The "Will" of the people

Furious-Dave

I was just thinking that because there are so many arguments both for and against the ratifying of the Lisbon Treaty, many riddled with lies, how can the true 'will' of the people be determined? It then occurred to me that would it not be feasible to form a committee to establish an impartial truth about the positives and negatives of the Treaty and to let the people decide upon the resulting document produced by that committee?

ShooterSF

In principle it's a good idea but eh how many impartial people do you know? And who picks the members of said impartial committee?

As an example I wasn't impressed with the impartialness of a certain commission on the first run of the treaty.

Scofflaw

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I was just thinking that because there are so many arguments both for and against the ratifying of the Lisbon Treaty, many riddled with lies, how can the true 'will' of the people be determined? It then occurred to me that would it not be feasible to form a committee to establish an impartial truth about the positives and negatives of the Treaty and to let the people decide upon the resulting document produced by that committee?

Hmm. Alright - how about we try to set up a "Citizens' Commission", which takes donations from the public and pays for some expert scrutiny of the Treaty?

All donations transparent, whatever size. All dealings of the Commission transparent, however trivial. All sessions recorded and webcast.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dlofnep

It doesn't matter what the will of the people is, because it will be overrided by the will of the likes of Sarkozy, who will come over and slap the Irish Government on the wrist for not ensuring the ratification of treaties.

passive

dlofnep wrote: »

It doesn't matter what the will of the people is, because it will be overrided by the will of the likes of Sarkozy, who will come over and slap the Irish Government on the wrist for not ensuring the ratification of treaties.

Yeah... Jesus, those french troops on every street corner, shooting at me for stepping out of line, have definitely made my life hell since the treaty was rejected. Nonetheless I have no regrets about shooting it down for...those...reasons. All of them. Each and every one of those rational, logical reasons... yeah...those ones.

And, again, I'm so pissed off that they ratified it anyway and roughed me up and had their wicked way with my sister, as justified by article 37BS of the Lisbon Treaty. It would have been much better if they'd just sat down to look at the situation and figure out what our options were, how the EU could continue and how to sell a treaty to a country who didn't really make any decision related to that treaty.

But no, as you've reminded us, they went with the invasion technique and it has been passed at gunpoint and dealt with months ago. grumble grumble...

Eurosceptic2008

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I was just thinking that because there are so many arguments both for and against the ratifying of the Lisbon Treaty, many riddled with lies, how can the true 'will' of the people be determined? It then occurred to me that would it not be feasible to form a committee to establish an impartial truth about the positives and negatives of the Treaty and to let the people decide upon the resulting document produced by that committee?

We had that in 2001 with the Nice I campaign i.e. the Referendum Commission, which is why this govt removed the requirement for them to give both sides of the argument. The govt are the last people that would agree to what you are suggesting.

passive

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

We had that in 2001 with the Nice I campaign i.e. the Referendum Commission, which is why this govt removed the requirement for them to give both sides of the argument.

source/link/utter lie?

Eurosceptic2008

passive wrote: »

source/link/utter lie?

Truth.

Under the Referendum Act 1998 the commission initially had the role of setting out the arguments for and against referendum proposals, having regard to submissions received from the public. Following the passing of the Referendum Act 2001 the commission no longer has a statutory function in relation to putting the arguments for and against referendum proposals. The 2001 Act also removed from the commission the statutory function of fostering and promoting debate or discussion on referendum proposals.
A new referendum commission may be set up in for each new referendum that takes place, if the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government makes a ministerial order to appoint a commission. The current primary role of the commission is to explain the subject matter of referendum proposals, to promote public awareness of the referendum and to encourage the electorate to vote. It may help citizens find out some basic information about how to register to vote. The commission's information booklets are also produced in braille and audiotape for persons with visual impairments.
Once the commission completes its functions it furnishes a report to the Minister, within six months, on the carrying out of its functions and the commission then dissolves one month after the submission of this report.

ShooterSF

Which is why the last independent commission stated "We will keep some of our vetoes" while not mentioning "We will however give up others" which is the impartial way to state the point on vetoes.

At the end of the day impartial independant groups cant happen. Everyone has an opinion and someone with an opinion has to pick other people with opinions to discuss something impartially.

Good idea in theory but as homer says "In theory. In theory communism works. In theory."

passive

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

this govt removed the requirement for them to give both sides of the argument.

passive wrote: »

source/link/utter lie?

Eurosceptic2008 wrote: »

The current primary role of the commission is to explain the subject matter of referendum proposals, to promote public awareness of the referendum and to encourage the electorate to vote.

so... half-lie, is your chosen answer then? Your original post seemed to strongly imply "removed requirement for both sides of the argument...and need only give the government's side, mwahahahaa!!!"

But your evidence/back-up point explains that the role changed from an attempt to argue both sides to explaining the matter in general and encourage people to vote. So rather than coming up with arguments and presenting them (for either side) they just outline the facts and explain the question.

Eurosceptic2008

passive wrote: »

so... half-lie, is your chosen answer then? Your original post seemed to strongly imply "removed requirement for both sides of the argument...and need only give the government's side, mwahahahaa!!!"

I said nothing that was untrue.

RedPlanet

Referendum Act 2001 the commission no longer has a statutory function in relation to putting the arguments for and against referendum proposals

That's how i read it too.
The commission has a free hand to pimp the government's position.

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote: »

The commission has a free hand to pimp the government's position.

No, it doesn't.

Vegeta

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

Could you explain why not

As someone who genuinely doesn't know I find answers like this very unhelpful.

If its not true I'd appreciate an explanation as to why. Thanks in advance

dlofnep

passive wrote: »

Yeah... Jesus, those french troops on every street corner, shooting at me for stepping out of line, have definitely made my life hell since the treaty was rejected. Nonetheless I have no regrets about shooting it down for...those...reasons. All of them. Each and every one of those rational, logical reasons... yeah...those ones.

And, again, I'm so pissed off that they ratified it anyway and roughed me up and had their wicked way with my sister, as justified by article 37BS of the Lisbon Treaty. It would have been much better if they'd just sat down to look at the situation and figure out what our options were, how the EU could continue and how to sell a treaty to a country who didn't really make any decision related to that treaty.

But no, as you've reminded us, they went with the invasion technique and it has been passed at gunpoint and dealt with months ago. grumble grumble...

:rolleyes:

Here are the facts of the matter.

Step 1: Lisbon Treaty presented to Irish people.
Step 2: Lisbon Treaty defeated by a majority of well over 100,000 people.
Step 3: Sarkozy flies to Dublin to discuss the failure of the Irish Government in selling the treaty.
Step 4: Irish Government act like good little sheep and do what they are told, and look at presenting Step 1 again.

Spin it whatever way you want. The above are the facts.

oscarBravo

Vegeta wrote: »

Could you explain why not

The role of the Commission is to impartially set out the facts, and to encourage people to vote. Pimping one side's position is explicitly not within the Commission's remit.

Scofflaw

Vegeta wrote: »

Could you explain why not

As someone who genuinely doesn't know I find answers like this very unhelpful.

If its not true I'd appreciate an explanation as to why. Thanks in advance

Essentially, because it has a statutory obligation to report neutrally, and is composed of people expected to be independent:

The Referendum Commission is an independent body, set up by the Referendum Act 1998 as amended by the Referendum Act 2001. The Act of 1998 provides that the Chairman of the Commission shall be a former judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court or a judge of the High Court. The other members of the Commission shall be the Clerk of the Dáil, the Clerk of the Seanad, the Ombudsman and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Referendum Commission is independent in its actions and is supported by a secretariat from the Office of the Ombudsman.

Whenever a referendum falls to be held the establishment of a Referendum Commission is at the discretion of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. A Commission is created by means of an Establishment Order issued by the Minister in respect of the proposed referendum. Once the Commission completes its functions it furnishes a report to the Minister, within six months, on the carrying out of its functions and the Commission then dissolves one month after the submission of this report.

Under the Referendum Act 1998 the Commission initially had the role of setting out the arguments for and against referendum proposals, having regard to submissions received from the public. Since the passing of the Referendum Act 2001 the Commission no longer has a statutory function in relation to putting the arguments for and against referendum proposals. The 2001 Act also removed from the Commission the statutory function of fostering and promoting debate or discussion on referendum proposals.

The current primary role of the Referendum Commission is to explain the subject matter of referendum proposals, to promote public awareness of the referendum and to encourage the electorate to vote at the poll.

(Source)

If one chooses to believe that there is simply no such thing as neutrality or independence, then one will discount the above as one would discount any protestation of neutrality. However, the Ref Com by its terms of establishment certainly does not have a "free hand to pimp the government's position", and can be legally held to account if it breaches those terms. Despite some griping, nobody has shown any signs of doing that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Vegeta

Thanks folks. Much appreciated

molloyjh

dlofnep wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Here are the facts of the matter.

Step 1: Lisbon Treaty presented to Irish people.
Step 2: Lisbon Treaty defeated by a majority of well over 100,000 people.
Step 3: Sarkozy flies to Dublin to discuss the failure of the Irish Government in selling the treaty.
Step 4: Irish Government act like good little sheep and do what they are told, and look at presenting Step 1 again.

Spin it whatever way you want. The above are the facts.

Eh you do realise that your take is all spin in itself and no real content.


Anyway I suggested this before on another thread. For as much as I am a Yes to Lisbon supporter I would consider myself an Irishman and a democrat before any of that. First and foremost I want to be sure the will of the Irish people is done, even if it differs from mine. If we do indeed have to vote again I am very much considering setting up my own website with a break down of the Treaty on it, using the text of the Treaty itself as reference.

Obviously this is a fairly sizable task and I may need assistance doing it, but once done I'm thinking of something akin to the Reasons to Vote Yes and Reasons to Vote No section. There are valid reasons for voting No after all and these need to be highlighted as much as the reasons for a Yes.

Leaving the site open then to comments etc from anyone/everyone would help to bring more of a balance to it aswell, and even getting proper contributions from No voters would also help. For as biased as I am a lot of the time, I do feel this needs to be done right if we are goin to bother voting again, and the people need to know what they are voting for. If that leads to another No then I will be the first to demand that this result be respected.

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

The role of the Commission is to impartially set out the facts, and to encourage people to vote. Pimping one side's position is explicitly not within the Commission's remit.

Not a single word about impartiality or "to report neutrually" in Scofflaw's post....

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Essentially, because it has a statutory obligation to report neutrally, and is composed of people expected to be independent:



(Source)

If one chooses to believe that there is simply no such thing as neutrality or independence, then one will discount the above as one would discount any protestation of neutrality. However, the Ref Com by its terms of establishment certainly does not have a "free hand to pimp the government's position", and can be legally held to account if it breaches those terms. Despite some griping, nobody has shown any signs of doing that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would suggest independent and neutral are two very different ideas. It doesnt state that the Ref Com. is to be neutral just independent.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I would suggest independent and neutral are two very different ideas. It doesnt state that the Ref Com. is to be neutral just independent.

A statement that the Ref Comm had to be "neutral" would preclude it coming to any positive or negative conclusions about the Treaty - which would render the exercise rather pointless. "Independent", though, means that it comes to its own conclusions, instead of "pimping the Government's position".

If you want a neutral source, you'd want the Department of Foreign Affairs analysis, since they are precluded by the McKenna judgement from putting forward either a negative or positive case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

A statement that the Ref Comm had to be "neutral" would preclude it coming to any positive or negative conclusions about the Treaty - which would render the exercise rather pointless. "Independent", though, means that it comes to its own conclusions, instead of "pimping the Government's position".

If you want a neutral source, you'd want the Department of Foreign Affairs analysis, since they are precluded by the McKenna judgement from putting forward either a negative or positive case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well then would it not make more sense to post people out copies of the foreign affairs analysis instead of the commission therefore allowing people to make up their own minds.

This would be closer to what the op suggested an impartial committee. I'd much rather that than another group giving me their opinions on the subject.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well then would it not make more sense to post people out copies of the foreign affairs analysis instead of the commission therefore allowing people to make up their own minds.

This would be closer to what the op suggested an impartial committee. I'd much rather that than another group giving me their opinions on the subject.

I agree, but the DFA don't have a remit to publicise their analysis. They did make it available online.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

I agree, but the DFA don't have a remit to publicise their analysis. They did make it available online.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks. I'll read through it tomorrow, bit late tonight I really would have a lot more respect for the government if these were posted out instead of the commissions and can't see why that shouldn't be the way.

Though we could do without the foreword:

The EU needs the Reform Treaty if it is to
continue delivering peace and prosperity to
Europe in the years ahead. Ireland has a vital
interest in an effective Union and that is why
this Treaty is so important for our future

Gareth37

Furious-Dave wrote: »

I was just thinking that because there are so many arguments both for and against the ratifying of the Lisbon Treaty, many riddled with lies, how can the true 'will' of the people be determined? It then occurred to me that would it not be feasible to form a committee to establish an impartial truth about the positives and negatives of the Treaty and to let the people decide upon the resulting document produced by that committee?

Sure nobody knows what its about. Its jumbled up so people cannot read it. Don't vote with your eyes closed, thats all I say :eek:

djpbarry

ShooterSF wrote: »

I really would have a lot more respect for the government if these were posted out instead of the commissions and can't see why that shouldn't be the way.

Because it would be a massive waste of paper? How many people will actually sit down and read a government white paper? I think making it available online is sufficient.

R0ot

Gareth37 wrote: »

Sure nobody knows what its about. Its jumbled up so people cannot read it. Don't vote with your eyes closed, thats all I say :eek:

I definitely don't know what it is anyway.

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

Here are the facts of the matter.

Step 1: Lisbon Treaty presented to Irish people.
Step 2: Lisbon Treaty defeated by a majority of well over 100,000 people.
Step 3: Sarkozy flies to Dublin to discuss the failure of the Irish Government in selling the treaty.
Step 4: Irish Government act like good little sheep and do what they are told, and look at presenting Step 1 again.

Spin it whatever way you want.

Oh, I don’t think you need any help spinning anything. Your post has got so much spin on it it’s starting to make me dizzy.

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

I really would have a lot more respect for the government if these were posted out instead of the commissions and can't see why that shouldn't be the way.

Because it would be a massive waste of paper? How many people will actually sit down and read a government white paper? I think making it available online is sufficient.

It would certainly be an extremely expensive exercise. There's 1,287,958 households in the State, and looking at the White Paper I doubt it would cost less than €30 per copy, printing and mailing. So that's €39 million at a minimum - and it turns out the government isn't made of money after all.

If we assume a rather generous quarter of those households actually read it, then you've essentially wasted about €30 million.

regretfully,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

If they're stuck for money surely they could save some posting out a commissions opinion on the treaty (we have quite enough opinions on it) and maybe even the cost of their pointless posters.

passive

ShooterSF wrote: »

If they're stuck for money surely they could save some posting out a commissions opinion on the treaty (we have quite enough opinions on it) and maybe even the cost of their pointless posters.

yeah... so only the No side should advertise, and spread their "opinions" with magic money from the sky, and the country can **** itself again. That'll be just great .

ShooterSF

passive wrote: »

yeah... so only the No side should advertise, and spread their "opinions" with magic money from the sky, and the country can **** itself again. That'll be just great .

No Id rather rid of all posters.

ChocolateSauce

If the French were in charge, Ireland would probably suck much less. Viva la France!

passive

ShooterSF wrote: »

No Id rather rid of all posters.

Oh right... My apologies to you in that case. I 100% support that idea.

Although, from within the discussion that was taking place, they can't really save money by not postering in any campaign that takes place in the near future, as without changes in legislation there'll still be No posters (complete with monkeys...) and if they rush through any poster bans there'll be cries of fascism.

Seriously though, I'd love a lack of posters, particularly around general election times.