Tallys & Results in the morning.

Agent J

Justind wrote: »

An entirely different scenario to a general election putting candidates to constituency seats.

I was using the same time frame as used by another poster when talking about Democracy not being static.

Flamed Diving

Agent J wrote: »

Bertie Ahern within hours of the Nice Defeat said we'd have to vote again.

Dick roche within weeks of Lisbon I said we'd have to vote again
(Despite this btw.. http://www.dickroche.com/article.php?sid=1069&PHPSESSID=c79aa85144112003b0faaa6131192337 )

I think the examples you listed already in the forms of Divorce, Voting and abortion are enough of a precedent. What was the average gap? 9 years?

Seriously though i would ideally like some sort of protective mechanism that would stop repeat referenda within such a short space of time to prevent abuse of the process by the Houses of the Dail.

Problem is i dont know how pratical that would be. My issue is that they werent even waiting 12 months before reconsidering the treaty to be voted on again. They wanted it re run again as quickly as possible and that was pretty much the position from the moment the No vote was annoucned.

You need to differentiate and separate the difference between the people actually being asked again, and the suggestion of them being asked again. What you are suggesting is that people aren't even allowed to think about a rerun for 12 months.

Sam Vimes

Agent J wrote: »

Bertie Ahern within hours of the Nice Defeat said we'd have to vote again.

Dick roche within weeks of Lisbon I said we'd have to vote again
(Despite this btw.. http://www.dickroche.com/article.php?sid=1069&PHPSESSID=c79aa85144112003b0faaa6131192337 )

I think the examples you listed already in the forms of Divorce, Voting and abortion are enough of a precedent. What was the average gap? 9 years?

Seriously though i would ideally like some sort of protective mechanism that would stop repeat referenda within such a short space of time to prevent abuse of the process by the Houses of the Dail.

Problem is i dont know how pratical that would be. My issue is that they werent even waiting 12 months before reconsidering the treaty to be voted on again. They wanted it re run again as quickly as possible and that was pretty much the position from the moment the No vote was annoucned.

The Irish people were always going to vote again because no one can possibly have a problem with every word of a 300 page document. You find out which parts people object to, you renegotiate those parts and you put a new proposal to the people that is acceptable to them. That is how democracy works, compromise and negotiation. The fact that the treaty didn't have to be changed says nothing about our government or the EU, it says that the Irish people were fooled into thinking the treaty did things that it didn't. That's why we only needed guarantees and an agreement not to enact one part of the treaty.

If you don't think a year is enough time for people to change their minds I don't see why you have any problem with a re-run. They'll just get the same answer every time they re-run it. But could you please explain why it would take someone 5 years to change their mind when their reasons for rejection no longer apply?

Agent J

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You need to differentiate and separate the difference between the people actually being asked again, and the suggestion of them being asked again. What you are suggesting is that people aren't even allowed to think about is for 12 months.

No, I'm not. People can think what they want privately.

The Government though if its handed down a decision directly from the people shouldnt be publicly seeking ways to ask the same question again within a short space of time.

Again the time decision is arbitarty.

I think i've dragged this thread off topic....

KoolKid

Ganley has conceded defeat already!

Sam Vimes

Agent J wrote: »

The Government though if its handed down a decision directly from the people shouldnt be publicly seeking ways to ask the same question again within a short space of time.

Again the time decision is arbitarty.

The thing is though the question doesn't have to be the same. The Lisbon treaty is a very big question, too big a question to give a simple yes or no to. If people had problems with articles x, y and z those articles can be changed, nothing is set in stone. The fact that they asked a question that was almost the same (except for the commissioner issues) is a reflection solely on the Irish people and their propensity to believe lies

We didn't understand the question, so they repeated it. Nothing wrong with that.

Agent J

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The Irish people were always going to vote again because no one can possibly have a problem with every word of a 300 page document. You find out which parts people object to, you renegotiate those parts and you put a new proposal to the people that is acceptable to them. That is how democracy works, compromise and negotiation. The fact that the treaty didn't have to be changed says nothing about our government or the EU, it says that the Irish people were fooled into thinking the treaty did things that it didn't. That's why we only needed guarantees and an agreement not to enact one part of the treaty.

If you don't think a year is enough time for people to change their minds I don't see why you have any problem with a re-run. They'll just get the same answer every time they re-run it. But could you please explain why it would take someone 5 years to change their mind when their reasons for rejection no longer apply?

I've answered where the 5 years figure came into it. You brought in an earlier post.

Sam Vimes wrote:

Yes the people gave their answer both times. If you see democracy as "NO MEANS NO" then it's not democratic but that's not how democracy works. It works through negotiations, compromise and very importantly, giving people the opportunity to change their minds. It's why we have a general election every 5 years

As for the length of the Document. Then how man times do we vote to make sure people understand it? Will the government run another survery and check that people fully understood what they were voting on like last time?
If not why not?
The cynic in me would answer because the government got the answer they wanted this time and there is no need for it which leads me to wonder
that i thought our government answered to us and not the the other way around.

Thinking you'll get the same answer everytime you re run something only applies if all the conditions remain the same. Obviously this isnt possible so we'll have different results be they political,economical and social reasons which may very well have nothing to do with the subject matter. Also COIR are insane.

poncho000

I call for Lisbon 3 because clearly irish people didnt understand what this whole thing was about. All I have been reading and watching on tv is about how Ireland is better with Europe and how we need to stay with Europe. but this wasnt a decision about whether we stay in Europe or not. Regardless of whether we voted no or not we would still be in Europe
We should have voted no, we would have still been in europe and still take all that nice european money. And as for the "oh but we would be ignored by the rest of europe if we vote no." well europe doesnt give a sh!t about ireland. This time last year all european fat cats were bemoaning the fact that a small country like ireland could block the treaty.
We are not at the heart of Europe and we never will be.

RMD

PaulieD wrote: »

From RTE. "I voted Yes cause I hope we get jobs out of it." "I voted Yes for infrastructure." "I voted Yes for EEC money." "I voted Yes to be with europe."

All informed voters, hmm? Maybe we shall hold another referendum as the people were obviously misinformed. Just like last time.

Yes and the many No voters were surely informed.

One article I saw summed it up quite well about No voters opinion

"I'm voting no as I haven't decided what to vote but my mom said vote no"
"All my friends said are voting no so I'll probably vote no to"
"I'm voting no as my local politician said it's for the best" (Taxi driver being influenced by a Sinn Fein "politician".

Ireland would be ****ed without the treaty, I really don't see where people are getting the idea this will turn us into a giant totalitarian superpower with no democracy at all.

Sam Vimes

Agent J wrote: »

I've answered where the 5 years figure came into it. You brought in an earlier post.

My point is that if someone has an objection and that objection is addressed, time should not be a factor. Anyone who doesn't change their mind when their problems have been addressed is just being stubborn.

Agent J wrote: »

As for the length of the Document. Then how man times do we vote to make sure people understand it? Will the government run another survery and check that people fully understood what they were voting on like last time?
If not why not?
The cynic in me would answer because the government got the answer they wanted this time and there is no need for it which leads me to wonder
that i thought our government answered to us and not the the other way around.

I'm sure surveys will be done but I doubt there will be another referendum. I wouldn't call that cynical though. If I and 25 other friends want to do something and one friend is fighting against the plan, if I can address the reasons he said no and convince him, of course I'm not going to then try to convince him to change his mind again. If people want to have another referendum they can vote in a government that will call a referendum on the issue, they have that right. But the fact that you would need to have Gerry Adams, Declan Ganley or Nigel Farage as Taoiseach before that will happen really should make you question whether a no vote is in the interests of the country or not.

Agent J wrote: »

Thinking you'll get the same answer everytime you re run something only applies if all the conditions remain the same. Obviously this isnt possible so we'll have different results be they political,economical and social reasons which may very well have nothing to do with the subject matter. Also COIR are insane.

Exactly. Each time you ask a question to the populace you might get a different answer so asking a question is not undemocratic. People change their minds for all sorts of reasons

sensibleken

koolkid wrote: »

Ganley has conceded defeat already!

hopefully thats the last well see of him

Sam Vimes

poncho000 wrote: »

I call for Lisbon 3 because clearly irish people didnt understand what this whole thing was about. All I have been reading and watching on tv is about how Ireland is better with Europe and how we need to stay with Europe.

It is in fact you who doesn't understand. Only people on the no side ever suggested anyone was saying we'd be kicked out of Europe

bauderline

Agent J wrote: »

I've answered where the 5 years figure came into it. You brought in an earlier post.



As for the length of the Document. Then how man times do we vote to make sure people understand it? Will the government run another survery and check that people fully understood what they were voting on like last time?
If not why not?
The cynic in me would answer because the government got the answer they wanted this time and there is no need for it which leads me to wonder
that i thought our government answered to us and not the the other way around.

Thinking you'll get the same answer everytime you re run something only applies if all the conditions remain the same. Obviously this isnt possible so we'll have different results be they political,economical and social reasons which may very well have nothing to do with the subject matter. Also COIR are insane.

Well it would appear that the vast majority of people had no problem with being asked a second time, they got off the backsides to vote a second time and also voted YES. Indeed more people voted this time, giving more people the chance to express their wishes is indeed more democratic is it not ?

This would indicate to me that people more than happy to get another chance to vote at this stage.

Moreover I suspect a lot of the NO voters last time around suspected that if the they rejected they treaty that they might get a bit more "bang for their buck" from the EU and asked to vote on it again.

Really nothing about this is unexpected or undemocratic... renegotiate and reassess .... perfectly acceptable...

poncho000

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It is in fact you who doesn't understand. Only people on the no side ever suggested anyone was saying we'd be kicked out of Europe

No sir I believe it is you who doesn't understand

How can you say that when nearly all yes side propaganda was "We're better with Europe", "We need Europe". That is very suggestive if you ask me. A clear scare tactic that worked. And now if you turn on RTE you will see that people voted yes because they "want to be with europe". There was never a question of being in or out of europe

Agent J

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My point is that if someone has an objection and that objection is addressed, time should not be a factor.

The referendum in 2008 only has two options. Yes and No. There wasnt a space to fill in objections.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm sure surveys will be done but I doubt there will be another referendum. I wouldn't call that cynical though.

There will not be the same surverys done. There might be some newspapers or some such. I will eat my hat(I will go out and buy a hat to eat more like) if the government take the same attitude that it did last time and conducted and indept survery as to what happened and why and then act on it. I dont think and i stand to be corrected they did the same with Nice II.

If it had been a yes vote last time would we even be having this conversation? Which leads right back to the point that the Government got what they wanted so who answers to who?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Exactly. Each time you ask a question to the populace you might get a different answer so asking a question is not undemocratic

Unless you ask the question until you get the answer you want. Then the question itself is meaningless and only a pretense.

bauderline

poncho000 wrote: »

No sir I believe it is you who doesn't understand

How can you say that when nearly all yes side propaganda was "We're better with Europe", "We need Europe". That is very suggestive if you ask me. A clear scare tactic that worked. And now if you turn on RTE you will see that people voted yes because they "want to be with europe". There was never a question of being in or out of europe

How about the big posters with 1.84 minimum wage stuck up all over the place ? There was never any danger of our minimum wage being affected by voting for Lisbon. Far more suggestive than the Yes posters if you ask me.... No wait in fact the minimum wage posters were an outright lie !!!

Fuhrer

Agent J wrote: »

Unless you ask the question until you get the answer you want. Then the question itself is meaningless and only a pretense.

I know, whats the point in having elections every few years, I mean, we've already elected people. We dont need to consider the situation and reevaluate our choices at all.

bauderline

Agent J wrote: »

The referendum in 2008 only has two options. Yes and No. There wasnt a space to fill in objections.



There will not be the same surverys done. There might be some newspapers or some such. I will eat my hat(I will go out and buy a hat to eat more like) if the government take the same attitude that it did last time and conducted and indept survery as to what happened and why and then act on it. I dont think and i stand to be corrected they did the same with Nice II.

If it had been a yes vote last time would we even be having this conversation? Which leads right back to the point that the Government got what they wanted so who answers to who?



Unless you ask the question until you get the answer you want. Then the question itself is meaningless and only a pretense.

You are missing the point somewhat though... If people had voted NO again you may have had some basis for your argument... the fact that there has been a landslide swing to YES means that a second vote was indeed warranted and as I pointed out in another post in all likely expected by voters when they voted 16 months ago.

Sam Vimes

poncho000 wrote: »

No sir I believe it is you who doesn't understand

How can you say that when nearly all yes side propaganda was "We're better with Europe", "We need Europe". That is very suggestive if you ask me. A clear scare tactic that worked. And now if you turn on RTE you will see that people voted yes because they "want to be with europe". There was never a question of being in or out of europe

Actually they used the "heart of Europe" and "better with Europe" type slogans the last time and they didn't work. "With Europe" is not the same as "a member of the EU". If we voted no it appears to the rest of the world that Ireland does not share the same goals as its neighbours and does not think the EU is working in the best interests of Ireland. It makes us look like Euro skeptics and that is not a good image for Ireland to have, especially when the reasons why Ireland might have voted no are largely fictitious or irrelevant to the treaty (eg hating FF). Fictitious things such as these:

€200 billion in fisheries
€1.84 minimum wage
Forcing us to engage in military action in a terrorist attack
European superstate
Abortion, gay marriage and EUthanasia
Death penalty
Massive conspiracy to pretend the guarantees are binding
Treaty is unreadable
Treaty is designed to be unreadable
Corrupt surveys to make up fake issues and pretend to address them
Ratification through parliament in other countries is somehow undemocratic or unusual
EU "didn't allow" other countres to have referendums
Keep voting until you give the right answer
Ryanair allowed buy Aer Lingus in exchange for the campaign
Rigged polls to make it look like the yes side are ahead
Lisbon allows Turkish accession (with fake video)
Lisbon makes EU law superior to Irish law
Losing the right to referendums
We will no longer have a constitution in Ireland
Self-amending and escalator clause
Privatisation of healthcare and education
More military spending
Lavelle case could happen here
Charter of human rights allows the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
Voting weight halved
QMV is brand new
Loss of veto in all areas
Allows EU to raise our corporation tax
Conscription into a non-existent EU army
EU commission diverted €10 million to yes campaign
Treaty is the same as the constitution dressed up to avoid referendums
Fake polls made up by Coir
2nd vote undemocratic. (The reasons that many people voted no have been addressed and the supreme court has ruled that it's not)

I think I can safely say that not one person in the country thought we'd be kicked out of Europe if we voted no.

poncho000

bauderline wrote: »

How about the big posters with 1.84 minimum wage stuck up all over the place ? There was never any danger of our minimum wage being affected by voting for Lisbon. Far more suggestive than the Yes posters if you ask me.... No wait in fact the minimum wage posters were an outright lie !!!

And what about the yes side claiming lisbon will create jobs? There is nothing in the treaty that refers to jobs. They didnt exactly tell the truth there now did they.

Agent J

bauderline wrote: »

You are missing the point somewhat though... If people had voted NO again you may have had some basis for your argument... the fact that there has been a landslide swing to YES means that a second vote was indeed warranted and as I pointed out in another post in all likely expected by voters when they voted 16 months ago.

No its not. You are entering the ends justying the means argument there.
Using a Yes vote for justification to call for another vote makes as much sense as someone saying "Best out of 3?".

You are also missing the entire point of my arguement which is actually nothing to do with the Lisbon treatt itself if you'll notice. It is about the ability and use of the Dail to call referenda.

Sierra Oscar

poncho000 wrote: »

And what about the yes side claiming lisbon will create jobs? There is nothing in the treaty that refers to jobs

No one said that the treaty contained jobs - its all about the context.

In any case, the no side now realize that in hindsight their credibility will yet again be shredded when the expected abortion/taxation/conscription/minimum wage issues never come to be reality.

I suppose we have heard the same arguments since we first had a referendum to join Europe though.

misstierney

PaulieD wrote: »

The flag should be at half mast. The patriot dead will be turning in their graves.

Connolly and Pearse would have loved the EU. Because of the EU we aren't relying on England like the first 50 years after we got rid of them. They would have had a little Republican hard on at the thought of us integrating into the EU and working hand in hand with other Republics, the likes of France, Italy etc. Let alone the thoughts of us holding the EU Presidency and wielding influence far greater than our size.

Sam Vimes

Agent J wrote: »

The referendum in 2008 only has two options. Yes and No. There wasnt a space to fill in objections.

And that's why they did surveys.

Agent J wrote: »

There will not be the same surverys done. There might be some newspapers or some such. I will eat my hat(I will go out and buy a hat to eat more like) if the government take the same attitude that it did last time and conducted and indept survery as to what happened and why and then act on it. I dont think and i stand to be corrected they did the same with Nice II.

No of course they won't. They know why people voted yes. Some people consider them bad reasons but that's a matter of opinion, whereas voting no because you mistakenly think our taxes are at risk is an undeniably bad reason because it's not true. "Yes to recovery" is an opinion and when taken in its proper context and not deliberately over simplified to something like "recovery starts Monday", it's an opinion shared by pretty much everyone who knows anything about the economy. You can say its a bad reason and that people voted out of fear but just because something might be scary doesn't mean its not true.

Agent J wrote: »

Unless you ask the question until you get the answer you want. Then the question itself is meaningless and only a pretense.

The answer they want is always yes, that's why governments and organisations like the EU propose things. If the proposals have to be changed to satisfy people then changes will be made but it makes no sense to drop beneficial and much needed reforms because, for example, people won't accept the reality that our guarantees are binding.

USE

First results coming in (officially) 1/43 or 1.08%:
http://www.referendum.ie/referendum/current/index.asp?ballotid=79

Sam Vimes

poncho000 wrote: »

And what about the yes side claiming lisbon will create jobs? There is nothing in the treaty that refers to jobs. They didnt exactly tell the truth there now did they.

There's nothing in the treaty that says a general election will be called either and yet that's why a lot of people voted no.

Everyone who knows anything about the economy agrees that a yes vote will help and a no vote won't. It's not a lie

K-9

Donegal SW 51% yes from Tallies.
NE tight by the looks of it.

Donegal may return a Yes, can't remember when that happened last.

OldJay

poncho000 wrote: »

And what about the yes side claiming lisbon will create jobs? There is nothing in the treaty that refers to jobs

This is where actual thinking comes into it.
What they are saying is Ireland's clout in Europe would be diminished and benefits of ratification would not be availed of.
What do you think the consequences would be then? All rosy?
Maybe we could tap into our oil fund? Nope. We don't have one.
Our strong banking system? Don't have one of them either.
Our strong private sector made up of Irish multinationals? Ditto the other two.
Our reserves? Never had enough and we're broke anyway.
Our export partners? The EU is our largest.

All the above are very real consquences.
What the 'no' side claimed would happen were debunked and disproven as lies and/or misinformation. Already the exclamations are of yet more emotional blackmail such as 'well, you've just given this govt another lease of life' as if the aim was to either force an election or ensure the current incumbents never got re-elected at a later election.

Sam Vimes

Justind wrote: »

Already the exclamations are of yet more emotional blackmail such as 'well, you've just given this govt another lease of life' as if the aim was to either force an election or ensure the current incumbents never got re-elected at a later election.

Exactly. It's amazing that the same people who demand a treaty article that says "X jobs will be created in Ireland" and dismiss it as a lie because it's not spelled out talk about the government being saved by a yes vote. Which article says that eh?

Agent J

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And that's why they did surveys.

You miss the point.

The people are supposed to be the supreme authority in this country. We divest some of that to the government but when we mark that box on a referendum ballot we are giving an order. Not a request to go out and take a survery and check if its what we really wanted and then check back in a year although to be honest that what it is looking like a No means these days.

If the governments actions post referenda differ depending on the answer they get then something is wrong because we are responding to the Dail rather then the other way around. (Obviously im not talking about the implementation of the referenda itself).