In a situation where it is difficult to get an accurate understanding of an issue due to scaremongering, surely is it better to try harder to get an accurate understanding than to simply stop having referenda on such issues (and place the decisions of our politicians, many of whom admitted they hadn't read it themselves either).Originally Posted by jebus
I think you'll find breaking election promises has always been apart of democracy.
Didn't they promise to look into having a referendum though, not actually have one? And haven't they changed leadership since the last election, so Brown can point to that being a Blair idea?
No, its not. Its a constitutionally monarchic republic. Whereby the people choose to put decision making power in the hands of a trusted set of people for a number of years, then base the next decision on how they did and how they think the other could do. True democracy would be consulting the (eligible; in reality, this has meant wealthy male) public for every little decision. That is fine for city-states in Hellenic epics, but the British public, as with their Irish counterparts, vouch for the republic/parliament system by their participation.
Your Chairperson,
Gavin
Membership Advisory Board
"Ex Bardus , Vicis"
How do you do that though? The only way is by allowing censorship, and then who decides to censor who? It opens up quite a large tin of worms allowing the government* to do that during any referendum and possible election
* I assume it would have to be the government who would have to do that
That promise was made in the context of the European Constitution, in 2005.You could use the same argument in relation to low turnout figures in any election not reflecting the majority of the population. Nobody mentioned majority, the key word was "democratic" and how people are stating that referenda are the only true democratic way, which is horse****.
That's true but I think it's a strength of the system. It forces the government to have a set of internally consistent policies. The public may well be in favour of lower taxes and more public spending but someone elected into power must choose one or the other.
There's a very good recent example of this. In opposition the green party was simultaneously in favour of more windmills and opposed to more power lines in rural areas. Now that they're in power, they're forced to betray one of their support bases.
Having said all that, the UK government could have held a referendum if they'd wanted to.
Having waded through only part of this 42-page thread, has anyone yet given a concrete reason to vote for Lisbon? I haven't seen it, and indeed didn't see a single reason given in the Yes canvassing. We were told that Europe was good, so we should vote Yes, we were told that the No side's arguments were flawed, so we should vote Yes, and we were shown posters which said Lisbon was somehow good for jobs, etc, but again without any reason why.
I'm genuinely curious as to how people can hold such passionate views on the subject without being able to give a single reason why we should have voted this in?
Of course the same could be said for the No side.
(I voted No, so I'm not just stirring. Both sides were cat when it comes to, you know, facts and stuff.)
adam
Absolutely. I voted no primarily because I didn't see anything wrong with the status quo; to be honest, I couldn't see any other way of voting. Micheál Martin, our Foreign Affairs Minister, had a quarter of a page in the Irish Times on Monday without giving a single reason to vote for it; when that happens, you start to ask questions.
Well I would say that the proposed reforms in the running of the EU were pretty sensible and reflected the need for reform and streamlining in light of the expansion of the Union, hence I voted yes.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
Efficiency and clarity of decision making. That was my prime reason. Unfortunately thats probably a hard sell for most people.
As an aside, did you read any of the stuff from the Referendum Commission? (they don't escape blame for whats happened but they did produce quite a lot of factual unbiased info). That allowed me to draw conclusions.
I do agree that if people were waiting for the main political parties to tell them why to vote yes, then a picture of a grinning local-yokel with the word YES underneath it didn't really cut it.
Whilst I'm disappointed by the result of the referendum, I take no shortage of comfort that it has made the main parties (on the Yes side), to a man, look like absolute gimps.
I did, yeah, albeit briefly. To be honest, my main conclusion from that was that it didn't even seem as if it should go to a referendum (having drawn roughly the conclusion you mention with regards the point of the whole thing).
We effectively denied Croatia the chance for economic growth by voting no, how about that for a reason to vote yes
How about a common climate change policy that would put pressure on the US and China for seconds
Unfortunately, it's an awful reason because, as per my original post, there's no cause and effect. "Vote Yes or the sky will fall down!" - that's all your post says.
Ditto your second point.
Arguing the merits of the treaty and arguing the tactics of the two campaigns are tow separate things but a big part of the problem I saw with the yes campaign was that they probably didn't agree with a lot of what they were defending. I got the impression that Cowen would much prefer decisions to go on behind closed doors and for the commissioners to wear the national jersey because that's the kind of politics he's used to. Having to defend more transparent and accountable decision making didn't seem to suit him or any one else in the Dáil.
From http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/Refer...ingEnglish.pdf :
That's reason enough to require it go to referendum for me.10° No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.
You can't spell failure without FAI
Ah you're one of those who thinks climate change will just sort itself out, right I'll back out now as I'd rather not lower my IQ to the level of a marshmallow
Or you could explain to him why you think Croatia's economic success was so closely linked with the treaty, and not look like an arrogant jerk.
You can't spell failure without FAI
You obviously don't know me if you think I can do that. Suffice to say if you can do the math on EU grants + Croatia = a more prosperous Croatia you can work out my answer. I see the EU are trying to push Croatia through without this, but it would have been a lot smoother had we passed the Lisbon Treaty. This also affects further EU expansion, so there's a few countries in the Balkans who probably would like a word too, so even if you take Croatia out of my maths equation and put in 'Generic Balkan Country' you'll get the idea
You'd have to wonder if they could pull it off a second time. I think there's a fair chance they could make it even worse, and make themselves look like even bigger idiots.
Ireland seeks guarantees before second EU referendum
Although on the plus side, it'd put the last nail in the coffin of the gombeen mucksavage running our poor country...
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks