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

Agent J

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Given that the postcard contained information, and not exhortation, yes it is a reasonable and fair thing to do. Legal, too.

Oh dodge the rest of the post as well.

I think its legality could be questioned under the crotty judgement because of the intent.Techinically it is outside of the remit because a date hasnt been called but the government would never stoop so low as to hide behind a techinicallity would it.

It is also legal for the government to run a referendum every week on the lisbon treaty until we say yes. Does that mean they should do?

Tell me something. Are you intentionally trolling as you have done on other sites with that name?

Hitman Actual

alphamale 1 wrote: »

Im voting NO after the way FF have run the country into the ground even though I voted YES originally and because of the sneakiness of Brendan Smyth to cut the REPS scheme despite 55 % of the funding coming from Brusels and considering all the spin-off employment and Taxes that is generated, Sorry gone of theme of thread:)

I mite be on the dole becuase of the closure of the

Neither of those reasons are logical. FF will be gone in a couple of years (or earlier), and the replacement party (or parties) will be Pro-EU/Lisbon as well. "Punishing" FF makes no sense.

On the second point, what Brendan Smyth has done is a domestic funding issue, and has nothing to do with the EU. However, the replacement scheme he wants to implement does (from here):

Irish Times wrote:

He also proposed to introduce a new targeted agri-environment measure to be funded by the European Economic Recovery Programme. A decision on the maximum payment to each farmer under the scheme would be taken later in the year, he said.

Negotiating with the other European Agriculture ministers on this issue wont be helped with a No vote on Lisbon.

P. Breathnach

Agent J wrote: »

Oh dodge the rest of the post as well.

I wasn't dodging anything. I thought the rest of the post was no more than rhetorical padding, and I wasn't going to be sidetracked.

I think its legality could be questioned under the crotty judgement because of the intent.Techinically it is outside of the remit because a date hasnt been called but the government would never stoop so low as to hide behind a techinicallity would it.

Then question it. The courts are there for you. I estimate your chances of success are near zero because, as I said, the postcard contained information, not exhortation.

It is also legal for the government to run a referendum every week on the lisbon treaty until we say yes. Does that mean they should do?

That's the sort of thing that I categorise as rhetorical padding, and that I don't get involved with.

Tell me something. Are you intentionally trolling as you have done on other sites with that name?

That's not rhetorical padding: that's just out of order.

Hitman Actual

Agent J wrote: »

I voted No orignally.

My reasons are for the moment irrelevant.

I was considering a change of mind because to be frank right now i dont think the EU could do a worse job then our current government anyway.

However recieving that damn postcard in the mail just annoyed the hell out of me.

"Yes we've recieved all of this stuff which means you can all vote the way we want you to. Europe has listened to our concerns"

If that's the height of the Yes campaign, then you have a right to be pissed off. But there's three months to go- who knows, we might see some sort of a decent information campaign yet. If not, then I might switch sides myself. (Meh, I probably wont do that, tbh, but I might just abstain).

the-island-man

Hitman Actual wrote: »

If that's the height of the Yes campaign, then you have a right to be pissed off. But there's three months to go- who knows, we might see some sort of a decent information campaign yet. If not, then I might switch sides myself. (Meh, I probably wont do that, tbh, but I might just abstain).

I want a lisbon treaty paper with the amendments slotted into the old treaty printed out and sent to everyone in the country and i want it compiled by a completely independant body.

This white paper bullsh** michael martin is going on about is a load of shi*e

Hitman Actual

the-island-man wrote: »

I want a lisbon treaty paper with the amendments slotted into the old treaty printed out and sent to everyone in the country and i want it compiled by a completely independant body.

This white paper bullsh** michael martin is going on about is a load of shi*e

You've read it so? It's linked in one of the Stickies. And if you really believe that it's full of lies, then there's not much anyone can do to change your mind. And it is actually an excellent summary of the Treaty.

Edit to add: If all you want is the Treaty text and the legal guarantees, you can find the consolidated version of Lisbon here, and the EC Council decision (i.e. the guarantees) here.

Scofflaw

Agent J wrote: »

Tell me something. Are you intentionally trolling as you have done on other sites with that name?

You are apparently unaware of the Forum Charter:

Allegations of trollery will not be accepted in-thread - they will be viewed as simply another form of personal attack, and dealt with accordingly. If you believe someone is trolling, and object, then report them as per "Reporting & Moderation above.

It's there for a reason.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Agent J

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I wasn't dodging anything. I thought the rest of the post was no more than rhetorical padding, and I wasn't going to be sidetracked.

By sidetracked do you mean actually engaging with why people are annoyed at being ignored the 1st time?

You raise the point about concerns being met and then ignore the point that the treaty question was a simple yes/ no.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Then question it. The courts are there for you. I estimate your chances of success are near zero because, as I said, the postcard contained information, not exhortation.

Love to except i cant afford a lawyer to do so.

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/

Thats pretty much the postcard right there.

"Following the referendum in June 2008, the Government commissioned research to identify the key concerns behind the No vote. " - Website

"it will come with additional legal guarantees and assurances to address their main concerns." - Postcard

Two quotes from the website referenced on the post card.

How can that be interpreted as anything except for "Vote Yes"?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's the sort of thing that I categorise as rhetorical padding, and that I don't get involved with.

Whereas others would call that cherry picking and only addressing the points you think are the easiest to try and counter while simply ignoring anything that is slightly too difficult for you.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's not rhetorical padding: that's just out of order.

I apologise and withdraw that. I mixed up your name with another from a different site which i thought was similar.The styles has similarities .After checking i see that it is not.
Again I'm sorry and withdraw that previous statement.

K-9

Agent J wrote: »

I think its legality could be questioned under the crotty judgement because of the intent.Techinically it is outside of the remit because a date hasnt been called but the government would never stoop so low as to hide behind a techinicallity would it.

The date has been called.

Look, It's information on the Treaty. Not to your liking obviously, but it is information.

the-island-man wrote:

I want a lisbon treaty paper with the amendments slotted into the old treaty printed out and sent to everyone in the country and i want it compiled by a completely independant body.

This white paper bullsh** michael martin is going on about is a load of shi*e

Do you actually think even 10% of the electorate will read it?

People want a Lisbon for dummies brochure.

Agent J

K-9 wrote: »

The date has been called.

Look, It's information on the Treaty. Not to your liking obviously, but it is information.

The date was called after the postcards were sent.

Its information but it had a blatant bias to it.
Why is the department of foreign affairs sending postcards with "information" about an upcoming treaty?

Isnt that supposed to be the referedum commissions job?

K-9 wrote: »

Do you actually think even 10% of the electorate will read it?
People want a Lisbon for dummies brochure.

I dont think thats a fair statement about what the people want or dont want.

The only think we can say for sure is they didnt want the treaty originally.

K-9

Agent J wrote: »

The date was called after the postcards were sent.

Its information but it had a blatant bias to it.
Why is the department of foreign affairs sending postcards with "information" about an upcoming treaty?

Isnt that supposed to be the referedum commissions job?

What bias? It states the assurances and nothing else?

State what parts are biased please?

Agent J wrote:

I dont think thats a fair statement about what the people want or dont want.

The only think we can say for sure is they didnt want the treaty originally.

I think it is.

Why send out an unreadable Treaty to everybody?

Agent J

K-9 wrote: »

What bias? It states the assurances and nothing else?

State what parts are biased please?

Earlier post

"Following the referendum in June 2008, the Government commissioned research to identify the key concerns behind the No vote. " - Website

"it will come with additional legal guarantees and assurances to address their main concerns." - Postcard

Two quotes from the website referenced on the post card.

How can that be interpreted as anything except for "Vote Yes"?


Also, I restate my point.
Why is the department of foreign affairs doing the job of the referendum commission then?

K-9 wrote: »

I think it is.
Why send out an unreadable Treaty to everybody?

Because you are asking them to vote on it?

K-9

Agent J wrote: »

Earlier post

"Following the referendum in June 2008, the Government commissioned research to identify the key concerns behind the No vote. " - Website

"it will come with additional legal guarantees and assurances to address their main concerns." - Postcard

Two quotes from the website referenced on the post card.

Really, I think you need a time out here.

The first part means little other that we commissioned research, the second part is up to the voter. They are telling them of the extra assurances.

Move along now, nothing to see here. It has been done to death at this stage.

AgentJ wrote:

How can that be interpreted as anything except for "Vote Yes"?

Eh, here is what we got, here it is on black & white.

Where's the part were is says VOTE YES?

AgentJ wrote:

Also, I restate my point.
Why is the department of foreign affairs doing the job of the referendum commission then?

Because the DFA aren't the Referendum Commission?

Yes?

Agent J

K-9 wrote: »

The first part means little other that we commissioned research, the second part is up to the voter. They are telling them of the extra assurances.

Why?

Because they want the people who voted no to change their mind based on their research. That is the logical conclusion of the information presented and how it is presented.

If the government continues your line of arguement and the pretense that it is anything other than that then you are going to completely alienate a lot of people on the fence.

K-9 wrote: »

Because the DFA aren't the Referendum Commission?

Who has the job of providing information on upcoming referendums according to the government?

http://www.refcom.ie/en/

Perhaps you should take a time out yourself while you consider that.

Scofflaw

Agent J wrote: »

Why is the department of foreign affairs sending postcards with "information" about an upcoming treaty?

Possibly because the guarantees are the result of negotiations with other countries? As far as I recall, 'other countries' falls pretty squarely within the DFA remit.

Also, the guarantees have just been concluded. If nothing had been released about them, we'd now be hearing about how they're being 'suppressed'.

Admittedly, I'd rather they'd simply sent out the text of the guarantees, but it seems to be impossible to stop public information campaigns relapsing into this kind of cutesy-folksy dreck...sadly, civil servants all suffer from an acute phobia of being dull, which makes them sitting ducks for unscrupulous designers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agent J

Scofflaw wrote: »

Possibly because the guarantees are the result of negotiations with other countries? As far as I recall, 'other countries' falls pretty squarely within the DFA remit.

But its directly referencing the upcoming referendum and is supposed to be only information about said referednum.

That is squarely the job of the referendum commission not the DFA.

And, I am open to correction on this but i dont recall anything similar from the DFA last time out. Or when the treaty was negoiated in the 1st place.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Admittedly, I'd rather they'd simply sent out the text of the guarantees, but it seems to be impossible to stop public information campaigns relapsing into this kind of cutesy-folksy dreck...sadly, civil servants all suffer from an acute phobia of being dull.

But surely someone in the DFA would have thought that they could be accused of trying to get around the rules on information and funding to both sides on a referendum if they did this before the referendum date was called.

Considering there is only about a week or so in the difference between the postcard being sent out( I only got mine last week) and the date for the referendum being called(The 7th).

Couldnt they have waited a week? Or given it to the refcom to do?
I hardly think waiting a week could be accused of being "surpressed".

Now it just looks to me as if they were trying to get the jump on the date being called and getting around the funding rules.

BlitzKrieg

the-island-man wrote: »

I wasn't agreeing with futuretaoiseach i was pointing out that Scofflaws response was inadequate.
He could have given either of your responses instead he said:

Maybe its just me but i thought that was very condescending.

Futuretaoiseach has been spreading misinformation constantly since he's shown up and refuses to back down when he's proven wrong. This is the third topic (*I think*) he is dragging on endlessly despite having no grounds.


I think Scafflow giving him such a warning only now is bloody generous, as I expected it when he brought in the whole Spain unemployment argument.

BlitzKrieg

on the whole card thing...I only got mine this morning, so cant comment much on when it was put out vs announcement of referendum.

Scofflaw

Agent J wrote: »

But its directly referencing the upcoming referendum and is supposed to be only information about said referednum.

That is squarely the job of the referendum commission not the DFA.

There's actually nothing that restricts the offering of information to the Referendum Commission. Nor anything stopping the various bits of government offering information - indeed, it's their responsibility to do so, and something they usually don't do enough of.

Agent J wrote: »

And, I am open to correction on this but i dont recall anything similar from the DFA last time out. Or when the treaty was negoiated in the 1st place.

There wasn't a postcard drop, if that's what you mean, but the DFA had at least a couple of websites, and a variety of publications explaining the treaty.

Agent J wrote: »

But surely someone in the DFA would have thought that they could be accused of trying to get around the rules on information and funding to both sides on a referendum if they did this before the referendum date was called.

There isn't such a rule. There's the McKenna judgement, which prevents the government from using public funds to campaign for a particular result, and the Coughlan judgement, that requires RTE to give equal time to both sides. People are extremely keen to see in McKenna a judgement that prevents the entire apparatus of the civil service from offering any information relevant to a referendum. It does have that effect to some extent, but only by way of fear. It does not in fact preclude someone like the DFA from issuing information - the test of whether the information issued can be said to be propaganda as opposed to information would be the usual 'reasonable person' test - and the 'reasonable person' will not be a Yes or No proponent. I don't doubt that the DFA considered the matter from a legal perspective - and I don't think it's even vaguely probable that someone would win a case that this postcard constituted propaganda.

Agent J wrote: »

Considering there is only about a week or so in the difference between the postcard being sent out( I only got mine last week) and the date for the referendum being called(The 7th).

Couldnt they have waited a week? Or given it to the refcom to do?
I hardly think waiting a week could be accused of being "surpressed".

Now it just looks to me as if they were trying to get the jump on the date being called and getting around the funding rules.

Or, alternatively, they released the news as soon as they had it (and got some design done). Releasing this, say, 2 weeks before the referendum, would certainly have been unacceptable - looked at in marketing terms, the idea of releasing your 'ad' 3 months before the opportunity to 'buy' is clearly a non-runner.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Possibly because the guarantees are the result of negotiations with other countries? As far as I recall, 'other countries' falls pretty squarely within the DFA remit.

Also, the guarantees have just been concluded. If nothing had been released about them, we'd now be hearing about how they're being 'suppressed'.

Admittedly, I'd rather they'd simply sent out the text of the guarantees, but it seems to be impossible to stop public information campaigns relapsing into this kind of cutesy-folksy dreck...sadly, civil servants all suffer from an acute phobia of being dull, which makes them sitting ducks for unscrupulous designers.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Irish govt statement on workers-rights isn't as a result of "negotiations with the EU".

Agent J

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's actually nothing that restricts the offering of information to the Referendum Commission. Nor anything stopping the various bits of government offering information - indeed, it's their responsibility to do so, and something they usually don't do enough of.

Quite correct. There isn't.
However just because there isnt anything stopping them doesnt mean they actually should especially when that information is suppose to come from one particular part of the government.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There wasn't a postcard drop, if that's what you mean, but the DFA had at least a couple of websites, and a variety of publications explaining the treaty.

I don't recall but will defer on this point.

Scofflaw wrote: »

There isn't such a rule. There's the McKenna judgement, which prevents the government from using public funds to campaign for a particular result,

Which arguably the DFA is doing. Why else is it taking a direct role in providing information which is based on the research of the reasons for the No vote last time?

Thanks though. I get lost as to which exactly ruling/judgement applies to what in this context.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or, alternatively, they released the news as soon as they had it (and got some design done). Releasing this, say, 2 weeks before the referendum, would certainly have been unacceptable - looked at in marketing terms, the idea of releasing your 'ad' 3 months before the opportunity to 'buy' is clearly a non-runner.

In Marketing terms they are now appearing to be 1st out of the blocks on a long term campaign which will last the next 3 months with something with gains attention to stick in the memory as well as get people talking about it.
Only if the 'ad' existed in isolation and there wasnt another 'ad' between now and the product in 3 months would what you are saying make sense.

I'm not and i couldnt pretend to be an impartial reasonable person on this issue. I'm a fence sitter with an increasing lean to the the No side of the fence. What is pushing me more and more to that side is the attempt at pretense that the government is being impartial when to my mind it clearly isn't and i wish it would just be honest about its actions. I also wish that people defending the government would be act likewise and drop the pretense.

K-9

Agent J wrote: »

I'm not and i couldnt pretend to be an impartial reasonable person on this issue. I'm a fence sitter with an increasing lean to the the No side of the fence. What is pushing me more and more to that side is the attempt at pretense that the government is being impartial when to my mind it clearly isn't and i wish it would just be honest about its actions. I also wish that people defending the government would be act likewise and drop the pretense.

The Govt. certainly is not impartial and doesn't have to be.

Again as Scofflaw said, it really depends on if it can be viewed as information or not. No campaigners definitely think it's biased but I'm not surprised at that!

P. Breathnach

K-9 wrote: »

... No campaigners definitely think it's biased but I'm not surprised at that!

Is that because the facts are against them?

Agent J

K-9 wrote: »

The Govt. certainly is not impartial and doesn't have to be.

Except when it comes to spending public funds.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Is that because the facts are against them?

Except for the one major fact which says that the treay was voted down last time.
In the end that is the only fact which is going to count.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

...the guarantees are the result of negotiations with other countries...

The Irish govt statement on workers-rights isn't as a result of "negotiations with the EU".

Once again I find myself saying that if you insist on making up your own "facts", please refrain from butting in. There is no "Irish govt statement on workers' rights". There is a "Solemn Declaration on Workers' Rights", which is a multi-national statement and the result of negotiations, and there is a "National Declaration by Ireland". The former is included on the DFA postcard, the latter is not. None of what is on the postcard is the result of "negotiations with the EU" - they are the result of negotiations with the other member states - nor is that even what I have written in the post you have cited.

Scofflaw

alan4cult

Out of interest what will the ballot paper on October 2nd say? Will it be an exact duplicate of the previous Referendum's ballot paper or will it mention the guarantees?

K-9

Agent J wrote: »

Except when it comes to spending public funds.

Exactly. The postcard states the new assurances and why they got them. No campaigners seem to have a problem with them, haven't heard much protest other than that.

tonycascarino

alan4cult wrote: »

Out of interest what will the ballot paper on October 2nd say? Will it be an exact duplicate of the previous Referendum's ballot paper or will it mention the guarantees?

The guarantees aren't anything special & don't change anything about the rejected Treaty. I'm fairly sure it will be the exact same ballot paper as before.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is all good, entertaining speculation, and you're free to believe it, because we don't have any real idea one way or the other [about how many countries would theoretically reject lisbon if granted referenda]. What's the point of it, though?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The point is that governance of the eu has always been predicated upon unaminity - it is the case that if a single country rejects a treaty then all member states do so. This guarantee was the only way that such fiecely individualistic soverign nations could be convinced to join together.

But there is a problem. When we say states agree, what this really means that the states' dominant parties agree. If you propound that several electorates may or may not acuatlly accept the Lisbon treaty, and know that this is unquantifiable variable precisely because these electorates were not asked, then something seriously wrong has happened.

People may argue that unaminity is wrong. There is a strong case to be made against unaminity. But that is the rules - it is what we all signed up to.

Now stricly speaking Lisbon is legal... just about - despite the fact that it is almost identical to a treaty rejected by the French [the Dutch vote wasn't legally binding anyway, apparently, so we can discount that]. However, despite the technical legality of bypassing electorates the idea that one, or seven, or eighteen, or who knows how many, of the electorates might have rejected the treaty given the chance speaks volumes of how the idea of real unaminity between the member states has been altogether discounted. This is scary, for if the original tenets of the European economic community are now being obviously cast aside by its leaders, we are in reality sailing in uncharted waters. Many yes voters defiantly claim we are not heading towards federalism. Where the hell are we going?

Scofflaw

alan4cult wrote: »

Out of interest what will the ballot paper on October 2nd say? Will it be an exact duplicate of the previous Referendum's ballot paper or will it mention the guarantees?

This is the text of the Amendment here. Last year's proposed Amendment is here.

cordially,
Scofflaw