Vote yes, sure you can trust all politicians..

PopeBuckfastXVI

netron wrote: »

I voted NO and a lot of people I know voted NO for absolutley NONE of the reasons of the No campaigners.

My father , as one example - a trade unionist all his life. Labour Party member. Former Workers Party/ Democratic Left.

You would think he'd vote Yes , being as De Rossa is such a EU advocate - he voted No.

Asked him afterwards (as I was seriously surprised at it ) - simple answer - lack of democracy.

Well no offence, but your father is as much an authority on the matter as a magic eight ball. You may have immense respect for him, but his answer to you smacks of a knee jerk response to a complex issue, which he's entitled to, but remains his personal opinion.

the_dark_side

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well no offence, but your father is as much an authority on the matter as a magic eight ball. You may have immense respect for him, but his answer to you smacks of a knee jerk response to a complex issue, which he's entitled to, but remains his personal opinion.

So we are entitled to a personal opinion then, otherwise we should join the sheep and vote with the hoards, as this issue is much to 'complex' for the average joe to comprehend? It sounds like this is your tone (no offence)

skearon

netron wrote: »

What powers exactly?
Does the EU Parliament get the ability to enact legislation via Lisbon?

The EU Commission will remain unelected.

The EU President will be unelected.

And the EU Foreign Minister will also be unelected.

They may not be directly elected by citizens, but are elected by the people's representatives, who themselves are directly elected.

The EU Parliment - the 'co-decision procedure' has been extended to several new fields. This means that Parliament now has the same degree of lawmaking power as the Council in some areas where it used to be merely consulted or not involved at all. These areas include legal immigration, penal judicial cooperation, police cooperation and some aspects of trade policy and agriculture. From now on, then, Parliament will have a role to play in almost all lawmaking. In addition, under Lisbon, the European Parliament's assent will be required for all international agreements in fields governed by the ordinary legislative procedure.

Transparency in the Council of Ministers - Under Lisbon, National parliaments and citizens will now be able to see which decisions have been taken by which national ministers in the Council, since all its deliberations on legislative matters will be made public.

The Dáil - Lisbon gives the national parliaments greater scope to participate alongside the European institutions in the work of the Union. A new clause clearly sets out the rights and duties of the national parliaments within the EU. It deals with their right to information, the way they monitor subsidiarity, mechanisms for evaluating policy in the field of freedom, security and justice, procedures for reforming the treaties, and so on

gizmo555

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Well no offence, but your father is as much an authority on the matter as a magic eight ball. You may have immense respect for him, but his answer to you smacks of a knee jerk response to a complex issue

What an extraordinarily condescending comment! He doesn't agree with you, ipso facto, he can't have thought seriously about the issues . . .

How can you possibly arrive at the conclusion that "his answer to you smacks of a knee jerk response" from the limited information in the post?

Personally I would have thought that given the information that the man is a long time political activist, the likelihood is that he would have given the matter far more consideration than the average voter.

Scofflaw

gizmo555 wrote: »

What an extraordinarily condescending comment! He doesn't agree with you, ipso facto, he can't have thought seriously about the issues . . .

How can you possibly arrive at the conclusion that "his answer to you smacks of a knee jerk response" from the limited information in the post?

Personally I would have thought that given the information that the man is a long time political activist, the likelihood is that he would have given the matter far more consideration than the average voter.

An argument that would surely apply equally (or even more strongly) to our politicians?


cordially,
Scofflaw

gizmo555

Scofflaw wrote: »

An argument that would surely apply equally (or even more strongly) to our politicians?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, I'm sure it does, but what has that to do with PopeBuckfast's condescending and insulting comments?

Tony EH

Quote:
Originally Posted by PopeBuckfastXVI
Well no offence, but your father is as much an authority on the matter as a magic eight ball. You may have immense respect for him, but his answer to you smacks of a knee jerk response to a complex issue, which he's entitled to, but remains his personal opinion.

the_dark_side wrote: »

So we are entitled to a personal opinion then, otherwise we should join the sheep and vote with the hoards, as this issue is much to 'complex' for the average joe to comprehend? It sounds like this is your tone (no offence)

So, if we are to presume you are voting 'Yes', PopeBuckfast, tell us why you are voting 'Yes' and why you are more of an authority on the subject than "the_dark_side's" father is?

Either way, the vast majority of people I spoke to about voting 'No', did so because they are suspicious about the way Lisbon is being pushed through. They saw the way is wasn't put to the people it was actually going to effect and they felt it was extremely un-democratic, regardless of what was in the treaty.

The red herrings of "Abortion" and "Neutrality" were just that, red herrings and have been mentioned MORE by the 'Yes' side, as a way of negating the 'No' vote, than they were mentioned as reasons by the 'No' side for voting 'No'. In fact, the ONLY person I saw mention anything about "Abortion" & "Neutrality" was some spinster in Carlo. It was a non-issue to the vast majority of 'No' voters.

However, the salient point still remains the fact that a great number of people are uncomfortable about how this treaty is being pushed through.

At the end of the day, however, the voter will still be as uninformed as they were the first time round. Most people will vote 'Yes', because it's their party's position and most people will vote 'No', because they are uncomfortable with the mechanisation.

RandomName2

Apparently both the EPP and ALDE are in favour of a directly elected President of the EU - why, then, has this motion (apparently) never been brought up?

If the next Referendum is a 'yes' majority, can the 'no' side ask for another vote?

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

the vast majority of people I spoke to about voting 'No', did so because they are suspicious about the way Lisbon is being pushed through. They saw the way is wasn't put to the people it was actually going to effect and they felt it was extremely un-democratic, regardless of what was in the treaty.

The red herrings of "Abortion" and "Neutrality" were just that, red herrings and have been mentioned MORE by the 'Yes' side, as a way of negating the 'No' vote, than they were mentioned as reasons by the 'No' side for voting 'No'.

This has been a consistent theme of the Yes campaign - a typical example was in last Saturday's (June 20) opinion piece by Stephen Collins in the Irish Times, which concluded:

The guarantees agreed at the summit effectively amount to a Lisbon Treaty for slow Irish learners. In the last campaign a majority of voters were prepared to swallow a malign view of the EU that bore no relation to the reality of our membership.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0620/1224249181675.html

What amazing contempt for the electorate is contained in that single paragraph. First of all, No voters are "slow learners" who need the unalloyed benefits of Lisbon spelled out over and over until they submit and vote Yes. Secondly, those who voted No did so because they ignorantly "swallowed" the malignant message of the likes of Libertas and Coir.

In fact, as Mr Collins is no doubt well aware, by far the biggest single reason for voting no or abstaining was a lack of understanding of the issues. Concerns about neutrality, conscription, abortion, etc were relatively low down the list of issues which motivated No voters.

http://www.imsl.ie/news/Millward_Brown_IMS_Lisbon_Research_Report.pdf

The reason Lisbon is hard to understand, according to, among others, former Italian prime minister Giuliano Amato, is that it was deliberately drafted that way, in order to obfuscate the fact that it is almost the same thing as the rejected EU Constitution.

In its report the last referendum commission was heavily critical of the short time it was given to do its job and concluded that a minimum of 5 months is needed to do an effective job of informing the public. The commission has a crucial role, as it is generally regarded by the public as an unbiased and honest broker.

http://www.refcom.ie/en/Reports/ReportonthereferendumontheLisbonTreaty/

What has been the government's response? The Taoiseach was quoted last week as saying he will advise the Cabinet to agree to hold the referendum in early October - giving the next referendum commission only about 60% of the time needed to do its job.

the_dark_side

RandomName2 wrote: »

Apparently both the EPP and ALDE are in favour of a directly elected President of the EU - why, then, has this motion (apparently) never been brought up?

If the next Referendum is a 'yes' majority, can the 'no' side ask for another vote?

'The proposal for a directly elected President of the European Commission bears directly on the future shape of the EU, with proponents of the federal model seeing this as a giant leap towards a single state, with opponents agreeing but seeing this as a further intrusion into national sovereignty.'
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=164

Regardless of whether the 'Yes' vote or the 'No' vote is returned in October, the EU will now appear undemocratic. Are we to be asked to return to the polls each time the governing body doesnt get the result it wants... joke!

Scofflaw

gizmo555 wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure it does, but what has that to do with PopeBuckfast's condescending and insulting comments?

I'm pointing out that if people are unwilling to believe that our politicians know better than the voters on the subject of Lisbon - as they indeed are, and loudly too - there is absolutely no reason to suppose that a political activist has any better claim to being an expert on it. Political activists are - as I'm sure everyone* would agree in any other context - frequently the worst when it comes to knee-jerk condemnation or approval of issues.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*apart from political activists, of course

Tony EH

What are you talking about?

Politicians are "political activists". In fact they are the ultimate expression of political activism.

...and worse still, Cowen didn't even read the damn treaty in first place, so why should anyone listen to him in order to make an informed decision?

The very worst people to listen to regarding ANY political decision, are the ones who vote a certain way, simply because their party is doing so.

Dinner

Tony EH wrote: »

...and worse still, Cowen didn't even read the damn treaty in first place, so why should anyone listen to him in order to make an informed decision?

Does that mean Cowen doesn't know whats in it?

Scofflaw

Tony EH wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Politicians are "political activists". In fact they are the ultimate expression of political activism.

...and worse still, Cowen didn't even read the damn treaty in first place, so why should anyone listen to him in order to make an informed decision?

The very worst people to listen to regarding ANY political decision, are the ones who vote a certain way, simply because their party is doing so.

Well, yes - exactly. Are you sure you're holding the right cudgel there, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Basically people seem to have huge problem admitting that politicians know more about the Lisbon Treaty than they do and that as a result the politicians' opinion is better formed.

How depressing that an international treaty gets opposition just because of pretty pride.

Scofflaw

Dinner wrote: »

Does that mean Cowen doesn't know whats in it?

It means he has been advised on its contents and implications by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the other civil servants whose job it is to evaluate these things.

I'm not interested in Brian Cowen's personal view on the Treaty - I'm only interested in his view as Taoiseach, in receipt of expert advice that the rest of us are not. As such, I don't care whether he's read it, or even seen it (although he will certainly have seen a lot of it, given he oversaw the final negotiation of the Constitution).

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

turgon wrote: »

Basically people seem to have huge problem admitting that politicians know more about the Lisbon Treaty than they do and that as a result the politicians' opinion is better formed.

How depressing that an international treaty gets opposition just because of pretty pride.

The only pro-treaty politician I know of who actually knows what is contained in the Treaty is Willie O'Dea - and as such he is a powerful proponent of it.

The various other teachers, lawyers and accountants in the Dail don't seem to bear a great understanding of the contents of the European constitutional ammendment. But, if any of them do, and happen to belong to any of the main political parties - god help them if they voice an objection to the treaty (indeed, Cowen gave an ultimatum to the rank-and-file Fianna Failers in relation to any potential wavering in their support of the Treaty before the last referendum).

turgon

RandomName2 wrote: »

The only pro-treaty politician I know of who actually knows what is contained in the Treaty is Willie O'Dea - and as such he is a powerful proponent of it.

Yeah, Bertie & Dermot Ahern were directly involved in negotiating it yet they humbles me!

Tony EH

turgon wrote: »

Basically people seem to have huge problem admitting that politicians know more about the Lisbon Treaty than they do and that as a result the politicians' opinion is better formed.

How depressing that an international treaty gets opposition just because of pretty pride.

Who's actually said that?

I'd wager nobody has even uttered anything like the position you've mentioned.

Of course, people will understand that on the whole politicians will have a better understanding of the Treaty then the ordinary punter. But it won't stop the "man in the street" from being sceptical of the reasons why a given party or politician is urging the electorate to vite the way he/she wants them to.

The electorate will generally vote on a matter according to how they feel on the vote, because quite they haven't the time (nor the inclination) to put in the required umph to familiarise themselves with every facet of legislation they are voting on. For god's sake, most people vote Fianna Fail because their families have always voted that way. The vast majority haven't the first clue what the actual policies are. The same can be said for the other parties too, by and large.

The overwhelming feeling on Lisbon is that the majority of the 'No' camp just find sceptism with it, because of the way it seems to be getting forced through.

"Knowing" that a certain politician "knows" more about it than you do makes no difference at all to the majority of people.

Except the party political sheep, of course, who will always vote according to party lines anyway.

Tony EH

RandomName2 wrote: »

But, if any of them do, and happen to belong to any of the main political parties - god help them if they voice an objection to the treaty (indeed, Cowen gave an ultimatum to the rank-and-file Fianna Failers in relation to any potential wavering in their support of the Treaty before the last referendum).

Good point...and some people wonder why the electorate are skeptical about politicians opinions.

gizmo555

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm pointing out that if people are unwilling to believe that our politicians know better than the voters on the subject of Lisbon - as they indeed are, and loudly too - there is absolutely no reason to suppose that a political activist has any better claim to being an expert on it. Political activists are - as I'm sure everyone* would agree in any other context - frequently the worst when it comes to knee-jerk condemnation or approval of issues.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*apart from political activists, of course

All of the above may be true, but is all also beside the point that PopeBuckfast has no evidence for his contemptuous assertion that "your father is as much an authority on the matter as a magic eight ball. You may have immense respect for him, but his answer to you smacks of a knee jerk response to a complex issue, which he's entitled to, but remains his personal opinion."

Scofflaw

gizmo555 wrote: »

All of the above may be true, but is all also beside the point that PopeBuckfast has no evidence for his contemptuous assertion that "your father is as much an authority on the matter as a magic eight ball. You may have immense respect for him, but his answer to you smacks of a knee jerk response to a complex issue, which he's entitled to, but remains his personal opinion."

Ah - well, if you intended to make a moderating/courtesy point rather than a political one, you should perhaps have reported the post.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

the_dark_side wrote: »

Regardless of whether the 'Yes' vote or the 'No' vote is returned in October, the EU will now appear undemocratic. Are we to be asked to return to the polls each time the governing body doesnt get the result it wants... joke!

:pac: A legislative body which is not directly elected has no legitimacy

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

:pac: A legislative body which is not directly elected has no legitimacy

That's a very large claim - can you back it up in any way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's a very large claim - can you back it up in any way?

cordially,
Scofflaw

From an ethical point of view people who make laws must be accountable to those whom the laws affect.

From a practical point of view there isn't any democracy with a legislative body which is not directly elected.

P. Breathnach

RandomName2 wrote: »

From an ethical point of view people who make laws must be accountable to those whom the laws affect.

From a practical point of view there isn't any democracy with a legislative body which is not directly elected.

That sounds good, and seems persuasive.

What about judge-made law?

RandomName2

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That sounds good, and seems persuasive.

What about judge-made law?

Judges cannot directly make laws - they can interpret the constitution.

Of course in America even in this capacity there is direct election.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Judges cannot directly make laws - they can interpret the constitution.

Common law is regularly referred to as "judge-made law".

Of course in America even in this capacity there is direct election.

Not to the SCOTUS.

Given that you're one of those who believe that elected positions are invariably superior to unelected, do you believe our judges should be elected?

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

:pac: A legislative body which is not directly elected has no legitimacy

But an unelected executive is perfectly fine?

conchubhar1

anything that has power, should be elected

it has to responsible and made accountable for the laws they create, discuss, pass etc to the people they affect

no?

you like some democracy and fill in the gaps?