Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

P. Breathnach

rumour wrote: »

... I'm still undecided.

Really?

rumour

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Yes you are. You are being allowed to vote. You don't have to if you don't want to. There is a major difference between being denied your democratic right and simply being inconvenienced.

Agreed but has Ireland not already said no, have we not done this? Why are the democratic results of that referendum not respected? Is ignoring the result not an infingement of the democratic process?

If we vote no again will we be asked again to vote. This right 'to vote' is about as useful as sky hooks if there is only one predetermined answer.

Surely if the people of Ireland vote no our leaders go and tell the comission that Ireland cannot accept the treaty period. They do not go and tell the comission, we can fix this, the irish people are a dosy lot anyway, which is effectively what they have done. Seems to me they really don't respect democracy.

the_dark_side

I think we should vote yes, because then the EU will promtly rescue us from the ecconomic cliff edge that we have fallen over...

'Ireland, we forgive you for being wreckless with your spending, we understand the temptations that were so hard for you to resist, let this sudden downturn in your ecconomy be a lesson to you that willful waste makes for woeful want, thanks for giving us the YES vote that you impertinently denied us in the first referrendum, we will now write off ALL your debt to us'

rumour

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Really?

Pretty sharp. But I do actually believe our future is placed within an integrated Europe. But it is starnge that we the Irish are being bullied into accepting and legitimising a treaty that none of our fellow europeans are allowed vote on. This is hardly an act of solidarity.

I would much prefer if our Government went to Brussels and communicated that fact.

So it boils down to a leap of faith that this unclear treaty masked in opague language is actually for the betterment of the people of europe, but the authors don't trust the people to agree with them.

So I have to rationalise to myself whether I am just to seriously and irrationally conspiratorial or the whole project is a benign masterpiece of integration.

I am still undecided.

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

lol given the state of the economy it might be sooner!!!

Knowing that were in for hardship either with a yes or a no vote I do not think we should be reduced to being scared into a yes vote.

There is a much more fundamental question here, the eurocrats deliberately chose to let this one loose on Ireland thinking that they would get a yes. This provides legitimacy of sorts to Brussels, is it not wrong for a tiny percentage of europes population to have this choice. Surely all of the people of urope should be allowed cast their vote. Fundamentally this is not democratic and therefore wrong in principle. Why are they afraid to put it to a vote. If the majority of people don't want it surely it is not good or is it an elite who have decided that the public of europe should not be trusted? That is a curious position and does not correlate with the promotion of something good.

I'm still undecided.

The "eurocrats" don't decide who gets a vote. We hold referendums because our Constitution dictates that we do so. The only other country for whom that's true is Denmark, so they're the only other country that usually holds a referendum. In the case of Lisbon, an investigation by the Danish justice ministry concluded that the new treaty would not lead to any loss of national sovereignty, which meant there was no requirement for a referendum.

Of the other member states, quite a lot have articles in their constitutions that prevent the use of referendums, particularly for things like treaties. Only 8 countries held, or intended to hold, referendums on the European Constitutional Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Agreed but has Ireland not already said no, have we not done this? Why are the democratic results of that referendum not respected? Is ignoring the result not an infingement of the democratic process?

People really need to stop saying this. The vote was very close and a significant number of people who voted no, I would say the majority, did so because of lies from the no side and/or irrational fear of change. I say irrational because they didn't actually know what was in the treaty, they just heard the slogan "If you don't know, vote no".

I have yet to hear a valid objection to the treaty that actually had anything to do with the treaty and anyone who "doesn't know" by this stage has no one to blame but themselves. Given that, asking us to vote again with the suggestion that we actually read the thing before deciding is perfectly reasonable and not undemocratic.

Furious-Dave

Personally, I believe that being a fully integrated and cooperative member of the EU puts Ireland in a better position to influence and manipulate the development of the Union to better suit our needs than if we continue to stall the political process and piss off the other member states.

rumour

"People really need to stop saying this. The vote was very close and a significant number of people who voted no, I would say the majority, did so because of lies from the no side and/or irrational fear of change. I say irrational because they didn't actually know what was in the treaty, they just heard the slogan "If you don't know, vote no".
Stupid electorate eh!! Perhaps it should just be left to indiviuals like yourself choosen by yourself to answer these enormously complicated questions. Curiously many of the people who advocated the yes vote didn't know what was in the treaty. At the time I did read it. And it is quite simply not clear.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

At the time I did read it. And it is quite simply not clear.

What don't you find clear? If you can point out the bits that you are uncertain about, or are worried about, there's plenty of people on this forum who will happily help you figure it out, it really is a great resource, so why not use it?

djpbarry

rumour wrote: »

But it is starnge that we the Irish are being bullied into accepting and legitimising a treaty that none of our fellow europeans are allowed vote on. This is hardly an act of solidarity.

I would much prefer if our Government went to Brussels and communicated that fact.

How other member states choose to ratify the treaty is their business and should have no bearing on your vote.

rumour wrote: »

So it boils down to a leap of faith that this unclear treaty masked in opague language is actually for the betterment of the people of europe...

I'd say it boils down to an ability to read.

oscarBravo

rumour wrote: »

But it is starnge that we the Irish are being bullied into accepting and legitimising a treaty that none of our fellow europeans are allowed vote on.

As long as they're only asked to vote on it once, right? Because being asked to vote more than once is "bullying", apparently.

I'm curious: since we're repeatedly told the Constitution and Lisbon are essentially the same thing, would you consider it "bullying" if the French or Dutch governments were to put Lisbon to a referendum? (Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the Dutch government can't do that.)

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Stupid electorate eh!! Perhaps it should just be left to indiviuals like yourself choosen by yourself to answer these enormously complicated questions. Curiously many of the people who advocated the yes vote didn't know what was in the treaty. At the time I did read it. And it is quite simply not clear.

I'm not "tarring people with the same brush". Numerous surveys found that people voted for ridiculous reasons en masse on both sides. These are the reasons I posted earlier in the thread:

1. Hatred of Fianna Fail, as if that has anything to do with the treaty. Shows that the Irish people will stab Europe in the back over internal affairs, shows we don't understand what the treaty is about and shows that people don't even watch the news because all but one of the major parties also supported the treaty
2. Abortion, not effected by the treaty
3. Common taxation, not effected by the treaty
4. Neutrality, not effected by the treaty
5. Keeping our impartial commissioner that does not represent our interests in Europe. Shows a lack of understanding of what commissioners do and a lack of knowledge because the reduction of the commission was decided under Nice and Lisbon just defined how it would be done
6. Complaints about an "unelected" president while simultaneously fighting to keep an unelected commissioner and not quite realising that a directly elected president would always come from the country with the highest population
7. That it's a "self amending treaty" and the people and/or the governments will not be asked about these changes. Not true
8. "If you don't know, vote no". Putting ignorance on a pedestal instead of saying "if you don't know, find out".

If people reject the Lisbon treaty I'll absolutely respect their voice but they didn't. They rejected all of the above and none of them have anything to do with the treaty. If you don't think it's clear, ask someone to explain it to you

rumour

Starting with an understanding of yes and no?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If people reject the Lisbon treaty I'll absolutely respect their voice but they didn't. They rejected all of the above and none of them have anything to do with the treaty. If you don't think it's clear, ask someone to explain it to you

Were you voting somewhere else? I don't recall any of the above on the ballot paper?

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

"People really need to stop saying this. The vote was very close and a significant number of people who voted no, I would say the majority, did so because of lies from the no side and/or irrational fear of change. I say irrational because they didn't actually know what was in the treaty, they just heard the slogan "If you don't know, vote no".

Stupid electorate eh!! Perhaps it should just be left to indiviuals like yourself choosen by yourself to answer these enormously complicated questions. Curiously many of the people who advocated the yes vote didn't know what was in the treaty. At the time I did read it. And it is quite simply not clear.

Well, there's a bit of truth in both of those views, surely. The Treaty is complex - not because it's a conspiracy, but because it's making a series of complex and often subtle adjustments to treaties that are already quite complex. Most people don't have the patience or interest to understand the details, so the decision is always going to come down to the potted versions, summaries, slogans, soundbites and talking points laid out by each side. There's a case that can reasonably be made that an informed debate of the full text by national parliaments, assisted by the civil service experts in foreign policy and treaty negotiation plus the various departments that will be impacted by the new treaty, would be a better method of coming to a reasonable conclusion.

Unfortunately, that latter idea is rather obviously ridiculous here, where the whole thing would go through on the whipped nod of the uninterested backbenchers. We need referendums, because ludicrous as our public debate often gets, Dáil debate doesn't often rise above it. I have a good deal of faith in the majority of the Irish electorate, and if I had to put my finger on the single greatest factor that led to a No in the last referendum, it is undoubtedly that the government quite visibly didn't give a toss, and made little or no effort to inform people what the treaty was about, and why they thought we should vote for it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Were you voting somewhere else? I don't recall any of the above on the ballot paper?

That's exactly my point. People voted for those reasons even though they weren't on the ballot paper. They didn't actually reject the treaty

rumour

[

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, there's a bit of truth in both of those views, surely. The Treaty is complex - not because it's a conspiracy, but because it's making a series of complex and often subtle adjustments to treaties that are already quite complex. Most people don't have the patience or interest to understand the details, so the decision is always going to come down to the potted versions, summaries, slogans, soundbites and talking points laid out by each side. There's a case that can reasonably be made that an informed debate of the full text by national parliaments, assisted by the civil service experts in foreign policy and treaty negotiation plus the various departments that will be impacted by the new treaty, would be a better method of coming to a reasonable conclusion.
.....................................
cordially,
Scofflaw

Thank you for some commendable balance. The treaty cannot be win win win as some would have you believe. There are a certain amount of thought police in here that are afraid of any reasonable interrogation of the negative aspects of the treaty. The positive outcomes I am all for but it cannot all be positive. The fundamentalism of the yes campaigners is stiffling and is smothering any reasoned debate. Infact I would say this irrational appraoch is counterproductive if the objective is to convert people from no to yes.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

The fundamentalism of the yes campaigners is stiffling and is smothering any reasoned debate. Infact I would say this irrational appraoch is counterproductive if the objective is to convert people from no to yes.

Sorry what now?

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's exactly my point. People voted for those reasons even though they weren't on the ballot paper. They didn't actually reject the treaty

I'm sorry I'm not following you here. "They didn't actually reject the treaty" I think they did, am I wrong?

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I'm sorry I'm not following you here. "They didn't actually reject the treaty" I think they did, am I wrong?

No, they didn't. Could you look at the list of reasons I gave on the previous page, which were given by a substantial number of no voters, and point out the parts that were relevant to the treaty? And if you can't point any out, in what way did they reject the treaty?

Putting no on a piece of paper does not mean you don't like what that piece of paper represents or even that you have any concept of what it represents

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

I'm sorry I'm not following you here. "They didn't actually reject the treaty" I think they did, am I wrong?

Well, there's a couple of points in there. First, we don't, strictly speaking, vote on the Treaty at all. We vote on whether to pass an amendment of our Constitution - an amendment that is different this time from last, and that deals with a different package of agreements, of which the Treaty is only one element. Second, a lot of people did vote on issues that weren't in the Treaty, and to describe those people as having "rejected the Treaty" is a bit much. If someone voted No because they didn't feel they'd had the Treaty sufficiently explained, did they vote against the Treaty, or did they withhold permission in hopes of a better explanation?

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

rumour wrote: »

The fundamentalism of the yes campaigners is stiffling and is smothering any reasoned debate. Infact I would say this irrational appraoch is counterproductive if the objective is to convert people from no to yes.

There's fundamentalism on both sides. My aim is rarely to convert a "no" voter to a "yes" voter, but to make sure that "not sure" voters get to hear both sides of the story so that they can make an informed decision.

rumour wrote: »

I'm sorry I'm not following you here. "They didn't actually reject the treaty" I think they did, am I wrong?

In effect, they did. But if someone voted "no" to prevent the EU from mandating abortion, or increasing our corporation tax rate, then what they actually rejected was their own mythical and inaccurate concept of the treaty.

Unfortunately, in practical terms, this led to the rejection of the real treaty.

innercitydub1

I will be votoing no just based on the cheek of the eu and are goverment to get us to vote again once more on the subject.

History will record from this time period at how demorcracy was ignored.

It dosent matter if i feel and no my policys will be better as a whole for a country . if the people vote against that you repect those wishes and look to a alterntive or other route.

Plus the perception that the eu has been good to us can be looked on two sides.

Anyways i shall be voting no

bladespin

rumour wrote: »

I'm sorry I'm not following you here. "They didn't actually reject the treaty" I think they did, am I wrong?

I'm pretty sure they did.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Putting no on a piece of paper does not mean you don't like what that piece of paper represents or even that you have any concept of what it represents

It does mean they rejected it though, for whatever reason, 'no' means 'no' a sizable amount of the 'no' voters in the previous referendum might have done so out of misplaced or ill-informed fears but they did vote against it and aren't too happy about their decision being mocked and disregarded by the 'yes' camp.

Dinner

bladespin wrote: »

a sizable amount of the 'no' voters in the previous referendum might have done so out of misplaced or ill-informed fears but they did vote against it and aren't too happy about their decision being mocked and disregarded by the 'yes' camp.

So, what your saying there is that even though many people voted no for irrelevant reasons, they shouldn't be able to change their minds?

Do you apply this ridiculous logic to your life where once you make a decision you won't change your mind?

Sam Vimes

innercitydub1 wrote: »

I will be votoing no just based on the cheek of the eu and are goverment to get us to vote again once more on the subject.

/facepalm. Read the previous few posts for why that is a ridiculous reason to vote no. Europe should not grind to a halt because the Irish people believed Libertas' lies and because they weren't arsed finding out about the treaty and rejected it out of fear

innercitydub1 wrote: »

It does mean they rejected it though, for whatever reason, 'no' means 'no' a sizable amount of the 'no' voters in the previous referendum might have done so out of misplaced or ill-informed fears but they did vote against it and aren't too happy about their decision being mocked and disregarded by the 'yes' camp.

Say, for example, the people who voted no because they thought it effected our corporate tax rates. We now have assurances that it will not effect our corporate tax rates. With this assurance, in what way is their "no" not being respected? they voted no to raising corporation tax and it's not being raised. Happy days!

Sam Vimes

Dinner wrote: »

So, what your saying there is that even though many people voted no for irrelevant reasons, they shouldn't be able to change their minds?

Do you apply this ridiculous logic to your life where once you make a decision you won't change your mind?

I think it's ironic that many of the people who talk about the democratic will of the Irish people not being respected are also anti Fianna Fail. They won the election and yet these people want them out. Do they not respect the will of the Irish people :eek:

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Europe should not grind to a halt

Why the funk would Europe grind to a halt? It didnt after the French/Dutch/1st Irish No and it will not when we vote No again.
More unquantifiable scare mongering from the Yes side!

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think it's ironic that many of the people who talk about the democratic will of the Irish people not being respected are also anti Fianna Fail. They won the election and yet these people want them out. Do they not respect the will of the Irish people :eek:

Hi Sam
Lisbon treaty one issue
FF being complete incompetents who ripped off the Irish people another issue
Clear?
good

Scofflaw

innercitydub1 wrote: »

I will be votoing no just based on the cheek of the eu and are goverment to get us to vote again once more on the subject.

History will record from this time period at how demorcracy was ignored.

It dosent matter if i feel and no my policys will be better as a whole for a country . if the people vote against that you repect those wishes and look to a alterntive or other route.

In this case, changing the terms of the deal, and asking again.

On both sides of the vote, there are people who have changed their minds, and people who may yet change their minds. There's nothing wrong with asking the question again, because even if there were a similar result, the votes and preferences of individual voters have changed. If you take someone like turgon, who has changed his mind from No to Yes, and some of the other posters who say they have changed theirs the other way, a second referendum will represent their current wishes just as the first one did.

In answer to the often-used retort "so should we have repeat general elections then?", the answer, apart from the fact that we do, is that, yes, ideally, the government should be dismissable by the electorate at any point. The only reason for not running general elections all the time, instead of at long intervals, is because our politicians would spend their entire time campaigning rather than doing their job - but I would have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting a recall law. Something where a certain number of signatures allowed a referendum vote on recalling the current government and forcing a general election is something that I would very happily vote for.

cordially,
Scofflaw