Ireland Votes No
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It is a little silly asking people to vote on something that they don't really understand. Some Irish voters said that they rejected it for precisely this reason - reasoning that if you don't understand it is safer to vote no.
Much better to gather a representative group and ask them to consider the issue in depth, then go with their judgement on something like this.
No offence, but thıs seems just the kınd of attıtude that caused them to reject the treaty. What makes you thınk they don't understand ıt? The treaty ıs desıgned to take power out of democratıc hands and gıve ıt to bankers and bureaucrats, and the Irısh seem to have understood that very well ındeed.
Cadmus
SINsational
It is quite a complicated legal document, a multilateral international treaty which amends parts of 6 previous treaties. I was studying its predecessor, the European Constitution, for a year and even after it I could say I only understood parts of it. You have to know quite a bit of EU constitutional and institutional law just to understand the basics of it.
The general public cannot make a properly informed decision on the Lisbon treaty.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This may be true and a democratically representative body examining it could reach this conclusion, but in surveys many Irish voters stated that they had voted no as they did not understand the treaty.
Agaın no offence, but thıs strıkes me as a remarkably patronızıng attıtude. The general publıc are agaınst the treaty precısely because ıt has been wrıtten by people who thınk they are too stupıd to make theır own decısıons. It ıs not necessary to master the fıne poınts of legalıstıc detaıl to recognıze that thıs ıs a profoundly undemocratıc document. And the Irısh people have realızed just that. Good for them.
I fear that ıs exactly what they'll do. They'll tweak ıt a tıny bıt, submıt ıt for a vote agaın, and repeat endlessly untıl everyone gets so sıck of ıt that they vote 'yes' just to shut the bastards up.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Thing is, I haven't read it. I am reasonably (and certainly above averagely) well informed about current affairs generally, but before studying this treaty, I am not in a position to judge it.
The fact that no effort was made to make the treaty comprehensıble ıs ın ıtself a very good reason to reject ıt. I'm wıth Mrs. Sandra Fıtzpatrıck (62) of Dublın:
''I am happy at the result as I think it proves that we as Irish voters are not as stupid as the Irish government and the EU thought. It has sent them both a message not to present us with incoherent gobbledegook and expect us to vote for it.''
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7453331.stm
Chairman Meow
Perth, WA
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is fair enough. If you don't understand something, you have to vote no. What would be better would be to create a straightforward EU constitution setting out the separation of powers as simply as possible, and then to have a vote on that.
gorski
customised free radical
The watered down neo-lib agenda from the previously rejected proposal [by the French and Dutch referenda] are nowhere nearer to the "Europe of workers" [as it should have been!!!] and it is safe to say that at the moment it is going ever closer to the "Europe of bankers" [Bourdieu].
So, without such decisive decisions [for instance, the Irish NO vote] the change in the opposite direction, toward a more democratic EU, towards more legitimacy, will not be possible!!! Even if it was due to not having a proper, wide ranging and deeper, informative public debate on the issues beforehand, with funds available and the media doing their utmost to be educational and informative, rather than propagandist...
Besides, the document, from what I have seen, is a shambles! For instance, it allows for a group of countries to go and do their own thing, regardless of the fact that majority has decided XYZ [which decision should be obliging for all, under threat of various penalties etc.].
It started with the botched, strictly politically based enlargement [which is still going on, as I put it to the man in charge of the EU enlargement processes, when I recently had an opportunity to go toe to toe with him in person, at a conference], when the change in the decision making process [one has to represent enough of the EU citizens or have a minimal number of the states to stop something] enabled Britain to play the US destructive donkey role, aided and abetted by the Poles + 2 smaller countries, whichever one uses this as leverage with the US and EU for more favours... That allows for stopping any major decision and they are using it.
In fact, so much so that it created the momentum for the Kernel Europa! The core, old EU forces decided that they must continue to be the engine of EU against such obstructive tactics and you can imagine what kind of nonsense and potential for destructive, cetrifugal forces in the EU that brings...
That changes everything and there is now the very real possibility of a process I would call the Balkanisation of Europe [the conference debate was on Croatia's bid] instead of Europeanising the Balkans. Such a further enlargement [done on neo-lib grounds and Washington Consensus agenda] would destabilise Europe even more!!! And the EU has already become ungovernable...
We, the unfortunate bastards from the Balkans, have seen it all before...
So, without such decisive decisions [for instance, the Irish NO vote] the change in the opposite direction, toward a more democratic EU, towards more legitimacy, will not be possible!!! Even if it was due to not having a proper, wide ranging and deeper, informative public debate on the issues beforehand, with funds available and the media doing their utmost to be educational and informative, rather than propagandist...
Besides, the document, from what I have seen, is a shambles! For instance, it allows for a group of countries to go and do their own thing, regardless of the fact that majority has decided XYZ [which decision should be obliging for all, under threat of various penalties etc.].
It started with the botched, strictly politically based enlargement [which is still going on, as I put it to the man in charge of the EU enlargement processes, when I recently had an opportunity to go toe to toe with him in person, at a conference], when the change in the decision making process [one has to represent enough of the EU citizens or have a minimal number of the states to stop something] enabled Britain to play the US destructive donkey role, aided and abetted by the Poles + 2 smaller countries, whichever one uses this as leverage with the US and EU for more favours... That allows for stopping any major decision and they are using it.
In fact, so much so that it created the momentum for the Kernel Europa! The core, old EU forces decided that they must continue to be the engine of EU against such obstructive tactics and you can imagine what kind of nonsense and potential for destructive, cetrifugal forces in the EU that brings...
That changes everything and there is now the very real possibility of a process I would call the Balkanisation of Europe [the conference debate was on Croatia's bid] instead of Europeanising the Balkans. Such a further enlargement [done on neo-lib grounds and Washington Consensus agenda] would destabilise Europe even more!!! And the EU has already become ungovernable...
We, the unfortunate bastards from the Balkans, have seen it all before...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The EU was always fundamentally a capitalist project, mind.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
A good constitution is just a few pages long tops. Any longer than that and it is probably the product of muddled thinking. On reflection, phildwyer is probably right to welcome Ireland's no vote.
nonsense, this kind of thinking produces parliaments and all the fuckwittery that goes with them
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't think that a parliament is, per se, a bad idea when organising societies on a scale of millions of individuals. A small group of representatives chosen to consider often complex decisions that are made on behalf of all. Personally, I'd choose MPs at least partially by lottery, but I'd still have a parliament. How else would it be done?
gorski
customised free radical
This is complex stuff. But with enough good will, time and resources - it can be done. Especially today with the levelling in terms of informed-ness thanx to the net and so on.
It would, however, at least at the moment, go against the grain of the "elite's leadership"...
Especially in the UK, where the idea of democracy never took proper root.
I mean, with the "elites" themselves.
No proper public debate in the UK!
For a reason...
It would, however, at least at the moment, go against the grain of the "elite's leadership"...
Especially in the UK, where the idea of democracy never took proper root.
I mean, with the "elites" themselves.
No proper public debate in the UK!
For a reason...
sorry, that patronises everyone.
'you're not capable of deciding on this, we'll do it for you'
exactly the arguments of the EU politicos
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You missed my point, I think. Some decisions require study and reflection - hence the need for a parliament. You missed where I mentioned a lottery though. I would choose a parliament by lots from any member of the population who was prepared to put their name forward for it and take a year or two out to do some public service.
How would you do it?
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Yes this democracy stuff is crap, isn't it? Roll on the enlightened dictatorship.
Do what? Decide on the treaty?
I'd let people make up their own minds and then take a vote
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ok, in a way you are right. I don't want people voting on an issue that they have not properly considered. This is a fundamental problem with all popular votes. Presenting a complex treaty such as this in a referendum is a fairly absurd enterprise, in my opinion.
My question about how you would do it, btw, was about a decision-making mechanism among large groups of people such as nations. If that wasn't clear, I apologise - but you dismissed the 'fuckwittery' of parliaments without suggesting an alternative.
tbh, I find the idea of a cabal of bureaucrats, politicians and capitalists presenting the populations of 26 nations with a treaty which serves the interests of the ruling elite and not those of the people an even more absurd and downright offensive enterprise.
as for decision making mechanisms, you start from the ground up, with as much power devolved to individuals and neighbourhoods as possible, to the point where nations are irrelevant if not non existent.
failing that utopia then yes, we go to the people every single time when you talk about treaties which will see them distanced even further from political power. Asking people to only have a vote if they have 'properly considered' the issue argues against giving everyone the vote in general elections etc as well
imho
as for decision making mechanisms, you start from the ground up, with as much power devolved to individuals and neighbourhoods as possible, to the point where nations are irrelevant if not non existent.
failing that utopia then yes, we go to the people every single time when you talk about treaties which will see them distanced even further from political power. Asking people to only have a vote if they have 'properly considered' the issue argues against giving everyone the vote in general elections etc as well
imho
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, absolutely. I would have all parliaments from local councils upwards chosen by lottery. Each level of parliament would have its powers carefully circumscribed by a constitution, which would first have to be hammered out and agreed by a referendum (the difficult bit). Referenda would be reserved for any changes to the constitution. And I agree. Devolve all decisions as much as possible, but some institutions such as the NHS, for example, require coordination on a larger scale, and if they are to be run publicly, then they need to be held to account somehow.
Similar threads
