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

Whats the point in voting No in referendum?

13»

Comments

  • #62
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    flatbackfour wrote: »
    So the idea of all countries agreeing before moving forward is actually meaningless, its a fop to the masses, but when it comes to the cruch we just have to dfo what we are told.

    Are you following the implication of this kind of thinking for democracy?

    There are two things you never want to see how they are made, sausages and laws. Any multi-party treaty is going to be messy, it's going to have each party giving ground on something while gaining it on something else. The problem is that end result is very hard to explain to the vast majority of people because they can't really appreciate the give and take in the negotiation of the treaty. Our Government is always going to come back with a very complicated document that we have to vote on. It's a wonderful mess and an extremely good example of what not to put to a referendum!

    The single biggest problem with a No vote in this instance might be that we cannot negotiate a better deal and often No votes are due to scaremongering (remember being conscripted into a European Army and 2 euro minimum wages anyone?).


    This all comes back to the core issue. We give the Government a framework to create laws within. We cannot, and should not, be asked to have a referendum on laws only general points because almost every one of us lacks the legal training in order to figure out whether a law is good or not.


  • #63
    flatbackfour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭flatbackfour


    nesf wrote: »
    The problem is that end result is very hard to explain to the vast majority of people because they can't really appreciate the give and take in the negotiation of the treaty.

    They cant? But you can? Why do you think this level of thinking is beyond the masses? Thats the fundemental problem; at a certain poliitcal level there is the idea that the masses cant be trusted, they are ignorant. Then there is another section of society who think by siding with the political ideal that the masses cant be trusted, they are on the inside track, understand the complexity of the issues, when really these people are as duped as the masses.

    The single biggest problem with a No vote in this instance might be that we cannot negotiate a better deal and often No votes are due to scaremongering (remember being conscripted into a European Army and 2 euro minimum wages anyone?).

    Scaremongering happened in both sides of the lisbon referendum.
    This all comes back to the core issue. We give the Government a framework to create laws within. We cannot, and should not, be asked to have a referendum on laws only general points because almost every one of us lacks the legal training in order to figure out whether a law is good or not

    Referendum, to my understanding, occur in ireland where the government want to change part of the constitution. Laws can and do be made changed by the Dail all the time.


  • #64
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    flatbackfour wrote: »
    Scaremongering happened in both sides of the lisbon referendum.
    Yes, but the pro-treaty side (:pac:) generally consisted of vague-but-plausible outcomes such as, "A No vote would mean our economy would take longer to recover" and "we will find it harder to attract new jobs", whereas the anti- side consisted largely of outright lies such as a €2 minimum wage, EU army conscriptions, legalised abortions for all and so forth.


  • #65
    flatbackfour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭flatbackfour


    seamus wrote: »
    Yes, but the pro-treaty side (:pac:) generally consisted of vague-but-plausible outcomes such as, "A No vote would mean our economy would take longer to recover" and "we will find it harder to attract new jobs", whereas the anti- side consisted largely of outright lies such as a €2 minimum wage, EU army conscriptions, legalised abortions for all and so forth.

    Interesting you put the scaremongering of the Yes side in such benign tones while going full frontal with the no scaremongering.

    If we vote no we will have massive unemployment, it will mean an end to FDI, we will be the pyrahas of Europe, Europe will move on without us. We actually cant vote no and that is just that.

    Vote yes for economic recovery. as clowan once said.


  • #66
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    flatbackfour wrote: »
    They cant? But you can? Why do you think this level of thinking is beyond the masses? Thats the fundemental problem; at a certain poliitcal level there is the idea that the masses cant be trusted, they are ignorant. Then there is another section of society who think by siding with the political ideal that the masses cant be trusted, they are on the inside track, understand the complexity of the issues, when really these people are as duped as the masses.

    The masses are woefully ill equipped to judge the merits of something as complicated as a treaty. The reason is simple, the vast majority of us have far better things to be doing with our time than studying the relevant parts of law etc.

    flatbackfour wrote: »
    Scaremongering happened in both sides of the lisbon referendum.

    The Yes side has nothing on the No side. I'm still waiting to be conscripted into an EU army by the way...


    flatbackfour wrote: »
    Referendum, to my understanding, occur in ireland where the government want to change part of the constitution. Laws can and do be made changed by the Dail all the time.

    Sure, but my point was that there are certain things that the public are not well equipped to decide upon. Treaties and complex laws being some of these. We're in a superb position to decide on matters like divorce and abortion since these are things almost everyone can get their head around.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    flatbackfour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭flatbackfour


    seamus wrote: »
    whereas the anti- side consisted largely of outright lies such as a €2 minimum wage, EU army conscriptions, legalised abortions for all and so forth.

    People have concerns over the increased militerisation of the EU, the increased power of multinationals and banking interests to frame and influence public policy and what they see as creeping radical secularism within the European project. These general concerns are valid and part of the no vote was a manifistation of these general concerns. These general themes were given a radical voice by elements of the no campaign, they are however very valid concerns for a lot of people.


  • #68
    flatbackfour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭flatbackfour


    nesf wrote: »
    The masses are woefully ill equipped to judge the merits of something as complicated as a treaty. The reason is simple, the vast majority of us have far better things to be doing with our time than studying the relevant parts of law etc. .

    Rubbish, ordinary people (or as you describe them "the masses") are well equiped to understand something as "complicated as a treaty".

    In a democracy the government has a duty to put mechanisms in place to inform people of the issues, the media, education system, the broader national debate, can report, help tease out and put this complexity in terms understandable to people. a national discussion occurs etc etc and then people decide.

    Trust in the people. Rule of the people by the people. Its called democracy.

    nesf wrote: »
    Sure, but my point was that there are certain things that the public are not well equipped to decide upon. Treaties and complex laws being some of these. We're in a superb position to decide on matters like divorce and abortion since these are things almost everyone can get their head around.

    See above


  • #69
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    flatbackfour wrote: »
    Rubbish, ordinary people (or as you describe them "the masses") are well equiped to understand something as "complicated as a treaty".

    In a democracy the government has a duty to put mechanisms in place to inform people of the issues, the media, education system, the broader national debate, can report, help tease out and put this complexity in terms understandable to people. a national discussion occurs etc etc and then people decide.

    You're making the enormous assumption that the average person will spend the many hours necessary to get their head around a multi-party treaty in the context of pre-existing treaties and agreements. This is all assuming they can follow legalese which is something I know many people (college graduates!) not to be able to do.

    Even assuming that everyone can get their head around a complex treaty (which I'd strongly disagree with), it's very obvious that most people won't give over a large part of their free time in order to get their head around a treaty. Christ, we pay politicians (and indirectly journalists) to go through these treaties and point out the parts we need to pay attention to in nice bite-sized little chunks.


  • #70
    flatbackfour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭flatbackfour


    nesf wrote: »
    You're making the enormous assumption that the average person will spend the many hours necessary to get their head around a multi-party treaty in the context of pre-existing treaties and agreements. This is all assuming they can follow legalese which is something I know many people (college graduates!) not to be able to do. .

    You are the one making the "enormous assumptions". I trust the average person in a functioning democracy to inform themselves. Where the issue is a referendum then the pillars of a democratice society engage in debate over a period of time where these complex issues are teases out explained and reflected upon.

    Again you assume "college graduates" are better equiped to understand these "legalese" over, lets say a chef or street cleaner or unemployed brick layer. Thats a pretty big and dangerous assumption too.
    nesf wrote: »
    Even assuming that everyone can get their head around a complex treaty (which I'd strongly disagree with), it's very obvious that most people won't give over a large part of their free time in order to get their head around a treaty.

    No its not obvious at all that ordinary people wont or cant get their head around complex treaties. People want to engage in the political process. Good governments facilatate this engagement through fostering a free press, developing a broadly/widely educated electorate etc etc. Micheal D was talking about active citizenship, that what I am getting at.
    nesf wrote: »
    Christ, we pay politicians (and indirectly journalists) to go through these treaties and point out the parts we need to pay attention to in nice bite-sized little chunks.

    We vote for politicans first and formost, payment is secondary.


  • #71
    ríomhaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 473 ✭✭ríomhaire


    flatbackfour wrote: »
    They have already do survays on peoples thoughts. They are called referendum.
    That's rather needlessly expensive.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    flatbackfour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 337 ✭✭flatbackfour


    nesf wrote: »
    You're making the enormous assumption that the average person will spend the many hours necessary to get their head around a multi-party treaty in the context of pre-existing treaties and agreements. This is all assuming they can follow legalese which is something I know many people (college graduates!) not to be able to do.

    Even assuming that everyone can get their head around a complex treaty (which I'd strongly disagree with), it's very obvious that most people won't give over a large part of their free time in order to get their head around a treaty. Christ, we pay politicians (and indirectly journalists) to go through these treaties and point out the parts we need to pay attention to in nice bite-sized little chunks.


    Interesting discussion at the beginning of Vincent browne tonight, perhaps 5 minutes in. Take a look.


Advertisement