Lisbon 2 The Return!

marco_polo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What it shows is that the voting is mostly a formality because all the negotiations are carried out beforehand where everyone's position is taken into account and everyone has their say. QMV just gives the EU the ability to go with what the majority want in the tiny fraction of cases where consensus cannot be achieved. It's not that big a deal and it's not an attempt to try to usurp our sovereignty. The fact is that there are a number of things that are better and more efficiently run at an EU level.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0911/1221039067528.html

btw, FutureTaoiseach's opinion that the majority voted no because of loss of sovereignty was in fact mentioned by 5%

Plus the fact that a formal vote rarely needs to be taken even currently in areas where QMV already applicable. Negotiation and agreement by all member states is the norm not the exception under the QMV method.

dub_skav

People drawing conclusions that abortion and neutrality were big issues is extremely misleading.

Whan asked a flat question of why they voted for or against, abortion was not mentioned at all, neutrality was the main issue for 30 people while "Loss of power, domination by large countries, dictated to by other countries" was the main issue for 78 people the 2nd highest reason after lack of understanding (which I admit was far and away the biggest).

It was only when a card was put in front of people and they were asked to rank various issues that Abortion came up. Even then the highest scored answers were "To protect workers’ rights" and "To maintain Ireland’s influence within the EU"

If you think guarantees about abortion and neutrality have placated the majority you are very much mistaken. The government may have convinced enough people to squeek a Yes vote, but they have certainly not addressed the concerns of the majority of no voters.

From that poll, they need to address the lack of understanding, worker's rights and Ireland's influence. Surprisingly they picked the things they could do easiest and got guarantees on those.

Edit: The authors themselves in their executive summary state "Communication about the European Union needs to revert to first principles in order to help people understand how the institutions work, Ireland’s role within them, and how Lisbon would affect this." I don't see much sign of this yet

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What it shows is that the voting is mostly a formality because all the negotiations are carried out beforehand where everyone's position is taken into account and everyone has their say. QMV just gives the EU the ability to go with what the majority want in the tiny fraction of cases where consensus cannot be achieved. It's not that big a deal and it's not an attempt to try to usurp our sovereignty. The fact is that there are a number of things that are better and more efficiently run at an EU level.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0911/1221039067528.html

btw, FutureTaoiseach's opinion that the majority voted no because of loss of sovereignty was in fact mentioned by 5%

It may have been put differently e.g. a certain % saying 'a bad deal for Ireland' etc. I also believe the immigration issue is something people are reluctant to admit being influenced by and as such is understated in this poll.

What it shows is that the voting is mostly a formality because all the negotiations are carried out beforehand where everyone's position is taken into account and everyone has their say. QMV just gives the EU the ability to go with what the majority want in the tiny fraction of cases where consensus cannot be achieved. It's not that big a deal and it's not an attempt to try to usurp our sovereignty. The fact is that there are a number of things that are better and more efficiently run at an EU level.

I disagree. Did it ever occur to you that the existence of the veto itself ensures it often doesn't have to be used, as there would be no point having a division on measures without consensus in areas governed by unanimity? The veto is also leverage - a trump card.

Sam Vimes

dub_skav wrote: »

People drawing conclusions that abortion and neutrality were big issues is extremely misleading.

Whan asked a flat question of why they voted for or against, abortion was not mentioned at all, neutrality was the main issue for 30 people while "Loss of power, domination by large countries, dictated to by other countries" was the main issue for 78 people the 2nd highest reason after lack of understanding (which I admit was far and away the biggest).

It was only when a card was put in front of people and they were asked to rank various issues that Abortion came up. Even then the highest scored answers were "To protect workers’ rights" and "To maintain Ireland’s influence within the EU"

If you think guarantees about abortion and neutrality have placated the majority you are very much mistaken. The government may have convinced enough people to squeek a Yes vote, but they have certainly not addressed the concerns of the majority of no voters.

From that poll, they need to address the lack of understanding, worker's rights and Ireland's influence. Surprisingly they picked the things they could do easiest and got guarantees on those.

I know abortion and neutrality weren't the main issue for the majority but they were issues nonetheless. I don't quite know where people got the idea that the treaty damages workers rights (Joe Higgins maybe?) and if anything our influence has been reduced through our damaged reputation. Moving to QMV does not mean we lose all influence because decisions are pretty much always made by consensus anyway through negotiations, as FutureTaoiseach's study showed.

you won't hear me going out about the great job the government has done on anything really, they've been brutal

What they really need to address is that the EU is not some big bad bogeyman who's trying to destroy our country and the treaty is not the mechanism by which the fictional EU elites are trying to enforce their will on an unsuspecting people. As I said earlier this treaty has become the scapegoat for everything that's wrong with the world and people need to realise that it's just not that big a deal. In my opinion the EU is the greatest international project in history and being overruled on minor issues occasionally (and also getting things we want by overruling others) is not a reason to stall the progress of this project. Important issues such as taxation are still decided by unanimity.

btw, considering the biggest reason by far was lack of knowledge do you think it's acceptable to run another referendum now that people have had time to learn about the treaty?

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It may have been put differently e.g. a certain % saying 'a bad deal for Ireland' etc. I also believe the immigration issue is something people are reluctant to admit being influenced by and as such is understated in this poll.

Would I be right in saying that you are assuming that the majority of people voted no for the same reasons you did?

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Would I be right in saying that you are assuming that the majority of people voted no for the same reasons you did?

I am not a mindreader but my sense talking to taxi-drivers at the time was that sovereignty, a fear of domination by big states and yes - immigration - was a big deal in their decisionmaking.

I know abortion and neutrality weren't the main issue for the majority but they were issues nonetheless. I don't quite know where people got the idea that the treaty damages workers rights (Joe Higgins maybe?) and if anything our influence has been reduced through our damaged reputation. Moving to QMV does not mean we lose all influence because decisions are pretty much always made by consensus anyway through negotiations, as FutureTaoiseach's study showed.

There is no evidence our reputation has been damaged. That thesis reminds me of the European monarchies who regarded France in that light after the Revolution, and decided they had to read the French the riot act. But they had chosen the wrong country to mess around with.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I am not a mindreader but my sense talking to taxi-drivers at the time was that sovereignty, a fear of domination by big states and yes - immigration - was a big deal in their decisionmaking.

A racist taxi-driver :eek: Surely such a thing cannot exist!?!?

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

There is no evidence our reputation has been damaged. That thesis reminds me of the European monarchies who regarded France in that light after the Revolution, and decided they had to read the French the riot act. But they had chosen the wrong country to mess around with.

Now I know that Newstalk is not as reliable a source as a taxi driver but they've had a few people on who work in Brussels and have said that it has damaged our reputation. Reputation is not something you can quantify but it has been the experience of at least some people who work at the centre of the EU

edit: besides which, no one can deny that the overwhelming reason for the no vote is that people didn't understand the treaty, How can "it was too big to read and I was a-scared" not damage our reputation? And then to have the cheek to object to being asked to vote again when we openly admitted we rejected it because we didn't understand it! It makes me ashamed to be Irish tbh

chillywilly

NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

marco_polo

dub_skav wrote: »

People drawing conclusions that abortion and neutrality were big issues is extremely misleading.

Whan asked a flat question of why they voted for or against, abortion was not mentioned at all, neutrality was the main issue for 30 people while "Loss of power, domination by large countries, dictated to by other countries" was the main issue for 78 people the 2nd highest reason after lack of understanding (which I admit was far and away the biggest).

It was only when a card was put in front of people and they were asked to rank various issues that Abortion came up. Even then the highest scored answers were "To protect workers’ rights" and "To maintain Ireland’s influence within the EU"

If you think guarantees about abortion and neutrality have placated the majority you are very much mistaken. The government may have convinced enough people to squeek a Yes vote, but they have certainly not addressed the concerns of the majority of no voters.

From that poll, they need to address the lack of understanding, worker's rights and Ireland's influence. Surprisingly they picked the things they could do easiest and got guarantees on those.

Edit: The authors themselves in their executive summary state "Communication about the European Union needs to revert to first principles in order to help people understand how the institutions work, Ireland’s role within them, and how Lisbon would affect this." I don't see much sign of this yet

Did you read the 'What was in the Treaty' section? Definately a sad indictment of the ineptude of the last Yes campaign.

More people believed the following issues were in the treaty, than believed the Charter of Fundamental Rights (36%) was.

Ending of Ireland’s right to decide its own corporate tax rate (43%)
Erosion of Irish neutrality (42%)

And nearly as many 2-3% less believed the following was in the treaty:

End of control over abortion (34%)
Introduction of conscription to a European army (33%)

And to clarify that these are the averages for both Yes and No voters so I am not having a go at any one group

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A racist taxi-driver :eek: Surely such a thing cannot exist!?!?


Now I know that Newstalk is not as reliable a source as a taxi driver but they've had a few people on who work in Brussels and have said that it has damaged our reputation. Reputation is not something you can quantify but it has been the experience of at least some people who work at the centre of the EU

edit: besides which, no one can deny that the overwhelming reason for the no vote is that people didn't understand the treaty, How can "it was too big to read and I was a-scared" not damage our reputation? And then to have the cheek to object to being asked to vote again when we openly admitted we rejected it because we didn't understand it! It makes me ashamed to be Irish tbh

How many of those folks work not only in Brussels but for Brussels? I am not concerned with our reputation with the elites, who are either replaced every couple of years in an election or by folks who are. Irish sovereignty has an intrinsic value in itself. I want Ireland to have its own ride to forge an independent course on sensitive issues in the world. I want to be in Europe but not run by Europe. Intangibles like what you call "reputation" i.e. among the elites, does not really concern me. The fact that the French and Dutch voted no, the British would vote no, and that we are the only country getting a vote suggests our perspective is not the marginal minority it appears to the untrained eye. An electorate doesn't have a whip system to force them to part with principle to remain in a party.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

How many of those folks work not only in Brussels but for Brussels?

I can't remember their exact titles. They worked on behalf of Ireland in Brussels.

Btw, if people working for Brussels are telling us we have a bad reputation then we have a bad reputation because they're the people that the relationship is with

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can't remember their exact titles. They worked on behalf of Ireland in Brussels.

Btw, if people working for Brussels are telling us we have a bad reputation then we have a bad reputation because they're the people that the relationship is with

I bet France had a bad reputation with the governments of their neighbours in 1789 but their peoples had a very different perspective on it. I take comfort from that parallel. Brussels is like the Bourbons. They have learned nothing.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I am not concerned with our reputation with the elites,

Neither am I since they don't exist because elites is a fear mongering term.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

who are either replaced every couple of years in an election or by folks who are. Irish sovereignty has an intrinsic value in itself. I want Ireland to have its own ride to forge an independent course on sensitive issues in the world. I want to be in Europe but not run by Europe.

No one's talking about us being run by Europe, a QMV system still gives Ireland a voice and a vote. When you talk about being run by Europe you don't quite seem to realise that this 'Europe' includes our MEPs who are there to argue and vote on our behalf. We are a part of Europe. Tbh that sounds to me like you want to get whatever you can out of the EU without giving anything back, which of course fosters a bad reputation

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Neither am I since they don't exist because elites is a fear mongering term.



No one's talking about us being run by Europe, a QMV system still gives Ireland a voice and a vote. When you talk about being run by Europe you don't quite seem to realise that this 'Europe' includes our MEPs who are there to argue and vote on our behalf. We are a part of Europe. Tbh that sounds to me like you want to get whatever you can out of the EU without giving anything back, which of course fosters a bad reputation

The division of powers is like that of the Bourbon Restoration in France in 1815-30. There is the weak parliament that can't even initiate legislation and the unelected bureaucrats that parallel the king's sole preregative to initiate it. You may well say that the Council of Ministers consists of elected governments, but the Irish people didn't elect them yet we are expected to cede more control to them.

I am tired of foreign governments interfering in our affairs. This far and no further. The ECB is imposing Franco-German interest rates on Ireland and our tiny economy has little weight with them. It helped fuel the housing bubble, as did the artificial housing-market created by Enlargement and mass-immigration. I blame the politicians - not the immigrants. But the lessons are clear: blind obedience to the "Europe is good" mantra harms the interests of small countries. I mean no ill will to other European nations, many of whom would do the same as we did last year if their governments allowed them.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I bet France had a bad reputation with the governments of their neighbours in 1789 but their peoples had a very different perspective on it. I take comfort from that parallel. Brussels is like the Bourbons. They have learned nothing.

Que?

After the last vote Ireland shouted with one loud voice WE HADN'T A FCUKING CLUE WHAT THE TREATY WAS ABOUT SO WE THREW IT OUT!. Then they asked us to vote again and this time we shout HOW DARE YOU ASK US TO VOTE AGAIN JUST BECAUSE WE HADN'T A FCUKING CLUE WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON LAST TIME!?!?".

The only thing Brussels can learn from that is that Ireland is full of lazy naysayers who aren't bothered fulfilling their responsibility as EU citizens to make an informed vote

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Que?

After the last vote Ireland shouted with one loud voice WE HADN'T A FCUKING CLUE WHAT THE TREATY WAS ABOUT SO WE THREW IT OUT!. Then they asked us to vote again and this time we shout HOW DARE YOU ASK US TO VOTE AGAIN JUST BECAUSE WE HADN'T A FCUKING CLUE WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON LAST TIME!?!?".

The only thing Brussels can learn from that is that Ireland is full of lazy naysayers who aren't bothered fulfilling their responsibility as EU citizens to make an informed vote

It is my contention that ignorance among yes voters cancelled out that of the no side e.g. voted yes because 'EU is good for Ireland'. I vividly recall DJ Carey on Liveline arguing for a yes vote but admitting to not understanding the treaty last year. :rolleyes:

dan719

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Que?

After the last vote Ireland shouted with one loud voice WE HADN'T A FCUKING CLUE WHAT THE TREATY WAS ABOUT SO WE THREW IT OUT!. Then they asked us to vote again and this time we shout HOW DARE YOU ASK US TO VOTE AGAIN JUST BECAUSE WE HADN'T A FCUKING CLUE WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON LAST TIME!?!?".

The only thing Brussels can learn from that is that Ireland is full of lazy naysayers who aren't bothered fulfilling their responsibility as EU citizens to make an informed vote

And again Sam I ask you what happens if we vote no again? And if 'we' again say, 'we don't have a clue, we just don't like it'? Or what if we vote yes, will we have the option of seeing why people voted yes, and rerunning the vote if the yes vote is found to be uninformed?

You seem pretty intelligent, but if you cannot see the hypocrisy in your line of thinking that says a uninformed vote is bad only if it gives a certain result I despair even more of this referendum.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The division of powers is like that of the Bourbon Restoration in France in 1815-30. There is the weak parliament that can't even initiate legislation and the unelected bureaucrats that parallel the king's sole preregative to initiate it. You may well say that the Council of Ministers consists of elected governments, but the Irish people didn't elect them yet we are expected to cede more control to them.

I am tired of foreign governments interfering in our affairs. This far and no further. The ECB is imposing Franco-German interest rates on Ireland and our tiny economy has little weight with them. It helped fuel the housing bubble, as did the artificial housing-market created by Enlargement and mass-immigration. I blame the politicians - not the immigrants. But the lessons are clear: blind obedience to the "Europe is good" mantra harms the interests of small countries. I mean no ill will to other European nations, many of whom would do the same as we did last year if their governments allowed them.

Personally I blame the Irish politicians for the housing bubble. It was in their power to stop it but they're inept as ever. If anything I'm in favour of more EU control to take our fate out of the hands of those gobsh!tes

Look, there really is little point in going any further with you. You think the EU elites are trying to run our lives and trample our sovereignty and I think that Ireland has benefited massively from the EU, will continue to do so after Lisbon and would be, to put it bluntly, fucked right now without them. This vision you have of Ireland's sovereignty being stripped away is fictional but as long as you're using a term like 'EU elites' there's no point trying to tell you that

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Personally I blame the Irish politicians for the housing bubble. It was in their power to stop it but they're inept as ever. If anything I'm in favour of more EU control to take our fate out of the hands of those gobsh!tes

Look, there really is little point in going any further with you. You think the EU elites are trying to run our lives and trample our sovereignty and I think that Ireland has benefited massively from the EU, will continue to do so after Lisbon and would be, to put it bluntly, fucked right now without them. This vision you have of Ireland's sovereignty being stripped away is fictional but as long as you're using a term like 'EU elites' there's no point trying to tell you that

Why does it have to be about love or hate? I want us to be in a position to pick and choose how deep our relationship with the EU is - not pull out completely. Just because I don't want to go 'all the way' all the time doesn't mean I want a divorce.

K-9

dan719 wrote: »

You have no idea what you are talking about. Show me any evidence that quotas are too high (in fact there are signs of a massive cod recovery at present). Also explain to me why lowering quotas while increasing the percentage of Irish fish that Irish fishermen are allowed catch would not benefit the country. Or are you trying to talk about something of which you have no comprehension?

I think it is hilarious in this country how people 'turn on' primary producers of food. Where do you think your three meals a day come from? The FSM?

Why was there a cod shortage, out of interest?

Irish fishermen got a bad deal out of the EU definitely, though how much of that is down to the EU or bad Govt policy, I don't know. We had a very small fishing industry when we joined and it wasn't a priority. Foreign trawlers where in our waters before the EU so I don't think "dey tuk our fish" is as much an EU problem as people think.

dan719 wrote: »

Six months time. We have voted yes in the Lisbon two? Should we hold a Lisbon three?

1. The treaty is important
2. Only a tiny number of yes voters could give a reason that wasn't a lie and/or fear mongering spread by groups who have been for every treaty since we joined the EU and/or nothing to do with the treaty such as a love of Fianna Fail
3. A significant reason given for acceptance last time was lack of knowledge of the treaty but people just did what they were told.

Sam Vimes, I appreciate that you have a rotten set of facts to work with. However it is impossible for you to argue that Lisbon must be rerun for reasons which, with a small tweaking can be used to argue re-running the treaty after a Yes result. We must therefore conclude, that unless the government wishes to run referenda on this issue until the end of time, that Lisbon 2 is nothing more than an attempt to ride roughshod over the declared wishes of the Irish people.

Some had issues over the Commissioner and taxation and hoped a second vote would happen. It is up to them to decide if the guarantees are enough, not some people who shout "No means No".

dan719 wrote: »

You and senior business people think that it will. I can go and find ten academics within 200 yards of me, all of whom are pro Lisbon but none of whom feel a No vote would have a huge impact on the economy. So you are scaremongering.

Theoretical
*I don't like the idea of QMV, if I could I would have it done away with altogether. I strongly dislike the idea of more decisions being made by QMV. I would prefer a system whereby all decisions were made by consensus, or the status quo prevailed,either or.*

Is this an acceptable reason? You cannot deny that Lisbon Treaty will see further decisions made by QMV, would someone not be entitled (in your view) to vote no for this reason?

Also, I love your condescending attitude. 'You'll tell me' whether I 'think' correctly. I've read the treaty, and have access to presumably all the online resources you have, so unless you wrote the f*cking thing, get over yourself.

QMV would be a reasonable reason to vote No. Have you seen any decisions that Ireland opposed that was brought in by QMV?

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

And again Sam I ask you what happens if we vote no again? And if 'we' again say, 'we don't have a clue, we just don't like it'?

If we keep refusing to to try to understand the treaty while still voting it down I think we should withdraw from the EU because it will have become clear that the Irish people are not capable of behaving as responsible citizens. It is not acceptable to reject something because you don't understand it while not making any effort to understand it

dan719 wrote: »

Or what if we vote yes, will we have the option of seeing why people voted yes, and rerunning the vote if the yes vote is found to be uninformed?

The way I look at it, the default should be yes. Five years and millions have been spent drafting this treaty and at no stage was the prince of darkness involved. Our own elected representatives and civil servants were involved in writing the treaty, they know what's in it and it's their job to represent Ireland's interests. It was not written by imaginary 'EU elites' trying to set up an EU superstate. If anything the treaty will make the whole process more open because it requires them to meet in the open whereas now they can do it behind closed doors.

When dealing with an organisation that has been as good for Ireland as the EU has, you shouldn't be looking for reasons to vote yes, you should be looking for reasons to vote no and if you find some, they will be addressed because, again, the EU is not run by the prince of darkness.

And if you have issues and they are addressed and you are asked to vote on a very similar treaty, or even the same treaty if addressing your issues did not require a change as in this case, it is not undemocratic, it's the essence of democracy. The treaty would most likely have gone through hundreds of such iterations within the EU before being sent out to the populace

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Why does it have to be about love or hate? I want us to be in a position to pick and choose how deep our relationship with the EU is - not pull out completely. Just because I don't want to go 'all the way' all the time doesn't mean I want a divorce.

You see that's the thing. You want to pick the things that are good for Ireland and Ireland alone and reject everything else, even if it would be good for the 500 million others. Democracy is about compromise, not minority rules

FutureTaoiseach

The solution to the impasse in the event of another no vote is for the EU to get off its high horse and accept it can actually - shock horror - be wrong from time to time. Telling the electorate they gave the "wrong answer" in country after country that voted no to the EU Constitution/Lisbon is blatently undemocratic and insulting to European citizens who happen to disagree with the direction of the EU towards political-union. We value our separate national identities and do not want them supplanted by some artificial federalist European identity.

Sam Vimes wrote:

You see that's the thing. You want to pick the things that are good for Ireland and Ireland alone and reject everything else, even if it would be good for the 500 million others. Democracy is about compromise.

Let the other 500 million have a say directly on this treaty. I happen to believe that where matters of sovereignty are concerned, the people have to be consulted directly. As Lafayette once said, true republicanism is the sovereignty of the people.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The solution to the impasse in the event of another no vote is for the EU to get off its high horse and accept it can actually - shock horror - be wrong from time to time. Telling the electorate they gave the "wrong answer" in country after country that voted no to the EU Constitution/Lisbon is blatently undemocratic and insulting to European citizens who happen to disagree with the direction of the EU towards political-union. We value our separate national identities and do not want them supplanted by some artificial federalist European identity.

Tell me, do you intend to vote no to all future treaties?

dub_skav

Sam Vimes wrote: »

btw, considering the biggest reason by far was lack of knowledge do you think it's acceptable to run another referendum now that people have had time to learn about the treaty?

I believe if the government were doing anything to educate the voters on the treaty it would be reasonable to ask for another vote. You might say it is up to the voter to educate themselves, yet the government spent a lot of time and effort getting "guarantees" around spurious issues to sway the few % of voters they believe they need for a yes vote.
If instead they educated the voters on what the EU and its institutions do today and then explain what will change I would support this rerun more.

As it is:
"not one comma" has changed
We have guarantees for things that were never in the treaty in the 1st place
The government are continuing to trot out their "good for ireland" line.

I believe that nothing has changed since the last referendum. The government have once again failed.
They have data that tells them 42% of no voters did not understand the treaty, yet they have done nothing useful to address this.

Sam Vimes

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Let the other 500 million have a say directly on this treaty. I happen to believe that where matters of sovereignty are concerned, the people have to be consulted directly. As Lafayette once said, true republicanism is the sovereignty of the people.

LOL

To protect sovereignty you want to disregard the sovereignty of those nations that have chosen to set up a political system that is not based on referenda and say that they should run their countries the way you want.

Dinner

dub_skav wrote: »

As it is:
"not one comma" has changed

So?

dub_skav wrote: »

We have guarantees for things that were never in the treaty in the 1st place

Ever think that there might be a reason for that?

How can you change that which is not in the treaty?
If the issues that people had were not in the treaty, then you don't change the treaty. Is there anything complicated about that sentence?

FutureTaoiseach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

LOL

To protect sovereignty you want to disregard the sovereignty of those nations that have chosen to set up a political system that is not based on referenda and say that they should run their countries the way you want.

Surely the purest form of democracy is the one in which the larger number of citizens of a nation has a direct say?

Sam Vimes

dub_skav wrote: »

I believe if the government were doing anything to educate the voters on the treaty it would be reasonable to ask for another vote. You might say it is up to the voter to educate themselves, yet the government spent a lot of time and effort getting "guarantees" around spurious issues to sway the few % of voters they believe they need for a yes vote.
If instead they educated the voters on what the EU and its institutions do today and then explain what will change I would support this rerun more.

As it is:
"not one comma" has changed
We have guarantees for things that were never in the treaty in the 1st place
The government are continuing to trot out their "good for ireland" line.

I believe that nothing has changed since the last referendum. The government have once again failed.
They have data that tells them 42% of no voters did not understand the treaty, yet they have done nothing useful to address this.

I fully agree. Our government was a pack of useless gobsh!tes last time and they still are.

But, and it's a very important but, the people apparently still expect to be spoon fed by this pack of useless gobsh!tes and won't vote yes until they suddenly break a 12 year streak and stop being a pack of useless gobsh!tes.

I know that Fianna Fail are idiots but this treaty is bigger and more important than Fianna Fail. There are other places where you can get information about the treaty, unfortunately you just have to go out and get it yourself because, as I may have mentioned, the government are a pack of useless gobsh!tes

dub_skav

Dinner wrote: »

So?



Ever think that there might be a reason for that?

How can you change that which is not in the treaty?
If the issues that people had were not in the treaty, then you don't change the treaty. Is there anything complicated about that sentence?

Ironically you have picked out minor points in my post and missed the main thrust of it.