Which way will you vote (if at all)

molloyjh

nag wrote: »

Well if that's the case then point me to a source which translated it correctly and explains the context from which it was taken.


Well forgive me for not reading every single thread on the Treaty so I know what has been addressed and what hasn't.
Instead of exaggerating from your high-horse, why don't you point me to where this has been addressed, adequately and I will gladly read it.


Well that's not insulting in the slightest, especially coming from someone who seems to be so highly regarded here.
Never did I say that I was voting no based ONLY on the points I made. Of course I have read up on the Treaty and I've listened to both sides of the debate and I have made an informed decision as best I can.

Read poasts by the likes of Scofflaw and sink. These guys are pretty well informed, more so than most here anyway. There are just so many posts and threads at this point you'll be lost trying to dig stuff up!!!

Ive read both sides/lies of the argument and I will be voting YES.

This represents the best deal we could hope for in the circumstances.

We negotiated this during an Irish presidency and received alot of kudos in Europe by rescuing the treaty. If we force the EU back to the drawing board we will not get such a favourable outcome.

We will get the same if not slightly worse treaty to vote on ad nausiem until we accept it.

To the undecided/no's take the time to read both sides of the argument and rebuttals before making your decision.

Upon doing this, in my mind anyway, most of the scare tactics of the No side do not stand up to close scrutiny. Some are downright lies like the corporation taxation issue and neutrality issue. Both which have clearly defined vetos for us.

The whole issue of not understanding each line of the treaty is a total non issue. Did vote in the general election for the candidate whose legislation you understood the clearest? Will you vote on the up coming referendum on the age of consent based on weather you can understand each line of legalese?

Sleepy

mcaul wrote: »

Its not just the current government - it was a multi-party group who negotiated the terms of the treaty and they did very well considering Ireland has just 4 million people.

As before, my fear is too many people will take the Sinn Fein line and say a better deal is possible, but the reality is different. All the new accession states are looking for more and if this is renegotiated the chances are Ireland will lose out on some of the more favourable clauses that were agreed when we held the EU presidency.

My gut tells me that you're right on the second part. I don't think that Ireland can go back to the negotiating table cap in hand and negotiate a better treaty.

On the first, it's that I don't trust the government or their "independent body" to accurately summarize of the treaty. The ministerial wage hike fiasco discredited any attempts by this government to convince me that a body is independent and, to be quite honest, I have little or no faith in the public sector's ability to perform such a task adequately.

My gut says that if I had the time to research this, I'd probably vote yes. However, I don't have that time and I refuse to break my principles regarding ignorant voting. I'd agree with HydeRoad's viiew that approximately half of the electorate in this country vote ignorantly of policies, principles or even manifestos and it's the reason I feel our elected representatives are of such poor quality (across all parties). I won't be part of it.

Khannie

Khannie wrote: »

Hard not to notice this tbh. I'm still undecided. A few things bothering me at the moment:

1) Various foreign politicians bullying for a Yes. This is really irritating me.
2) No complete document and no attempt to publish one.
3) Vote by the parliament which agreed NOT to abide by our vote.
4) No plan B. Why not?
5) Very poor attempt by the government to educate the public in advance of the treaty.

Having said all of the above, it looks to me very much like the "No" campaign is just full of lies. Also, I'm very aware that the EU does need reform to facilitate the larger number of countries.

Check your local library they have had one for months now. bring coffee, youll need it!

I would however get a copy of the village. Vincent brown has done an excellent job of summarising it.

Sleepy

ronoc wrote: »

The whole issue of not understanding each line of the treaty is a total non issue. Did vote in the general election for the candidate whose legislation you understood the clearest?

Illogical argument, you'd vote for the person who's policies/ proposed legislation were putting in place the things you want for the coutnry. Voting for the clearest language could result in the exact policies being passed that you didn't want.

Will you vote on the up coming referendum on the age of consent based on weather you can understand each line of legalese?

As a former Childline volunteer, tt worries me that anyone would vote on something so important without understanding each line of the legalese. I'd argue that there should be no need for such legislation to be encapsulated in legalese as it's a relatively straight-forward point of law.

DOCARCH

I would like to vote yes, for the communal good of Europe - however I really feel that the 'Treaty' is confusinly devious!

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

Illogical argument, you'd vote for the person who's policies/ proposed legislation were putting in place the things you want for the coutnry. Voting for the clearest language could result in the exact policies being passed that you didn't want.

No its not.

My point is we trust politicians to enact laws for us. Like we trust doctors to cure us, solicitors not to screw us out of money and clerks not to short change us.
I don't need to or want to know the way they do it.

The sad fact is the vast majority of legislation is verbose, hard to understand and when it amends other treatys unbelievably complex. Someone who isn't a constitutional lawyer or a student of politcs will have a hard time understanding the treaty.

You are not voting blind if you don't understand the treaty in its entirety. Listen to both sides of the argument and make your decision.

Sleepy

That's exactly my point: I don't trust our politicians to enact laws for us.

Without that trust, it's impossible to accept any argument they make without referencing the source documentation oneself and I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that.

oscarBravo

Do you have a particular reason to mistrust the Referendum Commission? Their explanation of the treaty is a lot more accessible than the actual treaty itself, and - from what I can see - is completely unbiased. It should be enough to base an informed decision on.

HydeRoad

molloyjh wrote: »

The Treaty is not meant to do anything for many domestic issues like health service. Thatis a problem for our Dail and not for the EU. The cost of fuel is something that nobody can really do anything about for the moment due to demand and instability in the Middle East. That is not something the EU could ever fix. Their commitment, however, to the global warming issue will lead down the path of renewable energy sources which would ultimately help this issue. Most of the issues that affect people day to day are still going to be dealt with at a national level, not an EU level.

I'm not really expounding my point well. What I am trying to say is, that a nation of people are expected to get out and vote for a treaty, the majority of whom have no idea what they are voting for, and too many of whom won't bother to vote at all.

The people of Zimbabwe would love to have a vote that actually counts for something. We do have a vote, and it is a tragedy that rotten politics has festered for far too long in this country, to the point where too many people are apathetic, and do not give a damn.

This is a bloody important thing. The ordinary people of Ireland should be given a good reason to vote for this. Reasons of substance, what it would mean for them. They are being given nothing, only told to go and read an indigestible document of a few hundred pages, summarised into equally indigestible pamphlets. I read one that was delivered to my 70 year old mother. What in the name of God is a woman like her to make of it? Go out and vote because Brian Cowan tells her to? She hates Brian Cowan. For no good reason only she remembers all the FF politicians that went before him.

I would love to vote YES, if I thought it would bring us into an open, honest, progressive Europe. I have had absolutely no proof that the Europe on offer is any such thing. Why would they be different to our own pitiful representatives? I am familiar with our politicians. Who are the European men and women? Introduce us to them. Tell us who they are, what they stand for, their track record.

If this goes to poll, and is passed or rejected on the ignorance of most the electorate, it is just another shameful episode in the track record of politics in this country.

johnnyq

HydeRoad wrote:

I would love to vote YES, if I thought it would bring us into an open, honest, progressive Europe

Here Here, the dream is still possible!!

The atmosphere of threats, disception and promoted ignorance of the facts e,g, 'Vote Yes for Europe':rolleyes: by the campaign only highlights the way that Eurocrats have become divorced from the wishes of european citizens.

A Yes vote only shows that europe is not capable of better.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote: »

That's exactly my point: I don't trust our politicians to enact laws for us.

Without that trust, it's impossible to accept any argument they make without referencing the source documentation oneself and I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that.

Thats a total cop out! It is possible to form an opinion without listening to politicians.

That aside If you don't vote you should loose your right to complain about the outcome. Or at least the right to have people listen to you when you do

mcaul

Sleepy wrote: »

Without that trust, it's impossible to accept any argument they make without referencing the source documentation oneself and I'm afraid I don't have the time to do that.

In life you simply have to put trust in certain matters, basic fair play & decency comes into play. I like many others have not read the Lisbon Treaty from cover to cover, but generally I trust the vast majority of politicians & civil servants who say that this is good for Ireland - if it was proved otherwise, they would be out of their well paid jobs at the next election.

It sort of reminds me of the Satus of Children act in 1987. My father was the main gatherer & writer of the particular piece of legislation. At home there were probably about 12 files boxes of his writings and these were whittled down to a 200 page or so document which was the legislation. This again was whitled down to a short version of about 30 pages and the actual wording in law is about 12 lines. - I doubt if anyone has ever read the 12 boxes of writings, very few would have read the 200 page legal document and only students of law would have read the 30 page abridged version. -

Same with the lisbon treaty - the No campaign know that nobody is going to read the full treaty and I doubt if anyone other than one or two from the no campaign themselves have read it, and this means they can play on peoples fears.

If there's a no vote will Libertas be around to watch the problems it will cause? - I doubt it - they'll be back in the USA selling stuff to the US military (this is what they do). As for sinnfein, they only have a small proportion of the electorate who support them and with the greatest respect, the majority of these have very little inetrest in the EU and how it affects Ireland.

angelfire9

malice_ wrote: »

I'm voting No basically as a Fuck You to the government.

The Local elections are in 12months time, perfect opportunity to stick it to the government if you so wish
Lisbon is NOT the time to do it, it is not a "government" issue, it has support from all parties except Sinn Fein
Voting No just because FF have asked you to vote yes is silly IMHO

DOCARCH wrote: »

I would like to vote yes, for the communal good of Europe - however I really feel that the 'Treaty' is confusinly devious!

There is tonnes of information out there to explain it, i don't think it was written to deliberately confuse, but like all pieces of Legislation (irish or otherwise) there is lots of legal gooblygook in it which is why the Referendum Commission's independent guide to Lisbon is so useful

JodJunior wrote: »

PEOPLE DIED FOR YOUR FREEDOM - like paddy parse and james connoly if ye vote yes that rising of 1916 was nothing - VOTE NO

That is total CRAP IMHO, as a relative of 2 persons who would have supported Pearse, Connolly et al (one in 1916, 1 in 1922) i am voting a definite YES to Lisbon, this argument does not have any real basis cos nobody knows what the 1916 leaders would think of the modern Europe, it would have been beyond comprehension in 1916!

PrivateEye wrote: »

just how we're going to stay "at the heart of Europe" by
a)losing a commisionare for 5 years at a time
b)halving our voting weight.

Well...
a) We lose it anyway in 2014 so that is not a reason to vote against Lisbon
b) Not actually true, read the info again!!

PrivateEye wrote: »

*Nations "obliged" to assist each other in the event of terrorist attacks for example. What exactly qualifies as a terrorist attack, or an obligation?

Ireland will be oblidged to provide humanitarian assistance but not military

PrivateEye wrote: »

*450 million people without a vote...thats not democracy. France and Holland voted no to the bast majority of this document.

The document was changed, the Lisbon Treaty is NOT the EU Constitution

Sleepy wrote: »

As I don't have a week of free time to get through the text, I'm abstaining as I refuse to cast an uneducated vote.

I consider this a pity considering that we have known for some time that the referendum was to be held on June 12th, and information has been floating around for weeks on it!

johnnyq

angelfire wrote:

The document was changed, the Lisbon Treaty is NOT the EU Constitution

Oh dear, hasn't anyone told you that cosmetic changes are not the same as changes in substance.;)

A document which talks, walks and looks like the rejected EU constitution certainly appears like the aformentioned rejected document.

Everyone agrees that it is 96% plus the same.......

Here, I fixed your quote for you

angelfire wrote:

The document's name was changed

nesf

I'll be voting yes, though I honestly think we shouldn't have to ratify stuff like this through referendum, it's not a very good way of judging the value of complex international treaties. Little good can come from bringing documents as complex as this to plebiscite, it's just too easy for both sides to lie and scaremonger.

johnnyq

nesf wrote: »

I'll be voting yes, though I honestly think we shouldn't have to ratify stuff like this through referendum, it's not a very good way of judging the value of complex international treaties. Little good can come from bringing documents as complex as this to plebiscite, it's just too easy for both sides to lie and scaremonger.

I would have liked if the different aspects were broken down under different headings (no more than 10), because there really are some very good and very bad aspects to this treaty.

E,g, I would like to vote yes to the climate change proposal but not at the expense of different injustices in my view.

At least then, what everyone in europe (majoraly) agrees with would go forward with true democratic backing - a true role model for the rest of the world.

The Volt

I would vote yes but I didnt register in time

Fanny Cradock

I'm still undecided but I'm 70% in the 'NO' camp at the mo. I need to do a little reading before Thursday.

darc

Hi

I'm voting yes. I've read over the years about Declan Ganley and you would find it hard pressed to find a shadier character. He does not want a strong Europe and his organisation does not permit outsiders join it. All members & directors are hand chosen and paid for by Rivida, a company that has direct links with the military in America.

Here's a very detailed article on him and his friend Ulick Mc Evaddy, who also has key business interests with the uS Military.

Ganley is even on record wanting Knock airport to be used as a US military base!
http://www.wsm.ie/news_viewer/3946

Irish and Proud

darc wrote: »

Hi

I'm voting yes. I've read over the years about Declan Ganley and you would find it hard pressed to find a shadier character. He does not want a strong Europe and his organisation does not permit outsiders join it. All members & directors are hand chosen and paid for by Rivida, a company that has direct links with the military in America.

Here's a very detailed article on him and his friend Ulick Mc Evaddy, who also has key business interests with the uS Military.

Ganley is even on record wanting Knock airport to be used as a US military base!
http://www.wsm.ie/news_viewer/3946

...yeah! Let's look at the YES camp to see an example of good honest campaigning practices - sure they'd never dream of telling lies in public! :rolleyes:

...Oh, and they'd never dream of suppressing alternative viewpoints, or threatening the public in fear of an undesired referendum result! :rolleyes:

...Oh, and Brian Cowen would never issue threats against his party, but Enda Kenny is doing what FG always said they'd do - oppose the government for it's their job. FG are really giving Brian Cowen a hard time over his 'alleged' gagging practices! :rolleyes:

Wake Up Mate! :mad:

PrivateEye

^The link above, the WSM, they're campaigning for a No vote.

their arguement really is that 'my enemies enemy is not my friend'

in other words:
no to Ganley, no to Lisbon.

I'm voting no, but I don't like my company on this side of the fence.
Saying that, I'd be the same either way.

Fianna Fail family, cant bring ourselves to pass this thing. Far too open to interpretation, and it wont be us interpreting it either. We've a good deal in Europe right now, let's protect that. Plus, the French and Dutch public already rejected the vast majority of this thing. Party politics don't apply here.

Votez Non :cool:

HydeRoad

So Ganley has an agenda. Surprise, surprise, so has everybody with any influence in this country. That's my point. You can't trust anything you read or hear. Well, follow the links at the bottom of that link, and there's more reasons to vote NO.

Are we SURE these people have our interests at heart? I'm not. Definitely not. I'm bloody sure Ireland is well down the list of Europe's priorities, ratification or no ratification. Our own damned politicians don't even have Irish people's best interests at heart, so I despair to wonder what Europe thinks. We are little fish.

I'm sorry to say lads, despite all your best efforts, the more I read, the more I despair at the honesty of ANY of it. And while I'm sure the treaty has it's worth, I CANNOT be sure there's no agenda behind it, no more than there's an agenda behind everything, and seldom with ordinary people's interests at heart. Certainly, FF do NOTHING that doesn't have a hidden agenda, and at least we have the advantage of proximity where they are concerned...

So failing anything decisive on either side, I'm still a NO, but pending...

Leaderbored

Bernard Kouchner's threatening comments have gone a considerable way towards pushing me towards a No vote.

Frankly , it's difficult enough to get through the material without some Gallic Fat Tony making "You have become used to our lovely European money, which we in the past have generously given you...Why do you now disrespect us like this with your voting of No? It would be a shame if ..."something" happened to your country because of this...." type veiled threats.

Git.

kippy

Sorry to go off topic here, but why are 15% of the total poll so far not going to vote at all?
Kippy

Kold

Where's the undecided but can't make the journey down the country to vote anyway option?

Leaderbored

kippy wrote: »

Sorry to go off topic here, but why are 15% of the total poll so far not going to vote at all?
Kippy

1. Apathetic? (That'd be ironic, considering they'd be voting in a poll to say they cant be arsed voting...)

2. A bit mad and just like the clicky buttons on internet polls?

3. A collective of the ineligible - Unregistered / living abroad / underage / non-Irish citizens etc?

Im going with the third option, but it's quite possibly a combination of all 3.

junkyard

I'm voting no because I sick and tired of being told what to do by the EU, way too much red tape and rules and regulations. If it's a yes vote that wins I'm out of here!

thebaldsoprano

Silly catchphrases aside, I'm voting no because the only reliable and half understandable info I could find is the amendment to the Constitution.

Currently if the politicians (them) want to change it they have to ask the electorate (us) to do so.

If the change on Thursday goes through, they will be able to change it without asking us.

Kinda defeats the purpose of having a constitution in the first place!

Anyways, if you don't believe me that's great, go and make up your own mind, the amendment and the Lisbon Treaty are available for download on the Referendum Commission's site.

The Constitution change is easy enough to read, the Treaty is a little bit complicated though...

Redhairedguy

I'm voting No, cause the voices in my head tell me so....