Will Lisbon Pass?

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

OT- Yes and what stops it coming from the European council back to us again? Does it say they have to scrap it?

What stops it coming back from the European council is that they're not retarded. If you think that the reason the treaty was put to us a second time is because we gave the "wrong answer" and they want to force it through, it makes sense that it will come back from them exactly the same but of course that is one of many no campaign lies. It was put to us again, with the commissioner change and the guarantees, because those changes addressed the issues of far more people than would be needed for a second referendum to pass. The treaty was (mostly) the same, but those reasons for rejection are no longer valid (and some never were). Anyone whose issues were not addressed last time are never going to be addressed with the treaty in it current form and there is absolutely no point putting the same treaty back to the people if there is no chance of it passing.

but tell me, if it gets voted down this time and a survey is done and, say, 40% of no voters did so because they thought the guarantees weren't legally binding, 30% because they thought the minimum wage would be lowered to €1.84 and 20% because they thought the treaty was "self-amending", why shouldn't they run it again? None of those issues are relevant to Lisbon so the people will not have rejected Lisbon, they will have rejected lies that have been hurled at Lisbon. What is so wrong with correcting those misconceptions and asking people if they've changed their minds in light of the correction?


Also, as I said here, I have no idea what the EU will do if we vote no again. There is no point in ever putting forward a treaty again as long as we are members

Sam Vimes

techdiver wrote: »

I really see no direct correlation between the Lisbon Treaty and employment prospects in Ireland.

The ridiculous "Yes in the city", posters are about as relevant. A NO vote doesn't remove us from the EU.

I'm glad you trust economic evaluation from a former minister for finance that displayed complete ineptitude regarding fiscal matters in Ireland during the so called boom years.

I'm not trusting a former minister of finance, I'm trusting the Irish heads of several multi-national firms, employers’ representative groups, the exporters of Ireland, farmers’ representative groups and the employers themselves. As the article says, those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs.

Do you not think it's possible that the people who are directly involved in this area might see a correlation that you don't?

edit:
"Yes in the city" =/= "We'll be kicked out if we vote no". No one has ever claimed that we'll be kicked out but Europe wants to move on and a few hundred thousand misinformed people on the peripheries can't stop them forever. They will, and are perfectly entitled to, rewrite the treaty to exclude Ireland, only enacting the changes that Ireland can opt out of. That way they get most of the changes they want and we get to stay where we are, all on our own.

That and Ireland will have voted no to EU treaties three time if it gets voted down again. Businesses looking to locate in the EU to get access to the common market will have a choice of a country that's very expensive to do business in, has very little value other than as a jumping off point to the rest of the EU and has three times said that they don't share the same vision of Europe as the rest of the EU. That's a big risk to take when there are cheaper countries that have all the advantages of being in the EU and aren't fighting them every step of the way.

So, in short, no one's saying we're getting kicked out of the EU but that's not the only way Ireland can be negatively effected

nesf

ShooterSF wrote: »

I suppose you can always doubt people sincerity in online polls but just hope they're honest. It's just as likely yes voters or no voters could have messed with it I guess.
To be honest I'm not AS confident this run as I was last time when I made a nice few quid from the no vote! I was certain of a no that time. This time I wouldnt be that shocked to see a yes vote.

I'd love to be able to say that boards.ie polls are a good barometer on public opinion but in reality they're really not. The one before the last election had a guaranteed FG/Lab coalition in Government and some decent seat gains for SF, both of which most certainly didn't materialise.

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

but tell me, if it gets voted down this time and a survey is done and, say, 40% of no voters did so because they thought the guarantees weren't legally binding, 30% because they thought the minimum wage would be lowered to €1.84 and 20% because they thought the treaty was "self-amending", why shouldn't they run it again? None of those issues are relevant to Lisbon so the people will not have rejected Lisbon, they will have rejected lies tat have been hurled at Lisbon. What is so wrong with correcting those misconceptions and asking people if they've changed their minds in light of the correction?

Nothing. That's my point. If that was the outcome the treaty could happily be re-ran. Get a guarantee on the minimum wage. If need be edit the treaty on the commission issue and ask other nations to ratify again after we did (if we did). Maybe remove the article discussing further amendments. It's only causing confusion and makes little change anyway.
I have already said I would much rather a decided accurate No vote but see an undecided No vote as a better option than any yes vote. Though I would reluctantly accept a yes vote based on the treaty.

ShooterSF

nesf wrote: »

I'd love to be able to say that boards.ie polls are a good barometer on public opinion but in reality they're really not. The one before the last election had a guaranteed FG/Lab coalition in Government and some decent seat gains for SF, both of which most certainly didn't materialise.

What about the one before the last Lisbon vote? It was pretty accurate if memory serves me correct. Anywho it's not a huge deal...

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

What about the one before the last Lisbon vote? It was pretty accurate if memory serves me correct. Anywho it's not a huge deal...

Unfortunately, we have had, this time, certain posters over from politics.ie, who encouraged No posters there to "come and make their presence felt" in the polls here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, we have had, this time, certain posters over from politics.ie, who encouraged No posters there to "come and make their presence felt" in the polls here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

They must be pretty bored :pac: I can't understand a forum full of people fascinated with politics screwing up polls on political issues. (Not that I'm questioning your claim btw)

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

Nothing. That's my point. If that was the outcome the treaty could happily be re-ran. Get a guarantee on the minimum wage. If need be edit the treaty on the commission issue and ask other nations to ratify again after we did (if we did). Maybe remove the article discussing further amendments. It's only causing confusion and makes little change anyway.
I have already said I would much rather a decided accurate No vote but see an undecided No vote as a better option than any yes vote. Though I would reluctantly accept a yes vote based on the treaty.

Firstly, that's not going to happen. I can tell you that right now. People are already pissed off about a second referendum so a third is just going to make it worse. It's not going to happen, you know that, I know that and having that in your sig is dishonest.

Secondly I would point out that if they edit the commission issue again it's not the same treaty.

Thirdly, do you not think it's wrong to advise people not to bother learning about the treaty on the basis that they can make up their mind later? Do you not think there are any possible consequences of a no vote? And do you think it's acceptable to deny 26 other countries a treaty they've ratified (or will soon ratify) because we're not bothered reading it?


And finally I'll tell you why it won't be re-ran in its current form. I've been dancing around this issue but it's probably better to say it. It's because the Irish people are too fucking stupid for it to be run again. We already got guarantees and people don't believe them. We got the commissioner issue changed and we have people every day going on with that "not one comma" bullsh!t. If it's put out again there'll be a whole host of new lies made up for us to get guarantees about, which we then won't believe. There is no point running this treaty again mostly for the same reason there's no point running any treaty ever again. The Irish people will.not.listen.to.reason

Killguru

I hoping for no. Were Ireland, not a state in europe, We might as well throw away 600 years of fighting for independance if we vote yes. Im not hanging an EU flag anywhere in my house as yet.

Its the very same treaty as before.

I think it'll be another no.

marco_polo

ShooterSF wrote: »

They must be pretty bored :pac: I can't understand a forum full of people fascinated with politics screwing up polls on political issues. (Not that I'm questioning your claim btw)

Of course they are bored, because there are nothing there but endless threads of the same four or five people agreeing with each other that the EU is indeed the route of al evil.

Anyway I digress

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly, that's not going to happen. I can tell you that right now. People are already pissed off about a second referendum so a third is just going to make it worse. It's not going to happen, you know that, I know that and having that in your sig is dishonest.

People are annoyed yet it is being re-run. The same people will be annoyed if re-ran again. I see no difference.

Secondly I would point out that if they edit the commission issue again it's not the same treaty.

A rose by any other name etc....

Thirdly, do you not think it's wrong to advise people not to bother learning about the treaty on the basis that they can make up their mind later? Do you not think there are any possible consequences of a no vote? And do you think it's acceptable to deny 26 other countries a treaty they've ratified (or will soon ratify) because we're not bothered reading it?

This bit bugs me. I don't advise not bother learning. I said if someone is undecided. You know where you inform yourself but can't decide which option is better..

And finally I'll tell you why it won't be re-ran in its current form. I've been dancing around this issue but it's probably better to say it. It's because the Irish people are too fucking stupid for it to be run again. We already got guarantees and people don't believe them. We got the commissioner issue changed and we have people every day going on with that "not one comma" bullsh!t. If it's put out again there'll be a whole host of new lies made up for us to get guarantees about, which we then won't believe. There is no point running this treaty again mostly for the same reason there's no point running any treaty ever again. The Irish people will.not.listen.to.reason

If that's true then why bother running any at all?

nesf

ShooterSF wrote: »

What about the one before the last Lisbon vote? It was pretty accurate if memory serves me correct. Anywho it's not a huge deal...

My point was that the average person who comes on here and votes isn't a good sample for the average voter. People over 35 are rare on here while they'd make up almost the majority of voters.

We'll see times when the boards poll is close to the real result but this will be more down to chance than boards polls being accurate. They're an interesting reflection on the mood of more politically engaged younger voters but they're no substitute for a properly conducted poll using proper sampling techniques etc.

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

People are annoyed yet it is being re-run. The same people will be annoyed if re-ran again. I see no difference.

People have no reason to be annoyed at it being run again. It seems the government and the EU made the mistake of crediting them with enough intelligence to see that the differences between this referendum and the last one and the valid reasons for the re-run. I doubt they'll make that mistake again.

ShooterSF wrote: »

A rose by any other name etc....

which is exactly the problem. If objections are given and those objections are addressed, the percentage figure that remains the same and the time between referendums doesn't make any difference. But people don't seem to be able to grasp that.

ShooterSF wrote: »

This bit bugs me. I don't advise not bother learning. I said if someone is undecided. You know where you inform yourself but can't decide which option is better..

They have had two years to decide. If they haven't decided in two years, what makes you think they'll decide in 20?

ShooterSF wrote: »

If that's true then why bother running any at all?

This is the whole point I'm making and one of the main reasons that Ireland's reputation will be damaged by a no vote. As long as our vote is being manipulated by liars and used as a stick to beat the government, writing any new treaties will simply be a waste of money

Sam Vimes

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is the whole point I'm making and one of the main reasons that Ireland's reputation will be damaged by a no vote. As long as our vote is being manipulated by liars and used as a stick to beat the government, writing any new treaties will simply be a waste of money

And don't forget, it's also a waste of money as long as people are being told it's ok to keep voting no forever if they can't make up their mind and that the wishes of the other 500 million people in Europe don't matter. If someone can't make up their mind on the best way to vote, they shouldn't vote. Simple as.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

They must be pretty bored :pac: I can't understand a forum full of people fascinated with politics screwing up polls on political issues. (Not that I'm questioning your claim btw)

Have you been on politics.ie at all? "Fascinated with politics" is far too kindly a description of what appears in many cases to transcend mere obsession and assume the proportions of a mental illness.

amused,
Scofflaw

Martin 2

techdiver wrote: »

I think it will pass this time, due mainly to the scaremongering going on from the yes campaign, which are tyring to place a link between the Lisbon Treaty and economic recovery, which is complete and utter crap.

To be balanced the No side are a shower of deluded gombeens. I really wish both sides could run a campaign based on real facts and reality and not flouting lies about what the implications of a yes or no vote would be.

It dismays me that either the assumed intelligence level or the actual intelligence level of this country has sunk below that of the US in terms of being bought over by sensationalism on both sides of this disgraceful campaign.

As you say the campaigning on both sides has been lacking but I think it's been better this year, especially on radio, they have regular sections on Radio 1 Drivetime and/or Morning Ireland where they simply get an expert to explain different aspects of the treaty and if you want you can send in a question, I'd say if you search the RTE website under Sean Whelan, Justice Frank Clark, Drivetime and Morning Ireland you'll find some informative audio downloads.

Btw, a lot of us are sacrificing a lot of our own personal time to campaign (or just inform) for or against this treaty whether on the ground or on websites or wherever and we are certainly not all guilty of lying or scaremongering.

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Have you been on politics.ie at all? "Fascinated with politics" is far too kindly a description of what appears in many cases to transcend mere obsession and assume the proportions of a mental illness.

amused,
Scofflaw

I think I was on it once. I made what I thought was a safe assumption that politics.ie was a forum full of people obsessed with politics. My bad so!:pac:

Re: Sam
We're not going to agree on this and there's little point of us spinning in circles repeating our opinions on an issue to be fair is OT on the OP...

techdiver

Martin 2 wrote: »

As you say the campaigning on both sides has been lacking but I think it's been better this year, especially on radio, they have regular sections on Radio 1 Drivetime and/or Morning Ireland where they simply get an expert to explain different aspects of the treaty and if you want you can send in a question, I'd say if you search the RTE website under Sean Whelan, Justice Frank Clark, Drivetime and Morning Ireland you'll find some informative audio downloads.

Btw, a lot of us are sacrificing a lot of our own personal time to campaign (or just inform) for or against this treaty whether on the ground or on websites or wherever and we are certainly not all guilty of lying or scaremongering.

I have nothing against anyone trying to do their bit on either side to spread the truth, in fact I wish there was more, so don't get me wrong. You're the type of person I have respect for. My issues is with the bombardment or posters and leaflets that really don't get to the crux of the issue and are simply trying to eclipse each other with sensational slogans.

What I say is more of people like you on both side and less of the tabloid type posters and leaflets.

nesf

ShooterSF wrote: »

I think I was on it once. I made what I thought was a safe assumption that politics.ie was a forum full of people obsessed with politics. My bad so!:pac:

People obsessed with politics aren't very useful to have in large quantities doing your polls. The average voter is very very far from being obsessed with politics. Never mind caring enough to post on a politics only bulletin board.

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

Re: Sam
We're not going to agree on this and there's little point of us spinning in circles repeating our opinions on an issue to be fair is OT on the OP...

We don't have to repeat our opinions, you could respond to mine and tell me why they're invalid. Or better yet, you could remove from your sig that untrue and anti-democratic statement that will damage the country if anyone follows it.

ShooterSF

nesf wrote: »

People obsessed with politics aren't very useful to have in large quantities doing your polls. The average voter is very very far from being obsessed with politics. Never mind caring enough to post on a politics only bulletin board.

That's not what I meant. Sorry. I meant that one would think a group of people interested in politics (an assumption I made that is now probably wrong) would be interested in seeing the result of a poll on a political issue not screw with it like say people on /b/ or something.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We don't have to repeat our opinions, you could respond to mine and tell me why they're invalid. Or better yet, you could remove from your sig that untrue and anti-democratic statement that will damage the country if anyone follows it.

You don't think there can be another vote on this or a very similar treaty afterwards. I do (i'd rather there wasn't after a decided no vote)
I'd rather people informed themselves but accept there might be a small amount that still can't make up their minds. You think I mean don't bother trying to make your mind.
I'm gonna make a rude assumption here and suggest that you think anyone that read up on the treaty could not be undecided.
However, for all things pasta-y prey tell me how is it anti-democratic?

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

That's not what I meant. Sorry. I meant that one would think a group of people interested in politics (an assumption I made that is now probably wrong) would be interested in seeing the result of a poll on a political issue not screw with it like say people on /b/ or something.

You'd think so, wouldn't you! Unfortunately, there are elements in the political obsessive class who appear to find in polls a substitute for reality, or who believe that polls dictate reality.

The flip side of that view, of course, and rather more common, is the belief that the government manipulated the post-referendum polls to make it appear to those who had voted No that they had voted for reasons other than the reasons they had really voted for, so that they would then be satisfied with guarantees on matters that they hadn't cared about in the first place, and that wouldn't, therefore, influence their vote in the slightest.

Nowt so queer as folk, I guess.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

You don't think there can be another vote on this or a very similar treaty afterwards. I do (i'd rather there wasn't after a decided no vote)

If there is a decided no vote and there are valid objections given on a wide scale there will 100% definitely not be another vote on the treaty in its current form. It will be renegotiated. If the surveys again show that people voted en masse on non-issues I have no moral objection to another referendum but it still will not happen because it simply wouldn't pass. What can possibly be gained by asking people the same question over and over when they have made it clear that they're not interested in the truth?

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'd rather people informed themselves but accept there might be a small amount that still can't make up their minds. You think I mean don't bother trying to make your mind.
I'm gonna make a rude assumption here and suggest that you think anyone that read up on the treaty could not be undecided.
However, for all things pasta-y prey tell me how is it anti-democratic?

I'm afraid it's also an incorrect assumption. It's quite easy to be undecided because of all the lies going around. People don't know who to believe and that is understandable. What I object to is that those who can't decide should vote no. That's deciding! 26 other nations want this treaty to go through and it is anti-democratic to deny them something they want because you're not sure. If you are not sure of the best course of action the only rational, logical and moral choice is to leave the decision to those who are sure, whichever point of view they're sure of.

Besides which, voting no is not consequence free. As the Irish Times article I linked to says, the Irish heads of several multi-national firms, employers’ representative groups, the exporters of Ireland, farmers’ representative groups and the employers themselves, those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs. As far as I'm concerned a no vote will do serious damage to this country and a yes vote will be of great benefit. If anything people who aren't sure should be supporting this organisation that has done untold good for this country. To default to denying 26 other countries a treaty they've ratified for no good reason is madness.

nesf

ShooterSF wrote: »

That's not what I meant. Sorry. I meant that one would think a group of people interested in politics (an assumption I made that is now probably wrong) would be interested in seeing the result of a poll on a political issue not screw with it like say people on /b/ or something.

I'll see if I can dig up the offending post for you:

Ah here we go: http://www.politics.ie/media/100211-boards-ie-pro-yes-bias-2.html#post2043504

Basically a call for No voters on P.ie to register and vote on here. You know, so the poll wouldn't actually reflect the views of the average boards.ie Politics poster.

ShooterSF

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If there is a decided no vote and there are valid objections given on a wide scale there will 100% definitely not be another vote on the treaty in its current form. It will be renegotiated.

That would be my ideal choice.

If the surveys again show that people voted en masse on non-issues I have no moral objection to another referendum but it still will not happen because it simply wouldn't pass. What can possibly be gained by asking people the same question over and over when they have made it clear that they're not interested in the truth?

To be fair neither side are offering much information. Plenty of the no sides claims lies but the yes side is guilty of discussing everything but lisbon.

I'm afraid it's also an incorrect assumption. It's quite easy to be undecided because of all the lies going around. People don't know who to believe and that is understandable.

Is it possible to be undecided though even with the facts? If people get passed the lies, that's what I meant.

What I object to is that those who can't decide should vote no. That's deciding! 26 other nations want this treaty to go through and it is anti-democratic to deny them something they want because you're not sure. If you are not sure of the best course of action the only rational, logical and moral choice is to leave the decision to those who are sure, whichever point of view they're sure of.

First off the EU is not a democracy. I find it strange having to tell supporters of the yes side that fact. The rules of the treaty was everyone had to agree to it. Putting aside reasons for a second we should be able to agree to that.
If you are not sure about something that generally yes you leave it to others. However in this situation a no vote is more easily reversible than a yes one due to difficulties repealing a treaty and the fact that all major parties support Lisbon so it is hugely unlikely we could return to the issue if we were unhappy with a yes vote. This is where we differ and why we won't agree btw.

Besides which, voting no is not consequence free. As the Irish Times article I linked to says, the Irish heads of several multi-national firms, employers’ representative groups, the exporters of Ireland, farmers’ representative groups and the employers themselves, those who have experience of pursuing and securing inward investment, developing and exploiting export markets, or growing and expanding businesses, are united in their view that rejecting Lisbon will cost jobs.

That's simply their opinions and even if correct I'm sorry but money isn't everything to me.

As far as I'm concerned a no vote will do serious damage to this country and a yes vote will be of great benefit.

In your opinion...

If anything people who aren't sure should be supporting this organisation that has done untold good for this country.

You can support the current EU while disagreeing with the direction it's looking to take.

To default to denying 26 other countries a treaty they've ratified for no good reason is madness.

I agree. Taken that in yet? Hang on I'll give ya a sec. Now anyways, if someone is undecided then surely they see reasons for AND against the treaty. If they had "no good reason" to block the treaty then they shouldn't because they would be a yes voter surely?