Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lisbon: Not Voting?

Options
  • 24-09-2009 4:50pm
    #1
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users Posts: 644 ✭✭✭


    I'm sort of curious to find out if there's anyone who is interested in the topic of the Lisbon Treaty, but is thinking of abstaining from casting their vote in the referendum, for whatever reasons.

    That's where I am at the moment, and actually what I did last time, and I'd like to know if anyone else is in the same way.

    Well?

    EDIT: I should have named this "Lisbon: Not Voting?" because it's not very descriptive. If a mod's around to do that, would be very grateful!


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    FionnMatthew wrote: »
    I'm sort of curious to find out if there's anyone who is interested in the topic of the Lisbon Treaty, but is thinking of abstaining from casting their vote in the referendum, for whatever reasons.

    That's where I am at the moment, and actually what I did last time, and I'd like to know if anyone else is in the same way.

    Well?

    EDIT: I should have named this "Lisbon: Not Voting?" because it's not very descriptive. If a mod's around to do that, would be very grateful!

    I abstained the first time as I didn't know anything about the treaty and didn't really pay too much attention to the campaign. Obviously I've moved over to being a committed Yes voter for this one. I started campaigning for a Yes vote after seeing all the lies from the No campaign. The whole campaign from all sides has been pathetic and would put anyone off voting. That said I believe Lisbon is good for Ireland so my Yes vote is not in question.


  • Options
    #3
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    Thanks, meglome.

    I must confess to also believing, more or less on the basis of trust of people whose professional opinions and familiarity with EU law I trust, that a YES vote would be more shrewd.

    But I consistently find myself asking myself, exactly how entitled am I to that belief? What backs it up?

    It's easy to come by beliefs, especially if you understand "belief" to include the "beliefs" of all of those who take it on authority that a YES to Lisbon will cause <all manner of preposterous negative things, as reported by groups like COIR>.

    I read through the treaty the last time (the unconsolidated version). I found that I understood quite a lot more in it than one might have been led to believe if one had listened to the pundits: "It's completely impenetrable, etc."

    But, firstly, I found that its being unconsolidated the last time made parts of it opaque, since I didn't know what the content of the referenced articles were, and I simply didn't have the time to start going through the prior treaties, and following up references.

    And, secondly, even for those references I did follow up, or whose content I had explained to me on Boards (during, perhaps, the most informed, respectable debate I encountered anywhere for the last LTR) made clear to me that it wasn't just the Lisbon Treaty that I had to understand, nor was it the two other treaties either, on their own, but pretty much the entire legal framework of the EU, and its workings, and the on-the-ground-realities of how it works, rather than just its legal blueprints, and the details of how state law and union law work together, etc. etc. etc.

    I'm not about to launch into a spiel about how the Lisbon Treaty should be easier to understand. There are stories about how it's identical to the Constitution, except that it's harder to read. I don't know. I haven't read the Constitution. Sometimes, though, a document is complex because it needs to be, because what's it's trying to do is a complicated task. Why shouldn't that be the case for something like the treaty? I'm not at all sure that this isn't the case here, so who am I to say? I know that there are texts in my discipline, in Philosophy, that really couldn't be any easier to read, and yet are still very hard to read. So it's not that the onus is on the treaty to come to me, which I've heard so damn much over the last year and a half. It's that I can't really go the distance to come to the treaty.

    I feel as if it's only people who've had the time to put years into academic research in international law in Europe, or people who've been working on the EU for decades, that have the sort of acquaintance necessary to render the sort of thick, thoroughgoing understanding of the Lisbon Treaty - who have the appropriate context within which to determine what it actually means.

    It's unfeasible that I will ever have that level of understanding.

    And, sure, these people might speak with some authority on it. But I feel as if relying so heavily on the authority of others in the casting of one's vote is, frankly, counterdemocratic, whether it's relying on the authority of people who I have determined are most likely to be trustworthy, or on the idle ravings of crackpot demagogues and groups of fantasists like COIR.

    When it comes down to it, I don't know that I'm making the right decision. I won't, even at the maximal level of informedness available to me as regards this treaty, really ever know what I'm doing at all. Although I might have a slightly better idea than people who just throw their vote away on slogans and oracles, it's just not good enough. The belief that I have that YES is probably (and not in unequivocal terms) the best option for Lisbon just isn't well-founded enough a belief to make my civic duty anything other than abstention from the ballot.

    So I sort of feel as if that's what I should do.

    But what often pains me about the whole thing is that that's probably not what 95% of the people who vote are going to do, when I imagine that the percentage of people whose expertise qualifies their "beliefs" about the Lisbon treaty is probably quite a lot lower than 5%. So I still sort of feel as if the verdict that is eventually arrived at on the Lisbon Treaty is likely to be little better than if we'd thrown dice on it, so little will it have to do with its actual (buried) merits and drawbacks. And that pains me, because I feel as if that makes a mockery of democracy.


  • Options
    #4
    Euro_Kraut
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭Euro_Kraut


    As a side point, Fionn if you do conclude that you do not want to cast a ballot, I would you turn up on the day and spoil your vote. That way you get counted in the overall 'turnout' figure. It also demonstrate that a voter was engaged enough to vote but choose not to do so for whatever reason. If you do not cast a ballot that would be widely interpret as being disinterest or unaware the vote is taking place - which it is clear you are not.


  • Options
    #5
    spaceHopper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    People have stood enfront of tanks in Chian and Burma, you have a right to vote which not everybody else has even if you don't know you should vote, a spoiled vote is still a vote.


  • Options
    #6
    Jeff Albertson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭Jeff Albertson


    Didnt vote the first time around, but will deffo be voting this time, i dont understand the whole Lisbon thing but will be voting NO simply because this is what the majority of the Irish people voted last time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jeff Albertson wrote: »
    Didnt vote the first time around, but will deffo be voting this time, i dont understand the whole Lisbon thing but will be voting NO simply because this is what the majority of the Irish people voted last time.

    Yeah, I don't understand this whole cocaine and heroin thing but sure everyone's doing it so I might as well


  • Options
    #8
    jasonb
    Registered Users Posts: 3,329 ✭✭✭jasonb


    I have to say, I hate the 'you must vote, people have died to get to vote' argument.

    I have a right to vote, not a duty. It's up to me if I want to vote or not. Sometimes I do vote, if I have an opinion on the vote itself ( for example, I will be voting on the 2nd ). Sometimes I don't vote, if I don't have an opinion on the topic. I think voting on a topic that you haven't taken the time to fully understand is far worse than choosing not to vote at all!

    I don't agree that casting a spoilt ballot deliberately is an option. Yes, people who don't vote are looked at ( sometimes wrongly ) as not caring. But if you spoil your vote, you're lumped in with those who don't know how to use a pencil.

    I've often thought that every ballot paper should have a 'None of the above' option. Say it's a local election, you can choose 'None Of The Above' if you want to show that you don't think any of the candidates are good enough. You're not spoiling your vote, and your opinion is still counted.

    In the end, if you want to vote or not is entirely up to you, it's your right to choose.

    J.


  • Options
    #9
    someoneok
    Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭someoneok


    Exactly. People go on about democracy this and democratic process that. Well if we had any form of real democracy we would not be voting on this again. Let them go back and come up with something which changes trade only if they have outdated procedures. It's obviously a red herring.

    Stay out of our legal system Europe, Stay out of our affairs Europe. Go away Europe,we said NO. Democracy is obviously finished. We are now post-democratic as we have the past few times been put to a second vote on different issues including Nice. We are witnessing the big final push into a new system that most of us, when they get us there,wont want any part to play in. And no common law jurisdiction also. This will be replaced with Napoleonic law. This is very significant for those who can see what is really happening in Europe at the moment. Here's praying for a miracle!


  • Options
    #10
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Jeff Albertson wrote: »
    Didnt vote the first time around, but will deffo be voting this time, i dont understand the whole Lisbon thing but will be voting NO simply because this is what the majority of the Irish people voted last time.

    This is not the topic of the thread but if you're voting No because 'the majority of the Irish people voted No the last time' I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken in that belief. 28% of the electorate voted No, not anywhere near the majority of the population. Can I assume you will be voting Yes now or will you make up a different reason?
    someoneok wrote: »
    Exactly. People go on about democracy this and democratic process that. Well if we had any form of real democracy we would not be voting on this again. Let them go back and come up with something which changes trade only if they have outdated procedures. It's obviously a red herring.

    Stay out of our legal system Europe, Stay out of our affairs Europe. Go away Europe,we said NO. Democracy is obviously finished. We are now post-democratic as we have the past few times been put to a second vote on different issues including Nice. We are witnessing the big final push into a new system that most of us, when they get us there,wont want any part to play in. And no common law jurisdiction also. This will be replaced with Napoleonic law. This is very significant for those who can see what is really happening in Europe at the moment. Here's praying for a miracle!

    This is utter ****e. It really is very very sad that some people are happy to make out the EU is like North Korea, the same EU which was dragged this country out of the dark ages.

    I want to vote Yes now, are my rights worth less than yours?


  • Options
    #11
    jasonb
    Registered Users Posts: 3,329 ✭✭✭jasonb


    Hmmm...

    The only thing I will say is that being asked to vote again is not something I'd consider 'Undemocratic'. A vote was called by our Government ( not Europe ) and the response was No. The Government clearly weren't happy with this, the set out to find out why people voted no, and then set out to get reassurances about those reasons. Now they're asking us to vote again.

    That all sounds very democratic to me to be honest. If the Government had ignored our No vote, *that* would be undemocratic. There's nothing stopping us voting No again, that's democracy to me! It's up to all of us to decide do we still feel the same way ( Yes or No ) and have these assurances by the Government settled some of the worries we had.

    The Government, in my eyes, have the right to ask us to vote on whatever they want as often as they want. We have the right to say yes or not to that vote, and also to say yes or no to them being the Government again.

    J.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    jasonb wrote: »

    The Government, in my eyes, have the right to ask us to vote on whatever they want as often as they want. We have the right to say yes or not to that vote, and also to say yes or no to them being the Government again.

    J.
    Please remember that sentiment next time Hugo Chavez of Venezuela repeadly holds a referenda to lift term limits in his country.


  • Options
    #13
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    Please remember that sentiment next time Hugo Chavez of Venezuela repeadly holds a referenda to lift term limits in his country.

    And the nazi's got in by referendum blah blah blah.


  • Options
    #14
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    meglome wrote: »
    And the nazi's got in by referendum blah blah blah.

    Oh, so basically your what, saying we shouldn't have referenda?


  • Options
    #15
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    Oh, so basically your what, saying we shouldn't have referenda?

    No, RedPlanet, that's not what he's saying. He's drawing your attention to the ridiculous comparison you used.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #16
    jasonb
    Registered Users Posts: 3,329 ✭✭✭jasonb


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    Please remember that sentiment next time Hugo Chavez of Venezuela repeadly holds a referenda to lift term limits in his country.

    Well, if Chavez does this, and the people of Venezuela vote Yes to it, and there are no irregularities with the votes, then that's the Venezuelan people's choice...

    If however they vote no and it's ignored, or the vote is rigged, that's another story entirely...

    Anyhow, to drag myself back on topic, it's up to each person to vote if they want to or not, and chosing not to vote is perfectly valid I think.

    J.


  • Options
    #17
    Donalh
    Registered Users Posts: 77 ✭✭Donalh


    Jeff Albertson wrote: »
    Didnt vote the first time around, but will deffo be voting this time, i dont understand the whole Lisbon thing but will be voting NO simply because this is what the majority of the Irish people voted last time.

    Jeff Alberton, i really hope this is a joke!


  • Options
    #18
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No, RedPlanet, that's not what he's saying. He's drawing your attention to the ridiculous comparison you used.

    regards,
    Scofflaw
    It's not a ridiculous comparision at all.
    On one hand we have a governement not satisfied with a referenda result, thereafter engaging fawning motions and holding the same refrenda again, within a comparitively short time.

    On the other hand we have a goverment not satisified with a referenda result thereby (possibly?) holding the referenda again.

    Different referenda yes, different results of the referenda passing of course, but the principle remains the same. The government didn't get the result they wanted therefore they run it again until they get the "correct" result.


  • Options
    #19
    someoneok
    Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭someoneok


    I see on this site there is a lot of bully tactics from those on the yes side. Any comment from a No side post gets vilified straight away and there is quite a few at it. Staged? Counter intelligence maybe? I know this government wants a yes vote desperately so it wouldn't surprise me if a few registered users on boards were being paid to push and demonize the no side.

    I'm not saying this is fact I'm just saying the way I see it and anyone else who looks at it with eyes to see will agree in my opinion. This thread because of it's nature deals with those on the fence or those disenchanted and will get more attention from these kinds of demonizers. Hopefully this will shine a light on them so they can let the democratic process go ahead unhindered.


  • Options
    #20
    jasonb
    Registered Users Posts: 3,329 ✭✭✭jasonb


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    The government didn't get the result they wanted therefore they run it again until they get the "correct" result.

    I agree completely, that is what the Government are doing. They have an agenda, and part of that agenda is to pass the Lisbon treaty ( as an aside, it's not just the Government, FG and Labour have the same agenda, but it's the Government who have the power to call the Referendum. I'd imagine a FG / Labour Government would have called a second one again too ). So, they failed in their agenda and they're giving it another go.

    Maybe it's just a fundamental difference of opinion between us, but I really don't see what's wrong with this. I don't have a problem with them asking us to vote again. Legally ( as I understand it ) they can keep asking us for as long as they want as far as I'm concerned ( though obviously I'd prefer them to spend their time on other issues ). We get a choice and it's up to us, not the Government. All they can do is keep on asking, we can say Yes or No.

    The point I'm making is that I don't consider them asking us to vote again undemocratic. Them changing our vote or deciding without asking us to vote would be.

    J.


  • Options
    #21
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    someoneok wrote: »
    I see on this site there is a lot of bully tactics from those on the yes side. Any comment from a No side post gets vilified straight away and there is quite a few at it. Staged? Counter intelligence maybe? I know this government wants a yes vote desperately so it wouldn't surprise me if a few registered users on boards were being paid to push and demonize the no side.

    I'm not saying this is fact I'm just saying the way I see it and anyone else who looks at it with eyes to see will agree in my opinion. This thread because of it's nature deals with those on the fence or those disenchanted and will get more attention from these kinds of demonizers. Hopefully this will shine a light on them so they can let the democratic process go ahead unhindered.

    what do you expect

    some people create a new account (ahem ahem like yourself)

    post the same lies and **** over and over again

    dont back their claims up or engage in debate

    then run away

    rinse and repeat


    /


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    jasonb
    Registered Users Posts: 3,329 ✭✭✭jasonb


    someoneok wrote: »
    I see on this site there is a lot of bully tactics from those on the yes side. Any comment from a No side post gets vilified straight away and there is quite a few at it. Staged? Counter intelligence maybe? I know this government wants a yes vote desperately so it wouldn't surprise me if a few registered users on boards were being paid to push and demonize the no side.

    I'm not saying this is fact I'm just saying the way I see it and anyone else who looks at it with eyes to see will agree in my opinion. This thread because of it's nature deals with those on the fence or those disenchanted and will get more attention from these kinds of demonizers. Hopefully this will shine a light on them so they can let the democratic process go ahead unhindered.

    Personally I can't imagine the Government being competent enough to organise this ( especially one as unpopular as this one! ), but maybe I'm naive.

    I don't care which way someone wants to vote, or whether they vote or not. All I'm saying is that I think asking us to vote again isn't undemocratic, I think chosing not to vote at all is perfectly valid and I'd prefer people to vote because they'd informed themselves of the issues as much as they could and then decided how they feel about it.

    J.


  • Options
    #23
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    It's not a ridiculous comparision at all.
    On one hand we have a governement not satisfied with a referenda result, thereafter engaging fawning motions and holding the same refrenda again, within a comparitively short time.

    On the other hand we have a goverment not satisified with a referenda result thereby (possibly?) holding the referenda again.

    Different referenda yes, different results of the referenda passing of course, but the principle remains the same. The government didn't get the result they wanted therefore they run it again until they get the "correct" result.

    But it is a ridiculous comparison. From what you're saying we should never vote just because we might make the wrong decision.

    We are voting on a different package this time, it's as simple as that.


  • Options
    #24
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    meglome wrote: »
    But it is a ridiculous comparison. From what you're saying we should never vote just because we might make the wrong decision..
    No that's not what i'm saying at all.
    I'm saying we shouldn't have referenda repeats in such short spans of time.
    If say, 10 years go by for example, then yes maybe re-visting a referenda isn't so bad.
    meglome wrote: »
    We are voting on a different package this time, it's as simple as that.
    That is not true and you know that. We are voting on the exact same treaty. No change, nada.


  • Options
    #25
    jasonb
    Registered Users Posts: 3,329 ✭✭✭jasonb


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    No that's not what i'm saying at all.
    I'm saying we shouldn't have referenda repeats in such short spans of time.
    If say, 10 years go by for example, then yes maybe re-visting a referenda isn't so bad.
    That is not true and you know that. We are voting on the exact same treaty. No change, nada.

    For the first part, I see your point, referenda repeats in the past ( Divorce for example ) were much further apart, probably going with the concept that after maybe 10 years the demographic will have changed and the result could be different.

    As far as I see it, with Lisbon, there are two differences with something like a Divorce Referendum. Firstly, it's more time specific, as it needs to be passed here to take effect throughout Europe etc. Secondly, something like the Lisbon Treaty is a lot harder to understand than 'Divorce : Yes or No' and the Government clearly believe ( rightly or wrongly ) that the reason No was voted the last time was because a lot of people didn't fully understand the treaty.

    I agree with you, the treaty is the same. However, the difference this time, as far as the Government are concerned, is that they've got reassurances addressing some of the key fears about the treaty from the last vote. So that, along with the time pressures, are why they've called a second referendum relatively quickly...

    J.


  • Options
    #26
    Euro_Kraut
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭Euro_Kraut


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    No that's not what i'm saying at all.
    I'm saying we shouldn't have referenda repeats in such short spans of time.
    If say, 10 years go by for example, then yes maybe re-visting a referenda isn't so bad.

    Fair enough, you accpet the principle that referendum can and should be re run. You object is with the just timing.

    Why do you think 10 years is more appropiate than say 5 years?


  • Options
    #27
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    No that's not what i'm saying at all.
    I'm saying we shouldn't have referenda repeats in such short spans of time.
    If say, 10 years go by for example, then yes maybe re-visting a referenda isn't so bad.

    Well start campaigning for the next government to do that. Moaning after the fact is pointless.
    RedPlanet wrote: »
    That is not true and you know that. We are voting on the exact same treaty. No change, nada.

    Treaty + guarantees = different package. Seems pretty simple.


  • Options
    #28
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Euro_Kraut wrote: »
    Fair enough, you accpet the principle that referendum can and should be re run. You object is with the just timing.

    Why do you think 10 years is more appropiate than say 5 years?
    Better chance of a different government sitting.
    Less chance of yeilding referenda as a means to badger the electorate to force an unpopular constitutional change.


  • Options
    #29
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    meglome wrote: »
    Treaty + guarantees = different package. Seems pretty simple.
    The guarantees are not contained the Treaty and, correct me if i am mistaken but are also not among the actual language of the referenda.
    Therefore the "promised" guarantees are little more than air.


  • Options
    #30
    someoneok
    Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭someoneok


    The government has to give us a referendum on anything which has relevance to our constitution due to a man named Raymond Crotty.
    A brief outline of the story can be viewed here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CitZC7yftA8&feature=player_embedded


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    The guarantees are not contained the Treaty and, correct me if i am mistaken but are also not among the actual language of the referenda.
    Therefore the "promised" guarantees are little more than air.

    It really amuses me that the Good Friday agreement was done using the exact same process and there wasn't a peep out of anyone. Sinn Fein were perfectly happy to accept the Good Friday agreement was legally binding and certainly there hasn't been the slightest legal challenge. But now using the exactly same UN process some people are trying to say our guarantees cannot be trusted. People really need to stop talking sideways out of their arses.


Advertisement