Email reply from the Department of Foreign Affairs RE: Lisbon II

steo87

After the results of the second Lisbon Treaty were announced, I sent this email to every TD and member of the Oireachtas, for the craic:

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I have a simple straightforward question to which I demand a simple straightforward answer:

Where was the democracy in the Irish electorate being told to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty?

Please do not ramble on - a straightforward answer is what I want. I expect and demand an answer, as it is I and the rest of the country who pays your wages - in short; you work for us, the people - not the other way around.


I look forward to hearing from you and regards"

I received several replies, however the reply from the Dept. of Foreign Affairs is most interesting:

Dear Mr.

---

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Micheál Martin T.D., has asked me to thank you for your correspondence of 3 October 2009 to the Minister for Justice, Mr. Dermot Ahern T.D., which has been brought to our attention.

The decision to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in October was taken as a result of the successful negotiations at the meeting of the European Council on 18-19 June 2009, where it was confirmed that each Member State would retain a Commissioner and that Ireland would be given legal guarantees and assurances on the main areas of concern to Irish voters last year.

The proposal to amend the Constitution was approved by Dáil Éireann and the Seanad in July, when both Houses voted by overwhelming majorities in favour of the 28th Amendment of the Constitution (Treaty of Lisbon) Bill 2009.

The Supreme Court held, in the recent judgment of Burke v. Attorney General et. al. (22 September 2009) held that "there is nothing in any provision of the Constitution... inhibiting the holding of a second referendum on a proposal to amend the Constitution even if a proposal in the same terms has been rejected in an earlier referendum." I am happy to attach the full text of that decision for your information.

As you know, the people voted in favour of the Constitutional amendment on 2 October by a majority of 67.1% on a turnout of 59%. There were 1,214,268 votes in favour of the proposal. No other European treaty has received as many votes in favour in a referendum here.

Yours sincerely,

_______________

---

Private Secretary "


What are your opinions on this and what do you make of it?
As a No voter on the Lisbon Treaty, I still find this reply to be very thorough and understanding.

MrMicra

I think that your initial letter is extremely rude and that you were lucky to get any response. As for the response itself it is clear succinct accurate and a good deal more than you deserve.

Sully

Where you hiding under a rock during the Lisbon II campaign? There is nothing new or more detailed that has not been discussed on here or during the campaign before.

Also, have to say, your email was a bit of the rude side. Being rude and demanding often will result in no reply - consider yourself lucky they replied and did so in a friendly way.

Bugs the **** out of me when people tell public sector workers that "we pay your wages".

DarkJager

Sully wrote: »

Bugs the **** out of me when people tell public sector workers that "we pay your wages".

Public Sector seems to be more than happy to spout "I teach your kids" etc etc.

Sully

DarkJager wrote: »

Public Sector seems to be more than happy to spout "I teach your kids" etc etc.

Cant say I have noticed that. Teachers get bad press by folk and unfairly so in my opinion. The above statement in the OPs email is often used towards members of the Gardai - its far more common then people getting into an arguement with public sector workers.

leeroybrown

DarkJager wrote: »

Public Sector seems to be more than happy to spout "I teach your kids" etc etc.

...and people from either 'side' who do this are equally ignorant.

Like others above, I think that the tone of the e-mail isn't particularly pleasant and it's content doesn't do much to elicit a meaningful response. I'd suggest that the response given might just be a form letter being sent out for many similar queries.

evercloserunion

Someone in the DFA has the patience of a saint. If I got an email like that you might expect a response telling you to go **** yourself.

Funglegunk

evercloserunion wrote: »

Someone in the DFA has the patience of a saint. If I got an email like that you might expect a response telling you to go **** yourself.

+1 You don't write a letter to someone assuming they will 'ramble on' and so feel the need to pre-correct them. Probably the only reason you got a reply is that they had to answer the same question to many other people, and had it prepared.

Euro_Kraut

That’s an excellent response from the DFA. You can tell the author has skills in diplomacy. The tone is spot on.

OP, you may need to reconsider your writing style. Its great to see people taking an active interest but it is generally not a good idea to be aggressive when sending correspondence. It is not persuasive and it reduces your chance of receiving a reply.

prinz

evercloserunion wrote: »

Someone in the DFA has the patience of a saint.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

That’s an excellent response from the DFA. .

+1, as we have seen from the Sharon Commins case, the one thing we can say about our government/civil service - we've got a world class DFA. It's just a pity other departments can't follow that example.

As for the OP, er yeah. You could have gotten the same answer on here, and no doubt you probably were.

seamus

OP, that's a pretty bizarre letter:

I have a simple straightforward question to which I demand a simple straightforward answer:

A rude statement.

Where was the democracy in the Irish electorate being told to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty?

Followed by a self-answering question

Please do not ramble on - a straightforward answer is what I want. I expect and demand an answer, as it is I and the rest of the country who pays your wages - in short; you work for us, the people - not the other way around.

Followed by an insult.

Someone in the DFA is definitely earning their keep.

Martin 2

[FONT=&quot]Good reply from the DFA; in fact the only thing that was missing from the end of their reply was Q.E.D.[/FONT]

dvpower

Hey. I've just figured out a way to save some public money; Get rid of the civil servants who spend their days writing replies to crank letters.

Rb

What were you trying to accomplish with your tone and attitude presented in that attrocious letter? To make yourself seem big and smart?

Instead of wasting the time of our Government, particularly by spamming them all with the same ill-informed question, how about you do a little research of your own in future? Or perhaps, before ranting at the officials, actually take the time out to catch up with what has actually been going on in the country?

This is nothing new and has been discussed many, many times before. Had the search function been working, I'm sure it could be proved that this second referendum and the reasons behind it were very much a "hot topic" over the past few months and the only people who reject the legitimacy of it are those who believe that the treaty itself is in aid of the Lizard Overlords.

In short; cop yourself on and have some manners when addressing people and perhaps do some level of research before mindlessly attacking those you feel victimised by.
I'll also add, regarding your "I pay you hurr hurr hurr" line, that the money you pay in tax is as likely to go into the pockets of the Government ministers as it is the pockets of Anto the drug dealer who's claiming his e200 per week while pulling in a few grand extra cash through the black market. Just something to consider.

Aidan1

If I got an email like that you might expect a response telling you to go **** yourself.

That was the DFA equivelant of telling the OP to .. y'know. In fact, by their standards, that was quite rude.

By the way, the main difference between the DFA and most other Depts is that they get to take most of their staff in at 3rd Sec, and thus control access to the higher grades that way. Other Depts have being crying out for AOs for 6 years (last proper intake) - large number of promotees in the years 2005-8 have been waiting for a promotion for years, and would never have gotten it had they had any competition. The policy apparatus in several Depts is grinding to a halt as a consequence. Thanks D/Finance!