Should we be voting on the Lisbon Treaty?

I honestly believe that it's ridiculous to let a country vote on an issue as complex as the lisbon treaty. it's not a simple thing like abortion or divorce where everyones opinion is definately their own. instead, this vote is being decided on lies, stigmas and scare-mongering from both sides.

i know people voting yes because of declan ganley. i know people voting no because of brian cowen. i know people voting yes because of jobs. i know people voting no because of national pride. i've even heard people say they are voting no because it wasn't explained to them. you may aswell ask people to vote on our income tax rate. it would be an equally farcical and stupid result.

the fact is 99% of people don't have a notion what the treaty is really about.. just like many other aspects of running a country. i would feel much better about this treaty if our country's most capable people were making an informed decision. wouldn't our best economists, judges, politicians etc be able to come to a better decision than the completely skewed result an election gives on such a complex topic?

Mario007

Ads by Google wrote: »

I honestly believe that it's ridiculous to let a country vote on an issue as complex as the lisbon treaty. it's not a simple thing like abortion or divorce where everyones opinion is definately their own. instead, this vote is being decided on lies, stigmas and scare-mongering from both sides.

i know people voting yes because of declan ganley. i know people voting no because of brian cowen. i know people voting yes because of jobs. i know people voting no because of national pride. i've even heard people say they are voting no because it wasn't explained to them. you may aswell ask people to vote on our income tax rate. it would be an equally farcical and stupid result.

the fact is 99% of people don't have a notion what the treaty is really about.. just like many other aspects of running a country. i would feel much better about this treaty if our country's most capable people were making an informed decision. wouldn't our best economists, judges, politicians etc be able to come to a better decision than the completely skewed result an election gives on such a complex topic?

i fully agree. we are all just amatuers really, when reading the treaty or trying to figure out what it means. the lisbon treaty is also very uninteresting really for the ordinary citizen and so many side issues are being created to get people to vote yes or no.

Sam Vimes

I completely agree. These referendums have become a farce with misinformation and lies on both sides. Only a tiny percentage of people on both sides are voting on issues that have anything to do with the treaty. The whole thing is fcuking ridiculous

I sincerely hope that Ireland follows the rest of Europe and realises that putting things like this to a referendum will never result in anything but a farce. Issues like this are why we elect governments

Mario007

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I completely agree. These referendums have become a farce with misinformation and lies on both sides. Only a tiny percentage of people on both sides are voting on issues that have anything to do with the treaty. The whole thing is fcuking ridiculous

I sincerely hope that Ireland follows the rest of Europe and realises that putting things like this to a referendum will never result in anything but a farce. Issues like this are why we elect governments

exactly we pay them massive sums of money for them to read the whole treaty, to get their advisers to help them understand it and to vote on it. i mean thats how parliamentary democracy works, the deputies are suppose to represent you because you really don't have time for any of this, what with worrying about your job, family etc.

mattysullivan

Hear, hear!

The Corinthian

You can thank Raymond Crotty for all this fun.

Unfortunately these treaties are legal and diplomatic documents and thus are well beyond the scope of understanding of your average voter - but then again so are most bills; what we vote upon is candidates who promise to follow a general policy and then we trust them to do it - and if they screw up or lie, we kick them out. That's modern democracy.

Sam Vimes

The Corinthian wrote: »

You can thank Raymond Crotty for all this fun.

Unfortunately these treaties are legal and diplomatic documents and thus are well beyond the scope of understanding of your average voter - but then again so are most bills; what we vote upon is candidates who promise to follow a general policy and then we trust them to do it - and if they screw up or lie, we kick them out. That's modern democracy.

Except in Ireland where if I don't like the EU for un-PC reasons I can stick a lie on a poster and trick the people into giving me what I want

ei.sdraob

Yes thanks to Crotty

the people are being asked to vote on one rather complex document with many points

hence why its so hard to boil down Lisbon into one sentence or onto one poster

this is also why its so easy to spread fud and lies by certain groups who I hope never ever get into government to implement their loonie plans that range from communism to religious feudalism

tho personally i dont have a problem with referendum's pe se

my problem is with lack of interest and knowledge of the subject by the people being asked to vote, and even bigger problem with disinformation being spread by far right wing and left wing groups, Hitler for example got to execute his evil plans things thanks to lying, propaganda and referendums and now they are banned in Germany

/

The Corinthian

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Except in Ireland where if I don't like the EU for un-PC reasons I can stick a lie on a poster and trick the people into giving me what I want

That's called politics.

Scofflaw

I don't have any issue with the idea of voting, and I don't think anyone else does either, really - what's at issue is the method by which the issue is debated.

In theory I'd favour a combination of a single, authoritative, information source (call it the RefCom), and mandatory voting. Absolutely no campaigning (heavy penalties), and the only media/public appearances to be in the form of a representative of the RefCom and a Q&A format. Treat it, if you like, as a matter sub judice until the vote.

The reason I say I'm only in favour of that 'in theory' is that control over the RefCom thereby becomes control over the public debate, so you'd need to include a mandatory public 'trial' of the RefCom after the fact, with extremely stiff penalties for bias or corruption. I would consider, for similar reasons, election to the RefCom board along with selection & vetting of RefCom expert staff.

Obviously, that's a more legalistic than political process, but some things are too important to leave to politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ghost_ie

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't have any issue with the idea of voting, and I don't think anyone else does either, really - what's at issue is the method by which the issue is debated.

In theory I'd favour a combination of a single, authoritative, information source (call it the RefCom), and mandatory voting. Absolutely no campaigning (heavy penalties), and the only media/public appearances to be in the form of a representative of the RefCom and a Q&A format. Treat it, if you like, as a matter sub judice until the vote.

The reason I say I'm only in favour of that 'in theory' is that control over the RefCom thereby becomes control over the public debate, so you'd need to include a mandatory public 'trial' of the RefCom after the fact, with extremely stiff penalties for bias or corruption. I would consider, for similar reasons, election to the RefCom board along with selection & vetting of RefCom expert staff.

Obviously, that's a more legalistic than political process, but some things are too important to leave to politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But who would elect, select and vet the Refcom expert staff?

ei.sdraob

ghost_ie wrote: »

But who would elect, select and vet the Refcom expert staff?

why a referendum on that issue of course

Scofflaw

ghost_ie wrote: »

But who would elect, select and vet the Refcom expert staff?

Elected 'board', which then vets the expert staff (with statutory minimum standards). Election by universal suffrage in the usual way. I know, that's another layer of elections. The alternative is the same system as jury duty - essentially, a lottery.

Do you know how the Doge of Venice was elected?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't have any issue with the idea of voting, and I don't think anyone else does either, really - what's at issue is the method by which the issue is debated.

In theory I'd favour a combination of a single, authoritative, information source (call it the RefCom), and mandatory voting. Absolutely no campaigning (heavy penalties), and the only media/public appearances to be in the form of a representative of the RefCom and a Q&A format. Treat it, if you like, as a matter sub judice until the vote.

The reason I say I'm only in favour of that 'in theory' is that control over the RefCom thereby becomes control over the public debate, so you'd need to include a mandatory public 'trial' of the RefCom after the fact, with extremely stiff penalties for bias or corruption. I would consider, for similar reasons, election to the RefCom board along with selection & vetting of RefCom expert staff.

Obviously, that's a more legalistic than political process, but some things are too important to leave to politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I was saying in another thread something similar, but rather then have only the referendum commission, have the campaign but instead of letting it run out of control right up to voting day, have the week before hand the referendum commission perform a factcheck. Make a sort of event out of it for the night as its the conclusion of the campaign essentially and it would sum up the arguments (and the basis of those arguments) from both sides and remove obvious porkies etc.

Combine it with the polling built into the voting so on the ballot paper, you would give your vote and underneath it it would have a short list of the main campaign issues (and of course OTHER:).

That way rather then relying on the no campaign to do something productive with a no vote (which has never happened) its streamlined and issues such as the claims that the polls after the last referendum were misleading and that none of *so and so* issues were resolved.

sceptre

Even the last divorce referendum wasn't as simple as yes/no: I'm extremely in favour of a no-wait divorce on demand and I voted no (I decided that five years was far too long). But then I'm sometimes concerned about the minutae.

A few things from my perspective. Regardless of whether any of you like or dislike the Crotty judgement and what it has wrought, the fact is that Crotty's complaint was entirely valid and was upheld by the Supreme Court. So it's valid - we have referendums on matters that affect our sovereignty because in 1937 the people voted to confer protections on that sovereignty and any change to that has to be approved by another vote.

I like this. Why do I like it? Because it means that in the event where the EU actually wanted to unilaterally and mandatorily introduce a 1.84 minimum wage, send Irish people off to fight in an EU army or change our abortion laws (for example and they're pointed examples), that would have to be approved by the Irish people in a referendum. At any future time.

As for the other thing, people who are voting yes because Declan Ganley and Cóir say no or people who are voting no to give one in the eye to the current government, all of those people are lucky we're living in a country where universal suffrage for over 18s is established. The first one of these is short-sighted and silly, the latter is plain retarded. And I don't use that word very often.

Rb

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't have any issue with the idea of voting, and I don't think anyone else does either, really - what's at issue is the method by which the issue is debated.

In theory I'd favour a combination of a single, authoritative, information source (call it the RefCom), and mandatory voting. Absolutely no campaigning (heavy penalties), and the only media/public appearances to be in the form of a representative of the RefCom and a Q&A format. Treat it, if you like, as a matter sub judice until the vote.

The reason I say I'm only in favour of that 'in theory' is that control over the RefCom thereby becomes control over the public debate, so you'd need to include a mandatory public 'trial' of the RefCom after the fact, with extremely stiff penalties for bias or corruption. I would consider, for similar reasons, election to the RefCom board along with selection & vetting of RefCom expert staff.

Obviously, that's a more legalistic than political process, but some things are too important to leave to politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I really like this idea, particularly with regards to no campaigns.

I'm still amazed at FG's decision to stick Enda on the Vote Yes posters when every other party or organisation haven't put representatives pictures on their posters, be it yes or no.

At least as far as I have seen anyway, I'm open to correction on that.

Anywho, good idea Scofflaw.

nesf

The problem isn't that it's a referendum really, the problem is the format in which the information is put before the public. Huge treaties will confuse and beffudle the vast majority of people and most won't even have time to fully read them.

Better to pass individual pieces of law, like a single vote on whether to extend EU competence to direct taxation for instance would be a simple straightforward issue for people to grasp.


To an extent Lisbon is going to give us but only time will tell if it works out well or whether they bundle laws together to fudge issues.

BlitzKrieg

Better to pass individual pieces of law

Is it possible to break up a treaty in just ireland's case and then ratify it as a whole if it all passess?

SO if a treaty is decided on say in 2012 and its deadline to be ratified is 2014, we could have six small referendums like you say over that 2 year period and in 2014 say that the government can ratify the treaty as a whole because all six small referendums passed.

But this will lead to problems

The anti-EU groupings (not the whole no campaign, but that grouping that just simply hates the EU) will vote no in everyone regardless of topic, while some will generate little interest because the majority might have no interest in that specific topic so it will end up not passing due to low turnout and the consistent anti EU minority.

nesf

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Is it possible to break up a treaty in just ireland's case and then ratify it as a whole if it all passess?

No because right now the rest of the EU have passed the entire treaty, they can't choose to retrospectively not pass some elements of it. There's also the issue of balance in that certain elements of the treaty where we "won" are offset by other areas where we had to give something up.

Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Is it possible to break up a treaty in just ireland's case and then ratify it as a whole if it all passess?

SO if a treaty is decided on say in 2012 and its deadline to be ratified is 2014, we could have six small referendums like you say over that 2 year period and in 2014 say that the government can ratify the treaty as a whole because all six small referendums passed.

But this will lead to problems

The anti-EU groupings (not the whole no campaign, but that grouping that just simply hates the EU) will vote no in everyone regardless of topic, while some will generate little interest because the majority might have no interest in that specific topic so it will end up not passing due to low turnout and the consistent anti EU minority.

What has been suggested by some commentators is that the EU's treaties should be passed by majority ratification, and the first job after a treaty is sufficiently ratified would be to agree a bridging treaty with the countries that voted No.

It has to be pointed out that ratification of treaties isn't, in any case, the same as actually performing them. The euro was introduced as a blanket provision for a single currency, with bridging clauses for "members with a derogation" who didn't adopt it (a 'derogation' is a temporary exemption). Come the day, there was sufficient opposition in several countries to make it obvious that the 'derogation' was going to be a long-term feature, and Lisbon, amongst other things, recognises that reality by replacing the phrase "members with a derogation" with "members whose currency is not the euro".

So there's plenty of precedent for a "two-speed Europe", which exists in several ways (so much that one could almost call it "EU a la carte"), but it's usually papered over.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

nesf wrote: »

No because right now the rest of the EU have passed the entire treaty, they can't choose to retrospectively not pass some elements of it. There's also the issue of balance in that certain elements of the treaty where we "won" are offset by other areas where we had to give something up.

I know, what I thought you meant is in the manner of campaigning, campaigning on specific issues, say for example the President of the European Council is alot easier and productive then trying to get people's heads around the treaty as a whole and letting little lies snowball.


What I was asking is if we had six referendums covering the treaty in six parts and all six pass, could we say thats the treaty passed and not need a referendum on the treaty as a whole.

Its just breaking up the one single confusing referendum over a period of time.

What I was wondering is would the crotty judgement still require that we have a another referendum again on everything as a whole when the change to the constitution is made, or could it be argued that we got the approval in six parts and that we dont need another referendum for the actual written change in our constitution?

Sam Vimes

Rb wrote: »

I'm still amazed at FG's decision to stick Enda on the Vote Yes posters when every other party or organisation haven't put representatives pictures on their posters, be it yes or no.

Labour did too

robindch

Scofflaw wrote: »

Do you know how the Doge of Venice was elected?

Yes, a magnificent protocol. Baroque is almost the right word to use. Documented and analyzed here:

http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2007/HPL-2007-28R1.pdf

hatrickpatrick

The Corinthian wrote: »

You can thank Raymond Crotty for all this fun.

Unfortunately these treaties are legal and diplomatic documents and thus are well beyond the scope of understanding of your average voter - but then again so are most bills; what we vote upon is candidates who promise to follow a general policy and then we trust them to do it - and if they screw up or lie, we kick them out. That's modern democracy.

I personally have never approved at all of this form of democracy, simply because it's so damn hard to kick them out for screwing up.

If there was some sort of national "citizen's initiative" whereby a citizen could get X number of signatures to call a referendum on whether to sack the gov't and hold a general election, our form of democracy would make more sense. But I've always thought the best form or representative democracy would be one as described in the "" episode of Yes, Prime Minister - "Power to the People". From wiki:

The Marriot scheme wrote:

At Sir Humphrey's insistence, Hacker meets with Professor Marriott, who expands on his original plan. He now proposes that each MP should be obligated to only 500 constituents, thus allowing them true independence from the party machine and enforcing proper accountability. This means that government legislation would only be enacted if voted for by a genuine majority, free of the Whips.

If we can't have direct democracy this would be the next best thing. And one reason I oppose Lisbon is that the EU does the opposite - makes politicians less accountable by increasing the number of electing voters. The more power we give to the EU over domestic affairs, the less chance there is of something like this ever actually being put into practice, which is what I would very much like to see happen in my lifetime.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I personally have never approved at all of this form of democracy, simply because it's so damn hard to kick them out for screwing up.

If there was some sort of national "citizen's initiative" whereby a citizen could get X number of signatures to call a referendum on whether to sack the gov't and hold a general election, our form of democracy would make more sense. But I've always thought the best form or representative democracy would be one as described in the "" episode of Yes, Prime Minister - "Power to the People". From wiki:



If we can't have direct democracy this would be the next best thing.

If X is 50+% of the electorate I would agree. Otherwise you risk holding the national governmental system hostage to minorities.

Mario007

Since we're talking about referenda I would just like to point out one thing. In Slovakia, when you wanna change the constitution you have to get 2/3 of the parliament to vote for the given change. So there's no direct democracy as such when regarding the constitution. However one can get a petition of 340 000 that can be presented to president and the president has to call for a referendum on the issues addressed by the petition. This referendum is then legally binding. I wonder if anyone likes this system better, because I certainly do:D