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

MarchDub

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.)

The answer is no, it would not be bullying, it ought to be called for - because "essentially" and in fact are not the same thing.

If they were both in fact the same thing then the veto by the French and the Dutch of the constitution would automatically apply to Lisbon and it would be voided without the necessity of further voting. But by making minor alterations and a name change - and by declaring it to be different - the previously established "void" need not apply. Constitution lawyers - clever bastards but not always as oblique as they would like to be.

Seeing as how Lisbon is being presented as not in fact the same then a separate vote via referenda by the French and Dutch is in order and ought to be carried out. But whose practicing logic in these negotiations? Not the EU apparently - and not bloody likely to happen.

Dinner

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Ah I see, we can only disrespect the will of the people when you agree with it.

Crystal clear.

Dinner

Dinner wrote: »

Ah I see, we can only disrespect the will of the people when you agree with it.

Crystal clear.

but we're not
I dont know if you noticed but we are NOT having another general election
unlike the other thingy,cough cough,nudge nudge,wink wink

Dinner

Deleted User wrote: »

but we're not
I dont know if you noticed but we are NOT having another election

We are, in 2012 we are having an election because in 2007 the public gave the government permission to govern until then.

Are you saying that since public opinion has changed, the election should be called early?

I think that that arguement could be applied to another situation...

PopeBuckfastXVI

Chaps,

Unless I'm mistaken we didn't vote the last time on whether we were going to have another referendum or not. We voted to allow the Government to ratify Lisbon or not, which, again unless I am mistaken they did not.

Therefore the will of the people, as expressed at the time, was followed.

Sam Vimes

Deleted User wrote: »

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!

I knew someone would pick out the irrelevant part of my post and ignore the important part. Progress will be delayed. Is that better?

Now you can deal with the rest of it:

progress should not be delayed because the Irish people believed Libertas' lies and because they weren't arsed finding out about the treaty and rejected it out of fear

Deleted User wrote: »

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

I've always been clear on that. The people who haven't are a significant portion of the no side. Just search this thread for examples of people who think that they're voting on their hatred of Fianna Fail when they are in fact voting on the treaty

In what way are you saying they're different though? The will of the Irish people was that Fianna Fail should be in power. Why should that not be respected just because you think they're wrong?

djpbarry

rumour wrote: »

There are a certain amount of thought police in here that are afraid of any reasonable interrogation of the negative aspects of the treaty.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall you discussing any aspect of the treaty, be it positive or negative.

MarchDub wrote: »

Seeing as how Lisbon is being presented as not in fact the same then a separate vote via referenda by the French and Dutch is in order and ought to be carried out.

I think the Dutch Supreme Court may have something to say about that.

bladespin

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?

? Dinner, I think you should read my post again, I'm not applying logic here at all, I don't see for a second how that statement was ridiculous, I merely said that most of the 'no' vote are displeased about having to vote again and that this has replaced their original reasonong on the 'no' vote.

Everyone has the right to change their minds, I just wouldn't be so condescending as to tell them to do so.

Sam Vimes

bladespin wrote: »

? Dinner, I think you should read my post again, I'm not applying logic here at all, I don't see for a second how that statement was ridiculous, I merely said that most of the 'no' vote are displeased about having to vote again and that this has replaced their original reasonong on the 'no' vote.

Everyone has the right to change their minds, I just wouldn't be so condescending as to tell them to do so.

So they voted no for irrelevant reasons, then it was explained to them that the reasons they voted no were irrelevant and they are now being asked if they've changed their minds now that they have this new information and their new reason for voting no is that.......they don't like being proven wrong or what?

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

progress should not be delayed because the Irish people believed Libertas' lies and because they weren't arsed finding out about the treaty and rejected it out of fear

FYI Libertas had nothing to do with my vote therefore your conclusion that the No vote was because of their lies is flawed.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've always been clear on that. The people who haven't are a significant portion of the no side. Just search this thread for examples of people who think that they're voting on their hatred of Fianna Fail when they are in fact voting on the treaty

In what way are you saying they're different though? The will of the Irish people was that Fianna Fail should be in power. Why should that not be respected just because you think they're wrong?

Because they are two different things, FF is not the Lisbon Treaty and vice versa.
I don't,where are you getting the rest of that from? I havent said anything about FF or the will of the Irish people. You brought it up and I highlighted that it has nothing to do with Lisbon, for me anyway.

Sam Vimes

This is a very similar situation to what you're saying bladespin:

1. You buy a car based on the salesman's recommendation.
2. You get home and your friend points out that the car is a dud and that the salesman lied to you.
3. Your friend advises you to bring the car back
4. You get angry at your friend, call him condescending and stubbornly hold onto the car despite the fact that you know you were lied to and weren't making an informed decision

Does that honestly seem like legitimate reasoning to you?

Dinner

Dinner wrote: »

We are, in 2012 we are having an election because in 2007 the public gave the government permission to govern until then.

Are you saying that since public opinion has changed, the election should be called early?

I think that that arguement could be applied to another situation...

How do you read that from my post? I have said nothing about public opinion, you brought it up man!
Wow,tenuous links being jumped on like a pogo stick in here today to defend all sorts of things!

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does that honestly seem like legitimate reasoning to you?

Well it's legitimate, it doesn't seem wise though.

Sam Vimes

Deleted User wrote: »

FYI Libertas had nothing to do with my vote therefore your conclusion that the No vote was because of their lies is flawed.

I wasn't talking about you specifically, I was talking about the many people who did vote no because of libertas. What were your reasons?

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they are two different things, FF is not the Lisbon Treaty and vice versa.
I don't,where are you getting the rest of that from? I havent said anything about FF or the will of the Irish people. You brought it up and I highlighted that it has nothing to do with Lisbon, for me anyway.

The post where I mentioned FF was not in response to you, you responded to it. I am getting it from the many people who say that the will of the people should be respected with Lisbon while simultaneously saying it should not be respected with FF. If that's not your reasoning, then feel free not to respond to it.

bladespin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So they voted no for irrelevant reasons, then it was explained to them that the reasons they voted no were irrelevant and they are now being asked if they've changed their minds now that they have this new information and their new reason for voting no is that.......they don't like being proven wrong or what?

I wouldn't assume to speak for them, I'm just giving my opinion, they may not like to be proven right or they may not like their votes being ignored in such an undemocratic way. I voted having formed my own opinion, not because the government told me to vote a certain way and certainly not because libertas told me to vote another, I assume everyone who voted 'no' had theior own reason, all are and were relevant, even unfounded fears should have been put to rest by our advisors (govt, press etc) but they weren't and that's the 'yes' camp's fault.

The vemon spouted by various politicinas after the vote made my blood boil, some even went so far as to accuse voters of stupidity, how can anyone do that? The people spoke, that's that, there's two sides to every argument and in the vast majority of arguments both sides have valid points, the 'no' side won but Europe couldn't accept it.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

FYI Libertas had nothing to do with my vote...

What about the vote as a whole? No influence whatsoever?

Oh and I don't believe you answered these questions.

oscarBravo

MarchDub wrote: »

The answer is no, it would not be bullying, it ought to be called for - because "essentially" and in fact are not the same thing.

Ah, good. I can quote you when "no" campaigners tell us that the Lisbon Treaty is the same as the Constitution in all but name, can I?

You seem to suggest that the French and Dutch voters should be asked to vote on Lisbon because it's not the same as the Constitution. Equally, isn't it fair to say that we should be asked to vote again because the constitutional amendment we're voting on is different from last time?

PopeBuckfastXVI

bladespin wrote: »

The vemon spouted by various politicinas after the vote made my blood boil, some even went so far as to accuse voters of stupidity, how can anyone do that?

Hi bladespin,

I've heard that said alright, and not just on this forum, if you wouldn't mind could you provide a quote of an Irish politician accusing the voters of stupidity?

thanks!

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

but we're not
I dont know if you noticed but we are NOT having another general election
unlike the other thingy,cough cough,nudge nudge,wink wink

On the other hand we have had confidence votes in the Dáil, which, if successful, would have resulted in another general election. However, the government has won these (so far!), unlike the other thingy, cough, cough...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

bladespin wrote: »

I wouldn't assume to speak for them, I'm just giving my opinion, they may not like to be proven right or they may not like their votes being ignored in such an undemocratic way.

You don't have to speak for them, there were surveys done where they told us why they voted no and the vast majority did so for irrelevant reasons.

bladespin wrote: »

I voted having formed my own opinion, not because the government told me to vote a certain way and certainly not because libertas told me to vote another, I assume everyone who voted 'no' had theior own reason, all are and were relevant, even unfounded fears should have been put to rest by our advisors (govt, press etc) but they weren't and that's the 'yes' camp's fault.

No, it's not. If someone had a fear about the treaty they had a responsibility as a European citizen to research it for themselves. The information was out there, it was just that the majority chose to get their opinions from posters rather than reliable sources.

bladespin wrote: »

The vemon spouted by various politicinas after the vote made my blood boil, some even went so far as to accuse voters of stupidity, how can anyone do that? The people spoke, that's that, there's two sides to every argument and in the vast majority of arguments both sides have valid points, the 'no' side won but Europe couldn't accept it.

If someone voted no because of abortion, common taxation, neutrality, Fianna Fail, the commissioner, the idea that we wouldn't have any more referendums or because they didn't know so voted no, then they voted for stupid reasons and I have no qualms about saying that. It's the truth and there is no reason to sugar coat it. That's not to say the people are stupid, their reasons are stupid.

what were your reasons?

djpbarry

bladespin wrote: »

The people spoke, that's that, there's two sides to every argument and in the vast majority of arguments both sides have valid points...

Maybe you could list some of the valid points made by the ‘No’ side to date?

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wasn't talking about you specifically, I was talking about the many people who did vote no because of libertas. What were your reasons?

A couple of reasons
1 Loss of sovereignty
2 Not seeing any positives about the treaty
3 All I have seen the yes side do is create red herrings and play the man and not the ball,that makes me suspicious.If the Treaty is sooo good for us why are they not able to see it on its merits?
4 Lack of trust in the EU
5 Belief that where we are today in the EU is fine,there is no need for the Treaty
6 I have tried to read it but it is impenetrable,I would never sign something I do not fully understand. I know the point has been made that our political masters have put together this treaty so we should trust them but do we really need an EU that only lawyers and civil servant mandarins understand the workings of? When layers of complexity are added to the running of any public body then it increases the risk of people being disenfranchised,relates to point 4 above

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The post where I mentioned FF was not in response to you, you responded to it. I am getting it from the many people who say that the will of the people should be respected with Lisbon while simultaneously saying it should not be respected with FF. If that's not your reasoning, then feel free not to respond to it.

Please understand that they are a minority, and however they think they have a right to feel that way. FF have behaved shamelessly recently so I can understand a protest vote. But my vote is not a protest vote. Perhaps if FF did actually run the country with the interests of the people at heart then the Yes side would be in a stronger position. FF only have themselves to blame for that.

Sam Vimes

Deleted User wrote: »

1 Loss of sovereignty
4 Lack of trust in the EU

Valid reasons, depending on what you mean by that exactly and what your problem with it is exactly and why don't you trust the EU? The way I see it we get back a lot more than we give and tbh I trust the EU more than Fianna Fail in law making

Deleted User wrote: »

3 All I have seen the yes side do is create red herrings and play the man and not the ball,that makes me suspicious.If the Treaty is sooo good for us why are they not able to see it on its merits?

2 Not seeing any positives about the treaty

Saying "that is a lie" is not playing the man, it's pointing out that people are lying. This happened because the vast majority of the reasons on the no side were lies and they had to be corrected, which took up most of the campaign. See PopeBuckfastXVI's sig for some reasons to vote yes

Deleted User wrote: »

5 Belief that where we are today in the EU is fine,there is no need for the Treaty

The people who work in the EU every day and who know an awful lot more about the EU than anyone on this website, disagree. And as you say yourself, you don't understand the treaty and so are not in a position to make that judgement

Deleted User wrote: »

6 I have tried to read it but it is impenetrable,I would never sign something I do not fully understand. I know the point has been made that our political masters have put together this treaty so we should trust them but do we really need an EU that only lawyers and civil servant mandarins understand the workings of? When layers of complexity are added to the running of any public body then it increases the risk of people being disenfranchised,relates to point 4 above

I haven't read the treaty but the choices are not read the entire thing or take our political leaders' word for it. Legal experts on both sides read the treaty and highlighted the important parts. I then looked at the arguments being made by both sides and found that the yes side had merit and that every single reason I came across on the no side was a lie or at best a misinterpretation, mostly from people that had been against the EU since we joined and had voted against every treaty.

If the treaty is so bad for us, why did they feel the need to spread lies about it to make us vote against it?

Deleted User wrote: »

Please understand that they are a minority, and however they think they have a right to feel that way. FF have behaved shamelessly recently so I can understand a protest vote. But my vote is not a protest vote. Perhaps if FF did actually run the country with the interests of the people at heart then the Yes side would be in a stronger position. FF only have themselves to blame for that.

Do you think it's fair to hold back the EU, ie 500 million people, because some of us don't like Fianna Fail?

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

A couple of reasons
1 Loss of sovereignty

How can you say when you openly admit that you don't understand the treaty?

Deleted User wrote: »

2 Not seeing any positives about the treaty

Any negatives?

Deleted User wrote: »

5 Belief that where we are today in the EU is fine,there is no need for the Treaty

Again, you don't understand the treaty, so how do you know there's no need for it?

Deleted User wrote: »

6 I have tried to read it but it is impenetrable,I would never sign something I do not fully understand.

BlitzKrieg

5 Belief that where we are today in the EU is fine,there is no need for the Treaty

so your happy that at the moment when a exploition is found in EU law, such as the ever popular eu parliament travel fee's and weekend pay scandals that we need to wait five years for it to be fixed even if the EU had already proposed a fix but needed to wait until a new parliament took office.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

4 Lack of trust in the EU
5 Belief that where we are today in the EU is fine...

Contradiction much?

Daftendirekt

Deleted User wrote: »

A couple of reasons
1 Loss of sovereignty

I don't know what people mean by this, so I won't comment

2 Not seeing any positives about the treaty

Have you looked? What are the negatives?

3 All I have seen the yes side do is create red herrings and play the man and not the ball,that makes me suspicious.If the Treaty is sooo good for us why are they not able to see it on its merits?

3 All I have seen the no side do is create red herrings and play the man and not the ball,that makes me suspicious.If the Treaty is sooo bad for us why are they not able to see it on its drawbacks?

4 Lack of trust in the EU

I suppose Euroscepticism is a valid reason for a No vote.

5 Belief that where we are today in the EU is fine,there is no need for the Treaty

If there was no need for this Treaty why would the heads of the EU member states have even bothered drawing it up? Why is our own government bothering to hold a second referendum?

6 I have tried to read it but it is impenetrable,I would never sign something I do not fully understand. I know the point has been made that our political masters have put together this treaty so we should trust them but do we really need an EU that only lawyers and civil servant mandarins understand the workings of? When layers of complexity are added to the running of any public body then it increases the risk of people being disenfranchised,relates to point 4 above

A rough analogy: Imagine the heads of the member states have drawn up an agreement that would somehow solve Ireland's economic crisis, with no drawbacks or catches. However, drawing up an agreement as complex as this would need to use very specific, legal language, to avoid misinterpretation. Because of this, various condensed versions, and summaries are published, and made available online, in libraries etc, so that Joe Public can understand it.

Now imagine the people of Ireland are faced with the option of ratifying this agreement by referendum.

By your logic, the voters should reject Ireland's miracle cure, simply because by, it's very nature, it's complex. Really, what should happen is that voters should research the available summaries and information and educate themselves, since a no vote in this case would be demonstratably harmful to Ireland. Anyone who isn't comfortable with their knowledge of this hypothetical agreement, should decide to abstain or educate themselves, and then decide which way to vote.

bladespin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You don't have to speak for them, there were surveys done where they told us why they voted no and the vast majority did so for irrelevant reasons.


No, it's not. If someone had a fear about the treaty they had a responsibility as a European citizen to research it for themselves. The information was out there, it was just that the majority chose to get their opinions from posters rather than reliable sources.


If someone voted no because of abortion, common taxation, neutrality, Fianna Fail, the commissioner, the idea that we wouldn't have any more referendums or because they didn't know so voted no, then they voted for stupid reasons and I have no qualms about saying that. It's the truth and there is no reason to sugar coat it. That's not to say the people are stupid, their reasons are stupid.

what were your reasons?

If you want a 'yes' vote you should have put the people's fears to rest, the voting public aren't going to go and research the treaty if they have the likes of Libertas telling them they don't have to, the 'yes' campaign failed by allowing that misinformation to go unchalleneged, you can't assume the right to just tell people how to vote, you've got to state your case, the 'yes' side didn't.

Accusing any voter of having a stupid reason to vote is showing contempt for our democratic system. Challenge and debate would've won it for the 'yes' vote in my opinion but they didn't bother.

You have no right to ask me how or why I voted Sam, you really are trying to carry out the bully job the government tried to with the first referendum. But seeing as I am arguing the point; I voted no to retain our voice in Europe (a protest vote if you like but it did prove the contempt they have for our system) simple as that and to give two fingers to the government and opposition telling me how to vote without giving me the reason to do so.

djpbarry

bladespin wrote: »

Accusing any voter of having a stupid reason to vote is showing contempt for our democratic system.

Nonsense; I accept that everyone has a right to vote, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept their reasons for voting as they do.

bladespin wrote: »

I voted no to retain our voice in Europe (a protest vote if you like but it did prove the contempt they have for our system) simple as that and to give two fingers to the government and opposition telling me how to vote without giving me the reason to do so.

Or to put it another way, you voted ‘No’ to give two fingers to Ganley et al. for telling you how to vote without giving you reason to do so. Oh, wait now…

oscarBravo

bladespin wrote: »

Accusing any voter of having a stupid reason to vote is showing contempt for our democratic system.

On the contrary, voting for stupid reasons is showing contempt for our democratic system. Remember, the second part of the word comes from kratos, meaning to rule - it's the least we ask of any ruler, that they rule wisely, and no lower standard should be applied to self-government.