Lisbon 2

Brendan777

Hi all

As it is looking likely that we will have a second referendum on Lisbon I would like to invite interested parties to voice their opinion on the following topic:

Is our democracy working if we need second referendums on the same issues (Nice, Lisbon)

All are welcome to, Yes and No voters, but please can we keep this thread sensible and respectful.

Thanks all

Brendan

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brendan777 wrote: »

Hi all

As it is looking likely that we will have a second referendum on Lisbon I would like to invite interested parties to voice their opinion on the following topic:

Is our democracy working if we need second referendums on the same issues (Nice, Lisbon)

All are welcome to, Yes and No voters, but please can we keep this thread sensible and respectful.

Thanks all

Brendan

Be interesting to see how the Yes camp markets itself this time.

Personally, I don't think we're anywhere near as important as we think we are - I'm surprised Europe hasn't tried to amend laws or bring in legislation to carry on without us.

is_that_so

Brendan777 wrote: »

Hi all

As it is looking likely that we will have a second referendum on Lisbon I would like to invite interested parties to voice their opinion on the following topic:

Is our democracy working if we need second referendums on the same issues (Nice, Lisbon)

All are welcome to, Yes and No voters, but please can we keep this thread sensible and respectful.

Thanks all

Brendan

What do you think yourself?
One of the problems I have with this question is how narrowly people focus it, only on the two EU referenda. There are other issues we've also been forced to address more than once and none suggests a problem with democracy. If there is a need or demand for a referendum then one should be held.

Otacon

is_that_so wrote: »

If there is a need or demand for a referendum then one should be held.

If the need and demand is coming from external sources like other European leaders?

I have always agreed that if the treaty was amended to qwell the legitimate concerns of the 'No' camp, then I would see no issue in another referendum, as a 'No' vote should mean, 'Try harder', not 'No way no how!'

But if it is going to be a case of the same treaty being put to us, I can't see how anyone would be surprised with the same outcome.

Brendan777

Is that so

yes referendums on the same issues happened more than once before. But were they almost immediately after each other? What was the time span between the referendums? This is an extremely important point.

is_that_so

Brendan777 wrote: »

Is that so

yes referendums on the same issues happened more than once before. But were they almost immediately after each other? What was the time span between the referendums? This is an extremely important point.

My point on this is that it is often conveniently ignored that we have had to address issues and will continue to do so. I see absolutely no problem with this. Why is the timeframe so important to you?

Brendan777

Here is the list of successful amendmants by referendum:

Third Amendment (8 June 1972): Permitted the state to join the European Communities.
Fourth Amendment (5 January 1973): Reduced minimum voting age from 21 to 18.
Fifth Amendment (5 January 1973): Removed reference to "special position" of the Roman Catholic Church and to certain other named denominations.
Sixth Amendment (3 August 1979): Provided that orders made by the Adoption Board could not be declared unconstitutional because they were not made by a court.
Seventh Amendment (3 August 1979): Allowed the state to determine by law which institutions of higher education would be entitled to elect members of the Senate.
Eighth Amendment (7 October 1983): Introduced the constitutional prohibition of abortion.
Ninth Amendment (2 August 1984): Extended the right to vote to certain non-nationals.
Tenth Amendment (22 June 1987): Permitted the state to ratify the Single European Act.
Eleventh Amendment (16 July 1992): Permitted the state to ratify the Maastricht Treaty.
Thirteenth Amendment (23 December 1992): Specified that the prohibition of abortion would not limit freedom of travel in and out of the state.
Fourteenth Amendment (23 December 1992): Specified that the prohibition of abortion would not limit the right to distribute information about abortion services in foreign countries.
Fifteenth Amendment (17 June 1996): Removed the constitutional prohibition of divorce, but retained certain restrictions on its occurrence.
Sixteenth Amendment (12 December 1996): Allowed a court to refuse someone bail if it suspected they would commit a criminal offence while at liberty.
Seventeenth Amendment (14 November 1997): Introduced provisions related to the confidentiality of cabinet meetings. This became protected unless, in certain circumstances, the High Court orders otherwise.
Eighteenth Amendment (3 June 1998): Allowed the state to ratify the Amsterdam Treaty.
Nineteenth Amendment (3 June 1998): Provided for the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 as required by the Belfast Agreement.
Twentieth Amendment (23 June 1999): Provided that local government elections must occur every five years.
Twenty-first Amendment (27 March 2002): Introduced the constitutional prohibition of the death penalty, and also removed all incidental references to the death penalty from the text.
Twenty-third Amendment (27 March 2002): Allowed the state to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Twenty-sixth Amendment (7 November 2002): Allowed the state to ratify the Nice Treaty.
Twenty-seventh Amendment (24 June 2004): Restricted the right to Irish citizenship.

And here is the list of unsuccessful amendments by referendum, you can compare the dates

Third Amendment Bill (1958): This was a proposal to alter the electoral system for elections to Dáil Éireann from proportional representation under the Single Transferable Vote to the British 'First Past the Post' system. It also proposed to establish an independent commission for the drawing of constituency boundaries on a constitutional basis. It was put to a referendum on 17 June 1959 but was defeated.
Third Amendment Bill (1968): This proposed to specify more precisely the system of apportionment in the drawing of constituency boundaries. It would have permitted rural constituencies to elect a disproportionate number of TDs (see malapportionment). The proposal was put to a referendum on 16 October 1968 but was rejected.
Fourth Amendment Bill (1968): This was a second attempt to alter the electoral system by abolishing proportional representation in favour of 'First Past the Post'. It was submitted to a referendum on the same day as the Third Amendment Bill (1968) and was defeated.
Tenth Amendment Bill (1986): This proposed to remove the constitutional ban on divorce. It was put to a referendum on 26 June 1986 but was defeated. The ban on divorce was eventually lifted by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1996.
Twelfth Amendment Bill (1992): This proposed to strengthen the constitutional ban on abortion by stating that an abortion could not be procured to protect the health, rather than the life, of the mother, and that risk to the life of the mother from suicide could not be grounds for an abortion. This was put to a referendum on 25 November 1992 but was defeated.
Twenty-second Amendment Bill (2001): This proposed to establish a body for the investigation of judges and to amend the procedure for the removal of judges. It was not passed by the houses of the Oireachtas.
Twenty-fourth Amendment Bill (2001): This would have allowed the state to ratify the Treaty of Nice. This was rejected in a referendum on 7 June 2001. Voters reversed this decision when they adopted the Twenty-sixth Amendment in 2002.
Twenty-fifth Amendment Bill (2002): This was a second attempt to strengthen the constitutional ban on abortion and to prevent risk of suicide being invoked as grounds for an abortion. It was submitted to a referendum on 6 March 2002 but was defeated.
Twenty-eighth Amendment Bill (2008): This would have allowed the state to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. This was rejected in a referendum on 12 June 2008.

is_that_so

Otacon wrote: »

If the need and demand is coming from external sources like other European leaders?

I have always agreed that if the treaty was amended to qwell the legitimate concerns of the 'No' camp, then I would see no issue in another referendum, as a 'No' vote should mean, 'Try harder', not 'No way no how!'

But if it is going to be a case of the same treaty being put to us, I can't see how anyone would be surprised with the same outcome.

I don't think that it is however much some people want to wish it. We require a constitutional amendment that affects our membership of the EU. I have seen comments that suggested that we did not really need it and that in fact it should have gone through legislation, not politically wise in my view, and been tested by the Supreme Court. In retrospect maybe it should have been referred.

Brendan777

Timeframe is very important. If a society rejects a particular amendment it is quite reasonable to assume that there is a possibility that after one two or three decades there has bees a significant enough change in make up of our society to warrant another referendum on the issue. Changes in Ireland such as the demise of religion, new communities, gae demographics etc often warranted referendum re-runs after a number of years.

Only in EU treatys are we asked to vote on an issue, and then asked to vote again on the same issue a year or two later.

Does this mean that our democracy is faulty?

is_that_so

Brendan777 wrote: »

Here is the list of successful amendmants by referendum:

Third Amendment (8 June 1972): Permitted the state to join the European Communities.
Fourth Amendment (5 January 1973): Reduced minimum voting age from 21 to 18.
Fifth Amendment (5 January 1973): Removed reference to "special position" of the Roman Catholic Church and to certain other named denominations.
Sixth Amendment (3 August 1979): Provided that orders made by the Adoption Board could not be declared unconstitutional because they were not made by a court.
Seventh Amendment (3 August 1979): Allowed the state to determine by law which institutions of higher education would be entitled to elect members of the Senate.
Eighth Amendment (7 October 1983): Introduced the constitutional prohibition of abortion.
Ninth Amendment (2 August 1984): Extended the right to vote to certain non-nationals.
Tenth Amendment (22 June 1987): Permitted the state to ratify the Single European Act.
Eleventh Amendment (16 July 1992): Permitted the state to ratify the Maastricht Treaty.
Thirteenth Amendment (23 December 1992): Specified that the prohibition of abortion would not limit freedom of travel in and out of the state.
Fourteenth Amendment (23 December 1992): Specified that the prohibition of abortion would not limit the right to distribute information about abortion services in foreign countries.
Fifteenth Amendment (17 June 1996): Removed the constitutional prohibition of divorce, but retained certain restrictions on its occurrence.
Sixteenth Amendment (12 December 1996): Allowed a court to refuse someone bail if it suspected they would commit a criminal offence while at liberty.
Seventeenth Amendment (14 November 1997): Introduced provisions related to the confidentiality of cabinet meetings. This became protected unless, in certain circumstances, the High Court orders otherwise.
Eighteenth Amendment (3 June 1998): Allowed the state to ratify the Amsterdam Treaty.
Nineteenth Amendment (3 June 1998): Provided for the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 as required by the Belfast Agreement.
Twentieth Amendment (23 June 1999): Provided that local government elections must occur every five years.
Twenty-first Amendment (27 March 2002): Introduced the constitutional prohibition of the death penalty, and also removed all incidental references to the death penalty from the text.
Twenty-third Amendment (27 March 2002): Allowed the state to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Twenty-sixth Amendment (7 November 2002): Allowed the state to ratify the Nice Treaty.
Twenty-seventh Amendment (24 June 2004): Restricted the right to Irish citizenship.

And here is the list of unsuccessful amendments by referendum, you can compare the dates

Third Amendment Bill (1958): This was a proposal to alter the electoral system for elections to Dáil Éireann from proportional representation under the Single Transferable Vote to the British 'First Past the Post' system. It also proposed to establish an independent commission for the drawing of constituency boundaries on a constitutional basis. It was put to a referendum on 17 June 1959 but was defeated.
Third Amendment Bill (1968): This proposed to specify more precisely the system of apportionment in the drawing of constituency boundaries. It would have permitted rural constituencies to elect a disproportionate number of TDs (see malapportionment). The proposal was put to a referendum on 16 October 1968 but was rejected.
Fourth Amendment Bill (1968): This was a second attempt to alter the electoral system by abolishing proportional representation in favour of 'First Past the Post'. It was submitted to a referendum on the same day as the Third Amendment Bill (1968) and was defeated.
Tenth Amendment Bill (1986): This proposed to remove the constitutional ban on divorce. It was put to a referendum on 26 June 1986 but was defeated. The ban on divorce was eventually lifted by the Fifteenth Amendment in 1996.
Twelfth Amendment Bill (1992): This proposed to strengthen the constitutional ban on abortion by stating that an abortion could not be procured to protect the health, rather than the life, of the mother, and that risk to the life of the mother from suicide could not be grounds for an abortion. This was put to a referendum on 25 November 1992 but was defeated.
Twenty-second Amendment Bill (2001): This proposed to establish a body for the investigation of judges and to amend the procedure for the removal of judges. It was not passed by the houses of the Oireachtas.
Twenty-fourth Amendment Bill (2001): This would have allowed the state to ratify the Treaty of Nice. This was rejected in a referendum on 7 June 2001. Voters reversed this decision when they adopted the Twenty-sixth Amendment in 2002.
Twenty-fifth Amendment Bill (2002): This was a second attempt to strengthen the constitutional ban on abortion and to prevent risk of suicide being invoked as grounds for an abortion. It was submitted to a referendum on 6 March 2002 but was defeated.
Twenty-eighth Amendment Bill (2008): This would have allowed the state to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. This was rejected in a referendum on 12 June 2008.

Is there a point to this list?

is_that_so

Brendan777 wrote: »

Timeframe is very important. If a society rejects a particular amendment it is quite reasonable to assume that there is a possibility that after one two or three decades there has bees a significant enough change in make up of our society to warrant another referendum on the issue. Changes in Ireland such as the demise of religion, new communities, gae demographics etc often warranted referendum re-runs after a number of years.

Only in EU treatys are we asked to vote on an issue, and then asked to vote again on the same issue a year or two later.

Does this mean that our democracy is faulty?

I don't think so. What do you think?

Brendan777

The point to the list is to illustrate the timeframe issue that YOU brought up.

lmtduffy

Its not the same issue if it altered to suit us better,

which it probably will.

and there is no problem with democracy,

as you can still vote no.

Hitman Actual

Brendan777 wrote: »

Hi all

As it is looking likely that we will have a second referendum on Lisbon I would like to invite interested parties to voice their opinion on the following topic:

Interesting wording. Out of curiosity, are you affiliated with anyone in particular, or doing specific research, or something along those lines?

Anyway, if there is enough evidence to suggest that the electorate did not vote knowledgeably in the original referendum, is the No vote to Lisbon a sound democratic decision?

jimmycrackcorm

people are free to reject a second lisbon treaty so there is no harm done in having another. We also had two divorce referendums.

BKtje

I think it will be interesting to see what the reasons for many peoples no vote was. If it turns out that people voted no for mis-informed reasons or people voted no as they felt they didnt have enough knowledge on the matter than i think a 2nd referendum in a short space of time is justified and needed.

Only in EU treatys are we asked to vote on an issue, and then asked to vote again on the same issue a year or two later.

Since the Nice treaty passed at the second go, doesn't it show that a second referendum was needed?

Does this mean that our democracy is faulty?

I think it means that our democracy is infact a democracy. Even if we are asked to vote 100 times and it was no each time it would still be a democracy. What it would mean is that we are the eejits who keep voting in a government that insist on asking us the same question over and over.

Brendan777

Hi

Great point duffy!

Hey leonard. No im not affiliated with anyone, im just a regular No voter.

Some comments: How do you measure if the public had enough evidence or not? I, same as everyone, heard some of the ridicilous reasons why a small minority of people voted no. However would it not be reasonable to assume that a similarly small minority voted yes for equally silly reasons (e.g. we will get kicked out of the EU)

Also to say that people must be properly informed before they can vote on a referendum doesnt really work, in that case we would probably have to revise almost every referendum in the history of the state as a minority are always badly informed.

However I believe that the majority on both sides were well informed, just because we disagree doesnt always mean that one person is wrong and the other right: we are a diverse society, we have different view points, we are urban-rural / workingclass-well off / man-woman etc etc...these differences count for a lot.

it is very obvious that if the result has been a YES that we would not be having these discussions. The Yes voters would say that the people have spoken and the No voters would go and fight thier corner on other issues. Lisbon treaty as a topic for debate would be practically dead.

Why isnt that the case now? The people have spoken. The majority have voted no. Why are we in a pre referendum position of debating the issues when the referendum is over?

The answer in my opinion is simple: EU democracy has been lost amidst the enthusiasm for a federal europe. The european project has lost its way, lost its soul, democratic values now belong to the anti-EU side, not the pro. As a european and as a father of young children this is a very sad situation.

I love Europe. I travel a lot. My wife is from Koln. I love democracy. I love freedom. I love humanities potential to heal the schisims in this world.

But the self amending anti democratic unaccountable Lisbon Treaty is not the way.


Brendan

Tim Robbins

Brendan777 wrote: »

Is that so

yes referendums on the same issues happened more than once before. But were they almost immediately after each other? What was the time span between the referendums? This is an extremely important point.

I think you should read some of threads that have been posted about Lisbon over the last couple of Months, a lot of topics that you are interested in have come up before.

Cheers

is_that_so

Brendan777 wrote: »

Hi


Some comments: How do you measure if the public had enough evidence or not? I, same as everyone, heard some of the ridicilous reasons why a small minority of people voted no.However would it not be reasonable to assume that a similarly small minority voted yes for equally silly reasons (e.g. we will get kicked out of the EU)

Stupidity is not exclusive to any choice of vote.

However I believe that the majority on both sides were well informed, just because we disagree doesnt always mean that one person is wrong and the other right: we are a diverse society, we have different view points, we are urban-rural / workingclass-well off / man-woman etc etc...these differences count for a lot.

There is currently no actual evidence to support or deny this. Like elections some people have very "uninformed" reasons for the way they vote. I am also starting to feel a sense of deja vu here, pretty sure this has already been covered in some detail.

Tim Robbins

Brendan777 wrote: »

...unaccountable Lisbon Treaty

Brendan,
This sort of rhetoric gets nobody anywhere. Why is Lisbon "unaccountable"?
I think it's a ridiculous assertion. Lisbon had provisions which gave more power to national governments. Every EU politician that sits in the parliament is elected. Every politician who sits in the council is. The commission are appointed by democratically elected governments.

Hitman Actual

Brendan777 wrote: »

Hi

Great point duffy!

Hey leonard. No im not affiliated with anyone, im just a regular No voter.

Some comments: How do you measure if the public had enough evidence or not? I, same as everyone, heard some of the ridicilous reasons why a small minority of people voted no. However would it not be reasonable to assume that a similarly small minority voted yes for equally silly reasons (e.g. we will get kicked out of the EU)

Also to say that people must be properly informed before they can vote on a referendum doesnt really work, in that case we would probably have to revise almost every referendum in the history of the state as a minority are always badly informed.

However I believe that the majority on both sides were well informed, just because we disagree doesnt always mean that one person is wrong and the other right: we are a diverse society, we have different view points, we are urban-rural / workingclass-well off / man-woman etc etc...these differences count for a lot.

it is very obvious that if the result has been a YES that we would not be having these discussions. The Yes voters would say that the people have spoken and the No voters would go and fight thier corner on other issues. Lisbon treaty as a topic for debate would be practically dead.

Why isnt that the case now? The people have spoken. The majority have voted no. Why are we in a pre referendum position of debating the issues when the referendum is over?

The answer in my opinion is simple: EU democracy has been lost amidst the enthusiasm for a federal europe. The european project has lost its way, lost its soul, democratic values now belong to the anti-EU side, not the pro. As a european and as a father of young children this is a very sad situation.

I love Europe. I travel a lot. My wife is from Koln. I love democracy. I love freedom. I love humanities potential to heal the schisims in this world.

But the self amending anti democratic unaccountable Lisbon Treaty is not the way.
Brendan

In a rush, so here's a link to the preliminary Eurobarometer poll. I think you'll find from this that the majority of people were not informed of the issues. There's also another poll being conducted at the moment that will be published in September.

Also, considering your views in the locked thread from yesterday, I'd say you only think that the majority of people were informed because they were in agreement with your views (i.e. mis-informed).

Brendan777

Ok I really gota go.

First I want to put out an inveite to all (including you Tim) to convince me, educate me that this treaty is good for our country. Show me what to read, watch, who to talk to. Im serious, I am teachable and my mind can be changed. So theres you challange, turn me into a Yes voter, you never know you m,ay succeed. I promise to read etc whatever you suggest!!!

Heres a few links I threw together, have a look at them, the list is certainly not exhaustive and there is so much more out there. I challenge you all to expose yourself to this material and refute the claims. I will be here tomorrow to check up. And no just because there is a libertas link doesnt mean im a libertas fan I was very impressed by Ganley but the jury is still out, I am also not looney left-they are so funny.

Bye for now




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNpTBm7Xrt4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FvTodUBEYY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFRl5Bp_HQI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbzXrp5AL7c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQxxCg5lKG4


http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/326

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0618/1213735259709.html



http://www.libertas.org/content/view/229/83/

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86484

Hitman Actual

Lol. I actually hope that post survives and you have to spend time commenting on all those links.

Are you telling the truth about not being affiliated with anyone? There's something not quite right about your posts.

RDM_83

B-K-DzR wrote: »

I think it means that our democracy is infact a democracy. Even if we are asked to vote 100 times and it was no each time it would still be a democracy

The arguement that if a vote is passed on the 2nd or the 3rd time might not indicate that democracy is working, simply that the electorate care more about how public money is spent than the people in the political establishment (who are some of the best paid in the world and have some nice guaranteed pensions)

ps I wonder if anybody can help me with this, have a memory of listening to the radio about a year ago where there was a vote passed that allowed a TD (i think) that had not filled out the appropriate forms before he retired to claim his pension. The discussion was about how when petioned by people who had not been able to claim pensions the previous response was that it was an individuals responsibilty (i think this involved a garda).
this is really bugging me but can't seem to find anything on the net :mad:

Tim Robbins

Brendan777 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNpTBm7Xrt4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FvTodUBEYY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFRl5Bp_HQI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbzXrp5AL7c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQxxCg5lKG4


http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/326

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0618/1213735259709.html



http://www.libertas.org/content/view/229/83/

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86484

How about you post all your yes links to show us your "research" was objective? I fail to see the point in arguing with someone who refuses to be objective.

Scofflaw

Brendan777 wrote: »

Hi all

As it is looking likely that we will have a second referendum on Lisbon I would like to invite interested parties to voice their opinion on the following topic:

Is our democracy working if we need second referendums on the same issues (Nice, Lisbon)

All are welcome to, Yes and No voters, but please can we keep this thread sensible and respectful.

Well, I'd go with B-K-DzR's point about Nice II. Since the result was different second time round, clearly it would have been wrong to regard the first result as the final position, since it would not actually have reflected the eventual choice of the electorate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

RDM_83 wrote: »

The arguement that if a vote is passed on the 2nd or the 3rd time might not indicate that democracy is working, simply that the electorate care more about how public money is spent than the people in the political establishment (who are some of the best paid in the world and have some nice guaranteed pensions)

ps I wonder if anybody can help me with this, have a memory of listening to the radio about a year ago where there was a vote passed that allowed a TD (i think) that had not filled out the appropriate forms before he retired to claim his pension. The discussion was about how when petioned by people who had not been able to claim pensions the previous response was that it was an individuals responsibilty (i think this involved a garda).
this is really bugging me but can't seem to find anything on the net :mad:

That was Michael Woods.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1030/woodsm.html?rss

ircoha

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/tcm_ireland/20080724/tie-dil-to-be-recalled-early-to-address-6c17b45.html

(typos in original)
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/tcm_ireland/20080724/tie-dil-to-be-recalled-early-to-address-6c17b45.html

<<The Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, is reportedly set to recall the Dil for one day in September as part of moves to address the fall-out from the Lisbon Treaty referendum.


Reports this morning say TDs will be recalled from their summer break in order to put structures in place for a review of the Lisbon 'No' vote, including the establishment of a cross-party committee.

The recall is reportedly likely to happen on Wednesday, September 3.

This morning's reports say the move is designed to ensure that the Government is seen to be addressing the Lisbon impasse before the next summit of EU leaders in October.>>

I wonder will the x party committee include SF?

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I'd go with B-K-DzR's point about Nice II. Since the result was different second time round, clearly it would have been wrong to regard the first result as the final position, since it would not actually have reflected the eventual choice of the electorate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Technically, there is no final position.

Boggle

On topic....

The main concern with how our democracy is that it appears to be the party politics bit. What I mean is that you elect a representative (a voice if you will) but (s)he no longer has the freedom to speak his/her mind as the party line has to be obeyed.

It means your local td no longer has to shoulder the responsibility for what he voted for.

---

Personally, if I had my way at election time, anyone going for eelection should have to post a cv stating what acts he voted on how he voted so the constituents can decide if he represented their views. I'd also like to see basic numbers such as no days in Dail and expenses etc so you can tell if he's milking it or working...
(Course that can only be applied to re-election but it would provide some level of accountability)

(Edit: not really an EU thread this is it??- not unless it just an excuse to complain about lisbon)

oscarBravo

brendan777 wrote:

Timeframe is very important.

Why? What, specifically, is undemocratic about asking the same question repeatedly in short succession? There was a time in the 80s when there were three general elections in 18 months; was that undemocratic?

With my moderator hat on: read the charter, and make sure you understand it, before posting again. That list of video links is bang out of order.

Scofflaw

Brendan777 wrote: »

But the self amending anti democratic unaccountable Lisbon Treaty is not the way.

The Lisbon Treaty is not 'self-amending' . It has a clause that allows the Treaty to be changed by single amendments at a time without a full new Treaty - which makes it like our Constitution. Every amendment has to be ratified as at present.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Technically, there is no final position.

There is if we sign up to the Treaty. You can bet your ass that's a final position.

TGC

i'm confused

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

There is if we sign up to the Treaty. You can bet your ass that's a final position.

Well, no, because all that's required for us to reverse a ratification is a standard Constitutional amendment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no, because all that's required for us to reverse a ratification is a standard Constitutional amendment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is becoming silly and its almost at the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory. Anyone who thinks the government is going to allow the possibility of a subsequent referendum, in the unlikely event that we have, in the meantime, another referendum ratifying lisbon, is not living in the land of the completely sane.

All of which is irrelevant as lisbon is now dead.

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

This is becoming silly and its almost at the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory. Anyone who thinks the government is going to allow the possibility of a subsequent referendum, in the unlikely event that we have, in the meantime, another referendum ratifying lisbon, is not living in the land of the completely sane.

That is an unfortunate side-effect of not having a petition mechanism to force a referendum. However, if popular feeling were strong enough, and the government of the day thought that such a move was a good idea, then it is only a question of a referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is an unfortunate side-effect of not having a petition mechanism to force a referendum. However, if popular feeling were strong enough, and the government of the day thought that such a move was a good idea, then it is only a question of a referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

According to a Poll in the Irish Times today, 54% (1,000 adults) of people are happy with the result of the recent Lisbon referendum which would seem to suggest that it would be pointless holding another referendum on Lisbon unless there are major changes to the existing Treaty.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0725/1216917539048.html

oscarBravo

Whoah. One in six who said they are happy with the result believe it will have negative consequences for Ireland.

I have no idea what to do with that.

Hitman Actual

thehighground wrote: »

According to a Poll in the Irish Times today, 54% (1,000 adults) of people are happy with the result of the recent Lisbon referendum which would seem to suggest that it would be pointless holding another referendum on Lisbon unless there are major changes to the existing Treaty.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0725/1216917539048.html

Considering that the poll was conducted a day after the referendum, and a week later, the 54% figure is hardly surprising. After all, 53% did vote no, and the week following the referendum was filled with media sensationalism of the reaction from Europe.

But the poll also doesn't give much indication that people actually had a clue what they were voting on, which is much more crucial, imo. Unless you take into account what OscarBravo has just posted, which indicates some warped thinking (for want of a better term) in quite a few people.

thehighground

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Considering that the poll was conducted a day after the referendum, and a week later, the 54% figure is hardly surprising. After all, 53% did vote no, and the week following the referendum was filled with media sensationalism of the reaction from Europe.

I'm not surprised at all that 54% - just pointing out that at present, on a revote, the answer would be 'No' again.

But the poll also doesn't give much indication that people actually had a clue what they were voting on, which is much more crucial, imo. Unless you take into account what OscarBravo has just posted, which indicates some warped thinking (for want of a better term) in quite a few people.

Does the 1 in six referred to those who voted 'yes' but respect that the majority have voted 'no' and as democrats respect that?

The other 5 out of 6 know of course, that we can't be thrown out of the EU. And even if they didn't 'have a clue' before they voted, they probably do now.

Hitman Actual

thehighground wrote: »

I'm not surprised at all that 54% - just pointing out that at present, on a revote, the answer would be 'No' again.

Totally agree.

thehighground wrote: »

Does the 1 in six referred to those who voted 'yes' but respect that the majority have voted 'no' and as democrats respect that?

It definitely doesn't read that way. It simply looks like some people are happy with the result despite believing that there would be negative consequences for Ireland.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

According to a Poll in the Irish Times today, 54% (1,000 adults) of people are happy with the result of the recent Lisbon referendum which would seem to suggest that it would be pointless holding another referendum on Lisbon unless there are major changes to the existing Treaty.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0725/1216917539048.html

Certainly it would be extremely foolish for the government to attempt to run it again under those circumstances!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Flamed Diving

I voted yes the last time, but if the vote is put to us again with no changes to the treaty, I may decide to vote no. I don't like the idea of them returning our vote by saying 'You didn't give us the right answer, now vote again'.

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is an unfortunate side-effect of not having a petition mechanism to force a referendum. However, if popular feeling were strong enough, and the government of the day thought that such a move was a good idea, then it is only a question of a referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What would the chances be of the government of the day thinking it a good idea to have a 3rd referendum after the 2nd referendum voted "yes" to lisbon? The question is, of course, rhetorical. No European government would dare risk it, as we have seen, for example, in the UK and France over lisbon.

In any case, lisbon is dead so its a hypothetical argument.

Scofflaw

auerillo wrote: »

What would the chances be of the government of the day thinking it a good idea to have a 3rd referendum after the 2nd referendum voted "yes" to lisbon? The question is, of course, rhetorical. No European government would dare risk it, as we have seen, for example, in the UK and France over lisbon.

It's an interesting question. In theory a eurosceptic Tory government in the UK might do it - the UK is often isolated in Europe anyway, so they're not risking that much. However, other than political posturing or principle (principled politicians?), it's hard to see what anyone gets out of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Brendan777 wrote: »

I love humanities potential to heal the schisims in this world.

Sorry about this, I hear what you're saying but I had to laugh at this (not in a condescending way btw!), but those schisims was caused by humanity too.

Boggle wrote: »

Personally, if I had my way at election time, anyone going for eelection should have to post a cv stating what acts he voted on how he voted so the constituents can decide if he represented their views. I'd also like to see basic numbers such as no days in Dail and expenses etc so you can tell if he's milking it or working...
(Course that can only be applied to re-election but it would provide some level of accountability)

Hear, hear. While we can do the digging on that ourselves I do think that would be a good idea. Or maybe a body like the Referendum Commission compiling those details on all candidates in a central source?????



As for the OP, I do think there are issues with our democracy, but not as a result of the potential re-run of the referendum. I think any re-run is as democratic as the original given that we are just as able to vote No as Yes in it. I think the issue lies in what the voter does/doesn't do and the huge chasm between us and our elected representatives. This isn't really an EU point though so I'll keep it brief. Basically we, as voters, have the right to have our voices heard, but with that right we have a responsibility to ensure we are fully informed on the issues we are voting on. There seems to be a significant percentage (according to the Gallup poll post referendum) of people with little to no knowledge of the Treaty and yet still voting. Also the Yes campaign just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our main-stream politicians are far removed from the people they are meant to represent.

As to whether we should or shouldn't have a re-run I would think we are best waiting for the results of the Government initiated investigation into the results. These are due to be completed in September and we should have a better idea then if a re-run is needed. If it turns out that there was a significant amount of ignorance invloved, i.e. enough to call the result into doubt, then there should, first and foremost, be a campaign to educate the people set up which should be followed with another referendum. The result of this referendum should be more more representative of what the people really think of the Treaty in this case, Yes or No.

However if it turns out that the levels of ignorance are not significant then the reasons for the No vote need to be analysed in terms of what can or can't be done to ease peoples concerns. If nothing can be done we may be left in a bit of a quandry. I really don't know where the we or the EU can go from there. We would probably need to consider our position in the EU given that we seem to want something different to everyone else. Who knows. It would be a really horrendous place for us (particularly our politicians) to be in with no obvious solution. The EU at large does not want to continue as is and don't think re-negotiation is possible as it may open flood gates for demands from other countries and cause the whole thing to break-down, or at least go into another round of negotiations, which by past experience could last several years. It's a toughy!