Are the people the best judges of the treaty?

Sand

Personally, Im a big believer in the people being consulted - via referenda and so on and so forth- even if the people come up with a whollly stupid decision theyll only have themselves to blame, though theres a bit of a conflict between democracy and the nature of leadership there but how and ever.

The views of many people on the Nice Treaty have begun to make me wonder if it is better for a some political elite to make decisions like these - as seems to be the case in other european nations. Why? Quite simply people are using weird logic to justify their votes - they hate bertie ahern/ fianna fail, they want to give them a black eye etc etc and so on, Im unsure what this has to do with whether the Nice Treaty is good or bad but it seems it will play an important role in the shakeup.

Same for the people who say treaty was rejected last time so should be rejected again - a big tactic in the last vote was that if you dont know...vote no ( as opposed to finding out... ) - since the rejection it has been common knowledge the treaty would be re run and that affords people with considerable time to learn - hence a better educated populace might hold a different opinion. Again, this whole it was rejected last time argument has little to do with the actual treaty itself.

The idea that a large proportion of voters will be basing their view of the treaty on things which have nothing to do with the actual merits or flaws of the treaty is rather disheartening. Perhaps it would be better in future to avoid these situations - and follow the example of our european neighbours - they may make bad awful descisions, but at least theyre making them regarding the merits of what theyre voting on. Whether the treaty is rejected or passes the losing side is going to discredit the winners as relying on soundbites and vague threats - and theyll probably be right.

DiscoStu

The views of many people on the Nice Treaty have begun to make me wonder if it is better for a some political elite to make decisions like these - as seems to be the case in other european nations.

Democracy? and heres me thinking we didnt live in a totalitarian paradise.

the fact that the treaty has been rejected before is a very valid reason for not allowing it pass again. an uninformed electorate is no excuse. the government never helped the people to understand the implications of the treaty for us and other nations in the eu. by tagging it onto the international criminal court they belived it would pass on the fact that people would vote yes for the court and would in turn vote yes for the treaty also. an uninformed electorate was also the reason that the government were reelected yet they fell no need to re run that.

FF are making a mockery of the democratic process, and by allowing a "political elite" to make descisions for us we end up with a flawed treaty like nice and with no way of stopping it.

Sand

Disco, my point is a lot of people arent going to the treaty to vote on the treaty of nice- theyre going to vote on whether they like Ahern or not, whether they like Fianna Fail or not, and whether the Treaty should ever have been brought back for approval again. Theyre not voting on the treaty and its merits and flaws - which was the whole purpose of putting the vote to them.

The fact that a lot of people cant seem to look at an issue and make a decision based purely on the issues makes me wonder if theyre the best judges of it. If a no vote is registered, what will that tell us - that people felt the Nice Treaty wasnt worth it.... Or that they just hated Fianna Fail and Ahern....Or that they didnt want to have to vote on it again at all?

Thats a problem imo.

DiscoStu

Hmmmm, didnt the yes camp claim that it was that fear of the unknown was what caused the rejection. Now we have them claiming that it infact not a referendum on the nice treaty but a vote of no confidence in the government. What will happen if nice is rejected again and a third re-run goes ahead, people were distracted by the size of the 1 and 2 cent euro coins? i find it personally insluting that the govenrment have the audacity to claim for a second time the people dont know what they are doing when stepping into the voting booth.

We live in a democratic socitey, we the people choose the direction of the country. That is the whole point of democracy. Why not just let the treaty pass, ask bertie to change his name to Big Brother, install telescreens in every house, call eveyone who lives outside D4 the proles and try not to engage in any though crime such as disagreing with anything the party says is doubleplusgood?

Turnip

Originally posted by Sand

The views of many people on the Nice Treaty have begun to make me wonder if it is better for a some political elite to make decisions like these - as seems to be the case in other european nations. Why? Quite simply people are using weird logic to justify their votes - they hate bertie ahern/ fianna fail, they want to give them a black eye etc etc and so on, Im unsure what this has to do with whether the Nice Treaty is good or bad but it seems it will play an important role in the shakeup.

What an INCREDIBLY stupid thing to say!

Do the electorate understand the country's political social and economic issues enough to make a responsible decision about who to vote for in a general election? I doubt it.

How many people have any sort of grasp of the theological issues surrounding abortion? Does a foetus have a soul? Does god exist?

Most people choose not to be interested in how the country is run because they're more interested in getting pi**ed quite frankly. But we live in a democracy and people have the right to be as irresponsible as they want. Handing over the job of decision making to bureaucrats is a very communist/nazi way of doing things and therefore wrong.

So again. What an INCREDIBLY stupid thing to say!

Sand

Perhaps they dont but at least when theyre voting on a general election theyre voting on what party they like/feel will do the best job. Thats what a general election is for.

A lot of people cant seem to understand the Nice Treaty referendum is about the Nice Treaty, not about whether they like the government or whether they think the treaty shouldve been re run.

All i think is that an issues should be addressed on the flaws and merits of the issue itself- not because its monday and you hate mondays. If people are incapable of concentrating on an issue how can they judge it correctly- surely the government would be entitled to re run the treaty endlessly till it gets lucky because the peoples attitude towards the *government* - not the treaty- of the day might change.

Most people choose not to be interested in how the country is run because they're more interested in getting pi**ed quite frankly. But we live in a democracy and people have the right to be as irresponsible as they want. Handing over the job of decision making to bureaucrats is a very communist/nazi way of doing things and therefore wrong.

And Id agree with you, but then there is the question of leadership- we elect people to be our government, to make the tough decisions. You admit yourself people dont give a **** whats going on - hence what do they care what the government chooses? And isnt that what we elect them for in the first place? At least they will be more likely to judge the treaty soley on the treaty.

Sand

i find it personally insluting that the govenrment have the audacity to claim for a second time the people dont know what they are doing when stepping into the voting booth.

Wasnt it the no side saying "If you dont know, vote no"? Not only was there lack of knowledge regarding the issue - the no side attempted to capitalise on it.

In ANY case, thats not the point - theres plenty of nice treaty threads to argue about the treaty itself, Im just interested in whether people treating a referendum as a vote of no confidence in the government are even considering the Nice Treaty, let alone considering it properly.

DiscoStu

Wasnt it the no side saying "If you dont know, vote no"? Not only was there lack of knowledge regarding the issue - the no side attempted to capitalise on it.

so should the people blindly argee with something that they dont understand?

like it or lump it this country has constitutional safeguards that stop the government or anyone else for that matter from trying to undermine the soverignty of this country without the express will of the people.

the crux of your argument seems to be that the people of ireland dont have the intelligence to make these far reaching descisions about the way the country will be governed. you have not mentioned any other referend/a/ums/i(SP?) so i will assume that you agree that the people made informed, intelligent descisions in thse votes. so in this case why do you belive that the people will not be doing so again?

dahamsta

people are using weird logic to justify their votes - they hate bertie ahern/ fianna fail, they want to give them a black eye

...

Same for the people who say treaty was rejected last time so should be rejected again

This is the kind of thing that prompted the final bit of my last message on Politics. How many people have actually said these things? I've seen one, maybe two people on Boards.ie say that they're voting no to piss Bertie or Fianna Fail off. I've talked to one person who said it. I've seen lots of people say the fact that the Government is rerunning the referendum is wrong, but very few of them have said they're voting no again because of that. No-one, absolutely no-one, has said that to me in person.

I don't think there's any maliciousness involved, but I do think that there's a serious overestimation involved, most likely because of hysteria propogated by the overenthusiastic few. Often intentionally.

adam

bonkey

Originally posted by DiscoStu
so should the people blindly argee with something that they dont understand?

No - they should go and educate themselves.

Claiming that the government is at fault for not offering enough information is also a complete red-herring. If all we needed was to be spoon-fed information by the government, then why on earth would we expect to produce anything but the result they wanted us to?

I tend to agree with Sand. If you dont understand the issues, either inform yourself or dont vote.

the crux of your argument seems to be that the people of ireland dont have the intelligence to make these far reaching descisions about the way the country will be governed. you have not mentioned any other referend/a/ums/i(SP?) so i will assume that you agree that the people made informed, intelligent descisions in thse votes. so in this case why do you belive that the people will not be doing so again?

Are you confident that you understand the issues? If I ask you a question concerning any area of the treaty, are you confident that you can explain to me how this area taken on its own, or in conjunction with any other relevant sections will affect the nation?

Do you believe that every voter in the nation will have this same level of comprehension?

If so, then you are kidding yourself.

In the vast majority of previous refernda, except for those dealing with EEC/EC/EU issues, the public have been dealing with relatively simple issues. Abortion or no abortion, Catholic Church as first amongst equals, or just equal, and so on.

The EEC/EC/EU votes have all dealt with massively complex issues, and this is the first time that the public have actually shown an inclination to not follow the suggestions of their elected officials and associated experts.

In other words, this referendum is already exceptional. You may argue that the public is finally waking up and not just doing what theyre told, and I'm more than willing to accept that. However, to make that claim is to acknowledge that this referendum is not like its predecessors, which lends credence to Sand's (and my) argument.

Is it a good thing that the public is making up its own mind on complex issues rather than following like sheep? Well - now we're back to the original question again. If the public educates itself, then yes it is. If not, then it isnt necessarily, as too many side-issues (like Justin Barrett) become overhyped and distract us from the issue at hand.

To be honest, while I agree we need a safeguard to protect out sovereignty, I'm still not convinced that it needs this much protection nor that the public are equipped to make the intelligent/right decision.

Originally posted by Turnip

What an INCREDIBLY stupid thing to say!

What an INCREDIBLY rude thing to say.

Calm down.

Do the electorate understand the country's political social and economic issues enough to make a responsible decision about who to vote for in a general election? I doubt it.

Irrelevent.

In a general election we elect people whom we trust to know enough about these issues to be able to make the right decision (or at least a reasonably good one). Well, at least, thats what we should be doing, but all too often its voting for whoever the mammy and daddy voted for.

In a referendum, we are being asked to not trust the experts we have elected, and to make the decision for ourselves.

They are fundamentally different choices.

jc

p.s. Dear God - I'm agreeing with Sand. Whats wrong with me?

Victor

Whatever the merits and de-merits of the people choosing (and I think the people should choose), the difference between here and say the UK is that under the Irish Constitution, the People are sovereign as opposed to Parliament in the UK.

Sand

How many people have actually said these things? I've seen one, maybe two people on Boards.ie say that they're voting no to piss Bertie or Fianna Fail off. I've talked to one person who said it. I've seen lots of people say the fact that the Government is rerunning the referendum is wrong, but very few of them have said they're voting no again because of that. No-one, absolutely no-one, has said that to me in person.

I wont argue whove youve met or what theyve said to you. All I can say that is from talking to various no people is that there is a lot of understandable resentment against the current government and many of them seem to see a no vote as a "Go feck yourself" to Bertie.

So much so the opposition gave a speech where they said the people should vote yes for nice, and not vote no to hurt bertie- but to wait for a general election. They saw a danger or people getting ..... confused on what theyre voting about there.

Same for the style of posters ive seen, including the now infamous gun to head poster which goes something along the line of "Same Bad Treaty, Dont Be bullied" Subtext being, we voted no last time- theyre trying to overthrow the will of the people- vote no again just to show we cant be bullied.

Then theres the Justin Barrett nazi thing - would no campaigners be happy to think people were voting Yes, without even considering the treaty itself because they hated barrett and wanted to give him a black eye? Would the decision reached be a correct one then because Barrett lost?

I dont know, could be wrong- just seems to be a lot of that sort of attitude out there. Im far from some sort guy who feels all power needs to be concentrated- quite the opposite in fact, but the way this "debate" has been shaping up leaves me with doubts.

p.s. Dear God - I'm agreeing with Sand. Whats wrong with me?

Its what is known as a moment of clarity:x Join the team and come on in for the big win:D