Next EU Treaty - how will you vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

The above illustrates why I am increasingly frustrated with both politics and probably even more so the media in this country. The tendency towards hysteria and constantly looking for the next sound-bite or angle of attack is smothering all hope of rational debate.

Even in local media I see a greater and great tendency towards the tabloid culture.

---

You'll never be a journalist so.

Journalism is the same as every other business. A journo will never refuse ink, and whatever sells, goes. Even lies if necessary. A two-word newspaper headline in Bold Font and exclamation marks, will attract people's attention and make them more likely to buy it, than a rational well-thought out full sentence in normal print.

There are 24hour news channels. Journos and reporters will always go the extra mile often in the same location and difficult environment, to get the interview or story that will make you watch their report over someone else's. If they can lie, they will. If they can exaggerate a story in the process, they will. They don't really care what you think, they rarely show any emotion in their reports. As long as you get their attention, that's their job done.

If Brussels allows a referendum here, all the media will as usual be on the government's side, and the threats will pour in. Before it's even drafted, Noonan has made it clear what it is about. Well in his eyes anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

If Brussels allows a referendum here, all the media will as usual be on the government's side, and the threats will pour in. Before it's even drafted, Noonan has made it clear what it is about. Well in his eyes anyway.

---

Well, the parameters are already being set - people will be far less inclined to reject a referendum with euro membership at stake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Journalism is the same as every other business. A journo will never refuse ink, and whatever sells, goes. Even lies if necessary. A two-word newspaper headline in Bold Font and exclamation marks, will attract people's attention and make them more likely to buy it, than a rational well-thought out full sentence in normal print.

There are 24hour news channels. Journos and reporters will always go the extra mile often in the same location and difficult environment, to get the interview or story that will make you watch their report over someone else's. If they can lie, they will. If they can exaggerate a story in the process, they will. They don't really care what you think, they rarely show any emotion in their reports. As long as you get their attention, that's their job done.

If Brussels allows a referendum here, all the media will as usual be on the government's side, and the threats will pour in. Before it's even drafted, Noonan has made it clear what it is about. Well in his eyes anyway.

---

I fully agree with the last part - the links between the media and politicians are far too close and they are too inter-dependent. Whether it's journalists becoming political press officers, or politicians becoming columnists, it's not conducive to open debate.

But I disagree with your criticism before that. I've been teaching/lecturing politics to journalists for over a decade and most journalists I've met in that time, from local papers and radio stations to RTE, have been fair-minded and impartial. What you call not showing emotion others call dispassion, or objectivity (it takes a certain demeanour to calmly report on, say, the details of a prosecution for child abuse, and OTT treatments are invariably the domain of red-top columnists and shock jocks.) Most journalists I've met/taught would baulk at telling a lie; even exaggeration they consider beyond the pale. Now, I'm excluding from that columnists with well-grinded axes, tabloid muckrackers, and hacks who wanna tell us the colour of Cheryl Cole's knickers - I don't see that as journalism. One thing that I do acknowledge, though, is that a lot of younger journalists are too reliant on press releases, and haven't the skills or knowledge to dig deeper into a story. Laziness, though, is a different sin to manipulation.

EG, I think you also have to account for producers and/or editors in all of this. A journo will do as they're told - it's their job and livelihood after all. So no matter how upright or honest a person wants to be, if they're told to report in a certain fashion, they have to or risk taking a number in the dole office. I hardly think the journo's in the Indo are completely off their rockers, despite their best efforts to portray themselves as being raving lunatics. I'm not talking about polemicists and talking heads, but actual reporters (sports a perfect example). And this comes down from what the owner wants sent out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eminence Grise

But I disagree with your criticism before that. I've been teaching/lecturing politics to journalists for over a decade and most journalists I've met in that time, from local papers and radio stations to RTE, have been fair-minded and impartial. Most journalists I've met/taught would baulk at telling a lie; even exaggeration they consider beyond the pale.

---

2 weeks ago, One Irish edition tabloid broke the news of a civil servant getting a modest (by their standards) pay rise. It's been blown completely out of proportion in the media generally, and the paper that broke it are still banging on about it at every opportunity. 5 years ago, if a civil servant got such a pay rise in that way, it wouldn't even make Page 23. But it's now on Page 1, the inside pages, the columnist pages, and the editorial. It sold, it still sells, and that's what a journalist has to do.

Back on-topic, courtesy of the Lisbon Treaty, the following is revealed:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0119/eutreaty.html

Nope, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.

Well in fairness, Article 48 could be interpreted that way, but that has nothing to do with this instance, more that an "inter-governmental agreement" between certain member states isn't as constitutionally binding as a treaty between all 27.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

2 weeks ago, One Irish edition tabloid broke the news of a civil servant getting a modest (by their standards) pay rise. It's been blown completely out of proportion in the media generally, and the paper that broke it are still banging on about it at every opportunity. 5 years ago, if a civil servant got such a pay rise in that way, it wouldn't even make Page 23. But it's now on Page 1, the inside pages, the columnist pages, and the editorial. It sold, it still sells, and that's what a journalist has to do.

---

O/T but was this that fella that got a 35k bump days after Edna went on tv saying public sector from top down wouldn't be getting pay rises?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by culloty82

Well in fairness, Article 48 could be interpreted that way, but that has nothing to do with this instance, more that an "inter-governmental agreement" between certain member states isn't as constitutionally binding as a treaty between all 27.

---

Whatever term some wish to use, it is widely recognised as a "treaty" in it's own right, and this is the first treaty drafted since Lisbon, where we are not legally required to have a referendum, because of Article 48 of Lisbon. And if it's not required, it won't be granted.

It still has absolutely nothing to do with Lisbon. The government doesn't need to call a referendum for every treaty it wants to sign. This is exactly what would have happened had Lisbon not passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

It still has absolutely nothing to do with Lisbon. The government doesn't need to call a referendum for every treaty it wants to sign. This is exactly what would have happened had Lisbon not passed.

---

But isnt that the point - that we should have a referendum for every treaty?

Do you fancy heading out to vote every time we sign a bilateral trade agreement with Iceland or Japan or whoever? The law is quite clear - a referendum is required when signing the treaty would conflict with the the Irish constitution and require changing its character. For the most part, Irish governments have been even more conservative than this, calling referendums for legislation that could have been passed in the Dail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Do you fancy heading out to vote every time we sign a bilateral trade agreement with Iceland or Japan or whoever? The law is quite clear - a referendum is required when signing the treaty would conflict with the the Irish constitution and require changing its character. For the most part, Irish governments have been even more conservative than this, calling referendums for legislation that could have been passed in the Dail.

---

Ok that seems fair, but would we be even told!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Do you fancy heading out to vote every time we sign a bilateral trade agreement with Iceland or Japan or whoever? The law is quite clear - a referendum is required when signing the treaty would conflict with the the Irish constitution and require changing its character. For the most part, Irish governments have been even more conservative than this, calling referendums for legislation that could have been passed in the Dail.

---

I wouldn't mind heading out to vote when we sign agreements with Iceland or Japan, but we didn't have to. We had to vote on treaties within the European Union.

The Dail could not pass EU legislation since the Crotty Case without getting the agreement of the nation via referendum. If they attempted to, a number of legal challenges would have been taken against the state.

As regards Lisbon itself, the then AG advised on the holding of a referendum for the first ballot. Politically, it was impossible to pass it without another referendum. This is the first time where no referendum is legally required to pass a EU treaty in Ireland since Crotty, because of the self-amending Article 48 of Lisbon. Any legal challenge will be struck out as a result. It has everything to do with Lisbon.

When will democracy work? To define work, I'll have to come back to that another time. Fianna Fail were a disaster, even through the so called boom years I could never see why people would vote those gangsters back into power. FG/Lab are ok to a degree but I wouldn't say they are serving the best interest in the people. There reluctance an eagerness for no referendum says a lot. If the AG says there's no need for a referendum, I don't have a problem with it.

If people decide to reject FG/Lab in four years time and if there's no occurrence of short-term memory loss which usually affects the country regards FF, is there any group likely to gain the public vote?

I struggling to see the problem if the advice is no referendum - hard to see the President not referring it on to the supreme court anyway. If one isn't needed, then it'd be stupid, never mind a complete waste of resources, to hold a referendum. If we're looking for a cynical approach, it's really the opposition that are playing politics with the issue. Especially FF (surprisingly). As late as Sunday night FF reps were saying if there was no need for referendum, then there shouldn't be one. SF play the populist card and all of a sudden Cone Head is saying there should be a referendum (not in such clear words - Kenny made a complete show of him trying to get him to explain exactly what he meant).

I'm not a constitutional lawyer (like everyone on this thread as far as I'm aware), but my understanding is that the fact that we may not need a referendum is nothing to do with Lisbon, but to do with the fact that the provisions are in line with previous treaties (as far back as maastricht) that have already been passed.