The Pros and Cons for voting yes/no to lisbon

PopeBuckfastXVI

oscarBravo wrote: »

What form should such an election take - one EU citizen, one vote, or some type of electoral college?

An electoral college might be fair. We could elect a group of people to represent us as a nation, and then they could vote on our behalf, sort of one nation one vote.

That would totally preserve the equality of nations while respecting the principle of representative democracy!

If only there was some way of... oh... wait...

marco_polo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If I can step in for a second to defuse a misunderstanding?

marco_polo was responding to your hypothesis that it's better to vote no if you don't understand the treaty.

You then replied that you were voting no because you didn't like the treaty.

marco_polo misunderstood your original hypothesis as applying to you, even though it didn't, and asked how you can both not understand the treaty, and also not like it, which, in fairness would be a fallacy.

That's where the confusion arose, that he thought your original idea about voting 'no' if you don't understand the treaty applied to you.

Handbags down all

Nah it was more because of this.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Quite clearly I don't understand this thing and until I do I'm sticking with my first rule and voting No until I can find some good reasons to vote Yes.
....

.

ei.sdraob

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm sticking with my first rule and voting No until I can find some good reasons to vote Yes.

ah yes guilty until proven innocent :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

Montesquieu wrote: »

Lisbon could not be reversed by another referendum, so unless you are 100% certain of the yes sides arguments the safe option is to vote NO.

Lisbon allows Ireland to exit the EU if we so wish, something we cant do now

yet another reason to vote YES

and the EU membership has been nothing but good to Ireland, I dont see EU turning into an "evil empire" despite all the ramblings of conspiracy nuts

P. Breathnach

Montesquieu wrote: »

Lisbon could not be reversed by another referendum, so unless you are 100% certain of the yes sides arguments the safe option is to vote NO.

Just remember that a vote against Lisbon is effectively a vote for Nice.

Penny Farthing

StealthRolex wrote: »

I don't think I like what you are implying.

Either you are openly implying that I don't understand it or you are implying that if I understood it I would vote Yes.

I understand that there are military implications to this treaty.
This I object to.

We have a veto and a right to prevent anything that interferes with our neutrality, a point you missed.

I understand that the President of Europe will be elected by the Council, not the people.
This I object to.

There is no 'president of Europe'. That is a myth. There is a post called 'President of the Council' which has existed since 1975!!! All that is changing is that as the European Council is being from an ad-hoc body to a community body, and the job of chairing it is now too demanding to be done part-time by someone who is also their country's prime minister (as there are 27 countries to work with arranging meetings, co-ordinating agendas, arranging all the background stuff. It isn't like the old days where six gents say around in a small room for a chat) a full-time chairperson is being elected.

They have

• no executive powers
• no executive influence
• no role in selecting or dismissing council staff other than those who will work with their small secretariat

They are nothing but a glorified chairman. The reason 'president' is being used is (a) it is the standard term for prime minister in most countries, and as technically they will be chairing meetings full of presidents of governments, presidents of executive council, presidents of councils of state, etc to use that nominclature too, (b) it is the existing title there since 1975, and (c) it means in Europe the presiding officer.

It makes sense if a committee is meeting that that committee chooses its presiding officer. To think it a 'president of Europe' is to utterly get the wrong end of the stick - through to be fair it is a myth spread by the No side, one of their many myths.

I understand that Foreign Affairs and Security minister will be elected by the Council with an unlimited term of office. This I object to.

There is neither a foreign minister nor a security minister. Two conflicting foreign affairs roles are being merged. It never made sense for them to be together.

The European Council will have powers over our personal data. This I object to.

No it won't. The Irish state will have far more powers over your personal data than the EU will. And that has nothing to do with Lisbon.

The treaty increases the Military (Common Defense, Security,) role of the EU in a manner to which I object, and not just as an Irish citizen.

Only by unanimity.

Why does an economic union need an army? Why do we need to progressively improve our military capabilities? This element alone is a warmongers charter at the worst and a licence to print money for the arms manufacturers and researchers at best.

Now, while I might not understand all of it those parts I do understand I do not like.

So please, allow me the democratic right to exercise my franchise.

It doesn't have an army and won't have one. Member states have armies. They always have. Improving military capacity is something we in Ireland would be doing anyway. If you replace an old WWII tank with a modern one that is increasing military capacity. If you replace old WWII guns with new ones, which we are doing, that is increasing military capacity.

You are completely confused about basic facts.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Lisbon allows Ireland to exit the EU if we so wish, something we cant do now

yet another reason to vote YES

I have to correct you there - we can leave the EU any time. All that Lisbon does is set out, for the first time, the arrangements for negotiating a continuing relationship after leaving.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to correct you there - we can leave the EU any time. All that Lisbon does is set out, for the first time, the arrangements for negotiating a continuing relationship after leaving.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sshhhhhuuttt uuuuppp!

We're not supposed to be arguing with each other. You're gonna get it at the next conspiracy meeting!

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to correct you there - we can leave the EU any time. All that Lisbon does is set out, for the first time, the arrangements for negotiating a continuing relationship after leaving.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I see so under current Nice scheme a member state can leave but would find it very difficult to negotiation a favorable position? Theres no mechanism on how to approach such a situation? and UK and Ireland were the ones to add this point into Lisbon


This might warrant a thread of its own, and then theres the issue of the money given to Ireland, would it have to be repaid somehow? and the issue of Ireland using the Euro? tho i suppose there are countries outside the EU using the euro or having their currency pegged to it


sorry so many questions, leaving EU would be disastrous for Ireland, but I love to show the door to any UK euro skeptics im still fuming over UKIPs involvement

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sshhhhhuuttt uuuuppp!

We're not supposed to be arguing with each other. You're gonna get it at the next conspiracy meeting!

id be the first one to admit that im not 100% on Lisbon as politics is not my main concern, reading and participating in this forum has been illuminating and Lisbon is something i feel strongly about, simply because in the last few years it felt that my vote could not accomplish anything positive

StealthRolex

I'm clearly out gunned here and not enjoying displaying my ignorance.

Clarifying my original response to the OP which was to inform yourself and vote accordingly. It seems that some have taken umbrage with my suggestion that if you don't know or understand it then vote no. Tossing coins was a throwaway and not intended as a viable option - I should have made the tongue in cheek clearer there.

That said there are some who think that if one cannot vote yes one should not vote. I cannot agree with that. Not that it might benefit the Yes side as it could also benefit the No side depending on the turnout and other factors on the day.

No, my reasoning is this - we are being asked to change our Consititution. If we change it and at some stage in the future wish to reverse that change for what ever reason we may well find hell freezing over first.
Regardless of what the implications of the Treaty are, good, bad or indifferent, regardless of whether or not you consider it EU Constitution Part Deux, regardless of whether or not you consider it a giant leap towards federalization it is quite clear that this treaty is intended to change the future of Europe in both dramatic and subtle ways.

For this reason if you are going to vote yes and are happy with that well and good. If you are not happy with the change for whatever reason not voting is not not making your voice heard. If you do not understand the treaty, if you do not understand the implications I cannot see how not voting is a valid response. Those who do not vote will only ever show up as a turnout statistic. Those who vote No because they do not agree get counted. Those who vote no because they are not willing to authorize a change to the constitution they do not understand get counted.

Your vote counts and its effect is direct. Your non-vote does not count however that action may have an indirect affect.

The Pro to voting Yes when you understand and accept the change is the change will be implemented if Yes is the majority decision.
The Con to voting Yes when you don't understand it is you might get something you don't like.
The Pro to voting No when you understand and do not accept it is your voice is heard and if this is the majority decision the constitution remains unchanged.
The Con to voting No when you do not understand it is you might upset some people if the No vote is carried. With Irish democracy the way it currently is you might get another chance.
The Pro to not voting is you get to stay in or continue doing what ever it is you are doing instead of voting.
The Con to not voting is you have no say in the referendum and no right to complain after the fact.

We are all being given a choice here and the decision not to choose...? Well, what happens if no-one votes?

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm clearly out gunned here and not enjoying displaying my ignorance.

Clarifying my original response to the OP which was to inform yourself and vote accordingly. It seems that some have taken umbrage with my suggestion that if you don't know or understand it then vote no. Tossing coins was a throwaway and not intended as a viable option - I should have made the tongue in cheek clearer there.

That said there are some who think that if one cannot vote yes one should not vote. I cannot agree with that. Not that it might benefit the Yes side as it could also benefit the No side depending on the turnout and other factors on the day.

No, my reasoning is this - we are being asked to change our Consititution. If we change it and at some stage in the future wish to reverse that change for what ever reason we may well find hell freezing over first.
Regardless of what the implications of the Treaty are, good, bad or indifferent, regardless of whether or not you consider it EU Constitution Part Deux, regardless of whether or not you consider it a giant leap towards federalization it is quite clear that this treaty is intended to change the future of Europe in both dramatic and subtle ways.

For this reason if you are going to vote yes and are happy with that well and good. If you are not happy with the change for whatever reason not voting is not not making your voice heard. If you do not understand the treaty, if you do not understand the implications I cannot see how not voting is a valid response. Those who do not vote will only ever show up as a turnout statistic. Those who vote No because they do not agree get counted. Those who vote no because they are not willing to authorize a change to the constitution they do not understand get counted.

Your vote counts and its effect is direct. Your non-vote does not count however that action may have an indirect affect.

The Pro to voting Yes when you understand and accept the change is the change will be implemented if Yes is the majority decision.
The Con to voting Yes when you don't understand it is you might get something you don't like.
The Pro to voting No when you understand and do not accept it is your voice is heard and if this is the majority decision the constitution remains unchanged.
The Con to voting No when you do not understand it is you might upset some people if the No vote is carried. With Irish democracy the way it currently is you might get another chance.
The Pro to not voting is you get to stay in or continue doing what ever it is you are doing instead of voting.
The Con to not voting is you have no say in the referendum and no right to complain after the fact.

We are all being given a choice here and the decision not to choose...? Well, what happens if no-one votes?

Mostly agree except, the con for voting 'no' is not that you might 'upset some people' but that you might materially damage the EU, Ireland and yourself without realising it. Or you might miss out on changes to the EU which would benefit you.

It's certainly not that you might 'upset some people' anyway. Who care's about 'some people' and whether they are upset or not!?

A 'No' vote is not automatically a consequence free exercise.

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Mostly agree except, the con for voting 'no' is not that you might 'upset some people' but that you might materially damage the EU, Ireland and yourself without realising it. Or you might miss out on changes to the EU which would benefit you.

It's certainly not that you might 'upset some people' anyway. Who care's about 'some people' and whether they are upset or not!?

A 'No' vote is not automatically a consequence free exercise.

Saved me the hassle of saying exactly the same thing

edit: though I'd add that the con to voting no when you don't understand it is also the pro to not voting when you don't understand it. When you don't understand something that hundreds of people spent five years and millions writing, I think it's safe to assume that these changes are both beneficial and necessary. I doubt they did all that work for the laugh

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

A 'No' vote is not automatically a consequence free exercise.

and neither is a Yes vote; or if you like the same argument can be put for the Yes vote.

Besides, that sounds like a threat. And one that was used during Lisbon 1 - we were told then that there would be consequences and it would cause problems for Europe.

Maybe our previous No vote caused the Recession?

But back to reality.

If you want it another way - my conscience would not be happy if I did not register my vote.
If on the day I am prepared to accept the treaty and it's consequences I will vote accordingly. Like wise if I am not prepared to accept the consequences of a yes vote I will vote No.

What I will not do is sit on my arse on the day and let someone else make that decision for me. If there a consequences of a No vote so be it. I will not vote Yes to something I am not happy with just because there might be consequences.

Those who drafted this treaty of amendments are big boys and girls. If we vote no they will dream up another solution.
Just as they did after the EU constitution was rejected.
Just as they did after Lisbon 1 was rejected.

This is a democracy and we are entitled to vote as we see fit.

If they are not prepared to accept a No decision they should not give us the choice.

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

and neither is a Yes vote; or if you like the same argument can be put for the Yes vote.

Besides, that sounds like a threat. And one that was used during Lisbon 1 - we were told then that there would be consequences and it would cause problems for Europe.

Maybe our previous No vote caused the Recession?

That's not what I said.

Of course a 'Yes' is not consequence free, no-one claims otherwise, the first and main consequence is that the EU will move to the Lisbon rules of operation.

Look, you have to weigh up consequences, and you were specifically listing 'cons' so that's what I dealt with. You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing will happen if we vote 'No'. Whether you judge that the benefits outweigh the cons of voting 'No' then that's up to you, it's childish and silly to pretend that automatically there are no consequences to voting 'No' (positive or negative).

You can't shout down reality by calling it 'threats'.

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

edit: though I'd add that the con to voting no when you don't understand it is also the pro to not voting when you don't understand it. When you don't understand something that hundreds of people spent five years and millions writing, I think it's safe to assume that these changes are both beneficial and necessary. I doubt they did all that work for the laugh

Who was it said "Assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups" ?

I've also hear " assume nothing" and "assume makes an ass of u and me"

I'm sure they did it for a reason and not a laugh. It would be nice if the reasons were clear and legible though and not a mismash of change this, insert that, delete the other, oh and throw in bits about citizenship, the president, common security and defense, taxes and all those bits but make it so all but a few really understand what's going on.
Oh and don't forget to tell the Irish government that if they cage it to be about jobs, recovery and the EU was good in the past so just like investments it's bound to be good in the future. You know, go be a politician. Oh - one other thing - if they vote No they won't believe the sky will fall but they might just believe there will be consequences.

I've lived in Ireland long enough to know that the workings of a politician cannot be assumed to be safe and beneficial to anyone other than the politician.

If I wish to vote no because I do not trust those who drafted the treaty that is my right in a democratic state.

You might not agree but I will fight to the death for your right to disagree.

ei.sdraob

Star Chamber wrote: »

Beneficial to them because they will be the ones exercising power at EU level. But not beneficial to ordinary voters who will not get a look in.

.

wrong wrong wrong

* Lisbon allows for Citizens Initiative

* Lisbon means meetings are no longer behind closed doors

* Lisbon means more power to elected MEPs

* Lisbon means cheaper energy via a common policy which will affect everyone directly

oh and welcome to boards and this forum

ei.sdraob

Star Chamber wrote: »

So if you don't know, vote NO.

oh for ****s sake

that is just wrong on so many levels its not funny :mad:

if you dont know dont vote its quite simple

the debates have been going on for over a year now, one has to be living under a rock not to know what Lisbon

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Who was it said "Assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups" ?

I've also hear " assume nothing" and "assume makes an ass of u and me"

You know what you're absolutely right. You shouldn't assume the treaty is good and nor should you assume it's bad. That's why you should either learn about it so you won't be assuming anymore or not express an opinion on it

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You know what you're absolutely right. You shouldn't assume the treaty is good and nor should you assume it's bad. That's why you should either learn about it so you won't be assuming anymore or not express an opinion on it

It's not just expressing an opinion on it if you vote, you are actively either approving or rejecting it.

You say 'no' to a treaty because you do not ever want it implemented in it's current form, you say 'yes' to a treaty because you do want it implemented in it's current form.

When in doubt, do nowt.

If you haven't been bothered to form any sort of informed opinion on the treaty, right or wrong, yes or no, by the time October 2nd rolls round, then you shouldn't bother showing up at the polls.

ei.sdraob

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You know what you're absolutely right. You shouldn't assume the treaty is good and nor should you assume it's bad. That's why you should either learn about it so you won't be assuming anymore or not express an opinion on it

man thats the wisest thing thats been said all day



whats worse is that people are moaning (well the NO side anwyays) that they are being asked to express their opinion (despite the constitution stating that it has to be done) and calling that "undemocratic"

wow just wow

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

If you haven't been bothered to form any sort of informed opinion on the treaty, right or wrong, yes or no, by the time October 2nd rolls round, then you shouldn't bother showing up at the polls.

imho it is the duty of any citizen to form an opinion on matters that affect them, and be happy that Ireland has a clause for direct democracy via referenda, if one does not want to participate in the democratic process then go back to your own little world and dont complain down the road that something affects you


the whole claiming ignorance ****, by this stage will not stick

PopeBuckfastXVI

Imagine a server in a café

Server: Sir would you like a cup of *café noise drowns out drink name*?
You: I didn't hear that so no, not ever.
Server: OK I'll never offer you that drink again.
You: Thank you for respecting my decision.

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

That's not what I said.

Of course a 'Yes' is not consequence free, no-one claims otherwise, the first and main consequence is that the EU will move to the Lisbon rules of operation.

Look, you have to weigh up consequences, and you were specifically listing 'cons' so that's what I dealt with. You can't stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing will happen if we vote 'No'. Whether you judge that the benefits outweigh the cons of voting 'No' then that's up to you, it's childish and silly to pretend that automatically there are no consequences to voting 'No' (positive or negative).

You can't shout down reality by calling it 'threats'.

Granted. I was suggesting it sounded like a threat and harking back to actions by the Yes campaign in Lisbon 1. Nothing personal and I 'm sure no-one will use threats to dissuade people from voting no this time given that it potentially back-fired the last time.

I fully accept there will be consequences and I make no pretense that there will be no consequences. What I do not accept are the nature of the consequences that are being suggested.

Why are public figures like our great leader suggesting that this treaty is about jobs and that a No vote will cost us jobs? Likewise I object to the presentation of the minimum wage as a consequence of the treaty. In all likely hood it will not. Maybe. I assume.

However there are jobs and minimum wage issues that are being driven not by the treaty but by outsourcing.

The EU needs to tackle the jobs threat from India, China and anywhere else European jobs can be outsourced to. To combat that threat we need to make the EU more attractive to companies.
How do we do that? By making it more cost efficient to stay in Europe.
how do we do that? By reducing production costs in Europe.

If by ratifying this treaty we empower the european council to make the economic changes required to make europe more attractive than India or China what is going to change? Taxes or minimum wage agreements? I don't know.

This treaty is about reforming Europe in to a more powerful entity that can better compete on the world economic and security stages. We are being asked to agree or disagree with these changes.

Look. There are valid arguments to a yes vote and equally valid arguments to a no vote. it would be nice if the valid arguments were presented from both sides.

Likewise every vote, Yes or No is valid. What is not valid is a vote that is not counted.

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You know what you're absolutely right. You shouldn't assume the treaty is good and nor should you assume it's bad. That's why you should either learn about it so you won't be assuming anymore or not express an opinion on it

Am I not entitle to express an opinion on it?

If that's what you want report me and get me barred.

I may be wrong on my understanding of the treaty or elements of it, but I think in a democracy I am entitled to voice my opinion on how democracy works. or should work.

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Imagine a server in a café

Server: Sir would you like a cup of *café noise drowns out drink name*?
You: I didn't hear that so no, not ever.
Server: OK I'll never offer you that drink again.
You: Thank you for respecting my decision.

If you will permit me to re-work this:

Imagine a server in a café

Server: Sir would you like a cup of *café noise drowns out drink name*?
You (pre-decision): I didn't hear that so could you tell me again?
Server: Sir would you like a cup of *something you might like*?
You (pre-decision): I'm not sure so could you tell me more.
Server: Sir would you like a cup of *something I like*?
You (pre-decision): I'm not sure, what's in it.
Server: Sir I'm not sure you would understand or recognise all the ingredients but rest assured that to me it tastes good, really good. Really, really really good*?
You (pre-decision): Not really. Do you have something I would recognise?

Server: OK I'll never offer you that drink again.
You: Thank you for respecting my decision, I'll have a coffee please.

StealthRolex

ei.sdraob wrote: »

whats worse is that people are moaning (well the NO side anwyays) that they are being asked to express their opinion (despite the constitution stating that it has to be done) and calling that "undemocratic"

wow just wow

I think you'll find the reason for this is that are being asked to vote again on something we already rejected.

It is the nature of the current democracy that you can say No until you say Yes.

StealthRolex

ei.sdraob wrote: »

imho it is the duty of any citizen to form an opinion on matters that affect them, and be happy that Ireland has a clause for direct democracy via referenda, if one does not want to participate in the democratic process then go back to your own little world and dont complain down the road that something affects you

Agreed. Those that do not vote yes or no have no right to complain later on.

This is why if you don't know vote no is part and parcel of democracy. It provides the yes camp with the opportunity to learn form the experience in defeat and present their case with more clarity the next time.

Macha

StealthRolex wrote: »

This is why if you don't know vote no is part and parcel of democracy. It provides the yes camp with the opportunity to learn form the experience in defeat and present their case with more clarity the next time.

You're ignoring the fact that there is a lot of clarity and unbiased information out there. There is a 30 minute guide to Lisbon on www.lisbontreaty.ie

If you can't take 30 minutes out of your day to educate yourself on your vote then don't vote.

meglome

taconnol wrote: »

You're ignoring the fact that there is a lot of clarity and unbiased information out there. There is a 30 minute guide to Lisbon on www.lisbontreaty.ie

If you can't take 30 minutes out of your day to educate yourself on your vote then don't vote.

Yeah that really hits the nail on the head. If you can't spend 30 minutes over the year this has being going on then just don't vote.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Am I not entitle to express an opinion on it?

If that's what you want report me and get me barred.

I may be wrong on my understanding of the treaty or elements of it, but I think in a democracy I am entitled to voice my opinion on how democracy works. or should work.

Yes as an Irish citizen over the age of 18 you are entitled to express your opinion on the treaty. However that does not mean that your reasoning is sound or that you are behaving wisely. You gave an argument for "if you don't know vote no" to suggest that that was a wise course of action and I responded with an equivalent argument for "if you don't know vote yes" and you pointed out that assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups. That's true whether you're assuming the treaty is positive or negative so to avoid f*ck ups the best course of action is not to assume either way and either inform yourself or not give your opinion. An uninformed opinion can be far more damaging than none.

StealthRolex

taconnol wrote: »

You're ignoring the fact that there is a lot of clarity and unbiased information out there. There is a 30 minute guide to Lisbon on www.lisbontreaty.ie

If you can't take 30 minutes out of your day to educate yourself on your vote then don't vote.

how many years and man hours did it take to draw this up and you expect it to be explained fully in 30 mins? I think I've already spent slightly longer than 30 mins on the boards.

You seem to think that educating myself on this treaty over 30 minutes from a biased source will automatically lead me to vote yes.

could you point me to an unbiased point of view for the No camp?

I do not want this treaty and 30 mins of "explanation" from the dept of foreign affairs will not sway me.

I will vote no.

and anyone telling me not to vote for any reason will only encourage me to encourage as many "don't knows" as possible to vote no.

I have a vote and am entitled to use it as I see fit.

If you know, Vote
if you don't know, vote No