What Happens if No Wins again?

brianthebard

prinz wrote: »

That was the stock answer for every anti-Treaty representative I have ever heard. 'If all else fails accuse them of scaremongering!'.

They've done that, yet you're still against the Treaty.

Riiiight....try to downplay my post instead of deal with it. My position on the Treaty isn't based on the guarantees, but thanks for telling me what I think, it was getting difficult for me to think for myself.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes anyone has the right to vote whatever way they want but if they can't give a good reason for doing it, they make themselves look like idiots. take for example all the people who voted no because of the misguided notion that it would get rid of Fianna Fail. Well it didn't and now in Europe Ireland looks like the country that will stall progress because of internal matters. whether we like FF or not should not figure in our decision making.

What do you want me to say? Its democracy, create a coup or get over it.

The guarantees are ridiculous because all they do is confirm what's already in the treaty. As for your either-or situation, it's the second one, I have a poor attitude towards the government making amends. I am embarrassed that they had to go to the EU and ask them to tell the Irish people what they had already told them, because the Irish people were too lazy to find out for themselves and instead believed a pack of lies.

Yes its terrible that people would have concerns, and even more terrible that the government would try to help those people get over their concerns. Bad government. Seriously, you really think that? I'm embarrassed for you.

nesf wrote: »

He didn't say that. He merely said that sticking up two fingers to a group that we are constantly negotiating and working with isn't a good idea, which bluntly is pretty reasonable. The question isn't whether this is a bad idea, it is, the question is how much of a "sticking up two fingers" is a No vote. Personally, I don't think it is much of one but to argue it won't lose us any influence or traction in the EU in the short term is naive.

That's a bit different to what he said tbh.

This is probably the last time I'll reply to 3 or 4 different people who feel the need to take up every post that questions the yes vote. Its getting tedious to see so many posters jumping on the slightest thing. I don't mind replying to Sam since it was his posts I was interacting with to begin with, or nesf cause you're a reasonable person.

nesf

marco_polo wrote: »

You would think that people who are saying the Government should respect the 'will of the people' and do not trust Representate Democracy and the Government they elected to act in their best interest, would be glad to to have the opportunity to exercise Direct Democracy more often.

And yet they are upset about having another vote? :rolleyes:

It's more of an issue that many people for some reason view a referendum result as a final victory and don't like the fact that referendums can be rerun. There's a similar reaction from anti-abortion groups when a new abortion referendum is announced. It's a natural human reaction tbh.

Tony EH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes indeed. The democratic system of the 27 member states of the EU is rubbish......

It's rubbish to bring up "representative democracy" in a debate about Lisbon, when the people who are being "represented" haven't been asked their opinion on the matter.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

It's rubbish to bring up "representative democracy" in a debate about Lisbon, when the people who are being "represented" haven't been asked their opinion on the matter.

Ummmmmm, That's what representative democracy is:

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to either autocracy or direct democracy.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Your representatives "represent" you by making decisions on your behalf and don't ask you about every decision. What you're talking about is direct democracy

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes indeed. The democratic system of the 27 member states of the EU is rubbish......

jebus incredible aint it?

everytime i hear the word "undemocratic" from a No side it feels like another braincell dies

Ireland and the rest of the EU and most of the World operate in a representative democracies

Ireland has a clause in constitution to call for referenda, a form of direct democracy

the fact that one has to state the basics of political systems in a Politics forum is rather disturbing

but who needs facts and definitions when it comes to Lisbon? sensationalist daily mirror headlines are much more exciting

sigh
:rolleyes:

:cool:

prinz

brianthebard wrote: »

Riiiight....try to downplay my post instead of deal with it. My position on the Treaty isn't based on the guarantees, but thanks for telling me what I think, it was getting difficult for me to think for myself.

I thought it was, since you were falling back on 'scaremongering! scaremongering!' to answer everyone. Perhaps you'd like to visit the 'Why I'm voting No to Lisbon' thread and see how every reason to vote no has been roundly deconstructed and shown to be fallacious. But not to worry, you still have 'scaremongering' to fall back on. There's little point in 'dealing' with your posts because you just regurgitating the same couple of lines over, and over, and over, and over....

PopeBuckfastXVI

This thread needs more light and less heat.

tlev

nesf wrote: »

He didn't say that. He merely said that sticking up two fingers to a group that we are constantly negotiating and working with isn't a good idea, which bluntly is pretty reasonable. The question isn't whether this is a bad idea, it is, the question is how much of a "sticking up two fingers" is a No vote. Personally, I don't think it is much of one but to argue it won't lose us any influence or traction in the EU in the short term is naive.

I agree! Thats the question. How will Europe view this. Will they respect the voice of the people or will they be less pleased that we are blocking 'progress'. I think the leadership abilitie of a certain Mr Cowan will certainly be questioned in Brussells anyway.

Tony EH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ummmmmm, That's what representative democracy is:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Your representatives "represent" you by making decisions on your behalf and don't ask you about every decision. What you're talking about is direct democracy

Representative democracy is fine on a National level, but it's nonsense to bring it up in the context of the EU.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Tony EH wrote: »

Representative democracy is fine on a National level, but it's nonsense to bring it up in the context of the EU.

Can you explain why please Tony? Treaties are approved on a National level, by the way.

prinz

Tony EH wrote: »

Representative democracy is fine on a National level, but it's nonsense to bring it up in the context of the EU.

In the same way a national referendum on an E.U. Treaty is nonsense I assume...? Why bother with ratification at all! Let Brussels decide for us.

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

What do you want me to say? Its democracy, create a coup or get over it.

Nope, I'll just keep calling people idiots for making their decisions for idiotic reasons

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes its terrible that people would have concerns, and even more terrible that the government would try to help those people get over their concerns. Bad government. Seriously, you really think that? I'm embarrassed for you.

It's terrible that people have concerns that are based on irrational fears of things that were never going to happen. Throughout the campaign the yes side kept saying over and over and over again that these things were lies but these.....people wouldn't listen. Then the government went to the EU and got legally binding guarantees that these things were never going to happen and still they don't listen! Just what will it take to convince these people that they've been lied to? And are you not embarrassed for your country that so many people are so entrenched in these positions that have been proven wrong?

brianthebard wrote: »

That's a bit different to what he said tbh.

No that's pretty much exactly what I said. You might have taken a different meaning from it but that's exactly what I meant

ei.sdraob

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

This thread needs more light and less heat.

no it needs more oil..


lets listen to what our UK euro skeptic brethren say!
lets quote their trashy newspapers!
lets rejoin the UK!


seriously SF agreeing with UK conservatives and a bold English businessman buying votes

who would have imagined!




lets drop out of the EU and join the UK the did more good for us in few hundred years than the EU ever did in few decades, we owe them our primary language ffs


oh ok :pac: i kid i kid
just find it amusing reading British tabloid opinions on boards.ie

Furious-Dave

brianthebard wrote: »

create a coup or get over it.

Best idea I've heard all day! :pac:

ixtlan

Tony EH wrote: »

It's rubbish to bring up "representative democracy" in a debate about Lisbon, when the people who are being "represented" haven't been asked their opinion on the matter.

Actually they were asked their opinion just a few weeks ago when they elected their MEPs to the EU parliament.

Certainly one can argue that people vote for candidates for many reasons including personality, but it's hard to avoid the fact that 11 of the 12 MEPs elected are pro-Lisbon, and that the 2 main anti-Lisbon groups, Sinn Fein and Libertas won no seats. Joe Higgins is a good man I am sure, but he doesn't really represent a coherent movement to negotiate a new Europe.

So, if we elect FF/FG/Lab/Ind pro-Lisbon candidates, that is a form of message, and an expression of opinion.

Ix.

hobochris

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's terrible that people have concerns that are based on irrational fears of things that were never going to happen. Throughout the campaign the yes side kept saying over and over and over again that these things were lies but these.....people wouldn't listen. Then the government went to the EU and got legally binding guarantees that these things were never going to happen

Just out of interest, can you provide a link to the document that contains these guarantee's in writing? and more importantly where in the said document they are?

PopeBuckfastXVI

ixtlan wrote: »

Actually they were asked their opinion just a few weeks ago when they elected their MEPs to the EU parliament.

Certainly one can argue that people vote for candidates for many reasons including personality, but it's hard to avoid the fact that 11 of the 12 MEPs elected are pro-Lisbon, and that the 2 main anti-Lisbon groups, Sinn Fein and Libertas won no seats. Joe Higgins is a good man I am sure, but he doesn't really represent a coherent movement to negotiate a new Europe.

So, if we elect FF/FG/Lab/Ind pro-Lisbon candidates, that is a form of message, and an expression of opinion.

Ix.

Ix,

He's not talking about Ireland because we do have a direct vote on EU treaties, he's talking about the other member states.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hobochris wrote: »

Just out of interest, can you provide a link to the document that contains these guarantee's in writing? and more importantly where in the said document they are?

Here you go, it's stickied at the top of the forum:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617733

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's terrible that people have concerns that are based on irrational fears of things that were never going to happen. Throughout the campaign the yes side kept saying over and over and over again that these things were lies but these.....people wouldn't listen. Then the government went to the EU and got legally binding guarantees that these things were never going to happen and still they don't listen! Just what will it take to convince these people that they've been lied to? And are you not embarrassed for your country that so many people are so entrenched in these positions that have been proven wrong?

How do you know that these people, who you kindly call idiots, haven't listened? The referendum hasn't been held yet. When the yes side is voted down again and you want to denounce people do it then, but until then you know precisely jack **** about what people are planning on doing this time round.

And fwiw no I'm not embarrassed for my country. Thanks for asking.

No that's pretty much exactly what I said. You might have taken a different meaning from it but that's exactly what I meant

Then why the language about a boss who hates you screwing you over and various other statements that suggested that we should do what the EU told us? If you want to get a message across, drop the analogies and speak clearly.

Furious-Dave

Tony EH wrote: »

It's rubbish to bring up "representative democracy" in a debate about Lisbon, when the people who are being "represented" haven't been asked their opinion on the matter.

The people don't get asked for their opinions in Representative Democracy. The people they have elected to represent them are given to authority to decide for them.

ixtlan

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Ix,

He's not talking about Ireland because we do have a direct vote on EU treaties, he's talking about the other member states.

OK , but the point still holds. Some states have have general elections since the Constitutional Treaty was negotiated, and indeed some since Lisbon was agreed. All those governments are willing to ratify.

And all of those states elected MEPs just a few weeks ago, and the vast majority are pro-Lisbon, which is surely an indirect comment on Lisbon by the people themselves.

Ix.

Tony EH

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Can you explain why please Tony? Treaties are approved on a National level, by the way.

Yes, but by multiple states.

Treaties like Lisbon that will affect millions across many Nations should be put to a vote by the people of those member states. Simply saying that we have "representatives" to do that for us is not good enough.

The people of the 27 member states didn't vote their governments in on a platform of what they were going to do in the case of an EU treaty that hadn't been tought of at that time. They voted them in National issues. So, the people got a choice (even if it is usually just tweedle dum or tweedle dee) on who they elected based on those election promises (usually broken).

It's just illogical to bring up "representative democracy" in the context of the EU as the people by and large simply aren't getting a choice on Lisbon (and it's like).

KINGVictor

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I always wonder why these same people don't think the fact that we have a general election every 5 years is undemocratic. The people have spoken, why do they keep asking them!!!!

That is a flawed comparison...Elections are used for political continuity while referenda are used on one- off issues.

marco_polo

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, but by multiple states.

Treaties like Lisbon that will affect millions across many Nations should be put to a vote by the people of those member states. Simply saying that we have "representatives" to do that for us is not good enough.

The people of the 27 member states didn't vote their governments in on a platform of what they were going to do in the case of an EU treaty that hadn't been tought of at that time. They voted them in National issues. So, the people got a choice (even if it is usually just tweedle dum or tweedle dee) on who they elected based on those election promises (usually broken).

It's just illogical to bring up "representative democracy" in the context of the EU as the people by and large simply aren't getting a choice on Lisbon (and it's like).

Out of curiosity how would you force these countries hold a referendum? The EU certainly has no authority to do so.

Tony EH

ixtlan wrote: »

OK , but the point still holds. Some states have have general elections since the Constitutional Treaty was negotiated, and indeed some since Lisbon was agreed. All those governments are willing to ratify.

And all of those states elected MEPs just a few weeks ago, and the vast majority are pro-Lisbon, which is surely an indirect comment on Lisbon by the people themselves.

Ix.

Unfortunately not. People, especially here in Ireland usually vote along party lines. They vote FF, cos their dad does, or because they dispise Labour or whatever.

I wish it really were the case that people voted on issues, rather than the party of tradition.

It's one of the reasons why the Country is in the state it's in.

Tony EH

marco_polo wrote: »

Out of curiosity how would you force these countries hold a referendum? The EU certainly has no authority to do so.

:rolleyes:

It's not about "forcing" them.

But the simple fact is that the people of Europe are just no being given a chance to voice an opinion on Lisbon because of the situation re: the EU Constitution.

That should have alarm bells ringing for anyone who claims to believe in democratic institutions, regardless of whether they wish to see a Yes or a No vote returned.

Furious-Dave

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, but by multiple states.

Treaties like Lisbon that will affect millions across many Nations should be put to a vote by the people of those member states. Simply saying that we have "representatives" to do that for us is not good enough.

The people of the 27 member states didn't vote their governments in on a platform of what they were going to do in the case of an EU treaty that hadn't been tought of at that time. They voted them in National issues. So, the people got a choice (even if it is usually just tweedle dum or tweedle dee) on who they elected based on those election promises (usually broken).

It's just illogical to bring up "representative democracy" in the context of the EU as the people by and large simply aren't getting a choice on Lisbon (and it's like).

If anything has been proven by the 1st referendum it's that the people, the Irish people in this case, shouldn't be given a choice on international treaties as they are too influenced by propaganda, whether positive or negative. Don't forget that we weren't asked should the Lisbon treaty be ratified. We were asked should we allow changes to our constitution.

KINGVictor

prinz wrote: »

I thought it was, since you were falling back on 'scaremongering! scaremongering!' to answer everyone. Perhaps you'd like to visit the 'Why I'm voting No to Lisbon' thread and see how every reason to vote no has been roundly deconstructed and shown to be fallacious. But not to worry, you still have 'scaremongering' to fall back on. There's little point in 'dealing' with your posts because you just regurgitating the same couple of lines over, and over, and over, and over....

Are you having a laugh?...the debate is truly on and alive...haven't seen where arguements have been roundly deconstructed and shown to be fallacious
Some...maybe.Just like some assertions by the YES campaigners.

marco_polo

Tony EH wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It's not about "forcing" them.

Should we start 26 seperate petitions then to get them to change their laws perhaps?

A campaign to make referendum legal in Germany?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Tony EH wrote: »

Yes, but by multiple states.

Treaties like Lisbon that will affect millions across many Nations should be put to a vote by the people of those member states. Simply saying that we have "representatives" to do that for us is not good enough.

You haven't shown me why a state should ratify a treaty by direct democracy, but use representative democracy when passing every other law.

You can't just say it should be like that, you have to say why it should be like that.

Tony EH wrote: »

The people of the 27 member states didn't vote their governments in on a platform of what they were going to do in the case of an EU treaty that hadn't been tought of at that time. They voted them in National issues. So, the people got a choice (even if it is usually just tweedle dum or tweedle dee) on who they elected based on those election promises (usually broken).

Ratifying a treaty is a National issue. It us up to the Nation to ratify the treaty. Elections across Europe are held fully in the knowledge that Governments are being given the power to ratify treaties. It's still representative democracy at the National level.

Tony EH wrote: »

It's just illogical to bring up "representative democracy" in the context of the EU as the people by and large simply aren't getting a choice on Lisbon (and it's like).

Why is it 'illogical' to bring up representative democracy in the context of a treaty which is in most countries ratified by representative democracy, I don't understand, can you explain the logical fallacy involved?