The Economist Magazine's Article About The No Vote & Reaction of the EU

Dinxminx

Just Bury It.

It is time to accept that the Lisbon Treaty is dead. The European Union can get along well enough without it.

Voters have once again shot an arrow into the heart of a European Union treaty.
This time it was the Irish, who voted no to the Lisbon treaty on June 12th by 53-47% on a high turnout. They follow the French and Dutch, who rejected Lisbon's predecessor, the EU constitution, in 2005. In 2001 the Irish also turned down the Nice treaty, but the Danes started this game when they voted against the Maastricht treaty in 1992.

Europe's political leaders react to these unwelcome expressions of popular will in three depressingly familiar stages. First they declare portentously that the European club is in deep "crisis" and unable to function. Next, even though treaties have to be ratified by all members to take effect, they put the onus of finding a solution on the country that has said no. Last, they start to hint that the voters in question should think again, and threaten that a second rejection may force the recalcitrant country to leave the EU. The sole exception to this three-stage process was the Franco-Dutch no in 2005. Then, after two years of debate the politicians hit on the cynical wheeze of writing the constitution's main elements into the incomprehensible Lisbon treaty, with the deliberate aim of avoiding the need to consult Europe's voters directly again.

Now the Irish, the only people in the EU to be offered a referendum on Lisbon, have shot down even this wheeze. And as EU leaders gathered for a Brussels summit, after The Economist went to press, most had duly embarked on their usual three-stage reaction, all the while promising to "respect" the outcome of the Irish referendum - by which they mean to look or a way around it. Some may have had the gall to argue, with a straight face, that Lisbon must be brought into effect despite the Irish no because it will make the EU more democratic. This is Brussels' equivalent of a doctor saying that the operation was a success, but the patient died. In truth, it is the Lisbon treaty that should be allowed to die.


Democracy and efficiency don't always go together.
Every part of EU leaders' three-stage response is wrong-headed. The Irish rejection of the treaty is a setback, certainly. But in the days after the vote, the Brussels machinery has acted normally, approving mergers, looking into state-aid cases, holding meetings and passing directives. The claim that an expanded EU of 27 countries cannot function without Lisbon is simply not true. Indeed, several academic studies have found that the enlarged EU has worked more efficiently than before. Besides, it is not always desirable to speed up decision making; democracy usually operates by slowing it down. Many of the institutional reforms in the Lisbon treaty would not have taken effect until 2014 or 2017 in any case.

Nor is it right to treat the outcome as a problem for Ireland alone, still less to start talking of making the Irish vote again. As it happens, a case can be made that EU treaties are too complex to be readily susceptible to a simple yes/no vote. But eleven EU governments grandly promised such referendums on the constitution, and ten of them have been dishonest in pretending that Lisbon is a wholly different document. The Irish constitution requires a vote on any treaty that transfers any power at all to the European level. Even if one believes that referendums are not always desirable, it is both stupefyingly arrogant and anti-democratic to refuse to take no for an answer. Just what kind of democracy is being practiced by the EU when the only outcome of a vote that is ever acceptable to Brussels is a yes?

A mess of pottage.
It is not as if the Lisbon treaty is such a wonderful text. Besides being incomprehensible, it was - as so many EU treaties are - a messy compromise. And, like the constitution, it failed to meet the objectives laid down by an EU summit in Laeken almost seven years ago. The broad aims then were to clarify the EU's distribution of powers, with an eye to handing more of them back to national parliaments; and to simplify the rules so as to make the EU more transparent and bring it closer to its citizens. Nobody could pretend that Lisbon fulfills these goals.

This is not to say that everything in the treaty is bad. It would have improved the institutional machinery in Brussels, sorted out a muddle in foreign-policy making and brought in a fairer system of voting by EU members. But these are not the sorts of changes to set voters alight. And in truth, few EU governments or institutions, are genuine enthusiasts for the treaty as such (Germany, which would gain voting weight, and the European Parliament, which would win extra powers, are two exceptions). Most simply wanted to get it out of the way and move onto issues more interesting than the institutional navel-gazing that has preoccupied the EU for too long.

After the Irish no, that is precisely what they should now do. The treaty should be buried so that the EU can focus on more urgent matters, such as energy, climate change, immigration, dealing with Russia and the EU's own expansion. It is disingenuous to claim, as some do, that without Lisbon no further enlargement is possible. Each applicant needs an accession treaty that can include the institutional changes, such as new voting weights or extra parliamentary seats.

Needless to say, many of Europe's leaders will instead look for ingenious ways to ignore or reverse the Irish decision. But to come up with a few declarations or protocols and ask the Irish to vote again would not just be contemptuous of democracy: the turnout and margin of defeat also suggest that it might fail. Nor can Ireland, legally or morally, be excluded from the EU. Attempts by die-hards to forge a core group of countries that builds a United States of Europe would also founder because, outside Belgium and Luxembourg, there is no longer a serious appetite for a Federal Europe.

Ireland is a small country, to be sure. But the EU is an inter-governmental organisation that needs to be conscientious to proceed. It is bogus to claim that one million voters are thwarting the will of 495 million Europeans by blocking this treaty. Referendums would have been lost in many other countries had their people been given a say. Voters have thrice said no to this mess of pottage. It is time their verdict was respected.

End.


*****

Personally I agree that the EU are being unfair by using the vote-again-and-this-time-do-it-right tactic. I don't think the treaty was all bad and I didn't actually vote (I was out of the country), but the way the EU are reacting to Ireland's decision is fairly patronizing.

Sorry about the no-opinion thing. It's been a while since I've signed into Boards...

ixtlan

Dinxminx wrote: »

The treaty should be buried so that the EU can focus on more urgent matters, such as energy, climate change, immigration, dealing with Russia and the EU's own expansion.

Hmmm, interesting viewpoint, but it was through Lisbon that these urgent matters were going to be tackled.

Currently, energy is not a matter under QMV control so the EU cannot come to any co-ordinated response. Any country can do whatever they want.

Currently as far as I am aware there is no EU treaty statement that says anything about climate change. Lisbon was going to introduce that so that any EU policies would have to take that into account. Now we can continue to ignore the issue if it suits us.

Lisbon was going to put some immigration issues under QMV (although Ireland opted out) so again there will not be a properly co-ordinated response.

Dealing with Russia is not going to be helped by the lack of a common foreign policy position (where there was unanimous agreement).

All these things can still be worked on with the existing EU, but it was going to be easier under Lisbon when countries had to find a consensus. Now everyone can do what they want if they really think it's in their own best interest.

Ix.

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

Dealing with Russia is not going to be helped by the lack of a common foreign policy position (where there was unanimous agreement).

Indeed:

Negotiations on a new pact between the European Union and Russia risk being complicated by the confusion surrounding the adoption of the Lisbon reform treaty, according to Moscow’s ambassador to the EU.

“I sincerely wish our EU partners find a way out of yet another impasse,” Vladimir Chizhov told the Financial Times. “Above all, we’re not gloating. It’s not entirely a sign of the EU’s strength, of course, but we’ll be closely following developments.”

"Above all, we're not gloating." Lovely.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Moriarty

Dinxminx: You have 24 hours to provide an opinion on the piece. Please read the charter before posting in this forum again.

Going off on a tangent: isn't it most coincidental that excellent articles seem to only ever coincide directly with the original poster's beliefs?

PH01

Could someone point to a pro-EU articles from the Economist for balance?

nesf

Moriarty wrote: »

Going off on a tangent: isn't it most coincidental that excellent articles seem to only ever coincide directly with the original poster's beliefs?

I've been linking to plenty of good articles for the No side. I'm hoping it'll raise the quality of the debate...

PH01 wrote: »

Could someone point to a pro-EU articles from the Economist for balance?

Define pro-EU. The Economist basically applauds the EU for measures it agrees with and publishes articles like the above (and many similar since the Irish result) when it thinks the EU, or more accurately, EU leaders are being unfair/unreasonable/whatever. As a paper it strikes a decent balance, neither Euro-sceptic nor blindly pro-EU.

auerillo

The reaction to the democratic vote ( democratic - think about that) has been interesting.

Ireland’s ingratitude. ‘We think it is a real cheek that the country that has benefited most from the EU should do this,’ said Axel Schäfer, SPD leader in the Bundestag.

Others moaned that the little countries were getting uppity. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of the Euro-Greens, snarled: ‘It is not truly democratic that less than a million people can decide the fate of nearly half a billion Europeans.’ Spot on, Danny. So how about letting the other half-billion have referendums, too?

Then there were the attempts to claim that the Irish had misunderstood the question. The Vice-President of the Commission, Margot Wallström, plans to run some Eurobarometer opinion polls to find out what the Irish were really voting against. Let me help you with that one, Margot: they were voting against the Lisbon Treaty. The giveaway was the ballot paper, which asked people whether they wanted to amend the constitution so as to, you know, ratify the Lisbon Treaty.

Favourite was the reaction by the President of the European Parliament, the amiable Hans-Gert Pöttering. ‘The ratification process must continue,’ he declared, because ‘the reform of the European Union is important for citizens, for democracy and for transparency.’ Got that? The reason the EU is tossing aside the democratic verdict of the Irish people is for democracy.

The EU’s leaders, having given up on persuading their electorates, seek compliance rather than consent, acquiescence rather than approval.

What happens next? First, there will be an attempt to bully Ireland into falling in line. Ratification will go ahead everywhere else in the hope that the Irish will obligingly lie down. When this fails — and, as an Irish friend put it to me during the campaign, ‘sure we didn’t fight off the might of the British empire just to be bossed about by the Belgians’ — the EU will simply implement the Lisbon Treaty.

The leaders of the EU, in short, have resolved never again to consult their peoples. Public opinion, in their eyes, is an obstacle to overcome, not a reason to change direction. See whether I’m proved right. And then tell me whether my parallel with the apparatchiks is far-fetched.

With apologies to Daniel Hannan, MEP.

Scofflaw

The Irish vote was democratic, for Ireland. We apparently don't want the Lisbon Treaty (in some cases apparently because we don't know enough about it).

Extending that to "and so no-one else in Europe can have it either" is not an exercise in democracy at all. It is an attempt to enforce the Irish vote on the rest of Europe - naturally applauded by those who would like that, naturally decried by those who don't. Either way, it is an attempt to impose the decision of a tiny number of Europeans on the rest of Europe - exactly what is 'opposed' by the No side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Irish vote was democratic, for Ireland. We apparently don't want the Lisbon Treaty (in some cases apparently because we don't know enough about it).

Extending that to "and so no-one else in Europe can have it either" is not an exercise in democracy at all. It is an attempt to enforce the Irish vote on the rest of Europe - naturally applauded by those who would like that, naturally decried by those who don't. Either way, it is an attempt to impose the decision of a tiny number of Europeans on the rest of Europe - exactly what is 'opposed' by the No side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The problem with wondering about what the rest of the EU citizens want is we simply don't know. We know what the politicians want, but not what the citizens want. So how about letting the other half-billion have referendums, too, so we can know beyond any doubt?

To say

Scofflaw wrote: »

...We apparently don't want the Lisbon Treaty (in some cases apparently because we don't know enough about it)...



cordially,
Scofflaw

simply conjectures why you think you know why the Irish voted as they did. The Irish voted that they did not want the Lisbon treaty. Full stop. To tell the Irish they "apparently didn't know enough about it" is patronising.

CtrlSource

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Irish vote was democratic, for Ireland. We apparently don't want the Lisbon Treaty (in some cases apparently because we don't know enough about it).

Extending that to "and so no-one else in Europe can have it either" is not an exercise in democracy at all. It is an attempt to enforce the Irish vote on the rest of Europe - naturally applauded by those who would like that, naturally decried by those who don't. Either way, it is an attempt to impose the decision of a tiny number of Europeans on the rest of Europe - exactly what is 'opposed' by the No side.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Do you understand what democracy is? You seem to just be restating your general disapproval of the outcome of our referendum without offering any solutions or adding anything to the debate.

Nobody is trying to enforce the will of a "tiny" number (1.5 million odd) of Europeans on the rest of the Union. We were asked specifically to vote on the proposed amendment to our Constitution. i did not like parts of the Treaty. i did not like the process by which it was brought forward (the way the draft Constitution was written into it) and i certainly dont like the direction that some countries are trying to force the EU to move in. i voted No. Simple. The rules say 27 ratify it or it doesn't come into force. If you want to change the rules now, then i suggest you approach your local MEP!

How many tiny millions of Europeans voting No would it take to satisfy you that it should be abandoned? Would you favour referenda in all countries to make it more democratic?

There are plenty of good reasons why the EU exists and should continue to, with us as members. The Lisbon Treaty isn't one of them

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

The problem with wondering about what the rest of the EU citizens want is we simply don't know. We know what the politicians want, but not what the citizens want. So how about letting the other half-billion have referendums, too, so we can know beyond any doubt?

Why? They have their constitutions, we have ours. If they want referendums, let them ask for them. Thus far, they have been conspicuously silent (bar the usual suspects).

auerillo wrote: »

To say simply conjectures why you think you know why the Irish voted as they did. The Irish voted that they did not want the Lisbon treaty. Full stop. To tell the Irish they "apparently didn't know enough about it" is patronising.

Not a bit. It's a matter of record.

CtrlSource wrote:

Do you understand what democracy is? You seem to just be restating your general disapproval of the outcome of our referendum without offering any solutions or adding anything to the debate.

Nobody is trying to enforce the will of a "tiny" number (1.5 million odd) of Europeans on the rest of the Union. We were asked specifically to vote on the proposed amendment to our Constitution. i did not like parts of the Treaty. i did not like the process by which it was brought forward (the way the draft Constitution was written into it) and i certainly dont like the direction that some countries are trying to force the EU to move in. i voted No. Simple. The rules say 27 ratify it or it doesn't come into force. If you want to change the rules now, then i suggest you approach your local MEP!

Er, yes - exactly. "The rules say" is an entirely different argument from democracy.

CtrlSource wrote:

How many tiny millions of Europeans voting No would it take to satisfy you that it should be abandoned? Would you favour referenda in all countries to make it more democratic?

There are plenty of good reasons why the EU exists and should continue to, with us as members. The Lisbon Treaty isn't one of them

None of this comes close to addressing the point, which is that we voted, in Ireland, on Ireland ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. According to democracy, we in Ireland are not having it apply to us, and we aren't. Whether or not people expected a No to prevent the process of EU reform is beside the point - we were not voting on that. According to the rules the Lisbon Treaty qua the Lisbon Treaty is dead, and it is, but that does not prevent reform going ahead.

You have your result in Ireland, and a legal stop to the Lisbon Treaty, but you cannot enforce a full stop on EU reform. If necessary, that will almost certainly simply go ahead without Ireland. In turn, you are welcome to claim that that is not really respecting Ireland's wishes, but what you mean is merely that it doesn't respect yours.

regards,
Scofflaw

CtrlSource

Scofflaw wrote: »

Originally Posted by auerillo
The problem with wondering about what the rest of the EU citizens want is we simply don't know. We know what the politicians want, but not what the citizens want. So how about letting the other half-billion have referendums, too, so we can know beyond any doubt?

Why? They have their constitutions, we have ours. If they want referendums, let them ask for them. Thus far, they have been conspicuously silent (bar the usual suspects).

They have been conspicuously silent because they haven't got a vote! You can't be dismissive of the 'usual suspects'. They're also paid up members of the Union.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not a bit. It's a matter of record.

It's also a matter of record that there are a host of reasons why people voted No. You're just using that in order to discount the importance of the No vote. To diminish it and make it look like the views of the ignorant.

Scofflaw wrote: »

None of this comes close to addressing the point, which is that we voted, in Ireland, on Ireland ratifying the Lisbon Treaty. According to democracy, we in Ireland are not having it apply to us, and we aren't. Whether or not people expected a No to prevent the process of EU reform is beside the point - we were not voting on that. According to the rules the Lisbon Treaty qua the Lisbon Treaty is dead, and it is, but that does not prevent reform going ahead.

You have your result in Ireland, and a legal stop to the Lisbon Treaty, but you cannot enforce a full stop on EU reform. If necessary, that will almost certainly simply go ahead without Ireland. In turn, you are welcome to claim that that is not really respecting Ireland's wishes, but what you mean is merely that it doesn't respect yours.

Agreed. You didn't make this point in your previous statement however. And my reply then was based on what you said in that post.

The fact is democracy has worked just fine internally in Ireland. It is not undemocratic to expect the rest of Europe to respect our position. It's up to the rest of the EU how they wish to proceed with reform. We cannot stop them

Scofflaw

CtrlSource wrote: »

They have been conspicuously silent because they haven't got a vote! You can't be dismissive of the 'usual suspects'. They're also paid up members of the Union.

True - on the other hand they tend to have levels of support similar to, say, the SWP here.

CtrlSource wrote: »

It's also a matter of record that there are a host of reasons why people voted No. You're just using that in order to discount the importance of the No vote. To diminish it and make it look like the views of the ignorant.

Hmm. Don't take offence! Some people (quite a lot) voted No because they felt they had not had the Treaty explained to them. Both the pre-vote polls (such as the IT one), and the post-vote polls (such as the Flash Eurobarometer) show "because I do not know enough about the Treaty and would not want to vote for something I am not familiar with" as the largest group of No voters. The Flash Eurobarometer has:

Because I do not know enough about the Treaty and would not want to vote for something I am not familiar with|22%
To protect Irish identity|12%
To safeguard Irish neutrality in security and defence matters|6%
I do not trust our politicians|6%
We will lose our right to have an Irish Commissioner in every Commission|6%
To protect our tax system|6%
I am against the idea of a unified Europe|5%
To protest against the government's policies|4%
To avoid that the EU speaks with one voice on global issues|4%
Because large Member States decide on EU matters|4%
To protect the influence of small states|3%
It would allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia|2%
To avoid an influx of immigrants|1%
The EU does not need any fixing, it works fine|1%
Other|14%


So, "didn't know, voted no" is the largest category, by nearly 2:1. The Irish Times poll before the vote was very similar. Like I said, it's a matter of record.

I don't consider that a failure on the part of the voters. The Government's job was to sell them the Treaty, to explain why it was important, to secure the ratification that implemented the deal the Government had negotiated. Had they done so, it probably would have been a Yes - but they entirely failed to do so.

CtrlSource wrote: »

Agreed. You didn't make this point in your previous statement however. And my reply then was based on what you said in that post.

My apologies - I'd just written a long post on that in another thread.

CtrlSource wrote: »

The fact is democracy has worked just fine internally in Ireland. It is not undemocratic to expect the rest of Europe to respect our position. It's up to the rest of the EU how they wish to proceed with reform. We cannot stop them

Indeed. However, it has nothing to do with democracy, but is actually about respecting Ireland's sovereignty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why? They have their constitutions, we have ours. If they want referendums, let them ask for them. Thus far, they have been conspicuously silent (bar the usual suspects).


Scofflaw

Your "bar the usual suspects" says more about you than you perhaps intended. All people, whether the "usual suspects" or not, are entitled to have a say.

You say "if they want referendums, let them ask for them". How do you imagine that might happen in practice? Are you seriously suggesting that there are not millions of citizens in other countries who desire the opportunity to have a referendum? Your "let them ask for them" sounds remarkably like "let them eat cake". How do you propose they go about asking for them? Phone radio shows perhaps?

On a serious note, thats actually a very good point, and perhaps the time start petitioning other governments for referenda has come.

I have to say your response to this point is always the same, perhaps because you are afraid of the likely outcome of other referenda which would be a lot of other countries expressing a majority "no" vote.

So you retreat to a position that, even though the majority might want a no vote, the politicians should be allowed to ignore it and sign up to the treaty is spite of the wishes of their electorates.

It's an interesting definition of democracy where the will of the people is subverted by those who purport to represent them. It is curious that you have constantly argued that this is the right and proper way for a democracy to operate.

No amount of clever arguments can alter this central fact, and that you seem happy to argue that it is wrong for governments to represent the will of their people, on this issue, and to represent the opposite of what their people want, is perverse. To ignore the democratic will of their people and argue, as you seem to, that that is democratic merely exposes your own apparent bias.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not a bit. It's a matter of record.

The only think which is a matter of record is that the irish people were asked whether or not they wanted to ammend the constitution and vote for or against the Lisbon treaty, and we voted that we did not want to do that.

You seem unhappy with that outcome, as I suspect the desire to work out "why" the irish people voted as they did is the beginnings of an attempt to reverse it.

It seems a curious definition of democracy to accept that it is legitimate for a government to do something which is diametrically opposed to the willof the people whom it is supposed to represent, and also a curious definition of democracy to not respect the democratically expressed will of the electorate and look for a means to overturn it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

True - on the other hand they tend to have levels of support similar to, say, the SWP here.



Hmm. Don't take offence! Some people (quite a lot) voted No because they felt they had not had the Treaty explained to them. Both the pre-vote polls (such as the IT one), and the post-vote polls (such as the Flash Eurobarometer) show "because I do not know enough about the Treaty and would not want to vote for something I am not familiar with" as the largest group of No voters.

I have to say I find your attempts to tell me why I voted are patronising. You refuse to accept that the irish people voted the way they did, so now you are on a journey to find an excuse to demonstrate that that vote was not legitimate and should really be held again.

Quite apart from the fact that we are constantly told by all the politicians that opinion polls are irrevelant and there is only one opinion poll that matters, no one has explained how the questions in this particular poll were slanted as, no doubt we are all aware, its quite easy in an opinion poll to phrase a question, or ask it in a context, so it is more likely to produce the response one is looking for.

Are you really saying that this is now how we should run our democracy? That because some are unhappy with the result of democratic votes, that we must hunt around afterwards for reasons to show why the vote was not legitimate, and why it must be re-run until such times as those people are happy that enough of us vote the "correct" way?

Thats not democracy, and its a very slippery road you are on.

ixtlan

CtrlSource wrote: »

They have been conspicuously silent because they haven't got a vote! You can't be dismissive of the 'usual suspects'. They're also paid up members of the Union.

If you look across Europe (and particularly France) people are quite willing to protest over those matters that really concern them.

The French students protested over changes in employment law.
Truckers have been protesting over fuel costs.
Fishermen have been protesting over policy and fuel costs.
Farmers frequently protest.
People protested over Iraq.
and so on and so on.

These protests were so large that they were shown on our news programmes. In contrast there have been no large protests demanding a vote on Lisbon. A handful of people "protested" outside the Irish embassies, but this was a tiny lobby group which could not possible be considered the will of the people.

So, it is not unreasonable to say that the will of the people in Europe is that they are content to let their elected representatives represent them on this. As I've said before... sure... if you ask them would they like to vote they may say yes, but they are not taking it seriously if it does not affect their voting in a GE.

In France Sarkozy pledged NOT to have a referendum, and was elected. Why? I can offer some opinion from colleagues in Toulouse who thought that the referendum was a disaster, with every interest group from the left and right airing their grievances about France in particular. So, while they would indeed like to have an informed vote where everyone could vote on the treaty itself and what it might offer or not offer, the intense division that the last referendum caused meant that for many people it really was a case of "ok... let the politicians take care of it, that's why we elected them..."

Ix

ixtlan

auerillo wrote: »

You say "if they want referendums, let them ask for them". How do you imagine that might happen in practice? Are you seriously suggesting that there are not millions of citizens in other countries who desire the opportunity to have a referendum? Your "let them ask for them" sounds remarkably like "let them eat cake". How do you propose they go about asking for them? Phone radio shows perhaps?

They "ask" for referendums by making it an election demand. Politics is a bit like competition in business. If one party perceived that there was an advantage in saying that they would put every treaty to a public vote, and there was a strong current of public opinion wanting that, then it would happen.

That's how a representative democracy works. The political "elite" are elected by the people. They come from the people. They work for the people. If the people think they are not working for them they can vote for someone else. If the existing parties do not represent the desires of the people they can form new parties.

I grow weary of this talk of the "elite" and that the public does not have a choice. Why don't they? Every 4-5 years the public votes in every country in the EU. That's when they make their choice.

We do not live, whatever the no side says, in a dictatorship where political opposition is oppressed. I can form a party and run for election if I want. Ulick McEvaddy on Q&A said the EU was like the Soviet Union, an absolutely outrageous comparison. Any one of these Warsaw pact states would have loved the choice the EU may eventually offer Ireland. Leave, and do what you wish. And they would have loved the opportunity to elect a government to express their desires.

Ix.

baztard

auerillo wrote: »

...
I have to say I find your attempts to tell me why I voted are patronising. You refuse to accept that the irish people voted the way they did, so now you are on a journey to find an excuse to demonstrate that that vote was not legitimate and should really be held again.
...

Well said Auerillo. This sums up the way a lot of people in Ireland and Europe are thinking at the moment. Excellent post btw.

auerillo

ixtlan wrote: »

That's how a representative democracy works.

Ix.

I can't agree that a representative (the hint is in the title) democracy should work in a way where the government represents the opposite view to that held by the people.

Historically a representative democracy is one where the elected member represents the views of his constituents.

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

I can't agree that a representative (the hint is in the title) democracy should work in a way where the government represents the opposite view to that held by the people.

Historically a representative democracy is one where the elected member represents the views of his constituents.

Unfortunately, the views you'd like the government to represent on "our" behalf consist of a mixture of "I didn't understand the treaty" and "I bought into the lies I was told", as well as such legitimate concerns that exist.

PHB

I quite like the economists take on Europe, don't agree with it, but I find them very fair about the EU in relation to their beliefs.

--

I have to say I find your attempts to tell me why I voted are patronising. You refuse to accept that the irish people voted the way they did, so now you are on a journey to find an excuse to demonstrate that that vote was not legitimate and should really be held again.

This whole argument is stupid. What happens if the Irish people vote yes the next time? What does that mean? Which vote is legitimate? Why is the one in the past more legitimate than the one in the future?

The problem with this whole debate is that the idea that you must listen to the first referendum is based on a position that the public knew what they were doing and that they should be trusted, but the very fact that they change their minds 3 months later undermines that.

Is Lisbon II undemocratic? No more so than Lisbon I.

marco_polo

auerillo wrote: »

Your "bar the usual suspects" says more about you than you perhaps intended. All people, whether the "usual suspects" or not, are entitled to have a say.

You say "if they want referendums, let them ask for them". How do you imagine that might happen in practice? Are you seriously suggesting that there are not millions of citizens in other countries who desire the opportunity to have a referendum? Your "let them ask for them" sounds remarkably like "let them eat cake". How do you propose they go about asking for them? Phone radio shows perhaps?

I can think of one such way in which this might happen. In the case of Ireland we had a supreme court case on the matter as as a result of that judgement this is why we now have referendums on every issue. Do you know of any legal impediment in any other EU country that prevents a citizen from taking the same course of action?

Do you also not think it a bit strange that while this has happened in a country of 4.5 million odd people, in all the other nations of the EU with a combined population of 490 odd million few have ever taken a similar action? If the citizen of the EU are so unhappy with their opressive "sham" democracies then wouldn't you expect to see something similar?

auerillo wrote: »

On a serious note, thats actually a very good point, and perhaps the time start petitioning other governments for referenda has come.

So now we start lecturing others on how to run their countries properly as well. It just gets better and better. :rolleyes:

If you look at the figures you will see that eight other countries rank higher than Ireland in terms of the fairness of their democratic systems, all of whom are ratifying the Treaty using their parliamentary systems. And 13 of the top twenty most democratic nations in Europe are in the EU. To our credit we also rank very highly.

http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm

The economist figures are pretty similar as well.

http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438

Should we also petition Germany to change their national laws with regard to referendums so they can hold one?

Denmark will be holding referendums in the near future on the four opt outs in place since 1992, so they are clearly not opposed to the principle, but have deemed it not nescessary in the case of Lisbon.

I have to say your response to this point is always the same, perhaps because you are afraid of the likely outcome of other referenda which would be a lot of other countries expressing a majority "no" vote.

There is pretty scant evidence for that statement.

So you retreat to a position that, even though the majority might want a no vote, the politicians should be allowed to ignore it and sign up to the treaty is spite of the wishes of their electorates.

I wasn't aware we were signing up to the treaty in spite of our rejection of it.

It's an interesting definition of democracy where the will of the people is subverted by those who purport to represent them. It is curious that you have constantly argued that this is the right and proper way for a democracy to operate.

Again we are not signing up to the treaty how is our will is being subverted in any way? And you have no evidence to support the assertion that it is the will of the people in to reject the treaty in other members states as well.

I can at least point out that 75% of Polish would back the treaty in a referendum, and that the French elected a leader who said he would ratify the treaty through parliament in his campaign.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1205771527.71/

And 53% in the Czech republic.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/lisbon_treaty_backed_in_czech_republic/

Intresting also that these are the two countries whose parliaments most are likely to reject the treaty.

No amount of clever arguments can alter this central fact, and that you seem happy to argue that it is wrong for governments to represent the will of their people, on this issue, and to represent the opposite of what their people want, is perverse. To ignore the democratic will of their people and argue, as you seem to, that that is democratic merely exposes your own apparent bias.

All of the above covers that last statement.

The only think which is a matter of record is that the irish people were asked whether or not they wanted to ammend the constitution and vote for or against the Lisbon treaty, and we voted that we did not want to do that.

You seem unhappy with that outcome, as I suspect the desire to work out "why" the irish people voted as they did is the beginnings of an attempt to reverse it.

It seems a curious definition of democracy to accept that it is legitimate for a government to do something which is diametrically opposed to the willof the people whom it is supposed to represent, and also a curious definition of democracy to not respect the democratically expressed will of the electorate and look for a means to overturn it.

Again I ask what is the government doing that is diametrically opposed to the will of the people? By possibly calling another referendum? You seem to be implying here that referendums are only democratic some of the time. If that is the case then perhaps that is why other counties don't use them so much.

By electing them we gave them the authority to call a referendum as an when it is deemed nescessary. If you don't like who is calling the shots then you know what to do.

Besides if our democratic system is so obviously flawed then why would we seek to impose our model on the rest of Europe.

I have to say I find your attempts to tell me why I voted are patronising. You refuse to accept that the irish people voted the way they did, so now you are on a journey to find an excuse to demonstrate that that vote was not legitimate and should really be held again.

Quite apart from the fact that we are constantly told by all the politicians that opinion polls are irrevelant and there is only one opinion poll that matters, no one has explained how the questions in this particular poll were slanted as, no doubt we are all aware, its quite easy in an opinion poll to phrase a question, or ask it in a context, so it is more likely to produce the response one is looking for.

Are you really saying that this is now how we should run our democracy? That because some are unhappy with the result of democratic votes, that we must hunt around afterwards for reasons to show why the vote was not legitimate, and why it must be re-run until such times as those people are happy that enough of us vote the "correct" way?

Thats not democracy, and its a very slippery road you are on.

So I guess that infamous poll that the no camp pull out from time to time proporting to show that all the other citizens in the EU would like a vote is irrelevant as well?

I am also still confused as to why some referendums are democratic and some are not.

nesf

PHB wrote: »

I quite like the economists take on Europe, don't agree with it, but I find them very fair about the EU in relation to their beliefs.

Ditto, they at least try to have a point rather than being mere aspirational polemics.

auerillo

PHB wrote: »

This whole argument is stupid. What happens if the Irish people vote yes the next time? What does that mean? Which vote is legitimate? Why is the one in the past more legitimate than the one in the future?

The problem with this whole debate is that the idea that you must listen to the first referendum is based on a position that the public knew what they were doing and that they should be trusted, but the very fact that they change their minds 3 months later undermines that.

Any election is a snapshot of opinion at that time. Who thinks Fianna Fail would gain the same share of the vote now, or the Labour party in the UK, should the electorate now re run the last general election in Ireland or the UK?

While I imagine we could summon the same clever argument along the lines that it's now apparent that a proportion of the electorate here voted for Fianna Fail based on their projected growth figures for the economy which have proved to have been misleading. Therefore, because they bought into the lies they were told by Fianna Fail and didn't understand the figures, then we should re run the last general election.

However, no one would buy that argument, nor shoud we. Yet this is what we are being asked to buy in relation to the recent referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

Becasue some clever people think we voted the wrong way, they contrive to think they also know the reasons why we voted, and that we misunderstood and voted the wrong way for a whole plethora of reasons, and that really the outcome of the vote should be quietly ignored and we should, for our own good, be made to vote again. And presumably again and again, until we eventually come up with the right answer.

The whole point is that some refuse to accept the democratic will of the electorate as expressed in the ballot box.

nesf

auerillo wrote: »

Any election is a snapshot of opinion at that time. Who thinks Fianna Fail would gain the same share of the vote now, or the Labour party in the UK, should the electorate now re run the last general election in Ireland or the UK?

We shouldn't expect them to, parties and nations run on electoral cycles. Cowan will push through the harder budgets now when we're far away from the next election and try and leave room for "nicer" budgets when the election is looming. The system, breeds these massive swings in popular opinion, it's one of its biggest problems but it's pointless to talk about Government parties being unpopular early in the election cycle, it's a product of the system rather than anything else. I don't mean to say that it's "right" but we really shouldn't expect anything else from them to be honest about it.

owlwink

Does anyone agree that voting NO for something simply because you do not understand it is a little ignorant. If you don't understand wouldn't you be better off spoiling your vote or something like that, rather than inhibiting something that may be for the greater good???

P.s. this is simply a question I am not taking a dig at people who voted NO, as I am aware that to the informed person there are an equal amount of reasons to vote on this end of the scale. :D:D

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

Becasue some clever people think we voted the wrong way, they contrive to think they also know the reasons why we voted, and that we misunderstood and voted the wrong way for a whole plethora of reasons...

Oh, I'm sorry. Why did we vote no?

The whole point is that some refuse to accept the democratic will of the electorate as expressed in the ballot box.

Are you saying that the democratic will of the people is that we should never, ever, ever again vote on an EU treaty? Because I don't remember being asked that.

marco_polo

Life just got a little bit lonier for us today as expected Spanish congress have ratified the Lisbon Treaty by a massive majority of 322 to 6 to become the 20th country to formally ratify the treaty.

That is alot of politicians that must be completely out of touch with the people in Spain :eek:.

http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_103259/politics/AFTER-IRISH-lsquoNOrsquo-Spanish-Congress-ratifies-Lisbon/

nesf

marco_polo wrote: »

Life just got a little bit lonier for us today as expected Spanish congress have ratified the Lisbon Treaty by a massive majority of 322 to 6 to become the 20th country to formally ratify the treaty.

That is alot of politicians that must be completely out of touch with the people in Spain :eek:.

http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_103259/politics/AFTER-IRISH-lsquoNOrsquo-Spanish-Congress-ratifies-Lisbon/

We'd expect that from Spain though, they passed the EU Constitution in a referendum 77% Yes to 23% No. Anyone expecting the Spanish parliament or people to oppose the Lisbon Treaty wasn't in touch with reality tbh.

molloyjh

Moriarty wrote: »

Going off on a tangent: isn't it most coincidental that excellent articles seem to only ever coincide directly with the original poster's beliefs?

How true.....who was it that said "I've never learned anything from someone who agreed with me"?

I read the article itself yesterday and it didn't strike me as particularly balanced journalism. Some of the points were a bit disingenuous (sp?) as ixtlan has pointed out.

I'd also like to point out to auerillo that we have dealt with this EU-wide referendum issue in other threads, at least once in reponse to your posts. You chose to ignore the reponses and instead come back to post the same drivel in other threads. Lets repeat this one last time shall we, it is not up to the EU to "allow" other EU citizens vote in a referendum. It is a sovereign issue that is in no way in the remit of the EU. The only reason we have a referendum is because of Crotty, an Irish citizen who used his democratic right to challenge the method for ratification on a previous treaty. If other citizens of the EU want to do the same the mechanisms are there for them to do it. If they do not then they are either happy with the way in which things are currently done or have noone to blame for themselves if they are not. None of this is down to the EU or the member states Governments, just like our right to vote wasn't down to either.

auerillo

marco_polo wrote: »

I can think of one such way in which this might happen. In the case of Ireland we had a supreme court case on the matter as as a result of that judgement this is why we now have referendums on every issue. Do you know of any legal impediment in any other EU country that prevents a citizen from taking the same course of action?

Do you also not think it a bit strange that while this has happened in a country of 4.5 million odd people, in all the other nations of the EU with a combined population of 490 odd million few have ever taken a similar action? If the citizen of the EU are so unhappy with their opressive "sham" democracies then wouldn't you expect to see something similar?.

I agree with much of what you say in this long and thoughtful post. My understanding is that the reason we have to have a referendum on changes to our constitution. I'm not a lawyer and have no idea what teh constitutions of other countries demand, but imagine that if there were a requirement to have a referendum on issues such as the Lisbon treaty, then I would be surprised that governments of other countries would have ignored it. But, I really don't know.

marco_polo wrote: »

So now we start lecturing others on how to run their countries properly as well. It just gets better and better. :rolleyes:

I really wouldn't advocate lecturing anyone on any issue. Although to express ones view and to encourage others to petition their governments is not the same thing at all as lecturing.

Indeed, one of the things I find very unattractive about some of those who think we have voted the wrong way is that they seem to be lecturing the rest of us that we didn't understand it, and we were impressed by lies from the various organisations involved in the no campaign etc etc.

marco_polo wrote: »

Should we also petition Germany to change their national laws with regard to referendums so they can hold one?

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say "Germany". Certainly if you want to petition the German people, or government, to change their laws you are free to do so.

But to ask the question seems to have missed the point I was making, which was that there is a substantial body of opinion right across the people that make up the EU which is not in favour of the Lisbon treaty. Neither you, or I, know how substantial as they have not been ballotted on the issue, and my point was that it would be great if they were. As their governments seem against holding ballotts ( I wonder why?), I suggested it might be a good idea to start petitions which could be signed as an attemopt for them to put pressure on their individual governments and as a way of demonstrating how much support is there for ballotts on this important issue.

marco_polo wrote: »

I wasn't aware we were signing up to the treaty in spite of our rejection of it.

Again we are not signing up to the treaty how is our will is being subverted in any way? And you have no evidence to support the assertion that it is the will of the people in to reject the treaty in other members states as well.

.

I agree, and I was also not aware that we are signing up to Lisbon.

Again, to ask the question seems to miss the point I was making which was that there are some who do not accept the result of the ballot and are searching for ways to declare it not legitimate ( "they didn't understand it" and "they fell for the lies of the no campaign" etc etc).

marco_polo wrote: »

I can at least point out that 75% of Polish would back the treaty in a referendum, and that the French elected a leader who said he would ratify the treaty through parliament in his campaign.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1205771527.71/

And 53% in the Czech republic.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/lisbon_treaty_backed_in_czech_republic/

Intresting also that these are the two countries whose parliaments most are likely to reject the treaty.

.

You may well be right, but then again the pollsters got it consistently wrong in the Clinton/Obama primaries and I am not happy to run a democracy based on the pollsters opinions.

France did, indeed, elect a president who said he would ratify the treaty? Were there any other serious candidates who said they would not ratify it? In any case, France's election of its leader was not a single issue and was more complex than that.

I could point out that Zimbabwe elected Mugabe as its leader, so technically the people of Zimbabwe agree with him murdering them, torturing them and terryfying them at this point.

marco_polo wrote: »

Again I ask what is the government doing that is diametrically opposed to the will of the people? By possibly calling another referendum? You seem to be implying here that referendums are only democratic some of the time. If that is the case then perhaps that is why other counties don't use them so much.

By electing them we gave them the authority to call a referendum as an when it is deemed nescessary. If you don't like who is calling the shots then you know what to do.

Besides if our democratic system is so obviously flawed then why would we seek to impose our model on the rest of Europe.




So I guess that infamous poll that the no camp pull out from time to time proporting to show that all the other citizens in the EU would like a vote is irrelevant as well?

I am also still confused as to why some referendums are democratic and some are not.

Of course technically you are again right, our government can call referenda every day of the week if they wish. By calling a second referendum on Lisbon, they are showing they do not accept the first result. Interetstingly, should FF call a second referendum and lose it, in the uncertain economic and financial times ahead, it could be interesting to see what effects this might have on their standing in the country, and some commentators feel that it would be a big risk for Cowan personally and for the long term future of FF. Who knows.

molloyjh

PHB wrote: »

I quite like the economists take on Europe, don't agree with it, but I find them very fair about the EU in relation to their beliefs.

--



This whole argument is stupid. What happens if the Irish people vote yes the next time? What does that mean? Which vote is legitimate? Why is the one in the past more legitimate than the one in the future?

The problem with this whole debate is that the idea that you must listen to the first referendum is based on a position that the public knew what they were doing and that they should be trusted, but the very fact that they change their minds 3 months later undermines that.

Is Lisbon II undemocratic? No more so than Lisbon I.

+1

Well said.....its only undemocratic if the politicians do the opposite to what we say. Asking us again gives the people the same right to vote No again as the first one did. Maybe this time though the electorate will know a bit more about it. As I've said before I don't care what the result is as long as the voters actually understand what they are voting on in the first place. It cannot be said that this is true of the Lisbon referendum.

nesf

auerillo wrote: »

France did, indeed, elect a president who said he would ratify the treaty? Were there any other serious candidates who said they would not ratify it? In any case, France's election of its leader was not a single issue and was more complex than that.

I could point out that Zimbabwe elected Mugabe as its leader, so technically the people of Zimbabwe agree with him murdering them, torturing them and terryfying them at this point.

...

marco_polo

It is up to the citizens of any country to petition their government on their own behalf and inappropriate for anyone else to do so, or encourage them to.

I accept the result of our referendum 100%. What I reject is the idea being put about by some that a majority of citizens in all the other 26 countries are right behind our decision, and are terribly unhappy with the decisions of their governments in any way. That is a very dangerous presumption to make and the price of being wrong for Ireland could be very high indeed.

molloyjh

auerillo wrote: »

By calling a second referendum on Lisbon, they are showing they do not accept the first result.

I'll be honest with you, I don't accept the first result. Not because of the result itself, but because it has become very clear that a large portion of the population just didn't understand the Treaty or didn't vote on anything relating to it at all. This is the case regardless of how people voted. I refuse, as a logical and reasonable person, to be led by ignorance. I steadfastly deny that this result was in fact the will of the people. If so many didn't understand it, how could it possibly be considered their will on the matter.

Again I will state that I will accept the outcome of a new referendum, regardless of the result, so long as the electorate understand what they are voting for. Obviously not everyone will, but the EU Commission survey suggested that 61% of the No voters alone fell into the ignorant bracket. While there is a possibility that this may be exaggerated, it likely isn't warped beyond reality. Even if only 50% of No voters were ignorant, thats a completely unnacceptable amount. Imagine that combined with the number of ignorant Yes voters. Best case scenario is 1/3 of the voters. How can we expect the people to have reached a reasonable and considered opinion when 30-40% had no idea what they were talking about?

auerillo

marco_polo wrote: »

It is up to the citizens of any country to petition their government on their own behalf and inappropriate for anyone else to do so, or encourage them to.

I accept the result of our referendum 100%. What I reject is the idea being put about by some that a majority of citizens in all the other 26 countries are right behind our decision, and are terribly unhappy with the decisions of their governments in any way. That is a very dangerous presumption to make and the price of being wrong for Ireland could be very high indeed.

I agree we simply don't know how many citizens of the EU are for or against the lisbon treaty, which is why I think it might be a good idea to find out for definite.

As I am not particularly nationalistic, I think its fine for anyone to petition my government, and I think its also fine for anyone to petition another government, and wouldn't limit it to only Irish citizens are allowed to petition the Irish government etc. Especially as we are all in the EU together, and national boundaries are less and less important. I welcome dialogue with people from all over the EU, especially where the issue relates to all of our involvement with the EU.

marco_polo

auerillo wrote: »

I agree we simply don't know how many citizens of the EU are for or against the lisbon treaty, which is why I think it might be a good idea to find out for definite.

Perhaps in a perfect world that would be the ideal. But the reality is that most government are ratifying this process by parliament. The think I find the most bizzare is that we seem to care about this far more than the citzens of these countries do.

As I am not particularly nationalistic, I think its fine for anyone to petition my government, and I think its also fine for anyone to petition another government, and wouldn't limit it to only Irish citizens are allowed to petition the Irish government etc. Especially as we are all in the EU together, and national boundaries are less and less important. I welcome dialogue with people from all over the EU, especially where the issue relates to all of our involvement with the EU.

I doesn't sound so bad whan you put it like that

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

Your "bar the usual suspects" says more about you than you perhaps intended. All people, whether the "usual suspects" or not, are entitled to have a say.

You say "if they want referendums, let them ask for them". How do you imagine that might happen in practice? Are you seriously suggesting that there are not millions of citizens in other countries who desire the opportunity to have a referendum? Your "let them ask for them" sounds remarkably like "let them eat cake". How do you propose they go about asking for them? Phone radio shows perhaps?
On a serious note, thats actually a very good point, and perhaps the time start petitioning other governments for referenda has come.

As other posters have pointed out, there are perfectly normal democratic channels by which people can put pressure on their governments to do something. In several cases, there are formal mechanisms for constitutional change - the Italians, for example, can (and regularly do) have referendums on constitutional change (such as this one in 2006) - yet they haven't bothered having one on removing their constitutional bar on ratifying treaties by referendum.

There are also already movements for EU-wide referendums you can either join, or sign petitions for. The first of those two groups organised the May Bank Holiday 'protests' which attracted a total of 100 people across the entire EU.

auerillo wrote: »

I have to say your response to this point is always the same, perhaps because you are afraid of the likely outcome of other referenda which would be a lot of other countries expressing a majority "no" vote.

That's entirely up to them. I wasn't upset by the French and Dutch no, because they would have borne any negative consequences.

auerillo wrote: »

So you retreat to a position that, even though the majority might want a no vote, the politicians should be allowed to ignore it and sign up to the treaty is spite of the wishes of their electorates.

Well, that is also up to them - and the majority of them, despite your continued claims to the contrary, don't appear to want referendums.

auerillo wrote: »

It's an interesting definition of democracy where the will of the people is subverted by those who purport to represent them. It is curious that you have constantly argued that this is the right and proper way for a democracy to operate.

My issue with that is that you have no backing for the claim that "the will of the people is subverted by those who purport to represent them" apart from wanting that to be the case. If you have some proof that it is so, put it forward - if you don't, you'll have to excuse my skepticism on the matter.

auerillo wrote: »

No amount of clever arguments can alter this central fact, and that you seem happy to argue that it is wrong for governments to represent the will of their people, on this issue, and to represent the opposite of what their people want, is perverse. To ignore the democratic will of their people and argue, as you seem to, that that is democratic merely exposes your own apparent bias.

Hmm. See above. No amount of argument alters the fact that there doesn't seem to be any proof of your assertion.

auerillo wrote: »

The only think which is a matter of record is that the irish people were asked whether or not they wanted to ammend the constitution and vote for or against the Lisbon treaty, and we voted that we did not want to do that.

So, essentially, we should not ask why people voted No; we should not attempt to move forward from a No; we should simply stop? For how long, exactly? Or should we not ask that either?

auerillo wrote: »

You seem unhappy with that outcome, as I suspect the desire to work out "why" the irish people voted as they did is the beginnings of an attempt to reverse it.

Actually, it's pointless me trying to "justify" a second referendum. It is both legal to hold another referendum, and it is increasingly obvious it will also be necessary to hold a second referendum - this time in the light of the alternative being some kind of reduction in our EU membership. The only point in 'justifying' it would be to protect the government from the political fallout of having to run a second referendum - and I have no interest in doing so.

auerillo wrote: »

It seems a curious definition of democracy to accept that it is legitimate for a government to do something which is diametrically opposed to the willof the people whom it is supposed to represent, and also a curious definition of democracy to not respect the democratically expressed will of the electorate and look for a means to overturn it.

Governments regularly look for ways around the opposition of the electorate (or Parliament) - usually by addressing a sufficiency of their concerns. It's called 'negotiation'.

auerillo wrote: »

I have to say I find your attempts to tell me why I voted are patronising. You refuse to accept that the irish people voted the way they did, so now you are on a journey to find an excuse to demonstrate that that vote was not legitimate and should really be held again.

I haven't expressed any opinion whatsoever on why you voted as you did. I fear you are falling into the trap of "le Non, c'est moi". I'm afraid you don't seem to be representative - indeed, it's hard to see what a representative No voter would be.

auerillo wrote: »

Quite apart from the fact that we are constantly told by all the politicians that opinion polls are irrevelant and there is only one opinion poll that matters, no one has explained how the questions in this particular poll were slanted as, no doubt we are all aware, its quite easy in an opinion poll to phrase a question, or ask it in a context, so it is more likely to produce the response one is looking for.

Then perhaps you should look at the source, where you will find the question:

"Q9. Please tell me what are the reasons why you voted “no” to the treaty?
% of all answers, Base: those who participated and voted NO in the Referendum on Thursday".

auerillo wrote: »

Are you really saying that this is now how we should run our democracy? That because some are unhappy with the result of democratic votes, that we must hunt around afterwards for reasons to show why the vote was not legitimate, and why it must be re-run until such times as those people are happy that enough of us vote the "correct" way?

Thats not democracy, and its a very slippery road you are on.

I am not the one assuming that everyone who voted the way I did, did so for the same reasons I did - nor am I the one projecting my views on referendums to the whole of Europe, as if they were incapable of choosing how to run their own countries.

regards,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, that is also up to them - and the majority of them, despite your continued claims to the contrary, don't appear to want referendums.

I make no claims for what other people may or may not want, but I do have a view that we should all be given an opportunity to vote specifically on the treaty.

Scofflaw wrote: »

My issue with that is that you have no backing for the claim that "the will of the people is subverted by those who purport to represent them" apart from wanting that to be the case. If you have some proof that it is so, put it forward - if you don't, you'll have to excuse my skepticism on the matter.

I agree with youi that neither of us knows what the will of the people of the EU is until they tell us what it is in the time honoured method of voting on the specific issue.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, it's pointless me trying to "justify" a second referendum. It is both legal to hold another referendum, and it is increasingly obvious it will also be necessary to hold a second referendum - this time in the light of the alternative being some kind of reduction in our EU membership. The only point in 'justifying' it would be to protect the government from the political fallout of having to run a second referendum - and I have no interest in doing so.

Governments regularly look for ways around the opposition of the electorate (or Parliament) - usually by addressing a sufficiency of their concerns. It's called 'negotiation'.

No one suggested that it is not legal to hold referenda ( except in Germany, apparantly). What I question is the "necessity" to have a second referendum, presumably so this time we can all vote the correct way. I think we should go further than this and have referenda in every EU country and not just in Ireland.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the domestic political fallout for the government might be interesting were a second referendum to also say"NO", which given the worsening economic climate might seem more and more likely. If nothing else, it should be interesting!

Scofflaw wrote: »

I haven't expressed any opinion whatsoever on why you voted as you did. I fear you are falling into the trap of "le Non, c'est moi". I'm afraid you don't seem to be representative - indeed, it's hard to see what a representative No voter would be.



Then perhaps you should look at the source, where you will find the question:

"Q9. Please tell me what are the reasons why you voted “no” to the treaty?
% of all answers, Base: those who participated and voted NO in the Referendum on Thursday".



egards,
Scofflaw

Perhaps you are falling into the trap of assuming I voted "no". When I said I was fed up being told by people why I voted, and the reasons I voted , I was speaking metaphorically.


What I find interesting is that you seem unable to accept the result, and want to explore the reasons to nullify it. What is important is the result, and it is patronising to assume you not only know why people voted "no", but also patronising to then say that their reasons are not valid.

I have to say if I was horrified by the result of the last general election, would it be right to now question the validity of the result by thinking people voted in a certain way and on criteris which I find unacceptable, or becasue I think they might have been misled by the winners of the election?

Scofflaw wrote: »

I am not the one assuming that everyone who voted the way I did, did so for the same reasons I did - nor am I the one projecting my views on referendums to the whole of Europe, as if they were incapable of choosing how to run their own countries.

I am not sure why you say you are not the one assuming that everyone voted the way you did, as the results clearly show that can't be the case. Also, I'm not sure what you intend to convey by saying you are not the one projecting your views on referendums to the whole of Europe.

I advocate letting the citizsens of the EU vote on this treaty, and if you disagree with that then thats is your perogative. Although one has to suspect that your disagreement stems more from what you think might be the awkward outcome from some other countries votes, rather than from a position of wanting to be democratic about it.

We simply are not going to agree on this point, and while I understand your position is one of not wwanting to open up the dreadful potential pandora's box of letting individuals vote on the specific issue, I am prepared to put up with that in teh short term for the betterment of the EU in the longer term

Scofflaw

I can see we're going to have to disagree on what I'm actually saying! I can't for the life of me see what's "patronising" about asking why people voted No. What should one do?

Nor is wondering why people voted No germane to the question of holding a second referendum - bar the collapse of the current ratification process, there simply isn't another option but another referendum, either now or later. It won't be held or not held on account of the reasons people voted No, although admittedly that's a handy face-saver.

We can either hold that referendum on exactly the same text as before, or the government can attempt to at least find out what would make people happier with it. It's not about getting a No or Yes vote by doing so, either - because I think it will be clear by that stage that the referendum is essentially a vote on whether we stay fully in the EU or not - which, in turn, is the necessity for holding a second referendum.

It's not a question of whether No is the "wrong" answer, or claiming it's "illegitimate" - it's simply an answer Ireland can't afford if the price tag is being left behind by the EU. Increasingly, it seems that is what the price tag says. That is why some other country voting No is not an issue for me, either - that's their problem, not ours (and perhaps why some of them prefer not to use referendums).

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

auerillo wrote:

Perhaps you are falling into the trap of assuming I voted "no". When I said I was fed up being told by people why I voted, and the reasons I voted , I was speaking metaphorically.

So you're saying that he fell into the trap of taking your words at face value? Thats disgraceful. He should obviously have realised that you didn't mean what you said*

For shame, Scofflaw.Believing the words of someone you were verbally sparring with...for shame, sir.

Incidentally, auerillo, I don't believe that anyone has suggested that a poll represents anything about the choices of an individual. If conducted properly, it produces a reasonably aaccurate overview of the reasoning of the totality.

Assuming you voted no, then if you believe that this is someone trying to tell you how you voted, I would suggest you are indicating a lack of understanding of what the nature of statistics are.

Assuming you voted yes, if you believe that this is someone trying to tell you how you voted, I would suggest that you are indicating both a lack of understanding of basic logic and the nature of statistics.

Assuming you didn't vote, then this makes you a liar on top of the implications of you voting yes.

Other than you deliberately spoiling your vote whilst insisting that counts as voting, I believe I've covered all options without making any assumptions about how you actually voted.

But please...don't let this get in the way of your righteousness. Carry on by all means. Indeed, feel free to express the utmost indignation at me pointing out the ridiculousness of this argument of yours.

*Of course, I'm sure that if we apply this reasoning to the rest of auerillo's commentary, I'm sure we'll be met with equal outrage for assuming that he didn't mean what he said. Its the arrogance, you see...believing people is arrogant...not believing them is arrogant...or maybe its just arrogant to disagree with them...

thehighground

marco_polo wrote: »

Life just got a little bit lonier for us today as expected Spanish congress have ratified the Lisbon Treaty by a massive majority of 322 to 6 to become the 20th country to formally ratify the treaty.

That is alot of politicians that must be completely out of touch with the people in Spain :eek:.

http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_103259/politics/AFTER-IRISH-lsquoNOrsquo-Spanish-Congress-ratifies-Lisbon/

Well, you have to bear in mind that Ireland has been a member of the EU longer than Spain has been operating as a democracy.

johnnyq

molloyjh wrote: »

I'll be honest with you, I don't accept the first result. Not because of the result itself, but because it has become very clear that a large portion of the population just didn't understand the Treaty or didn't vote on anything relating to it at all. This is the case regardless of how people voted. I refuse, as a logical and reasonable person, to be led by ignorance. I steadfastly deny that this result was in fact the will of the people. If so many didn't understand it, how could it possibly be considered their will on the matter.

Again I will state that I will accept the outcome of a new referendum, regardless of the result, so long as the electorate understand what they are voting for.

But are you willing to accept the results of general elections when some may say the result is based on "ignorance"?:p

Firstly, I don't think that the people who voted out of 'ignorance' as you say will suddenly become informed in a second vote. The treaty as it stands is unreadable without devoting much study to it and previous treaties, so unless the treaty changes the result will be based on the 'ignorance' issue you allude to.

Second, don't rule out those who will vote No (maybe they voted yes) simply because the first vote would have been essentially ignored. If that was the 60% reason to a second no vote, would you be calling for a third vote?

Third, the turnout alone makes this vote valid for whatever myriad of reasons people voted because of. Those who did vote did so because they had a strong enough opinion to cast a ballot in the first place. It's not up to you to judge those reasons. I would bet the house that if all the percentages were reversed (i.e. 60% voted yes but knew nothing) and the yes side had won, you would not be calling for a second vote. Could I be so bold as to suggest intellectual snobbery as your reason for a second vote or is it just a tantrum?

passive

thehighground wrote: »

Well, you have to bear in mind that Ireland has been a member of the EU longer than Spain has been operating as a democracy.

Err... So... we're tired of being in the EU? Or Spain is still a dictatorship? What do you mean exactly, or are you just throwing a shiny red ball away from the discussion?

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Well, you have to bear in mind that Ireland has been a member of the EU longer than Spain has been operating as a democracy.

Well the EU constitution, you know the one that the No side say is exactly the same as Lisbon, was accepted by Referendum in Spain.

Or do you not accept that?

molloyjh

johnnyq wrote: »

But are you willing to accept the results of general elections when some may say the result is based on "ignorance"?:p

Firstly, I don't think that the people who voted out of 'ignorance' as you say will suddenly become informed in a second vote. The treaty as it stands is unreadable without devoting much study to it and previous treaties, so unless the treaty changes the result will be based on the 'ignorance' issue you allude to.

Second, don't rule out those who will vote No (maybe they voted yes) simply because the first vote would have been essentially ignored. If that was the 60% reason to a second no vote, would you be calling for a third vote?

Third, the turnout alone makes this vote valid for whatever myriad of reasons people voted because of. Those who did vote did so because they had a strong enough opinion to cast a ballot in the first place. It's not up to you to judge those reasons. I would bet the house that if all the percentages were reversed (i.e. 60% voted yes but knew nothing) and the yes side had won, you would not be calling for a second vote. Could I be so bold as to suggest intellectual snobbery as your reason for a second vote or is it just a tantrum?

As I've said before General Elections aren't quite comparable given that they are fought on multiple unrelated issues and have dependancies on so many areas such as the economy (in terms of whether certain promises can be kept etc) compared to a Treaty that has far more specific aims and consequences and has limited competences. However I do have issues with how the Irish electorate goes about voting in General Elections too, but thats a whole other matter!

I don't think anybody will become suddenly informed about anything. Short of divine intervention that would be an impossbility. There are a number of factors to this issue. One being the Yes campaigns atrocious attempt to garner support for the Treaty. Rather than addressing the issue and the BS spouted by the No campaign, the majority of the Yes campaign was faces on posters saying "Ah go on, ya will!". Secondly, an in my mind more importantly, is the fact that along with the right to vote we have the responsibility to inform ourselves on the issue(s) at hand. Other people here did it, I did it. And while I can't speak for the others I really don't think I'm all that special in that regard - as much as it irks me to say it .

When it comes down to it people vote for reasons that are important to them. As long as they are informed about the issue(s) then I'm more than happy to accept that. Voting out of total ignorance (approx 20% voted No because they didn't understand the Treaty) means you don't have an opinion on the content of the Treaty.

If you review some of my posts from before the referendum you'll see I made the same points re the state of our democracy, so this is not a reaction to the result of the referendum. The result itself is not an issue for me, its the ignorance (and in some cases laziness) of the voting public (regardless of what way they voted) that is the problem. So this isn't a tantrum or intellectual snobbery, it is disappointment and frustration at the way in which we as a people approach democracy in general - and the issue isn't limited to Ireland, it is a Western Democracy issue IMO.

Oh and if the percentages were reversed I may not call for another referendum, however I would support calls from others to do so. I want the will of the people to be done, but to be sure it is the people need to know what they are on about first! :cool:

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can see we're going to have to disagree on what I'm actually saying! I can't for the life of me see what's "patronising" about asking why people voted No. What should one do?

Nor is wondering why people voted No germane to the question of holding a second referendum - bar the collapse of the current ratification process, there simply isn't another option but another referendum, either now or later. It won't be held or not held on account of the reasons people voted No, although admittedly that's a handy face-saver.

I completely agree that it's not patronising asking people how they voted, or wondering why they voted in the way they did. I've spend many happy hours pondering just that.

What i do consider patronising is telling them that they didn't really understand what they were voting on, and telling them they believed the lies of the other side and so on.

Scofflaw wrote: »

We can either hold that referendum on exactly the same text as before, or the government can attempt to at least find out what would make people happier with it. It's not about getting a No or Yes vote by doing so, either - because I think it will be clear by that stage that the referendum is essentially a vote on whether we stay fully in the EU or not - which, in turn, is the necessity for holding a second referendum.

It's not a question of whether No is the "wrong" answer, or claiming it's "illegitimate" - it's simply an answer Ireland can't afford if the price tag is being left behind by the EU. Increasingly, it seems that is what the price tag says. That is why some other country voting No is not an issue for me, either - that's their problem, not ours (and perhaps why some of them prefer not to use referendums).

To turn the situation where we have rejected one treaty into an “EU - in or out” referendum seems unusual and I’m not sure what the legal basis would be. Certainly, I know of no such legal obligation in previous EU treaties which would demand this course of action. There was no such suggestion when France voted “no” to the constitution, and no suggestion when Holland voted “no”.

Again, it’s not the case that Ireland will be “left behind” by the EU. The EU has no legal basis to proceed without all members consent.

One of the main planks in the “YES” campaign was that we had vetoes in a number of areas, guaranteed by the treaty, and this case was made to try to kick into touch the claims of some of the “no” campaign.

If the EU was to “proceed” (as you suggest) without us, then that would appear they would be doing so in breach of their existing laws. Do you really think the EU would do that?

molloyjh

What would you propose the EU does then? It is not functioning as well as it could and the rest of Europe wants a change (no public outcry from the vast majority of Europe would suggest this) and any additional members states will put extra pressure on a system that is already straining. Change is required to the way in which the EU works and Lisbon was the result of years of negotiating among the member states. Most EU leaders don't see how much more they can give us without those changes unravelling the whole Treaty. It is after all a finely balanced compromise among 27 countries.

Regardless of how well informed you were/weren't when you voted you must recognised that there were a lot of people (on both sides) that were no well informed......

marco_polo

thehighground wrote: »

Well, you have to bear in mind that Ireland has been a member of the EU longer than Spain has been operating as a democracy.

And the revelance to this to the discussion at hand is what? Also are you seriously suggesting that the fitness of a democracy bears any relation to the length of time it has been in place? Or indeed that the date we joined the EU was some kind of a watershed date beyond which time any new democracies fomed will not function correctly?

The absence of logic in that statement is quite staggering.

johnnyq

molloyjh wrote: »

I don't think anybody will become suddenly informed about anything. Short of divine intervention that would be an impossbility. There are a number of factors to this issue.
One being the Yes campaigns atrocious attempt to garner support for the Treaty
Secondly, an in my mind more importantly, is the fact that along with the right to vote we have the responsibility to inform ourselves on the issue(s) at hand.

I get what you are saying, but really a second vote *on essentially the same thing again* won't really solve anything and could in fact make things much worse. I can understand that you're annoyed by the yes sides campaign just like I am by the likes of coir etc. but I don't think that justifies a damaging second vote regardless of the result.

I'd also be curious for the 20% didn't understand (your figures, I don't know what the actual figure is) to be asked if is was the *nature* of the document they railed against i.e. that such a ridiculous mish-mash was presented to them. I would imagine a large proportion were insulted that what was proposed couldn't be presented in a friendly understandable way.

molloyjh

johnnyq wrote: »

I get what you are saying, but really a second vote *on essentially the same thing again* won't really solve anything and could in fact make things much worse. I can understand that you're annoyed by the yes sides campaign just like I am by the likes of coir etc. but I don't think that justifies a damaging second vote regardless of the result.

I'd also be curious for the 20% didn't understand (your figures, I don't know what the actual figure is) to be asked if is was the *nature* of the document they railed against i.e. that such a ridiculous mish-mash was presented to them. I would imagine a large proportion were insulted that what was proposed couldn't be presented in a friendly understandable way.

I know what you mean, and yes the ignorance aspect isn't enough on its own to require a new referendum. The new circumstances we find ourselves in however probably does warrant it. I would certainly hope that the shower of gob-sheens we call politicians learn from this campaign and realise that they need to be a lot more infomative and a lot more aggressive to get through to the public. I heard Leo Varadkar say as much last week which was a positive point, however whether the rest of the establishment take it on board is another thing entirely.

As for the source for those figures, they came from a European Commission survey after the referendum. I posted the link before, but don't have time right now to dig it up. If/when I do I'll add it here. Someone else posted a link to the actual Commission results (a pdf doc) which I'll try and get too.

nesf

molloyjh wrote: »

I know what you mean, and yes the ignorance aspect isn't enough on its own to require a new referendum. The new circumstances we find ourselves in however probably does warrant it. I would certainly hope that the shower of gob-sheens we call politicians learn from this campaign and realise that they need to be a lot more infomative and a lot more aggressive to get through to the public. I heard Leo Varadkar say as much last week which was a positive point, however whether the rest of the establishment take it on board is another thing entirely.

As for the source for those figures, they came from a European Commission survey after the referendum. I posted the link before, but don't have time right now to dig it up. If/when I do I'll add it here. Someone else posted a link to the actual Commission results (a pdf doc) which I'll try and get too.

One would have imagined that Nice I did that to them but no, they dropped the ball again.