Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

full text of lisbon2?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I think the expression 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink' is very apt to explain what happened with the first referendum. What the government and the Yes need to do this time is hook the horse up to IV fluids and force hydrate.


  • Options
    #93
    Dob74
    Registered Users Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭Dob74


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    A poll commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and conducted the month after the referendum indicated that:

    The main reason for abstaining in this referendum was lack of understanding/knowledge (46%), which is far in excess of any other voluntary or circumstantial reason given for not voting.

    The main reason cited for voting No was ‘lack of knowledge/information/ understanding’ at 42%. There can be little doubt that this emerged as the primary reason for people voting No.


    http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/post%20lisbon%20treaty%20referendum%20research%20findings_sept08.pdf

    A total of 752,451 people voted in favour of the treaty and 862,415 voted against. Turnout was 53%.

    Combining this with the opinion poll result we can conclude that 658,743 voters abstained and 362,143 voted "No" because they didn't understand what they were being asked to vote on. (The typical margin of error in these polls is plus or minus 3 percentage points.)

    The text of the consolidated treaties was published on 15/04/08, almost two months before the referendum. Apparently, either these million odd voters did not find it informative enough, or they were too feckin' thick to pay attention to it. (And of course, on his own admission, the Taoiseach is among the voters who didn't read the Treaty in its entirety.)

    Either way, the proposition that the consolidated text has resolved or can resolve the problem of public understanding of the Lisbon treaty is clearly shown to be false by these poll results.


    Thats what the gov tried to spin. The main difference was people attitude towards immigration.(table 8, the raw data is on the millward Brown website)
    There is little difference between yes and no voters, immigration is the issue.
    The government does not have the balls to take on the issue.


  • Options
    #94
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Dob74 wrote: »
    Thats what the gov tried to spin. The main difference was people attitude towards immigration.(table 8, the raw data is on the millward Brown website)
    There is little difference between yes and no voters, immigration is the issue.
    The government does not have the balls to take on the issue.
    What issue? If the issue is with immigration of other EU citizens, then the people who have an issue with it are opposed to one of the core principles of the EU. If the issue is with immigration of non-EU citizens, then it has nothing whatsoever to do with Lisbon.

    Assuming it's the former: looks like the standard me me me approach to the EU: we want structural funds and free trade, but we don't want those mythical Eurocrats telling us what to do and those nasty foreigners tekkin ur jawbs.


  • Options
    #95
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    A poll commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and conducted the month after the referendum indicated that:

    The main reason for abstaining in this referendum was lack of understanding/knowledge (46%), which is far in excess of any other voluntary or circumstantial reason given for not voting.

    The main reason cited for voting No was ‘lack of knowledge/information/ understanding’ at 42%. There can be little doubt that this emerged as the primary reason for people voting No.


    http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/post%20lisbon%20treaty%20referendum%20research%20findings_sept08.pdf

    A total of 752,451 people voted in favour of the treaty and 862,415 voted against. Turnout was 53%.

    Combining this with the opinion poll result we can conclude that 658,743 voters abstained and 362,143 voted "No" because they didn't understand what they were being asked to vote on. (The typical margin of error in these polls is plus or minus 3 percentage points.)

    The text of the consolidated treaties was published on 15/04/08, almost two months before the referendum. Apparently, either these million odd voters did not find it informative enough, or they were too feckin' thick to pay attention to it. (And of course, on his own admission, the Taoiseach is among the voters who didn't read the Treaty in its entirety.)

    Either way, the proposition that the consolidated text has resolved or can resolve the problem of public understanding of the Lisbon treaty is clearly shown to be false by these poll results.

    UPDATE: Actually, I see the Institute of International and European Affairs published the consolidated text on 14/02/08 - four months before the referendum!

    Most of the electorate probably weren't aware that the text of the consolidated treaties were available. Even if they were, it doesn't follow that they would sit down and read them.

    Criticism probably should be fairly leveled at the Referendum Commission for failing to highlight the availability of the consolidated text.

    That said, it is hard to make the case that the result constitutes an endorsement by the electorate of either side, if the post-vote polls indicate such widespread lack of knowledge about what people were actually voting on.


  • Options
    #96
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What issue? If the issue is with immigration of other EU citizens, then the people who have an issue with it are opposed to one of the core principles of the EU. If the issue is with immigration of non-EU citizens, then it has nothing whatsoever to do with Lisbon.

    Actually Lisbon does nothing to restrict or loosen rules on immigration, so there's very little that could be done to address that.

    I was talking to a solicitor acquaintance at a wedding coming up to the vote, he was giving every reason in the world why we has voting no, from corporation tax to neutrality. Eventually after a few jars he admitted it was because of the 'eastern europeans taking Irish jobs', when I pointed out that Lisbon has nothing to do with immigration one way or another, the only response was 'yeah but it's already gone too far, enough is enough', completely illogical, but that's racists for you (by his own admission he is one).

    Funnily enough I didn't see him queuing up for a job scrubbing sh*t out of a toilet when he graduated from Blackhall Place, so I'm not sure what jobs he thinks the immigrants are taking off him...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Dob74 wrote: »
    Thats what the gov tried to spin. The main difference was people attitude towards immigration.(table 8, the raw data is on the millward Brown website)
    There is little difference between yes and no voters, immigration is the issue.
    The government does not have the balls to take on the issue.

    The only way the government can "take on the issue" in relation to EU and EEA citizens is by deciding that Ireland shall leave the EU. They are not in a rush to do that and I doubt the electorate would appreciate it if they did.


  • Options
    #98
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Dob74 wrote: »
    The main difference was people attitude towards immigration.(table 8, the raw data is on the millward Brown website)
    There is little difference between yes and no voters, immigration is the issue.
    Is it? Millward Brown don't seem to think so:
    We examined the issue of immigration to explore its impact on voter decisions. At a spontaneous level it did not really materialise as an issue for either Yes, or more particularly No voters. It can therefore be assumed that it did not factor greatly in voters’ decision making at an overt level.


  • Options
    #99
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    View wrote: »
    Most of the electorate probably weren't aware that the text of the consolidated treaties were available. Even if they were, it doesn't follow that they would sit down and read them.

    Criticism probably should be fairly leveled at the Referendum Commission for failing to highlight the availability of the consolidated text.

    A number of posters here have asserted there is no problem with comprehensibility of the Lisbon Treaty, citing the availability of the consolidated text. It's clear that its availability didn't assist the million or so Irish voters who abstained or voted no on grounds of lack of understanding. According to sink, these people are "feckin thick" - all million of them.

    Criticism should be even more fairly levelled at our Taoiseach and EU Commissioner who both said they hadn't read the treaty and yet felt free to tell us we should trust them and vote for it.


  • Options
    #100
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Criticism should be even more fairly levelled at our Taoiseach and EU Commissioner who both said they hadn't read the treaty and yet felt free to tell us we should trust them and vote for it.

    I dont think you'll get many who will disagree with that aspect of the debate.


  • Options
    #101
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    A number of posters here have asserted there is no problem with comprehensibility of the Lisbon Treaty, citing the availability of the consolidated text. It's clear that its availability didn't assist the million or so Irish voters who abstained or voted no on grounds of lack of understanding. According to sink, these people are "feckin thick" - all million of them.
    How would you rate the Lisbon treaty for readability compared to (say) Nice, Maastricht and Amsterdam?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    How would you rate the Lisbon treaty for readability compared to (say) Nice, Maastricht and Amsterdam?

    The point is not how I personally rate it for readability.

    The point is that numerous insiders like Giscard d'Estaing say that it is unreadable for the ordinary citizen. His view is borne out by the results of the DFA's opinion poll.

    Other insiders like Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, and Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister, tell us that this unreadability was not just an unfortunate side effect but a deliberate goal of the drafters, to obfuscate the fact that Lisbon is to all intents and purposes the same as the Constitution. Again, not my opinion - their opinion.


  • Options
    #103
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    The point is not how I personally rate it for readability.

    The point is that numerous insiders like Giscard d'Estaing say that it is unreadable for the ordinary citizen. His view is borne out by the results of the DFA's opinion poll.
    Fine, we've established that the Lisbon treaty, taken in isolation, is a difficult document to read. The point I'm driving at is that such is the nature of complex international treaties in general, and most definitely of amending treaties to existing complex international treaties in particular.

    Now, unless you subscribe to the Libertas-esque intelligence-insulting idea that the EU can be run on a 25-page treaty (which I've yet to see them draft), you either need to accept that such complexity is unfortunate but necessary, or explain why all of a sudden a complex and unreadable Lisbon treaty is anti-democratic and evil, whereas the complex and unreadable Nice, Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties were perfectly acceptable.
    Other insiders like Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, and Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister, tell us that this unreadability was not just an unfortunate side effect but a deliberate goal of the drafters, to obfuscate the fact that Lisbon is to all intents and purposes the same as the Constitution. Again, not my opinion - their opinion.
    An opinion you seem only too happy to subscribe to - possibly because it coincides with your own preconceptions?

    You've yet to explain what is to be gained by drawing up a treaty that is difficult to read in itself, and then publishing the consolidated versions of the treaties, which completely defeats the alleged purpose of making the treaty unreadable in the first place.


  • Options
    #104
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    A number of posters here have asserted there is no problem with comprehensibility of the Lisbon Treaty, citing the availability of the consolidated text. It's clear that its availability didn't assist the million or so Irish voters who abstained or voted no on grounds of lack of understanding. According to sink, these people are "feckin thick" - all million of them.
    If anyone is implying that the Irish electorate is “thick”, it’s you, with your constant ramblings about an unreadable text.

    Just out of curiosity; the one million people you refer to above – how many of them tried to read the text?
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    The point is not how I personally rate it for readability.

    The point is that numerous insiders like Giscard d'Estaing say that it is unreadable for the ordinary citizen.
    Whether you (or anyone else) can read the text or not is totally irrelevant because some French lad has (apparently) stated that it is totally unreadable?!? Oh and could you define what an “ordinary citizen” is please?


  • Options
    #105
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    A number of posters here have asserted there is no problem with comprehensibility of the Lisbon Treaty, citing the availability of the consolidated text. It's clear that its availability didn't assist the million or so Irish voters who abstained or voted no on grounds of lack of understanding.

    As I stated, most of the electorate probably weren't aware of the existence of the Consolidated Treaties texts. I'd personally suspect that most members of the electorate would rather walk over hot coals than sit down and read all the way through either Lisbon or the consolidated treaties. Then again, maybe I am wrong and that is really what the electorate wants to do...
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Criticism should be even more fairly levelled at our Taoiseach and EU Commissioner who both said they hadn't read the treaty and yet felt free to tell us we should trust them and vote for it.

    Well, I won't necessarily disagree with you there but ultimately what matters is the contents of the consolidated post-Lisbon EU Treaties. It is that which the judges use when making their rulings, not what politicans A, B, C or D said.

    Who today remembers what the politicans campaigning for and against Bunreacht na hEireann said? Who cares for that matter? Or, even knows, that there was no legal mechanism in the 1922 Free State Constitution to repeal it and replace it with a new Constitution? And the dubious method that Dev used with the Supreme Court Justices to deal with any potential legal problem in this area?


  • Options
    #106
    conchubhar1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭conchubhar1


    wow - that is a sizeable proportion of discussion that i only glazed over

    anywhoo, thanks all


    what i will be doing, as per advice i got here (fantastic btb), is reading the condensed version and then if i see something i dislike or like extremely i will trace it up to see whether it is new or old.

    but, election of MEP and local elections is more important for the next 10 days or so....

    again thanks all, mainly sink, scofflaw and blitzkrieg - but all who helped.
    cheers.


Advertisement