why are we voting again

conchubhar1

i question anyone to give one proper democratic reason why we are being asked to vote on a done issue.

really, the irish people voted no.
that should be the end of it.

USE

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i question anyone to give one proper democratic reason why we are being asked to vote on a done issue.

Because you are voting for the new conditions of the treaty. You are not voting for the same thing twice.

I would also add that the decision made with major argument "I don't know what the treaty says" should not be the one that shapes the future of half a billion EU citizens.

Rb

USE wrote: »

Because you are voting for the new conditions of the treaty. You are not voting for the same thing twice.

I would also add that the decision made with major argument "I don't know what the treaty says" should not be the one that shapes the future of half a billion EU citizens.

So those who haven't read or understand the treaty, yet are voting in favour of it because their parents are/told them to or the party they are in favour of are encouraging them to, should be the ones shaping the future of half a billion EU citizens?

And let us not, for a moment, pretend the above are in a minority. I would say that the numbers are even in terms of "blind voters" on the Lisbon Treaty yet these people make up the majority of both sides, at the same time. Should these people, be it pro or against the treaty, be those who should be shaping Europes future?

However, I cannot blame those who err on the side of caution as opposed to voting in favour for something they know nothing about, I cannot blame them for a second and would go so far as to say it's the "safe" thing to do.

To be honest, the only real answer is a pan-european referendum on the treaty and let the entire EU decide as a whole, and we can all then live with the consequences, as opposed to our Island making the choice and everyone else having to deal with it, regardless of the result.

ionix5891

lets have a vote on whether to have another vote

conchubhar1

it would get rejected ^

molloyjh

Ah here conchubar, how many threads do you need to have this discussion on?

Mods - we're having this discussion on 2 other threads with the same individual, and it's on a topic that's been discussed on at least several dozen others. Do we really need another thread on it?

conchubhar1

plus add party politics vote

most people will vote it as labour, gael and fáil are for it - not for it's merits

conchubhar1

molloyjh wrote: »

Ah here conchubar, how many threads do you need to have this discussion on?

one, this one.

the other thread went off in that direction. off topic

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it would get rejected ^

how would you know without a "democratic" vote :pac:

you keep failing to answer my question (in yet another thread)

why and what gives you and Libertas and SF the right to prevent Irish people exercising their democratic and constitutional rights?

USE

Rb wrote: »

So those who haven't read or understand the treaty, yet are voting in favour of it <...>

The analysis held a few months after the referendum showed that 42% of those who have voted "no" said that their arguments for doing this were lack of knowledge about the treaty. 46% who haven't voted at all, said the same.

Lack of knowledge about the treaty was the major argument for voting "no".

conchubhar1

again they did, months ago

and voiced a no


this is the last time i will answer that question

conchubhar1

lack of a knowledge about candidates was also a factor in the elections on fireday

doesnt take awat from the results

molloyjh

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i question anyone to give one proper democratic reason why we are being asked to vote on a done issue.

really, the irish people voted no.
that should be the end of it.

Alright so. Because there are additional clauses regarding those areas that we highlighted as issues 12 months ago being introduced, therefore fundamentally altering the Treaty from an Irish perspective.

Pretty good reason if I do say so myself.:P

ShooterSF

ionix5891 wrote: »

how would you know without a "democratic" vote :pac:

you keep failing to answer my question (in yet another thread)

why and what gives you and Libertas and SF the right to prevent Irish people exercising their democratic and constitutional rights?

Sure let's have a referendum on every topic so.
Said the no to lisbon voter to the yes to lisbon one :pac:

USE

conchubhar1, if you want to discuss don't flood the topics with you serial one-sentence posts.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

lack of a knowledge about candidates was also a factor in the elections on fireday

doesnt take awat from the results

Haven't you mentioned only a part of my first post in this thread?

That is clear that you have new conditions and therefore there is a logical reason to ask you to vote again. The "lack of knowledge" was a moral argument, but not the one of law.

Thread closed.

Rb

USE wrote: »

The analysis held a few months after the referendum showed that 42% of those who have voted "no" said that their arguments for doing this were lack of knowledge about the treaty. 46% who haven't voted at all, said the same.

Lack of knowledge about the treaty was the major argument for voting "no".

Absolutely, I don't deny yet there are countless amounts of people who voted No for good reasons after studying the text and there are a few on this site who made excellent arguments against the treaty at the time.

I didn't deny that, what I said was I'd imagine the numbers are equal on both sides and could you not agree that voting in favour of something you have no idea about, is a lot more "risky" than voting against it?

Also, you do have to take into consideration those who voted yes, despite knowing nothing about it, yet won't admit to it as in reality it does seem like a bit of a silly notion.

I'm tired of seeing people claiming there was only a No out of ignorance or protest votes yet failing to acknowledge that ignorance would have made up a large chunk of the yes vote, if not an equal or greater amount due to party/peer/family pressure.

PopeBuckfastXVI

USE wrote: »

The analysis held a few months after the referendum showed that 42% of those who have voted "no" said that their arguments for doing this were lack of knowledge about the treaty. 46% who haven't voted at all, said the same.

Lack of knowledge about the treaty was the major argument for voting "no".

Indeed, people have the right to make an informed decision, if that's what they want, which opinion polls suggest they do.

That's why we *should* have a second vote.

However we are having one because of a combination of the above, and the fact that FF want to have one, and it is within their rights as the Government party to follow through on that desire.

Now you can argue the toss back and forth all day, but the fact of the matter is the Government has the right to have a second one.

You have the right to dislike that, and you don't have to vote 'yes' at the second asking, and you don't have to vote for FF at the next election.

That's how our particular wonderful little constitutional democracy works.

Dyr

USE wrote: »

The analysis held a few months after the referendum showed that 42% of those who have voted "no" said that their arguments for doing this were lack of knowledge about the treaty. 46% who haven't voted at all, said the same.

Lack of knowledge about the treaty was the major argument for voting "no".

When did analysis carried out on behalf of the EU take precedence over a democratic vote?

conchubhar1

exactly we voted no

that suprisingly enough means no


personal attacks on me wont get answers

molloyjh

Rb wrote: »

Absolutely, I don't deny yet there are countless amounts of people who voted No for good reasons after studying the text and there are a few on this site who made excellent arguments against the treaty at the time.

I didn't deny that, what I said was I'd imagine the numbers are equal on both sides and could you not agree that voting in favour of something you have no idea about, is a lot more "risky" than voting against it?

Also, you do have to take into consideration those who voted yes, despite knowing nothing about it, yet won't admit to it as in reality it does seem like a bit of a silly notion.

I'm tired of seeing people claiming there was only a No out of ignorance or protest votes yet failing to acknowledge that ignorance would have made up a large chunk of the yes vote, if not an equal or greater amount due to party/peer/family pressure.

I'm in agreement somewhat with Rb here. The levels of ignorance all round was hardly going to make the referendum itself a particularly resounding one regardless of the result. People are doing a lot of shouting about democracy at the moment, but the big issue here I think is education. Democracy can't be expected to work properly with an ill-informed electorate. If 100% of the people voted that black was white then should we respect that result or should we look into ensuring the people are properly equipped to return a reliable and sensible result?

USE

It is really strange how people does not listen for those parts of my posts what are not comfortable for them and responds only on those parts that they think they can to argue.

New conditions means new decisions therefore means new vote.

That is it, short and simple answer.

The rest is for the childrengarden where I won't participate.

ionix5891

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sure let's have a referendum on every topic so.
Said the no to lisbon voter to the yes to lisbon one :pac:

sure lets have a referendum every week on the thousands of issues debated by our elected representatives

it will only be democratic

see how absurd it sounds? we especially would have alot of fun with the budgets

ShooterSF

ionix5891 wrote: »

sure lets have a referendum every week on the thousands of issues debated by our elected representatives

it will only be democratic

see how absurd it sounds? we especially would have alot of fun with the budgets

Anything less would "prevent Irish people exercising their democratic and constitutional rights."
:D

Rb

USE wrote: »

It is really strange how people does not listen for those parts of my posts what are not comfortable for them and responds only on those parts that they think they can to argue.

New conditions means new decisions therefore means new vote.

That is it, short and simple answer.

The rest is for the childrengarden where I won't participate.

Funny how you selectively ignored any points I made that you appear to disagree with and went on to post some stats from the "EU" which served to only "back up" the points you've already tried to make.

I think if you're going to take such an attitude, you might want to find another site to post on.

conchubhar1

no one is saying we have a vote on everything

but not everything changes how the eu operates does it?

ionix5891

ShooterSF wrote: »

Anything less would "prevent Irish people exercising their democratic and constitutional rights."
:D

alot of the politics forum members would have no issues with voting every week and participating in a direct democracy as we are aware of the issues and the lies

unfortunately without some sort of efficient electronic voting system this would be too expensive and time consuming for the majority of the populace (what was turnout at last weeks elections?) so you ll end up with a small group of people making decisions, and that's not really "democratic" eh?

that's why we elect representatives that share our views, but it seems some people have trouble telling apart the different styles of democracy :cool:

Rb

Rb wrote: »

I'm tired of seeing people claiming there was only a No out of ignorance or protest votes yet failing to acknowledge that ignorance would have made up a large chunk of the yes vote, if not an equal or greater amount due to party/peer/family pressure.

I prefer to see it as people having the right to say yes or no in absolute terms and to ignore anybody else in coming to that decision.

As a yes voter,I'm still unconvinced by the No campaign of the last referendum.
If something persuasive comes up in the next one,I'll have a look at it.

conchubhar1

not everyone agress with all aims and outlooks of their chosen candidate

and on such a changing piece of legislation, a vote to the people was needed

granted and rejected.

end of story - well it should be....

molloyjh

conchubhar1 wrote: »

not everyone agress with all aims and outlooks of their chosen candidate

and on such a changing piece of legislation, a vote to the people was needed

granted and rejected.

end of story - well it should be....

So FF should stay in power indefinitely then? After all a vote was needed, granted and FF elected. End of story - well it should be....apparently....

conchubhar1

no

a parliment and a referendum are different


this is not a politics 101 class - and i know you know the difference



the tds are elected every 5 years - a referendum is not a recurring item. especially not a year after the first one

dvpower

conchubhar1 wrote: »

again they did, months ago

and voiced a no


this is the last time i will answer that question

The most recent opinion polls suggest the people may have now changed their minds.

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no

a parliment and a referendum are different


this is not a politics 101 class - and i know you know the difference



the tds are elected every 5 years - a referendum is not a recurring item. especially not a year after the first one

so you admit that theres a difference between representative and direct democracy?! great stuff were coming along great now

what do you call the second Nice referendum?

tds dont have to be elected every 5 years, if a government is unpopular enough they are forced to call an election

we might see this happen in Ireland and/or UK soon

see democracy at work

.

Rb

dvpower wrote: »

The most recent opinion polls suggest the people may have now changed their minds.

Why do you think this is?

It's not because they've read the text since the last referendum, so therefore not really a valid reason to vote for the treaty.

Or is it suddenly acceptable seeing as it's a "Yes"?

ionix5891

Rb wrote: »

Why do you think this is?

It's not because they've read the text since the last referendum, so therefore not really a valid reason to vote for the treaty.

Or is it suddenly acceptable seeing as it's a "Yes"?

how do you know that they;
* didnt read the literature
* visited sites like boards
* read the numerous discussion or read/listened to the constant media discussions on the subject
* talked about the subject in the pubs

if anything the events of the last year should have reinforced the notion that we need europe and europe needs us, and that our "richness" was illusionary

we even have an example now of countries not in EU or euro who follow same path as us and are now bankrupt or nearly bankrupt

molloyjh

dvpower wrote: »

The most recent opinion polls suggest the people may have now changed their minds.

We're not allowed to change our minds apparently. Or at least we are, but its not allowed to count.

conchubhar1

why would people suddenly go wait a minute

lisbon was a good thing, i was blind but now i see


that didnt happen, they are scared about the economy that is the reason for the change in opinions

molloyjh

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why would people suddenly go wait a minute

lisbon was a good thing, i was blind but now i see


that didnt happen, they are scared about the economy that is the reason for the change in opinions

Oh sorry, so insome cases changing your mind does count and in others it doesn't. How very democratic of you.

dvpower

Rb wrote: »

Why do you think this is?

It's not because they've read the text since the last referendum, so therefore not really a valid reason to vote for the treaty.

Or is it suddenly acceptable seeing as it's a "Yes"?

I say in large part due to the economic collapse; priorities have changed, people just don't want the uncertanty that rejecting Lisbon brings.

Its a bit much to expect people in general to read the and try to understand the implications of the treaty. I just don't see significant numbers ever reading the treaty. That's why we need RTE and the like to analyse and report on it and politicians, unions and the like to advise on it.

conchubhar1

ionix5891 wrote: »

if anything the events of the last year should have reinforced the notion that we need europe and europe needs us, and that our "richness" was illusionary

we even have an example now of countries not in EU or euro who follow same path as us and are now bankrupt or nearly bankrupt

we still need europe - its still there and we are still in the eu
uk doesnt have the euro....

iceland crashed like we did, not because they werent in the eu

ionix5891

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why would people suddenly go wait a minute

lisbon was a good thing, i was blind but now i see


that didnt happen, they are scared about the economy that is the reason for the change in opinions

erm because there was so many lies being spread by Libertas, SF and COIR?

as for the economic conditions that only highlights that we need europe and its markets and money in order not to revert to the good olde days

beside few outbursts the whole EU has been very constructive in addressing the concerns brought up last year (however misplaced some of them like abortion and conscription where)

conchubhar1 wrote: »

we still need europe - its still there and we are still in the eu
uk doesnt have the euro....

iceland crashed like we did, not because they werent in the eu

Iceland not only crashed, they are completely bankrupt and lost a lot of saving for people in other countries, Hungary is practically bankrupt, both are relying on other EEA states to rescue them

we are still in a EU, but one that doesnt work as well as it can for the people because 1% of the population got lied to by people with shady connections

democracy eh??

.

Rb

ionix5891 wrote: »

how do you know that they;
* didnt read the literature
* visited sites like boards
* read the numerous discussion or read/listened to the constant media discussions on the subject
* talked about the subject in the pubs

I doubt it, tbh. If they didn't before voting last time, I doubt they've suddenly went out and done so now. It's not like there was a lack of information available at the time.

ionix5891 wrote:

if anything the events of the last year should have reinforced the notion that we need europe and europe needs us, and that our "richness" was illusionary

we even have an example now of countries not in EU or euro who follow same path as us and are now bankrupt or nearly bankrupt

What does this have to do with the text though? Nothing, it's quite the same as voting No to spite FF really or more accurately, voting no because you think they'll put micro-chips in our kids if it is ratified. Being afraid of the consequences shouldn't be a reason to vote in favour of (or against) the text, as the text doesn't outline consequences.

The consequences of a general election and the way you vote are relevant and fair imo, but in a referendum on a text they shouldn't be a consideration.

This, again, applies to both sides.

conchubhar1

molloyjh wrote: »

Oh sorry, so insome cases changing your mind does count and in others it doesn't. How very democratic of you.

you are taking up my point wrong


people can change their mind - but the irish people voted now

the economic recession with scaremongering shouldnt be used to make more people change their mind for an upcoming referendum on an issue that should not be an issue for a while

it is only a year since the last vote - not saying there can never be another referendum on it

like abortion or divorce etc...

conchubhar1

cowen said he didnt read it

how is that any better than libertas lies?

dvpower

conchubhar1 wrote: »

why would people suddenly go wait a minute

lisbon was a good thing, i was blind but now i see


that didnt happen, they are scared about the economy that is the reason for the change in opinions

Agreed.
But they have changed their minds. Now lets get on with the new referendum so the people's voice can be heard.

Rb

dvpower wrote: »

I say in large part due to the economic collapse; priorities have changed, people just don't want the uncertanty that rejecting Lisbon brings.

Its a bit much to expect people in general to read the and try to understand the implications of the treaty. I just don't see significant numbers ever reading the treaty. That's why we need RTE and the like to analyse and report on it and politicians, unions and the like to advise on it.

The recent elections have shown that apart from FF and their supporters, our country is crying out for a general election. This in itself brings uncertainty.

Yet people are now in favour of a treaty they know nothing about to avoid uncertainty...some people just can't make their minds up I suppose!

If it's a bit much to expect people to read and try to understand the treaty, then it's a bit much to be asking them to vote on it...which probably brings us back to the argument from another thread on voting licences!

ionix5891

Rb wrote: »

I doubt it, tbh. If they didn't before voting last time, I doubt they've suddenly went out and done so now. It's not like there was a lack of information available at the time.



What does this have to do with the text though? Nothing, it's quite the same as voting No to spite FF really or more accurately, voting no because you think they'll put micro-chips in our kids if it is ratified. Being afraid of the consequences shouldn't be a reason to vote in favour of (or against) the text, as the text doesn't outline consequences.

The consequences of a general election and the way you vote are relevant and fair imo, but in a referendum on a text they shouldn't be a consideration.

This, again, applies to both sides.

one can list alot of stupid reasons why people voted NO last year

you be hard pressed to find stupid reasons why people voted YES

the consequences are something to consider, what if Ireland didn't join the EU back in '72 and people listened to SF back then? :cool:

molloyjh

conchubhar1 wrote: »

cowen said he didnt read it

how is that any better than libertas lies?

Because Cowen has people on his staff to read it for him and present their findings. If you think our politicians have the time to wade through multiple treaties then you obviously don't appreciate what they do fully.

Either way I don't care whether Cowen read ot or not, or whether he thought it was the best thing since sliced bread or total crap. I made my decision based on all the information I was able to glean of the Treaty from multiple non-political sources.

To answer the question direclty though Cowen not reading the document was not in itself a deliberate act of dishonesty. Libertas lying was. Hence Libertas are worse.

ionix5891

Cowen is a joke, everyone knows that and people want him out it seems

but at least he was being honest (and dumb)

more than can be said of Libertas and SF

conchubhar1

well yes libertas lied in certain areas - not suprising really

but you cant say that sinn féin lied outright

also, i have stated before on this forum we got a referendum and the only way to base your vote was to read up on it on your own

i didnt vote no because sinn féin were voting no.. thats not to say that other didnt

but others voted out of ignorance also but it was a yes vote...

Rb

ionix5891 wrote: »

one can list alot of stupid reasons why people voted NO last year

you be hard pressed to find stupid reasons why people voted YES

the consequences are something to consider, what if Ireland didn't join the EU back in '72 and people listened to SF back then? :cool:

"I voted yes to a treaty I know nothing about, or its implications for our country and its people, because my ma/my local fianna failer/ told me to" is a more stupid reason than anything I've heard from the No side tbh.

As I said, voter ignorance was an immense problem on both sides, but if there is more support for a Yes now I would hazard a guess that the level of ignorance on the side of Yes has multiplied, rather than the level of ignorance on the No side decreasing as a result of "education" and switching opinions.

It's something that is very hard to back up as a lot won't even admit to it but if as Yes gets through next time, it will be a result of scare mongering and voter ignorance, not newly well educated voters on that side.

The Yes side may deny this all they like, as it will suit them and their cause, but anyone with half a brain and a relatively open mind will know it holds true.

I would say the immediate implications are something to consider, such as what effect could possibly have on our corporation tax rates or how the EU will behave should it go through (as we've seen they don't really respect our opinion on this, what else will they scoff at?) but thoughts of being kicked out of the Union, or being micro-chipped, are so unreasonable that they shouldn't even be considered when going to the polls.

dvpower

Rb wrote: »

The recent elections have shown that apart from FF and their supporters, our country is crying out for a general election. This in itself brings uncertainty.

Yet people are now in favour of a treaty they know nothing about to avoid uncertainty...some people just can't make their minds up I suppose!

If it's a bit much to expect people to read and try to understand the treaty, then it's a bit much to be asking them to vote on it...which probably brings us back to the argument from another thread on voting licences!

The treaty is a complex document. Worse still, its not a standalone document; to try and fully understand its implications, you need to understand the workings of the EU institutions and the previous treaties that it replaces.

If we were to restrict voting on EU treaty referenda to only those who could demonstrate a good grasp of the subject, we would be left with a very small electorate - I wouldn't advocate that (I probably wouldn't get a vote:() . I do think these kinds of complex issues whould be decided by the Dail.