nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

why are we voting again

conchubhar1

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

I honestly respect people's right to change opinion (though the flip-flopping issue yesterday stands). Like the Yes side if a second treaty passes though I will bitch and moan about it :pac:
What I am scared of though is voter apathy (Think that's the right word) where some people against Lisbon will look at this as the government will always get their way. If not this time then with Lisbon 3/4/5/Balboa. I fear these people will see their effort to vote as inevitably fruitless. I fear that with that in mind they won't bother. I fear that will skew the end result.

I appreciate what you're saying, but one could equally well apply that argument to the fashionability of a No in the first referendum. I don't understand people voting (or not voting) to be on the 'right side' of a result, but it certainly happens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

This government has the legal right to hold the referendum.

If the will of the people is firm, why are you so scared of it?

I honestly respect people's right to change opinion (though the flip-flopping issue yesterday stands). Like the Yes side if a second treaty passes though I will bitch and moan about it :pac:
What I am scared of though is voter apathy (Think that's the right word) where some people against Lisbon will look at this as the government will always get their way. If not this time then with Lisbon 3/4/5/Balboa. I fear these people will see their effort to vote as inevitably fruitless. I fear that with that in mind they won't bother. I fear that will skew the end result.

eagle eye

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

This government has the legal right to hold the referendum.

If the will of the people is firm, why are you so scared of it?

I'm not scared of it, I'm saying that this government is clearly not what the people want so another referendum is uncalled for under this administration.

Lets have a general election and then if the new government want to hold a referendum on Lisbon then fair enough.

PopeBuckfastXVI

eagle eye wrote: »

So have a general election then and if and when we have a new government they have every right to hold a referendum.

This government has the legal right to hold the referendum.

If the will of the people is firm, why are you so scared of it?

ionix5891

eagle eye wrote: »

The present Government is the same one that was there when we had our last Lisbon vote.

They recommend Lisbon Yes vote. Irish people say NO
They go to the polls as the biggest party at local level and get destroyed. They also lose out on seats at National and European level.
This present government clearly are not mandated to bring this referendum to the people.

your argument holds no weight

since both FG and Labour which gained the most in the local elections are pro Lisbon

SF who are anti Lisbon lost out too

eagle eye

K-9 wrote: »

Unfortunately the 2 parties that constitute the main opposition and destroyed the Govt. would also want a second referendum if in power.

So have a general election then and if and when we have a new government they have every right to hold a referendum.

K-9

eagle eye wrote: »

The present Government is the same one that was there when we had our last Lisbon vote.

They recommend Lisbon Yes vote. Irish people say NO
They go to the polls as the biggest party at local level and get destroyed. They also lose out on seats at National and European level.
This present government clearly are not mandated to bring this referendum to the people.

Unfortunately the 2 parties that constitute the main opposition and destroyed the Govt. would also want a second referendum if in power.

eagle eye

ionix5891 wrote: »

you would have got an opportunity if the elected representatves in all levels of governments where majority anti lisbon, then they could represent the people and call for a referendum

the elected politicians of this country are overwhelmingly pro lisbon, and this was underlined few days ago

also the other eu countries decided to ask us again, alot of other countries including this one had 2 referendums before, norway had 2 referendums on joining the eu for example

do i really have to explain the basics of democracy in ireland and wave the irish constitution in front of you for it to sink in?

The present Government is the same one that was there when we had our last Lisbon vote.

They recommend Lisbon Yes vote. Irish people say NO
They go to the polls as the biggest party at local level and get destroyed. They also lose out on seats at National and European level.
This present government clearly are not mandated to bring this referendum to the people.

PopeBuckfastXVI

RandomName2 wrote: »

I wonder whether there will be a Lisbon 3? Could be called the 'Barcelona Treaty', or alternetively 'The Constitution: Round 4'.

It will have to get passed eventually... unless UK gets a vote (I know - different thread)

Could they temporarily abandon Lisbon and pass a law whereby the Irish don't need a referendum? It that case it would be overwhelmingly passed in Ireland, and in the UK, even if they get a referendum, you would only have to have a labour-liberal majority for the subsequent Lisbon/ Barcelona Treaty to be passed.

They could water down Lisbon to remove any extension of the competencies of the EU, just keeping the bits about the institutional reform. Then it wouldn't need a referendum in Ireland.

The competency extensions could come in another Treaty.

Personally I would prefer this as the institutional reform is the complex bit, without much by way of tangable sweeteners for someone like Ireland, and doesn't require a referendum under the Crotty judgement.

The competency extension is the sweet bit, given a common energy policy would probably lead to cheaper petrol and natural gas here, and it's the bit that actually requires the referendum.

As usual I'm open to correction on my interpretation of the law.

RandomName2

I wonder whether there will be a Lisbon 3? Could be called the 'Barcelona Treaty', or alternetively 'The Constitution: Round 4'.

It will have to get passed eventually... unless UK gets a vote (I know - different thread)

Could they temporarily abandon Lisbon and pass a law whereby the Irish don't need a referendum? It that case it would be overwhelmingly passed in Ireland, and in the UK, even if they get a referendum, you would only have to have a labour-liberal majority for the subsequent Lisbon/ Barcelona Treaty to be passed.

dvpower

conchubhar1 wrote: »

firm? you mean they voted how they didnt want them to vote. if it had been a yes would there be a secound vote? no

I'm not sure that you quite understand the nature of a European treaty. If the original vote was for a 'Yes' and we went ahead and ratified the treaty, then the option of rerunning the referendum wouldn't be open to us; we would be tied into the contract. We could run a referendum to leave the EU (but I don't see any appetite for that).

We do have the option of changing our minds from a No to a Yes. Lucky for us, because it seems that the people have done just that.

PopeBuckfastXVI

All I will say is that a universal vote is never 'undemocratic', and if indeed the will of the country is still 'No to Lisbon' then the 'No' side have nothing to fear from a second referendum.

molloyjh

eagle eye wrote: »

We had a vote on the Lisbon Treaty and we said no.

If we had said yes then we would not get the opportunity to vote again and say no.

So its only fair to say that we should not be voting on the Lisbon treaty again even with changes to it, we had our chance and we said no.

So the fact that our concerns have been addressed is irrelevant is it? The fact that the country seems to be changing its mind is irrelevant is it? Wow, I didn't realise.

Ionix, if this is the level that this debate has come to I think its time to bow out. The same people who keep mouthing off about "If it was a Yes there wouldn't be a re-run" are themselves saying that even if the people change their minds and there are material differences to the Treaty or around the Treaty there shouldn't be a re-run. They themselves who are shouting about democracy and respecting the people are the only ones in the country that want to deny the people the right to vote and are refusing to respect the peoples right to change their minds. It's blind hypocracy and I for one am tired of it. There's no way reasoned argument is going to work (as has been shown a number of times at this stage).

I'll continue monitoring the threads and if the level of debate improves I may be back, but I just can't keep posting the same things again and again to the same tripe. Apologies for any offence, but it is getting old at this stage.

ionix5891

eagle eye wrote: »

We had a vote on the Lisbon Treaty and we said no.

If we had said yes then we would not get the opportunity to vote again and say no.

So its only fair to say that we should not be voting on the Lisbon treaty again even with changes to it, we had our chance and we said no.

you would have got an opportunity if the elected representatves in all levels of governments where majority anti lisbon, then they could represent the people and call for a referendum

the elected politicians of this country are overwhelmingly pro lisbon, and this was underlined few days ago

also the other eu countries decided to ask us again, alot of other countries including this one had 2 referendums before, norway had 2 referendums on joining the eu for example

do i really have to explain the basics of democracy in ireland and wave the irish constitution in front of you for it to sink in?

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

firm? you mean they voted how they didnt want them to vote. if it had been a yes would there be a secound vote? no

Er, yes. What part of "it's government policy to ratify Lisbon" is the tricky bit? I really don't mean that rudely or personally, either - there seems to be a genuine difficulty out there in understanding the role of government in this.

The government's policy is to ratify Lisbon. To ratify Lisbon they need to get a Yes at referendum. They didn't get a Yes, so to follow their policy they need to run another referendum. A -> B -> C. If they get a Yes, then their policy of ratifying Lisbon has run its course, and there isn't anyone with the power to call a referendum except the government, so there won't be another referendum.

The government is not a neutral actor in referendums. No referendum happens except when the government wants something that involves a change to the Constitution. All Irish referendums are government referendums. People seem to forget that, perhaps because the McKenna judgement means that the government is no longer allowed to spend public money on promoting its particular viewpoint, and so it is a less visible actor, but before McKenna, nobody would have made this kind of mistake. Fianna Fail campaigned for Lisbon as Fianna Fail not because referendums are political, but only because the McKenna judgement means that taxpayers' money cannot be spent on promoting a particular viewpoint - but that's all the McKenna judgement covers. The government (as opposed to FF) is still not neutral.

If the government wants x, it has to go to the Dáil or it has to go to the people depending on what's involved, but in both cases the government is the active party, and it is not neutral. Governments are not elected to be neutral, they are elected to promote and implement a particular set of policies and a particular point of view. One of the major problems new parties (like Libertas) have is that people don't know what that 'point of view' is - and in Libertas' case, Libertas made it almost comically difficult for anyone to find out. The result was a well-deserved thrashing at the polls all across Europe, because people couldn't tell what Libertas would push for once in the Parliament.

So, yes, the people didn't vote the way the government wanted them to vote, and, yes, the government gets to ask us again, because they're the government, and the right to run referendums is one of the government's tools for running the country, which, in turn, is their job.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

ok, my bad on mixing the medias timing up

To be fair, it's not as if anyone really thought they weren't going to run another one!

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

Scofflaw wrote: »

It shows that they don't think the vote was firm, certainly. All the signs are, however, that they are correct in that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

firm? you mean they voted how they didnt want them to vote. if it had been a yes would there be a secound vote? no

ok, my bad on mixing the medias timing up

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes - but within a year?

As soon as they like, I'm afraid.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

with talks of another referendum days after our vote?.

That was the media - the government didn't actually announce they'd be holding a second referendum until about a month or so ago. I've expressed annoyance with the delay in stating it before in this forum.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

that shows no respect for what the people voted for.

It shows that they don't think the vote was firm, certainly. All the signs are, however, that they are correct in that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

eagle eye wrote: »

We had a vote on the Lisbon Treaty and we said no.

If we had said yes then we would not get the opportunity to vote again and say no.

So its only fair to say that we should not be voting on the Lisbon treaty again even with changes to it, we had our chance and we said no.

no doubt

eagle eye

We had a vote on the Lisbon Treaty and we said no.

If we had said yes then we would not get the opportunity to vote again and say no.

So its only fair to say that we should not be voting on the Lisbon treaty again even with changes to it, we had our chance and we said no.

molloyjh

limklad wrote: »

He asked a question why we joined , I answered the question with historic significance. People back in 72 were happy with the safe guards back then.
If you have a problem with that take it up with yourself.

I have a problem with the "we voted Yes out of ignorance to previous Treaties" bit. You make it seem like there was an option but we just didn't see it. There wasn't. The EU couldn't work on unanimity now.

Hitman Actual

limklad wrote: »

He asked a question why we joined , I answered the question with historic significance. People back in 72 were happy with the safe guards back then.

People didn't care about 'safeguards' back then- we were extremely eager to join because of the market it would open up to us, the possibility of getting Cohesion funding, and also because it was a great way to lessen our dependency on the UK.

limklad

molloyjh wrote: »

No, it is because unanimity among 27 member states would be all but impossible. Drop the melodramatic crap please, this isn't an episode of the X-Files, there's no conspiracy here.

He asked a question why we joined , I answered the question with historic significance. People back in 72 were happy with the safe guards back then.
If you have a problem with that take it up with yourself.

molloyjh

limklad wrote: »

Rules were different back then. Back then you needed unanimous decision in the council of the EU to pass EU legislation.
Today you can be outvoted and Unwanted EU laws can be passed onto us. Why is that? because we voted Yes out of ignorance to previous Treaties..

No, it is because unanimity among 27 member states would be all but impossible. Drop the melodramatic crap please, this isn't an episode of the X-Files, there's no conspiracy here.

limklad

ionix5891 wrote: »

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

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

Complete ignorance and lack of understanding on what they voted for. They were told to vote yes without question. Very few people actually understood the meaning of the previous treaties on how it affects them. You need to be very experience in Treaty and law making to truely understand on what you vote on EU Treaties.

ionix5891 wrote: »

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

Rules were different back then. Back then you needed unanimous decision in the council of the EU to pass EU legislation.
Today you can be outvoted and Unwanted EU laws can be passed onto us. Why is that? because we voted Yes out of ignorance to previous Treaties..

molloyjh

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes - but within a year?

with talks of another referendum days after our vote?.

that shows no respect for what the people voted for.

Only the media talked about another referendum within days. The political parties said that they would have to wait and see what the post-referendum surveys etc turned up. I wish you'd get your facts straight.

limklad

ionix5891 wrote: »

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

I put most of our Politicians in the Same Bracket as Libertas, SF and COIR, All practice liars by twisting the truth with broken promises all have self inflated ego's and their own brand of agenda's and will lie to achieve their aims. and I put our recent Two recent Taoiseachs on the top of that bracket.

conchubhar1

yes - but within a year?

with talks of another referendum days after our vote?.

that shows no respect for what the people voted for.

Scofflaw

conchubhar1 wrote: »

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

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

Because the government is elected to push particular policies. The current government has a policy of ratifying Lisbon, so their duty is to push that policy. They are not entitled to make the call on whether ratification is allowed, because that decision is reserved to the people by virtue of the Constitution. That means that in order to push the policy of ratifying Lisbon, they need to hold a referendum. If the referendum returns a No, as it did, the government, if they wish to pursue the policy, will need to hold a further referendum.

The mistake is in thinking that referendums set policy - they don't. A yes/no answer to a constitutional amendment is not a policy.

I've said this before - if we elected, say, a Labour/FG government whose policy was to repeal the death sentence, that would be a matter for a referendum*. If, for whatever reason, the government failed to obtain a yes to the repeal of the death sentence, it should be obvious that the government would not therefore have to start supporting the death penalty, and should, equally obviously, continue trying to get it repealed, which would require a further referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*I am aware that the death penalty has been repealed as part of our EU membership.

turgon

Well I find it highly contradictory the way having another referendum, another consultation on the view of the poeple, is somehow undemocratic. I think at this stage its pretty clear that these defenders of democracy are only doing so because such a defence happens to serve their perverted wants.

The other red herring forwarded by Rb is this thing about a Euro-wide vote. Apparently the European Union should be able to force countries into a certain method of ratification for international treaties. The same people who want this are very often, and ironically, against a bigger EU. But even assuming this second contradiction to be true, is the No side suggesting we ignore Sarcozy's election promise to ratify Lisbon?

The fact is, this is a non-issue. But seeming that the No-side is based on so very little - yes Lisbon has problems and things I dont agree with but is overall a good thing - they need to distract people from the Treaty. They need to concentrate on other things - like blatant mis-interpretations and how there is some form of conspiracy going on.

And the final irony? These staunch defenders of democracy are the very ones who, through deliberately misleading people, make democracy look so damn bad.

humanji

conchubhar1 wrote: »

all the yes said

lied - a vote for this is a vote for europe

that is a lie - the same as the conscription lie

Actually, that's not really a lie. A yes vote is a vote for Europe, as is a no vote. They just left out the no part to make it more appealing to the pro-europe voters. Hardly the same as claiming we're all going to be conscripted and be forced to have abortions.