How many people.....

Running Bing

Really and truly understand the Lisbon treaty proposals?



Now if you do, and you really believe it is what is best for this country then go ahead and vote yes.



But if people do not fully understand this there is no way they can vote yes on it imo. Which leads me to the question, if people dont really understand this (and Im talking about really understanding it, not an understanding based on face value and superficial politician speak) why are they so eager to vote yes?

johnnyq

I said in a playful parody in another thread that for some it may be down to brainwashing! - not true (must clarify that for sink - he's a sensitive type)

But of course people will believe what they're told like good children and automatically think that a proposal with the word 'Europe' on it must automatically be good.

Then there's the brigade that think we owe the EU everything for our existance and must sign away everything in eternal gratitude for what is most certainly our own economic success (with investment from europe -which they will now get back since we contribute more than we get now)

Also members of FF are being bullied into voting yes in order to keep their political existance alive. Brian Cowen promised to punish those TDs also not seen to be fully selling the treaty.

Sigh

Attractive Nun

Well, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable for a person to vote on the issue based on some easy-to-notice facts:

For a moderate, generally pro-EU voter to note that the Lisbon treaty is being supported by all the moderate, generally pro-EU parties - and being opposed by the significantly less moderate, generally less pro-EU parties - is obviously going to influence their vote.

Presumably having read or heard some, even superficial, explanations of what the treaty means, they will also probably realise that it is primarily concerned with minor(ish) structural and institutional reforms, rather than any major moral issues which might cause offense.

In addition, it is probably obvious enough to most people that a 'NO' vote will have some negative consequences for Ireland's image in Europe - and therefore needs to be justified properly.

---

Obviously it's not the ideal way to make your decision, but I would regard the above reasons as a decent enough justification for voting 'YES'.

For the record, I feel I have a reasonable understanding of the treaty, and I would be voting yes except I will be out of the country.

marbar

well as far as i'm concerned it should work both ways.
fair enough if you don't know enough about it, but then don't vote. why would you vote no to something you don't fully understand? that's just as silly as voting yes to something you don't think you know enough about

turgon

One of the posters here (cant remember exatly but theres a fleming in his user name i think) said he was voting YES simply because Sinn Fein was advocating NO. Democracy in action

marbar

i know a few with that opinion. given that they generally have been shown not to be clued in and the fact that they opposed our membership of the eu in the first place, i think it's a pretty good way to go

johnnyq

marbar wrote: »

i know a few with that opinion. given that they generally have been shown not to be clued in and the fact that they opposed our membership of the eu in the first place, i think it's a pretty good way to go

Ok but it really would be no different to someone saying I'm going to vote No because the Catholic Church says vote Yes and I don't like the Catholic Church so i must do the opposite of what they say.

Look at the treaty ffs!!!

marbar

johnnyq wrote: »

Ok but it really would be no different to someone saying I'm going to vote No because the Catholic Church says vote Yes and I don't like the Catholic Church so i must do the opposite of what they say.

Look at the treaty ffs!!!

problem is that is not likely for most people. ever try read it??!! they'll make decisions on something else. the easiest way though is to keep watching telly/listening to radio and here both sides argue then make your decisions. they cover the most important parts and people can make decisions based on what they believe

johnnyq

marbar wrote: »

problem is that is not likely for most people. ever try read it??!! they'll make decisions on something else. the easiest way though is to keep watching telly/listening to radio and here both sides argue then make your decisions. they cover the most important parts and people can make decisions based on what they believe

It's sooooo convenient for our eurocrat masters to make the treaty so complicated that we must believe their puppets isn't it!

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

It's sooooo convenient for our eurocrat masters to make the treaty so complicated that we must believe their puppets isn't it!

I find it ironic that if the opposite were true, we both would probably on the same side arguing that the treaty was too vague.

johnnyq

Well if the treaty said something like,
Section 1: EU Military
"All EU military actions will be for peacekeeping only and subject to approval by the UN security council"

instead of commitments to 'robust' and 'rapid repsonses' to vague scenarios as outlined by subsection 3.4.3.6 which then refers to clause A-F and to other treaty subclauses which no doubt can be used to justify virtually any actions,

then in fact I think we would be singing from the same hymnsheet!

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

Well if the treaty said something like,
Section 1: EU Military
"All EU military actions will be for peacekeeping only and subject to approval by the UN security council"

instead of commitments to 'robust' and 'rapid repsonses' to vague scenarios as outlined by subsection 3.4.3.6 which then refers to clause A-F and to other treaty subclauses which no doubt can be used to justify virtually any actions,

then in fact I think we would be singing from the same hymnsheet!

We'd be arguing over the definition of "military action" and "peacekeeping", I suspect, as well as when a "military action" (however defined) was actually an "EU military action" as opposed to one taken by a group of EU member states.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nhughes100

Brian Cowan and Champagne Charlie are hardly inspiring us to read it considering they openly admit not to reading it themselves - That's the Taoiseach and our soon to be out of a job EU commisioner by the way. All Charlie was short of saying was - Well ehhhhh someone gave me the gist of it.

Reading it and understanding it are very different, if there's any doubt we must vote no.

Misnomers galore in this thread too I see.
The military thing is dealt with.
We are specefically barred from the common defence period.
All mention of it is to do with other countries participating in it.
Nothing to do with us.

As regards reading the treaty-What are ye asking here,that your priest should know line for line the bible?
Thats a load of cobblers.
The politicians drafted this treaty with protracted negotiations.Their civilservants worded it like Tolstoy.
To suggest the meaning of the treaty's provisions are unknown to our government or the referendum commission is tin foil hat stuff.

LostinBlanch

Deleted User wrote: »

M
The politicians drafted this treaty with protracted negotiations.Their civilservants worded it like Tolstoy.

I have to take issue with this one. Tolstoy is readable, long but readable.

oscarBravo

turgon wrote: »

One of the posters here (cant remember exatly but theres a fleming in his user name i think) said he was voting YES simply because Sinn Fein was advocating NO. Democracy in action

Just FYI, that was about the twelfth re-registration of a serial muppet and troll called casey212. Do yourself a favour and ignore anything he says.

nhughes100

Deleted User wrote: »

As regards reading the treaty-What are ye asking here,that your priest should know line for line the bible?
Thats a load of cobblers.
The politicians drafted this treaty with protracted negotiations.Their civilservants worded it like Tolstoy.
To suggest the meaning of the treaty's provisions are unknown to our government or the referendum commission is tin foil hat stuff.

Who's asking for line for line off by heart? Would you vote for a best film without having seen it? would you vote for the world's best book despite having never read it? But some guys assured you it was a great read despite the face that they never read it either.

I'd have more faith in priests knowing the bible then politicians understanding Lisbon.

Blindly following belongs to the flat Earth society.

oscarBravo

nhughes100 wrote: »

But some guys assured you it was a great read despite the face that they never read it either.

Sigh. There's a difference between "never read it" and "haven't read it from cover to cover".

I'd really love if we could make this forum a strawman-free zone. I can see that's a lot to ask.

nhughes100

So will the entire treaty be implemented if passed or just the bits our politicians read?

What exactly is your strawman comment about?

nhughes100

nhughes100 wrote: »

I'd have more faith in priests knowing the bible then politicians understanding Lisbon.

Thats tin foil hat stuff.
As I said this government was intricately involved in drafting the Lisbon Treaty.
To even try to suggest they don't know it is ludicrous in the extreme.

sink

nhughes100 wrote: »

So will the entire treaty be implemented if passed or just the bits our politicians read?

What exactly is your strawman comment about?

Very commonly used analogy. Read more here.

djpbarry

johnnyq wrote: »

But of course people will believe what they're told like good children and automatically think that a proposal with the word 'Europe' on it must automatically be good.

Then there's those on the 'No' side who automatically think that any proposal with the word 'Europe' in/on it must be BAD.

johnnyq wrote: »

It's sooooo convenient for our eurocrat masters to make the treaty so complicated that we must believe their puppets isn't it!

:rolleyes: The truth is out there johnnyq.

johnnyq wrote: »

Well if the treaty said something like,
Section 1: EU Military
"All EU military actions will be for peacekeeping only and subject to approval by the UN security council"

And it still wouldn't apply to Ireland. Can't understand why the issue of neutrality springs up anytime anyone mentions the EU.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Reading it and understanding it are very different, if there's any doubt we must vote no.

You can't possibly expect people to have absolutely no doubts about their understanding of the treaty - it's just not realistic. If, on the other hand, people genuinely don't understand what they're voting on, then they shouldn't be voting.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Would you vote for a best film without having seen it? would you vote for the world's best book despite having never read it? But some guys assured you it was a great read despite the face that they never read it either.

When's the last time you got on a plane? Did you do a degree in physics and study the aircraft's design before you boarded? Or did you just trust people when they assured you that the plane wouldn't fall out of the sky?

nhughes100

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats tin foil hat stuff.
As I said this government was intricately involved in drafting the Lisbon Treaty.
To even try to suggest they don't know it is ludicrous in the extreme.

You have a lot more faith in the government then I have. I didn't say they don't know it, I said it was incredible to think that two of the most prominent Irish politicians admitted to not reading it in it's entirety.

Thanks to sink for clearing up what strawman implied. I can't figure out why it was used, the topic is how many people clearly understand the treaty? I clearly stated that I don't know how one in high public office could urge voters to vote yes when they themselves have not read the treaty they are advocating. It doesn't make any sense. It is not off-topic or is it stating that Abortion will be brought in by the back door. When these treaties are challanged and brought to court weeks could be spent arguing over one word or sentence. I sure hope the Attorney General has read it.

I totally disagree that if people don't understand the treaty then they shouldn't vote at all. They should vote no, voting no sends a message back to the powers that be that we are not to be taken for granted and we will not be bullied into blindly following.

As for the Airplane comment, I dunno maybe the fact the hundreds and thousands of planes take off and land every year without a hitch may have appeased my suspicion. This government does not share that same level of credibility.

nhughes100

nhughes100 wrote: »

You have a lot more faith in the government then I have. I didn't say they don't know it, I said it was incredible to think that two of the most prominent Irish politicians admitted to not reading it in it's entirety.

Why? They instructed the drafting of it.

I clearly stated that I don't know how one in high public office could urge voters to vote yes when they themselves have not read the treaty they are advocating.

You see theres the straw man there-the splitting of a non existant hair if you like.You ignoring the fact that these people drafted the treaty in favour of some pedantry regarding the reading of it word for word..

It doesn't make any sense. It is not off-topic or is it stating that Abortion will be brought in by the back door. When these treaties are challanged and brought to court weeks could be spent arguing over one word or sentence. I sure hope the Attorney General has read it.

Lol-On what basis could there be a challenge? Come on tell us- you are are expressing an un backed up opinion there minus fact.

I totally disagree that if people don't understand the treaty then they shouldn't vote at all. They should vote no, voting no sends a message back to the powers that be that we are not to be taken for granted and we will not be bullied into blindly following.

I'd actually suggest...perish the thought ...that they might read the referendum commision leaflet.. then vote.

As for the Airplane comment, I dunno maybe the fact the hundreds and thousands of planes take off and land every year without a hitch may have appeased my suspicion. This government does not share that same level of credibility.

Fine Gael,Labour,most of the unions,IBEC and many many more don't have credibility either?
One big conspiracy then is it?

Meirleach

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine Gael,Labour,most of the unions,IBEC and many many more don't have credibility either?

In my own humble opinion....no.

Rofl.
I suppose eventually the last resort of the unreasonable[where unreasonable in this case means without reason or mores the point badly reasoned resulting in an inability to take valid reasoned points] is to reject the reasonable.

ixtlan

nhughes100 wrote: »

As for the Airplane comment, I dunno maybe the fact the hundreds and thousands of planes take off and land every year without a hitch may have appeased my suspicion. This government does not share that same level of credibility.

One could argue that the EU has progressed successfully over several decades without anyone taking cases to the EU courts to twist the meaning of treaties into something which was never expected when the treaties were signed.

Obviously there have been cases that went to the court, but they were never massive shocks, and in fact they usually supported the cause of the underprivileged.

Why then with such a good record, block the continuing development of the EU? One might argue that past performance is no guarantee of future performance, and that is true, but in the absence of a guarantee past performance is still considered the best indicator of future performance.

Ix.

nhughes100

"Lol-On what basis could there be a challenge? Come on tell us- you are are expressing an un backed up opinion there minus fact"

Do you think it so unlikely that there could be a high court/European court challange to an aspect of a referendum. I don't know what you find so funny, it's not like there haven't been constitutional challenges before. Ok maybe I should have used the phrase if the treaty is challanged, but it is not unlikely that someone out of 400 million people may mount a legal challange to it.

And tell us why we should believe the main political parties? IBEC? Siptu? all in bed with each other since social partnership.

I don't think it is unreasonable to vote no on the basis of not enough clearly defined information being available. And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect public representatives to have read the treaty. It's not like most of them aren't solicitors.

nhughes100

nhughes100 wrote: »

"Lol-On what basis could there be a challenge? Come on tell us- you are are expressing an un backed up opinion there minus fact"

Do you think it so unlikely that there could be a high court/European court challange to an aspect of a referendum. I don't know what you find so funny, it's not like there haven't been constitutional challenges before. Ok maybe I should have used the phrase if the treaty is challanged, but it is not unlikely that someone out of 400 million people may mount a legal challange to it.

Just a reminder...I asked you for an example not a repeat of the strawman.

And tell us why we should believe the main political parties? IBEC? Siptu? all in bed with each other since social partnership.

Transparency for a start.They back up their assertions with facts.
Theres no cover up with their opinions,they're all there in black and white and how those opinions were formed.

I don't think it is unreasonable to vote no on the basis of not enough clearly defined information being available. And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect public representatives to have read the treaty. It's not like most of them aren't solicitors.

This auto repeat of the strawman thing you were challenged on already and conveniently ignored is not helping your position.
Thats transparency versus a lack of transparency for you.
You're being asked to back up your assertions with facts and you give none other than vague baseless opinions.

I'd have more respect for a standpoint that just plain came out with an opinion that holds water ie like say that their stance is,they don't like the EU because they think it's becoming gradually too federalist for them.
If thats your position why don't you just say it? And just let people respectfully disagree.
You could just do that you know without making up stuff.

I see a few posters making up stuff in a few threads here as if inteligent readers are silly people who don't expect some substance to the make believe.
Believe me that type of carry on never works in an inteligent debate.

nhughes100

Try reading the topic of the post before accusing me of anything and I think you need to refresh your memory of what strawman implies.

I did not ignore the strawman comment, in fact I challanged it. Again read what the topic of the thread is.

My opinion on the EU is off topic but is on record in other threads.

I haven't made up anything, the fact remains that the Taoiseach of the day and our EU commissioner are on record as not having read the Lisbon treaty on which they are demanding a yes vote. If you think this is fine then be my guest, if I was in the Yes camp then I would be holding my head in my hands saying thats another fine mess they've got us into. This is not some book review, this is a treaty that will change our country if passed.

turgon

Well nhughes100, would you not consider reading all the provisions and knowing all the facts as equal to having just read the legal text that describes them? Plus - the consolidated treaties are BIG BOOKS, and I think it would be better of Brian Cowen to spend more time governing than reading a book that can be understood in far less words.