Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

reason for any lisbon referendum?

Options
245678

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Yawn......
    :rolleyes:
    I'll take that as "no, I just made it up", so.


  • Options
    #33
    cooperguy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,650 ✭✭✭cooperguy


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    sorry was sinn féins whole campaign that we can get a better deal and if you dont know what the treaty is about vote no?

    has the first not come to light and is the second not the logical thing to do, beside reading the treaty which is taxing and does not end up with understanding all of the time

    I wouldnt agree with the second. I know way too many people who said "I didnt understand the treaty so I voted no" without putting in any effort to try and understand the treaty! It is a big complex document and they just expected to be inspired as to what it was about. There are plenty of places online that will give you information on what its about.
    Scofflaw wrote:
    In any case, the issue is no longer open - overturning the result of a referendum through the Dáil would be an appalling precedent.
    That really would be a horrible precedent!


  • Options
    #34
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'll take that as "no, I just made it up", so.

    And I'll take your bullshit "...unlikely assertion" in the same way.


  • Options
    #35
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    And I'll take your bullshit "...unlikely assertion" in the same way.
    Fair enough, because as it happens, 93% of the EU's population would vote "yes" to Lisbon if they did have a vote.



    ...seeing as we're just making stuff up.


  • Options
    #36
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Please youself.

    But, if you think that people would rather have their voice taken away in such matters...

    Then

    a. You're lying

    b. Being deliberately naive

    c. Disingenuous

    d. Intellectually dishonest

    e. Stupid


    But I think that you know damn well, that given the choice, people would rather have their say on matters such as Lisbon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I suspect that the majority of the people of Europe don't particularly care about the Lisbon Treaty.* I know it's currently fashionable to present it as a blueprint for the destruction of civilisation as we know it, and to portray the average European as a poor helpless serf downtrodden under the jackboot of their fascist governments - but I doubt your average European sees him- or herself in that light.


    * Of course, I have know way of knowing whether or not this is true, but at least I have the honesty to present it as a suspicion, rather than a fact that I then get all shirty at being asked to back up.


  • Options
    #38
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Please youself.

    But, if you think that people would rather have their voice taken away in such matters...

    Then

    a. You're lying

    b. Being deliberately naive

    c. Disingenuous

    d. Intellectually dishonest

    e. Stupid


    But I think that you know damn well, that given the choice, people would rather have their say on matters such as Lisbon.

    If one is going to assert that, one might need to explain how it is that people don't vote. Let's see - we had a 53% turnout for the referendum, and a 58% turnout for the European elections. Roughly similar.

    If that holds true across the EU, it's pretty easy to assert that the majority of people wouldn't bother turning out for referendums on Lisbon, any more than they turn out for European elections.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #39
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I suspect that the majority of the people of Europe don't particularly care about the Lisbon Treaty.* I know it's currently fashionable to present it as a blueprint for the destruction of civilisation as we know it, and to portray the average European as a poor helpless serf downtrodden under the jackboot of their fascist governments - but I doubt your average European sees him- or herself in that light.


    * Of course, I have know way of knowing whether or not this is true, but at least I have the honesty to present it as a suspicion, rather than a fact that I then get all shirty at being asked to back up.

    It's not that people "care" about the Lisbon reforms per se. But they most definitely care about their abillity to vote on such matters.

    But, of course, you KNOW that that is what I am talking about Oscarbravo, no matter how you try and dress it up in deliberate ignorance. ;)


  • Options
    #40
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If one is going to assert that, one might need to explain how it is that people don't vote. Let's see - we had a 53% turnout for the referendum, and a 58% turnout for the European elections. Roughly similar.

    If that holds true across the EU, it's pretty easy to assert that the majority of people wouldn't bother turning out for referendums on Lisbon, any more than they turn out for European elections.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I'm sure there are many reasons why people don't turn up to vote. Sure, there will be some people who'll not give a hoot about having a vote. There will be people who'll have the right to vote for their whole lives and never exercise that...

    ...but, when asked, the vast majority of people will say that they would rather have the opportunity to have their say, than not have it.

    Honestly, after all that Europe has gone through in the 20th Century, I cannot believe that there are people here trying desperately to have a stance against that. It's absurd.


  • Options
    #41
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Tony EH wrote: »
    I'm sure there are many reasons why people don't turn up to vote. Sure, there will be some people who'll not give a hoot about having a vote. There will be people who'll have the right to vote for their whole lives and never exercise that...

    ...but, when asked, the vast majority of people will say that they would rather have the opportunity to have their say, than not have it.

    Sure - everybody says they'd like to vote, but come the day they get their hair done instead.
    Tony EH wrote: »
    Honestly, after all that Europe has gone through in the 20th Century, I cannot believe that there are people here trying desperately to have a stance against that. It's absurd.

    I don't have a stance against it, I just think that you're holding it as an article of faith, rather than basing it on any evidence. As far as we do have evidence, I'd say most people aren't too pushed - and as with most things where they aren't too pushed, they're content to leave the decision to their elected representatives.

    You believe that the majority of people really want referendums, but are being prevented from having them. I don't think that's true, pure and simple, and the evidence that exists suggests that I'm right, and you're wrong. That would never form an argument for taking voting rights away from people, because it's their right not to care very much - to have "no strong opinion" on Lisbon or any other matter. But it does mean that your argument for voting No on behalf of the "silent majority" is an argument from belief, not an argument from evidence. As with most 'arguments from faith', I find it foolish, self-serving and potentially dangerous - what next will the "silent majority" want for which we have no evidence but your beliefs?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    It's not that people "care" about the Lisbon reforms per se. But they most definitely care about their abillity to vote on such matters.
    If you give people the bald choice between being allowed to vote at all, or not to vote at all, of course they'll choose to have a vote. That's a no-brainer, and it's silly to try to raise that as an argument in your favour.

    The question is whether people will want to vote on any given issue. If you asked the average European whether he or she would like to have to vote on every piece of legislation that passes through Parliament, I suspect they would rather leave that to their elected representatives - that is, after all, precisely why they elected them.

    If you asked as a general question whether the average European feels that they should have a vote on whether or not their government ratifies a given treaty, again I suspect you'll find the answer is that that is a job for elected representatives.

    So, unless you have specific evidence to show that the average European is demanding their right to take back the role of ratifying treaties from their respective parliamentary democracies, or even that the average European wants to make an exception in the case of this particular treaty, even though they don't seem to care about treaties in general, perhaps you'll do me the courtesy of refraining from insulting me in lieu of offering a constructive argument.
    But, of course, you KNOW that that is what I am talking about Oscarbravo, no matter how you try and dress it up in deliberate ignorance. ;)
    I don't know what you're talking about, because you keep moving the goalposts rather than actually back up any of your assertions.


  • Options
    #43
    the_dark_side
    Closed Accounts Posts: 595 ✭✭✭the_dark_side


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Fair enough, because as it happens, 93% of the EU's population would vote "yes" to Lisbon if they did have a vote....seeing as we're just making stuff up.

    Well according to today's paper, Charlie McCreevy would'nt agree with your point
    http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/mccreevy-admits-most-eu-voters-would-reject-lisbon-1792297.html


  • Options
    #44
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    people would like the ability to vote on all things (treaties or elections)

    yes on the whole you wont get more than 60% but unless smething fantastic comes along thats the vote in most places (with a few exceptions, mainly where it is illegal not to vote)


    just because they probaly wont vote on it - should not be an argument against giving people a vote

    people in this thread, and many in general, have an air of pure cheek. the plebs dont vote, they dont want to - it is fair to assume it is okay to take their vote away, so we do.
    in fact we are completly justified, look at the figures - they are ignorant.....

    pff


  • Options
    #45
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭carveone


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    what from the lisbon referendum requires ireland to have a referendum?

    Back to the OP. I believed that the Attorney General thought that the Lisbon Treaty in some way restricted our freedom to act in certain foreign policy areas. And thus under a 1987 Supreme Court case, a referendum was required.

    I'm not sure where the restriction lay frankly, but googling should turn up something. The point, as Scofflaw has mentioned, is moot anyway.
    should lisbon fail - can all the ''good'' points from lisbon not be implemented?

    Not this time. Maybe in the next Treaty there can be a different bundling. In 6 to 7 years time I suppose (and 6-7 thousand posts on boards). I kinda felt the Lisbon was like a Windows Service Pack (geeky I know) - get the whole thing in in one bundle...


  • Options
    #46
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Sure - everybody says they'd like to vote, but come the day they get their hair done instead.

    Everybody?

    Jesus Christ :rolleyes:


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I don't have a stance against it, I just think that you're holding it as an article of faith, rather than basing it on any evidence.

    Rubbish, there's decades of history on the struggle for the right to vote. Everybody I've talked to on this subject, be they 'Yes' or 'No', are rightly uneasy about the fact that the actual people of Europe just simply didn't get their chance to have their say on the matter.

    Except for a few people here, who frankly I do not believe are being entirely honest about the matter.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    As far as we do have evidence, I'd say most people aren't too pushed - and as with most things where they aren't too pushed, they're content to leave the decision to their elected representatives.

    That's not evidence that people are ok about having that right taken away from them. There are many reasons that turnout can be low. Some people just can't make it. Some people are genuinely undecided so decide not to vote and yes some people just don't give a crap. But their tune would soon change if they were told that that right was going to be taken away.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You believe that the majority of people really want referendums, but are being prevented from having them. I don't think that's true, pure and simple, and the evidence that exists suggests that I'm right, and you're wrong.

    It doesn't matter what you think, people have fought very hard for the right to vote. If some don't wish to exercise that, the so be it. They would still have that chance to do so or not. However, the people of Europe DIDN'T GET the chance to not exercise that right, because the political establishment suspected that the treaty prrobably wouldn't have passed, so they circumvented the awkwardness of actually asking the public.

    THAT is not a direction I want to see the "democratic" EU going in.

    In addition, you and Oscarbravo are simply being so dismissive of peoples right to vote, because it suits your position at present. However, the shoe would be on the other foot, as it were, is say one of the member states governments wished to cast a 'No' vote, but their electorate was shown to be in favor of a 'Yes' vote.

    You'd soon be on here screaming blue murder.


  • Options
    #47
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    i know its irrelevant - i just have an interest to see why it required a referendum (geeky i know)

    lisbon to me is like a mad linux build made over several years by 27 people - and its just complex as ****


  • Options
    #48
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Everybody?

    Jesus Christ :rolleyes:

    Rubbish, there's decades of history on the struggle for the right to vote. Everybody I've talked to on this subject, be they 'Yes' or 'No', are rightly uneasy about the fact that the actual people of Europe just simply didn't get their chance to have their say on the matter.

    Except for a few people here, who frankly I do not believe are being entirely honest about the matter.



    That's not evidence that people are ok about having that right taken away from them. There are many reasons that turnout can be low. Some people just can't make it. Some people are genuinely undecided so decide not to vote and yes some people just don't give a crap. But their tune would soon change if they were told that that right was going to be taken away.



    It doesn't matter what you think, people have fought very hard for the right to vote. If some don't wish to exercise that, the so be it. They would still have that chance to do so or not. However, the people of Europe DIDN'T GET the chance to not exercise that right, because the political establishment suspected that the treaty prrobably wouldn't have passed, so they circumvented the awkwardness of actually asking the public.

    THAT is not a direction I want to see the "democratic" EU going in.

    In addition, you and Oscarbravo are simply being so dismissive of peoples right to vote, because it suits your position at present. However, the shoe would be on the other foot, as it were, is say one of the member states governments wished to cast a 'No' vote, but their electorate was shown to be in favor of a 'Yes' vote.

    You'd soon be on here screaming blue murder.

    You're extremely certain about what I think for someone who hasn't even addressed the point I'm making. I'm certainly not being dismissive of the right to vote - that's a straw man of your own making, to distract attention from the fact that you have no evidence for your assertion that everyone in Europe wants to have a referendum.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #49
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you give people the bald choice between being allowed to vote at all, or not to vote at all, of course they'll choose to have a vote. That's a no-brainer, and it's silly to try to raise that as an argument in your favour.

    No it's not. It's been a salient issue for many people who are concerned about the direction that the EU is going in.

    Circumventing the people's voice on Lisbon sets a worrying precedent for a lot of people. They are wondering about future treaties and reforms being slipped through without their consent and they are correct too.

    On reforming matters such as Lisbon, the express democratic say of the people should be heard.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The question is whether people will want to vote on any given issue. If you asked the average European whether he or she would like to have to vote on every piece of legislation that passes through Parliament, I suspect they would rather leave that to their elected representatives - that is, after all, precisely why they elected them.

    SOME would. But most people would choose the right to have a say on the matter.

    You cannot get away from that, no matter what hoops you try and jump through to suit your present argument.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If you asked as a general question whether the average European feels that they should have a vote on whether or not their government ratifies a given treaty, again I suspect you'll find the answer is that that is a job for elected representatives.

    OK, I'm calling your contribution out for what it is Oscarbravo. It's bullshit.

    I simply do not believe what you are saying.


  • Options
    #50
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,326 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    i know its irrelevant - i just have an interest to see why it required a referendum (geeky i know)

    lisbon to me is like a mad linux build made over several years by 27 people - and its just complex as ****

    Because it's written into the Irish Constitution that such matters require a referendum.


  • Options
    #51
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭carveone


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    i know its irrelevant - i just have an interest to see why it required a referendum (geeky i know)

    No, I was thinking the exact same thing last night and I too wanted to know what the story was.
    lisbon to me is like a mad linux build made over several years by 27 people - and its just complex as ****

    And issued as a one massive diff. :p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Because it's written into the Irish Constitution that such matters require a referendum.

    yes - but why?

    what triggered it?


  • Options
    #53
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Because it's written into the Irish Constitution that such matters require a referendum.

    I think conchubar wanted to know which bit of Lisbon triggered the 'sovereignty' question. It's not as if there's an article in Bunreacht that says "EU treaties require a referendum".

    [EDIT]Not that he needs me to say it for him, obviously![/EDIT]

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #54
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭carveone


    carveone wrote: »
    No, I was thinking the exact same thing last night and I too wanted to know what the story was.
    scofflaw wrote:
    Unfortunately, we don't know which bit of Lisbon triggers the referendum requirement, or whether any bit actually does, since we don't know what the Attorney-General's advice to the government was.

    An article in the Independent, just after the last referendum, says exactly that. FG TD Tom Hayes asked the same question posed by the OP and the government answer was that the AG said so. Aren't they great :(

    I also think that there's something about the President's role in determining Constitutionality of treaty's like this - the President can forward it to the Supreme Court for a test of Constitutionality or something. All very complicated...


  • Options
    #55
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    ah - attorney general

    duh

    --
    edited obviously


  • Options
    #56
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Circumventing the people's voice on Lisbon sets a worrying precedent for a lot of people. They are wondering about future treaties and reforms being slipped through without their consent and they are correct too.
    OK, here's a simple exercise for you. Each EU treaty to date has been ratified by every member state that was then a member of the EU. Some of those ratifications have been by referendum; others have not.

    What percentage of the ratifications of EU treaties to date have been by referendum?

    I hereby predict that you will find a way to avoid answering this question.
    On reforming matters such as Lisbon, the express democratic say of the people should be heard.
    In your opinion. That's an opinion you evidently hold dear, and I respect your right to do so.

    What I object to is your projection of that opinion onto the majority of EU citizens. It would certainly suit your argument were it true that most of them agree with you, but the fact that you think they should agree with you doesn't mean that they do.
    SOME would. But most people would choose the right to have a say on the matter.
    Whoah, wait. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you honestly believe that the majority of EU citizens feel that they should vote on every single piece of legislation that passes through their respective national legislatures?

    Seriously??
    OK, I'm calling your contribution out for what it is Oscarbravo. It's bullshit.

    I simply do not believe what you are saying.
    I'll draw your attention to the part of the charter that forbids accusing people of lying. If you have evidence that I'm saying something I know to be untrue, produce it - otherwise, drop the name-calling and participate in a civilised discussion.


  • Options
    #57
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    what is your point of how many past treaties have been referendums?

    its like the veto point - we have only used it once => it is of little use

    what happened in the past is relevant but we are here and now - and working for the future...

    i for one dont say what other countries should or should not do

    but would france and holland (there is talk that a ref there is only hearsay and not legally binding but as a principle) want another say? (i would say yes - yes there is no rioting on the streets but that does not mean they dont care)

    czech republic? klaus obviously is a bit skeptic (is he just euroskeptic, possibly so) and he was elected by the people
    so map that onto your argument that if the govt agrees to pass it, it is okay because they are elected

    that is not to mention the uk - who really want the vote and were promised it twice

    no - just on ones that change the treaties.

    that is hardly every piece of legislation - that is roughly every 7-8 years.....


  • Options
    #58
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭carveone


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Are you seriously trying to tell me that you honestly believe that the majority of EU citizens feel that they should vote on every single piece of legislation that passes through their respective national legislatures?

    I'm seriously annoyed at FF for passing the buck to the electorate on this. I elect a government in a representative democracy to do some representing, not ask the Attorney General his option, deny us or the opposition the ability to hear the answer (which we'll never hear presumably) and then throw the whole treaty at the electorate, smug in the knowledge that it will be passed. Tossers. I'll go and answer oscarBravo's question if no answer is forthcoming.
    otherwise, drop the name-calling and participate in a civilised discussion.

    And can we drop the language too. effing at people who ask a question (like I did before and also knew the answer to) is unpleasant.


  • Options
    #59
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,228 ✭✭✭carveone


    carveone wrote: »
    I'll go and answer oscarBravo's question if no answer is forthcoming.

    I'm pretty sure there were 145 EU Treatries ratified by our Government in 2008. There were a whole bunch on organised crime, extradition and assistance in criminal matters.


  • Options
    #60
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    conchubhar1 wrote: »
    what is your point of how many past treaties have been referendums?
    My point is that all the nonsense talk of people being denied their right to vote on something is predicated on the idea that it's something that people generally vote on. People don't vote on finance bills, and (despite what Tony would have us believe) they don't seem to have any particular interest in starting now.

    So my question is: are treaties generally ratified as the result of referenda? Is this something that people all over Europe used to be allowed do, and have now had it snatched away from them by their evil governments? Or (as I suspect) is the idea of asking the people to vote on the ratification of treaties a relatively unusual concept that is being projected onto our EU neighbours as a convenient excuse for objecting to Lisbon?
    but would france and holland (there is talk that a ref there is only hearsay and not legally binding but as a principle) want another say? (i would say yes - yes there is no rioting on the streets but that does not mean they dont care)
    On what do you base your "yes" answer? If French people want something from their government, they tend not to be shy about demanding it.

    As for the Dutch, they can't have a referendum. Their constitution says that the parliament has to ratify treaties; therefore a referendum is non-binding, and as such completely pointless.
    czech republic? klaus obviously is a bit skeptic (is he just euroskeptic, possibly so) and he was elected by the people...
    As is the parliament, which was also elected by the people.
    so map that onto your argument that if the govt agrees to pass it, it is okay because they are elected
    My argument is that it's the government's job to ratify treaties in most member states, and - most importantly - that how those sovereign states ratify treaties is none of our business, any more than how we ratify them is any of ours.
    no - just on ones that change the treaties.

    that is hardly every piece of legislation - that is roughly every 7-8 years.....
    Tony EH wrote: »
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The question is whether people will want to vote on any given issue. If you asked the average European whether he or she would like to have to vote on every piece of legislation that passes through Parliament, I suspect they would rather leave that to their elected representatives - that is, after all, precisely why they elected them.

    SOME would. But most people would choose the right to have a say on the matter.

    You cannot get away from that, no matter what hoops you try and jump through to suit your present argument.
    Tony would have us believe that the majority of people in the EU would like to be asked to vote on every piece of legislation that goes through their respective parliaments.

    I somehow doubt it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    no, it was not the norm before
    oh and of course now, it should not become the norm (where allowed or wanted)..... logic

    they voted no to the constitution and now dont get a vote on lisbon - yes sarcozy stated they wouldnt but just because he got voted in doesnt mean people agreed with all his policies and his choice on the referendum

    yes, your holland point is true - which i kinda mentioned, i have no problem with that.

    but if the dutch had agreed to the constitution - what would that have meant?

    right - so put it to the people or agree to the presidents decision (should he continue to go through with not allowing it)

    i agree - that is why i brought up certain examples where referenda were held before and the want certainly stands true - like the uk
    the new eastern bloc states - barely voted in the elections a referendum on changing the treaties is a meek point in reference to them

    no - that would be highly highly annoying and impractical

    but cases like lisbon come around once every 7 ish years - so thats a different point


Advertisement