why are we voting again

P. Breathnach

gizmo555 wrote: »

... "I see no point in expending effort in" such gratuitous insults. Do you suggest that voters are only deserving of respect if you have some hope of persuading them to your point of view?

I am a committed democrat. That means that I respect votes. It doesn't have to follow that I respect every voter, and I certainly don't have to respect their motives or their reasoning.

When it comes to those who try to persuade others, I have no respect at all for those who tell lies, and little respect for those who try to use a poll in the wrong way as, for example, in using a referendum as a means to "send a message" to a government.

gar32

This Lisbon treaty thing is just another way to take power from us and give it to the rich and business leaders. Does any one know about the euro and where its printed and who makes money from it? ECB is not ran by people for the people. Its there to make money for business people. Lets move on from politics and work on a systems that works for the people. http://www.thevenusproject.com/

molloyjh

gizmo555 wrote: »

OK, well to clarify the main point I was trying to make is that dismissing voters as being driven by "pique" is insulting and arrogant. I stand over that comment. The second half of the point was merely an add on, suggesting that that even at a pragmatic level OB doesn't help further the "Yes" case with such arrogance.

"I see no point in expending effort in" such gratuitous insults. Do you suggest that voters are only deserving of respect if you have some hope of persuading them to your point of view?

Generally I would agree with you gizmo, but in this instance OB is directly referring to the issue of people voting No the 2nd time around because they feel agrieved at being asked again. The use of the word is quite accurate in that regard, these people are indignant over the fact that they are being asked to vote again, some by their own admission. Therefore the word pique is factually accurate.

oscarBravo

gizmo555 wrote: »

However, you ought to accept - even if you don't share the view yourself - that notwithstanding the legalities of the matter a small but significant minority of voters do not feel the government is politically justified in re-running the referendum...

I don't feel the government is politically justified in continuing to run the country in light of the local election results.

...and intend to vote no on that basis.

Fair enough. I think that's a pretty daft reason to vote "no", but probably no dafter than many or even most of the reasons that were given for voting "no" the first time.

Dismissing their views as "pique" is the height of arrogance and hardly likely to win anyone round to your point of view.

If they're voting against a treaty with no regard for its merits or otherwise, simply because they're annoyed about being asked to vote, I don't think they're amenably to persuasion using logic or reason anyway.

conchubhar1

if these concessions are actuall worth while

i think we can all agree

1 - the no side was right
2 - for the next time people can make up there mind about the actual issues

(except sheep, like the 24% in the last elections - sigh.)

gizmo555

oscarBravo wrote: »

If they're voting against a treaty with no regard for its merits or otherwise, simply because they're annoyed about being asked to vote, I don't think they're amenably to persuasion using logic or reason anyway.

(my emphasis)

Well, that's a big if and it's the issue I have with your comments. Many "yes" supporters are annoyed with some of the more outlandish claims of Libertas, Coir, et al. Does that mean their concerns are unjustified or purely emotionally based?

Anyway, how do you arrive at the conclusion that all those who indicate they intend to vote no because they believe a 2nd referendum is unjustified are annoyed or even "piqued"? Some may be, but how do you know how many, if any? Isn't it possible to arrive unemotionally at the view that a 2nd referendum is wrong?

KINGVictor

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hi KINGVictor, I'd be interested in hearing that too, have you got a link to the radio or television broadcast you are referring to?

http://euobserver.com/9/26299/?rk=1

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2188

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34895400_ITM

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5304/


I'd be really interested in seeing this part of the EU Constitution, it was my understanding that after the EU Constitution was rejected by the French and Dutch electorates it didn't actually enter into force. I can't find any reference to it online, so it would be great if you could proved a link to the article of the EU Constitution to which you are referring.

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

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1144622.html


I'd be very interested in hearing Barroso and Sarkozy's statements on the matter, can you please provide a link to where they said this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3558827/Jose-Manuel-Barroso-bullies-the-Irish.html

http://euobserver.com/9/26329


Well given it's a hypothetical, we can also be sure that the treaty would be very much alive, hypothetically speaking, no?

I think you are intelligent enough to know I was saying that conceptually.


I hadn't heard about this study linking a flagrant disregard for democratic process to voter apathy, I'd love to see it, do you have a link?

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13788340

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5420043/European-elections-2009-Best-chance-for-the-maverick-fringe.html

http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5747-european-parliament-elections-we-arent-voting-for-chickens

http://blogs.news.sky.com/eurovision/Post:9d859f56-ebdf-467a-8ae6-97681afd018f

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Apathy-of-the-discontented

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4766.shtml

In fact I hadn't heard about a flagrant disregard for democratic process either, it'd be fantastic if you could provide more details on what exactly was implemented, disregarding democratic process, including any links if possible?

Same as above.I do not work at the EU commission but the only evidence I have is that the majority of Irish people overwhelmingly said no the Lisbon treaty but the the EU commission and their cohorts decided that maybe we had too much guiness the night before so we were not thinking straight...so we have to vote again till we get it right...that is undemocratic...just a more subtle form of autocracy.


Wow, I wasn't aware of this at all, I'd be really interested to hear of examples of Brussels as an institution not respecting Ireland when it comes to inner politics of the EU, a quote or two from Brussels as an institution demonstrating this, with links to the source, would be great. The same regarding the Irish government would be great also, of course.


Same as expressed above.

Can you please provide a link or source on the insult, I haven't heard it myself, and I'd be really interested to read it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/19/eu.ireland

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1216660623.96/

http://euobserver.com/9/26299?print=1

I can't really speak for Poland or the Czech Republic, and neither can you, so I suppose that's just your opinion right?

Precisely...but I can confidently speak about the fact that Ireland voted No to the Lisbon treaty in 2008 but we are been coerced to vote again because we "apparently" did not vote right.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

Precisely...but I can confidently speak about the fact that Ireland voted No to the Lisbon treaty in 2008 but we are been coerced to vote again because we "apparently" did not vote right.

Coerced...how exactly? The No campaigns are completely convinced that there is no possible way for Ireland to be in any way 'punished' for voting No - so what methods of 'coercion' could there be?

I think you can have one or the other - either there are consequences to voting No, or there aren't - but not both. The Irish government cannot have been coerced if there are no negative consequences from voting No, so if they have been coerced then there must be negative consequences from voting No.

What's your preference?

cordially,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Coerced...how exactly? The No campaigns are completely convinced that there is no possible way for Ireland to be in any way 'punished' for voting No - so what methods of 'coercion' could there be?

I think you can have one or the other - either there are consequences to voting No, or there aren't - but not both. The Irish government cannot have been coerced if there are no negative consequences from voting No, so if they have been coerced then there must be negative consequences from voting No.

What's your preference?

cordially,
Scofflaw

So you are basically saying there was no need for the referendum in the first place because the result that the EU commission wants is a YES...any other result is unacceptable.

My knowledge of the concept Democracy is that it is representative form of government where the views of the people are sought .I may be wrong and I think if it was the UK or Germany that voted no,it would have been a foregone conclusion...end of lisbon treaty.

I have browsed through the treaty and I personally have not found anything wrong with it,but if there is a clause that expressly says that all member countries must ratify the treaty for it to be passed...so be it.
The treaty can only be constitutionally ratified in Ireland(which I think should be the best practice) via a referendum...one was held but was rejected ... that should simply signify the end of that treaty.

For the EU commission to have any justification to preach to other nations like Russia,Zimbabwe to respect the rule of law ,I think they should start from within.In future they would not have such luck,some countries would simply not bow to such pressures....the EU has 27 member countries ..all with different cultures ,languages,ethos etc and you cannot expect them to embrace any policy put foward by the commission no matter how noble or geniune it is on facevalue.That is something they must understand and be ready to deal with.

They are obviously going to have their way with Ireland as they would probably get a yes vote because of the current economic climate and the uncertainties that accompanies it.But every country is watching and taking note....do they really want to belong to a bloc that would shove policies,ideas down their throat whether they agree with it or not

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

Precisely...but I can confidently speak about the fact that Ireland voted No to the Lisbon treaty in 2008 but we are been coerced to vote again because we "apparently" did not vote right.

The first few sources point out it was before the referendum when the French Foreign Minister made those comments, not after.

As regards the EU Constitution it's dead, irrelevant and scrapped. Lisbon allows each state to ratify it by each countries Constitutional requirements. It has been already established that a second referendum is not Unconstitutional.

I don't really attach too much significance to Barosso and Sarkozys statements though in fairness they do have a point. It is an Irish problem though the EU has tried to help with the assurances etc. I love the way people moaned about about a French minister interfering and then a month later moan when Sarkozy says it's an Irish problem.

On the EU Parliament, Lisbon makes it more democratic and gives it more power. Really though, I don't think voter apathy is just an EU Election problem.

BlitzKrieg

So you are basically saying there was no need for the referendum in the first place because the result that the EU commission wants is a YES...any other result is unacceptable.

what the hell are you talking about, he didnt say that in the post you quoted.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

So you are basically saying there was no need for the referendum in the first place because the result that the EU commission wants is a YES...any other result is unacceptable.

My knowledge of the concept Democracy is that it is representative form of government where the views of the people are sought .I may be wrong and I think if it was the UK or Germany that voted no,it would have been a foregone conclusion...end of lisbon treaty.

I have browsed through the treaty and I personally have not found anything wrong with it,but if there is a clause that expressly says that all member countries must ratify the treaty for it to be passed...so be it.
The treaty can only be constitutionally ratified in Ireland(which I think should be the best practice) via a referendum...one was held but was rejected ... that should simply signify the end of that treaty.

For the EU commission to have any justification to preach to other nations like Russia,Zimbabwe to respect the rule of law ,I think they should start from within.In future they would not have such luck,some countries would simply not bow to such pressures....the EU has 27 member countries ..all with different cultures ,languages,ethos etc and you cannot expect them to embrace any policy put foward by the commission no matter how noble or geniune it is on facevalue.That is something they must understand and be ready to deal with.

They are obviously going to have their way with Ireland as they would probably get a yes vote because of the current economic climate and the uncertainties that accompanies it.But every country is watching and taking note....do they really want to belong to a bloc that would shove policies,ideas down their throat whether they agree with it or not

No, I'd like you to answer the question I asked, please.

patiently,
Scofflaw

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

I have browsed through the treaty and I personally have not found anything wrong with it,but if there is a clause that expressly says that all member countries must ratify the treaty for it to be passed...so be it.
The treaty can only be constitutionally ratified in Ireland(which I think should be the best practice) via a referendum...one was held but was rejected ... that should simply signify the end of that treaty.

Even if a large section of the electorate didn't know anything about it or misunderstood it?

KINGVictor wrote:

For the EU commission to have any justification to preach to other nations like Russia,Zimbabwe to respect the rule of law ,I think they should start from within.In future they would not have such luck,some countries would simply not bow to such pressures....the EU has 27 member countries ..all with different cultures ,languages,ethos etc and you cannot expect them to embrace any policy put foward by the commission no matter how noble or geniune it is on facevalue.That is something they must understand and be ready to deal with.

Fair point and it's a problem the EU will always face.

KINGVictor wrote:

They are obviously going to have their way with Ireland as they would probably get a yes vote because of the current economic climate and the uncertainties that accompanies it.But every country is watching and taking note....do they really want to belong to a bloc that would shove policies,ideas down their throat whether they agree with it or not

Who knows, there could be plenty pissed off at voting again that they'll vote No this time. It seems a popular position. Again I don't see why voting a second time is shoving policies down peoples throats, personally I'd be of that view if it was to go to a 3rd vote. All they are doing this time is to give assurances on important issues that sprung up during the campaign, clarifications mostly.

oscarBravo

gizmo555 wrote: »

Well, that's a big if and it's the issue I have with your comments. Many "yes" supporters are annoyed with some of the more outlandish claims of Libertas, Coir, et al. Does that mean their concerns are unjustified or purely emotionally based?

If they voted "yes" purely because they were annoyed at the claims from the "no" campaign: yes, that's a pretty daft reason for voting that way.

Anyway, how do you arrive at the conclusion that all those who indicate they intend to vote no because they believe a 2nd referendum is unjustified are annoyed or even "piqued"? Some may be, but how do you know how many, if any? Isn't it possible to arrive unemotionally at the view that a 2nd referendum is wrong?

You yourself quoted the Independent earlier: "Many opposed also said they deeply resented being asked to vote a second time on the referendum."

I don't recall speculating as to how many people feel this way. If there are a grand total of (say) three people prepared to vote "no" because they "deeply resent" being asked the same question twice, then that's three people with a pretty stupid rationale behind their vote.

Perhaps you feel it's a perfectly logical and sensible reason for voting that way?

KINGVictor

K-9 wrote: »

Even if a large section of the electorate didn't know anything about it or misunderstood it?

Beacause I said I browsed through it and didnt find anything wrong with it ,does not mean that the vast majority of the Irish people that voted no did not have reasons to oppose the treaty.People vote on what they ideologically believe or what would serve their interests...you are not seriously suggesting that the majority of the Irish people that voted no are fools that had no knowledge of the treaty unlike some of our Ministers that had no clue about waht the treaty was all about.


Fair point and it's a problem the EU will always face.

Thanks...



Who knows, there could be plenty pissed off at voting again that they'll vote No this time. It seems a popular position. Again I don't see why voting a second time is shoving policies down peoples throats, personally I'd be of that view if it was to go to a 3rd vote. All they are doing this time is to give assurances on important issues that sprung up during the campaign, clarifications mostly.

People keep talking about assurances...like those contenscious issues were expressly written in the Lisbon treaty we voted for.....any assurances would mean changes or modifications to the treaty so that means there was genuine concern from the Irish votes ..we are a small nation...In politics of this nature... that is a bad spot to be .

We had to make sure that the treaty would be fair,concise and comprehensive and be of equal benefit to all member countries....Majority of the Irish voters believed otherwise and rejected the treaty...it is not a do or die affair...pack it up and lets start again and consult the people and not some overfed government officials that are only thinking of their pocket rather than the citizenry.

conchubhar1

why does no one ever use the ''enlarge yourself'' signs for saying that yes voters were also convinced or tried to be infuenced by these bull**** claims with no refrence to the ins and outs of the treaty

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why does no one ever use the ''enlarge yourself'' signs for saying that yes voters were also convinced or tried to be infuenced by these bull**** claims with no refrence to the ins and outs of the treaty

How many people said they voted "yes" because of "enlarge yourself" signs? How does this compare with the number of people who said they voted "no" because of concerns about conscription, corporation tax rates, abortion and other non-issues?

conchubhar1

were they not genuine concerns?

not saying that they were in the treaty - but out of lack of knowledge comes ignorance and fear



hold up - to you they were ''non-issues''.

you had time, patience and ability to read the text - many didnt therefore they were all genuine concerns for them.....

passive

conchubhar1 wrote: »

were they not genuine concerns?

not saying that they were in the treaty

I'm genuinely concerned about Martians... Does that have any relevance to this debate?

conchubhar1

no it doesnt - but you feel like being acting the eijit and making a irrelevant point so you made it

K-9

KINGVictor wrote: »

People keep talking about assurances...like those contenscious issues were expressly written in the Lisbon treaty we voted for.....

What do you mean?

KINKVictor wrote:

any assurances would mean changes or modifications to the treaty so that means there was genuine concern from the Irish votes

Indeed, that is what they are doing, well there will be a guarentee that these will be in the Croatian Treaty, though that raises the question, what if the Croatian Treaty doesn't pass? The alternative is to scrap a treaty that 27 countries agreed to address concerns from 1 country.

KINGVictor wrote:

..we are a small nation...In politics of this nature... that is a bad spot to be .

We are. Still if Lisbon 2 fails, us and us soley will probably have stopped Lisbon. Not that powerless for 4 million people?

KINGVictor wrote:

We had to make sure that the treaty would be fair,concise and comprehensive and be of equal benefit to all member countries....

How would you do that?

KINGVictor wrote:

Majority of the Irish voters believed otherwise and rejected the treaty...it is not a do or die affair...pack it up and lets start again and consult the people and not some overfed government officials that are only thinking of their pocket rather than the citizenry.

YEP, It isn't do or die, hence the second referendum.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why does no one ever use the ''enlarge yourself'' signs for saying that yes voters were also convinced or tried to be infuenced by these bull**** claims with no refrence to the ins and outs of the treaty

Will No voters ever stop this Yes side calling us thick line?

conchubhar1

K-9 wrote: »

Will No voters ever stop this Yes side calling us thick line?

what??

passive

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no it doesnt - but you feel like being acting the eijit and making a irrelevant point so you made it

So... my stupid point that has nothing to do with the content of the treaty, and is just me being irrational... This is bad and warrants your contempt. But concerns about neutrality, abortion, conscription... those're okay, because they make people vote No with you? They're not "non-issues" due to being "not-in-the-treaties" or "not-rationals" or "not relevants?"

I fail to see any difference between "I voted no because I don't want my kids conscripted into an EU army" and "I voted no because I'm against those bloody Martians. Damn Greenskins."

conchubhar1

you are missing the point

they are/were issues to people who didnt read the treaty.....
now - if they are cleared up in lisbon 2 it might pass

but if the government and yes and no campaigners had actualy tried to show these as false it would and should have been ''non issues''
minus libertas they were just plain lieing *****


you saying damn martians is a completly and utterly stupid comparision it is beyond belife tbh

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why does no one ever use the ''enlarge yourself'' signs for saying that yes voters were also convinced or tried to be infuenced by these bull**** claims with no refrence to the ins and outs of the treaty

conchubhar1 wrote: »

what??

Sorry, was a bit OTT there.

Wasn't aware of those posters though I fully accept many Yes voters voted with little knowledge of the Treaty.

I suppose some would vote on party lines and there is the logic that if you trust a FF/FG/Lab etc. candidate to run the country, you could trust them on Lisbon. The same would apply to SF, but not Coir and Libertas. Don't agree with it but there is a certain logic there.

conchubhar1

well if you trust coir or libertas........ all rationality is out

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well if you trust coir or libertas........ all rationality is out

Exactly, they seemed to be the main ones with problems over abortion and conscription so therefore concerns over those were irrational?

conchubhar1

yes highly irrational in the fact they were lies - but people believed them out of fear of the unknown

but a coupling of not reading the treaty and both the rational thinking people of the no and yes side trying to debunk those claims led to fear of the unknown

K-9

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes highly irrational in the fact they were lies - but people believed them out of fear of the unknown

but a coupling of not reading the treaty and both the rational thinking people of the no and yes side trying to debunk those claims led to fear of the unknown

Problem there is xenophobic people will always have a fear of the unknown and there is little anybody can do about it. COIR and their ilk have been preaching about Abortion etc. for years and they still believe it, despite rational and practical points.

Really, there is a certain section that will always be Anti EU and there isn't much anybody can do about it.

conchubhar1

well the 53% that voted last time was not anti eu.....

with these problems resolved, if the treaty is good for ireland it will pass