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

nesf

Zuiderzee wrote: »

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

As stickied accusations of bias on this forum will earn people a ban. Next time you bring this up on this forum I will ban you.

Zuiderzee

marco_polo wrote: »

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?

You seem to have a problem understanding what I meant.

How the hell can voters be expected to trust or believe in a Government that is such an abject failure.

What I suggest is that we get a treaty that is more straight forward, more democratic and provides for more accountability in the EU.

My objections to Lisbon are on the basis of workers rights, as it is with the UNITE union, the belief that we can get a better and clearer treaty for ourselves and our fellow European citizens and that we need a more democratic and accountable Union, and avoid entrenching the present problems we have.

There may also be the added bonus that a rejection of Lisbon may precipitate a General election, and send people to the EU that will negotiate a better treaty than FF and their ilk.

nesf

Zuiderzee wrote: »

There may also be the added bonus that a rejection of Lisbon may precipitate a General election, and send people to the EU that will negotiate a better treaty than FF and their ilk.

It won't any more than the last one did. Arguing this as a bonus is disingenuous. Actually, has any Irish Government ever stepped down over losing a Treaty referendum? Seriously, there's absolutely no precedence for this.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

You seem to have a problem understanding what I meant.

How the hell can voters be expected to trust or believe in a Government that is such an abject failure.

They should decide for themselves. You're constantly trying to suggest that the only reason we should vote Yes is because we trust the Irish government, and that's completely false.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

What I suggest is that we get a treaty that is more straight forward, more democratic and provides for more accountability in the EU.

That's what we've got. The fact that the text is difficult to read doesn't change the effects.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

My objections to Lisbon are on the basis of workers rights, as it is with the UNITE union, the belief that we can get a better and clearer treaty for ourselves and our fellow European citizens and that we need a more democratic and accountable Union, and avoid entrenching the present problems we have.

And UNITE's position isn't endorsed by all the other unions, or by ETUC, who reckon that the Treaty is a step forward for removing the present problems we have. I'm afraid I don't know what UNITE are actually looking for, because your view of what their position is is much clearer than their statement of their position.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

There may also be the added bonus that a rejection of Lisbon may precipitate a General election, and send people to the EU that will negotiate a better treaty than FF and their ilk.

Lisbon 1 didn't precipitate a general election. The euros didn't precipitate a general election. The locals didn't precipitate a general election. There's no way on earth Fianna Fail will voluntarily step down from power just because the vote goes against them. Stop trying to tie the Treaty to Fianna Fail.

regards,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

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

Only if you don't understand what the word "precedent" means.

We are having a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. There have been two occasions in the past when an EU member state held two referenda on the same treaty. This isn't a precedent.

If we were to hold a third referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, we'd be setting a precedent.

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

They should decide for themselves. You're constantly trying to suggest that the only reason we should vote Yes is because we trust the Irish government, and that's completely false.

People expect, and deserve honest stewardship of the country, which the current Government has failed to provide.
At the moment they seem to have got everything else wrong, theres no reason to trust them on this one.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And UNITE's position isn't endorsed by all the other unions, or by ETUC, who reckon that the Treaty is a step forward for removing the present problems we have. I'm afraid I don't know what UNITE are actually looking for, because your view of what their position is is much clearer than their statement of their position.

Well, UNITE are still a major force, with 60,000 members, and they are right to question the treaty.
There are real grounds for these concerns. In four recent rulings issued by the European Court of Justice - the Laval, Ruffert, Viking and Luxembourg cases - the court sided with bosses on honouring agreements, the right to picket, wage-increase indexing and wage cuts.

As for the ETUC, well, they did little to support the Irish Ferries and Laval workers displaced.
Interestingly the ETUC is a member of the European Movement, a lobby group. The Movement is headed up by President Pat Cox. So we have a former PD heading a group working for the Trade Union Movement, and making quite a few bob from it.
As of 2008 a Vice president of the EM is John Monks, former GenSec of the ETUC. Really nice work if you can get it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Lisbon 1 didn't precipitate a general election. The euros didn't precipitate a general election. The locals didn't precipitate a general election. There's no way on earth Fianna Fail will voluntarily step down from power just because the vote goes against them. Stop trying to tie the Treaty to Fianna Fail.

We will see, a second defeat on a European referendum in such a short period may well be seen as a vote of no confidence.
If FF really believe that Lisbon is that important then after a defeat at referendum they will have few choices.

1) Hang on 'till 2012 and hope for a miracle
2) Go for a third referendum on the same issue
3) Renegotiate the treaty to include the 'guarantees' and 'solemn declarations' and address other Irish concerns
4) Go for a general election and let a new Government run a third referendum on a treaty

One feels that is pretty much in the order of probability as well

If you check out my blog you see that I do not tie the referendum to FF alone.

However, as the major party in power it is FF who, along with the greens and indies, have the power to put the referendum to the people again, and have decided to do so, so it is primarily their referendum.

I for one do not want to see a triumphful FF telling us how they assured we won Lisbon. Its their only chance to win anything at this point, with the support of the opposition, corporations and even the church.

If Lisbon goes through they will use it as a justification to go full term, and as their are no more local or EU elections in that period, this is probably the last chance people have to voice their dissent at the ballot box until 2012

MrMicra

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.

I strongly agree. The debate over the commissioner makes us look like we have a political system based on Patronage. It makes us look as though we vote in the expectation of favours rather than choosing the best person for the job. Of course this suggestion is ludicrous!

oscarBravo wrote: »

I

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.

Temporary even if the second referendum falls. The real risk arises from the rejection of the next treaty after Lisbon. By the way I expect my servants in Brussels to behave themselves no matter what we decide.

I would suggest to the OP that if you don't know vote 'no' is a bad argument. It should be 'if you don't know don't vote'.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

People expect, and deserve honest stewardship of the country, which the current Government has failed to provide.
At the moment they seem to have got everything else wrong, theres no reason to trust them on this one.

And perhaps if the government were the only people suggesting the Treaty is a good thing, you might have a point. They're not, though, which is what makes the constant attempt to link the two so obviously tactical.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well, UNITE are still a major force, with 60,000 members, and they are right to question the treaty.
There are real grounds for these concerns. In four recent rulings issued by the European Court of Justice - the Laval, Ruffert, Viking and Luxembourg cases - the court sided with bosses on honouring agreements, the right to picket, wage-increase indexing and wage cuts.

That's 60,000 out of 550,000 union members.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

As for the ETUC, well, they did little to support the Irish Ferries and Laval workers displaced.
Interestingly the ETUC is a member of the European Movement, a lobby group. The Movement is headed up by President Pat Cox. So we have a former PD heading a group working for the Trade Union Movement, and making quite a few bob from it.
As of 2008 a Vice president of the EM is John Monks, former GenSec of the ETUC. Really nice work if you can get it.

And there we are again. I can't believe you have the gall to complain about smearing and guilt by association.

Can't be bothered with the rest now.

annoyed,
Scofflaw

skelliser

Zuiderzee raises an interesting point, this gov was involved from the begining in negotiating lisbon which took 5 years. In the mean time none of them predicted or would entertain the idea of the property bubble when even the dogs on the street knew it was coming.

The continued to say that there would be a soft landing yada yada etc.

and they expext, no demand(lisbon 1) that we trust them

ShooterSF

Woah there's a lot of stuff in this thread. I just want to get to this.

MrMicra wrote: »

I would suggest to the OP that if you don't know vote 'no' is a bad argument. It should be 'if you don't know don't vote'.

Don't get me wrong in the first referendum that was my thinking too. However I made two assumptions. One that it was a one off vote and two that don't know was a lazy cop out and really meant couldn't be arsed which definitely should abstain.
My point was that it's not a one off vote. As said there is nothing un-democratic about running multiple referendums. Sure there's no precedent but remind me of a European treaty that Ireland reject twice. There is no logical reason not to run it again if people were unsure. On to point two, the don't knows obviously were undecided rather than couldn't be arsed finding out as they are one of the main reasons for re-running the referendum. Along with those confused about abortion and conscription (and now hopefully those that voted yes incase we got kicked out of europe).
Given those points from a pure logical stand point someone (if they exist) that is still undecided could vote no in the knowledge that a third referendum could be ran.
I will agree though with points that for one not to have made their mind at this point is crazy. However, looking purely at the statement "If you don't, vote no" I now see some sense in it.
To be honest I'd respect someone who took the issue so serious that they had not decided yet. For example people who feel the need to read the entire treaty etc. a lot more than anyone who's vote is influenced by the posters on lamposts!

Scofflaw

skelliser wrote: »

Zuiderzee raises an interesting point, this gov was involved from the begining in negotiating lisbon which took 5 years. In the mean time none of them predicted or would entertain the idea of the property bubble when even the dogs on the street knew it was coming.

The continued to say that there would be a soft landing yada yada etc.

and they expext, no demand(lisbon 1) that we trust them

And if you vote Yes purely because you trust them, then you're an eejit - exactly as you would be if you voted No purely because you trusted Sinn Fein or COIR.

This referendum is not about the government. It's about an EU treaty.

regards,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Scofflaw wrote: »

And if you vote Yes purely because you trust them, then you're an eejit - exactly as you would be if you voted No purely because you trusted Sinn Fein or COIR.

This referendum is not about the government. It's about an EU treaty.

regards,
Scofflaw

I would differ slightly with Scofflaw here. Obviously it's far better if people make a fully informed personal decision on the treaty... but I don't think it would be unacceptable for a person to say...

The vast majority of politicans are in favour.
The vast majority of union representatives are in favour.
The vast majority of business people are in favour.

So I'll vote for the majority view of the groups that appear to represent my views in most other areas.

Likewise I would not think it wrong for someone to say...

Coir are against.
Sinn Fein are against.
Joe Higgins is against.

I trust these people in their view of the world. I'll vote no.

Where I have more of a personal issue, is with people who have not learned about the treaty, do not agree with the worldview of the No groups, and yet somehow think that no is a good idea.

I don't think this is contradictory, though I'm open to correction.

Ix.

P. Breathnach

ixtlan wrote: »

Likewise I would not think it wrong for someone to say...

Coir are against.
Sinn Fein are against.
Joe Higgins is against.

I trust these people in their view of the world. I'll vote no.

It is imaginable -- if one has great powers of imagination -- that there are people out there who see Cóir, Sinn Féin, and Joe Higgins as all being in tune with their worldview. Such people would be right to vote no.

nesf

ixtlan wrote: »

I would differ slightly with Scofflaw here. Obviously it's far better if people make a fully informed personal decision on the treaty... but I don't think it would be unacceptable for a person to say...

The vast majority of politicans are in favour.
The vast majority of union representatives are in favour.
The vast majority of business people are in favour.

So I'll vote for the majority view of the groups that appear to represent my views in most other areas.

Likewise I would not think it wrong for someone to say...

Coir are against.
Sinn Fein are against.
Joe Higgins is against.

I trust these people in their view of the world. I'll vote no.

Where I have more of a personal issue, is with people who have not learned about the treaty, do not agree with the worldview of the No groups, and yet somehow think that no is a good idea.

I don't think this is contradictory, though I'm open to correction.

Ix.

I think the view is coherent but it's quite naive to actually put that much trust in any interest group or political party.

Freeborn John

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

That's not correct. A state cannot use its "internal law" (which includes constitutional law) as a reason for not respecting a treaty already in force. Therefore the OP is correct to say that "Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it.". Any referendum of the type you suggest to later back the changes to the Irish Constitution being voted on on October 2 would result in a breach of the EU treaty (Lisbon) then in force which would result in Ireland being hauled up before the ICJ and ultimately being obliged to leave the EU. There would be no going back to the current situation so the OP's argument for 'if you don't know, vote NO' is a watertight one.

---

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
Article 27: Internal law and observance of treaties

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

ixtlan

Freeborn John wrote: »

That's not correct. A state cannot use its "internal law" (which includes constitutional law) as a reason for not respecting a treaty already in force. Therefore the OP is correct to say that "Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it.". Any referendum of the type you suggest to later back the changes to the Irish Constitution being voted on on October 2 would result in a breach of the EU treaty (Lisbon) then in force which would result in Ireland being hauled up before the ICJ and ultimately being obliged to leave the EU. There would be no going back to the current situation so the OP's argument for 'if you don't know, vote NO' is a watertight one.

---

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
Article 27: Internal law and observance of treaties

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

I would agree with this interpretation in a literal sense however a more reasonable approach would be to say we could attempt to reverse aspects of any treaty through future negotiations for new treaties.

This would require getting the public interested enough for it to be a general election issue in one or more states. As far as I am aware this has never happened. Has it? Which suggests strongly to me that after the treaties are ratified by all, everyone generally thinks that they are acceptable, and indeed also that the electorates in each state are touched so benignly by the EU that they would never consider EU changes to be election issues.

So we can reverse treaty changes with some effort, especially if (as the No side constantly claims) there are large number of similarly minded Europeans, in future treaties.

Ix.

patrickthomas

I think if you don't know you should vote NO, they remade the treaty to get us to vote yes, nonsense all of it, the EU will continue on as ever before and we will be looking at this treaty again next year. :rolleyes:

nesf

patrickthomas wrote: »

I think if you don't know you should vote NO, they remade the treaty to get us to vote yes, nonsense all of it, the EU will continue on as ever before and we will be looking at this treaty again next year. :rolleyes:

They didn't "remake the treaty" they looked at what issues concerned people and went to Europe and got binding guarantees that spelled out in plain English that many of these issues weren't actually issues with this treaty and got reversed decisions on those that were, like the commissioner issue.

If people were genuinely voting No because they were worried about abortion, neutrality or the loss of a commissioner and not because they were against the EU or Lisbon in principle these guarantees should be encouraging for them! The idea that they should vote No now, that these issues have been dealt with as well as is possible is bluntly bizarre.

patrickthomas

nesf wrote: »

They didn't "remake the treaty" they looked at what issues concerned people and went to Europe and got binding guarantees that spelled out in plain English that many of these issues weren't actually issues with this treaty and got reversed decisions on those that were, like the commissioner issue.

If people were genuinely voting No because they were worried about abortion, neutrality or the loss of a commissioner and not because they were against the EU or Lisbon in principle these guarantees should be encouraging for them! The idea that they should vote No now, that these issues have been dealt with as well as is possible is bluntly bizarre.

Bizarre that people exercise their democratic rights and make a choice!

meglome

patrickthomas wrote: »

Bizarre that people exercise their democratic rights and make a choice!

And they can make their democratic choice all over again, if they want a No vote again then they can vote for that. However if things have changed like people in here are saying they will vote Yes.

patrickthomas

meglome wrote: »

And they can make their democratic choice all over again, if they want a No vote again then they can vote for that. However if things have changed like people in here are saying they will vote Yes.

Don't kid yourself, nothing has changed, in fact they are worse, It now looks like the right to have an abortion is enshrined in the changes to the treaty, for gods sake, in 2009 in this country women still have to go to the UK for an abortion, what a unprogressive little backward country we live in.

nesf

patrickthomas wrote: »

Bizarre that people exercise their democratic rights and make a choice!

Either back up your points or don't bother to post here.

patrickthomas

nesf wrote: »

Either back up your points or don't bother to post here.

When someone says "The idea that they should vote No now, that these issues have been dealt with as well as is possible is bluntly bizarre."

The idea that people make a democratic choice can not be called bizarre?
It is an extremely valid point and at the very heart of democracy.

passive

patrickthomas wrote: »

When someone says "The idea that they should vote No now, that these issues have been dealt with as well as is possible is bluntly bizarre."

The idea that people make a democratic choice can not be called bizarre?
It is an extremely valid point and at the very heart of democracy.

God Bless Bull****.

Stop being overdramatic and preachy, using emotive and meaningless clips and phrases to make it sound like you're saying something. What he said was it doesn't make sense, or seem logical for people to vote no for <insert reason here> when someone went to great lengths to make it clear that <insert reason here> doesn't exist. Can you process that, or is DEMOCRACY, and FREEDOM, and JUSTICE, and NO, NO, NO, NAY, NEVER, too IMPORTANT and SACRED for you to think it through?

Now, if you want to discuss *other* reasons for voting no, like genuine problems with the treaty, or desire to leave the EU, then go for it. But you can't possibly maintain that it's a sensible choice to say no to something for reasons that are completely unfounded and untrue.

dny123456

If you don't know, you should either inform yourself, so that you "do know", or else do not vote.

ShooterSF wrote: »

can a yes-voter offer a logical reason for them not to vote no so they can contemplate the treaty further

Voting No, will not maintain the status quo, so there is no option for more time to contemplate. If we vote no, there will be consequences.

Firstly, we will most likely lose our commissioner.

Secondly, the rest of europe will march on and we will be left in limbo. On the edge of the organisation, without the ability to fully leave, as if we did.... Iceland.

Inform yourself and decide what is best for you. But voting no, is an active act, so don't pretend to yourself that it will give more "time to contemplate". It won't. It's time to decide.

ShooterSF

dny123456 wrote: »

If you don't know, you should either inform yourself, so that you "do know", or else do not vote.


Voting No, will not maintain the status quo, so there is no option for more time to contemplate. If we vote no, there will be consequences.

Firstly, we will most likely lose our commissioner.

(Assuming from your post that you are a yes voter) I never thought I'd have to point this out to a yes voter. It's not "our commissioner". He/She is meant to act in Europe's best interest not Ireland's.

Secondly, the rest of europe will march on and we will be left in limbo. On the edge of the organisation, without the ability to fully leave, as if we did.... Iceland.

Can you offer any precedent for this since the start of the EU where a country was marginalised for rejecting a treaty? Take for example the completely different constitution. Were those nations that rejected it marginalised and left in limbo or did EU stop and try and work around the problems?

Inform yourself and decide what is best for you. But voting no, is an active act, so don't pretend to yourself that it will give more "time to contemplate". It won't. It's time to decide.

Why not? There is nothing un-democratic about asking the nation again if the consensus was that people were unsure/confused or even just may have changed their minds. Though I agree I'd prefer people to make an informed decision.

dny123456

ShooterSF wrote: »

Why not?

Because all the rest of the countries want to move on. We can't stop them. We can only stop ourselves.

If you want to vote No, that's fine, no problem with that. Don't vote no, because you don't know.

K-9

But a Don't know means they don't know what a Yes or No vote entails.

They don't know what changes a Yes vote brings, so they shouldn't vote No to changes they know nothing about.

PHB

Listen, this argument of "If you don't know vote no" assumes that if you vote no, nothing will change.

If you vote no, it will have a significant effect on your life

Nobody can deny this, and anyone who does is just lying.

THere are consequences to voting Yes, and consequences to Voting No.

If you think that sticking your head in the sand and voting no will keep things the same, you're in for a big shock.

My name is URL

PHB wrote: »

Listen, this argument of "If you don't know vote no" assumes that if you vote no, nothing will change.

If you vote no, it will have a significant effect on your life

Nobody can deny this, and anyone who does is just lying.

THere are consequences to voting Yes, and consequences to Voting No.

If you think that sticking your head in the sand and voting no will keep things the same, you're in for a big shock.

What do you suggest..that people don't vote?

Those that "don't know" don't know for what reasons exactly? Because it could be alot clearer, and should be

They have every right to vote No simply because they don't understand the treaty, it's up to those organising it to make damn sure that people do understand, and if they fail at that then tough