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

Which way will you vote (if at all)

Options
1…89111314…22

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    Bacchus wrote: »
    My first post on the Lisbon treaty. Totally agree with the above. Both sides have been scaremongering and I think it's a shame. Why can't they trust to public to listen to the facts and make up their own minds instead of coming out with the likes of "Vote Yes or Europe will get pissy with us" and "Vote No because they took yer commissioner!!" :p


    Well in fairness, people in europe have already began to get pissy with us over the possibility of us rejecting this. The thing is, I firmly believe there is no "better deal" and that to think so is arrogant at worst and naive at best. In that case, we are stuck in this exact setup of the EU for how long?

    Unless we get a 'better deal' we won't pass it a second time if we fail now, so the rest of europe wants to get on with this but they can't without us. Does that not create a messy situation?

    I'm not saying we'll be excommunicated or that our trading will suffer at all but the point is for me that the uncertainty is not good. Alternatively a yes vote is a lot more predictable imo as at this stage all the lies have been refuted so there is very little to argue about.


  • Options
    #303
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Hermy wrote: »
    I fully accept that it is not necessary for every country to have a referendum on the Treaty but I dare say that many more countries might reject the Treaty if it were put to the people.

    Well, I think you're entitled to that belief. I'd prefer if those countries that don't have referendums got used to having them first, though. Otherwise, you're really just deciding the future of Europe by shouting match.

    We're a relatively sophisticated electorate. We read more newspapers than most other countries. We have a complex and subtle voting system. We're used to divisive and emotional referendums ('Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy' and the like). Yet still this one has many voters simply baffled. How would it be in countries where they're not used to the level of lies and distortion involved?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #304
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,316 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    Indeed Scofflaw.

    So now I need a new reason for voting no.
    Terrorism, neutrality, militarisation, scaremongering on both sides...the list goes on!

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #305
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    Hermy wrote: »
    I fully accept that it is not necessary for every country to have a referendum on the Treaty but I dare say that many more countries might reject the Treaty if it were put to the people.

    If that were true I think the reason would be the ignorance of a lot of people and the fact that they, like many here, are sticking it to the man, 'fighting for freedom' and not understanding the issues. "UNELECTED PRESIDENT OMG!!" would sway a lot of voters alone because they take it at face value.

    EDIT: Just in case anyone misunderstands, I'm saying a sizable number of voters are completely ignorant and that that effects the vote. If it was a parliamentary vote everyone would have an understanding of all the issues. Like someone said, a parliamentary vote on something like this is the wiser choice imo.


  • Options
    #306
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Hermy wrote: »
    I fully accept that it is not necessary for every country to have a referendum on the Treaty but I dare say that many more countries might reject the Treaty if it were put to the people.

    They might well, though it's speculative. I don't think treaties like this should really go to referendum even in Ireland. The people have a responsibility to choose a government that reflects their ideals and views. Last year we had an opportunity to do just that and we chose to change little. On some significant divisive cultural issues I can see why a referendum is desirable. However, to expect the people to assess a vast and intricate legal document seems silly, especially when we are already employing a government (who we have chosen ourselves) to do that job for us.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    URK?!

    Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

    That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

    DeV.


  • Options
    #308
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    Hermy wrote: »
    Indeed Scofflaw.

    So now I need a new reason for voting no.
    scaremongering on both sides...the list goes on!

    I know you're probably joking but I don't why's that a reason to vote no.


  • Options
    #309
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    DeVore wrote: »
    URK?!

    Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

    That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

    DeV.

    As someone said, on these sorts of treaties where people complain they don't understand every word of the document etc. I don't think it's a problem having a parliamentary vote. We don't have a referendum on nearly every other thing and it works for us (unless you think it is appalling that politicians make decisions without our direct say).


  • Options
    #310
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Hermy wrote: »
    Indeed Scofflaw.

    So now I need a new reason for voting no.
    Terrorism, neutrality, militarisation, scaremongering on both sides...the list goes on!

    Terrorism: I presume you mean the use of the word without definition of what it is? Well I'm pretty sure the word has already been defined in EU law and that definition would therefore apply.

    Neutrality: We were never strictly nuetral anyway, more pacifly aligned. We currently operate with the UN and we mantain the right to opt out of any military action.

    Militarisation: Its not like the Treaty is asking us to start an arms race. It is just trying to ensure that we each focus somewhat on imporving our defense forces, which is a on going thing currently anyway.

    Scaremongering - this has nothing to do with the Treaty itself and is solely to do with the campaigns. It should not affect your vote. Even if it did you say both sides are guilty so why is that a reason for voting no?


  • Options
    #311
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    DeVore wrote: »
    URK?!

    Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

    That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

    DeV.

    Was that directed at me? I'm certainly not suggesting that the people are incapable of making an informed decision, nor that they should not be allowed to vote based on their capacity to understand the document. What I'm saying is that putting such a document directly to the people is cumbersome and unnecessary. It is wasteful of time, taxes and resources and is a job that they typically would not be expected to have to do in most democracies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    DeVore wrote: »
    Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

    What about electing a group to deal with such matters on our behalf? It's pretty much what we do with law etc in this country already for the most part. Direct democracy doesn't work very well if the issue at hand isn't easily understood and relatively clear cut. The vast majority of people just won't be willing to put the time in to fully understand anything complicated or legalistic, so we end up with a plebiscite which isn't informed or cogent of the issue at hand. This isn't exactly a good thing.

    The key term isn't that the electorate won't understand it, it's that there's little incentive for the electorate to put in the large level of work needed to understand many issues. You'll get a handful who will do it but by and large people want to vote based on bullet point lists and broad principles not interpretations of complicated legalistic documents. They simply don't have the time or the inclination to do things differently, the vast majority of people ignore politics 99% of the time outside of elections and news headlines outside of possibly one pet topic close to their heart that they follow more closely. It isn't a criticism of them or anything, but we should design political systems that don't deny this very strong tendency of human nature.


  • Options
    #313
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    DeVore wrote: »
    URK?!

    Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

    That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

    DeV.

    It's not that they don't understand it, it's that they make no attempt to inform themselves. Now there are many people commenting here on boards that have read up on the issues and seem to have well formed arguments upon which to base their opinion. Unfortunately if you expand that to the wider populace you will get a lot of ignorance and those people are happy to be ignorant, how can direct democracy work when people are voting on issues they are clueless about? What would make more sense is if those people to lazy to find out for themselves elected a person to research the issues and vote on their behalf, that is basically what parliamentary democracy is about. That is why I believe we should entrust the parliamentarians to sort these issues out for us, obviously this requires a lot of trust and that trust has been eroded because of the tribunals, which has lead to democracy suffering.

    My most ideal society would be true, direct democracy were anybody can get involved in the decision making process, but they would have to inform themselves thoroughly on the issues. This is however in reality is impractical because society as a whole is not bothered. I myself am a political junkie and I will spend 2-4 hours a day reading news websites and another 2 hours commenting, there are not many people that interested in politics.


  • Options
    #314
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    I accept that I'm playing the man and not the ball.
    However we were told that if we rejected Nice the sky would fall down.
    It didn't.
    Instead we were made to do it all over again until we got the right answer.
    The Dutch rejected the E.U. Constitution and the sky didn't fall down.
    Ditto the French.
    Now we are being told to vote Yes on Lisbon or else.
    I decided to vote No because of the dreadful campaigning on both sides which left me baffled.
    Why did the government who insist that this Treaty is vital for Irelands future not present the facts to us as per some of the informed and considered responses I've read here today which have me reconsidering my vote.
    It wasn't until last weekends poll that the government got the finger out.
    It is my view that this government has nothing but contempt for the electorate and as long as this remains the case they will always struggle to convince me that their policies are best.

    A perfect argument for voting the government out of power in the next round of local and general elections. Your discontent would go to much better use there. For the record, I'll be right there with you. Don't take it out on Europe.


  • Options
    #315
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    A perfect argument for voting the government out of power in the next round of local and general elections. Your discontent would go to much better use there. For the record, I'll be right there with you. Don't take it out on Europe.

    Additionally the Referendum Commission sent on details of the Treaty from a non-biased point of view. This went to everyone on the register so noone can say not enough was done to clarify the thing.


  • Options
    #316
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.


  • Options
    #317
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.

    Ant the no side aren't?


  • Options
    #318
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.

    If you reckoned they were trying to scare you into accepting a free holiday in the sun would you fall for that? Or would you defy them because of their rather misplaced tactics?

    Both sides are trying to scare you. They're trying to scare the people who aren't willing to do the research. The tactics of neither side reflect the truth of the Treaty. Do a bit of reading, make your mind up based on that. Don't vote as some kind of act of defiance. Save that for when it counts.


  • Options
    #319
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.

    Both sides are doing that. Ignore them both, spend some time looking at the threads here (Scofflaw and sink are pretty well up on the holw thing) and make up your own mind independant from the noisemakers.


  • Options
    #320
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,316 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    The people have a responsibility to choose a government that reflects their ideals and views.
    Since getting into government the Green Party don't appear to have the same views and ideals.
    Call Me Jimmy wrote: »
    If it was a parliamentary vote everyone would have an understanding of all the issues.
    If it was a parliamentary vote, then the voters would be doing what their party whip instructed them to do.
    DeVore wrote: »
    Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.
    DeV.
    Here, here.
    molloyjh wrote: »
    Terrorism: I presume you mean the use of the word without definition of what it is? Well I'm pretty sure the word has already been defined in EU law and that definition would therefore apply.
    Does it apply?
    Neutrality: We were never strictly nuetral anyway, more pacifly aligned. We currently operate with the UN and we mantain the right to opt out of any military action.
    As long as the U.S. military are using Shannon as a stop off we are not neutral.
    Scaremongering - this has nothing to do with the Treaty itself and is solely to do with the campaigns. It should not affect your vote. Even if it did you say both sides are guilty so why is that a reason for voting no?
    I cannot surely agree to something that I do not understand. It was the task of the government, the opposition, the Yes campaign, the No campaign, the Referendum Commission and other interested parties to inform me.
    They didn't!
    Ergo, I reject the Treaty because of a lack of understanding and a belief that thing's will carry on as normal if the Treaty is rejected.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #321
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Hermy wrote: »
    AtomicHorror:
    The people have a responsibility to choose a government that reflects their ideals and views.
    Hermy:
    Since getting into government the Green Party don't appear to have the same views and ideals.

    That suggests a logical course of action that has nothing at all to do with the Lisbon Treaty. My point holds.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Hermy wrote: »
    I cannot surely agree to something that I do not understand. It was the task of the government, the opposition, the Yes campaign, the No campaign, the Referendum Commission and other interested parties to inform me.
    They didn't!
    Ergo, I reject the Treaty because of a lack of understanding and a belief that thing's will carry on as normal if the Treaty is rejected.

    You've debated it extensively here and the literature is widely available. The campaigns have let us down but that's no excuse for ignorance. If you can't understand what is available to you then that is unfortunate, do your best to make an informed vote either way.


  • Options
    #323
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Hermy wrote: »
    Since getting into government the Green Party don't appear to have the same views and ideals.
    I was never a fan of the GP, I always thought they were to motivated by ideology and were not interested in practicable way of addressing the issues. Now that I have seem them in office and they show willing to compromise ideology to reflect reality I would be more inclined to vote for them in a future election.
    Hermy wrote: »
    If it was a parliamentary vote, then the voters would be doing what their party whip instructed them to do.
    That's how parliamentary parties have always worked in every parliament in the world. Party backbenchers can still rebel if they're so inclined.
    Hermy wrote: »
    As long as the U.S. military are using Shannon as a stop off we are not neutral.
    And what exactly has that to do with Lisbon? How is voting one way or the other in this referendum going to change that?
    Hermy wrote: »
    I cannot surely agree to something that I do not understand. It was the task of the government, the opposition, the Yes campaign, the No campaign, the Referendum Commission and other interested parties to inform me.
    They didn't!
    Ergo, I reject the Treaty because of a lack of understanding and a belief that thing's will carry on as normal if the Treaty is rejected.

    That is the failing of direct democracy, that is the reason people who don't know shouldn't vote. The information is everywhere, there are about a hundred threads in this forum alone. There have been debates on tv and debates in the newspapers and debates in the streets, cafes, bars restaurants, workplace I even had a debate with a guy in the toilet. If you don't know the issues by now you should do society a favour and not vote.


  • Options
    #324
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Hermy wrote: »
    I cannot surely agree to something that I do not understand. It was the task of the government, the opposition, the Yes campaign, the No campaign, the Referendum Commission and other interested parties to inform me.
    They didn't!
    Ergo, I reject the Treaty because of a lack of understanding and a belief that thing's will carry on as normal if the Treaty is rejected.

    I'm pretty sure about what the Treaty means and says, I really don't see any reason why you can't be just as well informed.

    http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html

    Its not rocket science. Take the time to read this page and you'll be in a far bette position to judge what the best course of action is. The information is out there and as a voter it is your responsibility to make yourself suitable familiar with it to make an informed decision.


  • Options
    #325
    Khannie
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 37,485 Mod ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Hermy wrote: »
    Khannie,
    It is my humble opinion that this referendum is not being put to the people, especially the French and Dutch, because the governments believe it would be rejected.

    Possibly. Anyone seen any opinion polls on how a vote in these countries would go?

    Gross generalisation coming up: I couldn't see the French putting up with that though. They're pretty quick to take to the streets when they're unhappy with government decisions.


  • Options
    #326
    calahans
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 225 ✭✭calahans


    If the treaty is renegotiated 100 times it will never be understandable to the average person. Its a complicated document between 27 countries and it is bound to be technical.

    This does not make it a bad in itself.

    Dont be fooled by the extreme elements of society.


  • Options
    #327
    mcaul
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭mcaul


    How about an eve of Lisbon poll?

    See if the trend has changed in the past 2 days after the Q&A & Primetime debates along with the debate here.?

    Just be interesting to see if there is much of a swing.


  • Options
    #328
    Hermy
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 11,316 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hermy


    O.K. I'm beginning to get out of my depth here.
    Thanks for your considered responses - they are certainly food for thought.
    As for tomorrow may the best side win.

    Genealogy Forum Mod



  • Options
    #329
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    mcaul wrote: »
    How about an eve of Lisbon poll?

    See if the trend has changed in the past 2 days after the Q&A & Primetime debates along with the debate here.?

    Just be interesting to see if there is much of a swing.


    compared to an earlier poll done in AH it does appear as the Yes vote has closed the gap a small bit.

    but not by a substantial amount

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055308262


  • Options
    #330
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    Its saddening to see so many people won't bother voting at all. This is more important than the General elections yet people will still sit at home and not bother (and then complain about the result afterwards :rolleyes:) I can understand if your polling station is literally hundreds of miles away, but ffs if it's just down the road get off your arse and go vote.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    I can understand if your polling station is literally hundreds of miles away, but ffs if it's just down the road get off your arse and go vote.

    Actually I have to travel down by train tonight to my home town to vote tomorrow morning and get the train back up for work :D


    Now before anyone shouts at me, I am just curious on this and I am not accusing either side of anything.

    But I wonder how many of the votes in the poll are from one post accounts, seeing as more so then any other forum Politics attracts quick sign up soapbox posters.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement