A Logical argument for "If you don't know, vote NO."

ShooterSF

I have never been fond of this statement but lately it makes sense to me. It was actually two points made by the yes side that convinced me.

1. It is not un-democratic to run more than one referendum. People can change their minds. Therefore we can always run another referendum asking the person if they have made up their mind yet.

2. Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it. This means that a person should look to block the treaty until they have made up their mind as they can vote again later (Yes or No, once they have decided) unless it's passed in which case they won't get a say.

Now using these two points (the parts in bold generally being accepted as fact by the yes side) and keeping in mind we are discussing the individual who come voting day is still uncertain whether the treaty is a good or bad thing can a yes-voter offer a logical reason for them not to vote no so they can contemplate the treaty further?

(By the way I'm not looking to debate the treaty here.)

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I have never been fond of this statement but lately it makes sense to me. It was actually two points made by the yes side that convinced me.

1. It is not un-democratic to run more than one referendum. People can change their minds. Therefore we can always run another referendum asking the person if they have made up their mind yet.

2. Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it. This means that a person should look to block the treaty until they have made up their mind as they can vote again later (Yes or No, once they have decided) unless it's passed in which case they won't get a say.

Now using these two points (the parts in bold generally being accepted as fact by the yes side) and keeping in mind we are discussing the individual who come voting day is still uncertain whether the treaty is a good or bad thing can a yes-voter offer a logical reason for them not to vote no so they can contemplate the treaty further?

(By the way I'm not looking to debate the treaty here.)

By polling day Irish voters will have had at least 18 months to find out about the Treaty, accompanied by constant media attention. Realistically, if someone hasn't found out about the Treaty in that time, they're not going to. Are you suggesting that we keep putting off any decision until it's being taught as history in schools?

Plus, the point that we can't run a referendum to repeal our ratification is inaccurate, because we can. It's a constitutional amendment - you just run another amendment to take out the amendments voted on this time. Not only that, but every subsequent treaty amends the existing treaties, so if there was something in Lisbon it turned out you don't like, push for it to be amended at the next treaty, just as the rules on Commission size determined by Nice are changed by Lisbon.

By the way, I love the homage to Libertas' Commission claims in your signature.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

By polling day Irish voters will have had at least 18 months to find out about the Treaty, accompanied by constant media attention. Realistically, if someone hasn't found out about the Treaty in that time, they're not going to. Are you suggesting that we keep putting off any decision until it's being taught as history in schools?

Not at all and as you said most should have made a decision now but those procrastinating types that haven't would be served better by voting no. After all the rejection of the last treaty was seemingly mainly because people were unsure and now they get another go. So, no harm surely?

Plus, the point that we can't run a referendum to repeal our ratification is inaccurate, because we can. It's a constitutional amendment - you just run another amendment to take out the amendments voted on this time. Not only that, but every subsequent treaty amends the existing treaties, so if there was something in Lisbon it turned out you don't like, push for it to be amended at the next treaty, just as the rules on Commission size determined by Nice are changed by Lisbon.

Hmm that's not what most yes voters have claimed.Would us repealing the treaty then mean all others would have to as it's a unanimous thing? Obviously that would completely refute my claim. However anytime I've suggested (assuming a yes verdict) asking the people in a year have they changed their mind people have quicly claimed you can't repeal the treaty.

By the way, I love the homage to Libertas' Commission claims in your signature.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thanks. Obviously quite tongue-in-cheek.

dvpower

Voting No doesn't retain the status quo or leave us as we were after the last treaty. The World (and Europe with it) continues to spin. We still have all of the new member states and the decision making problems that the treaty attempts to solve.

We would also need to deal with the political consequences of a No vote.


If you don't know, abstain.

tolosenc

Being uninformed and voting, either way, is what the problem is. As a voter, you have the responsibility of being an informed citizen. If you're not, you shouldn't vote.

What if there was a clause hidden in this "unreadable treaty"(:rolleyes:) that gave you personally €1 million a year for the rest of your life, for no reason? Would you feel silly for rejecting it?

I don't reckon Lisbon will come around a third time.

oscarBravo

There's a fundamental flaw in the premise that underlies this thread: the assumption that there will continue to be referendum after referendum until the treaty is ratified.

There is no precedent for an EU treaty to be put to referendum in the same country more than twice, and there is a precedent for a treaty to be scrapped having been rejected twice in referenda.

It also blithely assumes that there can't possibly be any negative consequences to a "no" vote.

ShooterSF

dvpower wrote: »

Voting No doesn't retain the status quo or leave us as we were after the last treaty. The World (and Europe with it) continues to spin. We still have all of the new member states and the decision making problems that the treaty attempts to solve.

Of course. But the EU would stay the same and we could run the referendum in 3 months and see if people have decided. Again I'm looking at it from an un-decided (obviously not mine :pac:) not un-caring POV.

We would also need to deal with the political consequences of a No vote.

I don't understand. What political consequence happened after the last No vote? Scaremongering?

If you don't know, abstain.

Surely that only makes sense if it was a one off vote regardless of result. If that was the case I agree. But voting No still allows a re-run of the referendum at a later date when you have made up your mind on the treaty..

(all assuming we can't repeal the treaty, which may be wrong.)

ShooterSF

Toulousain wrote: »

Being uninformed and voting, either way, is what the problem is. As a voter, you have the responsibility of being an informed citizen. If you're not, you shouldn't vote.

I agree with the initial sentence but see the end of my last post in ref: to the last one

What if there was a clause hidden in this "unreadable treaty"(:rolleyes:) that gave you personally €1 million a year for the rest of your life, for no reason? Would you feel silly for rejecting it?

No because it was hidden. That would be a silly reason to vote yes.

I don't reckon Lisbon will come around a third time.

If people claimed they voted no as they were still unsure and considering both main political parties in this country want to pass it, why not?

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a fundamental flaw in the premise that underlies this thread: the assumption that there will continue to be referendum after referendum until the treaty is ratified.

There is no precedent for an EU treaty to be put to referendum in the same country more than twice, and there is a precedent for a treaty to be scrapped having been rejected twice in referenda.

True it makes that assumption but there was a precedent at some point for everything. (Pedant edit) Plenty of things.

It also blithely assumes that there can't possibly be any negative consequences to a "no" vote.

Again true. Are there any obvious negative consequences from the first rejection? (If I was being a smart ass I'd offer our guarantees as a positive but I won't stoop to it )

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

Are there any obvious negative consequences from the first rejection?

In my opinion, the fact that the Commission won't be streamlined was a negative consequence. I accept that others don't see it that way.

It has also been said that the atmosphere in the EU institutions has been distinctly less friendly towards the Irish representatives - in an institution built on co-operation, consensus and goodwill, that's a pretty bad consequence. It seems reasonable to assume that the consequence of a second rejection would be substantially worse.

Martin 2

A Logical argument for "If you don't know, vote NO."

I have never been fond of this statement but lately it makes sense to me. It was actually two points made by the yes side that convinced me.

1. It is not un-democratic to run more than one referendum. People can change their minds. Therefore we can always run another referendum asking the person if they have made up their mind yet.

2. Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it. This means that a person should look to block the treaty until they have made up their mind as they can vote again later (Yes or No, once they have decided) unless it's passed in which case they won't get a say.

Now using these two points (the parts in bold generally being accepted as fact by the yes side) and keeping in mind we are discussing the individual who come voting day is still uncertain whether the treaty is a good or bad thing can a yes-voter offer a logical reason for them not to vote no so they can contemplate the treaty further?

(By the way I'm not looking to debate the treaty here.)

This is a misrepresentation of the original expression "When in doubt do nowt" in other words when in doubt, abstain.... voting either way has consequences and depending on your point of view these can be positive or negative. In any case, there is still time to learn about the treaty.

One last thing, I think a third referendum is unprecedented and highly unlikely.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not at all and as you said most should have made a decision now but those procrastinating types that haven't would be served better by voting no. After all the rejection of the last treaty was seemingly mainly because people were unsure and now they get another go. So, no harm surely?

I don't really think there's a large body of such 'procrastinating types' out there, and I'm not sure why they should be catered for above the needs of everyone else in Europe to have a decision - unless, of course, an indefinite delay is really just a tactical ploy.

After all, the same argument would have worked perfectly well for the first referendum, which perhaps should only be being held now - but how many people would really have bothered to find out in the interim if this were the first referendum? The argument would also work for elections, too - perhaps we could have a rerun of the GE for the slow learners who believed that Fianna Fáil would really be able to keep the good times rolling?

ShooterSF wrote: »

Hmm that's not what most yes voters have claimed.Would us repealing the treaty then mean all others would have to as it's a unanimous thing? Obviously that would completely refute my claim. However anytime I've suggested (assuming a yes verdict) asking the people in a year have they changed their mind people have quicly claimed you can't repeal the treaty.

Ireland reversing its ratification by constitutional amendment would probably not repeal the Treaty. It would, however, undeniably reverse Ireland's ratification, because the assent of the people is encapsulated in the constitutional amendment. I imagine that what it would do is make any provisions of the Treaty unconstitutional or at least constitutionally unprotected. The matter would have to go to the European Council for consideration, I would think.

Speaking of which, of course, we can't indefinitely postpone a second referendum either, because if the Treaty hasn't been ratified within two years of being signed, it goes to the European Council for consideration anyway.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Thanks. Obviously quite tongue-in-cheek.

I should hope so - it's a bit rich No proponents putting forward the loss of a Commissioner as a bad thing in the first referendum, and then putting forward the retention of the full Commission as a bad thing in this one. It rather suggests that the No side is just putting forward anything it can, and doesn't itself genuinely believe in what it's saying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

In my opinion, the fact that the Commission won't be streamlined was a negative consequence. I accept that others don't see it that way.

Debatable (Though I agree with that one). I guess that is an odd one as the no voters are now supporting the streamlined commission (nice treaty being status quo). However if you are undecided you can hardly see it as a negative.

It has also been said that the atmosphere in the EU institutions has been distinctly less friendly towards the Irish representatives - in an institution built on co-operation, consensus and goodwill, that's a pretty bad consequence. It seems reasonable to assume that the consequence of a second rejection would be substantially worse.

Hearsay at best. At worst childish actions you would expect representatives of other nations to be above. After all who are they to question our decision making process even if it is drawn out. The people of Ireland need to be certain before passing the treaty.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

In my opinion, the fact that the Commission won't be streamlined was a negative consequence. I accept that others don't see it that way.

It has also been said that the atmosphere in the EU institutions has been distinctly less friendly towards the Irish representatives - in an institution built on co-operation, consensus and goodwill, that's a pretty bad consequence. It seems reasonable to assume that the consequence of a second rejection would be substantially worse.

Undoubtedly so. We don't rely on our voting weight in Europe (which the No side make much of), we rely on our built-up goodwill (which the No side dismiss). It's fashionable to say "tough for the elites" when someone points out that it makes the Irish government and civil service's job of getting the best for Ireland in the EU much harder, but it's not really "tough for the elites" at all. It's "tough for Ireland", because our "elites" are not able to get what Ireland wants. That will apply to next year's negotiations on the WTO, CFP, and the reform of CAP - no other EU government will be disposed to help Ireland out, with our derailment of the Treaty still fresh in their minds.

Hearsay at best. At worst childish actions you would expect representatives of other nations to be above.

That's actually an irrelevant response. It doesn't matter whether they should "be above it", only whether they do it. As to hearsay - personally I have it straight from a friend on Ireland's permanent delegation to the EU, so it's not hearsay to me.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Martin 2 wrote: »

This is a misrepresentation of the original expression "When in doubt do nowt" in other words when in doubt, abstain.... voting either way has consequences and depending on your point of view these can be positive or negative. In any case, there is still time to learn about the treaty.

One last thing, I think a third referendum is unprecedented and highly unlikely.

I agree there is still time to learn. I don't agree that a third treaty, even slightly edited would be unlikely.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't really think there's a large body of such 'procrastinating types' out there, and I'm not sure why they should be catered for above the needs of everyone else in Europe to have a decision - unless, of course, an indefinite delay is really just a tactical ploy.

But again that does not effect the basis of the sentence "If you don't know,vote no" rather it suggests such a group of voters don't exist in any large size.

After all, the same argument would have worked perfectly well for the first referendum, which perhaps should only be being held now - but how many people would really have bothered to find out in the interim if this were the first referendum? The argument would also work for elections, too - perhaps we could have a rerun of the GE for the slow learners who believed that Fianna Fáil would really be able to keep the good times rolling?

If only

Ireland reversing its ratification by constitutional amendment would probably not repeal the Treaty. It would, however, undeniably reverse Ireland's ratification, because the assent of the people is encapsulated in the constitutional amendment. I imagine that what it would do is make any provisions of the Treaty unconstitutional or at least constitutionally unprotected. The matter would have to go to the European Council for consideration, I would think.

Speaking of which, of course, we can't indefinitely postpone a second referendum either, because if the Treaty hasn't been ratified within two years of being signed, it goes to the European Council for consideration anyway.

Interesting. Is this consideration similar to that of the citizen's initiative "consideration"? As in they can happily still re-run the treaty, after considering it?If so that's not a big problem.

I should hope so - it's a bit rich No proponents putting forward the loss of a Commissioner as a bad thing in the first referendum, and then putting forward the retention of the full Commission as a bad thing in this one. It rather suggests that the No side is just putting forward anything it can, and doesn't itself genuinely believe in what it's saying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Actually and I will try and dig this up for you but it was one issue I agreed pre-Lisbon1 with the yes side.
Though the sig is tongue-in-cheek as I put it there not because of that issue but to wind up certain yes voters I know it annoys.

dvpower

ShooterSF wrote: »

Of course. But the EU would stay the same and we could run the referendum in 3 months and see if people have decided. Again I'm looking at it from an un-decided (obviously not mine :pac:) not un-caring POV.

There's nothing to say that we will get another crack of the whip.

The current choice is between a Yes to this treaty or a Yes to the existing rules and something else in the future (either a re-run or an ammended treaty or living under the existing mechanisms...).

So the question for No voters is, is there a realistically a better deal out there for us? Personally I doubt it.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I don't understand. What political consequence happened after the last No vote? Scaremongering?

Yes. And, if the reports are correct, we lost some influence (more important under QMV). Good or bad, deserved or not, there are political consequences of a No vote.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Surely that only makes sense if it was a one off vote regardless of result. If that was the case I agree. But voting No still allows a re-run of the referendum at a later date when you have made up your mind on the treaty..

Again, we don't know if there would be another re-run.

ShooterSF wrote: »

(all assuming we can't repeal the treaty, which may be wrong.)

I wouldn't imagine we could do that unilaterally.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I agree there is still time to learn. I don't agree that a third treaty, even slightly edited would be unlikely.

But again that does not effect the basis of the sentence "If you don't know,vote no" rather it suggests such a group of voters don't exist in any large size.

Not really - "if you don't know, vote No" is simply a call to make a particular decision in ignorance of the results of it.

ShooterSF wrote: »

If only

It amuses me that I've yet to meet a No proponent who would have any problem with running a general election asap, even though the current government was elected for a five-year term - yet they all have problems with running a referendum again.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Interesting. Is this consideration similar to that of the citizen's initiative "consideration"? As in they can happily still re-run the treaty, after considering it?If so that's not a big problem.

I imagine that's technically feasible, and politically implausible.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Actually and I will try and dig this up for you but it was one issue I agreed pre-Lisbon1 with the yes side.
Though the sig is tongue-in-cheek as I put it there not because of that issue but to wind up certain yes voters I know it annoys.

Each to their own...

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really - "if you don't know, vote No" is simply a call to make a particular decision in ignorance of the results of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to suggest that the Don't know enough about the treaty no votes are demanding to keep the status quo rather than looking for more information before making a decision. Fingers in their ears shouting "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". Yet the government and most yes voters were looking for a new referendum given that the don't knows were still undecided and are now better informed.

It amuses me that I've yet to meet a No proponent who would have any problem with running a general election asap, even though the current government was elected for a five-year term - yet they all have problems with running a referendum again.

Is it not a "maximum of five years"? Anyway I see your point. Though I accept that a new referendum is not un-democratic. My only fears in these regards are the chance of no voters becoming disullusioned with the situation. Hopefully that won't happen.
The nearest comparison I could suggest would be if FF (even out of power) could call a new general election whenever they felt like and they got back in due to disillusionment. Then again I'm having my cake and eating it there.
Let's be honest I'm against Lisbon so am not fond of another referendum but I do accept one can be run. I hate FF and the Yellow-backed Greens so would love a GE.
If lisbon was passed would you be happy to rerun it again before we ratify in case people change their minds? (Bit OT...)

sink

ShooterSF wrote: »

If lisbon was passed would you be happy to rerun it again before we ratify in case people change their minds? (Bit OT...)

I freely admit, I would not be happy about it, but that is only because I would be happy with the Yes result and the fact that repealing the Lisbon treaty would plunge the EU into a serious crisis, one which could cause it's collapse.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to suggest that the Don't know enough about the treaty no votes are demanding to keep the status quo rather than looking for more information before making a decision. Fingers in their ears shouting "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". Yet the government and most yes voters were looking for a new referendum given that the don't knows were still undecided and are now better informed.

No, I could understand it last time - people only tuned in in the few weeks before the vote (real life and stuff), and the government's capacity to actually inform people on the issues was apparently non-existent. I voted No myself in Nice 1 for very similar reasons.

However, we're now talking about 18 months later, during which we've had ongoing campaigns by all kinds of people to inform people of the issues involved in Lisbon. We've even had a European election - one of the most dramatic for years, with mysterious tycoons fronting pan-European alliances, accusations of vote-rigging, and Mary-Lou sent off in tears - during which the issues were aired again, were even made an election focus by said mysterious tycoon. There have been, I would say, literally thousands and thousands of article written about Lisbon, both here and abroad, from vox-pop pieces to scholarly articles, in every form of media, and coverage on the radio, TV, and all across the Internet.

You'd have to have been dead and buried under a rock to remain entirely ignorant of Lisbon that whole time - so, really, it's not adequate to claim that people who really don't know anything about Lisbon after all that should do anything other than stay off the pitch and leave the voting to people who haven't been under rocks.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Is it not a "maximum of five years"? Anyway I see your point. Though I accept that a new referendum is not un-democratic. My only fears in these regards are the chance of no voters becoming disullusioned with the situation. Hopefully that won't happen.
The nearest comparison I could suggest would be if FF (even out of power) could call a new general election whenever they felt like and they got back in due to disillusionment. Then again I'm having my cake and eating it there.
Let's be honest I'm against Lisbon so am not fond of another referendum but I do accept one can be run. I hate FF and the Yellow-backed Greens so would love a GE.
If lisbon was passed would you be happy to rerun it again before we ratify in case people change their minds? (Bit OT...)

In terms of whether I'd consider it fair and democratic - sure. My only reason for not wanting to do so would be the thought of going through all this again. It's not only No proponents who suffer from referendum fatigue, after all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

ShooterSF wrote: »

If lisbon was passed would you be happy to rerun it again before we ratify in case people change their minds? (Bit OT...)

Personally I would never object to any referendum on Europe anytime, once the subject matter of said referendum is in fact Europe

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

Personally I would never object to any referendum on Europe anytime, once the subject matter of said referendum is in fact Europe

If I thought my nerves could take the strain, I'd be happy enough with a European referendum yearly. It's not as if it's not important.

cordially,
Scofflaw

starbelgrade

In my (blurred) recolation, is it not normal to have multiple / duplicate referendums on social / political issues? Abortion / Divorce. I'm an old fogey & memory does not serve me too well.

Still. I can at least type.

K-9

Think we have had 3 on abortion, 2 on divorce and 2 on Nice.

We may have had 2 on PR, not sure.

Torakx

ShooterSF wrote: »

I have never been fond of this statement but lately it makes sense to me. It was actually two points made by the yes side that convinced me.

1. It is not un-democratic to run more than one referendum. People can change their minds. Therefore we can always run another referendum asking the person if they have made up their mind yet.

2. Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it. This means that a person should look to block the treaty until they have made up their mind as they can vote again later (Yes or No, once they have decided) unless it's passed in which case they won't get a say.

Now using these two points (the parts in bold generally being accepted as fact by the yes side) and keeping in mind we are discussing the individual who come voting day is still uncertain whether the treaty is a good or bad thing can a yes-voter offer a logical reason for them not to vote no so they can contemplate the treaty further?

(By the way I'm not looking to debate the treaty here.)

funny to see this thread. i got dragged into a "discussion" about this in the
"im reading the lisbon treaty" thread earlier today lol
i said alot about it so i think il leave the rest to do some talking here.

Zuiderzee

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a fundamental flaw in the premise that underlies this thread: the assumption that there will continue to be referendum after referendum until the treaty is ratified....It also blithely assumes that there can't possibly be any negative consequences to a "no" vote.

Well, considering OB, that you locked a thread by Cantab on the same issue - i.e. to vote no because you dont know the full repercussions of a No vote, I am surprised that you responded to this one as you did not see a similar thread "contributing to the sum total of debate on this issue in any meaningful way"

As for setting a precident of continuous referenda, well - that is what is happening in our country right now.

As for the issue of having 18 months of campaigning for a yes vote, to educate and persuade the electorate, they have not done a great job.
A Yes vote is what a discredited government with something ridiculous like a 17% approval rating want.

But when it comes to convincing the electorate about Governments ability to make a sound judgement in relation to Lisbon, they are really asking us to buy a pig in a poke.

If our politicians had proven their knowledge, foresight and planning, about finance, the economy, health services, in dealing properly with the Ryan report etc. we might be able to accept the premise that they knew what the hell they were talking about.

However the decisions made on the Ryan report, NAMA, the bank bailout and the distain over legitimate questions on corruption are indicitive of a flawed decision making process that has resulted in crisis, confusion, controversy and created a lack of confidence.

The systematic failures and continued abuse of power by Fianna Fail and the self preservation of the Greens to date do not give any reason or example for confidence in their ability to make the correct judgement and decision with regards the Lisbon Treaty.

One can only hope that the Irish electorate have the sense, and the courage, to say No until a new treaty is reached that is accessable and puts the rights of the people first.

The chance to pause and reflect after democratic rejection has not been used to build the kind agreement that We the People really want, a desire that really exists

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well, considering OB, that you locked a thread by Cantab on the same issue - i.e. to vote no because you dont know the full repercussions of a No vote, I am surprised that you responded to this one as you did not see a similar thread "contributing to the sum total of debate on this issue in any meaningful way"

As for setting a precident of continuous referenda, well - that is what is happening in our country right now.

As for the issue of having 18 months of campaigning for a yes vote, to educate and persuade the electorate, they have not done a great job.
A Yes vote is what a discredited government with something ridiculous like a 17% approval rating want.

But when it comes to convincing the electorate about Governments ability to make a sound judgement in relation to Lisbon, they are really asking us to buy a pig in a poke.

If our politicians had proven their knowledge, foresight and planning, about finance, the economy, health services, in dealing properly with the Ryan report etc. we might be able to accept the premise that they knew what the hell they were talking about.

However the decisions made on the Ryan report, NAMA, the bank bailout and the distain over legitimate questions on corruption are indicitive of a flawed decision making process that has resulted in crisis, confusion, controversy and created a lack of confidence.

The systematic failures and continued abuse of power by Fianna Fail and the self preservation of the Greens to date do not give any reason or example for confidence in their ability to make the correct judgement and decision with regards the Lisbon Treaty.

One can only hope that the Irish electorate have the sense, and the courage, to say No until a new treaty is reached that is accessable and puts the rights of the people first.

The chance to pause and reflect after democratic rejection has not been used to build the kind agreement that We the People really want, a desire that really exists

It would have been nice if that had had anything about the Treaty in it...but no, more guilt by association.

It's nice that You're the People, though. You should form a band.

regards,
Scofflaw

nesf

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well, considering OB, that you locked a thread by Cantab on the same issue - i.e. to vote no because you dont know the full repercussions of a No vote, I am surprised that you responded to this one as you did not see a similar thread "contributing to the sum total of debate on this issue in any meaningful way"

Seriously, bringing up moderator decisions in your posts is just going to get you banned. If you have an issue take it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30

Otherwise, bite your tongue.

marco_polo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well, considering OB, that you locked a thread by Cantab on the same issue - i.e. to vote no because you dont know the full repercussions of a No vote, I am surprised that you responded to this one as you did not see a similar thread "contributing to the sum total of debate on this issue in any meaningful way"

As for setting a precident of continuous referenda, well - that is what is happening in our country right now.

As for the issue of having 18 months of campaigning for a yes vote, to educate and persuade the electorate, they have not done a great job.
A Yes vote is what a discredited government with something ridiculous like a 17% approval rating want.

But when it comes to convincing the electorate about Governments ability to make a sound judgement in relation to Lisbon, they are really asking us to buy a pig in a poke.

If our politicians had proven their knowledge, foresight and planning, about finance, the economy, health services, in dealing properly with the Ryan report etc. we might be able to accept the premise that they knew what the hell they were talking about.

However the decisions made on the Ryan report, NAMA, the bank bailout and the distain over legitimate questions on corruption are indicitive of a flawed decision making process that has resulted in crisis, confusion, controversy and created a lack of confidence.

The systematic failures and continued abuse of power by Fianna Fail and the self preservation of the Greens to date do not give any reason or example for confidence in their ability to make the correct judgement and decision with regards the Lisbon Treaty.

One can only hope that the Irish electorate have the sense, and the courage, to say No until a new treaty is reached that is accessable and puts the rights of the people first.

The chance to pause and reflect after democratic rejection has not been used to build the kind agreement that We the People really want, a desire that really exists

Is it the case that you want the EU to pause and reflect on how it can best deal with the Irish Catholic church, Nama, Irish political corruption and an unpopular Irish Government? Because that seems to be what your post suggests.

Given your support of a no vote on the grounds of the above, what would you go back to the EU with in order to claim the better deal that Sinn Fein for example are so sure we can get? And how do you propose we could ever know what it is that "We the People" want from Europe if "we" have rejected Lisbon on the above ground which are entirely unrelated?

Overheal

How many people voted "No" to Al Gor or John Kerry I wonder.

Theres a reason Atari Jaguar lives strong in AH - when you dont know ****: abstain.

Im not trying to glaze over the first referendum vote: that was a joke. But I mean, a year later, you no doubt have had access to plenty of information: if you havent formed an opinion by voting day despite having all the information - dont vote. Vote with conviction, not with doubt.

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I voted No myself in Nice 1 for very similar reasons.

Ditto.

Zuiderzee

nesf wrote: »

Seriously, bringing up moderator decisions in your posts is just going to get you banned. If you have an issue take it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=30

Otherwise, bite your tongue.

Hang on, I can no longer even quote a mod ???
I have already tried to ask about OB's objectivity with regards this forum, through the suggested forum, but there was no proactive response there.

I do know how the system is supposed to work, I previously raised an issue a mod promoting recruitment into oversea's militaries in the military section which was dealt with in a satisfactory way.

But with Lisbon the suggested channel is not working in the same way. There does seem to be an eventual culling of those of us who suggest a No vote.

nesf

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Hang on, I can no longer even quote a mod ???
I have already tried to ask about OB's objectivity with regards this forum, through the suggested forum, but there was no proactive response there

As stickied accusations of bias on this forum will earn people a ban. Next time you bring this up on this forum I will ban you.

Zuiderzee

marco_polo wrote: »

Is it the case that you want the EU to pause and reflect on how it can best deal with the Irish Catholic church, Nama, Irish political corruption and an unpopular Irish Government? Because that seems to be what your post suggests.

Given your support of a no vote on the grounds of the above, what would you go back to the EU with in order to claim the better deal that Sinn Fein for example are so sure we can get? And how do you propose we could ever know what it is that "We the People" want from Europe if "we" have rejected Lisbon on the above ground which are entirely unrelated?

You seem to have a problem understanding what I meant.

How the hell can voters be expected to trust or believe in a Government that is such an abject failure.

What I suggest is that we get a treaty that is more straight forward, more democratic and provides for more accountability in the EU.

My objections to Lisbon are on the basis of workers rights, as it is with the UNITE union, the belief that we can get a better and clearer treaty for ourselves and our fellow European citizens and that we need a more democratic and accountable Union, and avoid entrenching the present problems we have.

There may also be the added bonus that a rejection of Lisbon may precipitate a General election, and send people to the EU that will negotiate a better treaty than FF and their ilk.

nesf

Zuiderzee wrote: »

There may also be the added bonus that a rejection of Lisbon may precipitate a General election, and send people to the EU that will negotiate a better treaty than FF and their ilk.

It won't any more than the last one did. Arguing this as a bonus is disingenuous. Actually, has any Irish Government ever stepped down over losing a Treaty referendum? Seriously, there's absolutely no precedence for this.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

You seem to have a problem understanding what I meant.

How the hell can voters be expected to trust or believe in a Government that is such an abject failure.

They should decide for themselves. You're constantly trying to suggest that the only reason we should vote Yes is because we trust the Irish government, and that's completely false.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

What I suggest is that we get a treaty that is more straight forward, more democratic and provides for more accountability in the EU.

That's what we've got. The fact that the text is difficult to read doesn't change the effects.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

My objections to Lisbon are on the basis of workers rights, as it is with the UNITE union, the belief that we can get a better and clearer treaty for ourselves and our fellow European citizens and that we need a more democratic and accountable Union, and avoid entrenching the present problems we have.

And UNITE's position isn't endorsed by all the other unions, or by ETUC, who reckon that the Treaty is a step forward for removing the present problems we have. I'm afraid I don't know what UNITE are actually looking for, because your view of what their position is is much clearer than their statement of their position.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

There may also be the added bonus that a rejection of Lisbon may precipitate a General election, and send people to the EU that will negotiate a better treaty than FF and their ilk.

Lisbon 1 didn't precipitate a general election. The euros didn't precipitate a general election. The locals didn't precipitate a general election. There's no way on earth Fianna Fail will voluntarily step down from power just because the vote goes against them. Stop trying to tie the Treaty to Fianna Fail.

regards,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Zuiderzee wrote: »

As for setting a precident of continuous referenda, well - that is what is happening in our country right now.

Only if you don't understand what the word "precedent" means.

We are having a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. There have been two occasions in the past when an EU member state held two referenda on the same treaty. This isn't a precedent.

If we were to hold a third referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, we'd be setting a precedent.

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

They should decide for themselves. You're constantly trying to suggest that the only reason we should vote Yes is because we trust the Irish government, and that's completely false.

People expect, and deserve honest stewardship of the country, which the current Government has failed to provide.
At the moment they seem to have got everything else wrong, theres no reason to trust them on this one.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And UNITE's position isn't endorsed by all the other unions, or by ETUC, who reckon that the Treaty is a step forward for removing the present problems we have. I'm afraid I don't know what UNITE are actually looking for, because your view of what their position is is much clearer than their statement of their position.

Well, UNITE are still a major force, with 60,000 members, and they are right to question the treaty.
There are real grounds for these concerns. In four recent rulings issued by the European Court of Justice - the Laval, Ruffert, Viking and Luxembourg cases - the court sided with bosses on honouring agreements, the right to picket, wage-increase indexing and wage cuts.

As for the ETUC, well, they did little to support the Irish Ferries and Laval workers displaced.
Interestingly the ETUC is a member of the European Movement, a lobby group. The Movement is headed up by President Pat Cox. So we have a former PD heading a group working for the Trade Union Movement, and making quite a few bob from it.
As of 2008 a Vice president of the EM is John Monks, former GenSec of the ETUC. Really nice work if you can get it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Lisbon 1 didn't precipitate a general election. The euros didn't precipitate a general election. The locals didn't precipitate a general election. There's no way on earth Fianna Fail will voluntarily step down from power just because the vote goes against them. Stop trying to tie the Treaty to Fianna Fail.

We will see, a second defeat on a European referendum in such a short period may well be seen as a vote of no confidence.
If FF really believe that Lisbon is that important then after a defeat at referendum they will have few choices.

1) Hang on 'till 2012 and hope for a miracle
2) Go for a third referendum on the same issue
3) Renegotiate the treaty to include the 'guarantees' and 'solemn declarations' and address other Irish concerns
4) Go for a general election and let a new Government run a third referendum on a treaty

One feels that is pretty much in the order of probability as well

If you check out my blog you see that I do not tie the referendum to FF alone.

However, as the major party in power it is FF who, along with the greens and indies, have the power to put the referendum to the people again, and have decided to do so, so it is primarily their referendum.

I for one do not want to see a triumphful FF telling us how they assured we won Lisbon. Its their only chance to win anything at this point, with the support of the opposition, corporations and even the church.

If Lisbon goes through they will use it as a justification to go full term, and as their are no more local or EU elections in that period, this is probably the last chance people have to voice their dissent at the ballot box until 2012

MrMicra

oscarBravo wrote: »

In my opinion, the fact that the Commission won't be streamlined was a negative consequence. I accept that others don't see it that way.

I strongly agree. The debate over the commissioner makes us look like we have a political system based on Patronage. It makes us look as though we vote in the expectation of favours rather than choosing the best person for the job. Of course this suggestion is ludicrous!

oscarBravo wrote: »

I

It has also been said that the atmosphere in the EU institutions has been distinctly less friendly towards the Irish representatives - in an institution built on co-operation, consensus and goodwill, that's a pretty bad consequence. It seems reasonable to assume that the consequence of a second rejection would be substantially worse.

Temporary even if the second referendum falls. The real risk arises from the rejection of the next treaty after Lisbon. By the way I expect my servants in Brussels to behave themselves no matter what we decide.

I would suggest to the OP that if you don't know vote 'no' is a bad argument. It should be 'if you don't know don't vote'.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

People expect, and deserve honest stewardship of the country, which the current Government has failed to provide.
At the moment they seem to have got everything else wrong, theres no reason to trust them on this one.

And perhaps if the government were the only people suggesting the Treaty is a good thing, you might have a point. They're not, though, which is what makes the constant attempt to link the two so obviously tactical.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Well, UNITE are still a major force, with 60,000 members, and they are right to question the treaty.
There are real grounds for these concerns. In four recent rulings issued by the European Court of Justice - the Laval, Ruffert, Viking and Luxembourg cases - the court sided with bosses on honouring agreements, the right to picket, wage-increase indexing and wage cuts.

That's 60,000 out of 550,000 union members.

Zuiderzee wrote: »

As for the ETUC, well, they did little to support the Irish Ferries and Laval workers displaced.
Interestingly the ETUC is a member of the European Movement, a lobby group. The Movement is headed up by President Pat Cox. So we have a former PD heading a group working for the Trade Union Movement, and making quite a few bob from it.
As of 2008 a Vice president of the EM is John Monks, former GenSec of the ETUC. Really nice work if you can get it.

And there we are again. I can't believe you have the gall to complain about smearing and guilt by association.

Can't be bothered with the rest now.

annoyed,
Scofflaw

skelliser

Zuiderzee raises an interesting point, this gov was involved from the begining in negotiating lisbon which took 5 years. In the mean time none of them predicted or would entertain the idea of the property bubble when even the dogs on the street knew it was coming.

The continued to say that there would be a soft landing yada yada etc.

and they expext, no demand(lisbon 1) that we trust them

ShooterSF

Woah there's a lot of stuff in this thread. I just want to get to this.

MrMicra wrote: »

I would suggest to the OP that if you don't know vote 'no' is a bad argument. It should be 'if you don't know don't vote'.

Don't get me wrong in the first referendum that was my thinking too. However I made two assumptions. One that it was a one off vote and two that don't know was a lazy cop out and really meant couldn't be arsed which definitely should abstain.
My point was that it's not a one off vote. As said there is nothing un-democratic about running multiple referendums. Sure there's no precedent but remind me of a European treaty that Ireland reject twice. There is no logical reason not to run it again if people were unsure. On to point two, the don't knows obviously were undecided rather than couldn't be arsed finding out as they are one of the main reasons for re-running the referendum. Along with those confused about abortion and conscription (and now hopefully those that voted yes incase we got kicked out of europe).
Given those points from a pure logical stand point someone (if they exist) that is still undecided could vote no in the knowledge that a third referendum could be ran.
I will agree though with points that for one not to have made their mind at this point is crazy. However, looking purely at the statement "If you don't, vote no" I now see some sense in it.
To be honest I'd respect someone who took the issue so serious that they had not decided yet. For example people who feel the need to read the entire treaty etc. a lot more than anyone who's vote is influenced by the posters on lamposts!

Scofflaw

skelliser wrote: »

Zuiderzee raises an interesting point, this gov was involved from the begining in negotiating lisbon which took 5 years. In the mean time none of them predicted or would entertain the idea of the property bubble when even the dogs on the street knew it was coming.

The continued to say that there would be a soft landing yada yada etc.

and they expext, no demand(lisbon 1) that we trust them

And if you vote Yes purely because you trust them, then you're an eejit - exactly as you would be if you voted No purely because you trusted Sinn Fein or COIR.

This referendum is not about the government. It's about an EU treaty.

regards,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Scofflaw wrote: »

And if you vote Yes purely because you trust them, then you're an eejit - exactly as you would be if you voted No purely because you trusted Sinn Fein or COIR.

This referendum is not about the government. It's about an EU treaty.

regards,
Scofflaw

I would differ slightly with Scofflaw here. Obviously it's far better if people make a fully informed personal decision on the treaty... but I don't think it would be unacceptable for a person to say...

The vast majority of politicans are in favour.
The vast majority of union representatives are in favour.
The vast majority of business people are in favour.

So I'll vote for the majority view of the groups that appear to represent my views in most other areas.

Likewise I would not think it wrong for someone to say...

Coir are against.
Sinn Fein are against.
Joe Higgins is against.

I trust these people in their view of the world. I'll vote no.

Where I have more of a personal issue, is with people who have not learned about the treaty, do not agree with the worldview of the No groups, and yet somehow think that no is a good idea.

I don't think this is contradictory, though I'm open to correction.

Ix.

P. Breathnach

ixtlan wrote: »

Likewise I would not think it wrong for someone to say...

Coir are against.
Sinn Fein are against.
Joe Higgins is against.

I trust these people in their view of the world. I'll vote no.

It is imaginable -- if one has great powers of imagination -- that there are people out there who see Cóir, Sinn Féin, and Joe Higgins as all being in tune with their worldview. Such people would be right to vote no.

nesf

ixtlan wrote: »

I would differ slightly with Scofflaw here. Obviously it's far better if people make a fully informed personal decision on the treaty... but I don't think it would be unacceptable for a person to say...

The vast majority of politicans are in favour.
The vast majority of union representatives are in favour.
The vast majority of business people are in favour.

So I'll vote for the majority view of the groups that appear to represent my views in most other areas.

Likewise I would not think it wrong for someone to say...

Coir are against.
Sinn Fein are against.
Joe Higgins is against.

I trust these people in their view of the world. I'll vote no.

Where I have more of a personal issue, is with people who have not learned about the treaty, do not agree with the worldview of the No groups, and yet somehow think that no is a good idea.

I don't think this is contradictory, though I'm open to correction.

Ix.

I think the view is coherent but it's quite naive to actually put that much trust in any interest group or political party.

Freeborn John

Scofflaw wrote: »

Plus, the point that we can't run a referendum to repeal our ratification is inaccurate, because we can. It's a constitutional amendment - you just run another amendment to take out the amendments voted on this time.

That's not correct. A state cannot use its "internal law" (which includes constitutional law) as a reason for not respecting a treaty already in force. Therefore the OP is correct to say that "Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it.". Any referendum of the type you suggest to later back the changes to the Irish Constitution being voted on on October 2 would result in a breach of the EU treaty (Lisbon) then in force which would result in Ireland being hauled up before the ICJ and ultimately being obliged to leave the EU. There would be no going back to the current situation so the OP's argument for 'if you don't know, vote NO' is a watertight one.

---

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
Article 27: Internal law and observance of treaties

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

ixtlan

Freeborn John wrote: »

That's not correct. A state cannot use its "internal law" (which includes constitutional law) as a reason for not respecting a treaty already in force. Therefore the OP is correct to say that "Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it.". Any referendum of the type you suggest to later back the changes to the Irish Constitution being voted on on October 2 would result in a breach of the EU treaty (Lisbon) then in force which would result in Ireland being hauled up before the ICJ and ultimately being obliged to leave the EU. There would be no going back to the current situation so the OP's argument for 'if you don't know, vote NO' is a watertight one.

---

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
Article 27: Internal law and observance of treaties

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

I would agree with this interpretation in a literal sense however a more reasonable approach would be to say we could attempt to reverse aspects of any treaty through future negotiations for new treaties.

This would require getting the public interested enough for it to be a general election issue in one or more states. As far as I am aware this has never happened. Has it? Which suggests strongly to me that after the treaties are ratified by all, everyone generally thinks that they are acceptable, and indeed also that the electorates in each state are touched so benignly by the EU that they would never consider EU changes to be election issues.

So we can reverse treaty changes with some effort, especially if (as the No side constantly claims) there are large number of similarly minded Europeans, in future treaties.

Ix.

patrickthomas

I think if you don't know you should vote NO, they remade the treaty to get us to vote yes, nonsense all of it, the EU will continue on as ever before and we will be looking at this treaty again next year. :rolleyes:

nesf

patrickthomas wrote: »

I think if you don't know you should vote NO, they remade the treaty to get us to vote yes, nonsense all of it, the EU will continue on as ever before and we will be looking at this treaty again next year. :rolleyes:

They didn't "remake the treaty" they looked at what issues concerned people and went to Europe and got binding guarantees that spelled out in plain English that many of these issues weren't actually issues with this treaty and got reversed decisions on those that were, like the commissioner issue.

If people were genuinely voting No because they were worried about abortion, neutrality or the loss of a commissioner and not because they were against the EU or Lisbon in principle these guarantees should be encouraging for them! The idea that they should vote No now, that these issues have been dealt with as well as is possible is bluntly bizarre.

patrickthomas

nesf wrote: »

They didn't "remake the treaty" they looked at what issues concerned people and went to Europe and got binding guarantees that spelled out in plain English that many of these issues weren't actually issues with this treaty and got reversed decisions on those that were, like the commissioner issue.

If people were genuinely voting No because they were worried about abortion, neutrality or the loss of a commissioner and not because they were against the EU or Lisbon in principle these guarantees should be encouraging for them! The idea that they should vote No now, that these issues have been dealt with as well as is possible is bluntly bizarre.

Bizarre that people exercise their democratic rights and make a choice!

meglome

patrickthomas wrote: »

Bizarre that people exercise their democratic rights and make a choice!

And they can make their democratic choice all over again, if they want a No vote again then they can vote for that. However if things have changed like people in here are saying they will vote Yes.