Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

Daftendirekt

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Common sense would seem to dictate that you should educate yourself as to the full ramifications of the contract before deciding whether you want to sign, no?

ditto,because I doubt you have read,digested and understand all 300, or thereabout, pages of it.

ixtlan

Deleted User wrote: »

Status Quo, best to leave things as they are rather than venture out into unknown territory which is essentially what a Yes will bring.

Surely a No vote is a venture into unknown territory? Never before has a treaty been stopped completely. It's absolutely true that nothing can be agreed unless we agree, but are you really sure that all the other states will be happy to throw away the last 7 years of negotiation and start from scratch with only a very vague idea of why people have voted this way? Why bother starting from scratch when there is no reason to assume that 5 years down the line the Irish would approve the next attempt?

The Status Quo for the EU is continual reform and development. Nice is not the Status Quo.

Deleted User wrote: »

Since the majority of people who voted no did so because of the reasons outlined in my post above there are plenty of moderates out there. However the moderates are not as motivated to form a lobby group therefore I do not see anyone representing us. We do not need a pressure group to campaign on our behalf.

The treaty is unnecessary, end of story.

The reasons being lack of clarity/loss of sovereignty?

Lack of clarity is something you need to work on. I know you are a smart guy/gal. Many people are ignoring the treaty completely. You are engaging in a discussion. It's not that complex. I refuse to believe that you cannot understand it. Maybe you don't agree, which is fine, but don't be saying you are voting no due to lack of clarity.

As for loss of sovereignty, I can see you point. I disagree with it but I understand it. However what I would say here is that it's not good enough for you to stand back and vaguely assert this, while saying that you don't need a pressure group. As someone getting involved in the debate you should be creating a pressure group, a political party, talking to your MEPs ... whatever. Then we could have an honest debate about the disadvantages or advantages of the sovereignty we have given up and balance those against the power we have gained over the other states that gave up part of their sovereignty.

Ix.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

You mentioned in an earlier post that this ‘concern’ had not been addressed; how exactly do you propose to address the electorate’s lack of understanding?

I dont, its not my job to do so. Nor do I have a vested interest in seeing the treaty pass.

djpbarry wrote: »

No merits whatsoever? There is not one single positive you could take from the treaty?

None that have been communicated to me.

djpbarry wrote: »

Perhaps you could outline what will happen in the event that a ‘No’ vote is returned?

Nothing will change, thats the beauty about a No vote. Its a lot safer than a Yes.
However I have a sneaking suspicion that they will find a way to implement it against the democratic wishes of the people.
All I have to do is point to the EU constition and the French and Dutch votes to prove that.

Eire_prince

I have a sneaking suspicion that they will find a way to implement it against the democratic wishes of the people.

think the green party showed biffo how it could be done at the weekend, again a major shift in the green policies, according to news there was 2 votes 1 was ditched due to insufficient support to pass the motion

PopeBuckfastXVI

Deleted User wrote: »

Well my heart bleeds for them...I'll trust my common sense above eurocrats any day.

And if you want to sign a contract which you do not understand the full ramifications of then good luck to you sir!

ps. I have a bridge for sale,real cheap,would look great on your lawn mister. Just sign here and its all yours

I've a fair idea of the ramifications, and I know that there hasn't yet been a treaty that's brought in more bad than good, in my opinion, despite all hysterical claims to the contrary.

So you can keep your bridge thanks, perhaps you should try selling it to some pigeon who uses 'common sense' to value things, rather than educating themselves, or at the very least taking the advice of an expert in the field of bridge sales.

djpbarry

Deleted User wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

You mentioned in an earlier post that this ‘concern’ had not been addressed; how exactly do you propose to address the electorate’s lack of understanding?

I dont, its not my job to do so.

I was obviously speaking hypothetically – how do you think this ‘concern’ could be addressed?

Deleted User wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

No merits whatsoever? There is not one single positive you could take from the treaty?

None that have been communicated to me.

Communicated by whom? Surely you must have read some form of literature on the treaty at some point over the last 18 months (if not the treaty itself)?

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing will change, thats the beauty about a No vote.

Nothing at all? So if we vote ‘No’ to Lisbon a second time, the EU will never draft another treaty ever again? It will continue to exist in its current form for ever and ever and ever?

rumour

darkman2 wrote: »

October 2nd is the date - how do you intend to vote?

Question is am I allowed exercise my democratic right? Or am i repeatedly going to be asked to give the required answer. What is the point.

Also I like to think I know a bit of history and I cannot help, but compare this to the last time Ireland signed an act of union with the then major power. The whole political class at that time advocated the idea. Curiously 40 years later ireland faced a famine due to 'economic circumstances'. So I ask myself are we protected against that happening again? Answer haven't a clue.

Where are the gaurantees or where is the security that little old Ireland will be able to manage its own affairs. Are we being annexed to the greater good of the EC complex at Brussels?

Can someone help me with this?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hi Rumour,

Well it's 36 years now since we joined up, so we've about 4 years till the panini blight kicks in and kills the country by your estimation. Start stocking up on the canned fois gras now so...

Furious-Dave

rumour wrote: »

Question is am I allowed exercise my democratic right?

Yes you are. You are being allowed to vote. You don't have to if you don't want to. There is a major difference between being denied your democratic right and simply being inconvenienced.

Eire_prince

on how democratic rights being denied, as there was 51% of the population democratic right denied by the government who took it upon themself to turn and say the people didnt know what they were voting for, ah bless their hearts, but at the end of the day democracy spoke.

would the governement get away with the same argument if this vote was for a general, presidential, european or local election. could see a riot if fine gael wins next election then biffo says nah the people didnt know what they were voting for.

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Yes you are. You are being allowed to vote. You don't have to if you don't want to. There is a major difference between being denied your democratic right and simply being inconvenienced.

turgon

Eire_prince wrote: »

on how democratic rights being denied, as there was 51% of the population democratic right denied by the government

But theres nothing stopping this 51% voting No again is there?

Furious-Dave

Eire_prince wrote: »

on how democratic rights being denied, as there was 51% of the population democratic right denied by the government who took it upon themself to turn and say the people didnt know what they were voting for, ah bless their hearts, but at the end of the day demcrocay spoke.

would the governement get away with the same argument if this vote was for a general, presidential, european or local election. could see a riot if fine gael wins next election then biffo says nah the people didnt know what they were voting for.

Or maybe the Government actually believe that the Lisbon Treaty is the correct way forward for Ireland in terms of the EU and want to be sure that people are voting based on facts as opposed to lies, as they did in the first referendum. Do you honestly believe that our Government would lead Ireland down a route that was less democratic than what we have now? They would also stand to loose from such an action.

turgon wrote: »

But theres nothing stopping this 51% voting No again is there?

Exactly. Though some seem to believe that the Government will continue to have referenda until they get a 'Yes':rolleyes:

PopeBuckfastXVI

Eire_prince wrote: »

would the governement get away with the same argument if this vote was for a general, presidential, european or local election. could see a riot if fine gael wins next election then biffo says nah the people didnt know what they were voting for.

At the risk of being curt, they are entitled by law, and the constitution to hold as many referenda on as many or the same subject as they wish.

If you have a problem with that you are faced with two choices:
You seek to have the constitution amended to prevent this, or you vote for a party that promises not to have referenda on the same issue.

Your hypothetical government attempting to rerun a general, presidential, European or local election would be acting illegally, this government, in this instance, is not.

RandomName2

turgon wrote: »

But theres nothing stopping this 51% voting No again is there?

But there's nothing stopping the government from having another referendum again is there?

You do not seem to see the implication whereby the Irish vote is seen as something to get around, rather than respect.

Furious-Dave

RandomName2 wrote: »

But there's nothing stopping the government from having another referendum again is there?

Except funding and ruining any chance of re-election in the next general election, though I think they have already done that. I have said it before that I would prefer to have a general election before the next Lisbon referendum, but that obviously can't happen.

RandomName2 wrote: »

You do not seem to see the implication whereby the Irish vote is seen as something to get around, rather than respect.

When a lot people voted based on lies and misinformation why should we respect their votes? Because of democracy? I for one fully respect the No vote of those who voted based on facts and legitimate concerns, but I will not accept the result of a referendum that was clearly swayed by lies and propaganda.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

But there's nothing stopping the government from having another referendum again is there?

You do not seem to see the implication whereby the Irish vote is seen as something to get around, rather than respect.

They're not alternatives, though. The government has to ask us for permission to do something, and the only meaningful thing the government has to do about a No vote is not do whatever it was asking permission to do. A No vote doesn't stop them in their tracks, and a Yes vote doesn't require them to carry the thing out.

If you're dealing with children, you might require them to "respect" your refusal by not repeating the request. Between adults, it is more common to seek what can be done to get a favourable response, and try at least once more, assuming, that is, that the matter is important.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

RandomName2 wrote: »

But there's nothing stopping the government from having another referendum again is there?

Of course not. But remember if No to Lisbon is really the will of the people (as you claim) then a second referendum will simply return the same result. So whats your problem?

RandomName2

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Or maybe the Government actually believe that the Lisbon Treaty is the correct way forward for Ireland in terms of the EU [...] Do you honestly believe that our Government would lead Ireland down a route that was less democratic than what we have now? They would also stand to loose from such an action.

This is something that I have been trying to work out. Why would a government support a loss in sovereignty?

Each of the 27 European states thet joined, lost sovereignty to the European Suprastate, but this had a very large economic pay-off. Besides which, a loss of sovereignty is seperate from economics, and there were good grounds to believe that the European Community would continue to be principally focused on economic matters.

Of course, this has proven false in the long run. Mind you, there is not much that can be done about that retrospectively (and besides which the EU is not overly powerful at the moment). But why would a government support further erosions of sovereignty?

Well, I believe that it is principally the public whose power is being eroded, and that of the aparatus of state, rather than the governments per se.

Am I spiltting hairs? Besides which, the democratic Parliament is being granted greater powers. And what's more, the governments represent the people.

Represent... hmmm... and therin lies the rub? Let's look at the set-up.

We've got a government in Ireland or England. Fianna Fail or Labour, whatever. And these governments have general elections every few years, at which point they can be booted out by the public or reelected. It's a state-sized issue. Labour do a bad job at managing the UK, so the UK ditches them. Pretty straight-forward.

But there's more to Labour or Fianna Fail than just that. There's the Consilium, there's membership of PES (or ALDE, or whatever), there's the Commission. Loss of sovereignty does not mean loss of power for the government party, as the power is still there, just siphoned off to institutions which the party is a part of. Okay, the party may not have absolute control of any of these institutions, but it can still partake in the authority exercised by them. Their main occupation has to be maintaining a strong grip at home, mainly by keeping the economy healthy, and everything else is plain sailing.

Lisbon makes the institutions of the EU churn out legislation with greater ease. There is nothing in this which makes governmental parties honest brokers. Perhaps it's generally looney parties that are opposed to Lisbon precisely because such minority parties are never likely to be able to take a slice of this European legislative cake. With more power taken away from state government, and located instead in the supranational body, the main legislative power being exercised is increasingly divorced from the electorate whoose vote is by extension predicated on a narrower and narrower criteria of local politics (as more widescale legislation is located in Brussels). Even the Parliamentary Elections are extensions of local and General elections, meaning that those elected to Europe will be voted for based upon the state of their retrospective parties at home. There is no pan-European issues brought before the public. It suits the major parties for politics to be local (their bread and butter), which makes their party aims clearly definable and manageable, whilst seperating the public from the bodies where more power is being invested.

So yeah... every governmental party in Europe supports Lisbon. They would be mad not to :rolleyes:.

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Though some seem to believe that the Government will continue to have referenda until they get a 'Yes':rolleyes:

Well... that's what is happening, isn't it?

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

This is something that I have been trying to work out. Why would a government support a loss in sovereignty?

Rather an important question, for those who believe the EU is on its way to a superstate.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Each of the 27 European states thet joined, lost sovereignty to the European Suprastate, but this had a very large economic pay-off. Besides which, a loss of sovereignty is seperate from economics, and there were good grounds to believe that the European Community would continue to be principally focused on economic matters.

It still is principally focused on economic matters, despite the political rationale. In fact the member states have been extremely wary of using the EU as a framework for political decisions, which is why we have a functioning common market but only an embryonic common foreign policy.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Of course, this has proven false in the long run. Mind you, there is not much that can be done about that retrospectively (and besides which the EU is not overly powerful at the moment). But why would a government support further erosions of sovereignty?

Well, I believe that it is principally the public whose power is being eroded, and that of the apparatus of state, rather than the governments per se.

Am I spiltting hairs? Besides which, the democratic Parliament is being granted greater powers. And what's more, the governments represent the people.

Represent... hmmm... and therin lies the rub? Let's look at the set-up.

We've got a government in Ireland or England. Fianna Fail or Labour, whatever. And these governments have general elections every few years, at which point they can be booted out by the public or reelected. It's a state-sized issue. Labour do a bad job at managing the UK, so the UK ditches them. Pretty straight-forward.

But there's more to Labour or Fianna Fail than just that. There's the Consilium, there's membership of PES (or ALDE, or whatever), there's the Commission. Loss of sovereignty does not mean loss of power for the government party, as the power is still there, just siphoned off to institutions which the party is a part of.

Except that government parties are not set in stone. Even here they change - and in other countries they actually change quite regularly. If we take FF, they have 3 members of ALDE. They won't be on the Council unless they're in government, and they won't appoint the 1 Commissioner. So the minute they're out of government, they have next to no influence. If we take FG, the same - 4 MEPs, no Council presence, no appointment of Commissioner - yet they support the EU more strongly than FF.

Okay, the party may not have absolute control of any of these institutions, but it can still partake in the authority exercised by them. Their main occupation has to be maintaining a strong grip at home, mainly by keeping the economy healthy, and everything else is plain sailing.

Until they're dumped out of office by the electorate.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Lisbon makes the institutions of the EU churn out legislation with greater ease. There is nothing in this which makes governmental parties honest brokers. Perhaps it's generally looney parties that are opposed to Lisbon precisely because such minority parties are never likely to be able to take a slice of this European legislative cake. With more power taken away from state government, and located instead in the supranational body, the main legislative power being exercised is increasingly divorced from the electorate whoose vote is by extension predicated on a narrower and narrower criteria of local politics (as more widescale legislation is located in Brussels). Even the Parliamentary Elections are extensions of local and General elections, meaning that those elected to Europe will be voted for based upon the state of their retrospective parties at home. There is no pan-European issues brought before the public. It suits the major parties for politics to be local (their bread and butter), which makes their party aims clearly definable and manageable, whilst seperating the public from the bodies where more power is being invested.

So yeah... every governmental party in Europe supports Lisbon. They would be mad not to :rolleyes:.

Assuming they were never ever going to be out of power, sure. Your thesis is incredibly slender, and doesn't account for the support shown for the EU by parties like Fine Gael, who are virtually never in power, and the Lib Dems in the UK, who don't even have a hope of it.

Nor does it account for the simple observation of human nature that says that 99.99% of human beings prefer being able to make their decisions within their group, rather than having to negotiate each one with 26 other such groups.

Nor, while it is immediately appealing as an explanation of the actions of Irish politicians, does it explain the actions of, for example, Scandinavian politicians.

No offence, but your thesis relies on a caricature of politicians as venal fools whose only care is escaping from the burdensome control of their electorates.

Must try harder, but it's still a better theory than simply claiming they're all in it for the money.

What, on the other hand, is wrong with the contrary thesis that (just as is claimed) politicians are adults, actually care about their countries (even if they have utterly misguided ideas or are grossly incompetent), and believe that the best for Ireland (or other country of choice) is actually served by - in the case of some issues - taking decisions at the European level? Mad, eh?


cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Scofflaw wrote: »

What, on the other hand, is wrong with the contrary thesis that (just as is claimed) politicians are adults, actually care about their countries (even if they have utterly misguided ideas or are grossly incompetent), and believe that the best for Ireland (or other country of choice) is actually served by - in the case of some issues - taking decisions at the European level? Mad, eh?

Worth remembering that the most important thing the yes and no side have in common, which probably outweighs every other concern and belief we have, is that we all want what's best for Ireland.

It helps you understand the other persons position if you keep that in mind.

FutureTaoiseach

I hope this poll is what happens on the day.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

cordially,
Scofflaw

Look, I said major parties. I don't think someone in FG would take kindly to you saying they are hardly ever in government. They consider themselves as much governmental material as FF, and for the last 10 years it has been mere circumstance (isn't it always?) which has prevented them from having a majority. Even Labour feel the same way, albeit as a major coalition partner. Anything they do would be with a view to being in government in the near future, no matter what their liklihood of being elected actually is.

I believe that 'the politicians' by-in-large believe that their motives are benign. I just believe that their belief is wrong.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look, I said major parties. I don't think someone in FG would take kindly to you saying they are hardly ever in government. They consider themselves as much governmental material as FF, and for the last 10 years it has been mere circumstance (isn't it always?) which has prevented them from having a majority.

Fine Gael have been in power for all of 18 years in the last 72, and 3 years out of the last 20. They haven't won a general election since 1982.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Even Labour feel the same way, albeit as a major coalition partner. Anything they do would be with a view to being in government in the near future, no matter what their liklihood of being elected actually is.

Labour have almost identical figures to Fine Gael - and still you're only talking about Ireland. Like I said, restricting your view to Ireland gives the theory emotional appeal, but it's frankly a load of bollix, because Ireland is not the EU, and there are literally dozens of minor parties all across Europe with no real hope of a bite of the cherry who still support it - and that's just dealing with the obvious holes.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I believe that 'the politicians' by-in-large believe that their motives are benign. I just believe that their belief is wrong.

Yes, I can see that, and if one believes that politician's are malign, then one is - unsurprisingly - going to find that every representative political body is malign. It's tautological, and rather uninteresting, like assuming all priests are perverts, and putting forward a theory that the Catholic Church is nothing but a 2000-year old paedophile ring, which, in turn, is why all priests are perverts. It doesn't rise above the level of barstool fantasy, and you'd need to be drunk to enjoy it. Taking it seriously is just sad, like any other conspiracy theory.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

Look, I said major parties. I don't think someone in FG would take kindly to you saying they are hardly ever in government. They consider themselves as much governmental material as FF, and for the last 10 years it has been mere circumstance (isn't it always?) which has prevented them from having a majority. Even Labour feel the same way, albeit as a major coalition partner. Anything they do would be with a view to being in government in the near future, no matter what their liklihood of being elected actually is.

I believe that 'the politicians' by-in-large believe that their motives are benign. I just believe that their belief is wrong.

Which "begs the question" (Sorry!), that they just go on what the electorate wants in general policy and so get 80-90% of the vote. I'd include the now defunct PD's and now establishment Greens in that.

SF are even moving towards the center in national politics but like to keep the "radical" image in Local and European elections. It creates as many problems as advantages for them though.

BlitzKrieg

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I hope this poll is what happens on the day.

it could well be or it might not.

comparison with other polls from around boards


a poll in after hours from back in december on lisbon 2 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055438931&highlight=lisbon+poll

That shows *no* leading by over a 100 votes.

but after hours as an example opens up many new discussions. Its a wider cut of different interests and backgrounds while the European Union forum is more likely to attract the extremes of both sides. Equally though after hours would catch a substantial number of people who would be part of that 40-50% of the electorate who on the day will simply not vote.

Also comparing the poll from after hours on the first referendum (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055308262&highlight=lisbon+poll) the numbers are consistent.


But the one that should be most interesting in comparing is the poll from the european union forum for the first lisbon (here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310420&highlight=poll)

At a glance (using the percantages as rough estimates and rounding them up) the only clear change has been the undecided element has shrunk and its support has slightly gone to yes more then no (but only by 1% roughly)

undecided from 6% to 2% yes + not voting but still yes gone from 44% to 46% while No vote + not voting but still no has gone from 51% to 52%

Course this is all just at a glance at percentages, the number of people who took part in each poll and the different selection of options in each poll obviously take alot away from these figures.

So I guess the trend does hint that at the moment if boards.ie was an accurate representation of irish opinion that yes the current figures are somewhat indicating another no vote.

But the key difference between these polls would be that the december lisbon 2 one was at a time when nothing had been confirmed so it is riding heavily off the influence of the first referendum's campaigns.

Which is where the two lisbon 1 polls come in because they are both at the height of the referendum campaign.

Finally the current poll is at the beginning of the new campaign with new confirmations. So really it is coming down quite heavily on how this one is campaigned.

And quite frankly both sides are starting this one with weak hands. On one side we have a detested government always being associated with it, not to mention they ran an absolutly atrocious campaign last time that they are still suffering from. The other side has lost its populist group which could cause serious damage if a proper looney becomes the media's representation (*cough* Coir *cough*).

turgon

Bear in mind we got that invasion from P.ie, which skewed the figures a bit I imagine.

K-9

turgon wrote: »

Bear in mind we got that invasion from P.ie, which skewed the figures a bit I imagine.

Could make it 50/50, which I believe it will be myself. It'll either be as tight as the divorce referendum or at least 55/45 No.

Pride Fighter

turgon wrote: »

Bear in mind we got that invasion from P.ie, which skewed the figures a bit I imagine.

Its an open board, anyone can join that wishes. I went for no, like I did the last time. There is a similar poll of P.ie I think the percentages are similar.

Breezer

Yes. Same as last time, for the same reasons.

rumour

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hi Rumour,

Well it's 36 years now since we joined up, so we've about 4 years till the panini blight kicks in and kills the country by your estimation. Start stocking up on the canned fois gras now so...

lol given the state of the economy it might be sooner!!!

Knowing that were in for hardship either with a yes or a no vote I do not think we should be reduced to being scared into a yes vote.

There is a much more fundamental question here, the eurocrats deliberately chose to let this one loose on Ireland thinking that they would get a yes. This provides legitimacy of sorts to Brussels, is it not wrong for a tiny percentage of europes population to have this choice. Surely all of the people of urope should be allowed cast their vote. Fundamentally this is not democratic and therefore wrong in principle. Why are they afraid to put it to a vote. If the majority of people don't want it surely it is not good or is it an elite who have decided that the public of europe should not be trusted? That is a curious position and does not correlate with the promotion of something good.

I'm still undecided.