European freedom

claudiog · 12-06-2008 1:28pm #1

Hello, this is my first post here. I think that I should do a presentation of myself as first post, however the reason that push me to write here is more urgent than a such galateo things, so I will postpone it in a later time.

The reason on why I'm writing today is, as title says, the vote. A right that is only for you dear friends : today less than 4 millions of voters will vote for even 500 millions of europeans.
Yes. This is the kind of "democracy" that the european bureaucrats are going to promote.

Sorry, this post is not fair, not "politically correct" to say something about a vote in the day of polls, nevertheless I am one of the 500 millions of people that has been deprived of one of the most basic rights of the humans: the right to vote.
With evidence, the politicians thinks that we are a great mass of stupid, unable to decide for our own future, unable to understand the "benefits" of a such historic treaty, and the french and the netherlanders so idiots so that their poll has been put in a trash, rearranging what they already had rejected.

I'm not saying what is good and what is bad, I'm saying that every time someone is deprived of his/her right to achieve its own will, therefore to express his/her opinion, we are going back by a step in the history of our civilization.

Thank you for attention (...and please, vote also for me

)

Claudio G.

cornbb · 12-06-2008 1:35pm

claudiog wrote: »

The reason on why I'm writing today is, as title says, the vote. A right that is only for you dear friends : today less than 4 millions of voters will vote for even 500 millions of europeans.

Not true. Any EU government has the power to block the treaty by not ratifying it. If you have a problem with how your country is handling the ratification, take it up with them. Presumably you live in a democracy? Well, exercise your democratic rights and talk to your elected representatives instead of whining about it on the internet.

Edit: sorry if my post comes across as unfriendly. You have a right to express your opinion, I just disagree with it

ixtlan · 12-06-2008 1:37pm

Hi Caludio,

You are one of several citizens of other EU countries asking us to support you by voting no.

While I respect your request, I would suggest that you would achieve far more by protesting in your own country in an attempt to convince your politicians to use referendums.

I assume you are posting here because the public in your own country are not that interested in politics or the Lisbon treaty. It is you who must change this. It's not fair to ask us to vote no in order to raise the issue in your state.

Why have you found it so difficult to convince your public about this? Again I must assume it is because the vast majority are happy (or perhaps just not unhappy) with allowing their government to ratify EU treaties, and presumably they are also happy (or not unhappy) with the progression of the EU over the past few decades.

We may all have opinions on whether referendums are appropriate, but ultimately if the public does not consider it a big issue during their general elections, then that is their choice.

Ix.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 1:37pm

claudiog wrote: »

The reason on why I'm writing today is, as title says, the vote. A right that is only for you dear friends : today less than 4 millions of voters will vote for even 500 millions of europeans.
Yes. This is the kind of "democracy" that the european bureaucrats are going to promote.

Claudio, welcome first of all. I understand you're plight. Myself I support the No side of this argument. However please recognise that today less than 4 million voters will vote fot less than 4 million Irish voters. You're government and other's have cast you're votes rightly or wrongly and that is an issue for you take to take up with your own government. Which again I strongly suggest you do. However we as a nation must vote what we feel is right for us as the E.U requires all nations to happy with the proposed treaty not a public majority. Your input, though I sympathize is out of place at this moment.
Sorry, and welcome again.

FionnMatthew · 12-06-2008 2:00pm

claudiog wrote: »

Sorry, this post is not fair, not "politically correct" to say something about a vote in the day of polls, nevertheless I am one of the 500 millions of people that has been deprived of one of the most basic rights of the humans: the right to vote.

The "right" to vote is not a basic right. It's a pretty sophisticated right, if you look at it properly.

With evidence, the politicians thinks that we are a great mass of stupid, unable to decide for our own future, unable to understand the "benefits" of a such historic treaty

Without very many exceptions, we are.

claudiog · 12-06-2008 2:07pm

Yes, you are right, I admit it, I'm not fair, I've said it. Sorry.

I want only balance who is saying that "the Irish vote is critical for the EU future", implicitly suggesting you to vote Yes.

And more, your guess about the degree of democracy of the government of the other states is ingenuos.
Finally, be prepared, you're vote is *not* for Irish, you're voting for an EU treaty, that involves also many other europeans, which cannot be simply resolved by saying: ask to your government.

Good luck.

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 2:11pm

claudiog wrote: »

Yes, you are right, I admit it, I'm not fair, I've said it. Sorry.

I want only balance who is saying that "the Irish vote is critical for the EU future", implicitly suggesting you to vote Yes.

And more, your guess about the degree of democracy of the government of the other states is ingenuos.
Finally, be prepared, you're vote is *not* for Irish, you're voting for an EU treaty, that involves also many other europeans, which cannot be simply resolved by saying: ask to your government.

Good luck.

No our vote is "for Irish", we are voting whether we want to accept an EU treaty, you have already accepted it.

turgon · 12-06-2008 2:13pm

cornbb wrote: »

Not true. Any EU government has the power to block the treaty by not ratifying it.

And do you really think any of the other ghe Governments are going to reject the treaty after already signing it in Lisbon? Lets all admit it: the ratification processes are a done deal at this point, except for Ireland. So claiming that Claudio G can somehow talk to his government in pulling a u-turn and voting no is expecting a bit much of the representative democratic systems we live under. Representatives are always going to place the wishes of the chief whips above the voices of a handful in their constituency.

Saying that, I still consider this to be an external issue: I would not have voted No on that basis. But if this is the kind of democracy that our EU masters "draw their inspiration from", then the democratic legitimisy of the Union is in question.

But now don't pull the card that the EU doesn't have control over ratification. The EU is composed of 27 governments, each of whom have control over the ratification in their country. As such, the members of the EU, especcially those who actually negotiated the treaty (PM's and the like), do have control over how it is passed, and they could have had referenda.

turgon · 12-06-2008 2:14pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

No our vote is "for Irish", we are voting whether we want to accept an EU treaty, you have already accepted it.

No, you see Call Me Jimmy Claudio's elected representatives have "already accepted it". So have ours. But he hasn't. See post above.

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 2:20pm

Well then he must have a fundamental problem with the democracy in his country, no? Is it that he wants to be able to force referenda on his country whenever he wants?

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 2:20pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

No our vote is "for Irish", we are voting whether we want to accept an EU treaty, you have already accepted it.

THANK YOU! This is the worst tactic both sides are pulling.
It's not a majority vote. It's a unanimous decision based on how each country as a whole votes.

If we pass it, people who oppose it in their own country have to question how much faith they have in their governments not complain about us.

And like wise if we reject it other EU states (and certain french leaders) have to accept we are completely in our right to do so under said process!

This IS and Irish issue. And we must decide what's best for us and then, and only then look at the ramifications due to the rules set out. We are voting for whats best for 4million not 200million.

claudiog · 12-06-2008 2:24pm

Okay, I've talk enough, may be too much.

turgon · 12-06-2008 2:25pm

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Well then he must have a fundamental problem with the democracy in his country, no? Is it that he wants to be able to force referenda on his country whenever he wants?

Oh yeah, what kind of argument are you trying you pull off??? In fairness, come on, as if any other legislation has such an effect on everyone. This is reforming their government, they have a right to say how they are governed. Or do they??????

Classic post. Well done.

craichoe · 12-06-2008 2:25pm

Indeed ...

People advocating a yes vote, say the no voters should think about how we will look to the rest of europe and that we should think of our EU Neighbours

On the other hand they say 'stuff them' when someone mentions that they didnt get a vote

Super

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 2:26pm

No I don't think you're offending anyone (too much

) but you obviously will be met with arguments for what ye say, that's the nature of this here discussion forum!

turgon · 12-06-2008 2:27pm

claudiog wrote: »

Okay, I've talk enough, may be too much.

Yeah claudiog, maybe you right. Some people just don't get it. First their claiming that you did in fact agree with the treaty ("you have already accepted it."), and now their saying the treaty has as small effect as regular legislation. ("able to force referenda on his country whenever he wants").

Call Me Jimmy · 12-06-2008 2:28pm

turgon wrote: »

Oh yeah, what kind of argument are you trying you pull off??? In fairness, come on, as if any other legislation has such an effect on everyone. This is reforming their government, they have a right to say how they are governed. Or do they??????

Classic post. Well done.

Nice attitude! What I'm saying is his problem is with his system and because his system is failing him he thinks that our system is now responsible for his cause? I disagree completely, but hey if talking the way you do makes you feel better then keep it up.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 2:31pm

(Off-topic) It's a shame this is the guy's first impression of posting a topic on boards.

Though I don't agree with voting because of outside influences I do understand why youre upset and probably feel voiceless in this situation. I hope you're opinion of the boards isn't to badly tarnished by an (obviously) opinionated politics section.

turgon · 12-06-2008 2:33pm

This is a classic argument of the pro-Yes side: that the ratification process has nothing to do with the EU. When in fact it is the members of the European Council who decide on their countries ratification procedures. If they really do swear by democracy, then maybe the council should have decided that at least the 15 old states should have referenda.

turgon · 12-06-2008 2:35pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Though I don't agree with voting because of outside influences I do understand why youre upset and probably feel voiceless in this situation. I hope you're opinion of the boards isn't to badly tarnished by an (obviously) opinionated politics section.

Apologies if I come off too militaristic like. I just fundamentally believe that people should have the freedom to decide their form and system of government.

But having said that, the fact that only Eire is have a referendum is not a reason I have voted No.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 2:37pm

turgon wrote: »

This is a classic argument of the pro-Yes side: that the ratification process has nothing to do with the EU. When in fact it is the members of the European Council who decide on their countries ratification procedures. If they really do swear by democracy, then maybe the council should have decided that at least the 15 old states should have referenda.

While that's a fair point, as a fellow No voter I do believe both sides are equally as guilty of using the rest of Europe to influence an Irish vote. It's a shame for them but this vote is about what's best for us.

turgon · 12-06-2008 2:42pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

While that's a fair point, as a fellow No voter I do believe both sides are equally as guilty of using the rest of Europe to influence an Irish vote. It's a shame for them but this vote is about what's best for us.

And I totally agree.

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 2:42pm

craichoe wrote: »

Indeed ...

People advocating a yes vote, say the no voters should think about how we will look to the rest of europe and that we should think of our EU Neighbours

On the other hand they say 'stuff them' when someone mentions that they didnt get a vote

Super

Correction.....some people advocating a Yes vote have said this. Not all.

Shooter, I must say the first few posts were pretty decent. And either way politics is always going to illicit major reaction. While I disagree with Claudio on his point I would strongly encourage him to express it.

So to the OP, don't apologise for bringing the topic up. Its one that is actually a very hot topic here already. We all recognise how fortunate we are that we've been given the opportunity to vote on this. However we have to think of Ireland first before the rest of the EU. Politics is, after all, little more than an expression of self-interest. Don't be put off by peoples reactions here either. We tend to get fired up for these debates but for as argumentative as we may sound we mean absolutely nothing by it on a personal level (generally, but as the ad says "There's always one"). Feel free to jump in with your thoughts and don't shy away from the debate, because believe me we won't!!

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 2:51pm

turgon wrote: »

This is a classic argument of the pro-Yes side: that the ratification process has nothing to do with the EU. When in fact it is the members of the European Council who decide on their countries ratification procedures. If they really do swear by democracy, then maybe the council should have decided that at least the 15 old states should have referenda.

The EU has absolutely no legal right to dictate how a country ratifies a Treaty. It is not the members of the EU Council that decide how we ratify anything. That is built into our legal system and any EU legislation etc has to be voted on according to each member states rules and regulations regarding the issue in question.

At present the Treaties governing the EU are amended only by the Member States agreeing to an amending treaty which must then be approved by the Member States in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. In almost all cases this involves parliamentary approval. In some cases, for example in Ireland, a referendum may be required.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html

The ratification process is a matter for the state and the state alone. The outcome is a matter for the EU. That is why many people are opposed to being told by other nationalities how to vote while at the same time pointing to potential fall-outs if we do vote no. These are two totally unrelated things entirely.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 2:56pm

molloyjh wrote: »

The ratification process is a matter for the state and the state alone. The outcome is a matter for the EU. That is why many people are opposed to being told by other nationalities how to vote while at the same time pointing to potential fall-outs if we do vote no. These are two totally unrelated things entirely.

I totaly agree but wouldn't you say people are also telling said potential fall outs that it's not our concern yet point out how bad we'll look to the rest of the E.U if we do vote no are equally as hypocritical? As i said its 50/50.

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 3:03pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

I totaly agree but wouldn't you say people are also telling said potential fall outs that it's not our concern yet point out how bad we'll look to the rest of the E.U if we do vote no are equally as hypocritical? As i said its 50/50.

Sorry, not sure I follow? Do you mean people who tell other EU countries that the fall-outs are not our concern or the people who tell other EU citiznes that the fact they didn't get to vote is not our concern?

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 3:10pm

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry, not sure I follow? Do you mean people who tell other EU countries that the fall-outs are not our concern or the people who tell other EU citiznes that the fact they didn't get to vote is not our concern?

I mean those that tell other europeans it's not our fault they don't have a vote and we won't vote no because of that but yet one of the reasons they give us to vote yes is the backlash from other E.U states if we vote no. Im not debating the yes/no vote here I'm simply saying that both sides are guilty of using the rest of europe hypocritically to push their agenda....

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 3:15pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

I mean those that tell other europeans it's not our fault they don't have a vote and we won't vote no because of that but yet one of the reasons they give us to vote yes is the backlash from other E.U states if we vote no. Im not debating the yes/no vote here I'm simply saying that both sides are guilty of using the rest of europe hypocritically to push their agenda....

Oh well anyone who refuses to vote no on the basis that someone else in the EU asked them to is as daft as the person who refuses to vote yes because a few politicians started talking about the potential fall-out. Yeah I completely agree with you there. As I've often said before, it doesn't matter what the disagreement is over. There's always eejits on both sides!

turgon · 12-06-2008 3:19pm

molloyjh wrote: »

The EU has absolutely no legal right to dictate how a country ratifies a Treaty. It is not the members of the EU Council that decide how we ratify anything. That is built into our legal system and any EU legislation etc has to be voted on according to each member states rules and regulations regarding the issue in question.

Yeah I know, but you are completely ignoring my argument. I am saying if that the European Council, as heads of Government, wanted to have referenda in each country they could. At the end of the day it is the decision of the head of government how to pass it in their country (except Ireland), and all such heads of government are in the European Council.

It is a distortion to say the the EU and the ratification process are completely separate. Those who have the power to call referenda directly contribute to the EU.

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 3:28pm

turgon wrote: »

Yeah I know, but you are completely ignoring my argument. I am saying if that the European Council, as heads of Government, wanted to have referenda in each country they could. At the end of the day it is the decision of the head of government how to pass it in their country (except Ireland), and all such heads of government are in the European Council.

It is a distortion to say the the EU and the ratification process are completely separate. Those who have the power to call referenda directly contribute to the EU.

Thats totally untrue. The countries constitutions states what a referendum can and can't be used for. No head of Government or Government as a whole can decide whether to have a referedum or not willy nilly. It is all legislated by the countries constitution to protect the rights of the citizen. From what I know Italy for example cannot ratify Treaties via referenda, it is illegal there. Sure if the Government could decide whether or not to have referenda they never have them!

sink · 12-06-2008 3:29pm

The point the yes campaigners are trying to make but somehow missing is that we don't have to deal with electorate of the 26 other countries we do have to deal with their governments. So by default what their governments think is far more important to us than what their electorate thinks. That is if you narrow down your point of view as to what Ireland should get out of it. However civic duty would have us do what is best for all concerned regardless of what their governments think, and in my opinion the treaty is good for all concerned. I am not a fan of referenda on such complex treaties and therefore I accept that other countries prefer to leave it up to their national governments.

turgon · 12-06-2008 3:33pm

Sink, I could interpret what you said as you believing that the Government "knows better", and that the citizens thoughts aren't important. But Im sure I'm misunderstanding your point - democracy is their so that a few elites cannot claim power.

molloyjh. in 2004 a number of countries (France, Netherlands, Spain) had referenda. They could have refernda now. And even if such referenda were illegal they could have a non-legally binding vote to gauge the publics' opinion.

"Sure if the Government could decide whether or not to have referenda they never have them!". That just supports my point.

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 3:40pm

turgon wrote: »

molloyjh. in 2004 a number of countries (France, Netherlands, Spain) had referenda. They could have refernda now. And even if such referenda were illegal they could have a non-legally binding vote to gauge the publics' opinion.

"Sure if the Government could decide whether or not to have referenda they never have them!". That just supports my point.

Those countries had referenda because it wasn't a Treaty that they were voting no and therefore different rules applied. The Governments could have an "illegitimate" referendum to guage public support, but that would mean educating and holding a referendum which costs time and money. Given the level of impacts that the Treaty would have on a day to day basis for the average citizen and given that they would be setting a very dangerous precedent I would hardly deem it worth the effort. Suddenly the precedent is set for any and every decision the Government ever makes. Either way I'm not sure if running a non-leagally binding referendum is itself legal or possible? And even if it is the Government would likely get abuse from certain corners saying "well its not legally binding so whats the point".

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 3:40pm

sink wrote: »

The point the yes campaigners are trying to make but somehow missing is that we don't have to deal with electorate of the 26 other countries we do have to deal with their governments. So by default what their governments think is far more important to us than what their electorate thinks. That is if you narrow down your point of view as to what Ireland should get out of it. However civic duty would have us do what is best for all concerned regardless of what their governments think, and in my opinion the treaty is good for all concerned. I am not a fan of referenda on such complex treaties and therefore I accept that other countries prefer to leave it up to their national governments.

Even so, they need to respect our constitutional right to decide whether we ratify it or not and if not they have to accept we had just as much right to block it as anyone else. THEM'S THE RULES RIGHT?

If they're gonna become like spoilt children cause they don't get what they want that's their problem not ours. It's not our job to cater to outside bullies on either side trying to influence our decision.

turgon · 12-06-2008 3:44pm

molloyjh wrote: »

Those countries had referenda because it wasn't a Treaty that they were voting no and therefore different rules applied. The Governments could have an "illegitimate" referendum to guage public support, but that would mean educating and holding a referendum which costs time and money. Given the level of impacts that the Treaty would have on a day to day basis for the average citizen and given that they would be setting a very dangerous precedent I would hardly deem it worth the effort. Suddenly the precedent is set for any and every decision the Government ever makes. Either way I'm not sure if running a non-leagally binding referendum is itself legal or possible? And even if it is the Government would likely get abuse from certain corners saying "well its not legally binding so whats the point".

Ok, fair enough. I am just saying the for democratic legitimisy, at least in this case considering it is reforming, referenda should have been staged. But I can see why you think not.

sink · 12-06-2008 3:45pm

turgon wrote: »

Sink, I could interpret what you said as you believing that the Government "knows better", and that the citizens thoughts aren't important. But Im sure I'm misunderstanding your point - democracy is their so that a few elites cannot claim power.

The term 'elite' to describe representatives in a democracy is a fallacy. Anyone can become a politician and get elected. I reject the notion that somehow they managed to grab power without the will of the people. The reason I don't like referenda on complex treaties is because the public debate is rarely about the treaty itself. Unfortunately a thousand words of dull, dry legal speak is too boring for most people to think about, even the slimmed down summaries are too boring for some. So instead of voting on the treaty they vote on emotive issues which have nothing to do with the treaty e.g. jobs, abortion, neutrality. The elected representatives on the other hand are generally very interested in politics and are far more likely to put effort into understanding the treaty and it's ramifications, they should be the ones to decide on it in the interests of the people.

turgon · 12-06-2008 3:52pm

sink wrote: »

The term 'elite' to describe representatives in a democracy is a fallacy. Anyone can become a politician and get elected. I reject the notion that somehow they managed to grab power without the will of the people. The reason I don't like referenda on complex treaties is because the public debate is rarely about the treaty itself. Unfortunately a thousand words of dull, dry legal speak is too boring for most people to think about, even the slimmed down summaries are too boring for some. So instead of voting on the treaty they vote on emotive issues which have nothing to do with the treaty e.g. jobs, abortion, neutrality. The elected representatives on the other hand are generally very interested in politics and are far more likely to put effort into understanding the treaty and it's ramifications, they should be the ones to decide on it in the interests of the people.

Yeah I totally see where you are coming from. But just because some (maybe most) are irresponsible doesn't mean that we should all be stripped of the vote. And I think what fraction of the No voters are voting out of ignorance is overrated. Instead of dealing with the concerning issues, it is handy for the Yes side to claim all the No voters were ignorant.

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 3:54pm

turgon wrote: »

Ok, fair enough. I am just saying the for democratic legitimisy, at least in this case considering it is reforming, referenda should have been staged. But I can see why you think not.

There are 2 main reasons (and the little bit of devils advocacy that I'm doing admittedly):
1. Those Governments were elected by their electorate to do numerous things, one of which is negotiate and ratify treaties on their behalf. Its their job to do that. You have to remember that if not for the Crotty case we wouldn't even be voting for this either. So the only reason we are is because somebody somewhere here stood up and was counted. And fair play to him. There is nothing in the world stopping other EU citizens doing the same in their country. But its up to them to do it, and if they don't they can't expect anything more than what they've got. It goes back to the apathy in modern Western democracy really.

2. There are a large number of other, mainly domestic, issues that affect our day to day lives far more than the Lisbon changes would. Things like Health Service reform, Budgets etc. If every citizen should have their say in Lisbon, then why shouldn't they have their say on these other matter too? And if they were to would we ever get anything done?

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 3:59pm

turgon wrote: »

Yeah I totally see where you are coming from. But just because some (maybe most) are irresponsible doesn't mean that we should all be stripped of the vote. And I think what fraction of the No voters are voting out of ignorance is overrated. Instead of dealing with the concerning issues, it is handy for the Yes side to claim all the No voters were ignorant.

While it certainly true that not all No voters are ignorant, it is my experience that are a lot either mis-informed or truly ignorant of the details of the Treaty. I think the No campaign was deliberately misleading and the Yes campaign was nothing short of awful which only served to confuse matters and compund these issues. There is a certain amount of this on the Yes side too obviously. However my concern on that is that this race is going to be a tight one to call and that ignorance could make all the difference one way or another. And thats a sad reflection on our electorate and on our democracy.

oscarBravo · 12-06-2008 3:59pm

turgon wrote: »

Instead of dealing with the concerning issues, it is handy for the Yes side to claim all the No voters were ignorant.

For someone complaining about sweeping generalisations, you're very fond of them.

There's no question that much of the No vote is driven by ignorance; the polls have clearly indicated that. As for dealing with the concerning issues, several posters here have been doing so tirelessly for weeks now. It doesn't seem to be helping.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 4:04pm

molloyjh wrote: »

There are 2 main reasons (and the little bit of devils advocacy that I'm doing admittedly):
1. Those Governments were elected by their electorate to do numerous things, one of which is negotiate and ratify treaties on their behalf. Its their job to do that.

The problem here is ,and I can only speak for Ireland as I'm not versed on the political landscapes of other nations, to reject the current lisbon treaty by selecting our government which without referendum would have been to elect Sinn Fein into power, now I know most people dislike some of their domestic polocies. So should we have to choose between our european preferences or our domestic?
See both solutions have inherent problems.

O'Morris · 12-06-2008 4:04pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's no question that much of the No vote is driven by ignorance; the polls have clearly indicated that.

What polls have indicated that the No vote is driven by ignorance?

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 4:07pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

For someone complaining about sweeping generalisations, you're very fond of them.

There's no question that much of the No vote is driven by ignorance; the polls have clearly indicated that. As for dealing with the concerning issues, several posters here have been doing so tirelessly for weeks now. It doesn't seem to be helping.

It can be said alot of people voting yes have said so because of party affiliation or because europe has been good to us in the past... these points are equally as ignorant are they not?

As for the dealing with the concerning issues I empathize with ya man

but the problem is you can't change them

VoidStarNull · 12-06-2008 4:10pm

O'Morris wrote: »

What polls have indicated that the No vote is driven by ignorance?

The Irish Times/MRBI poll in whch the NO side was ahead, showed that the most commonly cited reason for voting NO (30% of no voters) was lack of knowledge or understanding about what the treaty is about.

molloyjh · 12-06-2008 4:12pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

The problem here is ,and I can only speak for Ireland as I'm not versed on the political landscapes of other nations, to reject the current lisbon treaty by selecting our government which without referendum would have been to elect Sinn Fein into power, now I know most people dislike some of their domestic polocies. So should we have to choose between our european preferences or our domestic?
See both solutions have inherent problems.

Well thats looking at it a bit backwards. I'm assuming that a Government represents the interests of the people (or at least the majority of the people) and therefore has been given the right by the people to speak for them. This does not mean that the Government will always be in agreement with the people on every issue, nor does it mean that the Government are elected on the basis of their stance on every single issue. Your scenario presents the logic that if they are on our side on this issue then surely we are on their side in all issues and if they are against us on this issue they are against us on all, which is inherently inaccurate.

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 4:17pm

molloyjh wrote: »

Well thats looking at it a bit backwards. I'm assuming that a Government represents the interests of the people (or at least the majority of the people) and therefore has been given the right by the people to speak for them. This does not mean that the Government will always be in agreement with the people on every issue, nor does it mean that the Government are elected on the basis of their stance on every single issue. Your scenario presents the logic that if they are on our side on this issue then surely we are on their side in all issues and if they are against us on this issue they are against us on all, which is inherently inaccurate.

I guess hindsight does have it's issues

. I actually think we have a great system better than the rest of Europe in this situation where we elect a government but if they want to do anything against our current constitution they have to ask our acceptance to change it.

oscarBravo · 12-06-2008 4:18pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

It can be said alot of people voting yes have said so because of party affiliation or because europe has been good to us in the past... these points are equally as ignorant are they not?

Not quite. I haven't heard too many people saying "I don't know, so I'm voting 'yes' to be safe." Voting because of party affiliation is more lazy than ignorant, and voting yes because Europe has been good to us is arguably an expression of confidence that this treaty is a continuation of the trend to date, which has worked out well.

I don't accept that either of these is a good reason for voting, but they're marginally better than voting without a clue of the consequences either way.

As for the dealing with the concerning issues I empathize with ya man but the problem is you can't change them

My point would be that they don't need to be changed, because most of the concerns have been shown to be groundless.

claudiog · 12-06-2008 4:27pm

molloyjh wrote: »

There are 2 main reasons (and the little bit of devils advocacy that I'm doing admittedly):
1. Those Governments were elected by their electorate to do numerous things, one of which is negotiate and ratify treaties on their behalf. Its their job to do that. You have to remember that if not for the Crotty case we wouldn't even be voting for this either. So the only reason we are is because somebody somewhere here stood up and was counted. And fair play to him. There is nothing in the world stopping other EU citizens doing the same in their country. But its up to them to do it, and if they don't they can't expect anything more than what they've got. It goes back to the apathy in modern Western democracy really.

2. There are a large number of other, mainly domestic, issues that affect our day to day lives far more than the Lisbon changes would. Things like Health Service reform, Budgets etc. If every citizen should have their say in Lisbon, then why shouldn't they have their say on these other matter too? And if they were to would we ever get anything done?

I think that simple things works better than complex things. To say that making simple laws let people to understand and take a decision, while at the same time are easy to manage, and to catch who attempts to circumvent, or worst violates, the rules.

2. I think that Lisbon do the changes in day to day lives. And yes, the citizens should have the right to say about on all the matter that involves theirselves. Is there no direct democracy in Eire?

ShooterSF · 12-06-2008 4:29pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not quite. I haven't heard too many people saying "I don't know, so I'm voting 'yes' to be safe." Voting because of party affiliation is more lazy than ignorant, and voting yes because Europe has been good to us is arguably an expression of confidence that this treaty is a continuation of the trend to date, which has worked out well.

I don't accept that either of these is a good reason for voting, but they're marginally better than voting without a clue of the consequences either way.

I don't see how either are any less ignorant if you haven't bothered to read up on the issues. Voting yes because something was once good to us is not only ignorant but sheepishly dangerous! (Brings the drug dealer that gives you a first freebie to mind :eek: )

molloyjh · 13-06-2008 9:00am

claudiog wrote: »

I think that simple things works better than complex things. To say that making simple laws let people to understand and take a decision, while at the same time are easy to manage, and to catch who attempts to circumvent, or worst violates, the rules.

2. I think that Lisbon do the changes in day to day lives. And yes, the citizens should have the right to say about on all the matter that involves theirselves. Is there no direct democracy in Eire?

The point that I was trying to make though is that we vote for our politicians (all of us) to represet us and make decisions for us. If we have to ratify everything that they do then they would never get anything done. The Lisbon Treaty will have little to no effect on our day to day lives yet the Budget that the Minister for Finance comes up with every year has huge impacts on our day to day lives. If we're going to vote for something that has very little effect on our lives (Lisbon) why would we not vote for things that have huge impacts on our lives (Budgets, laws etc)? Where does it end?

ShooterSF · 13-06-2008 9:10am

molloyjh wrote: »

The point that I was trying to make though is that we vote for our politicians (all of us) to represet us and make decisions for us. If we have to ratify everything that they do then they would never get anything done. The Lisbon Treaty will have little to no effect on our day to day lives yet the Budget that the Minister for Finance comes up with every year has huge impacts on our day to day lives. If we're going to vote for something that has very little effect on our lives (Lisbon) why would we not vote for things that have huge impacts on our lives (Budgets, laws etc)? Where does it end?

Yes molloyjh but the great thing in this country is no matter what party get's into power it's not just unquestionable power they still answer to the rules set out in our constitution and if they want to change them they have to ask us. I know lisbon wasn't the perfect thing to have a referendum on but it was affecting our constitution and if we let them change the rules without asking us, then to repeat yourself, "Where does it end?"

European freedom

Comments