Why voting no?

P. Breathnach

Parser wrote: »

I predict a No vote.

Sure. Yours will be a no vote.

There will a lot of other votes in the reckoning.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

But this is something that you support.If you punch someone and ask them a reasonable question, it would be perfectly reasonable for the person not to divorce the two issues.

I support there being a Taoiseach, whatever I may think of the present incumbent, or how much it annoys me that he "represents me" as an Irish person to the world. The office is a reasonable proposal, although not one of my particular plus points for the treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

bokspring71 wrote: »

I think this is where we may differ. You have said elsewhere that we shouldn't speculate as to the strength of anti-eu feeling in europe because its not been vioted on, yet you feel at liberty to speculate on how people in the Uk might vote and, further, that they might use a vote on lisbon as a referendum on the EU as a whole, and not really vote on lisbon.

True - I don't claim to be perfect, though! I have a lot of family and friends in the UK, of the 'type' that one would be pro-EU here, and they're at best mildly antipathetic. The papers, on the other hand, are pretty rabidly anti-EU, and every available poll points to a very negative view of the EU. The Eurobarometer question "has membership been a good thing" hasn't returned a figure higher than the low 40s for well over a decade, and averages around 33%. So, while I'm speculating, I'm not speculating in the absence of data.

bokspring71 wrote: »

The implication is that they are too stupid to vote on what they are asked and might vote on something else entirely. While your point may be a fair point, it may also be bunkum.

The view that a referendum should not be held because the electorate might be too stupid, and might not vote on the questoin they are being asked, is patronising. Every election runs that risk and is no reason to abandon elections and votes and instead hand over the decision to some political elite for it to decide what's best.

That's your inference, not my implication, though. I think people vote to get the result they want, and they do it through the available options.

bokspring71 wrote: »

If the UK does want to leave the EU for EEA status, why should the politicians of the UK feel they have a democratic mandate to act contrary to the electorate they represent?

The answer, of course, is that politicians no longer represent their electorate, but they attempt to manage them.

There isn't a golden rule that says politicians are elected to do exactly as the public want. They are elected to represent the public's interests, and the interests of the country, which sometimes involves doing unpopular things.

One of the major problems with FF is that they strive, as much as possible, to do only what is popular - with results we are enjoying at this time. Now, unless you have some way of distinguishing between "what's popular" and the "wishes of the electorate", then we're faced with the fact that blindly following the wishes of the electorate isn't really what we elect our politicians to do.

bokspring71 wrote: »

Perhaps part of the revolt against lisbon might be explained by a feeling that the EU, and our national politicians, will do as they want anyhow, and it doesn't matter how anyone votes, they will just "manage" the situation to get what they want.

I imagine that's a strongly held view amongst certain sections of the electorate (under 25s, perhaps), and less strongly held, but slightly held, by many.

bokspring71 wrote: »

Perhaps people vote with more weight given to their emotional response rather than to the sheer logical position?

You don't say?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Parser

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Sure. Yours will be a no vote.

There will a lot of other votes in the reckoning.

Really? I though I was going to be the only one voting.

darcy.jonny

OP the reason ill be voting no this time around is the same reason i voted no the last ..............
i want the eu to be democratic , i dont believe that ireland with a population of four million should dictate the faith of 400 million ...........

the lisbon treaty is nothing but a remaned rerun of the nice treaty

FACT france and holland rejected the nice treaty and other votes such as here were called off

FACT the eu went through every legal loop hole they could exploit to avoid bot of those countries voting again

FACT 396 million people have not had the chance to decide for themselves if they want this bill to pass

FACT the claims from others that they are the elected government there for the people dont need to vote as its there job to make the decissions
is frightning

i want the people of europe to decide on this treaty as should be there democratic right ..... if it was though for one minute that this would pass through europe wide elections then i guarantee they would be holding elections

we are also letting the sme fools that are part responsible for the recession we are in ...........also the fact that there is definately room in that treaty for arms dealing and manufacturing is frightning .

if this treaty was something that we wanted to pass , if the government though we would accept this or any other government .... then why the hell is the treaty worded so legally twisting and even the best experts cant read through it ............if it was for the best it would be in plain english

Scofflaw

Oh...dear.

groaning,
Scofflaw

View

darcy.jonny wrote: »

OP the reason ill be voting no this time around is the same reason i voted no the last ..............
i want the eu to be democratic , i dont believe that ireland with a population of four million should dictate the faith of 400 million ...........

the lisbon treaty is nothing but a remaned rerun of the nice treaty

FACT france and holland rejected the nice treaty and other votes such as here were called off

FACT the eu went through every legal loop hole they could exploit to avoid bot of those countries voting again

FACT 396 million people have not had the chance to decide for themselves if they want this bill to pass

FACT the claims from others that they are the elected government there for the people dont need to vote as its there job to make the decissions
is frightning

i want the people of europe to decide on this treaty as should be there democratic right ..... if it was though for one minute that this would pass through europe wide elections then i guarantee they would be holding elections

we are also letting the sme fools that are part responsible for the recession we are in ...........also the fact that there is definately room in that treaty for arms dealing and manufacturing is frightning .

if this treaty was something that we wanted to pass , if the government though we would accept this or any other government .... then why the hell is the treaty worded so legally twisting and even the best experts cant read through it ............if it was for the best it would be in plain english

Here is a helpful hint - Nice has already been ratified and is in force. In fact, the EU is operating using the post-Nice EU Treaties.

If you are going to rant, please at least get your facts right...

bokspring71

Scofflaw wrote: »

There isn't a golden rule that says politicians are elected to do exactly as the public want. They are elected to represent the public's interests, and the interests of the country, which sometimes involves doing unpopular things.



cordially,
Scofflaw

If you ask politicians what they are elected to do, they invariably reply that its to represent the views of their constituents in parliament.

One imagines that if a politician, at the time of a general elections, were to campaign on the platform that he wasn't elected to do as his constituents wanted, but if he were elected he would do, instead, what he judged to be in their best interests, he would be booed all the way to the unemployment office for being so patronising and so paternalistic.

Although , in practice, many governments have acted in what they have judged to be in their electorates best interests, citing their democratic mandate as authority. Amin, Mugabe, the USSR Politburo and the government of China come to mind, as stark examples.

For a government to legislate, for example, for the colour of the lines at the side of the roads, legislation which may be recinded by a future government, is one thing.

For a government to sign a legally binding document, tying the hands of its citizens forevermore, in a situation where they are told they can never renegotiate or recind the obligations therein, is different.

It may well be the view of some that it's right that governments assume to themselves the right to make all decisions. Even those which do not have (a) popular consent, and (b) to bind the hands of future gnerations and governemnts, without having (c) the express consent of the electorate.

Some will agree with that, and other will not.

FutureTaoiseach

Darcy you mean the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution, not Nice (with respect to France and Holland).

oscarBravo

bokspring71 wrote: »

For a government to sign a legally binding document, tying the hands of its citizens forevermore, in a situation where they are told they can never renegotiate or recind the obligations therein, is different.

It is a pity no changes have ever been negotiated to the Treaty of Rome, isn't it?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

It is a pity no changes have ever been negotiated to the Treaty of Rome, isn't it?

Not true. Rome is being renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by Lisbon, and undergoes major amendment to the text.

BlitzKrieg

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Not true. Rome is being renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by Lisbon, and undergoes major amendment to the text.

So you agree bokspring's argument is flawed then?

For a government to sign a legally binding document, tying the hands of its citizens forevermore, in a situation where they are told they can never renegotiate or recind the obligations therein, is different.

FutureTaoiseach

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

So you agree bokspring's argument is flawed then?

That depends on what bokspring was referring to when he said "they". If he means the hands of the citizenry are tied by Lisbon, I agree, because we may never get another referendum because of Article 48 and de-facto passerelle-clauses the Lisbon II (28th amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009) introduces into the Constitution e.g. Paragraph 7(iii) of the legislation allowing the govt and Oireachtas to surrender Protocol 21 (the optout on Justice and Home Affairs) referendum would insert into the Constitution. If, on the other hand, he means that our politicians hands would be tied, then that is less true, in that Lisbon is self-amending, and so politicians - if there is unanimity among all member-governments - could negotiate amendments under the simplified revision-process (Article 48). The problem is that we most likely wouldn't get more referenda on them though. So in a sense bokspring is right in that the govt's hands are tied after Lisbon unless the other 26 agree to untie them. They can't extract themselves from the knot by themselves.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The problem is that we most likely wouldn't get more referenda on them though.

Do you not understand the Treaty, or are you lying?

BlitzKrieg

because of Article 48 and de-facto passerelle-clauses the Lisbon II (28th amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009) introduces into the Constitution e.g. Paragraph 7(iii) of the legislation allowing the govt and Oireachtas to surrender Protocol 21 (the optout on Justice and Home Affairs) referendum would insert into the Constitution

you mean this?

The State may exercise the option to secure that the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly known as the Treaty establishing the European Community) shall, in whole or in part, cease to apply to the State, but any such exercise shall be subject to the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I think you could explain that out a bit more, because the change in the constitution is in reference to a protocol that was added to Lisbon, while the self amending treaty is like you said article 48, I'm trying to work out what areas in specific you are addressing as giving the government the power to deny the irish people referendum's in areas that:

serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

and on

in that Lisbon is self-amending, and so politicians - if there is unanimity among all member-governments - could negotiate amendments under the simplified revision-process (Article 48). The problem is that we most likely wouldn't get more referenda on them though.

Simpliefied revision process applies to the following:

The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may
submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or par t of the provisions of Par t Three of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

Considering Crotty extends to the issues of Irish sovereignty in relation to the EU and the issues that fall under simplified revision process fall under common areas of the EU, then we wouldnt have a referendum on these issues anyway regardless of Lisbon.

One could argue that now in future referendums the issues will be less confusing (and in theory more democratic) after Lisbon because they will be over issues specific to Ireland rather then a legal treaty that specifies no particular state and cover a variety of different areas.

FutureTaoiseach

Blitzkrieg wrote:

I think you could explain that out a bit more, because the change in the constitution is in reference to a protocol that was added to Lisbon, while the self amending treaty is like you said article 48, I'm trying to work out what areas in specific you are addressing as giving the government the power to deny the irish people referendum's in areas that:

Certainly. Under the Amsterdam Treaty, we already have an ad hoc optin/out of common policies in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, including the common immigration-policy. The text of the Lisbon II Constitutional amendment as revealed in that paragraph effectively guarantees that the govt and Oireachtas can choose to surrender even the right to optout in future. In a context where the 50 vetoes surrendered under Lisbon includes 16 related to Justice and Home Affairs, that amounts to letting the politicians agree that Irish policy in these areas will be decided by QMV in the future. Note also that then Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern (on the DFA website still) stated last year that within 3 years, the govt would "review" the optouts. Note also that Lucinda Creighton reacted to the optout by stating that the JHA area was 'too important to optout from'. So either way, whoever governs us next, a yes vote to Lisbon II would mean the eventual - and possible early - end of our national veto over Justice and Home Affairs with respect to what is applicatory in law in this State. Paragraph 7(iii) is a serious concern for those of us who want to ensure future EU referenda are held on amendments to the Treaties that are material to national sovereignty.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Certainly. We already have an ad hoc optin/out of common policies in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, including the common immigration-policy. The text of the Lisbon II Constitutional amendment as revealed in that paragraph effectively guarantees that the govt and Oireachtas can choose to surrender even the right to optout in future. In a context where the 50 vetoes surrendered under Lisbon includes 16 related to Justice and Home Affairs, that amounts to letting the politicians agree that Irish policy in these areas will be decided by QMV in the future. Note also that then Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern (on the DFA website still) stated last year that within 3 years, the govt would "review" the optouts. Note also that Lucinda Creighton reacted to the optout by stating that the JHA area was 'too important to optout from'. So either way, whoever governs us next, a yes vote to Lisbon II would mean the eventual - and possible early - end of our national veto over Justice and Home Affairs with respect to what is applicatory in law in this State.

All of which relies on the idea that our politicians are merely waiting to "sell us out", and that "review" doesn't mean review, but "blindly agree to". In which case, there was no need for the opt-out in the first place, even as a PR exercise, since it now appears explicitly and separately on the amendment instead of being 'hidden'.

Alternatively, the government might have negotiated opt-outs because there are genuine concerns over whether our legal system fits in with what is proposed, and that they will actually be reviewed with those concerns in mind - and that review will come up around the time of the next general election, too, quite possibly under a completely different government.

Despite the Irish government's poor track record, you cannot simply assume whatever you like in order to make your point. The government that reviews the opt-outs may or may not choose to end them - we cannot, at this point, reasonably exclude either possibility simply because it suits us to do so, because that renders debate on the opt-outs meaningless.

somewhat wearily,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

All of which relies on the idea that our politicians are merely waiting to "sell us out", and that "review" doesn't mean review, but "blindly agree to". In which case, there was no need for the opt-out in the first place, even as a PR exercise, since it now appears explicitly and separately on the amendment instead of being 'hidden'.

Alternatively, the government might have negotiated opt-outs because there are genuine concerns over whether our legal system fits in with what is proposed, and that they will actually be reviewed with those concerns in mind - and that review will come up around the time of the next general election, too, quite possibly under a completely different government.

Despite the Irish government's poor track record, you cannot simply assume whatever you like in order to make your point.

somewhat wearily,
Scofflaw

We have to consider the possible longterm implications. FG seems likely to surrender the Protocol if they come to power, based on Lucinda Creighton's comments this year when she said JHA was 'too important to optout from'.

Lucinda Creighton wrote:

I urge the Taoiseach to reconsider the matter of justice and home affairs. This is too important for Ireland to opt out of and we must acknowledge that a mistake was made with that Cabinet decision. I hope it will be reconsidered in the context of the forthcoming Lisbon treaty referendum.

The FF-led govt has announced a review in 3 years. The document on the DFA website talks of opting into to areas such as policing. You also have to remember the impact of the tribunals on the credibility of the political-class - especially FF - with the Irish people. Would you buy a used car from these people?

RandomName2

I seriously doubt there will ever be another referendum. If both major parties in the Dail is against Crotty, the Senate is against Crotty, the whole political establishment of the Eu is against Crotty, I can hardly imagine it is going to last terribly long after two eu treaty defeats [nice I and lisbon I]

on october 2, say hello to what will probably be the last ever public vote on the structure of the EU.

molloyjh

RandomName2 wrote: »

I seriously doubt there will ever be another referendum. If both major parties in the Dail is against Crotty, the Senate is against Crotty, the whole political establishment of the Eu is against Crotty, I can hardly imagine it is going to last terribly long after two eu treaty defeats [nice I and lisbon I]

on october 2, say hello to what will probably be the last ever public vote on the structure of the EU.

Are you serious? Do you really think this could happen? Wow, just wow!

RandomName2

molloyjh wrote: »

Are you serious? Do you really think this could happen? Wow, just wow!

Wow wow wow. I ask how are constitutions changed? Answer - through political parties. Indeed, many yes voters are opposed to the public having an undue direct influence on constitutional changes. Maybe you are unaware of how 95% of both our, and eu politicans in general, feel about the necessity of an Irish referendum. Wow, just, like wow!

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

Wow wow wow. I ask how are constitutions changed? Answer - through political parties. Indeed, many yes voters are opposed to the public having an undue direct influence on constitutional changes. Maybe you are unaware of how 95% of both our, and eu politicans in general, feel about the necessity of an Irish referendum. Wow, just, like wow!

You should check out the Conspiracy Theory forum while your on Boards.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

Wow wow wow. I ask how are constitutions changed? Answer - through political parties. Indeed, many yes voters are opposed to the public having an undue direct influence on constitutional changes. Maybe you are unaware of how 95% of both our, and eu politicans in general, feel about the necessity of an Irish referendum. Wow, just, like wow!

You obviously don't understand the Irish constitution.

RandomName2

K-9 wrote: »

You should check out the Conspiracy Theory forum while your on Boards.

What conspiracy theory? That there tends not to be referenda on eu treaties? When's the last time Germany got a direct vote on Europe? Their capacity to do so is to a large extent determined by the stance of the main Reichstag parties on whether there should be referenda. There seems to be no major party in europe which is in favour of constitutional guarantees of public votes on eu treaties. That's pretty simple - indeed, many of the arguments in this thead are in favour of this.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

What conspiracy theory? That there tends not to be referenda on eu treaties? When's the last time Germany got a direct vote on Europe? Their capacity to do so is to a large extent determined by the stance of the main Reichstag parties on whether there should be referenda. There seems to be no major party in europe which is in favour of constitutional guarantees of public votes on eu treaties. That's pretty simple - indeed, many of the arguments in this thead are in favour of this.

Ah, I see you don't understand German law either, that's ok, once you're not discriminating against Ireland...

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

What conspiracy theory? That there tends not to be referenda on eu treaties? When's the last time Germany got a direct vote on Europe? Their capacity to do so is to a large extent determined by the stance of the main Reichstag parties on whether there should be referenda. There seems to be no major party in europe which is in favour of constitutional guarantees of public votes on eu treaties. That's pretty simple - indeed, many of the arguments in this thead are in favour of this.

It's up to somebody like Crotty here, to challenge the requirement not to have Referenda.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

What conspiracy theory? That there tends not to be referenda on eu treaties? When's the last time Germany got a direct vote on Europe? Their capacity to do so is to a large extent determined by the stance of the main Reichstag parties on whether there should be referenda. There seems to be no major party in europe which is in favour of constitutional guarantees of public votes on eu treaties. That's pretty simple - indeed, many of the arguments in this thead are in favour of this.

First, the German 'Basic Law' doesn't currently permit referendums at a federal level. As to whether there are any major political parties in favour of referendums, the German Social Democrats and Greens put forward a proposal to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution. An earlier proposal by the same parties to allow referenda in all areas was blocked by the right-wing German opposition Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union (CDU/CSU) in Bavaria. Oddly enough, that's the same CSU that took the constitutional case against Lisbon.

The Germans also have a number of politicians in favour of EU-wide referendums on EU treaties, but that idea was immediately shot down by eurosceptical Denmark.

The real world is a complicated place, and the simplistic battle-lines our No posters seek to draw don't follow any real-world divisions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6W1cP_tW_U

just thought I'd put this up since it just happened the weekend that passed.


you have to laugh.

but I guess it makes sense

if you cannot read this the first time around

PROTOCOL (No 35)
ON ARTICLE 40.3.3 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
IRELAND
THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,
HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union
and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the
European Atomic Energy Community:
Nothing in the Treaties, or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, or in
the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of
Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution of Ireland.

what is article 40.3.3

well its

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This is not the assurances that we have just got from the EU, this is a protocol attached to lisbon, has been since 9/05/2008 at least [thats when the version of the treaty I am pasting it from was written up (consolidated version)]

And I just love that he throws in those urban legends in at the end with the whole straight banana etc.

Its pathetic.

PopeBuckfastXVI

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6W1cP_tW_U

just thought I'd put this up since it just happened the weekend that passed.


you have to laugh.

but I guess it makes sense

if you cannot read this the first time around



what is article 40.3.3

well its




This is not the assurances that we have just got from the EU, this is a protocol attached to lisbon, has been since 9/05/2008 at least [thats when the version of the treaty I am pasting it from was written up (consolidated version)]

And I just love that he throws in those urban legends in at the end with the whole straight banana etc.

Its pathetic.

I can only listen to so much of that guy. I want to say something bold, but won't...

skearon

Ellie The Mess wrote: »

So I'm asking you, people of Ireland, why should an Irish person go and vote no in October even when the protocol is passed?

No Irish person should, as a No vote will only damage Ireland's future.

The two main figures of the No side, Ganley and Mary Lou, have been defeated by the people, their lies have been found out and they have no mandate what so ever.

If you are Irish and wish to support your Country, then the only logical way to vote is Yes.