Lisbon 2 The Return!

humanji

CCCP^ wrote: »

Because this pisses all over democracy. Let's say tomorrow there's a general election and Fianna Failed get in, are we ok to suddenly change our mind and vote again? **** no. You wouldn't see the politicians turning around asking us if we wanted another go, just in case we changed our mind.

In some countries they rig votes. Here they just ask us to go again, but it's the same thing in reality, they are just looking to get what they want, there is no respect.

When it comes to taking a vote, you stick with your decision, your convictions and principles. Btw, if we vote Yes this time, am I allowed change my mind and we go again? Best 2 out of 3? Sure why not. That's democracy.

That analogy is wrong. The correct one is Fianna Fail were voted in once and therefore must always be in government.

Lisbon hasn't been passed, therefore the No side has been listened to and their votes counted. Hurrah for democracy! Now, the government that was elected by the people (Hurrah for democracy!) want to run another vote to see if A) more peopel will bother their holes to find out about the treaty and to see if the given assurances are acceptable to those who voted no.

Refusing to let people vote is undemocratic. Dress it up how you like, but it's undemocratic.

Stark

ShooterSF wrote: »

*The following post assumes you're against the idea of re-joining the UK*

Lets say the govt. run a referendum to rejoin the UK. You are against the idea and thankfully it's rejected. The govt. get a few promises from the UK and run another referendum the following week. Turn out is down but it still fails. One or two slight changes are made and another referendum is ran the following week. Turn out drops further as people realise that their spending their own time every week fighting something that won't go away 'til it's passed.
That's the nearest reason I can think of a referendum being undemocratic.

You're taking a hypothetical scenario of badgering the electorate and comparing with simply asking people again once after attempting to meet their concerns. You'd be naive to think that they wouldn't run a second referendum like they did with Nice when the electorate declared that they would vote for the treaty if their neutrality concerns were met. There's no way they'd take the piss by running a 3rd time though as there would be nothing left to try and do to appease the public other than a radical reworking (which won't happen either imo, they're not going to spend another seven years working on a new treaty only to have it fail again, they'll simply stumble through implementing what can be implemented without a constitutional amendment).

To be honest, we need to run referendums more often on many issues. I voted one way in the abortion referendum last time round, however my views have changed since then and I'll probably have to wait another 10 years to express my changed views. That's not very democratic in my opinion.

twinytwo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I still don't see that as undemocratic, that's compromise, trying to satisfy as many people as possible. If certain people had objections on Tuesday but got a concession on Wednesday that made them change their mind, why shouldn't they be given the opportunity to voice their new opinion?


If the government were just doing a Mrs. Doyle of "go on go on go on go on go on", that would be an undemocratic attempt to beat people into submission but that's not what happened. Significant numbers of previous no voters have had their objections handled so I see no reason why they shouldn't be given the opportunity to change their minds

No its about getting the people out of the way... if they had wanted to satisfy as many people as possible they would have let everyone in all member states vote.. if they had done this this and the rest of europe had voted yes then we could not stand in the way.. but this was not the case. Many countries wanted a vote which their governments didnt give or have to give them but if this treaty is truly about improving the EU for the people then it should have been let to them to decide and not the suits who are so out of touch with the people its comical. The people of england, italy etc would have all rejected the treaty thus we have a right to not just reject it for ourselves but for them also.....

but as the yes vote sees it if we dont vote yes we are uneducated,ignorant, not able to read hicks with lots of affilations to right wing sinn fein type groups thus making us anti irish anti eu etc etc etc

Run_to_da_hills

Sam Vimes wrote: »

was the second divorce referendum undemocratic?

watch now as you give me a list of reasons why people might have changed their minds between the first and the second divorce referendums and I will counter with my own list of reasons why people might have changed their minds about Lisbon

The reason people might have changed their minds is because they have now have the full weight of the fat cat politicians, unlimited propaganda funds and unbiased national media attention behind them. (Recently introduced by the YES campaigning Fianna Fail Government)

Those that have any respect to our forefathers and great men of Ireland will still vote no to this national sell out of epic proportion.

Sam Vimes

CCCP^ wrote: »

Because this pisses all over democracy. Let's say tomorrow there's a general election and Fianna Failed get in, are we ok to suddenly change our mind and vote again? **** no. You wouldn't see the politicians turning around asking us if we wanted another go, just in case we changed our mind.

Actually Enda Kenny called for a vote of no confidence a few months ago to attempt to do just that. Unfortunately it was voted down

marco_polo

twinytwo wrote: »

No its about getting the people out of the way... if they had wanted to satisfy as many people as possible they would have let everyone in all member states vote.. if they had done this this and the rest of europe had voted yes then we could not stand in the way.. but this was not the case. Many countries wanted a vote which their
governments didnt give or have to give them but if this treaty is truly about improving the EU for the people then it should have been let to them to decide and not the suits who are so out of touch with the people its comical. The people of england, italy etc would have all rejected the treaty thus we have a right to not just reject it for ourselves but for them also.....

but as the yes vote sees it if we dont vote yes we are uneducated,ignorant, not able to read hicks with lots of affilations to right wing sinn fein type groups thus making us anti irish anti eu etc etc etc

Just to clarify who is the 'they' that should have let all the member states vote?

twinytwo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually Enda Kenny called for a vote of no confidence a few months ago to attempt to do just that. Unfortunately it was voted down

which was pointless because the FF/GP control the majority of votes .. so for the vote to have succeded some of the FF/GP would have to have turned sides and why would they do that when they are on the gravey train

Sam Vimes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The reason people might have changed their minds is because they have now have the full weight of the fat cats politicians, unlimited propaganda funds and unbiased national media attention behind them. (Recently introduced by the YES campaigning Fianna Fail Government)

Those that have any respect to our forefathers and great men of Ireland will still vote no to this national sell out of epic proportion.

If that's what you want to think. Personally I don't think the current EU president is the prince of darkness but each to their own

twinytwo wrote: »

No its about getting the people out of the way... if they had wanted to satisfy as many people as possible they would have let everyone in all member states vote.. if they had done this this and the rest of europe had voted yes then we could not stand in the way.. but this was not the case. Many countries wanted a vote which their governments didnt give or have to give them but if this treaty is truly about improving the EU for the people then it should have been let to them to decide and not the suits who are so out of touch with the people its comical. The people of england, italy etc would have all rejected the treaty thus we have a right to not just reject it for ourselves but for them also.....

but as the yes vote sees it if we dont vote yes we are uneducated,ignorant, not able to read hicks with lots of affilations to right wing sinn fein type groups thus making us anti irish anti eu etc etc etc

Once again, I don't give a sh!t about the ratification procedures of other countries. I was talking about the ratification procedure in Ireland, which is the only one that concerns us

Also, I don't call anyone uneducated and ignorant just for voting no but if someone is voting either way for a stupid reason I will say "that is a stupid reason"

Stark

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The reason people might have changed their minds is because they have now have the full weight of the fat cat politicians, unlimited propaganda funds and unbiased national media attention behind them. (Recently introduced by the YES campaigning Fianna Fail Government)

Here's a thought. Instead of people making their judgements based on what they feel about the people telling them truths or lies or whatever, why don't they take some time to actually research the treaty using independent sources to see who's telling the truth or not? I mean I was leaning towards a No vote first time round, until I actually started reading articles from the treaty and went out and researched it only to find my fears were unfounded. That's how democracy should work, taking personal responsibility instead of passing the buck: "oh our leaders didn't educate us enough".

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I still don't see that as undemocratic, that's compromise, trying to satisfy as many people as possible. If certain people had objections on Tuesday but got a concession on Wednesday that made them change their mind, why shouldn't they be given the opportunity to voice their new opinion?


If the government were just doing a Mrs. Doyle of "go on go on go on go on go on", that would be an undemocratic attempt to beat people into submission but that's not what happened. Significant numbers of previous no voters have had their objections handled so I see no reason why they shouldn't be given the opportunity to change their minds

I was simplying offering what I would see as an example of an undemocratic referendum PHB had asked for.

Sam Vimes

twinytwo wrote: »

which was pointless because the FF/GP control the majority of votes .. so for the vote to have succeded some of the FF/GP would have to have turned sides and why would they do that when they are on the gravey train

Actually a few TDs have resigned the party whip recently over various issues. They're not all ministers on the gravy train, a lot of TDs know that they'll lose their seats if they don't keep their constituents happy

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

I was simplying offering what I would see as an example of an undemocratic referendum PHB had asked for.

But what you gave wasn't undemocratic. Putting the same treaty over and over again just to beat people into submission is undemocratic but if there are negotiations, compromise and clarification in between votes it's not, it's handling people's objections and seeing if they're changed their minds

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But what you gave wasn't undemocratic. Putting the same treaty over and over again just to beat people into submission is undemocratic but if there are negotiations, compromise and clarification in between votes it's not, it's handling people's objections and seeing if they're changed their minds

Then I would suggest that future referendums should have a reason for voting box below the yes/no choice. Then I'd agree.

marco_polo

ShooterSF wrote: »

I was simplying offering what I would see as an example of an undemocratic referendum PHB had asked for.

But in your scenario the people kept voting No and nothing happened, until you injected the large presumption that only the No voters would lose interest.

K-9

dub_skav wrote: »

Yes I am serious, I find it insulting to be presented with a document I see no need for and fundamentally disagree with and then others are asked what specific small fixable parts they disagree with, then i am asked to vote again on the same document I see no need for and fundamentally disagree with. As has been said ad nauseum I did not vote no through ignorance so I feel justified in my position. As I also said before ignorance and voting in Ireland go hand in hand, why should this time be any different.

That is how you feel and fair enough. The Govt. feels that isn't the majority opinion in this country and the guarantees will be enough for the majority to vote Yes.


It is amazing that the same people who wants referenda in other countries do not want another one here!

Dyr

Was listening to mickey martin getting some free advertising from newstalk this morning (its not really an interview when the host is in total agreement with their subject is it?). Anyway, he had nothing. Not a single solid reason for voting yes that actually related to this treaty. "We need to be in Europe" "its good for our culture." "Europes been good to us". I stopped listening after he claimed that Ireland began to prosper from the 60's onward once we started looking "outward". I grew up in the 80's mickey, this place was a f***in kip then and its heading right back that way now.

K-9

Stark wrote: »

Here's a thought. Instead of people making their judgements based on what they feel about the people telling them truths or lies or whatever, why don't they take some time to actually research the treaty using independent sources to see who's telling the truth or not? I mean I was leaning towards a No vote first time round, until I actually started reading articles from the treaty and went out and researched it only to find my fears were unfounded. That's how democracy should work, taking personal responsibility instead of passing the buck: "oh our leaders didn't educate us enough".

No fun in that. Far better to spend the time moaning about FF, EU Elites etc.

ShooterSF

marco_polo wrote: »

But in your scenario the people kept voting No and nothing happened, until you injected the large presumption that only the No voters would lose interest.

Fair enough it is a presumption as I can't offer stats from multiple quick referendums on a similar topic. The only reason I suggest it is I have heard people say "What's the point. We'll have to keep voting until they get a YES."
That claim may not be true but human nature is quite lazy.

twinytwo

K-9 wrote: »

That is how you feel and fair enough. The Govt. feels that isn't the majority opinion in this country and the guarantees will be enough for the majority to vote Yes.


It is amazing that the same people who wants referenda in other countries do not want another one here!

the government also knows that the majority of the country does not want them in power... so they should step down right?... oh wait

Dyr

K-9 wrote: »

That is how you feel and fair enough. The Govt. feels that isn't the majority opinion in this country and the guarantees will be enough for the majority to vote Yes.


It is amazing that the same people who wants referenda in other countries do not want another one here!

We had a referendum already thanks, so we don't need to rely on what the govt feels. Unless we want to just run the country on the basis of surveys.

marco_polo

K-9 wrote: »

That is how you feel and fair enough. The Govt. feels that isn't the majority opinion in this country and the guarantees will be enough for the majority to vote Yes.


It is amazing that the same people who wants referenda in other countries do not want another one here!

It is also amazing that there are so many of those that want referendums for the deprived citizens in other countries, and are going to use their exercise their privilage to vote No on the basis that no means no.

marco_polo

twinytwo wrote: »

the government also knows that the majority of the country does not want them in power... so they should step down right?... oh wait

Just to clarify who are the 'they' that should have let all the member states vote?

Stark

CCCP^ wrote: »

Because this pisses all over democracy. Let's say tomorrow there's a general election and Fianna Failed get in, are we ok to suddenly change our mind and vote again? **** no. You wouldn't see the politicians turning around asking us if we wanted another go, just in case we changed our mind.

And that's democracy in your opinion? Chances are people will be looking for the Government to call a general election soon enough due to all this NAMA ****. If a general election isn't called, then that would be undemocratic in my opinion.

K-9

twinytwo wrote: »

the government also knows that the majority of the country does not want them in power... so they should step down right?... oh wait

YEP and let FG & Labour run it again.

Bambi wrote: »

We had a referendum already thanks, so we don't need to rely on what the govt feels. Unless we want to just run the country on the basis of surveys.

Well, we'll see if they are right based on an, err, Referendum.

twinytwo

marco_polo wrote: »

Just to clarify who are the 'they' that should have let all the member states vote?

eu council... governments of each country...those in charge,in power, those that are supposed to represent the peoples best wishes... which ever you feel like really

Sam Vimes

Bambi wrote: »

Was listening to mickey martin getting some free advertising from newstalk this morning (its not really an interview when the host is in total agreement with their subject is it?). Anyway, he had nothing. Not a single solid reason for voting yes that actually related to this treaty. "We need to be in Europe" "its good for our culture." "Europes been good to us". I stopped listening after he claimed that Ireland began to prosper from the 60's onward once we started looking "outward". I grew up in the 80's mickey, this place was a f***in kip then and its heading right back that way now.

Actually he also talked about energy security and the EU presidency

CCCP^

humanji wrote: »

That analogy is wrong. The correct one is Fianna Fail were voted in once and therefore must always be in government.

Lisbon hasn't been passed, therefore the No side has been listened to and their votes counted. Hurrah for democracy! Now, the government that was elected by the people (Hurrah for democracy!) want to run another vote to see if A) more peopel will bother their holes to find out about the treaty and to see if the given assurances are acceptable to those who voted no.

Refusing to let people vote is undemocratic. Dress it up how you like, but it's undemocratic.

Lisbon wasn't passed because people voted No. People voted, Hurrah for democracy. Now, the government, under pressure from the other EU states, wants to run another vote to see if A) people will be frightened enough to vote Yes because "we're in recession because we voted No and if we weren't in the EU we would be Reykjavík on the Liffey" to see if people will be fooled by assurances which aren't even legal binding.

Nobody is talking about deny people the right to vote, but dress it up whatever way you like, this is the same treaty as before. Not respecting peoples vote is undemocratic.

Dyr

K-9 wrote: »

YEP and let FG & Labour run it again.



Well, we'll see if they are right based on an, err, Referendum.

and then another one if they're wrong again, just be sure

I reckon people feel differently on Nice now, can we run that one again too?

marco_polo

twinytwo wrote: »

eu council... governments of each country...those in charge,in power, those that are supposed to represent the peoples best wishes... which ever you feel like really

It has nothing to do with the EU conucil.

"if they had wanted to satisfy as many people as possible they would have let everyone in all member states vote".

That language certainly seems to imply you think that there is a central decision taken which dictates whether or not all people are to have a vote. I am not aware of any international body that holds the power to dictate constitutional arrangements to member states. Nor am I aware of any discussion between member states as to how each of them are going to ratify the treaty. Over the course of time they meet, negotiate the terms, and sign the document.

marco_polo

CCCP^ wrote: »

Lisbon wasn't passed because people voted No. People voted, Hurrah for democracy. Now, the government, under pressure from the other EU states, wants to run another vote to see if A) people will be frightened enough to vote Yes because "we're in recession because we voted No and if we weren't in the EU we would be Reykjavík on the Liffey" to see if people will be fooled by assurances which aren't even legal binding.

Nobody is talking about deny people the right to vote, but dress it up whatever way you like, this is the same treaty as before. Not respecting peoples vote is undemocratic.

The Council Decisions are legally binding so let me just stop that lie right there.