Lisbon Treaty - Ireland votes on 12th of June

[Sulkdodds]

that we have absolutely no control over because we do not elect the EU government.

I don't know enough about the EU to really have much of an opinion on it, and when I have time I'd like to research the subject, but...repiV. Dude.

The EU government is elected.
You elect the UK government which contributes to it.
You elect MEPs.

The effectiveness of both of these factors is determined by their implementation within the individual country itself. If you do not feel the election of your government is adequately democratic, this is a problem within your country. If you do not feel the election of MEPs is adequately democratic, this is also a problem within your country. The EU merely stipulates that MEPs be elected by some form of proportional representation, and can't really control the extent to which an individual government chooses to publicise, obscure or otherwise corrupt the MEP election.

You say we're being denied a referendum. Who is denying us the referendum? Could it possibly be our own, New Labour government? The New Labour government which has always been very open in its plans for EU integration? There are huge problems with the manner in which New Labour is elected, but they are our problems.

As I said, I'm not interested in arguing whether the EU is a good or bad thing to get into. But it is adequately democratic. You do have a say. And if you don't, it is not because the EU is stopping you.

Far from trying to retaining a sense of independence and sovereignty, it seems more as if you are eager to find an outside group to blame. Why are you so happy to outsource our problems to them, instead of acknowledging the responsibility that lies within our own country?

 

[ríomhaire]

This debate also brings out another point about this referendum. People seem to think that you have to be anti-EU in order to not like this treaty, which is stupid.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I think some sort of middle ground must be reached. What a lot of people don't seem to realise is that just because something has a few problems, it does not entail completely abandoning it (I'm looking at you, UKIP). The EU has good sides and bad sides, but the UK still holds a lot of weight with the union, and things could be changed if we stopped whining and attempted to change things we didn't like.

Of course, this is impossible when the UK government doesn't let people vote on such matters of import. I'm generally more pro-EU than anti-EU, and anyone who has lived in the UK long enough will have realised that there is no way in hell that the Libson Treaty would win support here, but I would rather maintain our democratic links than integrate further with Europe (bearing in mind that I support it).

I think that eventually a european superstate is going to come into existance along the lines of the USA even if there is a lot of resistance now. The UK has always been more conservative than the rest of europe, and perfers the company of the US to europe. One way or another, the UK is going to have to choose which one it follows. And if Mccain gets in as the US president, then I say Europe is the only way.

 

[Tagaziel]

Doesn't change the fact that the term for when a central governing body ie Brussels is created is called centralization.

No, it's not. Centralization means "concentrating decision making in few institutions". And as you can clearly see, decision making is NOT concentrated in Brussels, as individual member states have it.

Your point would be valid if EU took away the ability to make decisions and only allowed the member states to make preparations to enforce it's acts.

The power is still in Brussels. In the UK power is centralized in Whitehall, despite electing officals from Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Ugh. The seat of the government has absolutely no relation to whether or not a system is centralized or decentralized.

Let me explain with an example:

The USSR was an extremely paranoidal, centralized state - the Party in Moscow had the ultimate power and made all decisions.
The USA is decentralized, as the federate government only makes decisions on a country-wide scale - individual states enjoy large degrees of autonomy and self-sufficency.

Guess which we are closer to. (Hint: It doesn't have an R)

The British government is quite capable of running Britain, so why have the EU do it.

I don't recall reading anywhere that Brussels is going to dismantle the British government and take over it's functions...

Judges are accountable to the law, law is set by government. All the checks and balances are ultimately under the control of the government.

Uh, wat? They aren't accountable to the law, and law isn't set by the government.

Laws are enacted by the parliament. (Legislative)
The government executes them. (Executive)
The courts judge according to the law and the law itself. (Judicial)

Checks and balances are outlined in constitutions and pretty much all states nowadays have them. Constitutions are the basis of all law and are protected from change by much higher quorum requirements and/or mandatory/optional referenda.

So no, the government has no control over checks and balances.

When I said market I meant the European common market, as we are discussing Europe not economics. I was referring to interventionism from the EU, it's unnecessary and undemocratic.

What is undemocratic? That the EU dares to intervene instead of leaving the economy unattended and risking having it spiral out of control?

Democracy isn't perfect but it works better on a smaller scale.

MUCH smaller scale. Democracy was never intended for nation states, it was designed for city states.

 

[Mr Stabby]

No, it's not. Centralization means "concentrating decision making in few institutions". And as you can clearly see, decision making is NOT concentrated in Brussels, as individual member states have it.

Your point would be valid if EU took away the ability to make decisions and only allowed the member states to make preparations to enforce it's acts.

The trend toward more power in Brussels is a trend toward centralization.

Ugh. The seat of the government has absolutely no relation to whether or not a system is centralized or decentralized.

Let me explain with an example:

The USSR was an extremely paranoidal, centralized state - the Party in Moscow had the ultimate power and made all decisions.
The USA is decentralized, as the federate government only makes decisions on a country-wide scale - individual states enjoy large degrees of autonomy and self-sufficency.

Guess which we are closer to. (Hint: It doesn't have an R)

Taking the UK as an example, when Scotland's health service was run from London, that was centralization, now it's been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it's decentralized. You seem to think centralization = authoritarian, which isn't necessarily true.

Your example doesn't contradict my definition of centralization.

I don't recall reading anywhere that Brussels is going to dismantle the British government and take over it's functions...

Never said it was, It's an extreme end of the growing political strength of Brussels. Brussels still overrides Whitehall on a few issues and it's utterly unnecessary for them to do so. We don't need the Eu to have any role in the governing of Britain, we have a government that can do the job just fine.

Uh, wat? They aren't accountable to the law, and law isn't set by the government.

Laws are enacted by the parliament. (Legislative)
The government executes them. (Executive)
The courts judge according to the law and the law itself. (Judicial)

Checks and balances are outlined in constitutions and pretty much all states nowadays have them. Constitutions are the basis of all law and are protected from change by much higher quorum requirements and/or mandatory/optional referenda.

So no, the government has no control over checks and balances.

The government can change the law, with the consent of parliament, both are democratically accountable institutions, therefore the law is democratically accountable, your making irrelevant semantics.

What is undemocratic? That the EU dares to intervene instead of leaving the economy unattended and risking having it spiral out of control?

Not all government intervention is a good thing, recently in America the government intervened after 9/11 and got it wrong, leading to a credit problem. Brussels should not be deciding the terms of free trade between Ireland and France, that is up to Ireland and France to decide, a European common market is a good idea but should not be politically enforced by Brussels, nations should join in voluntarily

MUCH smaller scale. Democracy was never intended for nation states, it was designed for city states.

So British democracy is better than European democracy, thats what I was saying.

 

[jimbo118]

I'm gona go up and vote in the next hour or so D: still undecided.

 

[jimbo118]

gah forgot my passport
now I have to go home after work, find it, get a bus to the nort-soide and vote
why do they make things so inconvenient...

Don't you have any I.D on you?

 

[clarky003]

You speak nonsense. Freedom does not come from ever-larger government that is ever more detached from and less representative of the people. From that comes tyranny.

Also, the ECHR is a crock of shite which protects criminals and worthless employees. The European Court of Human Rights is also for sale, as they decided in the favour of the UK government that motorists caught by speed cameras (outlawed on privacy grounds in many countries) do not have the right to silence - that same right which even murderers and rapists are afforded. The illegal system of guilty until proven innocent stays.

You want to bow down and serve your European masters, be my guest - but leave me the hell out of it.

This^

The EU constitution is just another step towards centralised power, hiding behind all the professed sexed up economic benifits that it's supposed to bring.

 

[repiV]

I don't know enough about the EU to really have much of an opinion on it, and when I have time I'd like to research the subject, but...repiV. Dude.

The EU government is elected.
You elect the UK government which contributes to it.
You elect MEPs.

The effectiveness of both of these factors is determined by their implementation within the individual country itself. If you do not feel the election of your government is adequately democratic, this is a problem within your country. If you do not feel the election of MEPs is adequately democratic, this is also a problem within your country. The EU merely stipulates that MEPs be elected by some form of proportional representation, and can't really control the extent to which an individual government chooses to publicise, obscure or otherwise corrupt the MEP election.

I take your point about the election process of MEPs being a matter for the individual nations, however your own words highlight the underlying problems here. MEPs contribute to the EU. If we're dissatisfied, we have only the small modicum of power to alter our small contribution, based not even on electing a party to represent us in the EU, but on electing individual representatives in disparate places ala local elections rather than voting for any kind of overall vision. In contrast, if we're unhappy with our government, we can elect a totally new one.
We're totally powerless to have any significant impact on what happens in the EU. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, they will do whatever they want and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

You say we're being denied a referendum. Who is denying us the referendum? Could it possibly be our own, New Labour government? The New Labour government which has always been very open in its plans for EU integration? There are huge problems with the manner in which New Labour is elected, but they are our problems.

Yes indeed, but is this about New Labour screwing us over or about politicians doing favours for each other at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve? What you witness here is yet another example of how politics is no longer about serving the community but about power, wealth and self-interest. We don't get a referendum because denying us that ensures that politicians become ever more powerful and far away from us.
They don't even try to hide their contempt for us anymore.

With Ireland being the only country to get a referendum on the matter, and probably only because the law requires it, does that not make you wonder what's going on behind the scenes to make sure this is forced through?

As I said, I'm not interested in arguing whether the EU is a good or bad thing to get into. But it is adequately democratic. You do have a say. And if you don't, it is not because the EU is stopping you.

It's clearly not as I've already outlined.

Far from trying to retaining a sense of independence and sovereignty, it seems more as if you are eager to find an outside group to blame. Why are you so happy to outsource our problems to them, instead of acknowledging the responsibility that lies within our own country?

I blame all politicians. It's not about EU politicians vs British politicians...they're all in it for themselves and each other, and to hell with anything else. The EU primarily serves politicians and their friends.
You only need to look at self-styled communists like Livingstone supposedly out for equality and fairness and all that shit who then go on to siphon off millions in taxpayer funds to their own private interests and those of their friends. The problem is politicians, and the solution is not giving them even more power and unaccountable access to public funds. Liberal, conservative, whatever - it's irrelevant. Their primary allegiance is to each other no matter the spectrum. We voters are just collateral.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I take your point about the election process of MEPs being a matter for the individual nations, however your own words highlight the underlying problems here. MEPs contribute to the EU. If we're dissatisfied, we have only the small modicum of power to alter our small contribution, based not even on electing a party to represent us in the EU, but on electing individual representatives in disparate places ala local elections rather than voting for any kind of overall vision. In contrast, if we're unhappy with our government, we can elect a totally new one.
We're totally powerless to have any significant impact on what happens in the EU. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, they will do whatever they want and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

I said MEPs 'contribute' but I really meant they make up half of the EU itself, and the other half is made up by our (supposedly) elected governments. We do get to vote for overall visions - there are parties in the EU Parliament - problem was, and not just in the UK, people tended to either know nothing about the elections or simply used them as opportunities to protest-vote against their own ruling governments or to protest-vote against the EU itself. And yeah, if we were so damn unhappy with our government we COULD elect a new one (not sure it would help), and they could conceivably be totally against the EU. So, um...?

Yes indeed, but is this about New Labour screwing us over or about politicians doing favours for each other at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve? What you witness here is yet another example of how politics is no longer about serving the community but about power, wealth and self-interest. We don't get a referendum because denying us that ensures that politicians become ever more powerful and far away from us.
They don't even try to hide their contempt for us anymore.

With Ireland being the only country to get a referendum on the matter, and probably only because the law requires it, does that not make you wonder what's going on behind the scenes to make sure this is forced through?

Oh, I like the "politics is no longer about blahblah blah" bit. Because yeah, it used to be so much better in the old days, where maintaining an army pension depended on your willingness to turn out for a violent response against protesters, or when the policy for dealing with a general strike was forming a government-backed militia. Good times! Lay off it. That's prelapsarian bullshit. The Norman Yoke? The Founding fucking Fathers? What are you, Christian or something?

And yeah, no, actually, I'll tell you what would "make me wonder" and that would be some evidential examples of collusion and corruption. Oh, I'm not saying I don't find it likely. But let's face it, even if your diatribe against politicians was a powerful point, you could say exactly the same, and probably more so, of international corporations and the forces of globalisation - phenomena that already have more worrying implications for national sovereignty than almost anything the EU could cook up in the near future.

The EU is itself problematised by the influence of global corporations (like here, where multinationals successfully lobbied the US government to take the concern to the WTO and force the EU to give compensation. God, the EU is just so powerful and such a threat to national sovereignty, not like Rupert Murdoch or or Chiquita Bananas which pushed the US into a CIA invasion of Guatamala to protect its interests and literally owns entire communities in Central America, providing housing, utilities and work.

I'm not arguing that globalisation is an entirely bad thing - that would be a whole other debate - but it's the killer of national sovereignty. That's why they call it globalisation.

I mention this because it's a whole lot more concrete than your conspiracy-of-politicians-giving-each-other-blowjobs theory, which is tenable but mainly unsupported. That basically comprises almost the entirety of your argument against the EU - what you're essentially saying is that we should restrict freedom of association for a certain class of people (politicians) because they are bad and inevitably vipers. And maybe this is true - after all, they're politicians of their own free will. I do realise your argument is that politics are inevitably corrupt, so it makes no sense to hand over even more power to an even bigger assembly of snakes - that greater distribution is a greater protection against collusion. Only politics has never been just about politicians. So then the question arises of how on earth you stop every other powerful person in the entire goddamn world conspiring with each other, and against you.

Insert some trite old phrase here about mountains and molehills, or wood and trees. I WISH we could just "blame politicians".

 

[repiV]

I said MEPs 'contribute' but I really meant they make up half of the EU itself, and the other half is made up by our (supposedly) elected governments. We do get to vote for overall visions - there are parties in the EU Parliament - problem was, and not just in the UK, people tended to either know nothing about the elections or simply used them as opportunities to protest-vote against their own ruling governments or to protest-vote against the EU itself. And yeah, if we were so damn unhappy with our government we COULD elect a new one (not sure it would help), and they could conceivably be totally against the EU. So, um...?

Well it's not working very well in practice, that much is obvious.

Oh, I like the "politics is no longer about blahblah blah" bit. Because yeah, it used to be so much better in the old days, where maintaining an army pension depended on your willingness to turn out for a violent response against protesters, or when the policy for dealing with a general strike was forming a government-backed militia. Good times! Lay off it. That's prelapsarian bullshit. The Norman Yoke? The Founding fucking Fathers? What are you, Christian or something?

What?
The concept of the career politician is a very recent thing. MPs used to be respected members of society who gave of their time to serve their community. Even more recent - and worse - is the rise of the political class, as we see most politicians today have no experience of the real world. They went to university, and then got a job in politics. As a result none of them have a bloody clue and none of them have anything in common with the people they're supposed to represent. They're completely isolated from reality and serve only themselves and their own narrow-minded ideological bullshit which has never been challenged by real life experience.
It's a relief to see that Boris Johnson is at last bringing common sense and substance back to politics - probably because he's not a career politician, he's a successful journalist who dabbles in politics. For the most part sadly we're stuck with the usual wastes of space with a mastery of spin.

And yeah, no, actually, I'll tell you what would "make me wonder" and that would be some evidential examples of collusion and corruption. Oh, I'm not saying I don't find it likely. But let's face it, even if your diatribe against politicians was a powerful point, you could say exactly the same, and probably more so, of international corporations and the forces of globalisation - phenomena that already have more worrying implications for national sovereignty than almost anything the EU could cook up in the near future.

Renaming it the Lisbon Treaty so that it can be forced past an unwilling populace is in and of itself collusion and corruption. Not offering a referendum on such an important issue doubly so. At the end of the day, your views or anyone elses be they pro- or anti-EU are totally irrelevant - we must be able to choose. We can't, noone is being given a choice (except Ireland) and that shows a sheer contempt for the democratic process. It's criminal on a level that ordinary people would be jailed for life for.
Why would any self-respecting citizen want to be part of such an overtly statist organisation which values them so lowly?

The EU is itself problematised by the influence of global corporations (like here, where multinationals successfully lobbied the US government to take the concern to the WTO and force the EU to give compensation. God, the EU is just so powerful and such a threat to national sovereignty, not like Rupert Murdoch or or Chiquita Bananas which pushed the US into a CIA invasion of Guatamala to protect its interests and literally owns entire communities in Central America, providing housing, utilities and work.

I'm not arguing that globalisation is an entirely bad thing - that would be a whole other debate - but it's the killer of national sovereignty. That's why they call it globalisation.

I mention this because it's a whole lot more concrete than your conspiracy-of-politicians-giving-each-other-blowjobs theory, which is tenable but mainly unsupported. That basically comprises almost the entirety of your argument against the EU - what you're essentially saying is that we should restrict freedom of association for a certain class of people (politicians) because they are bad and inevitably vipers. And maybe this is true - after all, they're politicians of their own free will. I do realise your argument is that politics are inevitably corrupt, so it makes no sense to hand over even more power to an even bigger assembly of snakes - that greater distribution is a greater protection against collusion. Only politics has never been just about politicians. So then the question arises of how on earth you stop every other powerful person in the entire goddamn world conspiring with each other, and against you.

Insert some trite old phrase here about mountains and molehills, or wood and trees. I WISH we could just "blame politicians".

You can't compare corporations and governments. Corporations use power they have acquired naturally and of their own volition to support their own interests. They do exactly as us private citizens do, only their vast wealth and influence affords them correspondingly more power. This is obviously to be expected, and largely unavoidable. CEOs are not public servants.
Politicians are public servants - they work for us (allegedly). They (supposedly) rule by consent and it is under our control (in theory) how much power we choose to give them. Now government is always for sale - the less power it has, the less that matters. The whole basis of any democratic system assumes that politicians (and people) are intrinsically corrupt and self-serving, and we ignore this at our peril. And it's only because we allow government to legislate over every little aspect of our lives that corporations have any reason to buy their favour in the first place.
Big government does nothing but take the power away from the people. You want to help the poor? Then give them some money, don't give it to an all-powerful government and trust them to do what YOU want them to do with it. They may have the power to give you everything you want - by extension, they also have the power to take away everything you have. You wouldn't trust a corporation with that kind of power so why do you trust a government with it?
The UK government spends 45% of the nation's GDP. It's just shocking. Where the hell does it all go?
You want individuals to have the power, then don't give it all to governments. Ironically, the more responsibility government takes for everyday life, the less that citizens will, the more tame and compliant they become, the less entrepreneurial they are. By fostering a culture of initiative and self-reliance instead of one of submission then we would have more self-employed people, more fighters, a wider spread of ambition - and financial power would be more evenly distributed as you desire.

 

[clarky003]

The UK government spends 45% of the nation's GDP. It's just shocking. Where the hell does it all go?
You want individuals to have the power, then don't give it all to governments. Ironically, the more responsibility government takes for everyday life, the less that citizens will, the more tame and compliant they become, the less entrepreneurial they are. By fostering a culture of initiative and self-reliance instead of one of submission then we would have more self-employed people, more fighters, a wider spread of ambition - and financial power would be more evenly distributed as you desire.

That's exactley right, otherwise your walking into the trap. The rich will become fewer and more wealthy, and the rest will become progressively poorer by comparison, slaves to those who impose their will through the currency.

 

[repiV]

Quite...

Currently held (dare I say it - socialist) wisdom dictates that you empower people by giving the government the power to give to the needy. It's complete bollocks, and actually has the opposite effect to that which was intended. The welfare state makes people slaves to the government and discourages them from being self-reliant.
If you want to empower people, you give them responsibility. You let them make their own choices, you reward them for their initiative (say, by not taking away half their money in taxes...), allow them to suffer the consequences of bad decision-making and foster fierce and independent people.

We have a nation of sheep. A cushy corporate job is aspirational. A nation of sharks would be a nation of businesspeople, not corporate slaves. Through capitalism, not socialism, we create genuine equality and opportunity. Through capitalism, we create social mobility and a wider spread of wealth.

 

[clarky003]

I agree this is not a proper capitalist society by far, or democratic for any sense of the proper meaning, it's a complete facade, and the longer I live the clearer it becomes. The system we are indoctrinated into believing in has been bastardised, into technocracey and kleptocracey.

 

[Tarkus]

I read Lisboa, I post on this thread (my city)

 

[jimbo118]

'tis A Big Fat No.

 

[The Monkey]

Shit, the Irish ****ed up.

 

[jimbo118]

http://media.economist.com/images/20080510/D1908EU0.jpg

 

[The Monkey]

Now we will be stuck with the old, ineffective union for another several years.

Great job, Ireland.

 

[Operational]

Likely consequences of an Irish EU "No"

 

[Tagaziel]

This is why I stopped posting in this thread, since the Irish screwed up and the celtic tiger turned out to be a celtic kitten, afraid of any major changes.

GG Ireland, appreciate that.

 

[jimbo118]

Me too D: My constituency was one of the few that had a 'Yes' majority.

 

[The Monkey]

Seriously, if it wasn't for the EU Ireland would've been much worse of. It was the poorest country in western Europe 30 years ago, but now it's one of the richest, thanks to the EU. I would've though the union would been more popular...

 

[Mr Stabby]

Voting for the treaty out of gratitude for the economic stimulus the EU brought to Ireland, rather than for the detail of the treaty doesn't seem particularly logical.

 

[Laivasse]

Well then maybe in future the EU member states will try to win referendums on their merits, as opposed to through either sneaking stuff under the radar, or running a campaign that simply says 'the other side is lying' rather than presenting the facts of the treaty as they stand. The consensus seems to be that most people, Yes voters included, didn't really know what the treaty was about, which says to me that the case simply wasn't made well or clearly enough. Campaigners can talk about the misrepresentations of the No side until they're blue in the face, but if that's all the argument consists of (and check riomhaire's first post to see an indicator) then the vote is still going to come back 'no'.

Maybe this will lead to a more transparent mechanism of EU involvement from the citizens of member states, but I fear that the opposite will happen. At least this is hopefully a statement that 'you don't need the referendum you were promised because this is good for you, honest', or 'you have to vote yes because the other side are stupid/evil/euro-sceptics' doesn't cut it.

 

[jimbo118]

Seriously, if it wasn't for the EU Ireland would've been much worse of. It was the poorest country in western Europe 30 years ago, but now it's one of the richest, thanks to the EU. I would've though the union would been more popular...

People didn't vote 'no' out of ungratefullness :dozey:

 

[Laivasse]

However, I reckon that most people voted 'no' because they 'didn't understand the treaty'...aka they didn't receive a slick marketing campaign of Iraq WMD proportions and more importantly were too lazy to read the newspaper or the website about the damn thing.

Like it or not, the obligation falls on MPs to sell to the people any idea that they want them to vote on - that's what campaigning is all about. The electorate might not be the smartest bunch of people around, but if you're an MP you need them to want to help you. As such, making it your primary focus to just taint No-votes by association (with Sinn Fein, or whatever) and then hoping that people will check out the details of the treaty on their own watch was not a good tactic; it's not slick, and neither is it lacking in obvious propaganda. The average person would have a hard time remembering all that was in the treaty, or isolating which parts are most significant, couched as some of the language is in legalese. And if even Cowen didn't read all of it, why, the average joe asks, should I?

Just generally, if a populace's predominant reaction to something is 'WTF?' then it's not surprising that a Yes vote would not be forthcoming. Having said that it seems that a great deal of people who didn't know what the treaty was about voted Yes as well as No.

 

[PvtRyan]

Why the fuck even have a referendum? It's like asking an accountant to build a skyscraper.

 

[repiV]

Why the fuck even have a referendum? It's like asking an accountant to build a skyscraper.

While we're at it, why don't we just abolish elections too? Everything would go so much more smoothly if we could just get rid of this whole democracy nonsense.

 

[PvtRyan]

While we're at it, why don't we just abolish elections too? Everything would go so much more smoothly if we could just get rid of this whole democracy nonsense.

I agree, it is a rather poor system. But at least elections are about rather simple and superficial subjects like "kick out them dirty immigrants, they took our jobs! They tuk ur jubs! DURK A DUR!" whereas this treaty is a highly complex document of which the benefits or drawbacks are anything but obvious. What makes you say that I have any credit whatsoever to judge it? Fact is, a large portion of both yes- and no-voters have no clue what they're voting on and are just voting out of gut feeling and / or petty revenge. How is that anything but harmful? Is democracy really victorious if the well educated few (be that proponents or opponents of the treaty) are outvoted by the sheeple?

 

[repiV]

I agree, it is a rather poor system. But at least elections are about rather simple and superficial subjects like "kick out them dirty immigrants, they took our jobs! They tuk ur jubs! DURK A DUR!" whereas this treaty is a highly complex document of which the benefits or drawbacks are anything but obvious. What makes you say that I have any credit whatsoever to judge it? Fact is, a large portion of both yes- and no-voters have no clue what they're voting on and are just voting out of gut feeling and / or petty revenge. How is that anything but harmful? Is democracy really victorious if the well educated few (be that proponents or opponents of the treaty) are outvoted by the sheeple?

First of all, what makes you think that politicians are any more qualified than you or I to run the country? The evidence suggests the exact opposite. Incompetence is the norm in politics.
If government finances were properly audited, I have no doubt taxes could be halved without any reduction in services.
If you're going to fantasise about some kind of benevolent (ie. they make decisions you happen to agree with) fascist dictatorship, you could at least find competent people to run it first.

Secondly, I find your attitude elitist in the extreme. It seems that you favour democracy but only when it produces the results you want (which are obviously the right results, because you're so much more intelligent than all those idiots who disagree with you).
Also flawed, because all too often it's the self-professed intellectuals and "educated" people who have the most ridiculous ideas. You want common sense, you're better off asking a mechanic than an Oxbridge graduate nine times out of ten.

 

[PvtRyan]

First of all, what makes you think that politicians are any more qualified than you or I to run the country? The evidence suggests the exact opposite. Incompetence is the norm in politics.
If government finances were properly audited, I have no doubt taxes could be halved without any reduction in services.
If you're going to fantasise about some kind of benevolent (ie. they make decisions you happen to agree with) fascist dictatorship, you could at least find competent people to run it first.

Secondly, I find your attitude elitist in the extreme. It seems that you favour democracy but only when it produces the results you want (which are obviously the right results, because you're so much more intelligent than all those idiots who disagree with you).
Also flawed, because all too often it's the self-professed intellectuals and "educated" people who have the most ridiculous ideas. You want common sense, you're better off asking a mechanic than an Oxbridge graduate nine times out of ten.

Gee, and there was I thinking I posted "What makes you say that I have any credit whatsoever to judge it?".

And you seem to think I'm biased, but I'm not because I'm not on any side. Why not? Because I don't know enough about it.

I'm just saying, whether this treaty is right or wrong, asking the people for their opinion is a bad move to make regardless.

 

[repiV]

Gee, and there was I thinking I posted "What makes you say that I have any credit whatsoever to judge it?".

And you seem to think I'm biased, but I'm not because I'm not on any side. Why not? Because I don't know enough about it.

I'm just saying, whether this treaty is right or wrong, asking the people for their opinion is a bad move to make regardless.

If you don't know enough about it, and you choose to take no side as a result, then fine. Why should the rest of us sit and watch the country get fed to the dogs because you think we're all too stupid to have a say in our own future?

 

[PvtRyan]

If you don't know enough about it, and you choose to take no side as a result, then fine. Why should the rest of us sit and watch the country get fed to the dogs because you think we're all too stupid to have a say in our own future?

Because most are as ignorant as me about it and yet still decide to vote. Often enough simply because they dislike the government and wish to cause them trouble by voting the opposite of what the government wants.

I see no reason why we deserve a referendum when we already get to decide which government represents us, which we already chose to be a pro-EU one.

How about a compromise: you get to vote in a referendum if you manage to pass a basic competency test on the subject?

 

[repiV]

Because most are as ignorant as me about it and yet still decide to vote.

You know this how?

Often enough simply because they dislike the government and wish to cause them trouble by voting the opposite of what the government wants.

And you have...what...to substantiate this?

I see no reason why we deserve a referendum when we already get to decide which government represents us, which we already chose to be a pro-EU one.

Your whole standpoint demonstrates a mindset of obedience and service to the state. As if you should be grateful for every scrap of cheese the overlords should throw your way. We deserve a referendum because we want a referendum - there's no more to it than that. The government is the servant of the people, not the other way around.

How about a compromise: you get to vote in a referendum if you manage to pass a basic competency test on the subject?

Which would of course be set up to weed out as many people as possible who would vote in opposition to the government.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Now we will be stuck with the old, ineffective union for another several years.

Great job, Ireland.

You realise that if democracy had worked properly it would have been rejected in the UK anyway?

EDIT: Oh, and it looks like the others would have rejected it too:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/06/13/ireland.result/index.html

After voters in the Netherlands and France rejected a previous EU constitution in 2005, no other EU country dared to put such matters to their voters, instead pushing it through their national parliaments. Dutch and French voters have no direct say on the current treaty.

Hmmm...what is the EU scared of? Oh no, the big bad populace want to choose what happens to they're countries?

 

[kirovman]

This UK government would abolish elections if they could.

 

[Laivasse]

Hmm, demonising the government? Sounds like you could be GLORIFYING TERRORISM there, mate. Better clear your calendar for the next 42 days.

At the very least you must be breaking the Public Order Act by being abusive and insulting somehow.

 

[kirovman]

I've been hanged for worse.

 

[Nemesis6]

At the very least you must be breaking the Public Order Act by being abusive and insulting somehow.

Ah, that's the same act that the British police use to harass protesters who call Scientology a cult. You see, anyone who does is arrested.