Lisbon - a fraudulent referendum?

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm lost.......

don't be lost sam,
let me elaborate,
barossa (and his 15 million euro sweetener) and pat cox made great deliberations of the economic ruin we would face if we rejected again, contrary to barossos own claims that any input by him could have legal implications.
these scarcely hidden threats made the referendum more ireland specific which may have been in turn interpreted as a vote on continued existence of irelands participation in this EU project, obviously this post will be derided as more deluded ramblings from a sore loser, i'm not a sore loser, i will have to live with the voters decision, democracy is funny that way.
incidentally, i see he's threatening the czechs if they fail to sign, democracy is funny that way.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

don't be lost sam,
let me elaborate,
barossa (and his 15 million euro sweetener) and pat cox made great deliberations of the economic ruin we would face if we rejected again, contrary to barossos own claims that any input by him could have legal implications.
these scarcely hidden threats made the referendum more ireland specific which may have been in turn interpreted as a vote on continued existence of irelands participation in this EU project, obviously this post will be derided as more deluded ramblings from a sore loser, i'm not a sore loser, i will have to live with the voters decision, democracy is funny that way.
incidentally, i see he's threatening the czechs if they fail to sign, democracy is funny that way.

I wouldn't call it deluded ramblings exactly but you have have misinterpreted anything that suggested that Ireland's membership of the EU was ever at risk. It wasn't and no one who knew anything about the EU could ever suggest otherwise.

Btw, something is only a threat if the person saying it intends to carry out the action. If I tell you that if you walk around Dublin city with your eyes closed you're likely to be hit by a car that is not a threat, that is a warning, and when people talked about Ireland's economy being damaged by a no vote they weren't talking about explicit EU sanctions and penalties, it was about investor confidence and international perception of Ireland, something which the people giving the warnings had no control over.

fligedlyflick

why can barosso not give the same leeway he afforded us to the czechs?
they are looking for similar concessions and guarantees but barosso claims any concessions will lead to re-ratification by all member states?

i'm surprised with the high esteem we are held when our guarantees required no re-ratification or squabbles.

[email]fligedlyflick @confused.com[/email]

seamus

why can barosso not give the same leeway he afforded us to the czechs?
they are looking for similar concessions and guarantees but barosso claims any concessions will lead to re-ratification by all member states?

Because it would appear (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Czechs are looking for opt-outs of specific items contained in the treaty. This requires the text of the treaty itself to be amended, which in turn makes it a whole new treaty and so requires re-ratification.

We, on the other hand, were looking for legal guarantees relating to items which weren't covered in the treaty, therefore the treaty did not need to be modified to suit what we were looking for.

Analogy time:

The Czechs are being offered a car. They want it without electric windows. This requires the offer to be modified.

We were offered a car. Wanted it without squirrels. We got it, without changes to the car.

See the difference?

thebman

fligedlyflick wrote: »

why can barosso not give the same leeway he afforded us to the czechs?
they are looking for similar concessions and guarantees but barosso claims any concessions will lead to re-ratification by all member states?

i'm surprised with the high esteem we are held when our guarantees required no re-ratification or squabbles.

[email]fligedlyflick @confused.com[/email]

The Czech president wants it written into the treaty not guarantees. Also he just wants to hold it up in the hope that Britain has an election, that the current government loses and that the opposition actually follow through on their promise in the hope that the British might get a vote in the hope that they vote no and the treaty is defeated.

Lots of hoping things pan out there but ultimately it is a waste of time. Even if the British did get a vote, the odds are many would vote not just because they got the chance to vote and to give the old government a goodbye f***.

It would most likely not be about the treaty at all.

seamus

thebman wrote: »

The Czech president wants it written into the treaty not guarantees. Also he just wants to hold it up in the hope that Britain has an election, that the current government loses and that the opposition actually follow through on their promise in the hope that the British might get a vote in the hope that they vote no and the treaty is defeated.

There's no reason why the British would get a vote on it though. Referenda in the UK are not legally binding (i.e. the government doesn't have to act on the outcome of the result) and there's nothing stopping the current government from ratifying a new treaty. The UK referendum idea is all hot air and distraction tactics. I know a couple of people who voted No in the belief that a No vote would force an EU-wide referendum

More interesting would be the situation here: We've already given our Government permission to ratify "The treaty of Lisbon". So if a change was to be made, would it have to go to another referendum here, or is it simply a matter of our Government ratifying the treaty again, because the document will still be the Treaty of Lisbon?

For some reason I suspect the latter is true, but it wouldn't happen without a legal challenge from the chuckies, coir and the rest.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

why can barosso not give the same leeway he afforded us to the czechs?
they are looking for similar concessions and guarantees but barosso claims any concessions will lead to re-ratification by all member states?

i'm surprised with the high esteem we are held when our guarantees required no re-ratification or squabbles.

[email]fligedlyflick @confused.com[/email]

thebman wrote: »

The Czech president wants it written into the treaty not guarantees.

This

molloyjh

fligedlyflick wrote: »

why can barosso not give the same leeway he afforded us to the czechs?
they are looking for similar concessions and guarantees but barosso claims any concessions will lead to re-ratification by all member states?

i'm surprised with the high esteem we are held when our guarantees required no re-ratification or squabbles.

fligedlyflick @confused.com

I really feel the need to raise this point, but the Czechs are not opposing the Treaty. In the few opinion polls I've seen the Czech people are in favour of the Treaty approx 60:40. The Czech Parliament have passed it. It is only Klaus as an individual that is holding it up.

It is Klaus that doesn't want guarantees but wants additions to the Treaty itself. Of course he couldn't have addressed all of this 2 years ago when the thing was signed. Nor could he address it last year when it was being passed by his Parliament, nor during the discussions re the Irish guarantees. He had to leave it to the last minute. Why? To scupper the whole thing.

The situation with Klaus is very different to our one.

oscarBravo

There's a thread about Klaus - can we keep this one for a discussion of whether our referendum was fraudulent? Ta.

fligedlyflick

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a thread about Klaus - can we keep this one for a discussion of whether our referendum was fraudulent? Ta.

ok.
the fact the fraudulent question has been asked means certain people have doubts about referendum protocol been abused, lets say it was, what would the ramifications be?
maybe it will transpire before full ratification, or several years down the line?

this is a rhetorical question so kindly refrain from classing me as a conspiracy nut

oscarBravo

fligedlyflick wrote: »

the fact the fraudulent question has been asked means certain people have doubts about referendum protocol been abused, lets say it was, what would the ramifications be?
maybe it will transpire before full ratification, or several years down the line?

this is a rhetorical question so kindly refrain from classing me as a conspiracy nut

I'm not sure what there is to be gained by speculating about it.

If there's evidence that there was electoral fraud, then that evidence should be presented to the relevant authorities. I haven't seen any reputable source claiming that such fraud took place. Have you?

fligedlyflick

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure what there is to be gained by speculating about it.

If there's evidence that there was electoral fraud, then that evidence should be presented to the relevant authorities. I haven't seen any reputable source claiming that such fraud took place. Have you?

seem a few, but i suppose it all depends on who you class as reputable.

"Earlier this week Emmett Stagg TD, stated that 600 polling cards had been
received by international residents who are not legally entitled to vote in
the referendum. This compounds suspicions that there are deliberate efforts to alter the result of the Lisbon referendum"

"

• Under Irish law, ballot boxes are required to be delivered by members of the Gardai to the polling stations at 7:00 am on the date the election takes place.

• This legal requirement applies to ALL polling in Ireland, whether elections or referendums.

• On this occasion, however, the ballot boxes were delivered to the private residences of the polling/Returning Officers, 48 hours prior to the Referendum.

• A number of honest Returning Officers formally objected to this BREACH OF PROCEDURE, and to the concomitant prospective breach of security, let alone of the electoral legislation.

• We understand that such objections were officially dismissed out of hand on the spurious and diversionary grounds that the ballot boxes possessed no commercial value, so it would be in nobody’s commercial interest to steal them.

i'm not aligning myself to this notion but...........

Funglegunk

Isn't there some sort of procedure where the boxes are checked at the polling station before voting starts?

oscarBravo

fligedlyflick wrote: »

"Earlier this week Emmett Stagg TD, stated that 600 polling cards had been
received by international residents who are not legally entitled to vote in
the referendum. This compounds suspicions that there are deliberate efforts to alter the result of the Lisbon referendum"

A polling card does not entitle you to vote.

As for it "compounding suspicions", I guess if you're pre-disposed to those sort of suspicions, it doesn't take much to compound them.

Funglegunk wrote: »

Isn't there some sort of procedure where the boxes are checked at the polling station before voting starts?

Yes.

Dinner

fligedlyflick wrote: »

"Earlier this week Emmett Stagg TD, stated that 600 polling cards had been
received by international residents who are not legally entitled to vote in
the referendum. This compounds suspicions that there are deliberate efforts to alter the result of the Lisbon referendum"

A point on this, just because they recieved polling cards doesn't mean they can vote. It's not a 'voting ticket'. If, when they approached the polling clerk, they had a letter beside their name they would not get a ballot paper unless they produced an Irish Passport. The mistake occured when the people who were printing out the polling cards accidently printed out international residents too. All this meant is that some people wasted their time going to the polling station only to be refused a vote.

So it does not 'compound suspicions that there are deliberate efforts to alter the result'. It compounds suspicions that some people don't know how the system works and jump to false conclusions.

Funglegunk wrote: »

Isn't there some sort of procedure where the boxes are checked at the polling station before voting starts?

Polling boxes are not locked when they arrive at the station, nor are they empty. They contain the ballot papers as well as any other equipment needed for the day. When all of that is removed the box is closed and sealed.