A Logical argument for "If you don't know, vote NO."

ShooterSF

I have never been fond of this statement but lately it makes sense to me. It was actually two points made by the yes side that convinced me.

1. It is not un-democratic to run more than one referendum. People can change their minds. Therefore we can always run another referendum asking the person if they have made up their mind yet.

2. Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it. This means that a person should look to block the treaty until they have made up their mind as they can vote again later (Yes or No, once they have decided) unless it's passed in which case they won't get a say.

Now using these two points (the parts in bold generally being accepted as fact by the yes side) and keeping in mind we are discussing the individual who come voting day is still uncertain whether the treaty is a good or bad thing can a yes-voter offer a logical reason for them not to vote no so they can contemplate the treaty further?

(By the way I'm not looking to debate the treaty here.)

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I have never been fond of this statement but lately it makes sense to me. It was actually two points made by the yes side that convinced me.

1. It is not un-democratic to run more than one referendum. People can change their minds. Therefore we can always run another referendum asking the person if they have made up their mind yet.

2. Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it. This means that a person should look to block the treaty until they have made up their mind as they can vote again later (Yes or No, once they have decided) unless it's passed in which case they won't get a say.

Now using these two points (the parts in bold generally being accepted as fact by the yes side) and keeping in mind we are discussing the individual who come voting day is still uncertain whether the treaty is a good or bad thing can a yes-voter offer a logical reason for them not to vote no so they can contemplate the treaty further?

(By the way I'm not looking to debate the treaty here.)

By polling day Irish voters will have had at least 18 months to find out about the Treaty, accompanied by constant media attention. Realistically, if someone hasn't found out about the Treaty in that time, they're not going to. Are you suggesting that we keep putting off any decision until it's being taught as history in schools?

Plus, the point that we can't run a referendum to repeal our ratification is inaccurate, because we can. It's a constitutional amendment - you just run another amendment to take out the amendments voted on this time. Not only that, but every subsequent treaty amends the existing treaties, so if there was something in Lisbon it turned out you don't like, push for it to be amended at the next treaty, just as the rules on Commission size determined by Nice are changed by Lisbon.

By the way, I love the homage to Libertas' Commission claims in your signature.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

By polling day Irish voters will have had at least 18 months to find out about the Treaty, accompanied by constant media attention. Realistically, if someone hasn't found out about the Treaty in that time, they're not going to. Are you suggesting that we keep putting off any decision until it's being taught as history in schools?

Not at all and as you said most should have made a decision now but those procrastinating types that haven't would be served better by voting no. After all the rejection of the last treaty was seemingly mainly because people were unsure and now they get another go. So, no harm surely?

Plus, the point that we can't run a referendum to repeal our ratification is inaccurate, because we can. It's a constitutional amendment - you just run another amendment to take out the amendments voted on this time. Not only that, but every subsequent treaty amends the existing treaties, so if there was something in Lisbon it turned out you don't like, push for it to be amended at the next treaty, just as the rules on Commission size determined by Nice are changed by Lisbon.

Hmm that's not what most yes voters have claimed.Would us repealing the treaty then mean all others would have to as it's a unanimous thing? Obviously that would completely refute my claim. However anytime I've suggested (assuming a yes verdict) asking the people in a year have they changed their mind people have quicly claimed you can't repeal the treaty.

By the way, I love the homage to Libertas' Commission claims in your signature.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks. Obviously quite tongue-in-cheek.

dvpower

Voting No doesn't retain the status quo or leave us as we were after the last treaty. The World (and Europe with it) continues to spin. We still have all of the new member states and the decision making problems that the treaty attempts to solve.

We would also need to deal with the political consequences of a No vote.


If you don't know, abstain.

tolosenc

Being uninformed and voting, either way, is what the problem is. As a voter, you have the responsibility of being an informed citizen. If you're not, you shouldn't vote.

What if there was a clause hidden in this "unreadable treaty"(:rolleyes:) that gave you personally €1 million a year for the rest of your life, for no reason? Would you feel silly for rejecting it?

I don't reckon Lisbon will come around a third time.

oscarBravo

There's a fundamental flaw in the premise that underlies this thread: the assumption that there will continue to be referendum after referendum until the treaty is ratified.

There is no precedent for an EU treaty to be put to referendum in the same country more than twice, and there is a precedent for a treaty to be scrapped having been rejected twice in referenda.

It also blithely assumes that there can't possibly be any negative consequences to a "no" vote.

ShooterSF

dvpower wrote: »

Voting No doesn't retain the status quo or leave us as we were after the last treaty. The World (and Europe with it) continues to spin. We still have all of the new member states and the decision making problems that the treaty attempts to solve.

Of course. But the EU would stay the same and we could run the referendum in 3 months and see if people have decided. Again I'm looking at it from an un-decided (obviously not mine :pac:) not un-caring POV.

We would also need to deal with the political consequences of a No vote.

I don't understand. What political consequence happened after the last No vote? Scaremongering?

If you don't know, abstain.

Surely that only makes sense if it was a one off vote regardless of result. If that was the case I agree. But voting No still allows a re-run of the referendum at a later date when you have made up your mind on the treaty..

(all assuming we can't repeal the treaty, which may be wrong.)

ShooterSF

Toulousain wrote: »

Being uninformed and voting, either way, is what the problem is. As a voter, you have the responsibility of being an informed citizen. If you're not, you shouldn't vote.

I agree with the initial sentence but see the end of my last post in ref: to the last one

What if there was a clause hidden in this "unreadable treaty"(:rolleyes:) that gave you personally €1 million a year for the rest of your life, for no reason? Would you feel silly for rejecting it?

No because it was hidden. That would be a silly reason to vote yes.

I don't reckon Lisbon will come around a third time.

If people claimed they voted no as they were still unsure and considering both main political parties in this country want to pass it, why not?

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a fundamental flaw in the premise that underlies this thread: the assumption that there will continue to be referendum after referendum until the treaty is ratified.

There is no precedent for an EU treaty to be put to referendum in the same country more than twice, and there is a precedent for a treaty to be scrapped having been rejected twice in referenda.

True it makes that assumption but there was a precedent at some point for everything. (Pedant edit) Plenty of things.

It also blithely assumes that there can't possibly be any negative consequences to a "no" vote.

Again true. Are there any obvious negative consequences from the first rejection? (If I was being a smart ass I'd offer our guarantees as a positive but I won't stoop to it )

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

Are there any obvious negative consequences from the first rejection?

In my opinion, the fact that the Commission won't be streamlined was a negative consequence. I accept that others don't see it that way.

It has also been said that the atmosphere in the EU institutions has been distinctly less friendly towards the Irish representatives - in an institution built on co-operation, consensus and goodwill, that's a pretty bad consequence. It seems reasonable to assume that the consequence of a second rejection would be substantially worse.

Martin 2

A Logical argument for "If you don't know, vote NO."

I have never been fond of this statement but lately it makes sense to me. It was actually two points made by the yes side that convinced me.

1. It is not un-democratic to run more than one referendum. People can change their minds. Therefore we can always run another referendum asking the person if they have made up their mind yet.

2. Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it. This means that a person should look to block the treaty until they have made up their mind as they can vote again later (Yes or No, once they have decided) unless it's passed in which case they won't get a say.

Now using these two points (the parts in bold generally being accepted as fact by the yes side) and keeping in mind we are discussing the individual who come voting day is still uncertain whether the treaty is a good or bad thing can a yes-voter offer a logical reason for them not to vote no so they can contemplate the treaty further?

(By the way I'm not looking to debate the treaty here.)

This is a misrepresentation of the original expression "When in doubt do nowt" in other words when in doubt, abstain.... voting either way has consequences and depending on your point of view these can be positive or negative. In any case, there is still time to learn about the treaty.

One last thing, I think a third referendum is unprecedented and highly unlikely.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not at all and as you said most should have made a decision now but those procrastinating types that haven't would be served better by voting no. After all the rejection of the last treaty was seemingly mainly because people were unsure and now they get another go. So, no harm surely?

I don't really think there's a large body of such 'procrastinating types' out there, and I'm not sure why they should be catered for above the needs of everyone else in Europe to have a decision - unless, of course, an indefinite delay is really just a tactical ploy.

After all, the same argument would have worked perfectly well for the first referendum, which perhaps should only be being held now - but how many people would really have bothered to find out in the interim if this were the first referendum? The argument would also work for elections, too - perhaps we could have a rerun of the GE for the slow learners who believed that Fianna Fáil would really be able to keep the good times rolling?

ShooterSF wrote: »

Hmm that's not what most yes voters have claimed.Would us repealing the treaty then mean all others would have to as it's a unanimous thing? Obviously that would completely refute my claim. However anytime I've suggested (assuming a yes verdict) asking the people in a year have they changed their mind people have quicly claimed you can't repeal the treaty.

Ireland reversing its ratification by constitutional amendment would probably not repeal the Treaty. It would, however, undeniably reverse Ireland's ratification, because the assent of the people is encapsulated in the constitutional amendment. I imagine that what it would do is make any provisions of the Treaty unconstitutional or at least constitutionally unprotected. The matter would have to go to the European Council for consideration, I would think.

Speaking of which, of course, we can't indefinitely postpone a second referendum either, because if the Treaty hasn't been ratified within two years of being signed, it goes to the European Council for consideration anyway.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Thanks. Obviously quite tongue-in-cheek.

I should hope so - it's a bit rich No proponents putting forward the loss of a Commissioner as a bad thing in the first referendum, and then putting forward the retention of the full Commission as a bad thing in this one. It rather suggests that the No side is just putting forward anything it can, and doesn't itself genuinely believe in what it's saying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

In my opinion, the fact that the Commission won't be streamlined was a negative consequence. I accept that others don't see it that way.

Debatable (Though I agree with that one). I guess that is an odd one as the no voters are now supporting the streamlined commission (nice treaty being status quo). However if you are undecided you can hardly see it as a negative.

It has also been said that the atmosphere in the EU institutions has been distinctly less friendly towards the Irish representatives - in an institution built on co-operation, consensus and goodwill, that's a pretty bad consequence. It seems reasonable to assume that the consequence of a second rejection would be substantially worse.

Hearsay at best. At worst childish actions you would expect representatives of other nations to be above. After all who are they to question our decision making process even if it is drawn out. The people of Ireland need to be certain before passing the treaty.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

In my opinion, the fact that the Commission won't be streamlined was a negative consequence. I accept that others don't see it that way.

It has also been said that the atmosphere in the EU institutions has been distinctly less friendly towards the Irish representatives - in an institution built on co-operation, consensus and goodwill, that's a pretty bad consequence. It seems reasonable to assume that the consequence of a second rejection would be substantially worse.

Undoubtedly so. We don't rely on our voting weight in Europe (which the No side make much of), we rely on our built-up goodwill (which the No side dismiss). It's fashionable to say "tough for the elites" when someone points out that it makes the Irish government and civil service's job of getting the best for Ireland in the EU much harder, but it's not really "tough for the elites" at all. It's "tough for Ireland", because our "elites" are not able to get what Ireland wants. That will apply to next year's negotiations on the WTO, CFP, and the reform of CAP - no other EU government will be disposed to help Ireland out, with our derailment of the Treaty still fresh in their minds.

Hearsay at best. At worst childish actions you would expect representatives of other nations to be above.

That's actually an irrelevant response. It doesn't matter whether they should "be above it", only whether they do it. As to hearsay - personally I have it straight from a friend on Ireland's permanent delegation to the EU, so it's not hearsay to me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Martin 2 wrote: »

This is a misrepresentation of the original expression "When in doubt do nowt" in other words when in doubt, abstain.... voting either way has consequences and depending on your point of view these can be positive or negative. In any case, there is still time to learn about the treaty.

One last thing, I think a third referendum is unprecedented and highly unlikely.

I agree there is still time to learn. I don't agree that a third treaty, even slightly edited would be unlikely.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't really think there's a large body of such 'procrastinating types' out there, and I'm not sure why they should be catered for above the needs of everyone else in Europe to have a decision - unless, of course, an indefinite delay is really just a tactical ploy.

But again that does not effect the basis of the sentence "If you don't know,vote no" rather it suggests such a group of voters don't exist in any large size.

After all, the same argument would have worked perfectly well for the first referendum, which perhaps should only be being held now - but how many people would really have bothered to find out in the interim if this were the first referendum? The argument would also work for elections, too - perhaps we could have a rerun of the GE for the slow learners who believed that Fianna Fáil would really be able to keep the good times rolling?

If only

Ireland reversing its ratification by constitutional amendment would probably not repeal the Treaty. It would, however, undeniably reverse Ireland's ratification, because the assent of the people is encapsulated in the constitutional amendment. I imagine that what it would do is make any provisions of the Treaty unconstitutional or at least constitutionally unprotected. The matter would have to go to the European Council for consideration, I would think.

Speaking of which, of course, we can't indefinitely postpone a second referendum either, because if the Treaty hasn't been ratified within two years of being signed, it goes to the European Council for consideration anyway.

Interesting. Is this consideration similar to that of the citizen's initiative "consideration"? As in they can happily still re-run the treaty, after considering it?If so that's not a big problem.

I should hope so - it's a bit rich No proponents putting forward the loss of a Commissioner as a bad thing in the first referendum, and then putting forward the retention of the full Commission as a bad thing in this one. It rather suggests that the No side is just putting forward anything it can, and doesn't itself genuinely believe in what it's saying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Actually and I will try and dig this up for you but it was one issue I agreed pre-Lisbon1 with the yes side.
Though the sig is tongue-in-cheek as I put it there not because of that issue but to wind up certain yes voters I know it annoys.

dvpower

ShooterSF wrote: »

Of course. But the EU would stay the same and we could run the referendum in 3 months and see if people have decided. Again I'm looking at it from an un-decided (obviously not mine :pac:) not un-caring POV.

There's nothing to say that we will get another crack of the whip.

The current choice is between a Yes to this treaty or a Yes to the existing rules and something else in the future (either a re-run or an ammended treaty or living under the existing mechanisms...).

So the question for No voters is, is there a realistically a better deal out there for us? Personally I doubt it.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't understand. What political consequence happened after the last No vote? Scaremongering?

Yes. And, if the reports are correct, we lost some influence (more important under QMV). Good or bad, deserved or not, there are political consequences of a No vote.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Surely that only makes sense if it was a one off vote regardless of result. If that was the case I agree. But voting No still allows a re-run of the referendum at a later date when you have made up your mind on the treaty..

Again, we don't know if there would be another re-run.

ShooterSF wrote: »

(all assuming we can't repeal the treaty, which may be wrong.)

I wouldn't imagine we could do that unilaterally.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I agree there is still time to learn. I don't agree that a third treaty, even slightly edited would be unlikely.

But again that does not effect the basis of the sentence "If you don't know,vote no" rather it suggests such a group of voters don't exist in any large size.

Not really - "if you don't know, vote No" is simply a call to make a particular decision in ignorance of the results of it.

ShooterSF wrote: »

If only

It amuses me that I've yet to meet a No proponent who would have any problem with running a general election asap, even though the current government was elected for a five-year term - yet they all have problems with running a referendum again.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Interesting. Is this consideration similar to that of the citizen's initiative "consideration"? As in they can happily still re-run the treaty, after considering it?If so that's not a big problem.

I imagine that's technically feasible, and politically implausible.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Actually and I will try and dig this up for you but it was one issue I agreed pre-Lisbon1 with the yes side.
Though the sig is tongue-in-cheek as I put it there not because of that issue but to wind up certain yes voters I know it annoys.

Each to their own...

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really - "if you don't know, vote No" is simply a call to make a particular decision in ignorance of the results of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to suggest that the Don't know enough about the treaty no votes are demanding to keep the status quo rather than looking for more information before making a decision. Fingers in their ears shouting "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". Yet the government and most yes voters were looking for a new referendum given that the don't knows were still undecided and are now better informed.

It amuses me that I've yet to meet a No proponent who would have any problem with running a general election asap, even though the current government was elected for a five-year term - yet they all have problems with running a referendum again.

Is it not a "maximum of five years"? Anyway I see your point. Though I accept that a new referendum is not un-democratic. My only fears in these regards are the chance of no voters becoming disullusioned with the situation. Hopefully that won't happen.
The nearest comparison I could suggest would be if FF (even out of power) could call a new general election whenever they felt like and they got back in due to disillusionment. Then again I'm having my cake and eating it there.
Let's be honest I'm against Lisbon so am not fond of another referendum but I do accept one can be run. I hate FF and the Yellow-backed Greens so would love a GE.
If lisbon was passed would you be happy to rerun it again before we ratify in case people change their minds? (Bit OT...)

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

If lisbon was passed would you be happy to rerun it again before we ratify in case people change their minds? (Bit OT...)

I freely admit, I would not be happy about it, but that is only because I would be happy with the Yes result and the fact that repealing the Lisbon treaty would plunge the EU into a serious crisis, one which could cause it's collapse.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to suggest that the Don't know enough about the treaty no votes are demanding to keep the status quo rather than looking for more information before making a decision. Fingers in their ears shouting "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". Yet the government and most yes voters were looking for a new referendum given that the don't knows were still undecided and are now better informed.

No, I could understand it last time - people only tuned in in the few weeks before the vote (real life and stuff), and the government's capacity to actually inform people on the issues was apparently non-existent. I voted No myself in Nice 1 for very similar reasons.

However, we're now talking about 18 months later, during which we've had ongoing campaigns by all kinds of people to inform people of the issues involved in Lisbon. We've even had a European election - one of the most dramatic for years, with mysterious tycoons fronting pan-European alliances, accusations of vote-rigging, and Mary-Lou sent off in tears - during which the issues were aired again, were even made an election focus by said mysterious tycoon. There have been, I would say, literally thousands and thousands of article written about Lisbon, both here and abroad, from vox-pop pieces to scholarly articles, in every form of media, and coverage on the radio, TV, and all across the Internet.

You'd have to have been dead and buried under a rock to remain entirely ignorant of Lisbon that whole time - so, really, it's not adequate to claim that people who really don't know anything about Lisbon after all that should do anything other than stay off the pitch and leave the voting to people who haven't been under rocks.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Is it not a "maximum of five years"? Anyway I see your point. Though I accept that a new referendum is not un-democratic. My only fears in these regards are the chance of no voters becoming disullusioned with the situation. Hopefully that won't happen.
The nearest comparison I could suggest would be if FF (even out of power) could call a new general election whenever they felt like and they got back in due to disillusionment. Then again I'm having my cake and eating it there.
Let's be honest I'm against Lisbon so am not fond of another referendum but I do accept one can be run. I hate FF and the Yellow-backed Greens so would love a GE.
If lisbon was passed would you be happy to rerun it again before we ratify in case people change their minds? (Bit OT...)

In terms of whether I'd consider it fair and democratic - sure. My only reason for not wanting to do so would be the thought of going through all this again. It's not only No proponents who suffer from referendum fatigue, after all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

ShooterSF wrote: »

If lisbon was passed would you be happy to rerun it again before we ratify in case people change their minds? (Bit OT...)

Personally I would never object to any referendum on Europe anytime, once the subject matter of said referendum is in fact Europe

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

Personally I would never object to any referendum on Europe anytime, once the subject matter of said referendum is in fact Europe

If I thought my nerves could take the strain, I'd be happy enough with a European referendum yearly. It's not as if it's not important.

cordially,
Scofflaw

starbelgrade

In my (blurred) recolation, is it not normal to have multiple / duplicate referendums on social / political issues? Abortion / Divorce. I'm an old fogey & memory does not serve me too well.

Still. I can at least type.

K-9

Think we have had 3 on abortion, 2 on divorce and 2 on Nice.

We may have had 2 on PR, not sure.

Torakx

ShooterSF wrote: »

I have never been fond of this statement but lately it makes sense to me. It was actually two points made by the yes side that convinced me.

1. It is not un-democratic to run more than one referendum. People can change their minds. Therefore we can always run another referendum asking the person if they have made up their mind yet.

2. Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it. This means that a person should look to block the treaty until they have made up their mind as they can vote again later (Yes or No, once they have decided) unless it's passed in which case they won't get a say.

Now using these two points (the parts in bold generally being accepted as fact by the yes side) and keeping in mind we are discussing the individual who come voting day is still uncertain whether the treaty is a good or bad thing can a yes-voter offer a logical reason for them not to vote no so they can contemplate the treaty further?

(By the way I'm not looking to debate the treaty here.)

funny to see this thread. i got dragged into a "discussion" about this in the
"im reading the lisbon treaty" thread earlier today lol
i said alot about it so i think il leave the rest to do some talking here.

Zuiderzee

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a fundamental flaw in the premise that underlies this thread: the assumption that there will continue to be referendum after referendum until the treaty is ratified....It also blithely assumes that there can't possibly be any negative consequences to a "no" vote.

Well, considering OB, that you locked a thread by Cantab on the same issue - i.e. to vote no because you dont know the full repercussions of a No vote, I am surprised that you responded to this one as you did not see a similar thread "contributing to the sum total of debate on this issue in any meaningful way"

As for setting a precident of continuous referenda, well - that is what is happening in our country right now.

As for the issue of having 18 months of campaigning for a yes vote, to educate and persuade the electorate, they have not done a great job.
A Yes vote is what a discredited government with something ridiculous like a 17% approval rating want.

But when it comes to convincing the electorate about Governments ability to make a sound judgement in relation to Lisbon, they are really asking us to buy a pig in a poke.

If our politicians had proven their knowledge, foresight and planning, about finance, the economy, health services, in dealing properly with the Ryan report etc. we might be able to accept the premise that they knew what the hell they were talking about.

However the decisions made on the Ryan report, NAMA, the bank bailout and the distain over legitimate questions on corruption are indicitive of a flawed decision making process that has resulted in crisis, confusion, controversy and created a lack of confidence.

The systematic failures and continued abuse of power by Fianna Fail and the self preservation of the Greens to date do not give any reason or example for confidence in their ability to make the correct judgement and decision with regards the Lisbon Treaty.

One can only hope that the Irish electorate have the sense, and the courage, to say No until a new treaty is reached that is accessable and puts the rights of the people first.

The chance to pause and reflect after democratic rejection has not been used to build the kind agreement that We the People really want, a desire that really exists

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well, considering OB, that you locked a thread by Cantab on the same issue - i.e. to vote no because you dont know the full repercussions of a No vote, I am surprised that you responded to this one as you did not see a similar thread "contributing to the sum total of debate on this issue in any meaningful way"

As for setting a precident of continuous referenda, well - that is what is happening in our country right now.

As for the issue of having 18 months of campaigning for a yes vote, to educate and persuade the electorate, they have not done a great job.
A Yes vote is what a discredited government with something ridiculous like a 17% approval rating want.

But when it comes to convincing the electorate about Governments ability to make a sound judgement in relation to Lisbon, they are really asking us to buy a pig in a poke.

If our politicians had proven their knowledge, foresight and planning, about finance, the economy, health services, in dealing properly with the Ryan report etc. we might be able to accept the premise that they knew what the hell they were talking about.

However the decisions made on the Ryan report, NAMA, the bank bailout and the distain over legitimate questions on corruption are indicitive of a flawed decision making process that has resulted in crisis, confusion, controversy and created a lack of confidence.

The systematic failures and continued abuse of power by Fianna Fail and the self preservation of the Greens to date do not give any reason or example for confidence in their ability to make the correct judgement and decision with regards the Lisbon Treaty.

One can only hope that the Irish electorate have the sense, and the courage, to say No until a new treaty is reached that is accessable and puts the rights of the people first.

The chance to pause and reflect after democratic rejection has not been used to build the kind agreement that We the People really want, a desire that really exists

It would have been nice if that had had anything about the Treaty in it...but no, more guilt by association.

It's nice that You're the People, though. You should form a band.

regards,
Scofflaw

nesf

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well, considering OB, that you locked a thread by Cantab on the same issue - i.e. to vote no because you dont know the full repercussions of a No vote, I am surprised that you responded to this one as you did not see a similar thread "contributing to the sum total of debate on this issue in any meaningful way"

Seriously, bringing up moderator decisions in your posts is just going to get you banned. If you have an issue take it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30

Otherwise, bite your tongue.

marco_polo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well, considering OB, that you locked a thread by Cantab on the same issue - i.e. to vote no because you dont know the full repercussions of a No vote, I am surprised that you responded to this one as you did not see a similar thread "contributing to the sum total of debate on this issue in any meaningful way"

As for setting a precident of continuous referenda, well - that is what is happening in our country right now.

As for the issue of having 18 months of campaigning for a yes vote, to educate and persuade the electorate, they have not done a great job.
A Yes vote is what a discredited government with something ridiculous like a 17% approval rating want.

But when it comes to convincing the electorate about Governments ability to make a sound judgement in relation to Lisbon, they are really asking us to buy a pig in a poke.

If our politicians had proven their knowledge, foresight and planning, about finance, the economy, health services, in dealing properly with the Ryan report etc. we might be able to accept the premise that they knew what the hell they were talking about.

However the decisions made on the Ryan report, NAMA, the bank bailout and the distain over legitimate questions on corruption are indicitive of a flawed decision making process that has resulted in crisis, confusion, controversy and created a lack of confidence.

The systematic failures and continued abuse of power by Fianna Fail and the self preservation of the Greens to date do not give any reason or example for confidence in their ability to make the correct judgement and decision with regards the Lisbon Treaty.

One can only hope that the Irish electorate have the sense, and the courage, to say No until a new treaty is reached that is accessable and puts the rights of the people first.

The chance to pause and reflect after democratic rejection has not been used to build the kind agreement that We the People really want, a desire that really exists

Is it the case that you want the EU to pause and reflect on how it can best deal with the Irish Catholic church, Nama, Irish political corruption and an unpopular Irish Government? Because that seems to be what your post suggests.

Given your support of a no vote on the grounds of the above, what would you go back to the EU with in order to claim the better deal that Sinn Fein for example are so sure we can get? And how do you propose we could ever know what it is that "We the People" want from Europe if "we" have rejected Lisbon on the above ground which are entirely unrelated?

Overheal

How many people voted "No" to Al Gor or John Kerry I wonder.

Theres a reason Atari Jaguar lives strong in AH - when you dont know ****: abstain.

Im not trying to glaze over the first referendum vote: that was a joke. But I mean, a year later, you no doubt have had access to plenty of information: if you havent formed an opinion by voting day despite having all the information - dont vote. Vote with conviction, not with doubt.

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I voted No myself in Nice 1 for very similar reasons.

Ditto.

Zuiderzee

nesf wrote: »

Seriously, bringing up moderator decisions in your posts is just going to get you banned. If you have an issue take it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30

Otherwise, bite your tongue.

Hang on, I can no longer even quote a mod ???
I have already tried to ask about OB's objectivity with regards this forum, through the suggested forum, but there was no proactive response there.

I do know how the system is supposed to work, I previously raised an issue a mod promoting recruitment into oversea's militaries in the military section which was dealt with in a satisfactory way.

But with Lisbon the suggested channel is not working in the same way. There does seem to be an eventual culling of those of us who suggest a No vote.