television
Registered User
- Messages
- 386
Perhaps three votes for those who buy the Tribune or the Irish Times and four votes for those who display just the right amount of puffed indignation at the stupidity of electorate for questioning Lisbon.
A lot to be said for that suggestion. A simple spelling test should suffice.Television, that is exactly the way the Yes side view the No voters! While they're at it maybe they should bring in a system whereby those that they deem intelligent enough get 2 votes.
I have faith in the good judgement and sense of the Irish people.
I am specifically talking here about respecting the democratic will of the Irish people in this referendum. You may not like this. You may see a majority of Irish people as irrational, working class and uneducated who are too stupid to understand the treaty and who were duped by a ragbag collection of the loony left and right into irrationally voting no. I see it as a little more complex than that. I have faith in the good judgement and sense of the Irish people. In a previous discussion I have spoken about which parts of the treaty i think feel allow for the gradual erosion of public services. I have also other concerns as have the majority of people who actually voted no. And instead of allaying these concerns the reaction of Europe to the Irish no vote has affirmed them.
Presumably then you are a great fan of our Government, democratically elected only a year ago. And presumably you will have "faith" in a Yes majority next spring when a more realistic and honest proposition will be put before them viz. "In or Out?". BTW if it was such a stark decision which way would you vote?
People like TV, and please take this constructively, took the proposition at face value, "No" to stay as we are and "Yes" to change the rules, harmless stuff really.
Again you seem to be a fan of political pragmatism, of understanding the real politick of a situation. Would you agree that the real politick is that European governments are not having referenda because they understand that the people of Europe would reject the Lisbon treaty? Their is a fine line between realpolitick and ignoring democracy to engage in grand elitist plans for explansion.
You mentioned fascism after WW1. I assume you were referring to Hitler, Mussolini etc.
The other European governments are not having referenda because it is not a requirement to do so and in the case of Germany they are constitutionally debarred from it. Again you show little respect for the constitutional traditions of other countries and instead expect them to ratify according to what you prescribe otherwise they are "ignoring democracy". The implication is that their methods of ratification are somehow inferior or even invalid.
Only hard core party political people sometimes masquerading as media stooges will demonstrate any faith in any of the political parties. We have had no choice between electable governments for as long as I can remember. Nearly all parties and TDs wanted a YES vote and despite all this pressure the democratic outcome still was a NO. Irish people have traditionally voted for the lesser of two evils. Despite orchestrated interviews on RTE and in newspapers painting a rosy picture of officials (church leaders being pious, bank officials saying their bank was always the morally superior one until they got caught too etc etc) we are under no illusions and never have been about the quality and behaviour of our politicians. By the way has Brian Cowen actually read the treaty yet ? He admitted he hasnt so how can he tell us to vote for it ? Have any of our elected officials read it ? From what I can see, the NO vote was across party lines at the grass roots of all parties. It cant' be written off as the work of extremists no matter how much the YES campaign would love to do this. There appears to not only be a fundamental disconnect between ordinary people and the EU (as shraek pointed out) but also a fundamental disconnect between ordinary people and their own domestic politicians.
I didnt vote by the way , preferring to leave the issue to those who did understand what the treaty was about.
A few facts remain. France and the Netherlands sent the European Constitution to its people in the form of a Referendum to decide on. The people of both Countries democratically rejected it. The EU then had the brainwave of calling the Constitution a 'Treaty' and thereby allowing Countries to bypass a referendum that they would more than likely lose and ratify through Parliment even though this 'New' Treaty is almost exactly the same as the Constitution that was rejected. This in my opinion shows contempt for the opinion of the ordinary European citizens who are getting incresingly nervous about an enlarged and integated Europe. This however is not Ireland's concern per se because it is up to the people of other Countries to let their elected representatives know their feelings on the matter.
The rules of the EU means that this Treaty can only come in to force if all 27 Countries ratify it. That hasn't happened so the process should die. Other Countries are free to operate under enhanced co-operation on a number of areas if they so wish but to continue ratifying the Treaty in the hope of pressurising the Irish into seeing sense is once again ignoring the will of the people in a democratic process.
As for where we would go from here, I posted earlier that in my opinion the best way forward is to concentrate on the main purpose of the Treaty i.e. making the EU more efficient and democratic and sell those changes before trying to increase integration etc.
Also probably worth mentioning that the 'No' vote seems to stopped plans for a common tax base for the the moment at least. No harm done if it makes the EU sit back and think on this matter!
uiop I Would Suggest That You Preface Some Of This Rant With An "in My Opinion" But Given That You Didn't Vote I Can't See How You Have One...
room305 , I thought you were smarter than that. In fact I refuse to believe you are not intelligent. Theres no way you could have posted so much and taken such a keen interest in this thread and not known about the Self-Amending Treaty article which many NO voters had specific problems with. Is it the wish of many in the YES campaign to win a second referendum through the creation of confusion and ridicule and the abandonment of civil argument ?
The other European governments are not having referenda because it is not a requirement to do so and in the case of Germany they are constitutionally debarred from it. Again you show little respect for the constitutional traditions of other countries and instead expect them to ratify according to what you prescribe otherwise they are "ignoring democracy". The implication is that their methods of ratification are somehow inferior or even invalid.
And my point was that 'perfect' democracy is weak democracy and vulnerable to political extermists who can hijack the process and cause mayhem. You only have to look at the hugely disproportionate attention and influence a lunatic outfit like Coir got in this referendum campaign to see what I'm talking about. Sinn Fein never had as much attention despite being rejected by voters last year and suffering a major setback in their electoral ambitions. And a multimillionaire who never even stood for election can come out of nowhere and become an influential figure overnight by taking a position opposite to all the major political parties. You might think that's healthy.
I certainly don't. I think people should have to make some effort to be worthy of that attention, it should be earned. Join a political party or start one, put a coherent and comprehensive set of policy proposals before the electorate, put in the work to get elected, gain experience serving the people, be tested in office and let the people judge you at the ballot box.
An interesting point on this whole denying the French and Dutch people a voice issue was raised by Martin Manseragh on the Marian Finucane show on Sunday.
In theory yes, in reality when you've got 26 v 1 you can't expect everyone to just walk away and say that's fine we'll throw 7 years work away and forget all about it cos you ran a rubbish campaign and the people voted no even though many of them were voting on things that weren't even in the treaty (i.e. conscription of our sons for a European army).
The key point here is that when we fight for our interests in Europe we form alliances, we make sure we're not standing alone. We side with the French over agriculture issues, with the UK and other small states in the East over taxation etc. That's the smart way to fight battles. What we're doing now is making a suicidal stand that will destroy any influence and power we might have in an enlarged Europe that is quite capable of continuing on without us.
room305 simply stated that they had met no Nay-sayers (you don't count since you didn't vote) that had been able to clearly articulate a reason why they objected. Possibly they haven't met the right ones. My suspicion though is the muddy waters of the No campaign generated a nice level of paranoia without specific issues for the vast majority of voters.
room305, I believe that exit polls revealed that people voted no in line with statements on the No posters. rmelly and others here have given quite clear reasons as to why they objected.
To be fair some of the reasons given by people who voted 'Yes' as are bad as the reasons given for the 'No' vote. And it wasn't just the 'No' campaign who muddied the waters by creating paranoia. The 'Yes' campaign are just as guilty by going around suggesting that we will be kicked out of Europe or punished if we vote 'No'. That seemed to be their main selling point.
The rest of the EU wants to change and new countries want to join. I am really starting to think that it's time we decided whether or not we want to remain in the EU.