Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

oscarBravo wrote: »

On the contrary, voting for stupid reasons is showing contempt for our democratic system. Remember, the second part of the word comes from kratos, meaning to rule - it's the least we ask of any ruler, that they rule wisely, and no lower standard should be applied to self-government.

I agree - there's a presumption in democracy that the franchise will be exercised responsibly. That's the reason that many democracies throughout history have limited the franchise to those who they believed could exercise it responsibly, and why we ourselves do, both by limiting the franchise to over-18s, and by limiting it by citizenship.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bladespin wrote: »

If you want a 'yes' vote you should have put the people's fears to rest, the voting public aren't going to go and research the treaty if they have the likes of Libertas telling them they don't have to, the 'yes' campaign failed by allowing that misinformation to go unchalleneged, you can't assume the right to just tell people how to vote, you've got to state your case, the 'yes' side didn't.

I completely agree that the yes campaign from the political parties was a farce. That's why I went and looked it up myself from other sources. I did not reject the treaty just because Fianna Fail is useless.

bladespin wrote: »

Accusing any voter of having a stupid reason to vote is showing contempt for our democratic system. Challenge and debate would've won it for the 'yes' vote in my opinion but they didn't bother.

No, it's showing contempt for voting for stupid reasons. As as has been pointed out, I can respect someone's right to vote while still pouring scorn on them if their reasons are stupid.

bladespin wrote: »

You have no right to ask me how or why I voted Sam, you really are trying to carry out the bully job the government tried to with the first referendum.

When you're on a website about the Lisbon treaty talking about the reasons for voting no I think I have every right to ask you why you voted no. Asking you to justify your position is not a bully job.

bladespin wrote: »

But seeing as I am arguing the point; I voted no to retain our voice in Europe (a protest vote if you like but it did prove the contempt they have for our system) simple as that and to give two fingers to the government and opposition telling me how to vote without giving me the reason to do so.

We would still have a voice in Europe if we voted yes and the merit or lack thereof of our political parties has nothing to do with the merits of the treaty. Sorry but you voted no for irrelevant reasons

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, good. I can quote you when "no" campaigners tell us that the Lisbon Treaty is the same as the Constitution in all but name, can I?

Don't be so utterly crass - you can quote all you want as long as it IS a quote and not your own imagined paraphrasing.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You seem to suggest that the French and Dutch voters should be asked to vote on Lisbon because it's not the same as the Constitution. Equally, isn't it fair to say that we should be asked to vote again because the constitutional amendment we're voting on is different from last time?

I referred to the minor changes and clever name change and yes, with that logic then the whole of the EU should be asked to vote with every change, and perhaps ought to - but it's not going to happen. The latest "changes" are geared to the Irish vote alone - now isn't that interesting? Those desperate for a Yes vote will take the money and run.

No re-run on a Yes vote you can be sure - but another No vote? More "changes" will line up.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I agree - there's a presumption in democracy that the franchise will be exercised responsibly. That's the reason that many democracies throughout history have limited the franchise to those who they believed could exercise it responsibly, and why we ourselves do, both by limiting the franchise to over-18s, and by limiting it by citizenship.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Limiting the franchise has another, darker history - the vote in "democracies" was also kept from those who were likely to vote to change the status quo - like the female vote and the vote of Blacks in the US. Jim Crow was all about fear of change, and limiting power to those who were the monied establishment. Power does not yield easily.

MarchDub wrote: »

Limiting the franchise has another, darker history - the vote in "democracies" was also kept from those who were likely to vote to change the status quo - like the female vote and the vote of Blacks in the US. Jim Crow was all about fear of change, and limiting power to those who were the monied establishment. Power does not yield easily.

Those people were also quite genuinely considered incapable of rational exercise of the franchise, and the arguments, in the main, turned on that point. As it turned out, they didn't upset the applecart.

cordially,
Scofflaw

andrew

MarchDub wrote: »

Limiting the franchise has another, darker history - the vote in "democracies" was also kept from those who were likely to vote to change the status quo - like the female vote and the vote of Blacks in the US. Jim Crow was all about fear of change, and limiting power to those who were the monied establishment. Power does not yield easily.

We're lucky then, that we have universal suffrage. Given that we do, I don't think it's much to ask that people exercise this right with a sense of responsibility and put some thought into how they vote.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Those people were also quite genuinely considered incapable of rational exercise of the franchise, and the arguments, in the main, turned on that point. As it turned out, they didn't upset the applecart.

Actually, the argument was, incapable of "rationally" going along with the status quo. But having an opinion different from the establishment WAS considered to be irrational. And that IS the point. In the States that I have lived in the Black vote changed everything. It certainly changed the faces of those who run the show. The old political families had to move over - and skulduggery often was a part of desperately trying to hold on.

Controlling the electorate is the ugly face of democracy. IMO this is what we are seeing in the dogged pursuit of the Yes vote.

P. Breathnach

MarchDub wrote: »

... Controlling the electorate is the ugly face of democracy. IMO this is what we are seeing in the dogged pursuit of the Yes vote.

Controlling the electorate is the ugly face of democracy. IMO this is what we are seeing in the dogged pursuit of the No vote.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Controlling the electorate is the ugly face of democracy. IMO this is what we are seeing in the dogged pursuit of the No vote.

But er...we already have a NO vote. There should be no need to pursue it further. The problem now is that it is not permitted to stand...

marco_polo

MarchDub wrote: »

But er...we already have a NO vote. There should be no need to pursue it further. The problem now is that it is not permitted to stand...

Oh I didn't realise we were going to rig this one, and here was me wasting my time debating the treaty all week. I must have words with whoever forgot to send me the memo.

marco_polo wrote: »

Oh I didn't realise we were going to rig this one, and here was me wasting my time debating the treaty all week. I must have words with whoever forgot to send me the memo.

Oops. Sorry...

apologetically,
Scofflaw

MarchDub wrote: »

Actually, the argument was, incapable of "rationally" going along with the status quo. But having an opinion different from the establishment WAS considered to be irrational. And that IS the point. In the States that I have lived in the Black vote changed everything. It certainly changed the faces of those who run the show. The old political families had to move over - and skulduggery often was a part of desperately trying to hold on.

Controlling the electorate is the ugly face of democracy. IMO this is what we are seeing in the dogged pursuit of the Yes vote.

Alas, I can't help but feel you're sticking to a somewhat particular view of the matter because it supports the other point you wish to make.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bladespin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I completely agree that the yes campaign from the political parties was a farce. That's why I went and looked it up myself from other sources. I did not reject the treaty just because Fianna Fail is useless.

We would still have a voice in Europe if we voted yes and the merit or lack thereof of our political parties has nothing to do with the merits of the treaty. Sorry but you voted no for irrelevant reasons

Firstly I would like to point out that I'm going to vote 'no' again BUT I'm not campaigning for a 'no' vote. It had ans has absolutely nothing to do with our politicians.

Europe has become a beaurocratic giant where the voice of the smaller states has been lost, I voted 'no' the first time round hoping 'no' would win (yippee I was right :P) to see how Europe would react to this, they might even hear our voice, IMO that was very relevant, especially when you see the contempt that Europe showed after the referrendum. Where is our voice??? They told us to go out anbd do it again, they treated our national decision as irrelevant.

You're playing at politics and not doing well, if anything you're reinforcing my determination to vote 'no' instead of persuading me to vote 'yes' - you must be a student of the previous 'yes' campaign.

Saying poeoples votes are irrelevant is showing contempt for their votes, our system, simple as that.
If you put a motion before the public for them to make a decision on you have to give them both sides, you can't attack them if they don't want to follow your lead.
The lisbon treaty is a joke, it's an incredibly complicated piece of work (to the point where our own ministers didn't bother reading it) putting something like that up for referrendum is crazy, it should have been broken down to the simplest terms so the public could understand, otherwise the default should be 'no', you can't vote in favour of something you don't understand, that's relevant too. That's where the 'yes' campaign lost the run of themselves, from what I seen they didn't fully understand it either, the 'no' side just admitted they couldn't understand it and that they wouldn't vote for something they couldn't understand.

Daftendirekt

bladespin wrote: »

Saying poeoples votes are irrelevant is showing contempt for their votes, our system, simple as that.
If you put a motion before the public for them to make a decision on you have to give them both sides, you can't attack them if they don't want to follow your lead.
The lisbon treaty is a joke, it's an incredibly complicated piece of work (to the point where our own ministers didn't bother reading it)pputting something like that up for referrendum is crazy, it should have been broken down to the simplest terms so the public could understand, otherwise the default should be 'no', you can't vote in favour of something you don't understand, that's relevant.

Uninformed votes should rightly be treated with contempt.

And the default position should be abstain, not no. You don't pick a side then try to find arguments to support it, you stay neutral, look at all the arguments, for and against, and then make up your mind.

(I'm reminded of the Creationist way of thinking here...)

oscarBravo

bladespin wrote: »

Europe has become a beaurocratic giant where the voice of the smaller states has been lost...

That looks suspiciously like an archetypal political soundbite to me. Can you cite a specific example of a smaller state's rights being trampled on either by the institutions of the European Union, or by the other member states?

...I voted 'no' the first time round hoping 'no' would win (yippee I was right :P) to see how Europe would react to this...

Isn't that a little like sawing off the branch you're sitting on just to see what happens?

...they might even hear our voice, IMO that was very relevant, especially when you see the contempt that Europe showed after the referrendum.

What contempt? You mean the way they implemented the treaty without us ratifying it? The way they sent in the European Army with its millions of unwilling conscripts to force us at gunpoint to ratify the treaty?

Or - worse still - the way they sat down with us and agreed a set of legally-binding guarantees to address the specific concerns that were expressed by the Irish electorate in the aftermath of the referendum?

Those evil bastards.

Where is our voice??? They told us to go out anbd do it again, they treated our national decision as irrelevant.

They did what they do when countries have rejected treaties in the past: they did their best to find out why, addressed the concerns, and asked us to reconsider.

Fascists.

Saying poeoples votes are irrelevant is showing contempt for their votes, our system, simple as that.

Who said people's votes are irrelevant? You need to read more carefully.

If you put a motion before the public for them to make a decision on you have to give them both sides, you can't attack them if they don't want to follow your lead.

No, but if you ask someone for permission to do something that you feel is really important, what's so wrong about asking "are you sure?"

The lisbon treaty is a joke, it's an incredibly complicated piece of work (to the point where our own ministers didn't bother reading it)pputting something like that up for referrendum is crazy, it should have been broken down to the simplest terms so the public could understand, otherwise the default should be 'no', you can't vote in favour of something you don't understand, that's relevant.

As opposed to all those four-page treaties with words of no more than three syllables that we have ratified up until now, yes?

apkb

yes to prevent isolation from europe

bladespin wrote: »

Firstly I would like to point out that I'm going to vote 'no' again BUT I'm not campaigning for a 'no' vote. It had ans has absolutely nothing to do with our politicians.

Europe has become a beaurocratic giant where the voice of the smaller states has been lost, I voted 'no' the first time round hoping 'no' would win (yippee I was right :P) to see how Europe would react to this, they might even hear our voice, IMO that was very relevant, especially when you see the contempt that Europe showed after the referrendum. Where is our voice??? They told us to go out anbd do it again, they treated our national decision as irrelevant.

You're playing at politics and not doing well, if anything you're reinforcing my determination to vote 'no' instead of persuading me to vote 'yes' - you must be a student of the previous 'yes' campaign.

Saying poeoples votes are irrelevant is showing contempt for their votes, our system, simple as that.
If you put a motion before the public for them to make a decision on you have to give them both sides, you can't attack them if they don't want to follow your lead.

If you remember, our politicians went to Europe with our objections and negotiated. The same thing happened after the French and the Dutch rejected the constitution and parts of the constitution were changed in light of this.

The difference this time was that our politicians did surveys to find out why we voted no, then when they went to Europe, they had a read through the treaty and said "Ehhhhhhhh, none of those objections are actually in the treaty

". The way I see it, if the reasons given for rejecting the treaty are not actually in the treaty, they have no alternative but to treat those reasons as irrelevant.

Take, for example, people who voted no because they thought we'd lose our neutrality or because they thought corporate tax would be raised. Neither of those things were ever going to happen so what exactly do you expect Europe to do in order to "listen to our voice"?

bladespin wrote: »

The lisbon treaty is a joke, it's an incredibly complicated piece of work (to the point where our own ministers didn't bother reading it) putting something like that up for referrendum is crazy, it should have been broken down to the simplest terms so the public could understand, otherwise the default should be 'no', you can't vote in favour of something you don't understand, that's relevant too. That's where the 'yes' campaign lost the run of themselves, from what I seen they didn't fully understand it either, the 'no' side just admitted they couldn't understand it and that they wouldn't vote for something they couldn't understand.

You're right there, it should never have been put to a referendum. It's too complicated for joe public to be bothered trying to understand but that does not mean it should automatically be rejected. It means it should be decided on by people who do understand it. Here's a slogan for you: "If you don't know, kindly stay at home and leave it to the people that do"

bladespin wrote: »

Europe has become a beaurocratic giant where the voice of the smaller states has been lost, I voted 'no' the first time round hoping 'no' would win (yippee I was right :P) to see how Europe would react to this, they might even hear our voice

What was our voice telling them? You voted 'no' to see how Europe would react, what reaction did you want, what changes do you want made?

bladespin wrote: »

The lisbon treaty is a joke, it's an incredibly complicated piece of work (to the point where our own ministers didn't bother reading it) putting something like that up for referrendum is crazy, it should have been broken down to the simplest terms so the public could understand, otherwise the default should be 'no', you can't vote in favour of something you don't understand, that's relevant too. That's where the 'yes' campaign lost the run of themselves, from what I seen they didn't fully understand it either, the 'no' side just admitted they couldn't understand it and that they wouldn't vote for something they couldn't understand.

Now is your chance to understand it, it's not that complex if you actually read the consolodated versions of the TEU and TFEU that it amends, especially if you read the annotated version, which tells you exactly what the difference is. You can see the annotated version here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/features/lisbontreaty/treaty_sections.html

If you have any questions, this is a good place to ask them.

You probably won't find the treaty interesting, but you will be able to understand it, in the context of the treaties it amends, it's all in English.

Alternatively, examine the claims each side is making, if you are particularly worried about a claim from the 'No' side, then check out the relevant part of the treaty to see if they are correct. If you don't understand the relevant part of the treaty then ask a question here, there's lots of very clever people in this forum who are willing to help.

If you don't trust that the 'yes' side politicians haven't read, or don't understand the treaty, you can be sure that the 'No' side have gone through it with a fine tooth comb to find anything in it that they can use to push for a rejection.

Start with their claims, go to the source and see if their claims hold water.

You are being given a second chance, and more time to understand the treaty, so why not take advantage of that?

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If you don't trust that the 'yes' side politicians haven't read, or don't understand the treaty, you can be sure that the 'No' side have gone through it with a fine tooth comb to find anything in it that they can use to push for a rejection.

This is a good point. When making my own decision I had very little interest in what the yes side were saying because, as bladespin pointed out, the yes campaign was a shambles run by idiots. If I wanted to find out if there was anything wrong with the treaty I needed to look at what its opponents were saying and so I did and I found that everything they were saying was one of the following:

A lie
An exaggeration
Taken from something that was already in force and misinterpreted (because most of Lisbon is just Nice, Amsterdam and Rome put together)
A red herring

And then I learned the voting pattern of the main proponents of the no side (table shamelessly stolen from Scofflaw

)

Group | Accession | SEA | Maastricht | Amsterdam | Nice | Lisbon
| | | | | |
Sinn Fein | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
P McKenna | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
Anthony Coughlan/National Platform | - | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
COIR/YD/SPUC | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
PANA | - | - | - | NO | NO | NO

And I realised the entire no campaign was a pack of naysayers trying to trick people into rejecting the treaty by telling lies about it because they know that the rest of the country doesn't hate Europe like they do

And Europe has every right to ask us to reconsider when our vote was manipulated by liars with ulterior motives

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And Europe has every right to ask us to reconsider when our vote was manipulated by liars with ulterior motives

Sam, I just want to correct you here, Europe has not asked us to reconsider, our Government has. Europe has neither the right nor the authority to ask for a second referendum, that decision was the Governments alone.

tonycascarino

If I'm not mistaken but wasn't Sarkozy the one who said that we will have to vote again. As shown below :

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0715/breaking39.html

tonycascarino wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken but wasn't Sarkozy the one who said that we will have to vote again. As shown below :

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0715/breaking39.html

He can say what he likes. The decision isn't up to him

tonycascarino wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken but wasn't Sarkozy the one who said that we will have to vote again. As shown below :

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0715/breaking39.html

tony,

Do you honestly believe that the authority to hold referenda in Ireland is vested in the President of France?

Let me assure you, lest you are worried, that sole authority to hold referenda in Ireland is vested in the Government of the Irish Republic.

tonycascarino

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

tony,

Do you honestly believe that the authority to hold referenda in Ireland is vested in the President of France?

Let me assure you, lest you are worried, that sole authority to hold referenda in Ireland is vested in the Government of the Irish Republic.

Europe didn't get the answer it wanted the first time. Do you honestly believe that no pressure came from Europe to have a second referendum??

tonycascarino wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that no pressure came from Europe to have a second referendum?? considering that they didn't get the answer they wanted the first time.

Pressure is not authority, the Government could have said, had they wanted, 'we're not holding another referendum', do you accept that?

According to almost every 'No' voter on this forum there are no negative consequences from saying 'No', so tell me, what could Europe have done?

ShooterSF

No. I voted No the first time and nothing has changed. They have gone backwards with the commission issue and the rest of the stuff is playing to the lunatics who thought abortion or an EU army was the issue. Anyone who voted no based on the Lisbon treaty should do the same again. I think everyone can agree on that.

tonycascarino wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that no pressure came from Europe to have a second referendum??

I'm sure it did. It's still not up to them and if the surveys had shown that there were valid objections to the treaty, they would have been brought to the table and the treaty would have been renegotiated. Unfortunately the surveys showed that the people voted no for reasons that had litte or nothing to do with the treaty so there was nothing that could be renegotiated.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Anyone who voted no based on the Lisbon treaty should do the same again. I think everyone can agree on that.

Provided they haven't changed their minds, I fully agree with that.