If Ireland does indeed get bullied into accepting the Lisbon treaty...

K-9

rumour wrote: »

Fair enough, but I did think we signed up to a treaty somewhere along the line that siad if all the countries of the EU don't agree it will not go forward. Now it appears that version of europe has been abondoned and someone wants to change it.
We voted and siad 'no', why is that just not acceptable period. Isn't that what the current arrangements say?

I'm not making this up this did happen.

You are voting again. Just vote No again.

oscarBravo

ixtlan wrote: »

Did you approve of Ian Paisleys attitude and policy of no negotiation? No means no. Forever.

And even he said yes, eventually. Maybe we should have accepted his first answer and never asked again.

SkepticOne

ixtlan wrote: »

The Irish government and the EU have tried to address the concerns most no-voters had and indeed the main one was lack of knowledge.

I feel there was a tendency in those tasked with finding out why we rejected the treaty to take as a starting point the positions of the anti-Lisbon campaign groups. The questions asked in the polls seem to reflect this. I'm not sure that we really got to the bottom of why we rejected the treaty.

the_syco

We were told: vote no, or we're screwed.

We voted no, and we are screwed.

So vote yes.

BlitzKrieg

SkepticOne wrote: »

I feel there was a tendency in those tasked with finding out why we rejected the treaty to take as a starting point the positions of the anti-Lisbon campaign groups. The questions asked in the polls seem to reflect this. I'm not sure that we really got to the bottom of why we rejected the treaty.

If thats true then we have an even more serious problem because the people have voted no but no entity has formed to represent these unknown ideals.

Sort of puts it to waste if they are unreprsented and unproductive ideals.

If there is such a large movement at the bottom of why we rejected the treaty, the best thing for everyone is that someone drags it to the top so it can be addressed rather then putting hands over ears and eyes.

SkepticOne

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

the best thing for everyone is that someone drags it to the top so it can be addressed rather then putting hands over ears and eyes.

I'm not sure that is realistic at this stage.

BlitzKrieg

I'm not sure that is realistic at this stage.

Well I meant more if it does end up as a 2nd no vote, because if its not made central issue and worked on it will never be addressed and the whole affair will get looped around again at the fault of the people for failing in their democratic responsibility.

SkepticOne

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Well I meant more if it does end up as a 2nd no vote, because if its not made central issue and worked on it will never be addressed and the whole affair will get looped around again at the fault of the people for failing in their democratic responsibility.

Who is saying the people are failing in their democratic responsibility? Who defines what that responsibility is?

FutureTaoiseach

the_syco wrote: »

We were told: vote no, or we're screwed.

We voted no, and we are screwed.

So vote yes.

Which country has the highest unemployment in the EU? I'll give you a clue. They voted yes to the EU Constitution. If one result isn't causal, then neither is a the opposite.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Which country has the highest unemployment in the EU? I'll give you a clue. They voted yes to the EU Constitution. If one result isn't causal, then neither is a the opposite.

Oh ffs.

rumour

ixtlan wrote: »

Oh... it's getting tiring responding to these posts.

Ireland didn't agree to Lisbon. It did NOT go forward.

We voted no. Does that mean we never want any more treaties? Do you really believe the EU is perfect as is and can successfuly manage into the distant future with no changes? Don't you feel you and everyone in Ireland needs to discuss WHY we voted no? Don't you think it is possible to resolve some of the issues people had with the treaty?

The Irish government and the EU have tried to address the concerns most no-voters had and indeed the main one was lack of knowledge.

Did you approve of Ian Paisleys attitude and policy of no negotiation? No means no. Forever. Was that an inspiring way to behave? Should we as a nation aspire to that. Say no... walk away from the table and never speak to the others again?

ix.

You are persistent verging on ?? 'bullying'. The answer was no accept it for this particular treaty and support the will of the irish people.

PopeBuckfastXVI

rumour wrote: »

You are persistent verging on ?? 'bullying'. The answer was no accept it for this particular treaty and support the will of the irish people.

If the will of the people has changed, do you not want to find that out, so you can support it?

BlitzKrieg

SkepticOne wrote: »

Who is saying the people are failing in their democratic responsibility? Who defines what that responsibility is?

I was addressing the point you made that the issues that caused the original no vote may not have been addressed because the polls focused on the issues of the no campaign and these may not have been the ones to have caused the first no vote.

My point is if these issues are not expressed by the people publicly, either by organized lobby groups, movements or political parties, then yes there is a clear failure in democratic responsibility, by the people is as important as for the people.

K-9

rumour wrote: »

You are persistent verging on ?? 'bullying'. The answer was no accept it for this particular treaty and support the will of the irish people.

The will of some of the Irish people was to keep our Commissioner and they wanted reassurances on abortion and taxation.

They have got this, why ignore them?

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Which country has the highest unemployment in the EU? I'll give you a clue. They voted yes to the EU Constitution. If one result isn't causal, then neither is a the opposite.

Is this an admission that the claim you made about Spain was a load of nonsense?

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Which country has the highest unemployment in the EU? I'll give you a clue. They voted yes to the EU Constitution. If one result isn't causal, then neither is a the opposite.

The situation you bring up is different from his position. You are arguing a Yes vote on a Treaty that NEVER came into place affected employment etc.

He is arguing a NO vote on a Treaty that never came into place affected our employment etc.

The two are very different.


Don't agree with either personally.

SkepticOne

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

My point is if these issues are not expressed by the people publicly, either by organized lobby groups, movements or political parties, then yes there is a clear failure in democratic responsibility, by the people is as important as for the people.

Where are you getting that from? If I find that my views are not represented by a particular lobby group or political party then I simply don't support that group or party. I am under no obligation to set up one.

ixtlan

rumour wrote: »

You are persistent verging on ?? 'bullying'. The answer was no accept it for this particular treaty and support the will of the irish people.

Your answer shows the problem... I assume "for this particular treaty" means that you are not in principal against the idea of negotiating another treaty?

So then the question has to be what was wrong with this one? If the answer as shown by polls was a list of things NOT in the treaty, plus a lack of understanding, then it seems logical to clarify the issues, present more information and ask the people again.

There's no point in moving forward to negotiating a completely different treaty just for the sake of it being completely different.

I'm not bullying, I'm just debating. No means no forever is not a valid debating strategy.

Ix

P. Breathnach

ixtlan wrote: »

... No means no forever is not a valid debating strategy.

It saves time, and spares one the need to think.

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Is this an admission that the claim you made about Spain was a load of nonsense?

I am only claiming a statistical fact, in order to counter the nonsense put about by figures on the yes side arguing that we are being damaged economically because our "reputation" has suffered from the no vote.

BlitzKrieg

SkepticOne wrote: »

Where are you getting that from? If I find that my views are not represented by a particular lobby group or political party then I simply don't support that group or party. I am under no obligation to set up one.

But if the issues are as widespread as you say they could be (going as far as being the predominant reason that the treaty was rejected) then some form of movement should form. In many cases this would happen almost naturally, a party would alter its policy according to its members, a new party/movement would form maybe by a small number of people, but due to the large undercurrent of support that movement would grow rapidly from support. No I dont expect you to form a group, but if you take 100 people who all agree on an issue, 1 is bound to make some form of public statement and the majority of that 100 would give their support to that 1.

To have such issues exist and not be reflected in any sort of organization is very difficult to imagine. Especially when you consider that organizations have formed on so many issues already. Coir has been around for years because there is a steady undercurrent of support for pro life issues, forums like Stormfront get regular members because there exists a small number of white supremacist. To say that there was such an issue that influenced the Lisbon result more then anything presented by the no campaigns and there was nothing to represent these issues it would be very difficult to imagine. You would think at a minimum they would appear here on these forums or on politics.ie, yet the vast majority of issues raised here and there can be linked to specific no campaigns, usually by the OP themselves linking to a website or youtube video by one of those campaigns. With the exception of course for FutureTaoiseacht's insane Spanish unemployment argument.

nesf

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I am only claiming a statistical fact, in order to counter the nonsense put about by figures on the yes side arguing that we are being damaged economically because our "reputation" has suffered from the no vote.

You're not, you're drawing utterly inane conclusions from two independent events that don't appear to be causally related.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I am only claiming a statistical fact, in order to counter the nonsense put about by figures on the yes side arguing that we are being damaged economically because our "reputation" has suffered from the no vote.

A statistical fact? A yes vote to a Treaty that never came into existence is not a statistical fact.

His isn't a statistical fact either but at least he might be able to argue it.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

But if the issues are as widespread as you say they could be (going as far as being the predominant reason that the treaty was rejected) then some form of movement should form. In many cases this would happen almost naturally, a party would alter its policy according to its members, a new party/movement would form maybe by a small number of people, but due to the large undercurrent of support that movement would grow rapidly from support. No I dont expect you to form a group, but if you take 100 people who all agree on an issue, 1 is bound to make some form of public statement and the majority of that 100 would give their support to that 1.

To have such issues exist and not be reflected in any sort of organization is very difficult to imagine. Especially when you consider that organizations have formed on so many issues already. Coir has been around for years because there is a steady undercurrent of support for pro life issues, forums like Stormfront get regular members because there exists a small number of white supremacist. To say that there was such an issue that influenced the Lisbon result more then anything presented by the no campaigns and there was nothing to represent these issues it would be very difficult to imagine. You would think at a minimum they would appear here on these forums or on politics.ie, yet the vast majority of issues raised here and there can be linked to specific no campaigns, usually by the OP themselves linking to a website or youtube video by one of those campaigns. With the exception of course for FutureTaoiseacht's insane Spanish unemployment argument.

Which brings up the point, when it comes to General Elections, why isn't the EU a big issue?

SkepticOne

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

But if the issues are as widespread as you say they could be (going as far as being the predominant reason that the treaty was rejected) then some form of movement should form. In many cases this would happen almost naturally, a party would alter its policy according to its members, a new party/movement would form maybe by a small number of people, but due to the large undercurrent of support that movement would grow rapidly from support. No I dont expect you to form a group, but if you take 100 people who all agree on an issue, 1 is bound to make some form of public statement and the majority of that 100 would give their support to that 1.

In a democratic society they are free to form such a group but are not obliged to.

BlitzKrieg

Ok first, FT. You were already banned once for this red herring, do you really want to persist down this road again?

(http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61244114&postcount=36)


Now

In a democratic society they are free to form such a group but are not obliged to.

Yes, but if their issues are ignored for other issues because they did not form such a group then who is to blame?

By the People. A democratic responsibility does not mean they are obliged to, but it does mean that if they do not act on the issue they have no one to blame but themselves (failing at that democratic responsibility) when the issue is ignored.

Which brings up the point, when it comes to General Elections, why isn't the EU a big issue?

That is the million euro question. Especially when there was such an election a year before Lisbon and the movements that were against lisbon lost seats, while the pro lisbon movements gain. Its no surprise how arrogently Fianna Fail walked into Lisbon when to them it was up until the campaign a non issue as shown by the general election.

I assume it comes down to the wrong assumption that there is some division of power between the irish state and the EU and the general election is about irish only issues. This doesnt seem to extend to EU elections and referendums though it seems as Irish issues do have a big impact on those.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I am only claiming a statistical fact, in order to counter the nonsense put about by figures on the yes side arguing that we are being damaged economically because our "reputation" has suffered from the no vote.

You have a very poor understanding of logic. I'll quote myself from some weeks ago, when I corrected you.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yes but the problem with your argument, is that it could still be postulated (incorrectly in my view, based on the referenda in France & Holland) that the unemployment rate in Spain would be worse if they had voted 'No'.

Your argument is inherently logically flawed, and doesn't actually falsify anything.

SkepticOne

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Yes, but if their issues are ignored for other issues because they did not form such a group then who is to blame?

By the People. A democratic responsibility does not mean they are obliged to, but it does mean that if they do not act on the issue they have no one to blame but themselves (failing at that democratic responsibility) when the issue is ignored.

Which brings us back to the question I posed earlier: what exactly constitutes democratic responsibility at the level of the people?

BlitzKrieg

SkepticOne wrote: »

Which brings us back to the question I posed earlier: what exactly constitutes democratic responsibility at the level of the people?

I would personally say Apathy would be the failing of democratic responsibility so using that as a cornerstone, democratic responsibility would be vigilance.

Though that sounds a tad aggressive, a bit too much like *2nd amendment* screaming and grabbing the nearest rifle.

So vigilant of the political relationship, that what you vote for is represented, that who you vote for matches with the ideals you seek somewhat. It whats required to keep parties in check. You vote on specific ideals and issues and those issues remain at the forefront of a party even if a party is not elected into power.

The much mentioned party voting because daddy did it, is another case of the failure of democratic responsibility, its a level of apathy showing the disconnect between party activity and party responsibility.

The tricky area would of course be the spoiling vote element. The argument here is actively spoiling your vote is not apathy because you are stating your ideals are not represented, of course this ends up muddled in with the thousands who simply dont care and the very few who may have made mistakes.


So vigilance and apathy. But this would probably best served as a thread of its own in the political theory forum to hear a variety of opinions on democratic responsibility.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

Which brings us back to the question I posed earlier: what exactly constitutes democratic responsibility at the level of the people?

Exercising the best judgement possible when voting. That means informing yourself of the issues, weighing them up and voting on them.

I wouldn't accept "I didn't understand the bill, so I voted No" from an elected representative. I don't see why I should accept it from a voter.

SkepticOne

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The much mentioned party voting because daddy did it, is another case of the failure of democratic responsibility, its a level of apathy showing the disconnect between party activity and party responsibility.

I find this frustrating too, but I would argue that we still have to respect that persons right to vote for that party for that reason. It is impossible to place responsibilities on that person or make them somehow justify their voting decision without undermining the system itself.

The point I was making earlier was that I felt what was being reflected in the research about why we voted no seemed to be a reflection of the main "no" campaign groups views rather than the ordinary people.

I don't think those people have a responsibility to come forward and form groups to represent their views frustrating though that might be for those on the other side.