A Logical argument for "If you don't know, vote NO."

The Big Red Button

ShooterSF wrote: »

keeping in mind we are discussing the individual who come voting day is still uncertain whether the treaty is a good or bad thing can a yes-voter offer a logical reason for them not to vote no so they can contemplate the treaty further?

Today is the fifth of September. The referendum isn't until the second of October.

If any voters out there didn't bother finding out about what the Treaty involved the first time round, and still haven't bothered to find out since, they still have nearly a month to research it and make up their mind one way or the other.

A "Lisbon III" Treaty is very unlikely to take place. Why would it? The EU conceded Ireland's wish to keep their Commissioner after the last referendum; no other genuine concerns have been put forward. Those voting no seem to be those who are just anti-Europe and another referendum isn't going to change that.

Voting no will have it's own consequences. These have been discussed to death in other threads, so I won't go into them, but if you aren't bothered educating yourself about the Treaty then don't kid yourself that voting no is the "safest" option.

If on voting day there are people who have not bothered researching what the Treaty entails, or who are too indecisive to form an opinion one way or the other, the responsible thing to do would be to abstain from voting.

Scofflaw

My name is URL wrote: »

What do you suggest..that people don't vote?

Those that "don't know" don't know for what reasons exactly? Because it could be alot clearer, and should be

They have every right to vote No simply because they don't understand the treaty, it's up to those organising it to make damn sure that people do understand, and if they fail at that then tough

The responsibility doesn't lie on only one party. If you're going to exercise your vote, you have a responsibility to inform yourself. There is no lack of information.

As to whether the Treaty "should" be "clearer" - I dare say a paper about high-energy physics would be "clearer" if it didn't have all those equations and stuff in it - but would it be fit for purpose? The Treaty is a legal document - its primary purpose is to achieve legal changes to the legal texts of the treaties. Making it "clearer" at the expense of that would be counter-productive. This isn't the constitution of a new state here, but amendments to the existing rules of a complex international organisation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

My name is URL wrote: »

What do you suggest..that people don't vote?

Those that "don't know" don't know for what reasons exactly? Because it could be alot clearer, and should be

They have every right to vote No simply because they don't understand the treaty, it's up to those organising it to make damn sure that people do understand, and if they fail at that then tough

And people who vote Yes based on what party/candidate they support are called sheeple etc.

My name is URL

Scofflaw wrote: »

The responsibility doesn't lie on only one party. If you're going to exercise your vote, you have a responsibility to inform yourself. There is no lack of information.

As to whether the Treaty "should" be "clearer" - I dare say a paper about high-energy physics would be "clearer" if it didn't have all those equations and stuff in it - but would it be fit for purpose? The Treaty is a legal document - its primary purpose is to achieve legal changes to the legal texts of the treaties. Making it "clearer" at the expense of that would be counter-productive. This isn't the constitution of a new state here, but amendments to the existing rules of a complex international organisation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It still doesn't mean that people who don't understand it should not vote No

How many people in other EU States do not understand it but have seen their governments sign up to it regardless of that?

I know people have a responsibility to inform themselves, but that doesn't mean jack when polling day comes. Those that don't fully understand it or have interpreted parts of it falsely will still vote based on what they think they know, and rightly so.

Scofflaw

My name is URL wrote: »

It still doesn't mean that people who don't understand it should not vote No

How many people in other EU States do not understand it but have seen their governments sign up to it regardless of that?

I know people have a responsibility to inform themselves, but that doesn't mean jack when polling day comes. Those that don't fully understand it or have interpreted parts of it falsely will still vote based on what they think they know, and rightly so.

If people think they know, that's no problem. If people know they don't know, and haven't bothered, after 18 months of constant media coverage, to find out, then they know they don't know what they're voting on - and they should abstain.

There is no excuse, at this stage, for not knowing anything about Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

PHB wrote: »

Listen, this argument of "If you don't know vote no" assumes that if you vote no, nothing will change.

If you vote no, it will have a significant effect on your life

Nobody can deny this, and anyone who does is just lying.

THere are consequences to voting Yes, and consequences to Voting No.

If you think that sticking your head in the sand and voting no will keep things the same, you're in for a big shock.

"If you vote no, it will have a significant effect on your life"

Can you give me one significant effect the last no vote has had on my life?

ixtlan

K-9 wrote: »

And people who vote Yes based on what party/candidate they support are called sheeple etc.

Well although others have disagreed with me on this... I feel that voting yes because you "trust" the expertise of politicans/union leaders/business people, while perhaps not being comfortable with your understanding of the treaty is a reasonable approach.

Likewise voting no because you "trust" the expertise of the leaders of the No side... Joe Higgins/Sinn Fein/Patrica McKenna... is also reasonable.

Voting no simply because you don't understand the treaty is not reasonable IMHO. Preferably learn about it, or else review the sides and decide which you find more trustworthy, or else don't vote.

I still find it perplexing that people who would never vote for Sinn Fein or Joe Higgins appear to buy into wanting a Europe which those groups would like modelled on their policies.

Ix.

Daftendirekt

ShooterSF wrote: »

I have never been fond of this statement but lately it makes sense to me. It was actually two points made by the yes side that convinced me.

1. It is not un-democratic to run more than one referendum. People can change their minds. Therefore we can always run another referendum asking the person if they have made up their mind yet.

2. Unfortunately once a treaty is passed we cannot run a referendum to repeal it. This means that a person should look to block the treaty until they have made up their mind as they can vote again later (Yes or No, once they have decided) unless it's passed in which case they won't get a say.

Now using these two points (the parts in bold generally being accepted as fact by the yes side) and keeping in mind we are discussing the individual who come voting day is still uncertain whether the treaty is a good or bad thing can a yes-voter offer a logical reason for them not to vote no so they can contemplate the treaty further?

(By the way I'm not looking to debate the treaty here.)

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. You assume that by default, people should want to block any treaty, without knowing what's in it.

If a treaty was proposed that would somehow solve Ireland's financial crisis, by your logic you should automatically vote no to it. This is as stupid as automatically voting yes to a treaty that would bring in forced conscription.

The point being that if you don't know what provisions a treaty contains, you can't know whether a yes or no vote will be beneficial or harmful. By arbitrarily choosing a side, you're basically just gambling. It's much better, and safer, to stay neutral until you've weighed up all the evidence.


Your second premise is false, as Scofflaw pointed out.


As well as all this, you assume that referenda will be run indefinitely until a Yes vote is achieved, which is simply untrue. There's no precedent for third referendum after two rejections.

ShooterSF

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. You assume that by default, people should want to block any treaty, without knowing what's in it.

Wrong. I assume that this treaty is not a one off and if people are unsure rejecting it gives them more time to decide.

If a treaty was proposed that would somehow solve Ireland's financial crisis, by your logic you should automatically vote no to it. This is as stupid as automatically voting yes to a treaty that would bring in forced conscription.

Wrong again. If people were unsure that treaty would fix Ireland's problems and the treaty was a one-off vote that we couldn't re-visit they should abstain. If by voting no they can revisit the treaty after contemplation and they are unsure then for the long term benefit they should vote no.

The point being that if you don't know what provisions a treaty contains, you can't know whether a yes or no vote will be beneficial or harmful. By arbitrarily choosing a side, you're basically just gambling. It's much better, and safer, to stay neutral until you've weighed up all the evidence.

True. However if a no vote allows you to revisit said treaty when you have weighed up the evidence then that changes things. You are now gambling with the consequence of a short term loss (If no had a bad effect) versus the consequence of a long term one (If yes had a bad effect), given that I don't agree with your next point and (RE: Lisbon II) all major parties support the treaty and are therefore unlikely to revisit it if it is passed.

Your second premise is false, as Scofflaw pointed out.

How so? There are arguments for the idea that us repealing the treaty afterwards would get us in serious trouble.

As well as all this, you assume that referenda will be run indefinitely until a Yes vote is achieved, which is simply untrue.

Again wrong. I assume it can be re-ran if the vote was an un-decided no (like now). I do not assume an inevitable yes and would hope for a decided no.

There's no precedent for a Treaty to be run a third time after two rejections.

True but precedents are set from time to time. How many treaties have been rejected twice?

Daftendirekt

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wrong. I assume that this treaty is not a one off and if people are unsure rejecting it gives them more time to decide.

First of all, that doesn't answer my first point, which was that people shouldn't default to either position without knowing the content of any treaty. Secondly, you don't know for sure that rejection will give them more time to decide, and I don't don't know for sure that it won't. This is just speculation, and not something to base your vote on.

Wrong again. If people were unsure that treaty would fix Ireland's problems and the treaty was a one-off vote that we couldn't re-visit they should abstain. If by voting no they can revisit the treaty after contemplation and they are unsure then for the long term benefit they should vote no.

Again, you're assuming they can revisit the treaty later, and that the referendum won't be a once off. Since this isn't certain, it's still just speculation. Also, what about treaties which have to to be implemented within a certain time frame? For instance, under Nice, the Commission has to be reduced in size by 2009, while under Lisbon the Commission will be retained as it is. If the downsizing of the Commission was of genuine concern to a potential no voter, should they default to a No in the hope that they'll be granted more time to educate themselves?

Also, how many times should we rerun referenda before people can be assumed to know enough about a treaty to vote on it?

True. However if a no vote allows you to revisit said treaty when you have weighed up the evidence then that changes things. You are now gambling with the consequence of a short term loss (If no had a bad effect) versus the consequence of a long term one (If yes had a bad effect), given that I don't agree with your next point and (RE: Lisbon II) all major parties support the treaty and are therefore unlikely to revisit it if it is passed.

Again, you're taking for granted that the referendum will be rerun again in the event of a No vote. If you inform yourself of what's in the treaty, you can safely vote for its beneficial provisions, or against its harmful ones. Defaulting to a No is still gambling, albeit only on whether or not the referendum will be rerun again.

How so? There are arguments for the idea that us repealing the treaty afterwards would get us in serious trouble.

I should have elaborated: I didn't mean we could hold a referendum to reverse our ratification, which may or may not be possible - I don't know. I meant that a treaty can always be amended or replaced by something else.

Again wrong. I assume it can be re-ran if the vote was an un-decided no (like now). I do not assume an inevitable yes and would hope for a decided no.

So you'd risk voting no to a beneficial treaty in the hope that the result would be an undecided no?

True but precedents are set from time to time. How many treaties have been rejected twice?

Actually, I don't know. Poor choice of words on my part. I meant to say that, as far as I'm aware, no EU treaty has been ratified by a third referendum, or a fourth, or a fifth, etc, so why assume this one will be? But I see your point.


I still don't think however, it's wise to assume automatically that the failure of a referendum won't be permanent.

ShooterSF

Daftendirekt wrote: »

So you'd risk voting no to a beneficial treaty in the hope that the result would be an undecided no?

I won't break down your quote because a lot of it is the same point (me assuming it can/will be re-ran) and I'll get to that, fair to say, assumption. I just want to get this point because one of us (I honestly don't know which) is confused!
You said I assume that the vote will continue until we get a yes vote. I was explaining that that's not what I think. What I think, and this is part of the basis for my assumption that the treaty can be re-ran, is that it can be re-ran if shown to be resolvable (poor reasons, genuine areas one can negotiate or undecided). However I can also see it ending in a decided no vote which is not resolvable e.g QMV, Citizens initiative problems etc. This is what I would hope for.
Anywho back to my assumption. It is based on the fact that a treaty doesn't end after a no vote. Numerous polls are made to dissect the reasons. After all, why are we running a second referendum other than peoples reasons (leaving aside their relevance) being resolved (abortion, conscription etc) and the amount that voted no because they don't know. If similar occurred after Lisbon II why would we not try a third?
If it was a no go the govt. could come out and clear it up by telling us it's now or never. Then I would change my opinion on the statement.

FeistyOneYouAre

In response to the name of the thread...if you dont know then you shouldnt vote!!
No one is making you vote so I dont see why someone would vote no without knowing what they're voting no to.


And I dont like hearing that we havent been told what the treaty is about.
There has been websites set up and leaflets and booklets handed out so people cant say they dont know what the treaty is about.
Its like school...the teacher can say all she likes but if you're not going to study there is very little she can do about it, likewise the Government can set up websites and issue booklets but if people arent going to read them what can the Govenment do? They cant make us read about it.

ShooterSF

FeistyOneYouAre wrote: »

In response to the name of the thread...if you dont know then you shouldnt vote!!
No one is making you vote so I dont see why someone would vote no without knowing what they're voting no to.

Is that your opinion for Lisbon II or would you say regardless of circumstance or situation those that don't know should never vote (On that specific issue of course)?

My name is URL

FeistyOneYouAre wrote: »

In response to the name of the thread...if you dont know then you shouldnt vote!!
No one is making you vote so I dont see why someone would vote no without knowing what they're voting no to.


And I dont like hearing that we havent been told what the treaty is about.
There has been websites set up and leaflets and booklets handed out so people cant say they dont know what the treaty is about.
Its like school...the teacher can say all she likes but if you're not going to study there is very little she can do about it, likewise the Government can set up websites and issue booklets but if people arent going to read them what can the Govenment do? They cant make us read about it.

Not voting No is basically accepting something that you don't understand

I do think people should know what they're voting for though

Hypothetically, if you were asked to decide whether or not you would walk into a dark forest filled with things you don't understand, would you vote Yes or No?

Not voting won't ensure that you don't have the decision made for you by others

FeistyOneYouAre

ShooterSF wrote: »

Is that your opinion for Lisbon II or would you say regardless of circumstance or situation those that don't know should never vote (On that specific issue of course)?

Well a single vote is far more significant in a referendum than in an election. Although I dont know why someone would vote in an election without knowing why they are voting for someone, it will really not prove as decisive as in a refendum.

FeistyOneYouAre

My name is URL wrote: »

Not voting No is basically accepting something that you don't understand

I do think people should know what they're voting for though

Hypothetically, if you were asked to decide whether or not you would walk into a dark forest filled with things you don't understand, would you vote Yes or No?

Not voting won't ensure that you don't have the decision made for you by others

But this forest can easily be lit up if you want it to be. Why would you just say no when you can read a booklet and actually decide for yourself wether Lisbon is right for us?!

Daftendirekt

My name is URL wrote: »

Not voting No is basically accepting something that you don't understand

I do think people should know what they're voting for though

Hypothetically, if you were asked to decide whether or not you would walk into a dark forest filled with things you don't understand, would you vote Yes or No?

Not voting won't ensure that you don't have the decision made for you by others

This forest might be filled with candy, puppies and love though. You don't know until you try and find out.

FeistyOneYouAre

Daftendirekt wrote: »

This forest might be filled with candy, puppies and love though. You don't know until you try and find out.

I wouldnt say that either but if you need to go through the forest to get to where you're going and you can light it up then why not.

My name is URL

Some people, although knowing nothing about what the forest contains, may simply be afraid of the prospect that one day all the forests in Europe are governed by a single bear.

Reason enough to be suspicious imo =p

meglome

My name is URL wrote: »

Not voting No is basically accepting something that you don't understand

I do think people should know what they're voting for though

Hypothetically, if you were asked to decide whether or not you would walk into a dark forest filled with things you don't understand, would you vote Yes or No?

Not voting won't ensure that you don't have the decision made for you by others

I didn't know what I was voting on the last time and didn't vote. Made the most logical sense. Directly effecting a treaty I didn't know anything about just made no sense to me.

FeistyOneYouAre

My name is URL wrote: »

Some people, although knowing nothing about what the forest contains, may simply be afraid of the prospect that one day all the forests in Europe are governed by a single bear.

Reason enough to be suspicious imo =p

Again I'll repeat what I earlier said, if you can find out whats in the treaty then why not?!

My name is URL

FeistyOneYouAre wrote: »

Again I'll repeat what I earlier said, if you can find out whats in the treaty then why not?!

Because those people are either ignorant or stupid. If they would vote without any inkling about what the treaty is, or what might happen in the future should the treaty be ratified then they're probably too stupid to even find the polling station.

I highly doubt that anyone has 'absolutely no idea' what they're voting for, but even if their reasons for voting in a certain way are questionable or with little warrant they're still reasons for that person.

Mrmoe

Voting no if you don't know would be a logical stance in this referendum. There is no set of laws or constitution that can be interpreted 100% definitively. In this case if people are happy with the current situation that we are in but are less than 100% sure about the new treaty then by abstaining they are effectively favoring change as opposed to the status quo.

Daftendirekt

ShooterSF wrote: »

I won't break down your quote because a lot of it is the same point (me assuming it can/will be re-ran) and I'll get to that, fair to say, assumption. I just want to get this point because one of us (I honestly don't know which) is confused!
You said I assume that the vote will continue until we get a yes vote. I was explaining that that's not what I think. What I think, and this is part of the basis for my assumption that the treaty can be re-ran, is that it can be re-ran if shown to be resolvable (poor reasons, genuine areas one can negotiate or undecided). However I can also see it ending in a decided no vote which is not resolvable e.g QMV, Citizens initiative problems etc. This is what I would hope for.
Anywho back to my assumption. It is based on the fact that a treaty doesn't end after a no vote. Numerous polls are made to dissect the reasons. After all, why are we running a second referendum other than peoples reasons (leaving aside their relevance) being resolved (abortion, conscription etc) and the amount that voted no because they don't know. If similar occurred after Lisbon II why would we not try a third?
If it was a no go the govt. could come out and clear it up by telling us it's now or never. Then I would change my opinion on the statement.

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you're saying is this:

It's reasonable to assume that a referendum might be run again, if there is good reason to believe there are areas in the treaty that can be renegotiated/guarantees that can be secured/voter concerns that can be addressed.

If I'm wrong, please ignore the next part of my post.

I see one big problem with this: if you know of areas in the treaty that you believe should be renegotiated, then obviously the slogan "if you don't know, vote no" doesn't apply to you! Obviously you do know, and you're simply voting against a treaty you don't agree with, which is fine.

If you don't know what you're voting against, what's the point in looking for a renogotiation/guarantees? Admittedly, we did secure guarantees on both neutrality and abortion, but they haven't really made any more difference than guarantees against human cloning or bringing in crucifixion as an alternative to prison would, other than to bolster voter confidence.

We also got a legal guarantee to retain the commission as it is, but obviously anyone who was concerned about the commission, knew there was reference to its downsizing in the treaty.

Daftendirekt

FeistyOneYouAre wrote: »

I wouldnt say that either but if you need to go through the forest to get to where you're going and you can light it up then why not.

Yeah, I actually agree. I was being unhelpfully flippant. I think the analogy is kind of weak though, because staying out of the forest could represent either abstaining or voting no.

A better, but still weak, analogy would be to imagine yourself in a walking through a forest when you come to two paths. You can't see what's at the end of either one, so what do you do? Do you choose a path at random, or do you check your map and figure out which one you want to follow?

It's still a poor analogy, because it implies that whatever happens in the event of a No vote is as clearly spelled out as what happens in the event of a Yes vote.

But I'm sure you get my drift.

FeistyOneYouAre

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Yeah, I actually agree. I was being unhelpfully flippant. I think the analogy is kind of weak though, because staying out of the forest could represent either abstaining or voting no.

A better, but still weak, analogy would be to imagine yourself in a walking through a forest when you come to two paths. You can't see what's at the end of either one, so what do you do? Do you choose a path at random, or do you check your map and figure out which one you want to follow?

It's still a poor analogy, because it implies that whatever happens in the event of a No vote is as clearly spelled out as what happens in the event of a Yes vote.

But I'm sure you get my drift.

Yeah I actually reckon its time to forget about the analogys to be honest. Besides laziness there is no reason people should not know what the treaty is about. Its annoying hearing people say that they dont know what Lisbon is and that the government has made no effort to tell us. There are plenty of ways one can find out about the treaty.

Stark

I agree. Voting No based on something that's in the Treaty that you dislike is fine as the government can then go back to the EU and say "The Irish people aren't happy with x". Voting No and giving "I don't know" as the reason just leaves everyone in a situation of "well what are we supposed to do now?".

My name is URL

Stark wrote: »

I agree. Voting No based on something that's in the Treaty that you dislike is fine as the government can then go back to the EU and say "The Irish people aren't happy with x". Voting No and giving "I don't know" as the reason just leaves everyone in a situation of "well what are we supposed to do now?".

What about the people that don't really know the ins & outs of the treaty but are legitimately concerned about the prospect of supranationalism and more changes down the line?

passive

My name is URL wrote: »

What about the people that don't really know the ins & outs of the treaty but are legitimately concerned about the prospect of supranationalism and more changes down the line?

Just, y'know, in general? Or with specific reference to anything in the Lisbon treaty?

My name is URL

passive wrote: »

Just, y'know, in general? Or with specific reference to anything in the Lisbon treaty?

Well in general. Handing more power to Europe now will make it easier for them to implement further changes in future. You can say that they're not being given any further power in this treaty, but I doubt even Yes supporters believe that.