Varadkar afraid that a Referendum will be about Septic Tanks

Sponge Bob

Varadkars logic on RTE today was that one should not hold a referendum on a putative EU Fiscal Treaty for fear that it would turn into a referendum on Septic Tanks. My opinion of Varadkars comment is that even Dublin TD's realise that the Septic Tank issue has made it all the way to cabinet as a live issue.

It is discriminatory to single out septic tanks for "Sonderbehandlung" Leo.

Municipal systems, ENTIRELY paid for by the taxpayer and subject to no inspection charges at all are the main reason why there are problems in certain river basins. In other river basins the problem is mainly septic tanks. Yet we are not told which it is and where. Only septic tank owners are singled out.

It is time that you and your Cabinet direct the EPA to state where the risks are, broken down by river basin, and to tax the entirety of the risk spectrum.

And if the government and the EPA are being this dishonest then it is no wonder it could become a referendum issue.

Podge_irl

Sponge Bob wrote: »

And if the government and the EPA are being this dishonest then it is no wonder it could become a referendum issue.

What on earth do Septic tanks have to do with a referendum on European budgetary rules?

jimmycrackcorm

Quite rightly Varadkar is pointing out that we will vote on a nose to spite the face basis. Were just dying to give the EU a middle finger regardless of the consequences.

SeanW

Whereas the E.U. helped cause the Irish mess by saddling us with a Euro, interest rates too low for an overheating/bubbling economy,

insisted the people took 100% of the cost when it all went south, and

charged us silly amounts of interest on the bailout-from-hell, and

in the case of France, wants "concessions" on our corporate tax rate ... AND

still continues to impose more legislation irrevocably on all the peoples of Europe, growing bigger, more "integrated" and hegemonous all the time ...

I think giving the E.U. the middle finger would be a very good idea!

SeanW

FWIW if the new treaty is strictly a limitation on deficits, I'll vote for it because I'm all for balanced budgets.

BUt if there's any rubbish in there about a Transaction Tax or the Common Corporate Tax Base or anything like that, I'm going to do everything I can to encorage everyone I can to vote NO.

Liam Byrne

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Quite rightly Varadkar is pointing out that we will vote on a nose to spite the face basis. Were just dying to give the EU a middle finger regardless of the consequences.

Can we get to vote on his personal despicable attempts to break the pay cap ?

After all, that would be related to the fiscal issues.

But no - Leo wants to impose HIS version on us while getting away with his own personal breaking of the rules.

Absolutely unforgiveable.

If we vote against you, Leo, it's because of your despicable double-standards and refusal to accept even YOUR OWN PARTY's fiscal limits.

We'll act in the interests of the country when you and yours start to do so.

Your move.

mikeyboy

Sponge Bob wrote: »

"Sonderbehandlung"

I call Godwin on this

Podge_irl

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Can we get to vote on his personal despicable attempts to break the pay cap ?

Yes. It's called the General Election.

mikom

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Varadkars logic on RTE today was that one should not hold a referendum on a putative EU Fiscal Treaty for fear that it would turn into a referendum on Septic Tanks.

Makes a change from a referendum on jobs.

meglome

mikom wrote: »

Makes a change from a referendum on jobs.

It does, doesn't it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm interested in here are things that they said would happen if we voted yes, i.e. they were saying that voting yes would allow something to happen where voting no would prevent it.

This is the list:

1. The minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84
2. Ireland would be forced to engage in military action in something like a terrorist attack
3. We would lose our neutrality
4. It would create a European superstate
5. Abortion would be made legal
6. Gay marriage would be made legal
7. Euthanasia would be made legal
8. The death penalty would be made legal
9. The guarantees were not legally binding and would be renaged on
10. Michael O'Leary campaigned for the yes side in exchange for being allowed to buy Aer Lingus
11. During the canmpaign polls were rigged to make it look like the yes side were ahead
12. Turkey would be allowed to join the EU
13. The treaty made EU law superior to Irish law (it already was and has been since 1973)
14. We would lose the right to referendums
15. Our constitution would be null and void
16. Healthcare and education would be privatised
17. We would be forced to increase military spending
18. The charter of human rights would allow the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
19. We would lose our veto in all areas
20. A new EU army would be created and which would conscript Irish people
21. Tony Blair would become the EU president

Now that two years have passed and none of those things have happened I think we can all agree they were lies. So that's a list of "bad" things that the no campaign said would happen that didn't. What I'm wondering is: what "bad" things that the no campaign said would happen actually did? I can't think of anything to be honest.

mikom

meglome wrote: »

It does, doesn't it.

Guess we lost that referendum........

SeanW

mikom wrote: »

Makes a change from a referendum on jobs.

Ah sure, a referedum now would give them the chance to re-use those posters :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

Podge_irl wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Can we get to vote on his personal despicable attempts to break the pay cap ?

Yes. It's called the General Election.

Not the same at all.

A referendum stops a crap decision being made.

A general election does no such thing.

Nijmegen

Leo Varadkar feels that a referendum would be hijacked by interest groups who would not argue the actual point of the referendum.

Like, say, as one contributor has already highlighted, the "Yes to Jobs" mantra of the last repeat referendum.

Democracy is flawed, but it's the best we've got. Leo might not have much faith in the great unwashed mob, but they are collectively the owners of this little island, its constitution and future.

NinjaK

How convenient. These arrogant politicians never cease to amaze.

Sponge Bob

I believe they could have passed a referendum as late as November but have since enraged rural areas who have been historically more pro europe.

Varadkar acknowledged he knows the problem...unusually for him. 2 teacher schools are equally controversial in the same rural areas but FG have not had to guillotine any measures on those yet.

Losing small town and rural Ireland...all that FG had in 2002 ....would be the height of stupidity.

Scofflaw

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I believe they could have passed a referendum as late as November but have since enraged rural areas who have been historically more pro europe.

Varadkar acknowledged he knows the problem...unusually for him. 2 teacher schools are equally controversial in the same rural areas but FG have not had to guillotine any measures on those yet.

Losing small town and rural Ireland...all that FG had in 2002 ....would be the height of stupidity.

You are essentially saying, though, that the government would be likely to lose a European treaty referendum on fiscal responsibility because of charges on septic tank registration.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sponge Bob

I am essentially saying that a referendum cannot be denied even though the government finally admits it has a notable hot potato on its hands.

wiseguy

http://www.thejournal.ie/varadkar-referendums-are-not-very-democratic-340909-Jan2012/

Varadkar: Referendums are not “very democratic”

Can you believe this guy?

Yes referendums are very democratic and as close as we get to direct democracy as per our constitution.

sigh

JustinDee

wiseguy wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/varadkar-referendums-are-not-very-democratic-340909-Jan2012/

Can you believe this guy?

Yes referendums are very democratic and as close as we get to direct democracy as per our constitution.

sigh

Should really give an exact quote. The fact that part of that sentence is in quotation marks suggests cherry-picking. Context could have been along any lines there.
Looking through the articles, I've yet to find a quote where he claims that "referendums" (sic) are not democratic.

Manach

It would be best for all the electorate just to debate the referendum issue on solely its own merits. As European citizens, to decide will this prevent the turmoil in the EU economy and lead to stable growth in the foreseeable future.

My own view - local issues will dominate such as current government proposals and issues, especially in regard the septic tank issue which the government is mishandling by stressing how the EU is forcing them to implement this instead of arguing the case purely on its preported need.

JustinDee

Manach wrote: »

It would be best for all the electorate just to debate the referendum issue on solely its own merits

Not possible in Ireland where the electorate tends to vote for what it thinks is best for its own doorsteps and gardens.

Scofflaw

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I am essentially saying that a referendum cannot be denied even though the government finally admits it has a notable hot potato on its hands.

And that the hot potato will affect the referendum outcome.

cordially,
Scofflaw

spank_inferno

I agree with Varadkar.

In my brief voting life, I've yet to see a referendum argued on the merits of the question to hand.

Its always been lies, hearsay & rumour from both sides.

VinLieger

People crying saying hes lieing and corrupt etc but the simple fact is he is aboslutely correct whether you like him or not.

Its the same with our general elections we dont vote for parties becuase of their national agenda but because when we asked the local TD to help fix the pothole outside our house it got done.

Any referendum we have would be quickly attacked by special interest groups claiming it would do this that and the other and that a vote no is a vote against the bondholders etc.

And to people poining out the government claiming it would increase jobs and that other list of things, they most likely had to do that since there were hundreds of anti treaty groups claiming that it would do exactly the opposite

The simple fact is your average irish voter is completely retarded when it comes to divorcing themseleves from their own personal issues and doing whats best for the country

drunkmonkey

SeanW wrote: »

Ah sure, a referedum now would give them the chance to re-use those posters :rolleyes:

New Referendum, New Posters

GSF

I think what he is saying is that the electorate is irrational and immature. Of course that is the problem with the country. Why doesnt everyone just grow up?

drunkmonkey

GSF wrote: »

I think what he is saying is that the electorate is irrational and immature.

It's like been back in school, fair enough there is a few numptys out there but to brand us all a pack of immature idiots it a bit strong, lads have got thumped for less.

View

Well, we could just hold a referendum and have a referendum question that is totally unrelated to the issue we want to make a decision on.

After all, if the debate is only going to have a tangential bearing on the issue we need to decide on, why should we constrain the question to one related to the issue itself?

A generic question like "Do you like ice cream?" would allow for a much more open form of debate on constitutional matters, wouldn't it?

mikom

View wrote: »

A generic question like "Do you like ice cream?" would allow for a much more open form of debate on constitutional matters, wouldn't it?

Is this European Ice cream?

GSF

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's like been back in school, fair enough there is a few numptys out there but to brand us all a pack of immature idiots it a bit strong, lads have got thumped for less.

The idiots are often in the majority though numerically. In other countries they dont vote, but in Ireland they see voting as a day out and turn out in record numbers.

wiseguy

spank_inferno wrote: »

I agree with Varadkar.

In my brief voting life, I've yet to see a referendum argued on the merits of the question to hand.

Its always been lies, hearsay & rumour from both sides.

Maybe if government after government stopped ignoring their voters and listening to what their voters are telling them then this would not be the case.
The government (past and present) are no saints and are downright fools, see recent political suicide by Sean Sherlock, who still continues to ignore what thousands of people are telling him.

Tell me how is a government that ignores the people and rams thru' legislation and "edicts" any different from a dictatorship?

My name is URL

You wouldn't hear him come out with a statement like that if the popular public sentiment was supportive of an upcoming referendum or agreeable to their own outlooks. Certainly no such concerns were aired in the lead up to the recent referenda on judge's pay & Oireachtas inquiries.



"Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking”

Son Of A Vidic

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Quite rightly Varadkar is pointing out that we will vote on a nose to spite the face basis. Were just dying to give the EU a middle finger regardless of the consequences.

Quite rightly? How? Isn't that why we have a legal voting age in this country? Which is a legal threshold recognising the capacity of an individual to independently decide how to cast a vote. The key words there being independently decide. So does he want control of an individuals rationale for voting, regardless of whether it's for or against? Sure let's not have any future elections or referenda, just in case the individuals motive for voting might not concur with the government line. Joseph goebbels would be very proud indeed.

Well sorry Leo, democracy can be a tough game can't it? Damn those bloody democratic referendums, a real inconvenience aren't they. Hey let's not have democracy at all, just in case eh? But I really don't know why he is fretting so much over this. He just merely needs to take a leaf out of the previous governments book. When they don't like the initial results of the democratic process, just have a rerun until the referendum result fits.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

Well, we could just hold a referendum and have a referendum question that is totally unrelated to the issue we want to make a decision on.

After all, if the debate is only going to have a tangential bearing on the issue we need to decide on, why should we constrain the question to one related to the issue itself?

A generic question like "Do you like ice cream?" would allow for a much more open form of debate on constitutional matters, wouldn't it?

Absolutely. Ideally, we probably should avoid questions the might confuse the exercise of the right to debate constitutional matters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wiseguy

An undemocratic system where voters are ignored leads to dictatorship of sorts and less democracy

who could have imagined :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

An undemocratic system where voters are ignored leads to dictatorship of sorts and less democracy

who could have imagined :rolleyes:

Luckily, we don't live in such a system. Instead we live in a democratic system where questions must be put to the public vote where the Constitution requires that they be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sponge Bob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Instead we live in a democratic system where questions must be put to the public vote where the Constitution requires that they be.

Indeed, no matter how enraged the core FG vote in rural areas is on the subject of septic tanks.

wiseguy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Luckily, we don't live in such a system. Instead we live in a democratic system where questions must be put to the public vote where the Constitution requires that they be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yet we have a minister who seems to forget that we have this thing called a constitution around these parts when giving his opinion.

professore

I voted yes, but actually for various reasons many things on that list have come to pass ....

The minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84 - Free labour internship scheme
Ireland would be forced to engage in military action in something like a terrorist attack - not tested
We would lose our neutrality
It would create a European superstate - well on it's way with Merkozy and the fiscal compact
Abortion would be made legal - this will happen sooner or later
Gay marriage would be made legal - it is legal or at least civil partnership is
Euthanasia would be made legal - nonsense of course
The death penalty would be made legal - nonsense of course
The guarantees were not legally binding and would be renaged on - This is true, they were supposed to be added to Croatia's accession treaty but were not.
Michael O'Leary campaigned for the yes side in exchange for being allowed to buy Aer Lingus
During the canmpaign polls were rigged to make it look like the yes side were ahead
Turkey would be allowed to join the EU
The treaty made EU law superior to Irish law (it already was and has been since 1973)
We would lose the right to referendums - - Looks to be the case
Our constitution would be null and void - Looks to be the case
Healthcare and education would be privatised - Looks to be the case
We would be forced to increase military spending - Not the case, forced to cut it
The charter of human rights would allow the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
We would lose our veto in all areas - Looks to be the case
A new EU army would be created and which would conscript Irish people
Tony Blair would become the EU president

Now that two years have passed and none of those things have happened I think we can all agree they were lies. So that's a list of "bad" things that the no campaign said would happen that didn't. What I'm wondering is: what "bad" things that the no campaign said would happen actually did? I can't think of anything to be honest.

They were lies, but it doesn't change the fact that an EU superstate ruled by Germany is the endgame. My eyes are open now.

Sponge Bob

professore wrote: »

The guarantees were not legally binding and would be renaged on - This is true, they were supposed to be added to Croatia's accession treaty but were not.
We would lose the right to referendums - - Looks to be the case

These are two very large problems....if we are asked to vote again.

These are our supposed legal guarantees that shoul dhave been in the Croatian accession treaty ( because it was the 'next treaty along' after Lisbon)

http://iiea.com/documents/lisbon-the-irish-guarantees-explained

JustinDee

professore wrote: »

The minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84 - Free labour internship scheme

Hardly the same. Internship, as it happens, got me my first foot in the door on my career route.

professore wrote: »

Ireland would be forced to engage in military action in something like a terrorist attack - not tested

Has not happened and nothing along any element of the Orbat to suggest it would ie. nothing has changed.

professore wrote: »

It would create a European superstate - well on it's way with Merkozy and the fiscal compact

Not with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. A retroactive measure proposed by a nation that has been more than a prop-up to the Euro does not mean anything like a European superstate.

professore wrote: »

Abortion would be made legal - this will happen sooner or later

Absolutely nothing to indicate that it will. Nothing has changed on this matter.

professore wrote: »

Gay marriage would be made legal - it is legal or at least civil partnership is

A human rights issue here. What is the problem with it exactly?

professore wrote: »

We would lose the right to referendums - - Looks to be the case

No it doesn't. Where do you get this idea from?

professore wrote: »

Our constitution would be null and void - Looks to be the case

Absolutely incorrect.

professore wrote: »

Healthcare and education would be privatised - Looks to be the case

No it doesn't. Prove it.

professore wrote: »

We would be forced to increase military spending - Not the case, forced to cut it

The aim was always to improve the military infrastructure with ordnance and equipment in mind. Not to expand

professore wrote: »

We would lose our veto in all areas - Looks to be the case

No, it doesn't. There is nothing to suggest so.

meglome

professore wrote: »

I voted yes, but actually for various reasons many things on that list have come to pass ....

The minimum wage would be reduced to €1.84 - Free labour internship scheme
Ireland would be forced to engage in military action in something like a terrorist attack - not tested
We would lose our neutrality
It would create a European superstate - well on it's way with Merkozy and the fiscal compact
Abortion would be made legal - this will happen sooner or later
Gay marriage would be made legal - it is legal or at least civil partnership is
Euthanasia would be made legal - nonsense of course
The death penalty would be made legal - nonsense of course
The guarantees were not legally binding and would be renaged on - This is true, they were supposed to be added to Croatia's accession treaty but were not.
Michael O'Leary campaigned for the yes side in exchange for being allowed to buy Aer Lingus
During the canmpaign polls were rigged to make it look like the yes side were ahead
Turkey would be allowed to join the EU
The treaty made EU law superior to Irish law (it already was and has been since 1973)
We would lose the right to referendums - - Looks to be the case
Our constitution would be null and void - Looks to be the case
Healthcare and education would be privatised - Looks to be the case
We would be forced to increase military spending - Not the case, forced to cut it
The charter of human rights would allow the EU to take the homes, assets and children of people with mild intellectual disabilities and alcoholics
We would lose our veto in all areas - Looks to be the case
A new EU army would be created and which would conscript Irish people
Tony Blair would become the EU president

They were lies, but it doesn't change the fact that an EU superstate ruled by Germany is the endgame. My eyes are open now.

Justin Dee covers it above pretty much. But I just wanted to say it's no wonder you have a problem with the EU because you believe stuff is happening that simply isn't. Though feel free to prove any of this.
Someone asked me yesterday on the Journal (words to the affect of) "how can I accept the fact that some fascists are going to come on our land and tell us what to do by force". Of course I wouldn't accept that, but then it's all about framing the question. It's simply not happening so why would I be even concerned about it.

meglome

wiseguy wrote: »

Yet we have a minister who seems to forget that we have this thing called a constitution around these parts when giving his opinion.

Either we'll legally need a referendum or we won't. Is it only government ministers that are not allowed an opinion?

Mr.Micro

wiseguy wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/varadkar-referendums-are-not-very-democratic-340909-Jan2012/



Can you believe this guy?

Yes referendums are very democratic and as close as we get to direct democracy as per our constitution.

sigh

Some of what he says is true though. The actual wording of the referendum would mean nothing to many, as they would reject anything, to protest about the new charges household and septic tank, the Irish voter not known for their lack of tunnel vision or seeing the big picture. It worked for rotten FF, time and time again, where votes were bought, increased benefits, pensions allowances, never occurring to the voter where the money was coming from. They have found out now though....that we all have to pay for the glut of the past. Passing the proposal, if it even comes to a referendum, is very necessary if we need future funds that will be set aside for those adapting the treaty. Try and convince the voters though, when all the will see is septic tanks and having to pay.....thick or what?

View

Sponge Bob wrote: »

These are two very large problems....if we are asked to vote again.

These are our supposed legal guarantees that shoul dhave been in the Croatian accession treaty ( because it was the 'next treaty along' after Lisbon)

http://iiea.com/documents/lisbon-the-irish-guarantees-explained

That protocol was before the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee last Tuesday.

Given that the Croatian accession treaty was only signed on December 9th, I am not sure what you expect them all to have done. Skip Christmas just to keep you happy?

Oddly, enough even though that protocol is also an EU Treaty, nobody seems to be calling for the treaty on it to be put to a referendum. It seems that our No side has a highly selective attitude to what EU Treaties should be put to referenda...

View

wiseguy wrote: »

Yet we have a minister who seems to forget that we have this thing called a constitution around these parts when giving his opinion.

And if the Minister is of the opinion that a procedure in our constitution is in practice not working the way it should in principle, is he not allowed to comment on this?

Sponge Bob

View wrote: »

That protocol was before the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee last Tuesday.

Really. that link says it should have been in the Croatian accession treaty by 2010 not dicking around Brussels in 2012

Oddly, enough even though that protocol is also an EU Treaty, nobody seems to be calling for the treaty on it

we already did voteas you know. Which bit of solemn do you not understand?

Faustino

I have doubts it will even make it to refferendum. Europe have learnt from initial mistakes when it comes to letting us vote on their policies.

What they will be doing right now is grouping together some clever lawyers and will be wording a new piece of legislation that manages to get around our constitution but still set out what it means to do.

Scumbags.

VinLieger

Faustino wrote: »

I have doubts it will even make it to refferendum. Europe have learnt from initial mistakes when it comes to letting us vote on their policies.

What they will be doing right now is grouping together some clever lawyers and will be wording a new piece of legislation that manages to get around our constitution but still set out what it means to do.

Scumbags.

Its not Europes choice on whether they allow us to vote or not, it is unfortunately down to how the treaty affects our constitution.

Sponge Bob

They will roll that Andrea Prattle woman out again no doubt.