Does anyone trust the Irish Government?

walshb

Dinner wrote: »

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?

This is the absolute arrogance I am talking about. The damn cheek of them to be like, "Oh, what's wrong, did you poor folks not understand the treaty, is that why yee got the vote wrong?" "Look, don't worry, we'll fix it up for you silly people and we'll tell you to vote again."

The same assholes who didn't even read the treaty themselves...YES men!

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

This is the absolute arrogance I am talking about. The damn cheek of them to be like, "Oh, what's wrong, did you poor folks not understand the treaty, is that why yee got the vote wrong?" "Look, don't worry, we'll fix it up for you silly people and we'll tell you to vote again."

The same assholes who didn't even read the treaty themselves...YES men!

Oh for ****s sake...

I have never said anything like that, and once again you completly ignore the contents of my post and instead make **** up to make the yes side sound arrogant. Here's a tip, try debating the actual contents of either my posts or the treaty and give up the inferiority complex.

walshb

ixtlan wrote: »

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.
.

Hang on??

I know the treaty now, I knew it then and I don't agree with it, hence My voting NO.

How does that translate to me thinking, "So you think this treaty might be OK?"

walshb

Dinner wrote: »

Oh for ****s sake...

I have never said anything like that, and once again you completly ignore the contents of my post and instead make **** up to make the yes side sound arrogant. Here's a tip, try debating the actual contents of either my posts or the treaty and give up the inferiority complex.

Are you rattled? It sounds like you are getting a little hot around the collar. Like I said, we are all on the same side here (Irish), we just have different views on the treaty.

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

Are you rattled? It sounds like you are getting a little hot around the collar. Like I said, we are all on the same side here (Irish), we just have different views on the treaty.

I'm getting pissed off because you refuse to talk about the contents of my posts, rather resorting to pretending that I called no voters stupid.

I'll try one last time.

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?

If you don't have a problem with any of those questions, then why is it undemocratic for the government to address the concerns of the public and put it to vote again.

walshb

Dinner wrote: »

I'm getting pissed off because you refuse to talk about the contents of my posts, rather resorting to pretending that I called no voters stupid.

I'll try one last time.

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?

If you don't have a problem with any of those questions, then why is it undemocratic for the government to address the concerns of the public and put it to vote again.

Please point out where I said that YOU called the no voters stupid?

Re-read what I wrote. I was clearly referring to the arrogance of the govt:

Here it is: The damn cheek of them to be like, "Oh, what's wrong, did you poor folks not understand the treaty, is that why yee got the vote wrong?" "Look, don't worry, we'll fix it up for you silly people and we'll tell you to vote again."

ixtlan

walshb wrote: »

Hang on??

I know the treaty now, I knew it then and I don't agree with it, hence My voting NO.

How does that translate to me thinking, "So you think this treaty might be OK?"

You are unwilling to discuss what you have a problem with in the treaty. When I started typing the post I was going to say "even though you mention you do have issues". Then I dropped that when you added another post saying...

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

Translation: "So you think this treaty might be OK?"

I assume you have issues aside from the re-vote, but your focus appears to be on the re-vote. This is a discussion forum where we want to discuss the treaty itself. If all you want to talk about is the re-vote and if you yourself use phrases like "Did I say it needed to be changed?" then should we assume you think the treaty is fine?

Ix.

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

Please point out where I said that YOU called the no voters stupid?

Re-read what I wrote. I was clearly referring to the arrogance of the govt:

Here it is: The damn cheek of them to be like, "Oh, what's wrong, did you poor folks not understand the treaty, is that why yee got the vote wrong?" "Look, don't worry, we'll fix it up for you silly people and we'll tell you to vote again."

So you quote my post say "This is the absolute arrogance I am talking about." and then launch into a tirade. Fair enough, I'll let that one go.

Any chance of an answer?

walshb

Dinner wrote: »

So you quote my post say "This is the absolute arrogance I am talking about." and then launch into a tirade. Fair enough, I'll let that one go.

Any chance of an answer?

You simply said that the govt commissioned a survey, not that you did. So, I was dissing the govt, as I am sure you know now.

Call it what you like, to me, it's a clear sign of arrogance. "Lets find out why these goons voted the way they did and we'll then get them assurances, wink wink, nod nod, and tell them to vote again, so we can pass what we want."

The Nice treaty went against them too, and what did they do? Yes, over in Brussels apologising about our vote and then asking for the vote again.

whatisayis

walshb wrote: »

You simply said that the govt commissioned a survey, not that you did. So, I was dissing the govt, as I am sure you know now.

Call it what you like, to me, it's a clear sign of arrogance. "Lets find out why these goons voted the way they did and we'll then get them assurances, wink wink, nod nod, and tell them to vote again, so we can pass what we want."

This quote from the survey is why I get so annoyed when the Yes side claim that No voters did not know what they were voting on:

5.1 Yes Vote
The main reasons cited (spontaneously) for voting in favour of the Treaty were general positive attitudes towards the Treaty, or more usually, the EU itself. The non-specific tone of these responses indicates that the Yes vote was largely a pro-Europe vote rather than an endorsement of the Treaty on its specific merits. This illustrates the difficulty the Yes side had in promoting support for the Treaty in its own right. The Yes vote, and in particular the Hard Yes vote was underpinned by goodwill towards Europe and the EU project rather than any particular attachment to the Lisbon Treaty.

The second most important reason for voting Yes (overall) is ‘following advice’ (22%) – which is an indicator of the difficulty Yes voters had in coming up with specific reasons for their decision. ‘Following advice’ was particularly evident amongst the Soft Yes voters, illustrating their lack of identification with the Treaty. They were persuaded, largely by the Government (21%), to vote yes. This lack of confidence behind their own decision further underlines their position as ‘Soft’ voters.

The survey findings were echoed in the focus groups, where Yes votes were often not based on direct support for the Treaty, but based on support for the Government, support for other political parties advocating a Yes vote and general support for the EU. Dislike or distrust for some of those advocating a No vote was also an important driver of Yes votes. In addition, it was clear from the focus groups that quite a number of Yes voters had been unable or unwilling to make up their own mind, so had turned to – and had been completely influenced by – another person (typically a close family member). They simply trusted their views and went with it."

whatisayis

Sorry forgot to put a link on my last post:
http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/5.pdf

Another interesting little snippet from the survey gives a possible source for the Heart of Europe terminology:

All focus group participants were very unclear about the likely consequences of having rejected the Lisbon Treaty. There was some sense that the decision was likely to have some sort of negative repercussions for Ireland but impressions of what these might be were extremely vague – although many had heard talk, for example, of a “two-speed Europe”, none had any idea of what this might mean. No voters were inclined to play down the negative consequences (though rarely to deny them) and Yes voters had more generalised unease than specific concerns so, on balance there was a lack of any really strong concern about what might happen as a result.

When prompted with suggestions that there might be a two-tier Europe and that Ireland might not be at the “heart of Europe” in terms of developments and advancement, soft No voters in particular, visibly shifted uncomfortably in their seats and there seemed to be less bravado generally among No voters.

walshb

whatisayis wrote: »

This quote from the survey is why I get so annoyed when the Yes side claim that No voters did not know what they were voting on:

5.1 Yes Vote
The main reasons cited (spontaneously) for voting in favour of the Treaty were general positive attitudes towards the Treaty, or more usually, the EU itself. The non-specific tone of these responses indicates that the Yes vote was largely a pro-Europe vote rather than an endorsement of the Treaty on its specific merits. This illustrates the difficulty the Yes side had in promoting support for the Treaty in its own right. The Yes vote, and in particular the Hard Yes vote was underpinned by goodwill towards Europe and the EU project rather than any particular attachment to the Lisbon Treaty.

The second most important reason for voting Yes (overall) is ‘following advice’ (22%) – which is an indicator of the difficulty Yes voters had in coming up with specific reasons for their decision. ‘Following advice’ was particularly evident amongst the Soft Yes voters, illustrating their lack of identification with the Treaty. They were persuaded, largely by the Government (21%), to vote yes. This lack of confidence behind their own decision further underlines their position as ‘Soft’ voters.

The survey findings were echoed in the focus groups, where Yes votes were often not based on direct support for the Treaty, but based on support for the Government, support for other political parties advocating a Yes vote and general support for the EU. Dislike or distrust for some of those advocating a No vote was also an important driver of Yes votes. In addition, it was clear from the focus groups that quite a number of Yes voters had been unable or unwilling to make up their own mind, so had turned to – and had been completely influenced by – another person (typically a close family member). They simply trusted their views and went with it."

BTW, I know surveys can be useful, but I wouldn't get too carried away by them at all.Opinion polls the same.

Here's something: I would say a lot of folks voted YES because they trusted the government, as pointed out. The govt themselves admitted to not even reading the treaty, which was close on impossible to bloody digest. Most NO voters voted NO because they may not have read it, but that's still more logical than voting YES, and not having read it.

That is why these surveys mean little to me, especially in the case of a treaty that
the vast majority of folks on BOTH sides didn't comprehend or understand.

Typical Irish voter last year: Vote YES to something you know little about or vote NO?

I know well my choice to this. It's the only logical choice

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

The Nice treaty went against them too, and what did they do? Yes, over in Brussels apologising about our vote and then asking for the vote again.

And they also addressed the concerns of the public that time around. It really is shocking when a government actually tries to address the public's concerns. Disgraceful.
Anyway, any chance of an answer?

whatisayis wrote: »

This quote from the survey is why I get so annoyed when the Yes side claim that No voters did not know what they were voting on:

Nobody is claiming that the Yes voters didn't have their fair share of voters who didn't know what theywere voting on or voted yes because FF told them to (although I do think that is a slightly better reason to vote yes than many resons given to vote on).

Thats just more of a reason to have another vote isn't it?

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

Here's something: I would say a lot of folks voted YES because they trusted the government, as pointed out. The govt themselves admitted to not even reading the treaty, which was close on impossible to bloody digest.

While it was a bit silly to say that, it's not really important. Cowen and the rest of the Irish delegation negotiated the treaty, so they know full well exactly what is in it. After Stephen King gets the first copy of his new book does he sit down immediatley to read it to find out how it ends?

And any Irish politicians who weren't involved in the negotiationg of the treaty would have been able to access legal advisors to advise the on the treaty and any controversial parts or anything like that.

walshb

Dinner wrote: »

And they also addressed the concerns of the public that time around. It really is shocking when a government actually tries to address the public's concerns. Disgraceful.
Anyway, any chance of an answer?

Answer? Look, we have been bouncing back and forth all day on this.
You have asked several questions. So, to the one: "then should we assume you think the treaty is fine?"

I answered this many times. Last year it wasn't fine and this year it isn't fine. I don't agree with the treaty. Again, why is this difficult to comprehend?

You want reasons why I oppose? What's the point. You will probably then say that the reasons aren't good or warranted.

BTW, Cowen and CO admitted that they weren't familiar with the treaty. Now, we are to vote yes because
their advisers were apparently familiar?

whatisayis

walshb wrote: »

BTW, I know surveys can be useful, but I wouldn't get too carried away by them at all.Opinion polls the same.

I absolutely agree but, unfortunately, rather than trying to convince the electorate to vote yes by explaining the advantages of the Lisbon Treaty to Ireland, they based their campaign on the results of a survey in my opinion.

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

Answer? Look, we have been bouncing back and forth all day on this.
You have asked several questions. So, to the one: "then should we assume you think the treaty is fine?"

I answered this many times. Last year it wasn't fine and this year it isn't fine. I don't agree with the treaty. Again, why is difficult to comprehend?

That wasn't what I was asking you. My questions related to the fact that you think holding a second referendum is undemocratic and that the government didn't respect the first vote. I asked a few questions to try find out why you think it's not acceptable to find out why people voted no, address those concerns and put it to vote again.

I think it was ixtlan was asking about the contents of the treaty that you dis/agree with.

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

BTW, Cowen and CO admitted that they weren't familiar with the treaty. Now, we are to vote yes because
their advisers were apparently familiar?

As I said, Cowen was familiar with the treaty because he helped to write it.

Paid legal advisors who's job it is is to study legal documents and inform politicians were also familiar with it.

whatisayis

Dinner wrote: »

Nobody is claiming that the Yes voters didn't have their fair share of voters who didn't know what theywere voting on or voted yes because FF told them to (although I do think that is a slightly better reason to vote yes than many resons given to vote on).

Thats just more of a reason to have another vote isn't it?

The problem is, as I see it, they are basing their campaign on fear and not on positivity. The 400,000+ unemployed would possibly vote yes if they were assured in any verifiable way that they might have a job again next year. Saying "Ireland will lose influence in the EU" doesn't swing it in my opinion.

walshb

Dinner wrote: »

That wasn't what I was asking you. My questions related to the fact that you think holding a second referendum is undemocratic and that the government didn't respect the first vote. I asked a few questions to try find out why you think it's not acceptable to find out why people voted no, address those concerns and put it to vote again.

I think it was ixtlan was asking about the contents of the treaty that you dis/agree with.

I also answered this in a reply to another poster. I mentioned time.
I also said that I wasn't anti a second vote on an issue, but I weighed up[
the situation with Lisbon and to me, it's damn clear that the NO vote was not
accepted and if the govt had their way, they would have voted on this the very next day.

Do you see no problem with say having a second vote within such a short time span?
It is a factor and does mean something. It cannot be simply dismissed

Would you be okay with a second vote the next day for example or would that
be a sign to you that your govt have no respect for the people? Do you see no
problem with the idea that they will just keep putting it to us until we vote the way
they want, with no consideration for time?

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

I also answered this in a reply to another poster. I mentioned time.
I also said that I wasn't anti a second vote on an issue, but I weighed up[
the situation with Lisbon and to me, it's damn clear that the NO vote was not
accepted and if the govt had their way, they would have voted on this the very next day.

So even though the issues that some members of the public had have been solved, we should still wait another 5-8 years to put it to vote again?


And no, the government did/would not have had it the very next day. They could have if they wanted to but they didn't. Because they wanted to find and address the concerns that the public had. As hard as it is to believe, even a government as incompetent as the current one is, they still wanted to solve any problems.

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

Would you be okay with a second vote the next day for example or would that
be a sign to you that your govt have no respect for the people? Do you see no
problem with the idea that they will just keep putting it to us until we vote the way
they want, with no consideration for time?

If it was the next day then it would quite obviously show the government as having no respect for the vote because there would have been no time for any issues to be uncovered and dealt with.

But that is not the case. There was time for the government to find and address the issues so a second referendum is actually a good example of democracy in action. Find the concerns, address them and have another vote.

Thats how democracy works, find the problem, find the solution. In your vision of democracy you may want some arbitrary time period to pass for no good reason other than to waste time, but thankfully thats not how it works in the real world. Once the problems have been solved it's full steam ahead

walshb

Dinner wrote: »

And no, the government did/would not have had it the very next day. They could have if they wanted to but they didn't. Because they wanted to find and address the concerns that the public had. As hard as it is to believe, even a government as incompetent as the current one is, they still wanted to solve any problems.

Don't think for a second that that shower wouldn't have forced it thru if they could get away with it. Cocerns my arse, issues my arse. The whole damn lot of them. They have no scruples whatsoever.

The whole issue regarding expenses tells me all I need to know about their respect for the people.
Sorry to go off topic, but I think it's highly naive to think that they are trying to help us and resolve the "issues."

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

Don't think for a second that that shower wouldn't have forced it thru if they could get away with it. Cocerns my arse, issues my arse. The whole damn lot of them. They have no scruples whatsoever.

But they couldn't force it through. So they did want to address the concerns so that it would be passed.

You don't like the government, thats fine, most people don't. But you don't need to like or dislike them to make a reasonable conclusion in this case.

After Lisbon 1 did they commission a survey to find out why people voted the way that they did? Yes.

Did they bring the results of this survey to the EU to try solve the problems? Yes.

Did the EU draw up legally binding guarantees as a direct result of the govenrment going to them with the survey? Yes.

We can imagine all we like what would have happened if the Crotty Judgement wasn't in place or if the government had a loophole to force it through but that isn't the case. They couldn't force it through so they had to address the concerns.

walshb

That is why I used the word, "if they could get away with it."

Anyway, we'll wait and see. Don't you think it will be more interesting if NO is passed
again. If Yes is passed, there will be no theatrics or controversy. Part of me wants NO for this reason too.

Dinner

walshb wrote: »

That is why I used the word, "if they could get away with it."

Anyway, we'll wait and see. Don't you think it will be more interesting if NO is passed
again. If Yes is passed, there will be no theatrics or controversy. Part of me wants NO for this reason too.

Might be more 'interesting' but it would also mean that the last decade or so has been wasted and all the reforms that were in Lisbon will be shelved. So the EU will stumble around blindly trying to work out where to go next. It wouldn't be worth it.

Cool Mo D

But they might have been able to force it through. The Crotty judgement does not require a referendum for every EU treaty, only if the constitution has to be altered. It is not cut and dried that the Lisbon treaty is incompatible with our constitution, so if the Government were really desperate they could have tried to force it through the Dáil for ratification. It would be open to legal challenge, but it would not be a sure thing.

They didn't though.

meglome

walshb I had a read of all the last few pages and wanted to ask you a couple of things.

How can having more democratic votes be less democratic?

I'd love if our current government were gone, but one of the few things I applaud them for is finding out exactly why the Irish electorate voted No and addressing those issues. It's the very essence of democracy.

And can tell us why you're voting No? What's in the treaty you don't like?