Democracy my B0lllox!!!

demakinz

Why do we have to vote again to lisbon? we the people voted NO. i might be wrong but is that not how Democracy works?
will the powers that be in europe keep making us vote untill we get it right?

if Fianna Fáil lose the next general election and we were all made to vote again because we were misinformed on there polices there would be uproar.

surly this is not democracy.
if or when the treaty is ratified do we really want to be part of a Europe that treats the will of the people like this?

Dinner

demakinz wrote: »

Why do we have to vote again to lisbon? we the people voted NO. i might be wrong but is that not how Democracy works?
will the powers that be in europe keep making us vote untill we get it right?

if Fianna Fáil lose the next general election and we were all made to vote again because we were misinformed on there polices there would be uproar.

surly this is not democracy.
if or when the treaty is ratified do we really want to be part of a Europe that treats the will of the people like this?

It is democracy. Lisbon was voted upon and rejected by the public. The government, through surveys, asked the public why they voted no.

The results showed that 42% of people voted no because they didn't understand the treaty, 26% voted no for various reasons such as neutrality, the loss of a commissioner, conscription abortion etc. These were issues that had nothing to do with Lisbon.

So the government went back to Europe, explained the reasons why people voted no. So, the EU decided to draw up a set of legally binding guarantees, similar to the ones given to Ireland before Nice II and Denmark before they voted for a second time on Maastricht. These protocols were designed to address some of the concerns that people had. So, with some of the concerns addressed, it is only reasonable to put Lisbon + the guarantees to the vote again. It is not undemocratic at all, it is quite the opposite, where if the public have a problem it should be addressed.



Every day, people change their minds in real life. Once I make a decision on something I can freely change my mind, more specifically, if I have concerns about a particular decision, I might say no. But if those concerns were addressed I would love to change my mind.

ButcherBoiz

hmmm, I wonder if we had voted yes, would we be given the chance to change our minds?

demakinz

if we had of voted yes the first time and they asked us the same question would we be voting again?
the lisbon treaty is how many pages long?
the average voter is never going to understand it.
how many of the no voters will understand it by the next vote?

it says alot that the only country that had a vote on it voted no.i sure if all of europe had a vote the majority would vote no!

to the layman like me it just does'nt seem fair at all.

Dinner

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

hmmm, I wonder if we had voted yes, would we be given the chance to change our minds?

Unlikely considering it is government policy to ratify LOisbon, so once that satisfied they won't want to change it. At the next general election, however, parties who were against Lisbon or the EU as a whole could be elected or at least strengthened who might make a move to repeal some of it.

Dinner

demakinz wrote: »

the lisbon treaty is how many pages long?
the average voter is never going to understand it.
how many of the no voters will understand it by the next vote?

it says alot that the only country that had a vote on it voted no.i sure if all of europe had a vote the majority would vote no!

to the layman like me it just does'nt seem fair at all.

Most people don't need to read the actual treaty. Someone very interested would read the annotated version of the treaty for example. But the Department of Foreign Affairs White Paper (See the sticky) is the easiest for the layman to read. But to be honest, the best way I have found to learn about the treaty is by reading this very forum.

In the last vote the Yes camp did an awful job at getting the information across, so hopefully this time they'll do a better job.

Ireland is the only country to vote on Lisbon because Ireland is the only country whose constitution requires it. In some countries, such as Holland(and Germany), binding referenda are illegal and so cannot have a referendum. Other countries such as France have chosen not to have, as the French public were fully aware of when the elected Sarkozy. We don't have the right to demand that countries change their constitutions to be in line with ours.

To the layman like me it seems completely fair.

Scofflaw

demakinz wrote: »

Why do we have to vote again to lisbon? we the people voted NO. i might be wrong but is that not how Democracy works?
will the powers that be in europe keep making us vote untill we get it right?

if Fianna Fáil lose the next general election and we were all made to vote again because we were misinformed on there polices there would be uproar.

surly this is not democracy.
if or when the treaty is ratified do we really want to be part of a Europe that treats the will of the people like this?

Europe has nothing to do with it. There's a second referendum because the government wants to ratify Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ButcherBoiz

"Europe has nothing to do with it. There's a second referendum because the government wants to ratify Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw"

But why, if this is the noble truth, did the French President (!) appear in Dublin after the no vote? And, why did the UN General Secretary (!) conveniently appear in Dublin and in front of RTE cameras for the announcement of the date for the second vote?

BlitzKrieg

But why, if this is the noble truth, did the French President (!) appear in Dublin after the no vote?

What is your point here?

demakinz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Europe has nothing to do with it. There's a second referendum because the government wants to ratify Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

why is that fair? we are the only country privilged enough to have a referendum and we said NO. we should respect the NO vote. whether or not we were misinformed or not

Dinner

demakinz wrote: »

why is that fair? we are the only country privilged enough to have a referendum and we said NO. we should respect the NO vote. whether or not we were misinformed or not

Divorce was rejected on the first vote. On the second it narrowly passed, should it be repealed because we said NO?

ButcherBoiz

"Europe has nothing to do with it. There's a second referendum because the government wants to ratify Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw"

But why, if this is the noble truth, did the French President (!) appear in Dublin after the no vote? And, why did the UN General Secretary (!) conveniently appear in Dublin and in front of RTE cameras for the announcement of the date for the second vote?

Quote (BlitzKrieg):

"What is your point here?"



Not to put too fine a point on it for you, but the Irish government, whose intentions you call upon to justify the calling of a second-time-around vote, may well not be the only players seeking to influence or guide democratic processes that are internal to Ireland. And we are not just talking about dropping over to Ireland for a friendly chat and a cup of tea: we are talking about very powerful foreign and international leaders. Would you like to actually respond to the point?

demakinz

Dinner wrote: »

Divorce was rejected on the first vote. On the second it narrowly passed, should it be repealed because we said NO?

well in a democracy it should of stood.whats the point in voting in the first place if we have to do it all again. i was thought majority rules.
maybe its me that is disillusioned with what democracy means.

BlitzKrieg

well Sarkozy was required to come over, at the time he was president of the european council, it was his job to collect the irish government's response to the first referendum and relay it to the other head's of states


He's no longer president of the european council (its a six month process at the moment), notice how he has little interest in irish affairs anymore?

Dinner

demakinz wrote: »

well in a democracy it should of stood.whats the point in voting in the first place if we have to do it all again. i was thought majority rules.
maybe its me that is disillusioned with what democracy means.

So what your saying is that once a decision has been made - regardless of how backwards the logic- it must always stand, even if a large period of time has passed?


Do you honestly apply this arseways logic to your own life? I someone offers you a cup of tea and you say no, they're not allowed to ask you ever again?

Should we never have an election again, because we have made our mind up? Sure FF may have made a mess of the country, but hey! they were elected so they rule now and forever, that Democracy!

If your logic was put into practice then Lisbon would be scrapped, Nice would be repealed and we would be back to Amsterdam. But NO we can't do that either, Amsterdam wouldn't have existed because Maastricht was rejected by the Danes. It doesn't matter that their concerns have been satisfied because they said no the first time.

Under no twisted realm of normal logic and reasoning does this work. If I have a problem with something I would say no. If that problem was sorted out I would say yes and have no problem doing so. Would you say no again?

ButcherBoiz

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

well Sarkozy was required to come over, at the time he was president of the european council, it was his job to collect the irish government's response to the first referendum and relay it to the other head's of states


He's no longer president of the european council (its a six month process at the moment), notice how he has little interest in irish affairs anymore?

I'll respond after you have fully addressed the point -what about the influence exerted by the UN General Secretary, who categorically told the Irish people they should vote yes, in front of RTE cameras, occasioned by the fact that he 'happened' to be in Dublin (of all places!) for the announcement of the date for a second vote?

Scofflaw

ButcherBoiz wrote: »

"Europe has nothing to do with it. There's a second referendum because the government wants to ratify Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw"

But why, if this is the noble truth, did the French President (!) appear in Dublin after the no vote? And, why did the UN General Secretary (!) conveniently appear in Dublin and in front of RTE cameras for the announcement of the date for the second vote?

Quote (BlitzKrieg):

"What is your point here?"



Not to put too fine a point on it for you, but the Irish government, whose intentions you call upon to justify the calling of a second-time-around vote, may well not be the only players seeking to influence or guide democratic processes that are internal to Ireland. And we are not just talking about dropping over to Ireland for a friendly chat and a cup of tea: we are talking about very powerful foreign and international leaders. Would you like to actually respond to the point?

Other countries would certainly like us to ratify - after all, they want the Treaty as well. If our government didn't want it, though, then it wouldn't happen. What point are you trying to make? Are you putting forward the theory that the Irish government doesn't really want the Treaty, but is being forced into it by "very powerful foreign and international leaders"?

amused,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

well I never commented on the UN General Secretary (when I quoted you specified only the french president) as I was more curious to why you specified Sarkozy.

But on his influence...I assume his role there was as a confirmation that as promised the agreements reached for Lisbon 2 will be safegaurded by the UN confirming they would be passed into EU law and not as some have suggested here, ignored after the treaty is passed.

Considering the UN is vital for that confirmation I would assume someone would be on hand in person as a sign of good faith.

Chances are good that its not so much that he popped in to muscle the irish government, but that the irish government asked him there to confirm the value of the UN's role.

demakinz

i never said anything about a long period of time.of course YOUR RIGHT things change/people change/suitations change thats why we have a set number of years between general elections.

but lisbon 1 was rejected and how long passed before they denied the result and talked about another referendom?

did it not say if one country did not ratify the treaty it would be scraped?

then when Ireland voted NO they changed that as well.come on Europe will pass the treaty no matter what. nothing can stop it they will find away around anything that stands in its way.

democracy my hole.

ButcherBoiz

Scofflaw wrote: »

Other countries would certainly like us to ratify - after all, they want the Treaty as well. If our government didn't want it, though, then it wouldn't happen. What point are you trying to make? Are you putting forward the theory that the Irish government doesn't really want the Treaty, but is being forced into it by "very powerful foreign and international leaders"?

amused,
Scofflaw

It really is a plain and simple truth and the Irish public are well aware of it. Obviously, the government wants a yes vote. However, it is not for powerful international leaders and organisations to address the Irish public, and advise them how to vote, the point as outlined repeatedly above. This is an internal democratic matter for Ireland, between it's government and it's people --it is not, I repeat not acceptable for this level of influence to be exerted by outside powers.

ButcherBoiz

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

well I never commented on the UN General Secretary (when I quoted you specified only the french president) as I was more curious to why you specified Sarkozy.

But on his influence...I assume his role there was as a confirmation that as promised the agreements reached for Lisbon 2 will be safegaurded by the UN confirming they would be passed into EU law and not as some have suggested here, ignored after the treaty is passed.

Considering the UN is vital for that confirmation I would assume would be on hand in person as a sign of good faith.

Chances are good that its not so much that he popped in to muscle the irish government, but that the irish government asked him there to confirm the value of the UN's role.

I suggest you research the visit of the UN General Secretary and his comments. His action was to go on air and advise the irish electorate, categorically, as to how they should vote. Please speak to the point.

Also you state:

well I never commented on the UN General Secretary (when I quoted you specified only the french president)

This is not true, please go back and read the post that you appear to be struggling to respond to!

I think you are perfectly aware of my contention, and you are of the 'not an inch' mindset. I suggest that this attitude is a serious problem, for you. Unfortunately, you tactic is evasion. If you cannot speak to the point, in a straightforward fashion, you may address someone else who cares to deal with your tactics.

vibe666

demakinz wrote: »

surly this is not democracy.

what makes you think Democracy has anything to do with it. since when has this been the 'Democracy' of Ireland?

you live in a Republic and the constitution and the law in that republic allows for another referendum, end of story.

would you still be whinging about it if the yes vote had won last time and we decided to have another referendum to give the NO vote another chance to win?

it's not like last time was exactly a landslide victory either, there was quite literally only a couple of thousand votes in it out of the whole country and the no vote won last time by scaring people into thinking they were all going to be conscripted into a european army after everyone had been forced into abortion and all sorts of other bullsh!t scaremongering tactics, not to mention the totally inspired "if you don't know, vote no" campaign. :rolleyes:

the plain and simple truth of the matter is that ireland needs to be part of europe more than ever since it's incompetent government and lawless bankers fistf**ked us all into the mother of all recessions.

anyway, what are you worried about? the poeple get to vote on something. the votes are counted up and what the majority of people decide is the winner. isn't that a democratic process? is there something in the rules of democracy that says once you've voted on something once, it can never be voted on ever again for the rest of eternity no matter what?

the lisbon treaty was put to the people of ireland and by a very small majority, they did not like it, so it was changed and is going to be presented to them again in the hope that this time they will like it. if you ask me, that sounds like the very definition of a democratic process, so whats the big deal?

Dinner

demakinz wrote: »

i never said anything about a long period of time.of course YOUR RIGHT things change/people change/suitations change thats why we have a set number of years between general elections.

Then what did you mean by;

demakinz wrote: »

well in a democracy it should of stood.whats the point in voting in the first place if we have to do it all again.

How long is 'a long period of time'. 5 years? 10? More?

Rather than choosing an arbitrary number of years to deem 'acceptable', surely a better method would be either;

1) A perceived shift in public opinion large enough to warrant a re-examination of the issue. Or

2) Significant changes on the issue itself that could have an effect on public opinion.

In the first instance is divorce. Society changed a lot in the years between the referenda and public opinion shifted in favour of divorce.

In the second is Lisbon. The issues that caused people to vote no were examined and addressed. Therefore it is reasonable to have another referendum since these issues were addressed.

I don't have a problem with either.

demakinz wrote: »

but lisbon 1 was rejected and how long passed before they denied the result and talked about another referendom?

Not very long. But then again, how long does it take to gather public opinion on why it was rejected. I think the Eurobarometer survey was done a few days after the referendum.

demakinz wrote: »

did it not say if one country did not ratify the treaty it would be scraped?

I would imagine that that would be working under the idea that any issues that the public had, would have been with the actual contents of the treaty. However due to sterling work by Libertas and friends, that wasn't the case. Because of this, the majority of concerns by the public were able to be solved by the protocols and by a better run yes campaign. This meant that the treaty didn't need to be scrapped or changed because all issues with it were external to the treaty.

ButcherBoiz

demakinz wrote: »

i never said anything about a long period of time.of course YOUR RIGHT things change/people change/suitations change thats why we have a set number of years between general elections.

but lisbon 1 was rejected and how long passed before they denied the result and talked about another referendom?

did it not say if one country did not ratify the treaty it would be scraped?

then when Ireland voted NO they changed that as well.come on Europe will pass the treaty no matter what. nothing can stop it they will find away around anything that stands in its way.

democracy my hole.

You are so spot on my friend.

Vision of the future: Europe will tax us for farting, because of damage caused to the environment!

demakinz

vibe666 wrote: »

what makes you think Democracy has anything to do with it. since when has this been the 'Democracy' of Ireland?

you live in a Republic and the constitution and the law in that republic allows for another referendum, end of story.

would you still be whinging about it if the yes vote had won last time and we decided to have another referendum to give the NO vote another chance to win?

it's not like last time was exactly a landslide victory either, there was quite literally only a couple of thousand votes in it out of the whole country and the no vote won last time by scaring people into thinking they were all going to be conscripted into a european army after everyone had been forced into abortion and all sorts of other bullsh!t scaremongering tactics, not to mention the totally inspired "if you don't know, vote no" campaign. :rolleyes:

the plain and simple truth of the matter is that ireland needs to be part of europe more than ever since it's incompetent government and lawless bankers fistf**ked us all into the mother of all recessions.

anyway, what are you worried about? the poeple get to vote on something. the votes are counted up and what the majority of people decide is the winner. isn't that a democratic process? is there something in the rules of democracy that says once you've voted on something once, it can never be voted on ever again for the rest of eternity no matter what?

the lisbon treaty was put to the people of ireland and by a very small majority, they did not like it, so it was changed and is going to be presented to them again in the hope that this time they will like it. if you ask me, that sounds like the very definition of a democratic process, so whats the big deal?

ok so if we vote yes to lisbon our resession will be over? i doubt that. whats lisbon goint to change when it comes to our recession?

whats wrong with with europe the way it is/was? why give them more powers?

did we(ireland) not do very well for our selves the last 10 years before the recession?
you have some very good points when it comes to democracy and voting but i still dont see how voting yes to lisbon will help ireland.

were been bullied into voting yes.they cant chuck us out of europe just for voting NO

BlitzKrieg

I suggest you research the visit of the UN General Secretary and his comments. His action was to go on air and advise the irish electorate, categorically, as to how they should vote. Please speak to the point.

I have and from the irish times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0709/1224250317625.html

UN SECRETARY general Ban Ki-moon expressed surprise that “confusion” about Irish Defence Forces activity was a factor in the debate ahead of the first Lisbon Treaty referendum, according to Minister for Defence Willie O’Dea.

Speaking to the media after a meeting with Mr Ban at the Department of Defence in Dublin yesterday, Mr O’Dea said: “He was a little surprised at the idea that during the last referendum campaign on Lisbon that there was some confusion about our military, what we’re doing abroad militarily.

also from RTE http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0708/eulisbon.html

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said approval of the Lisbon Treaty is consistent with Ireland's role in the UN.

Mr Ban said: 'The role of regional organisations, like the European Union and the African Union, is crucially important in carrying out the major ideals of the United Nations.

'If you conform and support this Lisbon Treaty, according to the wills of your own people, then this will be a completely in consistence with the major goals and ideals of the United Nations.'

He was inspecting troops at McKee Barracks in Dublin this afternoon on the second day of his Irish visit.

So in one case he is not the one talking to the media or the irish people it was the irish minister of defence relating the general secretary's comments to the public.

In the other case if you take this report as accurate (http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eykfqlgbidau/rss2/) was an answer to a series of questions prepared for him.

It seems I had it wrong on his reason to visit, he was here as part of a formal visit that had been arranged the month before hand (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0629/1224249725619.html) look into that whatever way you wish.

well I never commented on the UN General Secretary (when I quoted you specified only the french president)

This is not true, please go back and read the post that you appear to be struggling to respond to!

Uhmm, I think you need to go back and reread my post yourself.

Quote:
But why, if this is the noble truth, did the French President (!) appear in Dublin after the no vote?

What is your point here?

See I never quoted your comment on the UN general secretary. I quoted specifically the segment on the french president.

I think you are perfectly aware of my contention,

I am not, as you still didnt answer me about sarkozy.

and you are of the 'not an inch' mindset. I suggest that this attitude is a serious problem, for you.

I feel I have always been upfront on any issue in this forum and my posting history speaks very highly of me, I have rarely gone for low digs and if required I will try my best to research any topic. But if you feel this way about me fine, but your opinion of me shouldnt be an issue in a discussion of facts correct?

Unfortunately, you tactic is evasion.

I fail to see what I have evaded?

If you cannot speak to the point, in a straightforward fashion, you may address someone else who cares to deal with your tactics.

Again, I have been very straightforward.

ButcherBoiz

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I have and from the irish times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0709/1224250317625.html




also from RTE http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0708/eulisbon.html




So in one case he is not the one talking to the media or the irish people it was the irish minister of defence relating the general secretary's comments to the public.

In the other case if you take this report as accurate (http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/eykfqlgbidau/rss2/) was an answer to a series of questions prepared for him.

It seems I had it wrong on his reason to visit, he was here as part of a formal visit that had been arranged the month before hand (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0629/1224249725619.html) look into that whatever way you wish.





Uhmm, I think you need to go back and reread my post yourself.



See I never quoted your comment on the UN general secretary. I quoted specifically the segment on the french president.



I am not, as you still didnt answer me about sarkozy.




I feel I have always been upfront on any issue in this forum and my posting history speaks very highly of me, I have rarely gone for low digs and if required I will try my best to research any topic. But if you feel this way about me fine, but your opinion of me shouldnt be an issue in a discussion of facts correct?



I fail to see what I have evaded?



Again, I have been very straightforward.

Wow, I have never seen someone respond to a simple point in such a piece meal fashion. You would make a good politician... but be warned, it's a rat race.

As for your 'new points', I'll look at one, no offense but this is getting silly (no matter how many posts you have clocked up or whatever). The UN General Secretary spoke directly to the camera. It was not a spokesperson. He advised the irish public, via RTE, categorically to vote yes. This was on the day of the announcement of a date for a second vote.

Now, read back over all our posts. I have made a clear and relevant point repeatedly for all to read, over and over, and despite your evasive string of half-responses, all you succeed in doing is having the argument you seek to oppose crystalized, over and over and over!

Wanna continue?!

K-9

demakinz wrote: »

i never said anything about a long period of time.of course YOUR RIGHT things change/people change/suitations change thats why we have a set number of years between general elections.

We do not have a set number of years between general elections. I think it was about 6 months in 1981/82, about 2 years in 1989.

Now, we actually had a Govt. here that had NO democratic mandate whatsoever, if we want to use the points being put forward here.

BlitzKrieg

The UN General Secretary spoke directly to the camera. It was not a spokesperson. He advised the irish public, via RTE, categorically to vote yes. This was on the day of the announcement of a date for a second vote.

Link then please.

I linked RTE, and I quoted his comment, if he said what you say he said, then you should easily be able to find it and link it here.

and despite your evasive string of half-responses

Where have I been evasive, I have answered your questions, I even said where I was wrong and got links for my sources. I dont understand what you mean by calling me evasive when I have done no such thing?


You named two international representatives that showed up in Ireland, *post* Lisbon.

One was french president Sarkozy, who havnt said what your issue with him being in Ireland is, I have explained what role he was in when he visited, he was at the time President of the European Council, since finishing his presidency he has not commented on the irish role in Lisbon. You also named the UN general Secretary, someone who was on an official tour and you tell me he told the irish people to vote yes. I went and got a series of links on his visit. I cannot find a link of him directly addressing the irish people

In fact I have gone to the official site for the secretary general and searched his statements for the last 30 days. He made two in Ireland and Lisbon was not mentioned in either. (http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp)

demakinz

K-9 wrote: »

We do not have a set number of years between general elections. I think it was about 6 months in 1981/82, about 2 years in 1989.

Now, we actually had a Govt. here that had NO democratic mandate whatsoever, if we want to use the points being put forward here.

when elected how long does The Taoiseach of ireland hold office?

ButcherBoiz

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Link then please.

I linked RTE, and I quoted his comment, if he said what you say he said, then you should easily be able to find it and link it here.



Where have I been evasive, I have answered your questions, I even said where I was wrong and got links for my sources. I dont understand what you mean by calling me evasive when I have done no such thing?


You named two international representatives that showed up in Ireland, *post* Lisbon.

One was french president Sarkozy, who havnt said what your issue with him being in Ireland is, I have explained what role he was in when he visited, he was at the time President of the European Council, since finishing his presidency he has not commented on the irish role in Lisbon. You also named the UN general Secretary, someone who was on an official tour and you tell me he told the irish people to vote yes. I went and got a series of links on his visit. I cannot find a link of him directly addressing the irish people

In fact I have gone to the official site for the secretary general and searched his statements for the last 30 days. He made two in Ireland and Lisbon was not mentioned in either. (http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp)

Final point on this. I watched it. With my own eyes. I'm convinced. The footage is not on youtube of the RTE site. If something is not on the internet, well tough. The kind of internet-based research you do (and it's commendable in terms of effort) is very inadequate. Often, critical sources or information are not available to the lay 'researcher' on the internet.

This is a casual forum. For chatting, in a straightforward way. There is merit in doing just that... or at least achieving a happy medium.

Good luck!

Over and out.