Does anyone trust the Irish Government?

walshb

One other thing to consider is that any time all the parties, or main parities are in agreement, then alarm bells should be ringing...

Euro_Kraut

walshb wrote: »

One other thing to consider is that any time all the parties, or main parities are in agreement, then alarm bells should be ringing...

Why?

Alex-Face

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Why?

Because when has our Government ever been unanymous about anything important :P

FruitLover

Alex-Face wrote: »

Personally I am voting No on the Lisbon Treaty. More so this time around it is out of principal

You should have your right to vote revoked for childishness and missing the point.

diverdriver wrote: »

Largely due to the stupid lies the no camp told us. Neutrality, abortion, taxes etc. This time, I am voting no, because of the repeated lies of the yes camp

You too.

Scofflaw

There's an EU forum - can people please use it when they're posting Lisbon threads? And please look at the other threads before you start a new one.

moderately,
Scofflaw

meglome

walshb wrote: »

One other thing to consider is that any time all the parties, or main parities are in agreement, then alarm bells should be ringing...

If we assume conspiracy then this might appear suspicious. The simplest thing to do would be to read the treaty or one the guides to the treaty. But even if we don't want to read the treaty we can see who else thinks it's a good idea. Most of our unions, our labour organisations, our academics, our economists, our media etc etc, all think we should vote Yes. So what's the likelihood of all these people being involved in something dodgy, very very little I would say.

In general response to some of the other posts.

• The idea that the vote can be fixed is really really ludicrous. Even the head cases in Cóir are not saying that and they love a good lie or three.
• Our constitution allows for us to have referenda on EU treaty's but at the same time it also allows for the government of the day to call another vote on the same thing. If anyone has an issue with that I suggest you stop calling it undemocratic and start campaigning to have our constitution changed.
• 28% of the electorate voted No the last time, and of those the majority voted because they didn't know what was in the treaty, things that were never in the treaty to begin with or things that have been addressed since. So is it really undemocratic to vote again? Hint: You can vote No again if you want.

whatdoicare

Sure, why bother fixing the vote- if we get a NO again, we'll get a "Now, now, you got that wrong, very bold" and we'll all go again!
I suppose we'll just keep going till we get it right...:rolleyes:

meglome

whatdoicare wrote: »

Sure, why bother fixing the vote- if we get a NO again, we'll get a "Now, now, you got that wrong, very bold" and we'll all go again!
I suppose we'll just keep going till we get it right...:rolleyes:

Ah the old lines. Legally they could call another vote but they won't.

Maybe we could, I dunno, vote on things that are actually in the treaty this time. I know that's a crazy idea but there I've said it.

whatdoicare

meglome wrote: »

Ah the old lines. Legally they could call another vote but they won't.

Maybe we could, I dunno, vote on things that are actually in the treaty this time. I know that's a crazy idea but there I've said it.

I'm voting yes btw.

Furious-Dave

diverdriver wrote: »

You're wrong about that, some are honest, competent and genuinely believe in doing what they believe is best for the country. Unfortunately that group are mostly the kind of idealogues who would turn the country into a kind of Cuba or something similar to a South American banana republic. So they're as worthless as the rest.

I would have voted yes, last time but didn't because of work committments. Largely due to the stupid lies the no camp told us. Neutrality, abortion, taxes etc. This time, I am voting no, because of the repeated lies of the yes camp. The reality is that if this vote was given to the people of Europe in general it would be a resounding no. That's now enough to ring alarm bells with me.

It's not that I no longer trust the Irish government. I never trusted any Fianna Fail government. But now I don't trust any European government to do what's right.

Plus it isn't democracy to keep voting until the right result is obtained. We voted no last time. That's the democratic will of the people. There it should lie. If the French or the Germans had a chance to vote and voted no. They would not be asked to vote again. But no, we Irish apparently are not allowed the privilege. Purely on that basis, we should vote no again. The treaty needs to go back to the drawing board and this time they should produce something that everyone in Europe can vote on, something we can all support. There is sufficient doubt about this treaty in all quarters to kill it and start again.

Direct democracy is a nice idea, but it can never work. It doesn't matter what treaty is put before the likes of Cóir, they will never accept any. They have opposed every treaty in the EU since we joined, which they also opposed. The problem lies in the fact that not all the No votes are for the same reasons. While a lot of No votes are based on valid concerns, there are too many people/groups with religious/political agendas, and just regular, barking mad, paranoid nut jobs. It is impossible to please everyone. There will always be those who are unhappy with the proposals put in front of them.

And no, i don't trust the Government, but I'm not going to let that lack of trust cloud my opinion on European matters.

Scofflaw

Isn't the short answer to this that very few of us indeed trust the government, but only some of us think that means we should vote No to an EU treaty instead?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rb

Alex-Face wrote: »

Ugh, I am not a conspiracist... do you REALLY think its not possible for them to find whatever amount of Yes voters to count these votes? Don't kid yourself - it is extremely easy to fix a vote.

You're contradicting yourself.

I don't have any confidence in our current Government and believe it is time for change. Do I trust them to try to do what is right for the country? Yes, indeed I do, because if FF ever want to be in power again then they're not going to do anything to jeopardise that. They might not do a good job of it, we're all aware they're incapable of it and should step down, but I believe they will try.

Do I trust the No campaigners to do what is right for this country, its people and our economy? Along with our relationships with the other countries in the world? No, no I do not. Look at who is pushing for a No, when have any of these organisations acted in support of the EU or acted in any way as to show support for the progress of this country? They haven't. Every single one of them would rather we were floating around by ourselves, arranging marriages for land and singing of the times we had Celt kings and queens roaming the country with their various pre-mature death causing diseases.

"We LOVE our constitution" we're told by Coir i.e let's keep it intact, when was the Constitution written? Is it not open to amendments no? We're supposed to stay the same from the early 1900's are we?

So yes, I don't have much faith in the Government but I have an immeasurable amount more trust in them than I do in the organisations pushing for a No.

If Ganley has it his way, for what it's worth, the future looks very bleak for the sovereignty that we all supposedly hold and love.

thebman

lol post I was responding to was already deleted

To make this post at least semi-worthwhile, I think the government can't be trusted but I trust the EU more because it is open to more scrutiny.

The EU seem to try to stay out of Irish foolish politics, I wish they'd get involved more to point out the fools our politicians are at times and the fools our electorate are to buy their crap time and time again but at leas they realise they have no business getting involved even if I wish they would

P.S. I refuse to replace s with z despite my web browsers preference :P

hatrickpatrick

Alex-Face wrote: »

Do you trust the Government anymore?

Regards,

Alex-Face

I find this question highly loaded and offensive. I have absolutely 100% NEVER trusted them.

Martin 2

walshb wrote: »

One other thing to consider is that any time all the parties, or main parities are in agreement, then alarm bells should be ringing...

Usually, but not always, when a proposal has cross party support in the Dail it's a good thing, such as
The referendum to introduce a constitutional ban on the death penality (21st amendment, 2001).
I'd also imagine the proposed referendum on children's rights will get cross party support.

Basically, when the majority in the Dail support a certain stance, you should be neither trusting nor cynical but independent.
I really do hope nobody is voting No because the majority in the Dail are calling for a Yes.

walshb

Martin 2 wrote: »

Usually, but not always, when a proposal has cross party support in the Dail it's a good thing, such as
The referendum to introduce a constitutional ban on the death penality (21st amendment, 2001).
I'd also imagine the proposed referendum on children's rights will get cross party support.

Basically, when the majority in the Dail support a certain stance, you should be neither trusting nor cynical but independent.
I really do hope nobody is voting No because the majority in the Dail are calling for a Yes.

I am voting NO for a number of reasons. I have a fair grasp of the treaty and I don't like it, that's one reason. The other is that the first vote has not been accepted. Just over 12 months and these goons are asking for Vote 2. They are claiming that the treaty has been tweaked and now we should do "the right thing." How dare they not respect the vote. Folks can dress it up any way they like, about constitution and how we can have many votes on the same issue, or tweaks to the treaty etc etc. The fact is that the first vote was not accepted, and this is now more about democracy and respect for democracy than any bloody treaty

ei.sdraob

walshb wrote: »

I am voting NO for a number of reasons. I have a fair grasp of the treaty and I don't like it, that's one reason. The other is that the first vote has not been accepted. Just over 12 months and these goons are asking for Vote 2. They are claiming that the treaty has been tweaked and now we should do "the right thing." How dare they not respect the vote. Folks can dress it up any way they like, about constitution and how we can have many votes on the same issue, or tweaks to the treaty etc etc. The fact is that the first vote was not accepted, and this is now more about democracy and respect for democracy than any bloody treaty

im still waiting for you to answer on

how the process that occured after Lisbon 1


is not democratic and the peoples wishes are not respected and acted upon


so far you keep avoiding my questions

walshb

Okay, relax.

IMO, it was undemocratic because the vote first time around was
not accepted. If it was, we wouldn't be having another vote a little
over a year later. This treaty is the same treaty. It's not that hard
to understand, you know.

It's actually quite bloody obvious. Why are we having a second vote on
the same treaty, after vote 1 was rejected? And, don't give me the crap about
assurances and changes. The treaty is the treaty is the treaty.

ei.sdraob

walshb wrote: »

Okay, relax.

IMO, it was undemocratic because the vote first time around was
not accepted. If it was, we wouldn't be having another vote a little
over a year later. His treaty is the same treaty. It's not that hard
to understand, you know.

how do you feel about double referendum on Divorce we had?

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

It's actually quite bloody obvious. Why are we having a second vote on
the same treaty, after vote 1 was rejected? And, don't give me the crap about
assurances and changes. The treaty is the treaty is the treaty.

What do you mean the "crap about assurances". They were drawn up to specifically address the concerns that the Irish public had! You can shove your fingers in your ears all you want but that won't stop it being true.

That IS democracy. Find and address the concerns. In what universe is this undemocratic? Once the concerns have been addressed the only sensible thing to do is to have another vote.

walshb

Dinner wrote: »

What do you mean the "crap about assurances". They were drawn up to specifically address the concerns that the Irish public had! You can shove your fingers in your ears all you want but that won't stop it being true.

That IS democracy. Find and address the concerns. In what universe is this undemocratic? Once the concerns have been addressed the only sensible thing to do is to have another vote.

The treaty is the same as the one from last year. Is this hard to follow?

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

The treaty is the same as the one from last year. Is this hard to follow?

Why would the treaty need to be changed?

walshb

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how do you feel about double referendum on Divorce we had?

There was a 9 year gap between both votes and that was a clear sign that the first vote was respected. I have said previously, that I am not against any votes occurring more than once, but to try and say that all are equal, as in, a year later the same govt are pushing the same treaty on us, because they didn't get the answer they want, is the same as what went on with the Divorce referenda is ridiculous.

There is a difference, time is one, and considerable time at that. Also, the same government weren't in power either.

Also, as far as I know, the government of the day were impartial on the divorce issue, at least
publicly they were. In the Lisbon case, they are pushing for a YES publicly, no impartiality. They have
a clear agenda, which wasn't upheld, so it's a case of, let's do it again until we get it right:rolleyes:

walshb

Dinner wrote: »

Why would the treaty need to be changed?

Did I say it needed to be changed? All I said was that we are voting on something that we said NO to only a year ago, which tells me that this shower couldn't give a damn about democracy and do not respect it

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

Did I say it needed to be changed? All I said was that we are voting on something that we said NO to only a year ago, which tells me that this shower couldn't give a damn about democracy and do not respect it

Except they did respect the vote. Lisbon was not ratified.

So you agree that the treaty didn't need to be changed to address the concerns of the public. Should the government not have addressed the concerns of the public.

How long a gap must there be, in your view, for a second referendum to be acceptable 5, 6, 8 years?

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

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

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

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

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

walshb

Dinner wrote: »

Except they did respect the vote. Lisbon was not ratified.

.

You are clutching now. We said NO, of course the treaty then cannot be passed.
I said, that the vote they got wasn't the one they wanted, so they are throwing
it to us again. Look, at least we have a referendum to decide this, because if we didn't, they would do as they damn well pleased, and feck the people.

walshb

Dinner wrote: »

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

Issues were addressed? Are these issues the same as Treaty 1? Yes, they are. We are voting on the same thing. I know the issues, and the vote was NO, and now the YES side and the govt are making out that those who voted NO were stupid and ignorant and since we addressed the "issues" we will run it again?

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

You are clutching now. We said NO, of course the treaty then cannot be passed.

In the first referendum the government asked us if they had permission to ratify Lisbon. We said no. Lisbon was not ratified. If we were ignored or the vote not respected then Lisbon would have been ratified. It's as simple as that.

walshb wrote: »

I said, that the vote they got wasn't the one they wanted, so they are throwing
it to us again.

Do you dispute that the Irish government commissioned a survey to find out why people voted the way they did?

Do you dispute that they then went to the EU in order to get guarantees to solve the issues held by the public?

Do you dispute that they got assurances on these issues?

ixtlan

walshb wrote: »

There is a difference, time is one, and considerable time at that. Also, the same government weren't in power either.

How much time is enough?

It hardly matter whether the government is the same since any new government would support Lisbon also.

Most importantly though, since you are not actually discussing what is in the treaty how can anyone know what changes would suit you? Would you be happy to randomly jumble up the words, so that it means the same just sounds different?

I'm not being disengenous... this is a valid question. All those who say they will vote no because they are voting again are avoiding the question of what they want changed.

walshb wrote: »

Did I say it needed to be changed? All I said was that we are voting on something that we said NO to only a year ago, which tells me that this shower couldn't give a damn about democracy and do not respect it

Hang on... you are not sure anything needs to be changed?! So you think this treaty might be OK? You just want to wait a few years before approving it?! So that a reasonable amount of time has passed? But what is reasonable? The vote was respected, people were asked why they voted no and those issues were addressed as much as possible. Now people will be asked again, and they can say no again, if they are sure that is the answer they want to give.

Ix.

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

Issues were addressed? Are these issues the same as Treaty 1? Yes, they are. We are voting on the same thing.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. 'issues the same as Treaty 1'? The issues were discovered after the vote.

walshb wrote: »

Issues were addressed? Are these issues the same as Treaty 1? Yes, they are. We are voting on the same thing. I know the issues, and the vote was NO, and now the YES side and the govt are making out that those who voted NO were stupid and ignorant and since we addressed the "issues" we will run it again?

Eh..no. They only people who are calling the no camp stupid and ignorant are, funnily enough, the no camp claiming that they yes side has said it.



The survey speaks for itself. 42% of no voters didn't know what they were voting on. 26% voted for reasons that were unrelated to the treaty. (With the exception of the commissioner, which we have recieved a guarantee on along with the other concers.)