More annoying Creationism or Lisbon Treaty rejection?

DinoBot

Of most people I spoke to on both camps, the YES voters didn't understand the treaty any better than the NO voters. So I don't think it came down to intelligence but rather what politicians they believed.

FF/FG voters voted yes while follows of other parties voted no.
Green party voters were split on this I think.

Dades

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

+1 Others in the past included Ceasar and Nero.

Let's not forget Pope Innocent III !

Tim Robbins

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

+1 Others in the past included Ceasar and Nero.

We also had a President of European Parliment, his name was Pat Cox. an Irish man. Didn't kill anyone, probably doesn't buy the creationist nonsense either.

Run_to_da_hills

Dades wrote: »

Let's not forget Pope Innocent III !

All popes are dictators and are false representatives of Christ.

Vicarius Fili Dei = substitute son of God = 666 added up in Latin numerals.

It would not surprise me in the least if Pope Benedict supported the Lisbon treaty.

robindch

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It would not surprise me in the least if Pope Benedict supported the Lisbon treaty.

Turns out that he did, more or less:

El Pope wrote:

Last September, I made a visit to Austria, partly in order to underline the essential contribution that the Catholic Church is able and willing to give to European unification. On the subject of Europe, I would like to assure you that I am following attentively the new phase which began with the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon. This step gives a boost to the process of building the "European home", which "will be a good place to live for everyone only if it is built on a solid cultural and moral foundation of common values drawn from our history and our traditions"

Must be microchipped too.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Turns out that he did, more or less:Must be microchipped too.

Aren't we all?

MrP

Schuhart

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Referendums should be kept for single-issue question: Abortions, Divorce, etc, not for complicated legal documents that most non-lawyers have difficulty understanding.

Bear in mind that the reason that referendums are needed is because of a Supreme Court majority decision in 1987. The crux of the matter is

The State's organs cannot contract to exercise in a particular procedure their policy-making roles or in any way to fetter powers bestowed unfettered by the Constitution. They are the guardians of these powers -not the disposers of them.

Hence, what’s an issue is not whether or not a particular treaty is complex. It’s whether it involved the State giving away powers that we have given it.

If the deciding factor in holding a referendum was whether or not the material was easily understood, then there would clearly be no incentive for the Government to propose coherent amendments. All they’d need to do is make something as complicated and obscure as possible so they can say ‘sorry, you only get to see the Topsy and Tim stuff, this is far too difficult for you’.

So, if you reflect on it, the ‘complexity’ argument for depriving people of a vote where their Constitutional rights are at issue actually doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

robindch wrote: »

Given that the result was most likely carried by people who didn't understand what they were voting on, it's hard to disagree with that.

It might not be quite so pat. Effectively, a referendum amounts to the State saying to the people ‘we want a mandate from you to do this’. If the people don’t understand what the mandate is for, then it would seem reasonable for them to refuse to give it until the State makes its purpose clear.

I’d suggest, when you look at the landscape, the puzzle is not why we put the matter to a referendum. There is a very understandable constitutional reason why a mandate is needed, explained very clearly in language anyone can follow in the majority opinion contained in the Crotty judgement linked above. The puzzle is how every other EU electorate apparently allows its government to decide what their rights are.

robindch wrote: »

That said, we don't live in a real democracy anyway, but a rather wayward country cousin called a representative democracy -- democracy by proxy -- and it would perhaps help the debate if the electorate understood this, and how it compares against the full democracy that many people incorrectly believe they live in.

I’m not sure that this is actually relevant in this context, as our representative democracy acts within the scope set for it by the Constitution. Brian Cowen can’t decide to give one to your missus and, if you protest, say ‘hey, I’m the people’s representative’. But, for the sake of argument, he can lead a Government that proposes to the Dáil that (subject to the necessary rules) a certain portion of your income be taken to fund certain services. He can do that because the Constitution says he can.

The relevance in the current context is he cannot say to the Irish people ‘I honestly couldn’t be arsed deciding what laws should apply. I’ll just let the EU do it for us’. Nor, in the exact current context, can he say ‘You know when I asked you to mandate us allowing the EU to decide laws in specific areas subject to us having certain number of votes in the European Council? Well, I’ve decided off my own bat to let them reduce the number of votes we get and to increase the situations where we’ll accept majority votes. I guessed you wouldn’t mind, because all the Government TDs in the Dáil agree with me.’

DinoBot wrote: »

Of most people I spoke to on both camps, the YES voters didn't understand the treaty any better than the NO voters. So I don't think it came down to intelligence but rather what politicians they believed.

I think you've made the crucial point. I'm sure we all appreciate that a particular individual could have solid reasons for voting either yes or no. Similarly, a person could have silly reasons for voting yes or no. In isolation, the fact of a no vote doesn't mean that the wrong decision was made, and equally in isolation is not a reason for saying that referendums are a bad idea in principle (leaving aside for a moment the unavoidable reality that a referendum was simply a clear legal obligation, regardless of whether the treaty was written in Swahili).

In fact, if the argument is that people were persuaded by fatuous arguments from No campaigners, the first port of call is surely to ask why Yes campaigners were unable to refute those fatuous arguments. I mean, the No campaign was a collection of marginal lobby groups and parties. The Yes campaign consisted of almost our entire mainstream political establishment. And can I suggest that if we rush to excuse the Yes campaign by saying 'oh, but the treaty is so complicated we could never explain it' that we are uncritically taking their spin at face value.

If the primary issue is that the EU cannot effectively make decisions with present structures, could they not have given a few concrete examples of where this has impacted us? Or would that have meant they'd potentially be saying things like 'sure we can't get progress on the WTO because of the way farmers want to cling to their subsidies'? Or would they be saying 'the EU needs to be sending troops into far more international trouble spots, but we need a more co-ordinated foreign policy to make that happen'?

I'm picking deliberately inflamatory examples. But that's to illustrate the vacuity of this 'its all so difficult' argument that we are accepting so readily. As someone already said on this thread, the treaty cannot be simultaneously a few technical changes that need not worry us and an absolute calamity if its not passed. I developed a serious chip about the No campaign when the 'Save the Valentia Island radio station' campaign jumped on the bandwagon. But lets not suspend our critical faculties because the No side was full of nutters and sectional interests. The Yes campaign did not set out a coherent case for a mandate, and one can only speculate that this is because they were afraid of explaining what the treaty was actually about.

Gratuitous Atheistic Comment to make it look like this thread belongs in this Forum
Get a load of that Pope. Boo. Hiss.

PDN

I was listening to a lawyer who specialises in European Union law on Newstalk the other day. He said this whole mess should be easy enough to fix.

Apparently the only items in Lisbon that affected our Constitution were in respect to energy and global warming. Everything else could have been ratified by the Dail.

Therefore they should cobble together Lisbon II with the energy and global warming components as an optional add on or opt out, like joining the euro was. The bulk of Lisbon II then can be ratified by all the nations (better give it a different name to keep the whining to a minimum). If the 'No' camp was really telling the truth about abortion, conscription, capital punishment etc (a huge if, I know, but let's indulge them) then as soon as the EU tried to enforce such things our Supreme court would rule them unconstitutional since they were never amended by referendum. If the 'No' camp was lying then we have nothing to worry about anyway.

The energy and global warming components could then be put to the populace as a referendum. It would be difficult to see even the stupidest electorate rejecting a referendum that was obviously beneficial to the environment, or indeed any political party or movement opposing a 'green' referendum.

JC 2K3

PDN wrote: »

Apparently the only items in Lisbon that affected our Constitution were in respect to energy and global warming. Everything else could have been ratified by the Dail.

Sounds like bs to me. Any significant EU treaty has to be ratified by means of referendum. And what about the fact that it gives more power to a centralised Europe and lessens our voting power? Or that it obligates us to more military spending? Or that it creates uniform European Intellectual Property rights? I can't see how energy and global warming can possibly be the only things to affect our constitution.

Run_to_da_hills

No doubt these leaders will come back to haunt us with the global warming carrot. I would rather put on an extra layers of sun block than put up with euro fascism.

Dades

I was listening to Newstalk and thinking about this in the shower this morning... (tmi - I know!)

Obviously there were changes required to the constitution, otherwise a referendum would not have been required. I seem to recall in previous referendums the voting slip offered the alternative texts to the relevant constitutional provision - but in this instance only a YES or NO option was displayed.

Would displaying the actual changes to the constitution have made it more difficult for certain NO campaigners to justify outlandish fears?

PDN wrote:

Apparently the only items in Lisbon that affected our Constitution were in respect to energy and global warming. Everything else could have been ratified by the Dail.

If this is true (and I'm not disputing it), how come the gov didn't simply run the referendum on the articles affected by this, and ratify the treaty themselves?

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

I was listening to Newstalk and thinking about this in the shower this morning... (tmi - I know!)

Obviously there were changes required to the constitution, otherwise a referendum would not have been required. I seem to recall in previous referendums the voting slip offered the alternative texts to the relevant constitutional provision - but in this instance only a YES or NO option was displayed.

Would displaying the actual changes to the constitution have made it more difficult for certain NO campaigners to justify outlandish fears?

If this is true (and I'm not disputing it), how come the gov didn't simply run the referendum on the articles affected by this, and ratify the treaty themselves?

A logical way forward would be to break the Lisbon treaty into 20 or so different yes or no questions.
1. Do you agree with changes to Energy policy proposed in Lisbon?
2. Do you agree with changes proposed to the commission in Lisbon?
... etc.

It would mean that the government would be in a position to negotiate opt out clauses as it would mean the government would know exactly what the problem people had with the treaty.

The big issue is that the government hasn't a clue where to negotiate an opt out clause. This is because the only no groups that felt strong enough to organise into groups to articulate their objections all contradict each other or are just expecting idealistic revolutions which are completly non-viable.

Run_to_da_hills

The only logical way forward would be hold a referendum in ALL 27 member states.

The way they are going about it in the 26 non referendum states is nothing short of a dictatorship.

Dave!

Yes, a dictatorship where the people elect the government

Tim Robbins

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The only logical way forward would be hold a referendum in ALL 27 member states.

The way they are going about it in the 26 non referendum states is nothing short of a dictatorship.

This is why I started this thread, I see about as much thought in that argument as there is "there's gaps in the fossil records".

An Fear Aniar

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is why I started this thread, I see about as much thought in that argument as there is "there's gaps in the fossil records".

Why. because you know better than the people, commisar?



.

Tim Robbins

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Why. because you know better than the people, commisar?
.

No it's because I have a morgage and I work in a very volatile industry.
I also have values. I believe in the family unit, workers rights, a welfare state and the enviroment.

I realise the importance of the EU and people who stick their head in their sand and can't come up with intelligent reasons for blocking progress irritate me.

The people may have spoken. But the problem is they only spoke one word 'no'. They cannot offer anything constructive to progess things and it is largely up to the yes people to figure out a way to progress things.

An Fear Aniar

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No it's because I have a morgage and I work in a very volatile industry.
I also have values. I believe in the family unit, workers rights, a welfare state and the enviroment.

I realise the important of the EU and people who stick their head in their sand and can't come up with intelligent reasons for blocking progress irritate me.

The people may have spoken. But the problem is they only spoke one word 'no'. They cannot offer anything constructive to progess things and it is largely up to the yes people to figure out a way to progress things.

You just can't accept it when other people disagree with you.

That's the problem, isn't it?


.

robindch

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You just can't accept it when other people disagree with you.

Just a comment -- if you're here to contribute rather than soundbite, then you'd come across better if you added some content to your posts.

Tim Robbins

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

You just can't accept it when other people disagree with you.
That's the problem, isn't it?
.

If it has a major effect on my life, no I can't. Unless they can give an intelligent reason. I was very lucky to hang onto my job the last downturn in the tech sector and I really don't want another one.

Cactus Col

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is why I started this thread, I see about as much thought in that argument as there is "there's gaps in the fossil records".

That's a bit unfair though.
I had fully intended to vote yes for the European Constitution a few years ago. However, when the constitution was mixed about a bit, and essentially rebranded the "Lisbon Treaty" I could not in all good conscience vote a yes. Not in the knowledge that holland and france have already voted no.

Now, I know the party line for the pro treaty side is to say that these nations voted in the parliaments that ratified the treaty. And in doing so, backed their stance on Europe. It's a defence that completely every other factor that may contribute to an election.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The people may have spoken. But the problem is they only spoke one word 'no'. They cannot offer anything constructive to progess things and it is largely up to the yes people to figure out a way to progress things.

The people only say 'no' because that is all they are allowed to say.

I said no because of the above reason, I do think that at least holland and France should have had a referendum, giving those people's that already said no a chance.

But of course they could not be trusted to give the correct answer.

I said no because how badly the yes campaign was run. I did not like the implication that we owed europe for our prosperity and that we should just say yes.

Charley McGreevy saying ireland would be a laughing stock if we voted no certainly did not push me over to the yes side.


The govt should have been campaigning for this at least since january. But no, they left it to the last moment and basically told us to "vote yes, or else."

Probably the worst thing of all is that the govt (and yes side) did a terrible job of providing even the most basic of information about the treaty and the benefits of a yes vote.
You may argue that it's up to the citizen to educate himself or herself about the issue at hand, and, to a degree, I agree. However I do think the govt is duty bound to provide people with as much information as possible in the run up to a referendum. And I think they failed in their duty.

I'm actually angry, as I'm sure you are Tim Robbins, with how badly the yes campaign was handled. More than any other reason I think this is why the treaty failed. The more I think of it the angrier I get. So I'll stop here.

WooPeeA

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Some of the reasons for No are more annoying than anything I have heard for creationism. I am gutted about Friday and need to let off some steam. Here of some examples of some of the stupidest arguments I have heard in recent weeks...

Great post Tim, I agree with you here.

The bad thing for Ireland is the fact that it's not the first time when Ireland was the only country that blocked a treaty.

If you remember well, Ireland also was the only country that rejected Treaty of Nice.. Finally they accepted it but it cost rest of countries lots of money, time and nerves. Now, not that long after Treaty of Nice, they rejected another treaty, Treaty of Lisbon..

Martin Schulz, chief of one of the fractions in European Parlaiment said that if Ireland will not find any solution for that, they should be kicked out of European community. He's supported by Guenter Verheugen, Commissioner of Enterprise (powerful man in Brussels).

robindch

Cactus Col wrote: »

However, when the constitution was mixed about a bit, and essentially rebranded the "Lisbon Treaty" I could not in all good conscience vote a yes. Not in the knowledge that holland and france have already voted no.

Are you French or Dutch? If not, then why did you allow the opinion of the voters of other countries for other legal documents affect your voting for this one? That's as useful as refusing to vote for Finland's Eurovision entry because France didn't.

Cactus Col wrote: »

I said no because how badly the yes campaign was run.

Next time something comes up in a referendum, the public need to have it explained to them in dayglo letters fifteen feet high that they are voting on the topic of the referendum and nothing else. They're not voting on the performance, or otherwise, of the ruling political party. They're not voting on how well or badly the campaign was run. They're not voting according to how France or Holland voted on some issue internal to them and especially, they're not voting on whether the local hospital should stay open or not. They are voting on the issue -- frightfully dry and all as it may be -- that's the subject of the Referendum Commission's document that just about every house in the country received.

If people can't understand this fairly simple idea, and instead cast their votes according to criteria which are essentially entirely random and unconnected with the subject of the referendum, then their votes are subverting the electoral system of democracy/representative democracy that exist in this country.

.

Cactus Col

robindch wrote: »

Are you French or Dutch? If not, then why did you allow the opinion of the voters of other countries for other legal documents affect your voting for this one?
That's as useful as refusing to vote for Finland's Eurovision entry because France didn't.

I may not be French or Dutch, but in this case I am a European citizen, voting on a treaty which would not only me, but the French, the Dutch, the British, and every other person belonging to a member country of the EU.
It wouldn't be fair for only people in Louth to have a say on issues that would affect the whole of Ireland.

That eurovision analogy was a terrible one.

robindch wrote: »

If people can't understand this fairly simple idea, and instead cast their votes according to criteria which are essentially entirely random and unconnected with the subject of the referendum, then their votes are subverting the electoral system of democracy/representative democracy that exist in this country.

.

just about every house? I certainly didn't see one. But then I did visit their website a few times.
Seeing as the Dail and Seaned would have had a greater say in european matters, consideration of the performance of the Ruling Party should have been an essential element of everybody's decision making process here.

JC 2K3

robindch wrote: »

Are you French or Dutch? If not, then why did you allow the opinion of the voters of other countries for other legal documents affect your voting for this one?

Ok, maybe this isn't your personal opinion, but what I get from that quote in the context of what other members of the Yes side have been saying is it's ok to vote yes so that we don't hold back 450 million Europeons, and so that we give something back to the people of Europe after years of reaping the benefits of the EU, however, it's not ok to vote no based on anti-treaty feelings shared by many of these 450 million people.

Tim Robbins

Cactus Col wrote: »

I said no because how badly the yes campaign was run. I did not like the implication that we owed europe for our prosperity and that we should just say yes.

You are not voting on the campaign, you are voting on whether to keep us in the Europe on the basis of Lisbon or to throw us into No man's land, with no obvious way forward.

The govt should have been campaigning for this at least since january. But no, they left it to the last moment and basically told us to "vote yes, or else."

Agree they got tactics wrong. But intelligent people shouldn't need all that.
The idea of only being allowed to vote when you are 18 is the assumption that you can make intelligent decisions and know the issues.

I'm actually angry, as I'm sure you are Tim Robbins, with how badly the yes campaign was handled. More than any other reason I think this is why the treaty failed. The more I think of it the angrier I get. So I'll stop here.

Well you voted no, so you should take some responsibility as well. One minute you give a clear reason which has nothing to do with our government . Next you blame our government for the no vote.

It is these types of logical inconsistencies someone like me is finding very frustrating. Our country is in a mess right now.

Tim Robbins

WooPeeA wrote: »

Great post Tim, I agree with you here.

The very bad thing is that we are getting no intelligent suggestions from the no camp how to move forward. They just expect some sort of magic wand from the people they don't even trust and gave as their reason for the no vote. It really is ridiculous. The Irish Times, is generally an intelligent newspaper. Therefore the reasons from no voters, in that paper should be from the more intelligent of the no voters out there.

Today, in the letters' page, one voter voted no because he can't get broadband, another voted no because there was no mention of God in it.

Irish Times Letter wrote:

Madam, - The EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty studiously omits any reference to God or Europe's Christian history and heritage from its preamble.

I, for one, had no choice but to vote No. - Yours, etc,

PATRICIA O'BRIEN, Sarto Road, Bayside, Dublin 13.

and

Irish Times Letter wrote:

Madam, - I voted against Lisbon - not because I am a working-class malcontent or a supporter of Sinn Féin, nor because I didn't understand the treaty. And I welcome all the diversity our new immigrants have brought to our country.

I voted No because I hate being ignored by an arrogant government. Although I was a student in the 1960s in the UK, I was never on a protest march until 2001 in Dublin against the Iraq war. Our "precious neutrality" meant that people could be subjected to extraordinary rendition through Shannon before the blind eye of the Irish government and planes carrying armed military personnel could be refuelled there.

The Government insists we pay up to 40 per cent more for a car in a country with a deplorable public transport system, the money supposedly going to a maladministered health system. The EU, with all our best interests at heart, tuns a blind eye.

Broadband coverage is about 25 per cent. In Korea it is 76 per cent. We are told we have a technologically advanced economy yet I live 18 miles from Leinster House and cannot get broadband. Need I say more?

Charles de Gaulle's idea was to create a trading group of countries that would be kept occupied and distracted from their natural bellicosity. He did not intend that little countries such as Ireland should be subsumed into a great, unwieldy, self-serving quagmire. - Yours, etc,

MURIEL JONES, Kilmurray, Bray, Co Wicklow.

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Ok, maybe this isn't your personal opinion, but what I get from that quote in the context of what other members of the Yes side have been saying is it's ok to vote yes so that we don't hold back 450 million Europeons, and so that we give something back to the people of Europe after years of reaping the benefits of the EU, however, it's not ok to vote no based on anti-treaty feelings shared by many of these 450 million people.

That is just ridiculously naive. You need to factor in that many people who are protesting about the treaty don't understand the treaty and are actually misplacing their protests.

Until we find a way of doing that, these referenda are actually useless.

70% of no voters say they thought it would be easy to get another treaty to vote on. Do you think that's a good understanding?

Dades

Irish Times Letter wrote:

Madam, - The EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty studiously omits any reference to God or Europe's Christian history and heritage from its preamble.

I, for one, had no choice but to vote No. - Yours, etc,

PATRICIA O'BRIEN, Sarto Road, Bayside, Dublin 13.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The Rules of the Road also studiously omit any reference to God. I wonder if she has no choice but to ignore them too. :pac:

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The Rules of the Road also studiously omit any reference to God. I wonder if she has no choice but to ignore them too. :pac:

You should send that into the IT.