Tallys & Results in the morning.

bauderline

Agent J wrote: »

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).

Let me ask you this, would you like to see a general election tomorrow in order to vote the current government out ?

Scofflaw

Agent J wrote: »

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).

"Giving an order" is precisely what we are not doing - we are answering a question. Referendums do not set policy - they are too blunt an instrument for that.

cordially,
Scoffllaw

Sam Vimes

Agent J wrote: »

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).

Your version of democracy would grind progress to a halt. There is no negotiation, there is no addressing of people's issues, there is no trying to satisfy people, there's just "NO MEANS NO". It's essentially a country full of Ian Paisley's. I could give you a million examples but lets take the example of people who voted no because they felt the government didn't provide enough information. That's not a problem with the treaty and that's no reason why it should be thrown in the bin. All that's needed to change that person's mind is to send her a few booklets summarising the main points in an accessible way.

So what is so wrong with finding out that she voted no for that reason, addressing her reason by giving her the information she requested and then asking her if she changed her mind? Why should the people of Europe be denied, for example, the new citizen's initiative and why should we leave power in the hands of the unelected commission instead giving it to the parliament as was planned, just because Fianna Fail didn't send this woman a booklet?

Sparks

Sam Vimes wrote: »

a yes vote will help

It may help, indirectly.
That's a long way from "yes for jobs".
I believe the logic of your argument is biased by your ideology here.

Agent J

bauderline wrote: »

Let me ask you this, would you like to see a general election tomorrow in order to vote the current government out ?

Well considering the economic climate has changed and there is now marked differences in what we voted on last time.
Wait sorry. You meant General election not an EU Ttreaty.

Actually i probably wouldn't being serious. My reasoning being is that people voted for this government since 1997 and now we are seeing what that has brought us. Let it run another year or so so people remember what voting for FF really means next time around.

That is assuming the Greens dont collapse the government by then.

ei.sdraob

a slight NO win in Donegal North

http://www.referendum.ie/referendum/current/resultsummary.asp?ballotid=79

Sam Vimes

Sparks wrote: »

It may help, indirectly.
That's a long way from "yes for jobs".
I believe the logic of your argument is biased by your ideology here.

This is the problem with a poster campaign. I can explain the logic behind that slogan and it makes sense but then it would have to be more of a billboard. I think we can all agree that the whole thing would be run better if posters were banned. They add nothing and damage the environment while they're at it

Agent J

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Giving an order" is precisely what we are not doing - we are answering a question. Referendums do not set policy - they are too blunt an instrument for that.

cordially,
Scoffllaw

Semantics.

We are giving an order as to whether we adopt a policy or not.

turgon

Both constituencies of Donegal have voted No. I propose donating them to Northern Ireland. :pac:

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

a slight NO win in Donegal North

http://www.referendum.ie/referendum/current/resultsummary.asp?ballotid=79

Damn.

Seems Donegal SW is a cliffhanger. Could be 150 votes in it. No win predicted.

K-9

Donegal SW declared.

171 votes in it.

No 50.3%, Yes 49.7%.

K-9

turgon wrote: »

Both constituencies of Donegal have voted No. I propose donating them to Northern Ireland. :pac:

:eek:

Must check out when we voted Yes last.

Even that is some result for the Yes side.

TouchingVirus

Yes in Dublin mid-west

mike65

Waterford
Yes: 30,744 (68.53%); No: 14,116 (31.47%)

Swing 22%
Turnout up 8 %

Sparks

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Giving an order" is precisely what we are not doing - we are answering a question. Referendums do not set policy - they are too blunt an instrument for that.

Giving an order is precisely what referenda do, if only in a blunt "you may not pursue this policy" form. Were the result ignorable it might be otherwise, but it is constitutionally illegal to ignore it and proceed in the event of a no vote, which is why it's an order and not a mere ignorable question.

Agent J

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your version of democracy would grind progress to a halt. There is no negotiation, there is no addressing of people's issues, there is no trying to satisfy people, there's just "NO MEANS NO". It's essentially a country full of Ian Paisley's.

You misrepresent my opinions. I have not said that "NO Means NO".
Do all the nice negotiation stuff you say but when it comes to the crunch they should at least pretend they are asking a question and not simply doing it for form.

If you cant trust the government run an information campaign about a treaty then how in the hell can you trusted them to have negotiated the treaty properly in the first place? ( Please note i am not going into the spefics on Lisbon here)

If the government can't be arsed to run a campaign properly then why on earth should they get another shot on it? Is the matter not that important to them?

Whats worse is now we have precdent set that if they balls up any referednum campaign we'll give them another crack at it in a years time.

Who has the final say in when the question has been answered properly?

mike65

Agent J wrote: »

Whats worse is now we have precdent set that if they balls up any referednum campaign we'll give them another crack at it in a years time.

Who has the final say in when the question has been answered properly?

That preceedent was set years back.

Agent J

K-9 wrote: »

Donegal SW declared.

171 votes in it.

No 50.3%, Yes 49.7%.

*steps out of other debate*

Heh.

Sweary Mary can't even deliver her own home turf?

Thats our Taniste!

bauderline

Agent J wrote: »

Well considering the economic climate has changed and there is now marked differences in what we voted on last time.
Wait sorry. You meant General election not an EU Ttreaty.

Actually i probably wouldn't being serious. My reasoning being is that people voted for this government since 1997 and now we are seeing what that has brought us. Let it run another year or so so people remember what voting for FF really means next time around.

That is assuming the Greens dont collapse the government by then.

Ahhh curious indeed... so when people vote for FF in consecutive elections they are fools that don't know what they are doing and should be taught a lesson, however when it comes to the referendum their first choice was correct and wise and must be taken as final ?

Indeed....

Agent J

mike65 wrote: »

That preceedent was set years back.

And now we have re inforced its vailitiy with a repeat case.

Do you think this is a good thing?

Agent J

bauderline wrote: »

Ahhh curious indeed... so when people vote for FF in consecutive elections they are fools that don't know what they are doing and should be taught a lesson, however when it comes to the referendum their first choice was correct and wise and must be taken as final ?

Indeed....

Thats a hell of an interesing spin on it.

Yeah. Teach them a lesson by agreeing that the party they elected should stay in power. Actions meet consequences. I may not like it but if the majority of people speak kinda have to listen.

As for the referendum question. Go back and read through the posts. Im not repeating myself again. If you are bringing the GE in as a comparison it has already been done.

USE

Nigel Farage is talking on RTE. Eat that, Nigel! :P

And this guy some time ago was talking about how the EU interrupts into IE national matter. Now look how a bunch of liars from UK are doing the same plus hypocritically.

mike65

Agent J wrote: »

And now we have re inforced its vailitiy with a repeat case.

Do you think this is a good thing?

The government of the day has always had the power to put a case forward more than once, the public has always had the power to reject that case more than once. Whether it is a good or bad thing is a moot point for me.

Sam Vimes

Agent J wrote: »

You misrepresent my opinions. I have not said that "NO Means NO".
Do all the nice negotiation stuff you say but when it comes to the crunch they should at least pretend they are asking a question and not simply doing it for form.

If you cant trust the government run an information campaign about a treaty then how in the hell can you trusted them to have negotiated the treaty properly in the first place? ( Please note i am not going into the spefics on Lisbon here)

You don't have to trust them, you can read the treaty for yourself.

Agent J wrote: »

If the government can't be arsed to run a campaign properly then why on earth should they get another shot on it? Is the matter not that important to them?

Whats worse is now we have precdent set that if they balls up any referednum campaign we'll give them another crack at it in a years time.

Who has the final say in when the question has been answered properly?

The matter was important to them last time but they thought the result was in the bag and it probably was until Ganley et all showed up. The failings of the Irish government, while many and varied, are irrelevant to whether the treaty would be good for the country and the EU or not. What we got last time was not the will of the people, it was the will of Declan Ganley and Gerry Adams who fooled the people.

A government is supposed to represent its people. As well as getting them to vote that also means steering the country in the direction that they feel is best. They did not feel that a no vote was in the interests of the country so there's nothing wrong with trying to convince people. This isn't a quiz show where you have to take someone's first answer. If they ask people why they voted no to something and they find that the objections to the proposal are irreconcilable of course the proposals will have to be dropped but that's not what happened here. The people voted no because of FUD that was deliberately spread by Ganley and a bunch of misfits and extremists and as soon as people realised that they changed their minds. I think the €1.84 posters were the biggest help to the yes campaign because it was such a blatant lie that it tarred the entire no campaign with the reputation it very much deserved


Also, as Mike65 says we already have a precedent for multiple votes

mike65

(1.34pm) Voters in Sligo-North Leitrim have approved the treaty by 64.45% to No 35.55%.

(1.32pm) Cork South Central has voted in favour of the treaty by 66.85% to 33.15%.

(1.30pm) Dublin Mid-West has voted Yes by 61.49% to 38.51%.

bauderline

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think the €1.84 posters were the biggest help to the yes campaign because it was such a blatant lie that it tarred the entire no campaign with the reputation it very much deserved

Yupp, that blew their credibility clean out the window with a lot people...

Dinner

Delighted with the Kildare North results;

Yes - 76.2
No - 23.8

Up 21.6% on the last referendum.

dan719

Sam Vimes wrote: »

. What we got last time was not the will of the people, it was the will of Declan Ganley and Gerry Adams who fooled the people.

What we got today was the result of scaremongering and downright lies regarding the impact on our economy were we to vote no. Do we go again in six months?

97i9y3941

had to be something in for it if intel/ryanair wanted people to vote yes,specially coming from the no side about the legal use of cheap labour seems possible i.e like time argos flew in workers from england when irish staff went on strike,i belive it one because the gov here is useless when comes to workers rights unlike the german goverment who made the buyers of opel keep most jobs in germany along with its funding...

Sam Vimes

dan719 wrote: »

What we got today was the result of scaremongering and downright lies regarding the impact on our economy were we to vote no. Do we go again in six months?

Please read the preceding few pages to see how it's not a lie