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
What does a NO vote Mean?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
1) How are you being forced to vote? I haven't had a visit from anyone sternly telling me that it would be 'in my best interests' to go and vote.
2) If somebody had a concern about what implications the Lisbon treaty would have is it undemocratic to sort out those concerns?
3) Why is it undemocratic to have another vote since their concerns have been satisfied? Bear in mind that in order to satisfy their concerns the treaty didn't have to be changed.
Or should the treaty have had a 'token change' even if it wasn't necessary?
4) Is it always undemocratic to have a second referendum? Or what arbitrary time period must pass before it gets the 'vanla sighs' stamp of approval?
1) People who voted No have not had their wishes respected by their own sorry excuse for a government. So in essence they, we, are being forced to vote again as the government have in essence invalidated the first rejection of Lisbon and are forcing a rerun. If we don't vote we open the possibility to Lisbon passing the second time....even though the Irish people have already rejected Lisbon.
2) Em, you do know that the Lisbon Treaty has not changed don't you? Not a single comma in it.
3) When you say "their concerns" who do you speak of? The limited number of people who were contacted and asked to take part in post-referendum opinion polls after Lisbon 1 was defeated?
4) No, by all means hold reruns but a "reasonable" ammount of time should pass before the question is put back to the people. Explain to me why it is only when it comes to EU treaties that are rejected that we are in such a rush to have reruns? As for who decides what a 2reasonable" ammount of time is, that is open to debate, I personally would suggest 5 years.
Well, nearly time for zzzzzzzzz, lotsa flyers to hand out in Cork City centre tomorrow........for yesmen I've a special take one and get one free! This campaign ain't over yet......come Friday the people will decided once again.......and the mood is swinging to the No side
0 -
vanla sighs wrote: »I have two words for you:
Respect democracy
Your idea of respect for democracy is refusing to allow the people have their say on Friday
.... I wouldn't want to live in any 'democracy' you run. 0 -
-
-
vanla sighs wrote: »1) People who voted No have not had their wishes respected by their own sorry excuse for a government.
But many people who voted yes last time, will vote no next time and vide versa, what about their wishes?vanla sighs wrote: »2) Em, you do know that the Lisbon Treaty has not changed don't you? Not a single comma in it.
We don't vote on the Treaty, we vote on the amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann, that amendment made in light of the legally binding guarantees.vanla sighs wrote: »4) No, by all means hold reruns but a "reasonable" ammount of time should pass before the question is put back to the people. Explain to me why it is only when it comes to EU treaties that are rejected that we are in such a rush to have reruns? As for who decides what a 2reasonable" ammount of time is, that is open to debate, I personally would suggest 5 years.
So if we vote in 5 years again, that would be respecting democracy? Whereas voting now isn't?vanla sighs wrote: »This campaign ain't over yet......come Friday the people will decided once again.......and the mood is swinging to the No side
I thought you were against people deciding again Surely if you disagree with having to vote a second time, you should abstain? 0 -
-
-
-
ringostarr wrote: »2. I don't think its fair or democratic that a small island like ours decides on the direction Europe is taking.
By that logic Lisbon would be passed long ago 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
So if we vote in 5 years again, that would be respecting democracy? Whereas voting now isn't?
A good point. It's not like other referendums that get voted down are the final word. Will we never again be able to vote on abortion? Will the cry of undemocratic be raised if we hold a referendum on that again? It would be rather odd (and expensive) to do it year on year, but that's where the two things differ. There's a time issue here and Lisbon can't wait 5 years just to satisfy some arbitrary line in time where most people consider it appropriate to ask again.
Couple that to the known reasons why many people voted no (and I really cannot believe we're sneering at polling and statistics as a means to gather information in a thread about voting) and asking again is really quite fair and reasonable. If no really means no in some absolute sense (as Coir keep saying rather than forming an actual argument), then it will mean no again.0 -
-
Ah, so you're not actually being forced, you just feel you should to try prevent a yes vote. Thats not being forced.
Erm...yes you only say it in every second post so I'm sure I picked up on it somewhere. Why would the treaty need to be changed to sort out peoples concerns on taxation, abortion, conscription, neutrality etc.?
When I say 'their' concerns I refer to over a quarter of no voters as discovered by the statistically accurate Millward Brown post Lisbon study. A second referendum is also a great oppertunity for the 42% of no voters who didn't know what they were voting on. The only problem is people like you who take a perfectly democratic act and twist into being undemocratic because it better suits your agenda.
We are in such a rush for reruns because it doesn't take long to satisfy peoples concerns. With divorce you had to wait for the entire opinion of society to shift.
In the case of Lisbon it doesn't take 9 years to sort out peopels concerns. So why do you think we should artifically inflate the gap between treaty referenda beyond what is necessary? If the concerns are sorted in a year why wait 5?
Why 5 years? why not 4 and a half? of 6, or 9! 9 has worked well in the past.
Or how about, and I may just blow your mind with this incredulous leap of logic, how about not sticking an arbitrary countdown clock on referenda, instead doing it when;
1) There has been a significant shift in public perception that warrents the reexmination of the subject. (eg. Divorce).
2) There has been sufficient developments to change the minds of a sizable proportion of the electorate (Nice, Lisbon).
We shouldn't need to insert an extra layer of beurocracy because you are incapable of looking at something objectivly.
By the government usurping the democratic will of the people and holding a rerun those who care about democracy are forced to vote once again unless they want to abstain thereby helping the undemocratic yes side.
Re: the treaty, very many don't wish Ireland to lose its veto in numerous areas. That is one of the prime reasons why I am voting No.
And how many yes voters were polled by Milward Brown and asked what were the reasons they voted yes? As far as I know, none....hmmm, fancy that, the government worry so much about the reasons why people voted that they only asked on side, the winning side come to think of it. It is undemocratic for a government to ignore the wishes of the majority. The majority voted on Lisbon and the majority rejected it......it is the job of any government to represent the will of the people, the government have failed to do that. And by the way it is referendums which decide propositions and not post-referendum opinion polls.
As for when to have reruns, I mentioned 5 years....you mention 9, yeah, 9 is fine with me too In my opinion any "reasonable" timeframe would suffice but the populace should not be lambasted with repeat referendums on the very same issue until the government of the day gets the result it seeks. The people decided, the people said No. We'll see what's what come Friday.........
Oh well, have to rush, have canvassing to do all day today, from morn till evening.....Roll on Friday 0 -
vanla sighs wrote: »By the government usurping the democratic will of the people and holding a rerun those who care about democracy are forced to vote once again unless they want to abstain thereby helping the undemocratic yes side.
Re: the treaty, very many don't wish Ireland to lose its veto in numerous areas. That is one of the prime reasons why I am voting No.
And how many yes voters were polled by Milward Brown and asked what were the reasons they voted yes? As far as I know, none....hmmm, fancy that, the government worry so much about the reasons why people voted that they only asked on side, the winning side come to think of it. It is undemocratic for a government to ignore the wishes of the majority. The majority voted on Lisbon and the majority rejected it......it is the job of any government to represent the will of the people, the government have failed to do that. And by the way it is referendums which decide propositions and not post-referendum opinion polls.
As for when to have reruns, I mentioned 5 years....you mention 9, yeah, 9 is fine with me too In my opinion any "reasonable" timeframe would suffice but the populace should not be lambasted with repeat referendums on the very same issue until the government of the day gets the result it seeks. The people decided, the people said No. We'll see what's what come Friday.........
Oh well, have to rush, have canvassing to do all day today, from morn till evening.....Roll on Friday
So by voting yes you are actually being undemocratic....oh the irony of it, which I'm sure is lost on you. Also it is an insult to anybody who does vote yes......people who vote yes are just as entitled to vote as those who vote no but obviously not in your world. :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
vanla sighs wrote: »All you yes folks forget that the people already rejected the Lisbon Treaty....
I though we were voting on the amendmentvanla sighs wrote: »We are not voting on so-called guarantees, we are voting on the 28th Amendment to the Constitution (The Treaty of Lisbon) Bill 2009.
Which is it? You can't seem to make your mind up... is it the Treaty or the amendment? My polling card says it's the amendment... i.e. the one done in the light of the legally binding guarantees :rolleyes:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement