Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What does a NO vote Mean?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
This translates to: I didn't bother to read the passage you linked, like my attitude towards the treaty, so I'll dismiss it on spurious grounds based on what I've heard from other people i.e that wikipedia is an unreliable source because it is open to editing.wiki :eek: Please dont try give me that stuff
Education, don't try and give me that stuff.0 -
If the posters pushing for a No on here represent the average, then such an assumption would indeed be correct.
Think you are smart calling people thick,:rolleyes:
I am voting no anyway and it wont be passed because not all are thick who disagree with the Lisbon treaty.You bend over i wont and neither will my kids in future
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
But I thought a Yes vote was being linked to paedophilia? :rolleyes:Think you are smart calling people thick,:rolleyes:
I am voting no anyway and it wont be passed because not all are thick who disagree with the Lisbon treaty.You bend over i wont and neither will my kids in future0 -
-
-
This translates to: I didn't bother to read the passage you linked, like my attitude towards the treaty, so I'll dismiss it on spurious grounds based on what I've heard from other people i.e that wikipedia is an unreliable source because it is open to editing.
Education, don't try and give me that stuff.
This translates to i have read and read and read and listened and listened, and i am fed up and sick and tired of people harping on about how just because i am a no voter and disagree with the fact we are been told to vote again that i dont fall into your catergory.Therefore i am thick :rolleyes:
Ly down i dont think the bus got you 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Prove me wrong so.This translates to i have read and read and read and listened and listened, and i am fed up and sick and tired of people harping on about how just because i am a no voter and disagree with the fact we are been told to vote again that i dont fall into your catergory.Therefore i am thick :rolleyes:
Ly down i dont think the bus got you
How about giving us one reason to vote No based on the treaty alone? Now, considering how well read you are then I'm sure you're aware that the lies of Sinn Fein, Coir, Socialists etc don't count as a valid reason, so do please provide us with one well written paragraph, backed up by the text, as to why we should vote No.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Columbus35 wrote: »How about giving us one reason to vote Yes based on treaty alone?
Shifting too much power from national level to EU level is not enough?
And please, do not answer "f... y.." in polish. It is rude, and I hope You are a good-mannered man.
Handing a lot of power over to the citizen is the main good reason. As for politeness, if people aren't polite, please use the Report Post (warning triangle) function.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Listened how exactly? A statistical survey will give them an accurate representation of the population at large. Looking out the window in the Dail will show them a relatively small, yet motivated group.
A statistical survey will get all the reasons. Listening to anecdotal evidence from the man in the pub won't be nearly as accurate a method of gathering reasons.
For example, the survey showed that 42% of no voters didn't understand what they were voting on. The government gained 2 valuble pieces of information here. The first is that people didn't understand what they were voting on. Sure, they could have 'listened' by talking to somebody in a pub. But, lets face it, people won't arm themselves with placards and march up and down Kildare Street shouting "We don't know whats going on!". Furthermore that won't tell you what proportion of people didn't understand. The survey provides that detail.
As for the French and the Dutch, they also addressed the problems of their people. As to why they didn't put it to a vote again, well you'd have to take that up with their Constitutions, Leaders and laws. Personally I would be of the opinion that the information gathered by the French/Dutch governments was acted upon by the EU. So the issues that those nations had with the EU Constitution were gone, and therefore (logically) the objection to the treaty was gone so there was no need to go through the massive expense of a referendum when they were confident that the issues had been solved.
Resons for voting yes were of course gathered in the survey too. I'm not as familiar with them myself. But the second referendum gives voters on both sides to better educate themselves and have valid reasons for either voting yes or no.
By asking the people themselves? That would seem a logical first step. Perhaps some kind of nationwide forum?
Generally speaking, when people can't figure something out, they tend to play it safe, and voting No for alot of people was playing it safe with Lisbon I. I made the effort to inform myself, and based on my findings, made my decision. It wasn't the easiest thing I've done, and looking at the text of the treaty itself, it was incomprehensible, and it almost seemed it was designed to be unreadable to the layman. You have to admit there wasn't exactly a concerted effort on the part of the Yes campaign during Lisbon I to explain to people what it meant and what its effect would have on our lives.
The only people I actually saw making a reasoned, logical and well thought out argument for anything regarding Lisbon I was those people on the No side (excluding Coir), but feel free at this point to pontificate to me how I've been lied to and tricked. It appears to me that the Yes campaign during Lisbon I failed miserably because they assumed people would accept at face value whatever they were telling them eg "it's good for me, it's good for Europe" etc.
As regards to Millward Brown, who are these guys? Nobody asked me about any of these questions on this survey. Exactly how many people were interviewed? I am trying to find information on the survey, and if you had a link for it, I would greatly appreciate it if you shared it with us.
I have to admit I don't give much credence to surveys in these kind of situations. Of the people I spoke to before, during and after Lisbon I, those I spoke to that told me they would vote Yes either didn't know what the treaty was about or were voting Yes for reasons not to do with the treaty at all. Perhaps I'm being biased here, but those who I spoke to about Lisbon who said they would vote No mentioned they didn't like the idea of giving more power to Brussels.
I'd imagine again in this referdum there will be a huge number of people who still don't understand what the treaty is about and are voting for different reasons, because they believe a Yes will keep Ireland in the EU or aid economic recovery.
I am sure there were many genuine people who informed themselves of the the treaty's contents and decided to vote Yes, but I wonder, would the government had commissioned such a survey at taxpayers expense if the result had been Yes, if so many people had been uninformed? Most certainly not. Job done at that stage, regardless of how it was done.
42% didn't understand what they were voting on? Now, is that A) didn't understand any of the treaty
didn't understand certain parts or C) atari jaguar? You see these surveys can be open to some dodgy interpretation of the answers, and thats why I don't trust them.
The French and Dutch No result was addressed by changing the EU constitution to Lisbon, carefully dropping many of the references to a constitution in the treaty's wording and then that allowed the French and Dutch governments to seek Lisbon past their citizens without having to ask them to vote.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
By asking the people themselves? That would seem a logical first step. Perhaps some kind of nationwide forum?
Sounds impractical and expensive to me, when something like a survey would be just as adequate.Generally speaking, when people can't figure something out, they tend to play it safe, and voting No for alot of people was playing it safe with Lisbon I. I made the effort to inform myself, and based on my findings, made my decision, but you have to admit there wasn't exactly a concerted effort on the part of the Yes campaign during Lisbon I to explain to people what it meant and what its effect would have on our lives.
I agree, the yes campaign for the first referendum was awful they just assumed a yes would be returned and so didn't try very hard.The only people I actually saw making a reasoned, logical and well thought out argument for anything regarding Lisbon I was those people on the No side (excluding Coir), but feel free at this point to pontificate to me how I've been lied to and tricked. It appears to me that the Yes campaign during Lisbon I failed miserably because they assumed people would accept at face value whatever they were telling them eg "it's good for me, it's good for Europe" etc.
I disagree that the no camp last time round made anything close to a logical or well thought out argument. Whether you were lied to or tricked I can't answer because I don't know your reasons for voting no, so you'll excuse me if I give the pontification a miss this time round.As regards to Millward Brown, who are these guys? Nobody asked me about any of these questions on this survey. Exactly how many people were interviewed? I am trying to find information on the survey, and if you had a link for it, I would greatly appreciate it if you shared it with us.
Millward Brown are a well respected polling company (among other things) whose reputation is based on the accuracy of their studys.
A random sample of 1600 people were polled, this means that the results of their study is accurate to within 2.5% for the population at large.
EDIT: Sorry it appears Millward Brown used a sample size of 2100, bring the margin of error down to 2.1%
Here's a link to the survey.I am being asked to vote on THIS treaty, not whether I want Ireland to remain a part of the EU or aid economic recovery. Their were genuine people who informed themselves of the the treaty's contents and decided to vote Yes, but I wonder, would the government had commissioned such a survey at taxpayers expense if the result had been Yes, if so many people had been uninformed? Most certainly not. Job done at that stage, regardless of how it was done.
Correct, you are being asked to vote on Lisbon and not whether the EU 'has been good to us'. And I have no idea whether or not the government would commission a survey if the result was a yes. Personally I would like to think that they would, mostly because I find that sort of thing interesting.42% didn't understand what they were voting on? Now, is that A) didn't understand any of the treaty didn't understand certain parts or C) atari jaguar? You see these surveys can be open to some dodgy interpretation of the answers, and thats why I don't trust them.
The reason given in the treaty for the 42% was "Lack of information, knowledge, understanding, treaty too complex". Fairly straight forward. A second referendum gives a better chance for the yes camp to better inform the public and explain why the treaty is complex. And so far, I'm not impressed that they have done that.The French and Dutch No result was addressed by changing the EU constitution to Lisbon, carefully dropping many of the references to a constitution in the treaty's wording and then that allowed the French and Dutch governments to seek Lisbon past their citizens without having to ask them to vote.
Blitzkrieg has a couple of very interesting posts in the "How will you vote" thread which explains very clearly about the French government requirement for a referendum. In short, the French only have to have a referendum if it is an Accession Treaty. The Dutch had a non binding referendum, but after the vote their courts ruled that it had to be binding. But binding referenda are illegal there so they couldn't have another one.0
Advertisement