Does democracy work - an Irish and Lisbon Treaty based question

anonymous_joe

Right, it's two in the morning and I've read a few too many Lisbon threads today, and something here is annoying me.

Why do we allow people to have the vote without having earned it.

I'm 22 years of age, and thus, have been allowed to vote for four years. All I needed to do to earn my vote was to turn 18 and register. In fact, I didn't even need to, because when I went to do so, it turned out my mum had already done it for me.

As it stands, Ireland is the only country having a referendum about Lisbon, because our consitution demands it.

What amazes me most about this is just how flawed a system this is - a large body of disparate people, only a tiny proportion of whom understand the treaty, let alone have read it, are to decide the future of Europe. (In terms of streamlining the EU.)

Why is it, that someone who does not understand the issues involved is allowed to vote? There's been massive complaints about the lies told by both sides, predominantly the No campaign. Obvious ones would be abortion, conscription and so on. Issues that the treaty never really had anything to do with. Despite that, a person can go and vote without actually knowing what they're voting for.

Would it not make more sense for anyone who wishes to vote on this treaty to prove that they understand enough about the issues involved before being allowed to vote? (Not really interested in the logistics of how that would be done, just being theoretical.)

prinz

Yes it would make more sense. Unfortunately though that's the Ireland we live in.

anonymous_joe

It's a shame really. Because I do hate the fact that people who don't know what they're doing are voting in a referendum.

For example, the Socialist Party is campaigning against a document that enshrines worker's rights... How many of its natural followers would vote no if they knew that...

Thirdfox

Ha ha, likewise I suspect many "yes" voters have little knowledge of what the treaty entails (other than "it is good for the economy" "it will bring us jobs", the jobs one in particular being rather suspect).

I'd love if we had more stringent rules on who can vote (reading the white paper might be nice, but at least read the little pamphlets they send out...). As a no voter I wince whenever I see the lies being put out by some of the no side. I mean seriously? E1.84 minimum wage craziness?!?

Similarly it's not amusing to see the yes side suggesting we'll be booted out of Europe if we don't comply. Come referendum day I suspect there'll be many people who have very little knowledge of the EU, its mechanisms or the treaty document who'll be voting.

But the obvious problem with putting in restrictions on who can vote is that you're on a slippery slope - are you saying only the no/yes voters are too stupid/ignorant of the treaty etc? So instead, we allow everyone to vote, the lesser of two evils I suppose.

anonymous_joe

I'm fairly pro-yes, but I don't think anyone who doesn't understand it should be allowed vote, no matter their voting preference.

Thirdfox

I understand what you are advocating (and it's not something that would be totally outrageous to me either). Unfortunately this will be impossible to implement as:

1. One could argue it is elitist - "rich people who have time to read The Economist and The Times looking down on us folk who enjoy our Sun and Fair City!" Apologies to anyone who either reads the Sun or watches Fair City, I was merely making a gross generalisation.

2. As I said, it would be very tempting to the powers that be to target some group and prevent them from voting. "Please choose one of the above: a) abortion is great fun b) abortion is a sinful crime.... correct answer is obviously a/b (depending on who's in charge) and the others who gave the "wrong" answer shouldn't be allowed to vote etc."

3. And this is where it gets interesting - I would hazard to say that you believe that you are intellectual and informed enough to pass any test on the Lisbon Treaty that may be a prerequisite to vote. I believe I am too... However, there will be others who are more knowledgable about this subject than either of us. What's to say they think our knowledge of the issues is too simplistic and we shouldn't be allowed to vote? The alternative is we lower the standard to absolute minimum levels...but even then the "experts" could state that our current level of knowledge is below the minimum level needed to make a completely informed choice.

...After all that long-winded commentary - I suppose it boils down to the fact that mob rule is the best way of preventing tyranny, but we have to take the negatives that come along with it.

Red Sleeping Beauty

anonymous_joe wrote: »

It's a shame really. Because I do hate the fact that people who don't know what they're doing are voting in a referendum.

For example, the Socialist Party is campaigning against a document that enshrines worker's rights... How many of its natural followers would vote no if they knew that...

No it doesn't. Why do you or anyone else give a toss about worker's rights ? What does IBEC care ? Why the hell would the EU give a damn about worker's rights ? Look at the response to unions in this country. Any attempt for worker's to unite and protect themselves and their jobs is met with utter contempt and disdain. Cut the crap.

What do you want ? People to go to university for three years to do a politics degree and then write a thesis to apply for a vote ? Are you actually for real!!!

djpbarry

Thirdfox wrote: »

Similarly it's not amusing to see the yes side suggesting we'll be booted out of Europe if we don't comply.

I’ve yet to hear a single proponent of the treaty make such a statement – it seems to be another fictitious claim from the ‘No’ side.

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Any attempt for worker's to unite and protect themselves and their jobs is met with utter contempt and disdain.

Actually, I think it’s the sense of entitlement that’s met with utter contempt and disdain.

Thirdfox

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ve yet to hear a single proponent of the treaty make such a statement – it seems to be another fictitious claim from the ‘No’ side.

Looking at all the signs that state "we need Europe for jobs" - isn't the same as "we need the Lisbon Treaty for jobs". The implicit claim being that if we don't pass this treaty, somehow we're being anti-EU or anti-European. Something I completely reject. I am a great believer of the EU project but I do not think it is moving in a correct direction these last few years. It doesn't mean that I want to take Ireland out of the EU (economic madness I'll agree).

I'll have to look at some more slogans and report back. But many of the posters seem to claim that anti-Lisbon = we want to get out of Europe. The choice isn't as stark as that. The posters all make the point that being part of the EU is great for us - something I'd agree with in general. But this referendum isn't about being part of the EU, but the Lisbon treaty. Interesting shift of subject matter no?

ei.sdraob

Thirdfox wrote: »

Looking at all the signs that state "we need Europe for jobs" - isn't the same as "we need the Lisbon Treaty for jobs". The implicit claim being that if we don't pass this treaty, somehow we're being anti-EU or anti-European. Something I completely reject. I am a great believer of the EU project but I do not think it is moving in a correct direction these last few years. It doesn't mean that I want to take Ireland out of the EU (economic madness I'll agree).

I'll have to look at some more slogans and report back. But many of the posters seem to claim that anti-Lisbon = we want to get out of Europe. The choice isn't as stark as that. The posters all make the point that being part of the EU is great for us - something I'd agree with in general. But this referendum isn't about being part of the EU, but the Lisbon treaty. Interesting shift of subject matter no?

you do know that UKIP are campaigning against Lisbon, and are sending leaflets to every home, despite not being elected or representing a single person in this country

I recommend you read the first sentence of this

Yes there are parties on the NO side who would love to see nothing better than for EU to fall apart or withdrawal from the Union

that includes SF as well

eoinbn

If people want to make an uninformed decision then that is their choice, and their right.

Thirdfox

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you do know that UKIP are campaigning against Lisbon, and are sending leaflets to every home, despite not being elected or representing a single person in this country

I recommend you read the first sentence of this

Yes there are parties on the NO side who would love to see nothing better than for EU to fall apart or withdrawal from the Union

that includes SF as well

I do indeed - I believe our MEP has accused them of racism over distributing pictures of Turkeys with "freedom of movement" medals around their necks. Yet, because Hitler was a vegetarian and loved animals - are all vegetarians and animal lovers genocidal maniacs? My reasons for voting no are my own, and while it happens that UKIP and SF is campaigning for the same result I daresay they are not campaigning from the same viewpoint.

This kind of argument is rather poor - just because disagreeable people are voting in one particular way, it does not necessitate that the result they are campaigning for is wrong (though of course I'd be more cautious in case they try to represent me as sharing their views). They may want to destroy but I want to create something better.

Oh and the same Irish Times article that mentioned the UKIP racism claim also included the counter-claim that the Irish MEP was being hypocritical when complaining about foreign influences and then canvassing for monetary donations to support the yes vote from fellow MEPs, not entirely unreasonable

But all this talk is taking away from the OP's original point - which asks whether everyone should be allowed to vote, regardless of knowledge of the subject matter.

walshb

The majority of the folks voting on Lisbon are voting on an issue they are not all that familiar with, that's both sides. We voted already and we voted no. Again, we are being asked to vote and I will vote NO again. Our first vote was not respected which is wrong and undemocratic. I think most YES voters will be voting yes out of fear, a fear that is not real or genuine, but propoganda. Seriously, if NO is voted, how much different or worse
off will we be?

What irks me is that there will be many voters voting YES who previously voted NO.
They will change their vote, not because they have now educated themselves and understand the issue, but because they are being asked to vote again. Instead of telling this govt that they have a cheek not to respect the vote of the people, they are going to change to comply with a shower who have not shown them or us respect

We are a strange electorate indeed. Had I originally voted YES, I would on principle vote NO this time to send a clear message to the govt that they have a damn cheek not respecting the Irish people. This is not democracy, what is happening with Lisbon II

Euro_Kraut

Thirdfox wrote: »

This kind of argument is rather poor - just because disagreeable people are voting in one particular way, it does not necessitate that the result they are campaigning for is wrong (though of course I'd be more cautious in case they try to represent me as sharing their views). They may want to destroy but I want to create something better.

This post sums up what you are saying nicely:http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055684573

Its long, but well worth the read.

Euro_Kraut

walshb wrote: »

We are a strange electorate indeed. Had I originally voted YES, I would on principle vote NO this time to send a clear message to the govt that they have a damn cheek not respecting the Irish people. This is not democracy, what is happening with Lisbon II

The question being asked on Oct 2nd is not 'Do you agree with the re running of the referendum?'. Rather 'Do you wish the state to ratify the Lisbon Treaty?'.

Our Constitution places no restrictions on the number of times a referendum can be held. Its is the remit of Dail Eireann. If you have an issue with that I suggest you start a campaign to have our Constitution changed. It is not relevant to the content of the Lisbon Treaty however.

walshb

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

The question being asked on Oct 2nd is not 'Do you agree with the re running of the referendum?'. Rather 'Do you wish the state to ratify the Lisbon Treaty?'.

Our Constitution places no restrictions on the number of times a referendum can be held. Its is the remit of Dail Eireann. If you have an issue with that I suggest you start a campaign to have our Constitution changed. It is not relevant to the content of the Lisbon Treaty however.

All semantics to try and muddy the waters. Plain and simply, we voted "a year ago" and that
vote was not respected. Now, you can try and use little clauses and loopholes to try
and explain this away, to me anyway, it's as plain as the nose on ones face.

If the vote was as easy as one day after the next, you can bloody bet we would have voted again the next day!
That's how this country is operating and it's disgraceful. So, that's your bloody constitution.

Thirdfox

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

This post sums up what you are saying nicely:http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055684573

Its long, but well worth the read.

I just read it - I'm glad that that person took time out to consider all the arguments applicable to him/herself and arrived at a reasoned conclusion. But unfortunately that won't change my decision (I suppose as I'm merely a law student I had the luxury of time to consider the implications of a Yes or No vote, 1st time and this time round). What I see happening is that Yes will win (partly helped by fears of people) - but that's not necessarily bad, as long as it's not a landslide yes win. That would send the completely wrong message to the leadership in the EU.

Best scenario could be a very narrow yes win, so we aren't "punished" and we manage to send the message that that many people (across Europe actually from my experience during my travels) are not happy with how things are moving along. Hence I'm just watching from the sidelines, rather than actively campaigning for one side or the other. And don't worry, I'm outnumbered by the other members of my family who are anti-Sinn Fein and will vote the opposite of SF on any issue

If there was a big chance of the No vote winning I would consider changing my vote actually. Though it would be interesting to analyse what would happen in the case of a second no; England will bring in the Tories who'll have a referendum, the Czechs won't ratify either then and we may force the EU to re-examine what it's doing. It's all about realpolitiks and the long term results for me.

ei.sdraob

walshb wrote: »

All semantics to try and muddy the waters. Plain and simply, we voted "a year ago" and that
vote was not respected. Now, you can try and use little clauses and loopholes to try
and explain this away, to me anyway, it's as plain as the nose on ones face.

If the vote was as easy as one day after the next, you can bloody bet we would have voted again the next day!
That's how this country is operating and it's disgraceful. So, that's your bloody constitution.

you really dont have an idea how democracy works?


1. the people voted no on the Lisbon 1 referendum

2. the elected government surveyed the people who voted NO why they did so

3. the elected government went to other heads of member states and said "Lookit here the people of Ireland are worried about X,Y,Z they are also worries about issues such as abortion and conscription which have nothing to do with Lisbon"

4. the heads of other governments said "Lookit here, we all have agreed and signed the treaty which Ireland had a large hand in drafting, why were these issues not asked x years ago"

then they said

"here are guarantees and changes to address the concerns of the people, these are a legal agreements, go and ask the people again whether they are happy with the Treaty + Guarantees"

5. the constitution of ireland states that we must hold a referendum, it doesnt limit them, that would be undemocratic since the basis of democracy is the right to vote

6. we are now holding a referendum on Lisbon Treaty + guarantees for the concerns of the people of Ireland

7. this is not the first time this happened and there is precedent, here and in other countries like Denmark




so please please explain how is voting on something undemocratic

if anything preventing people from voting is downright fascist and undemocratic


i cant believe i actually have to explain things in such a detail

ei.sdraob

Thirdfox wrote: »

I just read it - I'm glad that that person took time out to consider all the arguments applicable to him/herself and arrived at a reasoned conclusion. But unfortunately that won't change my decision (I suppose as I'm merely a law student I had the luxury of time to consider the implications of a Yes or No vote, 1st time and this time round). What I see happening is that Yes will win (partly helped by fears of people) - but that's not necessarily bad, as long as it's not a landslide yes win. That would send the completely wrong message to the leadership in the EU.

Best scenario could be a very narrow yes win, so we aren't "punished" and we manage to send the message that that many people (across Europe actually from my experience during my travels) are not happy with how things are moving along. Hence I'm just watching from the sidelines, rather than actively campaigning for one side or the other. And don't worry, I'm outnumbered by the other members of my family who are anti-Sinn Fein and will vote the opposite of SF on any issue

If there was a big chance of the No vote winning I would consider changing my vote actually. Though it would be interesting to analyse what would happen in the case of a second no; England will bring in the Tories who'll have a referendum, the Czechs won't ratify either then and we may force the EU to re-examine what it's doing. It's all about realpolitiks and the long term results for me.

since you are a Law student

then you wouldnt have trouble telling us


when has Ireland ever being "punished" (btw your choice of words is childish in context of EU)

and when has the EU ever done anything but good for this country




And for the Nth time i dont give a rats arse about Brits and UKIP if they want to leave the EU and cosy up the Americans then thats their choice, they are not dragging Ireland down with them (again!) and the Brits should have learned as to what happens when they follow the yanks blindly like a puppy, ( a certain very bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan)

once again they have no right to tell us how to vote and whatever happens in their country is their problems, the people of Ireland dont want to be influenced by the British again

/

Thirdfox

Just to let everyone know - I've reported this post and some posts above mine as being quite off topic.

I believe we have a Lisbon Treaty sub-forum to debate those topics.

If we're not talking about debating the meaning of democracy or if everyone should be allowed to vote then we're just thread-spoiling for the OP.

ei.sdraob

Thirdfox wrote: »

Just to let everyone know - I've reported this post and some posts above mine as being quite off topic.

I believe we have a Lisbon Treaty sub-forum to debate those topics.

If we're not talking about debating the meaning of democracy or if everyone should be allowed to vote then we're just thread-spoiling for the OP.

then you should read 2 posts up

i gave a lengthy post on democracy

you seem to think that the Irish will roll over and bend down to their British masters hence my second post

once again we dont care what they do and we ask them not to get involved

im more than sure im speaking for the majority of people in this country when i say the above (We can always have a referendum on the subject)

walshb

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so please please explain how is voting on something undemocratic

See, voting on an issue is NOT undemocratic; my point is that NOT bloody respecting the decision is the undemocratic part. Now, you can dress this up anyway you like, we voted no and now just over a year later we are being asked to vote again, after tweaks? I don't buy it for a second. Like I said, if it was a case of simply logging in and voting with ease, this shower would simply insist on the referendum again and again and again until we voted the way it suited them. It happened with the Nice treaty too.

So, I fully understand democracy, maybe its you who doesn't understand respect!

Medievalist

walshb wrote: »

We are a strange electorate indeed. Had I originally voted YES, I would on principle vote NO this time to send a clear message to the govt that they have a damn cheek not respecting the Irish people. This is not democracy, what is happening with Lisbon II

Regardless of your motives for voting, at the end of the day your vote counts as either 'Yes for the Lisbon Treaty' or 'No for the Lisbon Treaty'. The government have no way of knowing if your No vote is a snub to them or to the treaty.

A No vote is not a means of vendetta, nor is it a scape goat option. A No vote has definite consequences (as does a Yes vote) and you should be aware of these when voting. I think a large portion of the No voters I've come across see a No vote as a vote for no change. Things will change for Ireland either way.

Vote No if you are against the terms of the treaty, vote Yes if you agree with the terms of the Treaty. If you are unsure, don't understand the terms, or are annoyed at being asked to vote again....DON'T VOTE!

ei.sdraob

walshb wrote: »

See, voting on an issue is NOT undemocratic; my point is that NOT bloody respecting the decision is the undemocratic part. Now, you can dress this up anyway you like, we voted no and now just over a year later we are being asked to vote again, after tweaks? I don't buy it for a second. Like I said, if it was a case of simply logging in and voting with ease, this shower would simply insist on the referendum again and again and again until we voted the way it suited them. It happened with the Nice treaty too.

So, I fully understand democracy, maybe its you who doesn't understand respect!

a very simple question


how is getting concessions and large changes being made ( like allowing for the commissioner to remain )

is

NOT bloody respecting the decision

walshb

Medievalist wrote: »

Regardless of your motives for voting, at the end of the day your vote counts as either 'Yes for the Lisbon Treaty' or 'No for the Lisbon Treaty'. The government have no way of knowing if your No vote is a snub to them or to the treaty.

A No vote is not a means of vendetta, nor is it a scape goat option. A No vote has definite consequences (as does a Yes vote) and you should be aware of these when voting. I think a large portion of the No voters I've come across see a No vote as a vote for no change. Things will change for Ireland either way.

Vote No if you are against the terms of the treaty, vote Yes if you agree with the terms of the Treaty. If you are unsure, don't understand the terms, or are annoyed at being asked to vote again....DON'T VOTE!

I voted NO the first time around because I didn't agree with the treaty. This time around I don't agree with it, but I do know that some YES voters first time are incensed that the first vote was not accepted and this time they are standing by their citizens in solidarity and voting NO to preserve democracy

Thirdfox

then you should read 2 posts up

i gave a lengthy post on democracy

you seem to think that the Irish will roll over and bend down to their British masters

once again we dont care what they do and we ask them not to get involved

im more than sure im speaking for the majority of people in this country when i say the above (We can always have a referendum on the subject)

Where do you get that idea? Perhaps you should relax and take some time to consider what I have written instead of making accusations without much (or any) evidence of such. Especially such emotive language such as "bend down to their British masters". One would hope that as an independent nation we can act without always referring to our colonial past.

Also apologies if you think I was replying to your post with the thread-spoiling. If you check the timestamp - my post was logged one minute after yours - I was just making the general point that this discussion is not relevant to this thread and did not see your post.

Euro_Kraut

walshb wrote: »

See, voting on an issue is NOT undemocratic; my point is that NOT bloody respecting the decision is the undemocratic part. Now, you can dress this up anyway you like, we voted no and now just over a year later we are being asked to vote again, after tweaks? I don't buy it for a second. Like I said, if it was a case of simply logging in and voting with ease, this shower would simply insist on the referendum again and again and again until we voted the way it suited them. It happened with the Nice treaty too.

So, I fully understand democracy, maybe its you who doesn't understand respect!

This is Irish democracy though. Your problems is with the Irish constitution and it provisions for a referendum.

Like I said, it fine to oppose the provision in our constitution but that is a separate issue from the Treaty itself. I can't see how you feel you can term the very important distinction 'semantics'.

You voted no the first time for your own reasons. You don't need to invent more reasons to vote No again this time.

What you are suggesting is similar to saying that if there is a General Election some time before 2012 we should vote FF or Green because the wishes of the people in 2007 GE were not respected.

ei.sdraob

walshb wrote: »

I voted NO the first time around because I didn't agree with the treaty. This time around I don't agree with it, but I do know that some YES voters first time are incensed that the first vote was not accepted and this time they are standing by their citizens in solidarity and voting NO to preserve democracy

what did you not agree with?

the 53% of the people who voted and who didn't agree with the treaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland_Bill,_2008

1  -  40%  - Don't understand /not familiar	
2  -  20%  - Protect Irish identity	
3  -  17%  - Don't trust politicians/Govt policies	
4  -  10%  - Protect neutrality	
5  -  10%  - Keep commissioner	
6  -  8%   - Protect tax system

the above where the reasons given

as you can see good majority of people voted out of

* lack understanding and ignorance
* for reasons that have nothing to do with treaty (and yet again guaranteed)
* for reasons such as commissioner (which we get to keep under the guarantees)



how is the will of the people not being respected

if their opinions are taken into account and concessions/guarantees given?


to say that this process is undemocratic

is to spit into the face of democracy and shows clear lack of understanding of what the word means :mad:


im sorry but its hard to keep sane with the same regurgitated false arguments being made

ei.sdraob

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

What you are suggesting is similar to saying that if there is a General Election some time before 2012 we should vote FF or Green because the wishes of the people in 2007 GE were not respected.

i agree, great comparison

walshb

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

This is Irish democracy though. Your problems is with the Irish constitution and it provisions for a referendum.

Like I said, it fine to oppose the provision in our constitution but that is a separate issue from the Treaty itself. I can't see how you feel you can term the very important distinction 'semantics'.

You voted no the first time for your own reasons. You don't need to invent more reasons to vote No again this time.

What you are suggesting is similar to saying that if there is a General Election some time before 2012 we should vote FF or Green because the wishes of the people in 2007 GE were not respected.

It is not at all similar to a general election which applies to all the parties equally, regardless of sides. This is a one off treaty with a YES and No. NO won the vote and now a year later, the electorate are being asked to vote again on what the YES side claim is a "different" treaty?:rolleyes:

Medievalist

walshb wrote: »

I voted NO the first time around because I didn't agree with the treaty. This time around I don't agree with it, but I do know that some YES voters first time are incensed that the first vote was not accepted and this time they are standing by their citizens in solidarity and voting NO to preserve democracy

If you disagree with the treaty, then you should definitely vote No. I'm always delighted to hear that someone is voting No for a political reason.

However, making a choice that cuts off your nose to spite your face is neither an act of solidarity nor a preservation of democracy. Quite the opposite, I think it is corrupting democracy to use a treaty referendum to voice concerns about issues not relating to the terms of the treaty. There are other ways to vent frustration and show dissatisfaction with government choices. That is a core element of democracy.

When the rest of Europe continues on with a sleeker, more efficient system without us (using the concessions that were put in place mainly for our benefit), we will have no right to complain when we are left out of the loop in the EU.

Those who voted Yes in the first referendum and are now voting No, should only do so if they disagree with the changes and prefered the first draft of the Lisbon Treaty.

If people are unhappy at voting again, then there should be a campaign to change the constitution so that the result of a referendum is binding at that there can't be a second.

If people were really that upset about being asked to vote twice, they would be trying to do something more constructive than just voting No to piss off the government.

Medievalist

Back on topic, I don't think we can start setting up parameters to determine if people can vote or not. The country consists of 4 million people, from different backgrounds, with different opinions and concerns, and differing levels of education. All of their opinions count (once over 18 of course). Even if they piss off other voters;). Such is the nature of democracy.

walshb

Medievalist wrote: »

If you disagree with the treaty, then you should definitely vote No. I'm always delighted to hear that someone is voting No for a political reason.

However, making a choice that cuts off your nose to spite your face is neither an act of solidarity nor a preservation of democracy. Quite the opposite, I think it is corrupting democracy to use a treaty referendum to voice concerns about issues not relating to the terms of the treaty. There are other ways to vent frustration and show dissatisfaction with government choices. That is a core element of democracy.

When the rest of Europe continues on with a sleeker, more efficient system without us (using the concessions that were put in place mainly for our benefit), we will have no right to complain when we are left out of the loop in the EU.

Those who voted Yes in the first referendum and are now voting No, should only do so if they disagree with the changes and prefered the first draft of the Lisbon Treaty.

If people are unhappy at voting again, then there should be a campaign to change the constitution so that the result of a referendum is binding at that there can't be a second.

If people were really that upset about being asked to vote twice, they would be trying to do something more constructive than just voting No to piss off the government.

But, one could argue that the treaty is MORE than just a treaty considering what happened with it the first time around. It's gotten personal and when the govt blatantly decide to ignore the vote, then it's serious and a threat to democracy. One could argue this.

Remember, this shouldn't be a battle between fellow Irish people. We are all together here and I respect all sides, but the most important element here, above the treaty, is the respect for the vote and the respect for the decision. The treaty vote was not respected, and this is the main problem.

Your point concerning changing the constitution to make a treaty vote concrete is good.

ei.sdraob

walshb wrote: »

But, one could argue that the treaty is MORE than just a treaty considering what happened with it the first time around. It's gotten personal and when the govt blatantly decide to ignore the vote, then it's serious and a threat to democracy. One could argue this.

Remember, this shouldn't be a battle between fellow Irish people. We are all together here and I respect all sides, but the most important element here, above the treaty, is the respect for the vote and the respect for the decision. The treaty vote was not respected, and this is the main problem.

Your point concerning changing the constitution to make a treaty vote concrete is good.

once again how is listening and getting concessions/guarantees on behalf of the people

equals to "ignoring" the vote or "disrespecting" the people


im still waiting on answer since you logic is clearly flawed

nesf

walshb wrote: »

But, one could argue that the treaty is MORE than just a treaty considering what happened with it the first time around. It's gotten personal and when the govt blatantly decide to ignore the vote, then it's serious and a threat to democracy. One could argue this.

Remember, this shouldn't be a battle between fellow Irish people. We are all together here and I respect all sides, but the most important element here, above the treaty, is the respect for the vote and the respect for the decision. The treaty vote was not respected, and this is the main problem.

Your point concerning changing the constitution to make a treaty vote concrete is good.

But not allowing the rerun of referenda on the same question would disenfranchise the public! We have a right as a nation to change our minds on issues, be they the Lisbon Treaty or Abortion or whatever. If an anti-EU party was elected into Government it would be perfectly within their remit and right to run a referenda asking if we wanted to leave the EU, despite this referenda "not respecting" the positive outcomes of all the previous EU referenda.

Medievalist

Perhaps this mayhem surrounding Lisbon is connected to something the OP mentioned.

Perhaps, instead of giving a vote to people who don't understand what they are voting for (and I mean in all elections/ referendums, not just Lisbon), we implement something akin to the driver theory test. When someone turns 18, before they are given a voting card, they have to prove they have a basic understanding of government systems (both Irish and European). Nothing too indepth, very simple questions.

Perhaps it is our responsiblity to make sure people understand how our country works. Even if it highlighted to people how little they know about the workings of the Dail, they might develop and interest and try to learn more.

greendom

walshb wrote: »

See, voting on an issue is NOT undemocratic; my point is that NOT bloody respecting the decision is the undemocratic part. Now, you can dress this up anyway you like, we voted no and now just over a year later we are being asked to vote again, after tweaks? I don't buy it for a second. Like I said, if it was a case of simply logging in and voting with ease, this shower would simply insist on the referendum again and again and again until we voted the way it suited them. It happened with the Nice treaty too.

So, I fully understand democracy, maybe its you who doesn't understand respect!

Don't forget it's our democratically elected leaders who are giving us the opportunity to vote again. Doesn't that make it democratic?

kippy

Just an aside.
"Why do we allow people to have the vote without having earned it."
Is there a country out there that makes their voters "earn" their vote?
I doubt it.......

walshb

nesf wrote: »

But not allowing the rerun of referenda on the same question would disenfranchise the public! We have a right as a nation to change our minds on issues, be they the Lisbon Treaty or Abortion or whatever. If an anti-EU party was elected into Government it would be perfectly within their remit and right to run a referenda asking if we wanted to leave the EU, despite this referenda "not respecting" the positive outcomes of all the previous EU referenda.

I never said that we shouldn't be allowed to vote again on an issue, but with this and Nice, it's obvious to me that those in power did not respect the vote. Jeez, it's barely been a year and they are wanting the vote again. It's so obvious that they are forcing the vote because they refuse to accept the first answer. What do you reckon if we vote NO again?
I'd love it, even if just to see the reaction and so called "implications."

nesf

walshb wrote: »

I never said that we shouldn't be allowed to vote again on an issue, but with this and Nice, it's obvious to me that those in power did not respect the vote. Jeez, it's barely been a year and they are wanting the vote again. It's so obvious that they are forcing the vote because they refuse to accept the first answer. What do you reckon if we vote NO again?
I'd love it, even if just to see the reaction and so called "implications."

If we vote No again then we'll most likely see a more fundamental renegotiation of the Treaty since it'll be obvious that in its present form with only guarantees the Irish public will still not pass it. What shape this renegotiation will take and whether Ireland would benefit from such changes are open questions I'm afraid.

Almost exactly the same thing went on with the Divorce referenda. Each No result was seen by various Governments as not the result they wanted, so successive referenda were called on it. What distinguished it from the EU referenda is that we were under no time limit to change our legislation on divorce while EU treaties need to be ratified within 2 years or they get sent back to the Council of Ministers for re-evaluation.

ei.sdraob

Medievalist wrote: »

Perhaps this mayhem surrounding Lisbon is connected to something the OP mentioned.

Perhaps, instead of giving a vote to people who don't understand what they are voting for (and I mean in all elections/ referendums, not just Lisbon), we implement something akin to the driver theory test. When someone turns 18, before they are given a voting card, they have to prove they have a basic understanding of government systems (both Irish and European). Nothing too indepth, very simple questions.

Perhaps it is our responsiblity to make sure people understand how our country works. Even if it highlighted to people how little they know about the workings of the Dail, they might develop and interest and try to learn more.

more education is schools is needed


people dont know how Ireland or EU operates

they dont know difference between direct and representative democracy

and they cant name the main bodies in our and EU government



as i said before the main problem facing the YES side are not the lunatics who make up the NO campaign, its the lack of care, knowledge and unwillingness to learn from the average joe on the street

Scofflaw

kippy wrote: »

Just an aside.
"Why do we allow people to have the vote without having earned it."
Is there a country out there that makes their voters "earn" their vote?
I doubt it.......

There are countries that require you to have done your military service before you're fully a citizen.

You could require people to pass a 'civics' exam before being able to vote, and perhaps retest them at standard intervals. You'd first sit your exam at 17/18 along with your LC, and if you passed would then become eligible to vote. You could separate it into modules for local/Dáil/euro/referendums, with the results determining eligibility in each type of vote. You could resit at any point a failed exam at any local school - it would get more embarrassing with age, of course.

The advantage is that it decouples the right to vote from any specific issue, while ensuring that voters at least have the background understanding of issues like what's already in the Constitution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kippy

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are countries that require you to have done your military service before you're fully a citizen.

You could require people to pass a 'civics' exam before being able to vote, and perhaps retest them at standard intervals. You'd first sit your exam at 17/18 along with your LC, and if you passed would then become eligible to vote. You could separate it into modules for local/Dáil/euro/referendums, with the results determining eligibility in each type of vote. You could resit at any point a failed exam at any local school - it would get more embarrassing with age, of course.

The advantage is that it decouples the right to vote from any specific issue, while ensuring that voters at least have the background understanding of issues like what's already in the Constitution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hi Scofflaw,
What countries require you to do military service before you can vote?

I am just curious as to how this would be handled in a practical sense and what benefit it would bring to the country. We've seen highly educated people get things badly wrong in the recent past.
Kippy

Whiskey Jack

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Right, it's two in the morning and I've read a few too many Lisbon threads today, and something here is annoying me.

Why do we allow people to have the vote without having earned it.

I'm 22 years of age, and thus, have been allowed to vote for four years. All I needed to do to earn my vote was to turn 18 and register. In fact, I didn't even need to, because when I went to do so, it turned out my mum had already done it for me.

As it stands, Ireland is the only country having a referendum about Lisbon, because our consitution demands it.

What amazes me most about this is just how flawed a system this is - a large body of disparate people, only a tiny proportion of whom understand the treaty, let alone have read it, are to decide the future of Europe. (In terms of streamlining the EU.)

Why is it, that someone who does not understand the issues involved is allowed to vote? There's been massive complaints about the lies told by both sides, predominantly the No campaign. Obvious ones would be abortion, conscription and so on. Issues that the treaty never really had anything to do with. Despite that, a person can go and vote without actually knowing what they're voting for.

Would it not make more sense for anyone who wishes to vote on this treaty to prove that they understand enough about the issues involved before being allowed to vote? (Not really interested in the logistics of how that would be done, just being theoretical.)

Well who then decides who has and has not earned the right to vote? To put this amount of power into the hands of anyone is to invite corruption on a grand scale.

You may object quite strenuously to what I am about to suggest, but the fact is that this type of thinking is the seed from which fascism grows.

Would we choose to disenfranchise those born with low IQs? Would we decide that perhaps blind people may not be able to give the same opinions on certain issues as sighted people? What of the hard of hearing or the deaf? People with epilepsy?

I am genuinely shocked at the level of acceptance of your comments above, they smack of lazy thinking and attitudes - the fact is that fairness is the harder path to take, it would be easy to take the simple path, but that way leads to tyranny. Mind you, no one ever thinks that they are going to take this path, the righteousness of their belief innures them from the safety net of doubt.

anonymous_joe wrote: »

What amazes me most about this is just how flawed a system this is - a large body of disparate people, only a tiny proportion of whom understand the treaty, let alone have read it, are to decide the future of Europe. (In terms of streamlining the EU.)

No one is going to 'decide the Future of Europe' with the Lisbon treaty. Its a treaty, if it doesnt passed it is not a big deal. If it is, it display a dangerously inherent flaw with the concept of Europe, that being it is only ever geared for one result of its proposals. This, in and of itself might be reason enough to vote No. As for the lies being put around by such lunatic fringe groups as Libertas or Coir, their is an equal amount being put out by the Yes side. The blatant level of dishonesty on both sides is sickening and shameful in the extreme.

Finally, as to your comment about a 'large body of disparate people' making decisions - who exactly should make decisions? Small bodies of homogenous people? Clones?

I'll do my best to avoid confrontational or agressive language whilst posting on these boards but this thread is based on an incredibly stupid point put in an incredibly stupid way - perhaps it was the posting at 2am that is blame, I sincerely hope so?



For my part, I understand that their is no difference to the treaty so therefore we are voting on the same treaty a second time to affect a preordained decision. This is a worrying position to be in.

prinz

kippy wrote: »

I am just curious as to how this would be handled in a practical sense and what benefit it would bring to the country.

Persumably it would foster a real sense of social partnership and responsibility.

prinz

Whiskey Jack wrote: »

For my part, I understand that their is no difference to the treaty so therefore we are voting on the same treaty a second time to affect a preordained decision. This is a worrying position to be in.

A pre-ordained decision? Am I missing something, people are just as free to reject it again as they were the first time.

mickoneill30

walshb wrote: »

I never said that we shouldn't be allowed to vote again on an issue, but with this and Nice, it's obvious to me that those in power did not respect the vote.

You're saying they didn't respect the vote. You've said it a few times in this thread. So the government went ahead with Lisbon last year did they? Because if we voted NO and they didn't go ahead with it then that's respecting what the vote said isn't it.

If they went off and got guarantees and some changes (like keeping our comissioner if it's passed now) then we're voting on a different thing now. Is this complicated stuff, because a lot of people seem confused by it?

walshb

mickoneill30 wrote: »

You're saying they didn't respect the vote. You've said it a few times in this thread. So the government went ahead with Lisbon last year did they? Because if we voted NO and they didn't go ahead with it then that's respecting what the vote said isn't it.

If they went off and got guarantees and some changes (like keeping our comissioner if it's passed now) then we're voting on a different thing now. Is this complicated stuff?

They didn't go ahead. They are asking for a re-run of the treaty. They are saying that the treaty is new and different, bollox. Is this complicated?

They got an answer and just over a year later, it's being asked again and they will continue until we vote the way they want, not how the Irish people want

nesf

kippy wrote: »

I am just curious as to how this would be handled in a practical sense and what benefit it would bring to the country. We've seen highly educated people get things badly wrong in the recent past.
Kippy

Probably the same countries that require you to do military service unless you've a bloody good reason for not doing. Israel and Switzerland both require you to do this iirc.

I'm not convinced that training everyone in how to propery care for, use and aim firearms is a great idea though.

mickoneill30

walshb wrote: »

They didn't go ahead. They are asking for a re-run of the treaty. They are saying that the treaty is new and different, bollox. Is this complicated?

Last year one of the issues was that we'd lose our comissioner. This year if we vote yes we don't. How is that the same? I'm not being smart here. Explain how this is the same. Because if it's not the same it's different. (I know that sounds simplistic. It seems it has to be).

Edit: Anyway they're not saying it's new. Who said that? If you could provide links that would be handy.

Whiskey Jack

prinz wrote: »

A pre-ordained decision? Am I missing something, people are just as free to reject it again as they were the first time.

How many times are we then free to reject it prinz? Are we free to have a rerun of the vote if its a Yes? Is this what you are suggesting?

The reality is that there will be a rerun of the vote until their is acceptance of the vote, this not democracy, this is not freedom, its totalitarianism.