Does democracy work - an Irish and Lisbon Treaty based question

Alex-Face

walshb wrote: »

The majority of the folks voting on Lisbon are voting on an issue they are not all that familiar with, that's both sides. We voted already and we voted no. Again, we are being asked to vote and I will vote NO again. Our first vote was not respected which is wrong and undemocratic. I think most YES voters will be voting yes out of fear, a fear that is not real or genuine, but propoganda. Seriously, if NO is voted, how much different or worse
off will we be?

What irks me is that there will be many voters voting YES who previously voted NO.
They will change their vote, not because they have now educated themselves and understand the issue, but because they are being asked to vote again. Instead of telling this govt that they have a cheek not to respect the vote of the people, they are going to change to comply with a shower who have not shown them or us respect

We are a strange electorate indeed. Had I originally voted YES, I would on principle vote NO this time to send a clear message to the govt that they have a damn cheek not respecting the Irish people. This is not democracy, what is happening with Lisbon II

QFT



Seriously I am sick of the Lisbon Treaty, fed up with our 'Government' and fed up with the EU.

All it does is make sure at the end of the day, that we are kept within a high tax-low pay bracket and keeping the big businesses in business and stepping on the little guys.

I look at the Dublin Bus Drivers, Taxi Men, Nurses, Street Cleaners and all of us other minimum wage - ''Lower Class'' people. Which is an insult in itself. I hate the term ''Lower Class''. Just because I earn minimum wage and even in some cases just by your locality, I am classes as a ''Lower" member of society.

I know for fact that I am a lot smarter, logical and down to earth that a lot of the big shot assholes who push by us, look down and scoff at us. I have spoken and over heard bus drivers, taxi men and all the ''Lower Class'' people talking about politics and the economy. And just hearing them - I know they are far more concerned with the Country and how it runs. I hear big fat cat executives having coffee or drinks around town talking about money, gossip and commenting on the street cleaners or 'ignorant' civil workers.

I say no to the Lisbon Treaty - why? It was denied before...thats why. And I will not accept a yes vote. I respect anyone who votes yes and their right to do it. But really, look at all the propaganda. Ask yourself, what newspaper article, bill board or lampost sign convinced or scared you to decide your vote?

Did anyone actually read the 400 pages word for word and make an informed decision? I doubt the majority did.

Also look at the specifics. This country is about to break down and there will be a mass reaction to it.

nesf

walshb wrote: »

Slow down, again, I never said the issue was a second running. It's the blatant disregard for the first vote, just over a year and we are voting again. This is the real issue and it's plain to see that the first vote was NOT accepted.

Maybe in five or ten years, I could see a point with a new view or look, but 15 months and the same treaty being pressed again is without doubt a sign of a complete lack of respect for the decision and the people

Then your issue is the time frame of the second running? Seriously, how can it be a travesty of democracy? If the people, in general, feel that it shouldn't be put to them again then they'll return a No vote! If they return a Yes vote then for the majority of people it wasn't too soon. Either way the people will have spoken and the Government will be bound by the decision of the people which is about as democratic as one can get.

Euro_Kraut

Alex-Face wrote: »

I look at the Dublin Bus Drivers, Taxi Men, Nurses, Street Cleaners and all of us other minimum wage - ''Lower Class'' people. Which is an insult in itself. I hate the term ''Lower Class''. Just because I earn minimum wage and even in some cases just by your locality, I am classes as a ''Lower" member of society.

Who is calling you 'Lower Class'? You are the one who is putting that label on. You are arguing with yourself.

I know for fact that I am a lot smarter, logical and down to earth that a lot of the big shot assholes who push by us, look down and scoff at us..

Thanks for helping me get RDA of irony..

And I will not accept a yes vote.

Thats not very democratic of you. Not that your acceptance is required by the way. What do you plan to do if there is a YES vote?

Alex-Face

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Who is calling you 'Lower Class'? You are the one who is putting that label on. You are arguing with yourself.

No - I did not invent the term - I have heard it thrown around everywhere. I am saying I hate the term. It is used in reference to people on minimum wage- or living in certain localities.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Thanks for helping me get RDA of irony..

Read my other threads, you may get haemochromotosis

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Thats not very democratic of you. Not that your acceptance is required by the way. What do you plan to do if there is a YES vote?

[/quote]

I won't accept a yes vote this time around. The first time - yes sure I was fine either way. I understand democracy. But the fact that we have already said No. I think that the entire idea of re-voting is absolutley ridiculous. We made are mind up - and it was ''No''.

And if we get a Yes vote, I wont be the only person pissed off about it. There will be a lot of hassle caused by it and well I just can't wait to be honest. I hope this stupid excuse for a Government gets just what it deserves.

prinz

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

We will lose our commissioner under Lisbon - .

No. No we won't. Clearly you don't know what's in the Treaty.

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

the legal guarantees are not binding - a 'legal guarantee' is worthless in the context of the treaty because the ratification of the Treaty was undertaken by many states before the Irish No vote - therefore, we are getting the exact same treaty as last time..

Yes they are binding. As binding as any international agreement.

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

As there was no further ratification process by these member states, we cannot have a parallel treaty running tandem, i.e. Lisbon and Lisbon v1.01, we can ONLY have Lisbon as it was ratified by other states.

I think you'll find that other countries have had annexes etc attached to previous Treaties, with no problems, difficulties, or major issues arising from that.

kippy

nesf wrote: »

Probably the same countries that require you to do military service unless you've a bloody good reason for not doing. Israel and Switzerland both require you to do this iirc.

I'm not convinced that training everyone in how to propery care for, use and aim firearms is a great idea though.

I dont believe this requirement is linked to your vote however (I could be mistaken)
Even still, as you point out yourself, I dont see how being required to do some time in the military would somehow mean you are better versed to make decisions on a treaty such as this.

Medievalist

walshb wrote: »

Slow down, again, I never said the issue was a second running. It's the blatant disregard for the first vote, just over a year and we are voting again. This is the real issue and it's plain to see that the first vote was NOT accepted.

Maybe in five or ten years, I could see a point with a new view or look, but 15 months and the same treaty being pressed again is without doubt a sign of a complete lack of respect for the decision and the people

I don't think it was a complete disregard for the first vote. I think it was a good democratic decision to have it again. My reason for saying this is that after the first referendum, c40% of No voters polled said they voted No because they didn't understand the Treaty. If this c. 40% had voted No because the disagreed with the terms of the Treaty, I doubt we'd be having a second vote. This group of No voters are the ones that caused uncertainty and are the reason for the second referendum.

The government realised the Irish electorate didn't understand the terms being put to them, and had certain concerns. Therefore, we were given more time to figure it out and ammendments were made to the Treaty to allay our fears. I think that's democratic, fair, and just.

Euro_Kraut

Alex-Face wrote: »

No - I did not invent the term - I have heard it thrown around everywhere. I am saying I hate the term. It is used in reference to people on minimum wage- or living in certain localities.

Can you give me a source for that? i.e. some people in the YES campaign who refered to No voters as 'lower class'? I certainly have never heard it. Many lower income people will be voting yes (just look at the Trade Unions backing the treaty)
[/quote]

I won't accept a yes vote this time around. The first time - yes sure I was fine either way. I understand democracy. But the fact that we have already said No. I think that the entire idea of re-voting is absolutley ridiculous. We made are mind up - and it was ''No''.

Are you prepared to accept that we could have changed or mind? Why does the first expression of the people will carry a higher weight that the most recent?

And if we get a Yes vote, I wont be the only person pissed off about it. There will be a lot of hassle caused by it and well I just can't wait to be honest. I hope this stupid excuse for a Government gets just what it deserves.

Aside from being p;ssed off, what do you plan to do? Some form of direct action? Against whom? IBEC, SIPTU, Labour, Intel, Ryanair, CSPEU, Fine Gael, the Coalition, Ireland for Europe, Generation Yes, The Liberals, ICTU, every person that voted Yes?

nesf

kippy wrote: »

Even still, as you point out yourself, I dont see how being required to do some time in the military would somehow mean you are better versed to make decisions on a treaty such as this.

I don't think Scofflaw was arguing that it was a good idea, only that some countries do use this system. Personally I'd oppose it, if we want to limit someone's ability to vote a basic civics type exam is the fairest way. Just really simple stuff like "How many TDs are in your constituency? How many TDs are in the Dáil? Does the Irish Constitution prohibit abortion in all cases?" and so on.

Alex-Face

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Can you give me a source for that? i.e. some people in the YES campaign who refered to No voters as 'lower class'? I certainly have never heard it. Many lower income people will be voting yes (just look at the Trade Unions backing the treaty)

No I am just refering in general to the use of teh term. Not any party in specific. That may have just been a misinterpretation on my behalf.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Are you prepared to accept that we could have changed or mind? Why does the first expression of the people will carry a higher weight that the most recent?

I don't care if you changed your mind or not. It voids the reasoning behind democracy. If the people asked for a re-vote; then sure-they can have it, but for the Government to turn around and force another vote-they can f**k off. We voted No, and how can people change their mind - unless every single voter has read the exact treaty as written, then they are only going on other people's 'unbiased' interpretation of the treaty.

All those signs on the lamposts - are making people vote based on scare tactics, on both sides of the table. ''Minimum Wage - 1.84 after Lisbon" and implying its anti-eu to vote no, they are trying to get people to vote yes in hope of ''More Jobs" disregarding how far off that will be, or how many more jobs or anything tangible.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Aside from being p;ssed off, what do you plan to do? Some form of direct action? Against whom? IBEC, SIPTU, Labour, Intel, Ryanair, CSPEU, Fine Gael, the Coalition, Ireland for Europe, Generation Yes, The Liberals, ICTU, every person that voted Yes?

See the thing is; I won't be the only one pissed off. Just wait for the food riots to start. When the minimum wage goes down to 2 Euro an hour - nobody with any sense is going to accept that. Not when the useless Government is earning 300,000 per year. A pack of smokes = 8.65 - A loaf of bread + pound of butter takes a days work to earn? My current rent is 900 euro between me and the missus. We work for minimum wage and I do Web designing free lance for a few extra quid and she does some house cleaning and we can barely foot the bill for heating, electrics and rent per month. 2 euro an hour - thats 240 euro a month...between the two of us we would pull in about 700 quid a month with the extra odd jobs we do. Not even enough for rent let alone bills. And I'm not the only one in that situation.

Euro_Kraut

Alex-Face wrote: »

If the people asked for a re-vote; then sure-they can have it,

Well we could use the recent European election as a proxy. Declan Ganley declared a proxy refereendum on Lisbon. Yet Ireland returen 11 MEPs in favour of a re run and just 1 against.

Otherwise, what are you suggesting a referendum on wether there should be a referendum?

All those signs on the lamposts - are making people vote based on scare tactics, on both sides of the table. ''Minimum Wage - 1.84 after Lisbon" and implying its anti-eu to vote no, they are trying to get people to vote yes in hope of ''More Jobs" disregarding how far off that will be, or how many more jobs or anything tangible.

I agree the Minimum Wage argument is nonsense. Glad you agree.

See the thing is; I won't be the only one pissed off. Just wait for the food riots to start. When the minimum wage goes down to 2 Euro an hour - nobody with any sense is going to accept that. Not when the useless Government is earning 300,000 per year. A pack of smokes = 8.65 - A loaf of bread + pound of butter takes a days work to earn? My current rent is 900 euro between me and the missus. We work for minimum wage and I do Web designing free lance for a few extra quid and she does some house cleaning and we can barely foot the bill for heating, electrics and rent per month. 2 euro an hour - thats 240 euro a month...between the two of us we would pull in about 700 quid a month with the extra odd jobs we do. Not even enough for rent let alone bills. And I'm not the only one in that situation.

:eek::eek: What? You just said the Minimum wage issue was nothing more that a scare tactic. It was going so well between us.

Can you outline the steps for me between ratification of the Lisbon treaty, the redution in the minimum wage and the outbreak of food riots?

Alex-Face

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

:eek::eek: What? You just said the Minimum wage issue was nothing more that a scare tactic. It was going so well between us.

Can you outline the steps for me between ratification of the Lisbon treaty, the redution in the minimum wage and the outbreak of food riots?

Yeah about that - I mean't if we do have to lower the minimum wage. I think they are all scare tactics but the minimum wage in a lot of europe is considerably lower. It was more of a what-if.


See I'm currently in an internet cafe and there is a group very irritating gamers shouting, jeering etc and being disruptive - its difficult to concentrate :P

donkey balls

ah well if the no vote wins again we can allways have another vote next year as johnny logan used to say whats another year:D

anonymous_joe

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

I'll do my best to avoid confrontational or agressive language whilst posting on these boards but this thread is based on an incredibly stupid point put in an incredibly stupid way - perhaps it was the posting at 2am that is blame, I sincerely hope so?

Now that's just mean.

Of course an argument presented at 2am in the morning is going to be poorly phrased and constructed.

Rereading this thread has in my mind made clear my original point;

I'm not a fascist. (just for the record. :pac:)

I'm not arguing that some small elite oligarchy should rule the country (which is what Jefferson and co wanted for America once upon a time) rather, I think some degree of civil awareness should be a necessity in voting.

Scof suggested a test with the Leaving Cert - would passing a CSPE exam or something not be a way of possibly doing it? Something to make people think about politics. I know this is a skewed example but; if you give me a car, and I don't know how to drive; I could do a lot of damage to myself and others. To Godwin the thread further, Hitler was democratically elected. Would that have happened if people had known what would happen as a result?

Anyway, another thing I noticed was how many people missed a massive point.

The second referendum isn't a rerun of the original treaty. A large survey was done of No voters to see what their concerns were. Those major concerns were discovered in several cases to not actually be real. (Abortion, conscription, etc) Hence the EU providing guarentees. What we have is the Lisbon Treaty again, with the guarentees regarding the major concerns which have been addressed.

Hell, if there was a test on whether you understand the Lisbon treaty I don't know if I'd pass it, but I do think we should all have to know what it is we're voting in before we do so.

bonkey

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I know this is a skewed example but; if you give me a car, and I don't know how to drive; I could do a lot of damage to myself and others.

Its not all that skewed an example, but its important to recognise the limiuts of it.

AS a driver, I was required to show at some point in time that I udnerstood the rules and regulations. The same is the basis of the proposal you seem to be making for "merited voting".

As a driver, there is nothing requiring me to continue to hold to those rules and regulations. I can develop bad habits and "unlearn" or ignore much of what I was taught. The same would hold true for the proposal that you seem to be making - one would have to ask whether there is anything other than optimism to suggest that someone who passed a test at some point in their life is going to be a better voter over the rest of their days.

As a driver, if I am caught breaking with what I was taught in a manner that is serious enough (i.e. something like a speed-limit, as opposed to where I should hold my hands on the steering wheel), I can have my right to drive temporarily or even permanentaly revoked. I can face additional penalties beyond my right to drive, because of the impact I can have. This does not and should not apply to voting, nor do I believe you were suggesting for a second that it should.

To Godwin the thread further, Hitler was democratically elected. Would that have happened if people had known what would happen as a result?

As my sig once quoted from C.S.Lewis:

"To know what would have happened, child?" said Aslan. "No. Nobody is ever told that."

Godwinning the thread is the least of your worries with this argument. Rather, you are conflating the notion of passing a test with prescience...as well as implying that learning something about voting / democracy at some point will actually cause people to make an informed decision.

Democracy, from a mathematical perspective, is really interesting. If enough people choose to make a decision based on popular perception, then democratically speaking that method of making the decision is the choice of the people. Suggesting that it should not be accepted is, from that perspective, undemocratic in and of itself.

The second referendum isn't a rerun of the original treaty. A large survey was done of No voters to see what their concerns were. Those major concerns were discovered in several cases to not actually be real. (Abortion, conscription, etc) Hence the EU providing guarentees. What we have is the Lisbon Treaty again, with the guarentees regarding the major concerns which have been addressed.

To be honest, the most significant point made by No voters about the first referendum was that they simply didn't know enough. That alone would sufficient grounds to supply the information and then ask "now that we've tried to the best of our abilities to give you the information you asked for....what do you think".

A democratic system shouldn't be Mrs. Doyle-esque, brow-beating us into taking the cup of tea that we don't want (gowangowangowangowangowan....yawillyawillyawillyawillyawill....) but at the same time, it should also not be a system which forces us to accept the first decision we've made regardless of why we made it.

Hell, if there was a test on whether you understand the Lisbon treaty I don't know if I'd pass it, but I do think we should all have to know what it is we're voting in before we do so.

In an ideal world, this may be so. In reality, I suspect that many people would form an opinion and then interpret anything they learned about the treaty in order to fit with that opinion...or simply live with the cognitive dissonance. I firmly believe that every single No voter knows that the Treaty is A Bad Thing, even if they can't accurately define what about it is bad...just as every single Yes voter knows that it is A Good Thing, even if they can't accurately define what is good about it. Both parties could learn more about the treaty, but I'd be highly skeptical as to how many many of them would learn more about the Treaty objectively.

At the end of the day, it all comes back to Winston, and his immortal words:


No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

anonymous_joe

I've always loved that quote.

Tbh, you mentioned an ideal world, that was sort of what I was thinking of.

I'm 100% aware of how retarded an idea it is to suggest limiting democracy in such a way as to disenfranchise voters, I just find it so depressing to see people who don't understand something voting on it. It seems to defeat the entire point of democracy.

bonkey

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Tbh, you mentioned an ideal world, that was sort of what I was thinking of.

If you think about it a bit more, though, you'll probably agree that in an ideal world, not only would we need such a "merited vote" concept, but we probably wouldn't need democracy in the first place.

I'm 100% aware of how retarded an idea it is to suggest limiting democracy in such a way as to disenfranchise voters, I just find it so depressing to see people who don't understand something voting on it. It seems to defeat the entire point of democracy.

Having lived in Switzerland for some time now, I've learned an entirely new perspective on democracy. Swissville is probably the most democratic nation there is at the moment...and you know what....they make some god-awful decisions. They make some great ones too. Their attempts at improving democracy are to make it easier to vote...to remove any excuse.

I've slowly come to the conclusion that the best way to encourage people to become more informed is to get them involved, and let them see what the uninformed-but-involved can do at times. When I see some of the decisions that carry here, I say to myself that I will never cast a vote that I haven't seriously considered and attempted to inform myself and that I will encourage others to do likewise, regardless of whether they vote in agreement with me or not.

anonymous_joe

bonkey wrote: »

If you think about it a bit more, though, you'll probably agree that in an ideal world, not only would we need such a "merited vote" concept, but we probably wouldn't need democracy in the first place.

Well ok, not that ideal.

Having lived in Switzerland for some time now, I've learned an entirely new perspective on democracy. Swissville is probably the most democratic nation there is at the moment...and you know what....they make some god-awful decisions. They make some great ones too. Their attempts at improving democracy are to make it easier to vote...to remove any excuse.

I've slowly come to the conclusion that the best way to encourage people to become more informed is to get them involved, and let them see what the uninformed-but-involved can do at times. When I see some of the decisions that carry here, I say to myself that I will never cast a vote that I haven't seriously considered and attempted to inform myself and that I will encourage others to do likewise, regardless of whether they vote in agreement with me or not.

I just think more informed involvement for all would be so much better for this country. Most political parties in this country are so comfortable in maintaining a status quo and a huge number of people don't care enough to do anything about it.

bonkey

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I just think more informed involvement for all would be so much better for this country.

I agree entirely.
Its regarding the question of how we might go about achieving that where we appear to differ.