Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

14950525455127

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Question for yes voters:

    Suppose that a majority of the elected politicians in the north were in favour of uniting with the republic but the results of an opinion poll held a few months previously showed that the people might feel differently. Would you have a problem with the governments and the politicians in the north going ahead with plans for uniting Ireland without consulting the people directly?

    I wouldn't vote against the Republic giving it's assent to reunification, under those circumstances.

    Would you?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Question for yes voters:

    Suppose that a majority of the elected politicians in the north were in favour of uniting with the republic but the results of an opinion poll held a few months previously showed that the people might feel differently. Would you have a problem with the governments and the politicians in the north going ahead with plans for uniting Ireland without consulting the people directly?

    No one's going ahead with anything. This is equivalent of having another opinion poll to see if they've changed their minds now that they have the information that the vast majority of the information that they based decision on the last time was lies


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    O'Morris wrote: »
    Would you have a problem with the governments and the politicians in the north going ahead with plans for uniting Ireland without consulting the people directly?
    Is there a mechanism whereby that's possible?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No one's going ahead with anything. This is equivalent of having another opinion poll to see if they've changed their minds now that they have the information that the vast majority of the information that they based decision on the last time was lies

    He's saying we shouldn't state what we as a country actually want, because there have been no other referenda in Europe, not that we shouldn't be asked again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    He's saying we shouldn't state what we as a country actually want, because there have been no other referenda in Europe, not that we shouldn't be asked again.

    Oh right. So he's saying that we should stage a protest saying we the Irish people disapprove of the method of government that these other countries use?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    I wouldn't vote against the Republic giving it's assent to reunification, under those circumstances.

    That's not the question I asked. The question I asked is whether you would have a problem with the governments and the politicians in the north going over the heads of the people in the north and deciding to push ahead with plans for uniting Ireland without the consent of the people of the six counties.

    A simple yes or no will be enough.

    Would you?

    Would I be opposed to people in the republic being given a vote on a united Ireland? No, I wouldn't be opposed to that. I would be very much in favour of it.

    Sam Vimes wrote:
    No one's going ahead with anything.

    If Ireland votes yes to the Lisbon treaty in October then the EU will go ahead and implement the Lisbon treaty without the electorates of the other member states being asked directly if they want to transfer more of their national sovereignty to the EU.

    As far as I'm concerned that's in the same league as politicians in the north going over the heads of the people and voting to transfer sovereignty from Stormont to Dublin. I believe sovereignty rests with the the people and only they should be allowed to transfer it from one place to another.

    oscarBravo wrote:
    Is there a mechanism whereby that's possible?

    I don't know. It was a hypothetical question.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    O'Morris wrote: »
    I believe sovereignty rests with the the people and only they should be allowed to transfer it from one place to another.
    So you believe that the EU as it currently exists has no legitimacy?
    I don't know. It was a hypothetical question.
    Perhaps you should find out before offering it as an analogy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    O'Morris wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned that's in the same league as politicians in the north going over the heads of the people and voting to transfer sovereignty from Stormont to Dublin. I believe sovereignty rests with the the people and only they should be allowed to transfer it from one place to another.

    Even this view of Northern Ireland has only become generally accepted in the last 5/10 years.

    Many would argue Stormont itself was established against the will of the people.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    O'Morris wrote: »
    That's not the question I asked. The question I asked is whether you would have a problem with the governments and the politicians in the north going over the heads of the people in the north and deciding to push ahead with plans for uniting Ireland without the consent of the people of the six counties.

    A simple yes or no will be enough.

    I wouldn't be over the moon about it, but I wouldn't vote 'No' in a Referendum on whether the Republic agreed to reunification because of it.

    Would you?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    O'Morris wrote: »
    If Ireland votes yes to the Lisbon treaty in October then the EU will go ahead and implement the Lisbon treaty without the electorates of the other member states being asked directly if they want to transfer more of their national sovereignty to the EU.

    That's how they run their countries. Ireland has a history of having lots of referenda but the rest of Europe doesn't. If they wanted to do have referenda they would have them. Stop telling these countries how they should be run


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Stop telling these countries how they should be run

    I don't even mind him telling them how they should be run, it's their place to be outraged by that, not mine.

    I do, very much, mind him effectively telling me I should vote 'No' to Lisbon, against what I believe is good for Ireland, and good for Europe, because of how those countries are run.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    I wouldn't be over the moon about it, but I wouldn't vote 'No' in a Referendum on whether the Republic agreed to reunification because of it.

    Would you?

    I probably would vote against it. And I say that as hardcore United-Irelander. I would love to see my country united but I believe in the principle of consent and I don't think the people of the six-counties should be forced into a united Ireland without their consent. In the same way, I don't think the people of Europe should be made to sacrifice more of their national sovereignty without them being allowed to give their consent through a referendum.

    Sam Vimes wrote:
    Stop telling these countries how they should be run

    I don't think I've ever told any country how it should be run. All I've asked yes voters is how they would feel if the politicians in the north signed up to a united Ireland without having gotten the consent of the people.

    It's a simple question, I'm surprised people are finding it so hard to give a simple answer. I hadn't realised the principle of consent was still such a touchy subject in this country. I thought it was just a few dissident republicans who still had problems with it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    O'Morris wrote: »
    I don't think I've ever told any country how it should be run. All I've asked yes voters is how they would feel if the politicians in the north signed up to a united Ireland without having gotten the consent of the people.

    You object to these other countries not holding referenda and intend to vote no because they're not holding them. Those countries do not hold referenda for things like this. you are telling them how to run their countries

    In answer to your question, yes I would object. What's your point?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    O'Morris wrote: »
    I probably would vote against it. And I say that as hardcore United-Irelander. I would love to see my country united but I believe in the principle of consent and I don't think the people of the six-counties should be forced into a united Ireland without their consent. In the same way, I don't think the people of Europe should be made to sacrifice more of their national sovereignty without them being allowed to give their consent through a referendum.

    What if, post a 'No' in the Republic, a new opinion poll came out or even a referendum, saying the majority in the North were in favour of Reunification, but now they won't reunify, because the Republic has said 'No' to Reunification? And, as we've been told many times, 'No' means 'No', and that's final!

    Congrats, you've just blocked Reunification, against the real wishes of everyone.

    That is the serious importance of voting on the question you've been asked, not the question you'd like to be asked.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That's more or less what I mean - although not quite county councils as such - but, yes, local autonomy to as great a degree as possible.



    I have to say I don't personally recall the days in question...also, I suspect most people didn't care then either, but they didn't leave much of a record of not caring, as people usually don't, possibly from lack of motivation.

    Pardon my cynicism, but I tend to think that the people who really object to, say, government from another country, are those who believe that they would be in charge were it not for the external government - local elites, in other words, who feel they're not getting their rightful place at the top of the heap. If they can persuade a sufficiently large number of the citizenry that foreign rule is odious, they can successfully install themselves in place of the foreign government, whereupon the citizenry will soon enough discover that they've swapped one set of out of touch elites for another, who lack even the excuse of geographical remoteness, and who tend to have entrenched connections within the country that will be favoured above all others. It was the strongest argument I heard in Scotland against Scottish nationalism - "we'll wind up being run from Edinburgh, and at least the English don't distinguish between one bit of Scotland and another". I suspect that many of those who reject current mechanisms of government similarly see themselves governing, rather than being governed, in the proposed new order.

    (A warning: anyone foolish enough to interpret the above as a defence of British rule in Ireland will find themselves banned for a week).

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I'll admit I'm not sure what you're getting at here but unless a TD is in govt. then they've very little power other than over local issues. We essentially elect local councillors to national parliament. (not necessarily you and me but a lot of people in Ireland do!)

    Interesting point about Scotland.
    Can't really see where you got the British rule in Ireland bit from though :p

    O'Morris wrote: »
    Question for yes voters:

    Suppose that a majority of the elected politicians in the north were in favour of uniting with the republic but the results of an opinion poll held a few months previously showed that the people might feel differently. Would you have a problem with the governments and the politicians in the north going ahead with plans for uniting Ireland without consulting the people directly?


    I'm kinda with Voltwad on this. You can't really compare the Lisbon Treaty with a 32 county vote in fairness. You'll have to elaborate further on this point (including further upon your subsequent posts) though for a better answer.

    Voltwad wrote: »
    Joe Higgins is one out of 13 democratically elected MEP's, what about the opinion of the other 12? Or do you go along with the views of his party that their views are the only ones that count? It is worth remembering that his party (formally knows as the Millitant Tenancy were ejected from the Labour Party in a democratic vote)

    As well as that, the only real difference between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail is that one has power and one doesn't. They're both parties close to Centre and both came from the same party so again, very different to the extreme left and extreme right working together.

    They're really not as centre as some may think, at least not with regards to the EU. Please, have a look at Fianna Fail's partners in Europe. They saddle up with some of the most right wing parties out there.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So you believe that the EU as it currently exists has no legitimacy?


    How, how did you come to that conclusion ? O'Morris said nothing about believing that the EU currently has no legitimacy. This is another assumption you have festered upon someone for another straw man argument. That's just not fair.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That's how they run their countries. Ireland has a history of having lots of referenda but the rest of Europe doesn't. If they wanted to do have referenda they would have them. Stop telling these countries how they should be run

    Yes no one (-person or no one country) can tell another group of people how to run its country and indeed in the Lisbon Treaty there's plenty of mentions of it being ratified in accordence with each country's constitutional requirements but if must be said that the Lisbon Treaty is in essecence the same EU constution that was rejected previously by two referendums . The Lisbon Treaty was essentially designed to get around the pesky need for a mass public approval.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Alan Rouge wrote: »
    The Lisbon Treaty was essentially designed to get around the pesky need for a mass public approval.
    To use your own phrase: How, how did you come to that conclusion ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    You can no more claim that the support of a majority in Spain and Luxembourg, by outnumbering the no votes in Ireland, France and Holland, constitutes a majority of Europeans in favour of Lisbon, no more than you could argue that the votes of Mayo in the last GE constituted the will of the majority of the Irish people at the time. But even if it did, I reject the majoritarian principle of treating EU citizens as a single constituency/demos, to decide the powers of the EU institutions on the basis of simple majorities.

    On the contrary, I believe there are 27 separate demos in the EU, and that none of them should lose sovereignty except by their own free will. Otherwise, we are disavowing the principle of self-determination, which is part of Chapter 1 of the UN Charter. We should also bear in mind all that was sacrificed to secure Irish independence in the first place. If we give it away, then the sacrifices of the patriot dead will have been for nothing.

    Good post, but if you believed that opinion polls are an accurate measurement you could be hapilly lulled into the security that they are infact a representative. That is how the media, psychologists and marketers operate. You are guilty of not believeing. But I believe your are right and i believe this dilution of democracy is not a solid foundation for a united europe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 836 ✭✭✭rumour


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    In other words, you don't have an answer. , , and you're indulging in this affected ennui to try to cover it up..
    In other words
    assumption,
    You made something up
    assumption & logic jump,
    and you can't back it up
    assumption & logic jump,
    and you're indulging in this affected ennui to try to cover it up
    assumption,

    and therefore
    Why would I concede anything of the kind? You just made it up
    ??????

    QED from your perspective I presume, a profound example of a certain type of reasoning, however I am still not wrong. That does not prove I am correct. The questions I have posed in general do not have distinct right or wrong answers. They are based on belief. I have no interest in proving or disproving that you are wrong. I do not consider myself so morally superior to make claims that people are lying because often from their perspective the are not.
    That does not mean however you are right. By way of example and again I refuse to be your teacher, there are many exampls in history of how literal interpretations of the Bible were used for the most repugnant purposes. However the people who did it at the time believed they were right. There is a distinct difference between being not wrong and right. Impetulance of a sort (in my opinion, again sources are not being provided) usually is at the vanguard of triumphalist claims of being right.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 619 ✭✭✭O'Morris


    What if, post a 'No' in the Republic, a new opinion poll came out or even a referendum, saying the majority in the North were in favour of Reunification, but now they won't reunify, because the Republic has said 'No' to Reunification?

    And what if it was the other way around and I voted yes but then it turned out that the other electorate was opposed to reunification? They would be forced into accepting something against their will.

    Alan Rouge wrote:
    I'm kinda with Voltwad on this. You can't really compare the Lisbon Treaty with a 32 county vote in fairness.

    The same principle of consent applies. Both cases involve the transfer of sovereignty from one place to another and both should require that the consent of the people be given before that transfer goes ahead. The people don't hand over their sovereignty to the politicians when they elect them. Politicians are given the right to exercise sovereignty on behalf of the people but they're not given ownership of that sovereignty. They have no right to transfer it to someone else without having gotten the consent of the owners.

    Alan Rouge wrote:
    You'll have to elaborate further on this point (including further upon your subsequent posts) though for a better answer.

    My point is that many of the yes people would not to be too happy if a united Ireland was to be brought about with the same disregard for the views of the public.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Alan Rouge wrote: »
    How, how did you come to that conclusion ? O'Morris said nothing about believing that the EU currently has no legitimacy. This is another assumption you have festered upon someone for another straw man argument. That's just not fair.
    It's not a conclusion, it's a question. It seems to me that that's the logical conclusion of O'Morris's argument, but I'm asking him to clarify whether or not that's his position. Allow me to re-quote:
    O'Morris wrote: »
    I believe sovereignty rests with the the people and only they should be allowed to transfer it from one place to another.
    This is a re-statement in more subtle terms of the claim that an EU treaty can only have validity if it's ratified by a referendum in every EU member state.

    If this is the standard of validity that applies, then not one of the existing EU treaties has ever had any validity, because not one of the treaties has ever met this requirement.

    Frankly, I'm trying to cut through the bull, and that includes FutureTaoiseach's wriggling around having different standards for past and future treaties. If the answer to the question I posed to O'Morris is "no", then he can explain why it's not a logical conclusion to the argument he himself has made.
    rumour wrote: »
    QED from your perspective I presume, a profound example of a certain type of reasoning, however I am still not wrong. That does not prove I am correct. The questions I have posed in general do not have distinct right or wrong answers. They are based on belief. I have no interest in proving or disproving that you are wrong. I do not consider myself so morally superior to make claims that people are lying because often from their perspective the are not.
    That does not mean however you are right. By way of example and again I refuse to be your teacher, there are many exampls in history of how literal interpretations of the Bible were used for the most repugnant purposes. However the people who did it at the time believed they were right. There is a distinct difference between being not wrong and right. Impetulance of a sort (in my opinion, again sources are not being provided) usually is at the vanguard of triumphalist claims of being right.
    That's yet another verbose and long-winded way of refusing to answer straight questions.

    This isn't a philosophy discussion forum. We're discussing politics. If you want to waffle on and on about there being no truly objective truths, go do it somewhere else. If you want to have a factual discussion about the Lisbon treaty, be prepared to answer direct questions when you're asked them.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    O'Morris wrote: »
    And what if it was the other way around and I voted yes but then it turned out that the other electorate was opposed to reunification? They would be forced into accepting something against their will.




    The same principle of consent applies. Both cases involve the transfer of sovereignty from one place to another and both should require that the consent of the people be given before that transfer goes ahead. The people don't hand over their sovereignty to the politicians when they elect them. Politicians are given the right to exercise sovereignty on behalf of the people but they're not given ownership of that sovereignty. They have no right to transfer it to someone else without having gotten the consent of the owners.




    My point is that many of the yes people would not to be too happy if a united Ireland was to be brought about with the same disregard for the views of the public.

    Would you agree there is an ever so slight difference between the formation of an entirely new country and ratifying an international treaty?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    O'Morris wrote: »
    And what if it was the other way around and I voted yes but then it turned out that the other electorate was opposed to reunification? They would be forced into accepting something against their will.

    And you would expect to see large scale protest and civil disobedience, can you point to any examples of such protest across the continent in relation to the ratification of Lisbon, or Nice, or Amsterdam?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Would you agree there is an ever so slight difference between the formation of an entirely new country and ratifying an international treaty?

    Why do you think they originally called it the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe"? It has the same meaning now, just a more innocuous-sounding name.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Alan Rouge wrote: »
    Yes no one (-person or no one country) can tell another group of people how to run its country and indeed in the Lisbon Treaty there's plenty of mentions of it being ratified in accordence with each country's constitutional requirements but if must be said that the Lisbon Treaty is in essecence the same EU constution that was rejected previously by two referendums . The Lisbon Treaty was essentially designed to get around the pesky need for a mass public approval.

    Say the two of us were signing a contract and of the 5000 clauses in it you objected to 3 of them

    Say I went back, removed those 3 clauses and asked you to sign a new contract with only 4997 clauses, none of which you objected to previously

    Would you still refuse to sign it, saying that the contract is "in essence" the same even though the only things you objected to were removed?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Why do you think they originally called it the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe"? It has the same meaning now, just a more innocuous-sounding name.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe

    Is there some new political entity being formed by the Treaty of Lisbon?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Why do you think they originally called it the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe"? It has the same meaning now, just a more innocuous-sounding name.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe

    Ah, another word which twists your knickers. The EU has a constitution, comprising the treaties that establish it and set out its rules and procedures. That's what a constitution is - the Irish constitution sets out exactly the same things in respect of Ireland. The reason the Constitution was so-called was because it would have established a single constitutional text which superseded the existing treaties, neither of which alone is currently a constitution.

    Would you like to claim that the EU currently doesn't have a constitution, or would you prefer to claim that putting a capital letter in front of it means something special?

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭Freeborn John


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Is there some new political entity being formed by the Treaty of Lisbon?

    The first treaty (the one establishing a Constitution) said Yes. The latest treaty (Lisbon) says No. Yet they achieve the same thing.

    If you give an existing organization enough new political powers it eventually becomes a state in all but name.

    http://www.ena.lu/meeting_action_committee_united_states_europe_pathe_18_january_1956-022500127.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    The first treaty (the one establishing a Constitution) said Yes. The latest treaty (Lisbon) says No. Yet they achieve the same thing.

    If you give an existing organization enough new political powers it eventually becomes a state in all but name.

    http://www.ena.lu/meeting_action_committee_united_states_europe_pathe_18_january_1956-022500127.html

    That's true. Lucky for us we're about 43 treaties away from that stage


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Why do you think they originally called it the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe"? ...

    Misplaced grandiosity. Blame Giscard d'Estaing.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    The first treaty (the one establishing a Constitution) said Yes. The latest treaty (Lisbon) says No. Yet they achieve the same thing.

    If you give an existing organization enough new political powers it eventually becomes a state in all but name.

    http://www.ena.lu/meeting_action_committee_united_states_europe_pathe_18_january_1956-022500127.html

    To sum up Yes = No


Advertisement