Lisbon and other "do it again" referenda

Liam Byrne

Here's a question prompted by an article in today's Examiner:

If the "Yes" vote had won, would there be any chance of the "No" campaigners getting a chance to make us all vote again ?

So how come it's OK for Cowen & Co to suggest that - because they lost - they might make us vote again ?

SkepticOne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Here's a question prompted by an article in today's Examiner:

If the "Yes" vote had won, would there be any chance of the "No" campaigners getting a chance to make us all vote again ?

So how come it's OK for Cowen & Co to suggest that - because they lost - they might make us vote again ?

Legally they can ask again and again. If it a Yes result then the constitution would be amended and the Lisbon treaty ratified so the issue then be closed.

passive

because we lost - they might let us vote again ?

fixed and question answered.

sink

Because ratifying the Lisbon treaty is like signing a legal contract. Once you've signed you can't break out of the contract without extenuating circumstances or facing penalties. If Lisbon was ratified and then we decided to pull out we would effectively have to leave the EU.

Victor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So how come it's OK for Cowen & Co to suggest that - because they lost - they might make us vote again ?

Because they have substantial majorities in both houses of the Oireachtas.

Liam Byrne

passive wrote: »

fixed and question answered.

Not sure what this is about, passive.....they (the Government) didn't read the treaty, didn't explain it, didn't sell it, and didn't allay the fears of the public. So they lost.

And the question was about making the public vote again after getting an answer from us, so it has nothing to do with letting us do anything that we might want to do.

France and others rejected the treaty, but their Government over-rode that democratic decision. To be fair to Cowen & Co, they at least took it to a vote....although that might be a bit too generous, since our Constitution probably meant they'd no choice.

But a vote is pointless if they're going to make us keep on voting until - from weariness and the expense of paying for all the PR crap with OUR money - we finally agree with them.

Dave!

If the Taoiseach put, say, the budget to a referendum/plebiscite and the citizens rejected it, then what would happen? We wouldn't have a budget? No, it would be amended and put to another vote, repeatedly, until it's deemed acceptable by the majority of the country.

So as long as the treaty is debated and amended accordingly, what's the problem with voting for it again? The EU and the state apparantly think it's necessary to introduce these reforms

Moriarty

I can also see how being asked to go down to your local school once every couple of months is too much to ask. Don't they know how busy our lives are?!?

oscarBravo

Dave! wrote: »

If the Taoiseach put, say, the budget to a referendum/plebiscite and the citizens rejected it, then what would happen? We wouldn't have a budget? No, it would be amended and put to another vote, repeatedly, until it's deemed acceptable by the majority of the country.

We had a budget last year, dammit. Constantly changing laws is undemocratic.

Fratton Fred

What if Europe ratified the treaty then turned to Ireland and said have another go, this time it's agree or get thrown out would that be undemocratic or excessive pressure from the other member states?

I wonder how people would feel if it was a really important vote, because voting no was pretty much risk free and to some extent was an easy way out. (IMHO).

Victor

Liam Byrne wrote: »

France and others rejected the treaty

No they didn't.

bill_ashmount

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What if Europe ratified the treaty then turned to Ireland and said have another go, this time it's agree or get thrown out would that be undemocratic or excessive pressure from the other member states?

lol, I'd love to see that happen. That would be the final nail in the coffin for the European empire.

There is only so far you can push people before it comes back to bite you on the ass.

Liam Byrne

Dave! wrote: »

If the Taoiseach put, say, the budget to a referendum/plebiscite and the citizens rejected it, then what would happen? We wouldn't have a budget? No, it would be amended and put to another vote, repeatedly, until it's deemed acceptable by the majority of the country.

So as long as the treaty is debated and amended accordingly, what's the problem with voting for it again? The EU and the state apparantly think it's necessary to introduce these reforms

I agree 100%; the issue that I have is whether the bits bolded (by me, for emphasis) are done.

In my original post, I was actually getting at the knee-jerk "get them to vote again on the same thing til they get it right", rather than the proper democratic approach that you mentioned above.

Of course, with Cowen heading eastward to grovel and apologise, rather than saying "here's why the Irish - legitimately - voted no, so let's discuss these and see what we can do", there's SFA chance of anything being discussed or amended.

Don't get me wrong; any time there's change there will - and should - be bits that are beneficial and bits that aren't - we can't always have our own way. But steamrolling onward without taking into account why people voted the way they did and making the appropriate amendments is undemocratic and disrespectful.

I mean, would Cowen have agreed to another General Election on the basis that we got that horribly wrong too ?

oscarBravo

Liam Byrne wrote: »

...taking into account why people voted the way they did...

Why was that, again?

Liam Byrne

As stated above:

Liam Byrne wrote: »

(the Government) didn't read the treaty, didn't explain it, didn't sell it, and didn't allay the fears of the public. So they lost.

I do think that some of the "fears of the public" were unwarranted or exaggerated (see my "give-and-take" / "pros-and-cons" comment, above) but the fact is that no-one explained why or how the benefits might outweigh the negatives.

And when asked about those same pros-and-cons, the Government said they hadn't read it! :eek:

Plenty reason to vote no based on that alone!

oscarBravo

So, on that basis, if the treaty were better explained to people, you'd be satisfied that that was a sufficient change to warrant a new referendum?

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Here's a question prompted by an article in today's Examiner:

If the "Yes" vote had won, would there be any chance of the "No" campaigners getting a chance to make us all vote again ?

So how come it's OK for Cowen & Co to suggest that - because they lost - they might make us vote again ?

Because thats the way it works.
Would you like anti divorce people to get a change of mind referendum?

Basically I think all these people advocating that people aren't entitled to change their minds on the subject of any referendum due to ill information should be out there asking how may times boys asked their girls to go out with them before they said yes and if it was more than once they should tell them to separate...
See how yez get on with that proposition..

God forbid I might decide to change my mind on something ever..
Thats a terrible thing..
It should be outlawed.

O'Morris

Deleted User wrote: »

how may times boys asked their girls to go out with them before they said yes and if it was more than once they should tell them to separate...

Go out with me or there will be consequences. I respect your decision but if you refuse my request you should be aware that you risk being isolated and being the object of resentment. We all know you come from a poor background and you're not likely to manage on your own in this big bad world. You need a strong husband to look after you and provide for you. So just remember that when I ask you again next week.

molloyjh

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not sure what this is about, passive.....they (the Government) didn't read the treaty, didn't explain it, didn't sell it, and didn't allay the fears of the public. So they lost.

And the question was about making the public vote again after getting an answer from us, so it has nothing to do with letting us do anything that we might want to do.

France and others rejected the treaty, but their Government over-rode that democratic decision. To be fair to Cowen & Co, they at least took it to a vote....although that might be a bit too generous, since our Constitution probably meant they'd no choice.

But a vote is pointless if they're going to make us keep on voting until - from weariness and the expense of paying for all the PR crap with OUR money - we finally agree with them.

First - should this not be in the European politics section if its about Lisbon? And haven't all these points been done to death there?

Second - our politicians didn't need to read the Treaty itself cover to cover. They have a well paid professional legal team that do that stuff for them so they can get on with the job without being caught up in a never ending amount of documentation. Also our Government was involved in the negotiations anyway so they knew full well what was in it. You are toally correct in saying that they didn't explain or sell it properly. The Yes campaign was a sham. And the fact that the politicias never read the thing is NEVER a reason to vote No. It may well be a reason, if you discount the fact that their legal teams would have summarised for them, to ignore what they are saying and try and find out for yourself, but thats it. You should be voting on the merits of the Treaty itself and nothing more.

Third - We have every right to vote No again if we so choose. However given the point that you made re the Government and political parties in general not having explained the Treaty, do you not think it would be a good idea for us (forget the politicians for a moment) to vote on it when we have a better understanding of the Treaty itself? A lot of information that has surfaced since would lead us to believe a huge proportion of the population didn't understand the thing at all, regardless of how they voted. It would make sense to me to re-run a referendum after properly informing the people so that they can make a somewhat relevant decision.
You've said that Cowen should go back and tell the EU why we voted No, however there really doesn't seem to be any credible reasons from the majority of No voters. At least half voted No for reasons unrelated to the Treaty or reasons that are untrue of the Treaty (like allowing the EU to influence our Corporation Tax rate, which if bs of the highest order) according to a survey done by the EU Commission after the referendum. Whats Cowen meant to do? Tell them Ireland voted No based on what 10%-15% of the population voted on? Thats not even 0.1% of the population of the EU!

Fourth - Sarkozy was elected in France with his policy for ratifying Lisbon without a referendum well advertised. So the French obviously didn't have much of an issue with it themselves. Yet many people here are using it as a stick to beat our politicians (who normally I would love to see getting whacked ) with. It is a legal requirement that we have a referendum on the Treaty due to a case that Crotty brought against the State back in the 80's (see almost any of the Lisbon threads on the European Politics forum for more details). No other country in the EU has that requirement, and in fact in some countries referenda themselves are illegal due to past abuses - see Nazi Germany for example.

Finally - Should we vote No a second time (if indeed there is a 2nd referendum, which is looking likely) then I can't imagine that there will be another referendum. There would be no way it could happen, and the chances are, IMO, that the EU will remove us a signatories on the Treaty and progress without us. Thats not scaremongering, just realism. Every other country wants it, with the possible exception of the UK who are nationalistic in the extreme, so the EU as a whole will want to move ahead with it. This would create a 2 tier EU where a lot of the changes to the way in which the EU operates will occur within the bounds of the Lisbon Treaty and so we'll be left out of them. I can't see any other outcome to be honest.

oscarBravo

molloyjh wrote: »

First - should this not be in the European politics section if its about Lisbon? And haven't all these points been done to death there?

I have asked myself that, but I think there's a wider point here, which is whether or not there should be multiple referenda on the same topic.

I've only ever heard it said that there should not be more than one referendum on the ratification of EU treaties. Nobody seems to be suggesting that a failed divorce referendum should mean that divorce is permanently and irrevocably banned in the country, and that no-one should ever get to vote on it again.

Equally, the question might be asked: since we did vote to allow divorce, why didn't the no-voters in that referendum get to demand a re-run? And yet, I haven't heard that question asked.

molloyjh

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have asked myself that, but I think there's a wider point here, which is whether or not there should be multiple referenda on the same topic.

I've only ever heard it said that there should not be more than one referendum on the ratification of EU treaties. Nobody seems to be suggesting that a failed divorce referendum should mean that divorce is permanently and irrevocably banned in the country, and that no-one should ever get to vote on it again.

Equally, the question might be asked: since we did vote to allow divorce, why didn't the no-voters in that referendum get to demand a re-run? And yet, I haven't heard that question asked.

Very true. There has been a spike in "interest" or "outrage" regarding this that, at least to me, seems somewhat misplaced. For example the outcry that "France already rejected it and now they were denied the right to vote", when in fact the French voted for someone who told them he would ratify Lisbon without a vote, and so in voting for Sarkozy they elected not to have a referendum. Simple facts are being glossed over or ignored by certain parties in the media and/or PR game and many things have been blown out of proportion or sensationalised beyond recognition. All this has served to do is muddy the water for the average Joe Soap and make it all the more difficut for people to get behind the blurb to the truth of the matter(s).

O'Morris

O'Morris wrote: »

Go out with me or there will be consequences. I respect your decision but if you refuse my request you should be aware that you risk being isolated and being the object of resentment. We all know you come from a poor background and you're not likely to manage on your own in this big bad world. You need a strong husband to look after you and provide for you. So just remember that when I ask you again next week.

Nah.
I'd imagine it would be more along the lines of ...ya know we're good together..G'wan ya know ya want to...How could you turn down a fine thing like me [insert reams of Scofflaw explanations where appropriate...]

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

...[insert reams of Scofflaw explanations where appropriate...]

:D:D

louthandproud

bill_ashmount wrote: »

lol, I'd love to see that happen. That would be the final nail in the coffin for the European empire.

There is only so far you can push people before it comes back to bite you on the ass.

Who would be biting your ass, 'them' or yourself?

Liam Byrne

oscarBravo wrote: »

Equally, the question might be asked: since we did vote to allow divorce, why didn't the no-voters in that referendum get to demand a re-run? And yet, I haven't heard that question asked.

That's actually precisely my point, oscarBravo; the Government got the result that they wanted in that referendum, so once that happened, there was no chance of a repeat.

But up to that point, there was every chance that we could have been repeat voting ad-nauseum.

Is this a "why do you always find something in the last place you look ? (answer: because you'll hardly keep looking afterwards)" question ? Maybe.

But the fact is that the Government should NOT be talking about repeating the referendum as a foregone conclusion BEFORE sussing out WHY people voted "No" - especially since the EU is on it's "no renegotiation" high-horse, so a repeat would not involve an altered referendum, only an altered mindset.

If the Government suss that out (the why) maybe THEN they'd be valid in deciding that a better campaign / new referendum might be appropriate, but saying immediately after a No vote that there would be a re-run is crazy!

And apologising / grovelling "on behalf of" the Irish people ? If anyone got it wrong, it was the negotiators and the Government, not the Irish people. Maybe they should be accountable themselves, for negotiating a treaty that apparently didn't reflect Irish views ? Since they didn't, shouldn't they be fired (by both us and the EU) ?

djpbarry

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If anyone got it wrong, it was the negotiators and the Government, not the Irish people. Maybe they should be accountable themselves, for negotiating a treaty that apparently didn't reflect Irish views ?

How so? What amendments to the Lisbon Treaty would you like to see?

oscarBravo

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's actually precisely my point, oscarBravo; the Government got the result that they wanted in that referendum, so once that happened, there was no chance of a repeat.

But up to that point, there was every chance that we could have been repeat voting ad-nauseum.

I'm confused. Is this a bad thing?

In 1986, we were asked whether we wanted to lift the ban on divorce, and we said no. In 1996 we were asked again, and we said yes.

Are you saying that the referendum shouldn't have been re-run in 1996, or that we should have had another one in 2006 just in case people had changed their minds again?

Maybe they should be accountable themselves, for negotiating a treaty that apparently didn't reflect Irish views ?

If you take away the people who voted against the treaty because they didn't understand it, as well as the people who voted against it for reasons irrelevant to its contents, I'm not at all convinced that the treaty doesn't reflect the views of the people.

O'Morris

I have no problem with a second referendum but I think the result of the first one should be respected and so we should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before holding the next one. Ten years separated the first divorce referendum and the second one. At least half as much time should separate the first and second Lisbon referendums. We should wait until 2013 before we consider holding the next one.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

I have no problem with a second referendum but I think the result of the first one should be respected and so we should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before holding the next one.

That would be fine, were it not for the realpolitik involved. The other 26 member states are unlikely to be content to sit and wait five years for us to indulge in a bout of omphaloskepsis before revisiting the issue.

Ten years separated the first divorce referendum and the second one. At least half as much time should separate the first and second Lisbon referendums. We should wait until 2013 before we consider holding the next one.

You reckon it's going to take five years to educate the people about the treaty?

molloyjh

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's actually precisely my point, oscarBravo; the Government got the result that they wanted in that referendum, so once that happened, there was no chance of a repeat.

But up to that point, there was every chance that we could have been repeat voting ad-nauseum.

So every referendum we have ever run or ever do run should be repeated at regular intervals in case the people have changed their minds? And here we are with everyone shouting for value for money from the Government! :rolleyes:

The Government feel that they are representing the best interests of the people. If in fact there is another referendum and it is voted down again then there is little chance of a third, purely because there will be no point. They are not going to keep going ad infinitum.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But the fact is that the Government should NOT be talking about repeating the referendum as a foregone conclusion BEFORE sussing out WHY people voted "No" - especially since the EU is on it's "no renegotiation" high-horse, so a repeat would not involve an altered referendum, only an altered mindset.

If the Government suss that out (the why) maybe THEN they'd be valid in deciding that a better campaign / new referendum might be appropriate, but saying immediately after a No vote that there would be a re-run is crazy!

Noone has said that we will be holding another referendum. Cowen was quick to say that we mustn't jump to any "quick fix" type solution and have a look at why the Irish people voted the way they did and what the best course of action is from there. The EUs official position is exactly the same. The media is saying that another referendum is likely but no official decision has been reached and the politicians themselves are refusing to speculate. It would seem to me that you are doing a good job of reading a few headlines and maybe the first few paragraphs of newspaper articles on the matter, but not giveing the whole thing the attention it requires to understand it fully. I hope you weren't the same with the Treaty itself!?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And apologising / grovelling "on behalf of" the Irish people ? If anyone got it wrong, it was the negotiators and the Government, not the Irish people. Maybe they should be accountable themselves, for negotiating a treaty that apparently didn't reflect Irish views ? Since they didn't, shouldn't they be fired (by both us and the EU) ?

Noone has apologised or grovelled to anyone for anything yet, and I don't know where you're getting that notion from! I, along with others here, spent time familiarising myself with thw Treaty. I had started out in the No camp at first because there was little to no real effort put into the Yes campaign. However as I gained an understanding of the Treaty I began to realise that it was actually a pretty good deal for Ireland. We weren't losing anything of significance and the EU wasn't changing much either so there wasn't much in the way of reasons for voting No. As I, and others, have said before it is becoming more and more clear as time goes on that the No vote wasn't really all that representative of the Irish view on Lisbon at all, or at least not the truth of it. If you go through the European Union forum threads on the matter you will see a distinct lack of No voters with relevant feedback. One thread specifically aimed at getting it produced 3 worthwhile posts in the first 16 pages of it that I read. If that were even slightly indicative of the Irish voters then the referendum was a bit of a farce, an exercise in ignorance. Many Yes voters weren't much better! And while that wasn't helped by a shambolic Yes campaign that doesn't make the result any more or less meaningful.

Liam Byrne

molloyjh wrote: »

So every referendum we have ever run or ever do run should be repeated at regular intervals in case the people have changed their minds?

Just to clarify - that's not my actual opinion/view; it's what I'm asking - whether that idea is right. And ironically it seems to be what you're proposing about the Lisbon Treaty.

For the record, I'm not actually anti-Treaty; like most people, I was in the No camp simply because no-one had convinced me what the changes were, what was in our interest, and what we would be giving up (compromise is part of politics, but only if you know what you're gaining and losing).

No-one explained what we were gaining & losing, so the vote was therefore to maintain the status quo. Not to exit the EU, not to give it two fingers, just to say "our Government may not have negotiated properly, we're not sure, but they DEFINITELY didn't bother explaining anything - they arrogantly said 'Just vote yes' and expected us to be sheep".

My biggest issue is actually the attitude since - with the APPARENT pre-vote "it's democratic, we need it ratified by EVERYONE" suddenly changing to "we'll go ahead without ye" or "ye'll probably have to vote again"; that's my biggest issue with the whole process and shows a contempt for democracy.

If the politicians couldn't come up with - or even simply sell - an idea they've supposedly spent 7 years coming up with, then fire them and get someone else to negotiate on our behalf....it wasn't us that screwed up, it was THEM.

Liam Byrne

Liam Byrne wrote: »

For the record, I'm not actually anti-Treaty; like most people, I was in the No camp simply because no-one had convinced me what the changes were, what was in our interest, and what we would be giving up (compromise is part of politics, but only if you know what you're gaining and losing).

No-one explained what we were gaining & losing, so the vote was therefore to maintain the status quo. Not to exit the EU, not to give it two fingers, just to say "our Government may not have negotiated properly, we're not sure, but they DEFINITELY didn't bother explaining anything - they arrogantly said 'Just vote yes' and expected us to be sheep".

I actually don't believe you.
Anyone as regular as you reading the EU forum and scofflaws posts must have had some reason other than whats in the treaty for voting no.
Every No argument was blown out of the water here.

My biggest issue is actually the attitude since - with the APPARENT pre-vote "it's democratic, we need it ratified by EVERYONE" suddenly changing to "we'll go ahead without ye" or "ye'll probably have to vote again"; that's my biggest issue with the whole process and shows a contempt for democracy.

If the politicians couldn't come up with - or even simply sell - an idea they've supposedly spent 7 years coming up with, then fire them and get someone else to negotiate on our behalf....it wasn't us that screwed up, it was THEM.

Looks like you've two of your reasons there for voting no and both have noting to do with either the contents or affects of the treaty.

Your post is typical disingenousness in that in your first paragraph you claim that you were in the no camp because you didn't know what the treaty meant [despite it being explained to the nth degree here where you frequent regularally] ... and then you breeze in as if it would be un noticed with 2 of your real un related to the treaty and frankly pathetic reasons for voting no at the end.
The fact that you've posted that bit in conjunction with the rest given it exposes what you first said as nonsense is astounding to be honest.

molloyjh

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No-one explained what we were gaining & losing, so the vote was therefore to maintain the status quo. Not to exit the EU, not to give it two fingers, just to say "our Government may not have negotiated properly, we're not sure, but they DEFINITELY didn't bother explaining anything - they arrogantly said 'Just vote yes' and expected us to be sheep".

My first question to you is: Do you need to be hand-held through everything or can you do the work yourself?

To my mind voting is a right that many people across the word do not have and we are all lucky to have been born into a democratic country. However I also firmly believe that while everyone has the right to vote, they also have the responsibility to inform themselves of the issue(s) if they choose to utilise that right. If they do not inform themselves of the issues then there is little point in them voting. Waiting to be told what to do by others or be convinced one way or another by others is fundamentally flawed as you may find yourself being convinced by someone who is not being very forthright. The most convincing people aren't always the most honest after all. If you want to have your say then it should be yours and not someone elses. Research the topic yourself. Plenty of others do. Then make up your mind after reviewing the information. Ignore the politicians and the privately funded groups as they are not always entirely trust-worthy and some have hidden agendas that may not match what you want.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

My biggest issue is actually the attitude since - with the APPARENT pre-vote "it's democratic, we need it ratified by EVERYONE" suddenly changing to "we'll go ahead without ye" or "ye'll probably have to vote again"; that's my biggest issue with the whole process and shows a contempt for democracy.

Secondly proceeding ahead shows no contempt for democracy at all. A veto power being held by less than 1% of the EU population is not in any way democratic, and the EU itself doesn't really work by democracy anyway, certainly not in a pure way, as it tries to weight votes to allow smaller nations (i.e. minotrities) have a slightly greater say so as to achieve a fairness that true democracy couldn't do. If they were to force us against our will to join the Lisbon Treaty then it would show contempt for democracy, but to leave us out entirely would respect our will, as well as the will of the rest of the EU.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If the politicians couldn't come up with - or even simply sell - an idea they've supposedly spent 7 years coming up with, then fire them and get someone else to negotiate on our behalf....it wasn't us that screwed up, it was THEM.

Really? How? What did they do wrong at the negotiating table? Did they prevent you in any way from discovering the truth of the matter for yourself? Is it ther fault that you were too lazy to do a bit of research? I'm sorry if this is being harsh, but you can't just sit there and wait to be spoonfed, you're an adult. With being an adult and with being a cog in the democratic wheel comes responsibilities. Maybe, just maybe, those people who voted No out of ignorance, despite the fact that there was information there for them to review, were in fact the ones that screwed up. Who's to say what way we would have voted if at least a respectable number of people bothered their back-sides to educate themselves on the issue? Maybe we would have gotten a resounding No with a consistant message and a list of viable reasons for its rejection. Or maybe we would have voted Yes. Sadly we may never know the true answer to this question.

bill_ashmount

Deleted User wrote: »

Every No argument was blown out of the water here.

lol

bill_ashmount

molloyjh wrote: »

Secondly proceeding ahead shows no contempt for democracy at all.

lol again.

bill_ashmount

molloyjh wrote: »

If they were to force us against our will to join the Lisbon Treaty then it would show contempt for democracy, but to leave us out entirely would respect our will, as well as the will of the rest of the EU.

The lisbon treaty is dead, perhaps you should go back and read it and see how it can never come into play now. No matter how much certain people residing in Europe want to force it through...

Deep Easterly

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but there is an interesting article in the Irish Times charting the "class" inclinations of voters:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0710/breaking44.htm

Key points:

Working class No voters
Middle class Yes voters.

The article then puts this in another way:

Uneducated voted No, Educated voted yes.

A reflection of a democratic society? reflecting on a fair vote?, or, an insult to everyone who voted no, who did so on the knowledge they read and listened to?

I think it is pretty obvious that there will be another referendom, and the propaganda is starting. Anyone who voted no were misimformed or unsure, while those who voted yes are fully informed and educated.

What a load of ****.

bill_ashmount

bill_ashmount wrote: »

lol

yeah...
Everytime I elect a representative to the Dáil,thats all they do in the Dáil,they go lol like you.
They don't discuss anything at all like you just did there like.

forgive me for my sarcasm but your post is worthless as it contains not a kalfworth of either information or discussion.

Given that I referred to the many many hundreds of posts in this forum blowing all no arguments out of the water ...perhaps you could come back to us here and be more credible with references to where you disproved any of scofflaws posts?

I never saw you here before and no post of yours ever engaging in discussion on the subject comes to mind.

Perhaps we should run a country like that and say lol anytiem we introduce a discussion on new laws and just introduce them and leave it at that.
That seems to be the policy that you endorse.

Deep Easterly

Deep Easterly wrote: »

What a load of ****.

How so?
Would you be happy that people vote without knowing what it is the hell they are voting on ?
Say the finance bill?
It's total mumbo jumbo untill it's explained..
Should we close down government untill everybody understands the mimbo jumbo?

Deep Easterly

Deleted User wrote: »

How so?
Would you be happy that people vote without knowing what it is the hell they are voting on ?
Say the finance bill?
It's total mumbo jumbo untill it's explained..
Should we close down government untill everybody understands the mimbo jumbo?

How do you mean "not knowing"? Are you assuming that those that did not vote in accordance with you were did so because the are ignorant?

According to most opinion polls a large amount were ignorant of the treaty yes.

Deep Easterly

That explains then why there was a relatively high yes count then. Ignorance is bliss.

I think you'll find you have to discuss things in this forum Deep Easterly rather than use one liners-you won't get away with a cut and run post like elsewhere.

For instance I've apparently been saved from prostitution and hard drugs.
I was accosted by a lady outside my local church telling me Lisbon was bringing this in.
Absolute lies Goebels style and loads believed it of course.

Deep Easterly

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you'll find you have to discuss things in this forum Deep Easterly rather than use one liners-you won't get away with a cut and run post like elsewhere.

You mean something like this

Deleted User wrote:

According to most opinion polls a large amount were ignorant of the treaty yes

Talk about rhetorc, simply becasue the "opinion" polls are in accordance with your own point of view, (or is it really yours? )

I just posted a link about how the class breakdown of voting was analysed, and gave my own point of view on it. When I want your advice I will ask for it. Perhaps you would like to give your opinion on the actual article rather than telling me how to discuss it?

Deep Easterly

Deep Easterly wrote: »

You mean something like this



Talk about rhetorc, simply becasue the "opinion" polls are in accordance with your own point of view, (or is it really yours? )

I just posted a link about how the class breakdown of voting was analysed, and gave my own point of view on it. When I want your advice I will ask for it. Perhaps you would like to give your opinion on the actual article rather than telling me how to discuss it?

Would you like to address Lisbon at all or the undeniable fact that there were a lot of lies propegated about it and that there was a lot of uninformed voters voting no because they knew nothing about it.
Theres no morality in parading them as part of one angle against the treaty.

Also I engaged your opinion and you ran away with a meaningless one liner.
Thats not debate Sir.

nesf

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but there is an interesting article in the Irish Times charting the "class" inclinations of voters:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0710/breaking44.htm

Key points:

Working class No voters
Middle class Yes voters.

The article then puts this in another way:

Uneducated voted No, Educated voted yes.

A reflection of a democratic society? reflecting on a fair vote?, or, an insult to everyone who voted no, who did so on the knowledge they read and listened to?

I think it is pretty obvious that there will be another referendom, and the propaganda is starting. Anyone who voted no were misimformed or unsure, while those who voted yes are fully informed and educated.

What a load of ****.

People generally vote on class lines, what's your point? Just because there was a stronger tendency to vote No in the working class and among the less educated is simple statistics and nothing else. Just because a majority of type A people voted Yes and a majority of type B voted No, doesn't mean that all A's voted Yes or that all No voters are B's or anything silly like that.

heyjude

Deleted User wrote: »

According to most opinion polls a large amount were ignorant of the treaty yes.

I assume you mean that a large number of those that voted No were ignorant of the treaty, however AFAIK, all the opinion polls taken since the referendum concentrated on why people voted No and the conclusion was that many people voted No because they didn't understand the Treaty.

How does anyone know though, whether just as large a proportion of those that voted Yes weren't equally ignorant, but just decided to do as they were advised by the major political parties and voted YES ?

Or is everyone just making the assumption that it was a cut and dried case of - informed - Voted Yes, ignorant - Voted No. I would suspect that the political establishment couldn't care less whether the people understand the treaty or not, so long as they vote Yes, as they were told to do.

Given the record of the current and previous governments for getting things wrong/making mistakes, is relying on them by slavishly trusting what the government and major political parties say, any less ignorant ?

heyjude

heyjude wrote: »

How does anyone know though, whether just as large a proportion of those that voted Yes weren't equally ignorant, but just decided to do as they were advised by the major political parties and voted YES ?

Undoubtedly theres a significant proportion of the yes vote willing to accept the analysis of over 80% of the Dáil.
Thats an acceptable position to take given that it was cross party.
Cross party support would be unlikely to be given if a pup was being sold rather than something good.
Also pups usually aren't sold in full view of the public.Every single fact in relation to this treaty was accessable to the public and the No campaign.
Unfortunately a lot of the no campain chose non facts because in my opinion...if they had to rely on the text of the treaty or the spirit of it,they'd have little if anything to go on.

Or is everyone just making the assumption that it was a cut and dried case of - informed - Voted Yes, ignorant - Voted No. I would suspect that the political establishment couldn't care less whether the people understand the treaty or not, so long as they vote Yes, as they were told to do.

Again,that would hold if the opposition were saying vote no.
For it to hold,you'd have to believe in a conspiracy which doesn't hold water

Given the record of the current and previous governments for getting things wrong/making mistakes, is relying on them by slavishly trusting what the government and major political parties say, any less ignorant ?

Again,I doubt any opposition would resist an opportunity to oppose a major issue like this if they thought it was bad for the country.
Of course politicians make mistakes but usually they get called up on it by their opposite numbers - To suggest that there was no calling by the opposition this time because they were in league with a mistake or part of a conspiracy doesn't hold water.

Deep Easterly

nesf wrote: »

People generally vote on class lines, what's your point? Just because there was a stronger tendency to vote No in the working class and among the less educated is simple statistics and nothing else. Just because a majority of type A people voted Yes and a majority of type B voted No, doesn't mean that all A's voted Yes or that all No voters are B's or anything silly like that.

My point is that the Irish Times article I posted is using the social stratification card for the no vote is both biased and insulting. The word "uneducated" is aligned with the working class position, the word "uninformed" is aligned with the working class. Eductaed+Middleclass=yes and so forth. I am aware that type A people don't all vote type A blah blah. My point is the manner in which this piece is written. There isn't acceptance of the No vote by both the media and the politics, as should be the case in a normal democratic society. There is however, blame, accusation of lies and ignorance on the majority of voters. A differnece.

Now, what exactly is your point?

nesf

Deep Easterly wrote: »

The word "uneducated" is aligned with the working class position, the word "uninformed" is aligned with the working class. Eductaed+Middleclass=yes and so forth.

Nope. The two were noted separately and no alignment or link was drawn explicitly or from what I can see, implicitly unless you want to apply the logic that the article was equally aligning all women and young people as being working class and men and older people as middle class etc.

You seem to have misread the article and it's tone.

Deep Easterly

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you like to address Lisbon at all or the undeniable fact that there were a lot of lies propegated about it and that there was a lot of uninformed voters voting no because they knew nothing about it.
Theres no morality in parading them as part of one angle against the treaty.

Also I engaged your opinion and you ran away with a meaningless one liner.
Thats not debate Sir.

Yes, but you still have not given me a debate on my original post. A nice deflection all the same. Are you a politician BB?