU would accept us back if we did leave.

brianthebard

Why would it be acceptable?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Because under our constitution a government can have as many referenda on as many issues as it likes.

If you don't like it, then seek a change in the constitution to prevent it.

brianthebard

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Because under our constitution a government can have as many referenda on as many issues as it likes.

If you don't like it, then seek a change in the constitution to prevent it.

Can you point to the line where it says if you don't get the intended result you get a do over? I've read article 46/7 but there isn't anything that specifically states what you say here.

gizmo555

brianthebard wrote: »

Can you point to the line where it says if you don't get the intended result you get a do over? I've read article 46/7 but there isn't anything that specifically states what you say here.

There's nothing in there to prevent it either. Even though I'm against the treaty, I see nothing wrong with re-running the referendum. Too short a gap between referenda would be an abuse, but I can't see that the likely 16 or 17 month interval is excessively short.

(Don't forget too, FF tried to change the constitution twice to remove PR voting, and were rebuffed by the voters twice - history is on our side! :D)

Little Mickey

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Because under our constitution a government can have as many referenda on as many issues as it likes.

If you don't like it, then seek a change in the constitution to prevent it.

I see USE on page 1 states that its OK for another vote because this time we're voting on a modified referendum and i'm not sure if you are saying they can hold as many of the same referenda as they like but anyway two points:

1. If its a changed referendum then how much does it have to change for us to have to vote on it again? One letter, one line, one paragraph, one chapter??
2. If the referendum does not have to change (PopeBuckfastXVI i'm not certain if thats what your saying) and they can hold it as often as they want, well then that can't be democracy? Its sort of being forced on the people then?! I know, we could keep voting no, but still, c'mon?!

PopeBuckfastXVI

brianthebard wrote: »

Can you point to the line where it says if you don't get the intended result you get a do over? I've read article 46/7 but there isn't anything that specifically states what you say here.

There's no line that blocks it, therefore it's legal, however if you feel it is actually unconstitutional, then I invite you to take a court challenge to block it. This is how we actually got referenda on EU treaties in the first place.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Little Mickey wrote: »

I see USE on page 1 states that its OK for another vote because this time we're voting on a modified referendum and i'm not sure if you are saying they can hold as many of the same referenda as they like but anyway two points:

1. If its a changed referendum then how much does it have to change for us to have to vote on it again? One letter, one line, one paragraph, one chapter??
2. If the referendum does not have to change (PopeBuckfastXVI i'm not certain if thats what your saying) and they can hold it as often as they want, well then that can't be democracy? Its sort of being forced on the people then?! I know, we could keep voting no, but still, c'mon?!

USE is giving a moral reason why it's acceptable, in this case, because we are not voting on the same thing.

I'm saying that there is nothing to legally prevent the government organising and holding as many referenda, with identical wording, as it likes.

That's the current constitutional position, and has been since the enactment of the constitution.

molloyjh

Little Mickey wrote: »

I see USE on page 1 states that its OK for another vote because this time we're voting on a modified referendum and i'm not sure if you are saying they can hold as many of the same referenda as they like but anyway two points:

1. If its a changed referendum then how much does it have to change for us to have to vote on it again? One letter, one line, one paragraph, one chapter??
2. If the referendum does not have to change (PopeBuckfastXVI i'm not certain if thats what your saying) and they can hold it as often as they want, well then that can't be democracy? Its sort of being forced on the people then?! I know, we could keep voting no, but still, c'mon?!

How is that not democratic? My God that word is getting awful abuse these days. You're trying to say that getting people to vote more than once isn't democratic, but that is by definition a contradiction.

C'mon? C'mon what? Is that meant to be some sort of reasoned argument? As Bucky says (sorry I keep doing that your emminance) if you don't like it you can change it. If you're not going to try and change it then stop giving out about it.

Little Mickey

molloyjh wrote: »

How is that not democratic? My God that word is getting awful abuse these days. You're trying to say that getting people to vote more than once isn't democratic, but that is by definition a contradiction.

C'mon? C'mon what? Is that meant to be some sort of reasoned argument? As Bucky says (sorry I keep doing that your emminance) if you don't like it you can change it. If you're not going to try and change it then stop giving out about it.

OK i didn't mean that literally but surely you sort of get my drift- keep voting till ye say yes ye bast**ds!!!
Lets take a similar referendum to North Korea

PopeBuckfastXVI

Little Mickey wrote: »

OK i didn't mean that literally but surely you sort of get my drift- keep voting till ye say yes ye bast**ds!!!
Lets take a similar referendum to North Korea

I think your drift is that it would be ridiculous, inconvenient and annoying, and that whichever Government attempted it wouldn't be long getting thrown out of power.

However it is neither undemocratic nor illegal.

I should also point out that Lisbon 2 does not fit the criteria either, being as it is after a reasonable gap of a year and a half, and contains extra guarantees not available at the time of the first Lisbon vote. Also it is extremely unlikely to see a third outing, should we vote 'No' again.

P.S. Molloy, Bucky is more than acceptable!

Little Mickey

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I think your drift is that it would be ridiculous, inconvenient and annoying, and that whichever Government attempted it wouldn't be long getting thrown out of power.

Maybe they would be the reasons why some people would say "f**k it, i'll say yes so, get on with it"

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Also it is extremely unlikely to see a third outing, should we vote 'No' again.

Are you a TD / MEP??

PopeBuckfastXVI

Little Mickey wrote: »

Maybe they would be the reasons why some people would say "f**k it, i'll say yes so, get on with it"

Might also be the reasons why some people would say "No means no".

No guns being held to anyone's head either way.

Little Mickey wrote: »

Are you a TD / MEP??

No, why do you ask?

Little Mickey

Torture is a good way to make people give in, a referendum a day will give us our way! Maybe we could have a text in to 2FM each morning till we get yes, prize of a trip to Lisbon for the last yes voter:D

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Also it is extremely unlikely to see a third outing, should we vote 'No' again.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

No, why do you ask?

How do you know what you stated above??
Are there official links / documents to say so for sure?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Little Mickey wrote: »

Torture is a good way to make people give in, a referendum a day will give us our way! Maybe we could have a text in to 2FM each morning till we get yes, prize of a trip to Lisbon for the last yes voter:D

We're discussing a hypothetical situation, and I agree that it would be less than convenient to be asked to vote every day. I would vote against whatever party would do such a thing.

However, no party in the history of the state has done anything like this, or are likely to if they want to ever get power again.

Your problem appears to be with the Constitution of Ireland, I invite you to set about changing it.

Little Mickey wrote: »

How do you know??

It's my opinion, based mostly on the political astuteness of the parties in Ireland. I may be wrong, but I doubt I am.

You'll notice I used the phrase "extremely unlikely to", not "won't".

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

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

We don't vote on accession treaties because the accession treaties don't have any legal impact upon our constitution. There was one passed in 2003 and again in 2006 and we didn't have a referendum on either. Accession treaties generally only add the names signatures of the acceding governments to the existing treaties and make a few minor changes so that they fit adequately with the institutions of the EU. There will be no need for a referendum on the Croatian treaty either as the amendments that will be added for our benefit will be either accepted or declined in the second Lisbon referendum.

Little Mickey

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

We're discussing a hypothetical situation, and I agree that it would be less than convenient to be asked to vote every day. I would vote against whatever party would do such a thing.

Yea of course I think it's very unlikely also, but as you say it was just a hypothetical situation - and is possible.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Your problem appears to be with the Constitution of Ireland, I invite you to set about changing it.

Yeah maybe so I suppose, sorry for going off topic.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's my opinion, based mostly on the political astuteness of the parties in Ireland. I may be wrong, but I doubt I am.

You'll notice I used the phrase "extremely unlikely to", not "won't".

I do yes, not "I think its extremely unlikely to" instead of, yeah for sure it is "extremely unlikely to"

Scofflaw

Little Mickey wrote: »

OK i didn't mean that literally but surely you sort of get my drift- keep voting till ye say yes ye bast**ds!!!
Lets take a similar referendum to North Korea

As PopeBuckfastXVI has kind of pointed out, re-running referendums isn't a popular thing to do. The government will only do it if they think the voters will forgive them for doing so.

It's not unlike a child asking for sweeties - there's a limit to the 'pester power' of a sensible child, because at some point they are, as they say "teaching a pig to sing" - wasting their time, and annoying the pig.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

An elected government can legally introduce a universal 60% income tax, even if the campaigned on lowering taxes. That is about as likely to happen as holding daily referenda. The reason no government will do so, is obvious.

Little Mickey

Scofflaw wrote: »

As PopeBuckfastXVI has kind of pointed out, re-running referendums isn't a popular thing to do. The government will only do it if they think the voters will forgive them for doing so.

It's not unlike a child asking for sweeties - there's a limit to the 'pester power' of a sensible child, because at some point they are, as they say "teaching a pig to sing" - wasting their time, and annoying the pig.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fair point, well put.
I was trying to point out that in theory we could be forced, obviously the examples I used were the extremes.

Rabble

sink wrote: »

An elected government can legally introduce a universal 60% income tax, even if the campaigned on lowering taxes. That is about as likely to happen as holding daily referenda. The reason no government will do so, is obvious.

Yes can you imagine this ... a government that campaigned on lowering tax rate then not only increased it then went onto introduce new taxes with no lower exemption bands.

Such a party surely would not just keep holding referendums.

sink

Rabble wrote: »

Yes can you imagine this ... a government that campaigned on lowering tax rate then not only increased it then went onto introduce new taxes with no lower exemption bands.

Such a party surely would not just keep holding referendums.

We are not dealing with a binary situation. There is a gradient which you have conveniently ignored.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

We are not dealing with a binary situation. There is a gradient which you have conveniently ignored.

The "fallacy of the excluded middle".

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

i wonder how many people will read the treaty this time?

how many read it a second time or for the first time for that second vote.

im not marxist but - ''History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.''
well ill leave the relevance up to ye to decide - i think i know four people who will disagree with it, haha.

TimHanley

conchubhar1 wrote: »

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

Why? Because you failed to make the correct decision the first time around. You'll continue to vote until you learn the error of you ways.

PopeBuckfastXVI

TimHanley wrote: »

Why? Because you failed to make the correct decision the first time around. You'll continue to vote until you learn the error of you ways.

I take it you're going to vote 'yes' in the next one then Tim?

TimHanley

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I take it you're going to vote 'yes' in the next one then Tim?

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

molloyjh

TimHanley wrote: »

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

Is that just because you voted No the first time or have you particular reasons for it?

TimHanley

molloyjh wrote: »

Is that just because you voted No the first time or have you particular reasons for it?

:rolleyes: Yeah that must be it. I also play with my toys and watch soaps on Tv for most of the day.



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