No lead in latest poll

menoscemo · 06-06-2008 5:24pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Frankly, I find this incredible considering the wealth of information that is available at this stage; "I'm too lazy to inform myself properly so I'll just vote 'No' to save me the hassle". Isn't democracy grand?

I said voting No won't change anything- you assume that this means people don't know what it is about? How do you make this incredible jump of logic? Maybe people understand the treaty and vote no anyway-preciselty because they don't want to change anything.
They want to tell the EU 'we are happy the way you are, I don't see anything positive from this new treaty for us, so just leave well alone please'
That is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take.

sink · 06-06-2008 5:25pm

gurramok wrote: »

Mnc's have stated they support it?..I'm intrigued, can you provide a link?

http://www.amcham.ie/index.cfm

Intel, Google and Dell are all members of it.

gurramok wrote: »

Regarding the countres that rejected the EU Cons. vote, we could argue till the cows come home, my point is that scaremongering about investment/jobs if a No vote materialised didn't work before(Nice), is ill judged, invalid and is backfiring.
(the CIF joined in this type of scaremongering today, unreal)

I wouldn't go so far as the scaremongers and say it will be a catastrophe/disaster or anything like that. I do believe it will be damaging to our short term interests and will make economic conditions more difficult. But it is nothing we can't recover from in several years.

gurramok wrote: »

What gets me is politicians lecturing us to vote yes when they have not even read the treaty in the first place and scaremongering about jobs, i'd expect more from our top political elite than to stoop to the likes of fringe groups with laughable 'no to foreign rule' slogans.

I don't buy that argument at all. If I'm drawing up a business contract my solicitor drafts it and explains the clauses to me, I don't need to read the whole thing myself to know what it contains.

gurramok wrote: »

Then this part i recently found in AH of all places. "The EU parliament rejected to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland" , Amendment 32.
About 2min in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jg-qzJ-L_A&feature=related

How can the yes side defend this?

The Corbett - De Vigo report report contained an amendment which asked that the parliament to "undertake to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland". This report was voted down but not because of this amendment.

Reports are not legislation and are not legally binding, they are tools of official communication.

The report itself was a discussion on how superior the failed constitution was in comparison to the reform treaty. If they had voted for it, it would have become part of official parliamentary communications to it's citizens, at a time when the reform treaty was being debated in national parliaments. This would have been completely unhelpful as the constitution was dead and the reform treaty is what we had to go with, plus it was completely pointless as it served no one and wasted money.

democrates · 06-06-2008 5:25pm

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well a week is a long time in politics :rolleyes: The Yes camp are going to try and lure the No camp into a false sense of security.

It was citizens who voted in the poll though, that's not Yes camp subterfuge, like "Oh yes, this is part of our strategy". It's egg on the face, simple as.

menoscemo · 06-06-2008 5:27pm

djpbarry wrote: »

It’s already been pointed out that it is quite difficult to point to specific benefits that would result from voting ‘Yes’;.

You've convinced me then.

estebancambias · 06-06-2008 6:07pm

I have everyone voting no. I was so for the yes side, until I came on Boards and seen the reason some of the stupid reasons people are saying yes(sinn fein says no so it must be bad)

Yippy...I am so happy.

menoscemo · 06-06-2008 6:15pm

estebancambias wrote: »

I have everyone voting no. I was so for the yes side, until I came on Boards and seen the reason some of the stupid reasons people are saying yes(sinn fein says no so it must be bad)

Yippy...I am so happy.

As per irish times poll:
'Why did you decide to vote yes to the lisbon treaty':
Not to embarass Ireland: 36%
Eu has been good to Ireland/Payback: 21%
The right thing to do: 18%
Politicians/other leaders say it is a good idea: 14%
Don't like the no campaigners: 4%

From the reasons quoted above it is blatantly obvious that the Yes voters have read and understood the treaty much more than the No side. Also they appear to be less ignorant/generally smarter

Hitman Actual · 06-06-2008 6:18pm

estebancambias wrote: »

I have everyone voting no. I was so for the yes side, until I came on Boards and seen the reason some of the stupid reasons people are saying yes(sinn fein says no so it must be bad)

Great way to make up your mind. Also, for every "Yes" voter with a stupid reason, there are many more "No" voters with the most uninformed reasons possible.

estebancambias · 06-06-2008 6:34pm

When I heard Sinn Fein say that they should change certain terms of the treaty and hold a vote on it again, I knew their No campaign was the way to go.

They want and know what is best for Ireland and its people.

democrates · 06-06-2008 6:36pm

menoscemo wrote: »

As per irish times poll:
'Why did you decide to vote yes to the lisbon treaty':
Not to embarass Ireland: 36%
Eu has been good to Ireland/Payback: 21%
The right thing to do: 18%
Politicians/other leaders say it is a good idea: 14%
Don't like the no campaigners: 4%

From the reasons quoted above it is blatantly obvious that the Yes voters have read and understood the treaty much more than the No side. Also they appear to be less ignorant/generally smarter

Are the other 7% undecided on why they are voting yes?:D

ateam · 06-06-2008 6:38pm

estebancambias wrote: »

When I heard Sinn Fein say that they should change certain terms of the treaty and hold a vote on it again, I knew their No campaign was the way to go.

They want and know what is best for Ireland and its people.

Is that sarcasm?

BlitzKrieg · 06-06-2008 7:02pm

what i have learned from the run up to this referendum

1. Nobody paid attention to the video in those EU vans that use to go around the country when we were in school, or again when taken to the EU centre in Dublin in secondary school et etc. Because the number of people who are ignorant on what the Commission represents is unbelievable, we have TD's speaking at debates canvasing for a NO vote and they dont know what the Commission is. Or what the Council of Ministers is. Its bloody pathetic, given how many times I sat through videos explaining it to me throughout my school term.

2. The current irish government cant sell a cancer cure to cancer patients. They are f*cking atrocious at selling a yes vote. Yes as a treaty the Lisbon treaty is a patch at most in comparison to other treaties and its confusing to anyone who doesnt study law or politics (and even then its still difficult) but the government and big parties rolling out the same old garbage made things more confusing and has p*ssed off more (rightly so), If the government had actually explained their stance on the treaty from the beginning and where they want to take ireland within the treaty I'd say the No vote would be half of what it currently is.

Yes, I am voting yes, but because I read the website, asked questions here, they were answered satisfacterly, I checked the background on alot of them, I checked the No vote arguments and I found all of them to be untrue or rubbish except 2.

1. The whole Laveal case recently in the european courts which had everyone worried. Turns out though its not part of lisbon, and voting no will have no affect on it. But if you vote yes, the new bill petition system (using a million signatures from across europe) can easily show the huge support to have that re addressed. But no people cant think that far.

2. The 30+ veto that johnny loves to go on about. Yes we loose the veto on 30 topics, but have you looked at those topics? The vast majority of them are things that specified to euro centric issues such as the Euro, fishing relations between spain and ireland etc etc. the international trade ones are applying I believe to within the EU, not our trade with the US or anywhere else.

Hitman Actual · 06-06-2008 7:41pm

estebancambias wrote: »

When I heard Sinn Fein say that they should change certain terms of the treaty and hold a vote on it again, I knew their No campaign was the way to go.

I know this is Sinn Fein's stance, but can you give me a reliable link/source of what they would change, and how they intend on carrying out those changes? All I hear from them is that they think we can get a better deal, but they've produced nothing else to make me believe that it's not just a soundbite.

Or are you just a victim of that soundbite?

ateam · 06-06-2008 7:47pm

Sinn Fein aren't in government, they won't be doing any Treaty writing.

oscarBravo · 06-06-2008 8:32pm

redspider wrote: »

[A "no" vote] wont be crushing for Ireland, there will be no affect at all...

This is probably the most insidious of all the lies being peddled by the "no" campaign. The only honest answer to the question, "what happens if we vote no?" is: nobody knows.

A concrete example: the Libertas posters saying "Keep our Commissioner, vote No." If we reject the Lisbon Treaty, the Nice Treaty provisions on the reduction of the size of the commission will come into force in 2009. What will the exact effect be?

We don't know. It wasn't decided in the Nice Treaty.

This means that an arrangement will have to be negotiated. The larger countries will make a strong case for keeping permanent commissioners, and forcing the smaller countries to rotate their commissioners between them instead of rotating equally between all the countries. The latter arrangement was agreed in the Lisbon Treaty, after (as I understand it) some very tough lobbying from Ireland among others.

If Ireland rejects Lisbon, but then starts demanding the same concessions we'd already negotiated in it - how well do you suppose we'll get on?

It's just a single example, but it clearly illustrates the total dishonesty that underlies so much of the "no" campaign.

djpbarry · 06-06-2008 10:39pm

menoscemo wrote: »

I said voting No won't change anything- you assume that this means people don't know what it is about? How do you make this incredible jump of logic?

I backed it up with a quote from the Irish Times, which you obviously didn't read.

menoscemo · 06-06-2008 10:48pm

djpbarry wrote: »

I backed it up with a quote from the Irish Times, which you obviously didn't read.

I did, I am just pointing out that not wanting to change the status quo and not understanding the treaty are completely different. Your quote is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Anyway, as i pointed out 36% of yes voters main reason for voting yes is 'not to embarass Ireland' as opposed to 30% No voter's being 'do not understand the treaty'
So are the Yes voter's voting on the correct issues? Is their reasoning any more informed or less ignorant?

Voipjunkie · 06-06-2008 10:48pm

I was considering voting no but then I heard Ms Synnot claim that a yes vote would mean Abortion , Euthanasia and Gay marriage and that would almost convince me to vote yes if I thought for a minute it was true.

gurramok · 07-06-2008 12:04am

From reading alot of threads on this, its amazing the amount of people change sides due to what they hear from commentators and bits and bobs thrown around

I wouldn't fancy running a poll and trying to predict what the vote would be, good luck Red C!

LostinBlanch · 07-06-2008 12:31am

democrates wrote: »

It was citizens who voted in the poll though, that's not Yes camp subterfuge, like "Oh yes, this is part of our strategy". It's egg on the face, simple as.

I agree, but that's not what I meant. I meant that the Yes campaign would try and turn it around hoping that the No campaign would become complacent and take their foot off the pedal. I didn't articulate that properly, but in my defence it was late.

As for the No voters, I'm sure there are people there who aren't happy at finding themselves on the same side as Coir/Shinners/SWP/Libertas but like French voters a couple of years ago will hold their noses while casting their vote.

The Government hasn't explained the Treaty properly. It waited until the last minute to call the referendum and seems to be happier calling people loolahs and trying to scare the undecideds into voting for something that Cowen has admitted to not reading. Not the best way to persuade people I think.

Basically they are left with asking people to trust them, and a lot of people are looking around after the boom we've had and are asking themselves what do we actually have? An economy going downhill fast, the sound of government promises being dropped quicker than you can say "health cuts hurt the old, the sick and the aged". The state taking legal action against parents of autistic children who want them to get the best possible education. Children going to school in delapidated school buildings and prefabs. A health service that is a complete basket case, where people have publicly expressed the fear of having to go into hospital for fear of MRSA, C Diff ETC, and medics have stated that at least 20 people a year die as a result of overcrowding. A complete lack of joined up public transport system in Dublin especially, but replicated throughout the country. The drip drip drip of the tribunals over the last 10 years eroding public confidence in politicians.

Ah but these have nothing to do with Lisbon I hear you say. I think they do in the sense that there is a general air of unease, for a lot of the reasons above ,which will affect the vote. But the government (well practically the entire establishment bar the shinners) are asking the electorate to trust them and vote yes. I don't think it's going to happen, a lot of people don't trust them and probably won't vote at all, which is more than likely better for the Yes campaiGn as I suspect a lot of them would have voted no anyway. Maybe it's just conjecture on my part but isn't that what this forum is for?

I wonder what odds Paddy Power would give on a Lisbon 2?

The_Minister · 07-06-2008 2:21am

brianthebard wrote: »

For what reasons?

redspider wrote: »

> I think that a No vote could be crushing for Ireland

This is the line that is being pushed by many, such as the ever-smiling Sutherland. It wont be crushing for Ireland, there will be no affect at all, as the Lisbon Treaty fails for ALL countries if Ireland votes No. That's what a veto is all about. If there is an official cost of using a veto, then the EU system breaks down. Ireland should be treated the same as all other counries whether we vote Yes or No. No doubt politicians in the EU will try and use that against us.

estebancambias wrote: »

When I heard Sinn Fein say that they should change certain terms of the treaty and hold a vote on it again, I knew their No campaign was the way to go.

They want and know what is best for Ireland and its people.

I'm going to try and reply to all these at once, since what I plan to say covers, more or less all three. I was at a concert today, so I had to run and couldn't post this. I am slightly drunk, so please ignore any misspellings:)

Firstly, it's important to remember that a No vote is not a vote for the current reality. A No vote will have consequences, and to say otherwise is childish. These consequences will not be structural or official (there will be no sanctions imposed on Ireland), but in terms of Ireland's reputation/negotiating power/possible voting allies, there will be repurcussions.
Many No voters say that this is unfair, because the Irish people have a right to say No. And they do.
However, in a democracy, when the people vote, they are making a decision. It is not something purely esoteric and high-brow, but it is something that will have, like all decisions, good and bad consequences. Hence, we only let adults vote, because adults (theoretically) understand that there are consequences to decisions made, and that no decision occurs in a vaccumn. The other countries in Europe, who have worked and fought for six long years to make this treaty happen, have every right to be angry at Ireland if we say No. A rather poor analogy would be a parent who slaps their child ( a perfectly legal choice), and then gets bolchy when others around them dissapprove. Or, someone who pulls out of a holiday at the last second, ruining it for everyone, because now no-one can go.
So its not a case of Yes=Lisbon, and No=Status Quo. A No vote to Lisbon carries with it consequences, and presents a different reality than exists now. The question is whether or not the pros outway the cons of a vote either way. It may even be that someone of a particular bent may consider a No/Yes vote to be merely the lesser of two evils, since not all decisions are nessacerily between a "good" and a "bad".

Now Lisbon has to happen, changes do have to be made, because right now certain other countries are getting screwed regarding their voting-pop ratio, and other institutions of the EU are just too slow. If we repeatedly said No, effectively screwing those countries (all of whom are more important than us), then we get kicked out. Simple as. One country of five million will not be allowed to hold back the entire EU indefinately.
Since we all agree (except the Shinners) that leaving the EU is a bad thing, I think it is fair to say that the Irish people would agree to a deal if it got to that point of having to make that choice.

This means that a No vote, since it must be eventually be followed by a Yes vote, must be (unless you are a Socialist/Anarchist/Nazi/Shinner/Religious-Right) taken with a view to those deals that could possibly be available in the future instead. If those deals are better, then a No vote may be the best course. If those deals are, as I believe, a good deal worse, then we should say Yes now. All this is predicated on the idea that you do not want to leave the EU; if you do, then by all means vote however you want.
Sinn Fein have said that a No might get us a better deal, but I, quite frankly, disagree, since all future deals look worse to me.

Why?
Just look across to our nearest neighbour, England.
A renegotiated Lisbon treaty would take a few years, and by that time, there will be a new government in Britain.
I believe that government will be Conservative.
If the Conservative party gain power before Lisbon is agreed, then two things will happen:
1: (Less likely) The Conservative party will keep going on about Britain's dominant place in Europe, will make unmeetable demands, will emphasise the Commonwealth, and eventually the EU disintegrates (this is just possible enough to deserve a mention, but unlikely)
2: (More likely) The Conservative party, demands that as a big country it gets the power it deserves, and all the concessions that the small countries won (on the Commission, voting etc) are fecked out the window, and we get rodgered with a deal that makes Lisbon look like Christmas.
Why? because if it comes to choosing between Britain and Ireland, they will choose Britain, because they know (and they know that we know), that we need the EU more than it needs us, whereas the EU needs Britain.

Basically, TL;DR, if you want to vote know because you think there might be a better deal, you have to look at where the EU will be when that renegotiation happens, and look at what parties will have changed around the table. Because once the Conservatives get to the table, we lose everything that we fought for. I do not believe that any future deal would be better for Ireland.

PS: Thats not why I am voting Yes, but I think that anyone who says that a No vote has no consequences, or that a better deal is possible, needs to have a rethink.

PPS: I am, as mentioned above, slightly drunk, so if there is anything glaringly wrong with this post, its probably because I forgot/skipped some of it. I'll fix it up/expand on it tomorrow evening.

ixtlan · 07-06-2008 2:28am

The real problem with campaigning for a yes vote is that there isn't anything that will get people nodding in agreement. It's all rather subtle, and the "streamlining" has the unfortunate but unavoidable effect of reducing all states influence to some extent.

Really we should not have been having a referendum at all as the changes do not involve any significant transfer of sovereignty.

I was talking to someone today along these lines. They were a committed voter. They would not vote no because they did not believe the no scaremongering. They also would not vote yes because they didn't believe there was any significant changes that warrranted it. So this person will spoil their vote. They might have voted yes if there were more dramatic changes.

If Lisbon falls we are going to be in a difficult situation. How to get people to approve any treaty which does not have a plainly obvious immediate benefit to Ireland specifically. It would seem that modest changes will never get passed.

Also, to concur with oscarBravo's point on the commisioner situation as regards Nice. I fear that if Lisbon falls and we get a worse deal than it outlined, rather than blame the no side, the public will assume that the government gave up the commissioner against the wishes of the voters. I assume the yes side will not make this obvious because they fear (rightly) that the voters have forgotten this provision of Nice and would again blame all politicans for somehow duping them.

Ix.

djpbarry · 07-06-2008 11:46am

menoscemo wrote: »

I did, I am just pointing out that not wanting to change the status quo and not understanding the treaty are completely different. Your quote is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

As has already been pointed out, there is no "status quo" as such; to assume that nothing will change if we vote 'No' is rather naive to say the least.

I made the point that a large number of people planning to vote 'No' are doing so because they do not understand the treaty. In other words, rather than risking changes they don't understand, they want to maintain some sort of "status quo".

menoscemo wrote: »

Anyway, as i pointed out 36% of yes voters main reason for voting yes is 'not to embarass Ireland' as opposed to 30% No voter's being 'do not understand the treaty'

May I ask where you obtained those figures (for the 'Yes' side)? I don't see them in the Irish Times article.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

The Government hasn't explained the Treaty properly.

Is that not what the Referendum Commission is for?

Even if Brian Cowen sat down and went through the treaty word-by-word with each member of the electorate, people would still claim the government are biased and are not to be trusted.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

...voting for something that Cowen has admitted to not reading.

This claim is just not going to go away, is it? Do you honestly believe that our Taoiseach doesn't understand the treaty?

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Basically they are left with asking people to trust them...

No they are not. Most TD's I have heard discussing the treaty have advised the electorate to go and read up on the treaty on the Referendum Commission's website; I don't recall any TD asking their electorate to "trust them".

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Ah but these have nothing to do with Lisbon I hear you say. I think they do...

They don't. You seem to be suggesting that the government's poor performance in certain areas:

should be punished with a 'No' vote.
could be punished with a 'No' vote.

In the case of '1', I couldn't disagree more. In the case of '2', yes, unfortunately it's possible; that's democracy.

menoscemo · 07-06-2008 3:24pm

djpbarry wrote: »

May I ask where you obtained those figures (for the 'Yes' side)? I don't see them in the Irish Times article.

They are in yesterdays Irish Times, page 8 or 9 (can't remember off hand). There are two charts giving the main reasons why the Yes and No voters have made their decisions. It is the follow up article to the main article.

All i am saying is that some of the Yes Arguments are more Ignorant than the No arguments. therefore it is wrong of you to criticise the No voters as being ignorant.

sink · 07-06-2008 3:56pm

menoscemo wrote: »

They are in yesterdays Irish Times, page 8 or 9 (can't remember off hand). There are two charts giving the main reasons why the Yes and No voters have made their decisions. It is the follow up article to the main article.

All i am saying is that some of the Yes Arguments are more Ignorant than the No arguments. therefore it is wrong of you to criticise the No voters as being ignorant.

There are some very well informed no voters and I have enjoyed debating them. But they are dwarfed by the amount of no voters that come to this forum and spout rubbish. There are also Yes voters who are not informed at all and are purely voting along party lines. The difference is they don't spread completely false statements.

oscarBravo · 07-06-2008 6:02pm

LostinBlanch wrote: »

The Government hasn't explained the Treaty properly.

The cynic in me wants to point out that it would be impossible to explain it properly, because most people just want soundbytes, and don't care whether or not they're true.

Case in point: yesterday's Drivetime featured a segment with John Gormley on the campaign trail. A voter said she wanted to vote no because she had been told that a yes vote would allow abortion to be brought in. He correctly pointed out the protocol that explicitly protects the relevant article of our constitution, and you could hear her eyes glazing over.

mike65 · 07-06-2008 7:16pm

Words like protocol are the problem, heard or read they induce either tiredness or dizzyness. The EU and its machinations are beyond the ken of most, if the legistative and governing structures of a body are so obtuse and vague in the public mind as to induce a disinterested shrug that body is in trouble.

Within a decade I can see people rejecting any new proposals at every turn.

Mike.

oscarBravo · 07-06-2008 7:21pm

mike65 wrote: »

Within a decade I can see people rejecting any new proposals at every turn.

I don't know about you, but "I have no idea what you just asked me, so the answer is no" strikes me as a terrifyingly stupid attitude.

mike65 · 07-06-2008 7:50pm

You are right of course, but that and my post touches upon the disconnect between the general public and governing bodies be they national or supranational.

In the old days it was simple - Europe was "new" and fresh and where the money and influence was (esp for the smaller/poor counties like Ireland), now everyone is pretty well off in global or even regional terms and as all the Big Stuff has been dealt with (trade, freedom of movement, basic social rights) a new treaty is seen as a needless nuciance of detail which Joe Average cannot be much arsed to follow.

Maybe our relationship is, to draw a lazy comparison, like a marraige. The big day and honeymoon are a faded memory and we're now quite bored of one another.

Oh and we have to start paying them more than they pay us which means the relationship is changing anyway. They'll be less gratitude and more 'how dare theys?' from here on.

Mike

PrivateEye · 07-06-2008 7:58pm

I like Europe. I think it's been great to us in the past (and we've not been too bad back remember)

....but that doesn't mean I'm voting Yes to this Treaty. Personally, I am 99.9% sure at this stage I'll be ticking the No box. I find the Fianna Fail campaign on this one to be ridicolous, and I don't think the Yes side have focused on the actual treaty much at all, rather just spat out sentences on how good Europe has been for us.

The Fine Gael slogan is most ironic. How can you be "at the heart of Europe", when your influence within it is going to be reduced?

I think a No vote is the only option here. Saying that, my family remains a strong FF one- just the 'merits' of this Treaty are lost on us obviously :rolleyes:

The_Minister · 07-06-2008 7:59pm

Can I ask what people think of my previous post?

I've been expanding this theory, and the more I see, the more I feel like bricking it if there is a No vote.
I am actually genuinely worried now.

sink · 07-06-2008 8:04pm

The_Minister wrote: »

Can I ask what people think of my previous post?

I've been expanding this theory, and the more I see, the more I feel like bricking it if there is a No vote.
I am actually genuinely worried now.

I think you've got a pretty decent argument there. One of the most dangerous and misleading things SF are saying is that we can renegotiate a better treaty. Firstly because it could pull borderline yes voters over to the no side and secondly because even though its most likely false it is extremely difficult to explain to the layman why not.

PrivateEye · 07-06-2008 8:04pm

Voipjunkie wrote: »

I was considering voting no but then I heard Ms Synnot claim that a yes vote would mean Abortion , Euthanasia and Gay marriage and that would almost convince me to vote yes if I thought for a minute it was true.

I'm voting no and I think

*Coir/Youth defence are a group of right-wing nutjobs
*Declan Ganley is a man I wouldn't trust to walk my dog
*and Sinn Fein are well.....themselves alone.

I wouldn't be put off (or rather turned to Yes) because of some of the people on the No side. I would hope independent thinkers make up th majority of the No side, people who'd normally lend support to a party ont the Yes side (like in my own case)

The_Minister · 07-06-2008 8:09pm

sink wrote: »

I think you've got a pretty decent argument their. One of the most dangerous and misleading things SF are saying is that we can renegotiate a better treaty. Firstly because it could pull borderline yes voters over to the no side and secondly because even though its most likely false it is extremely difficult to explain to the layman why not.

I was hoping that you would provide some comfort.

I now have three scenarios leading to total EU disintegration, two leading to Ireland leaving the EU, and multiple ones of Ireland getting a worse deal.:(

No matter how I examine it, if
1) Ireland votes No on June 12th, and subsequently;
2) A Conservative government is elected in Britain
I see no positive scenario for Ireland being possible.

BMH · 07-06-2008 8:10pm

mike65 wrote: »

Words like protocol are the problem, heard or read they induce either tiredness or dizzyness. The EU and its machinations are beyond the ken of most, if the legistative and governing structures of a body are so obtuse and vague in the public mind as to induce a disinterested shrug that body is in trouble.

Within a decade I can see people rejecting any new proposals at every turn.

Mike.

Which is why stuff like this should never go to referendum. Nice was a disaster and so is this.

I was hoping that you would provide some comfort.

I now have three scenarios leading to toal EU disintegration, two leading to Ireland leaving the EU, and multiple ones of Ireland getting a worse deal.

No matter how I examine it, if
1) Ireland votes No on June 12th, and subsequently;
2) A Conservative government is elected in Britain
I see no positive scenario for Ireland being possible.

Get out and canvass, convince friends and family.

is_that_so · 07-06-2008 8:14pm

I think there is reason for concern and much as I respect people's "informed" choices, there is a very large proportion of the populace who are wading into this, sold on the propaganda or who have adopted an anti-establishment stance or are taking that dimwitted "don't understand so no" attitude.

I think what the No side has consistently ignored is that the treaty, in part negotiated by our current and ex-leader, took three years to come to fruition. That version in itself revisited the problems that the Dutch, French and many others had had with the previous version. The enthusiasm in Europe to reopen all of that I would perceive as virtually non-existent.

My own research into what might happen with a No vote suggests that it will end badly. Nevertheless much of that is in the realms of speculation.
We really don't know and as I have posted elsewhere how can you vote to win when you don't know what you have won?

There seems to be a bewilderingly ambivalent attitude to Europe on the No side. On the one hand the EU has produced a treaty that is anathema to them, yet they will trust that same institution to revisit it.

Scofflaw · 07-06-2008 9:30pm

is_that_so wrote: »

I think there is reason for concern and much as I respect people's "informed" choices, there is a very large proportion of the populace who are wading into this, sold on the propaganda or who have adopted an anti-establishment stance or are taking that dimwitted "don't understand so no" attitude.

I think what the No side has consistently ignored is that the treaty, in part negotiated by our current and ex-leader, took three years to come to fruition. That version in itself revisited the problems that the Dutch, French and many others had had with the previous version. The enthusiasm in Europe to reopen all of that I would perceive as virtually non-existent.

My own research into what might happen with a No vote suggests that it will end badly. Nevertheless much of that is in the realms of speculation.
We really don't know and as I have posted elsewhere how can you vote to win when you don't know what you have won?

There seems to be a bewilderingly ambivalent attitude to Europe on the No side. On the one hand the EU has produced a treaty that is anathema to them, yet they will trust that same institution to revisit it.

It's quite a deep paradox. On the one hand, we shouldn't trust the EU or hand over more power because the EU is an unaccountable bully. On the other hand, however, there won't be any negative consequences - because that would be outrageous and the EU doesn't operate like that. Essentially, we're being asked to rely on the good nature of an institution we are painting as a 'villain' - indeed, on the accountability and democracy of an institution that's being characterised as unaccountable and undemocratic.

Similarly, in the name of 'democracy', it's suggested that 1% of the population of Europe should hold the Treaty hostage until it's renegotiated in our favour - but it's OK to do that because it's only governments we'd be shafting, and everyone knows they're villains..

In turn, the governments we are shafting, and who are wickedly denying their own people a vote, will not do anything back to us, because it would be wicked of them to do such a thing. Once again, we will rely on the good nature of those we paint as villains.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't important.

cordially,
Scofflaw

democrates · 07-06-2008 10:25pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's quite a deep paradox. On the one hand, we shouldn't trust the EU or hand over more power because the EU is an unaccountable bully. On the other hand, however, there won't be any negative consequences - because that would be outrageous and the EU doesn't operate like that. Essentially, we're being asked to rely on the good nature of an institution we are painting as a 'villain' - indeed, on the accountability and democracy of an institution that's being characterised as unaccountable and undemocratic.

Similarly, in the name of 'democracy', it's suggested that 1% of the population of Europe should hold the Treaty hostage until it's renegotiated in our favour - but it's OK to do that because it's only governments we'd be shafting, and everyone knows they're villains..

In turn, the governments we are shafting, and who are wickedly denying their own people a vote, will not do anything back to us, because it would be wicked of them to do such a thing. Once again, we will rely on the good nature of those we paint as villains.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't important.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't see an attempt at vengance against Ireland following a rejection working in favour of the EU, that would prove the skeptics right, set back their chances of gaining citizen support, and alienate encumbent national governments. If they try to railroad changes in somehow, the public reaction would likely be very negative.

After a No vote the best option for the EU is to gain public support for any future changes. Without the people on side they're in trouble in the long term anyway.

LostinBlanch · 07-06-2008 10:26pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

The cynic in me wants to point out that it would be impossible to explain it properly, because most people just want soundbytes, and don't care whether or not they're true.

Pardon if some of this may seem rambling, but I'm formulating my thoughts as I type here.

I can agree that it's a difficult thing to try and explain at the best of times, and yes a lot of people like to hear soundbites. But the government came very late into the game, and Cowen huffing and puffing that FFers better toe the line or else can't disguise that fact. the No campaign were let run at it early on, and set the agenda. And the Yes campaign has been a mixture of complacency, arrogance and a lot of stick with no carrot. They never gave people even one concrete reason why voting yes would benefit them personally.

FF did in the last election by emphasising their supposed good handling of the economy, and saying that people should vote for them to keep the good times rolling (kind of). The majority of people then bought it, ao FF won that campaign. This time they looked at the opposition and thought, we don't even have to try.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Case in point: yesterday's Drivetime featured a segment with John Gormley on the campaign trail. A voter said she wanted to vote no because she had been told that a yes vote would allow abortion to be brought in. He correctly pointed out the protocol that explicitly protects the relevant article of our constitution, and you could hear her eyes glazing over.

Fair play to your hearing

Joking aside, I think that people have less faith in politicians now. One of the reasons for it, I think, has been the drip drip drip of the tribunals and the soundbites trotted out by FF that all politicians are the same, and they're all at it. Well I think those chickens have come home to roost now. The entire political establishment, bar SF and assorted fringe groups, is campaigning on the same side. Maybe not to the same extent, but they're all on the same side . . . . and losing. There is no opposition to argue different points against government on this. A large part of the electorate see themselves as being unrepresented on this issue which gives the space to (fringe) groups that most people would rightly ignore. Nature abhors a vaccuum etc. They will fade into obscurity after Lisbon (1 or 2) has been put to bed. This is a purely narrow Irish (as opposed to Eu wide) view though.

I have ignored the fact that us voting no could be part of a Europe wide trend
France, Netherlands, us, Denmark possibly, UK. I think that Giscard D'estaing & co have though. That's why they are trying to slip this past us in the hope that we're looking the other way. 10 years ago it may have been more likely to work, now I'm not so sure.

is_that_so · 07-06-2008 10:34pm

democrates wrote: »

I don't see an attempt at vengeanceagainst Ireland following a rejection working in favour of the EU, that would prove the skeptics right, set back their chances of gaining citizen support, and alienate encumbent national governments. If they try to railroad changes in somehow, the public reaction would likely be very negative.

After a No vote the best option for the EU is to gain public support for any future changes. Without the people on side they're in trouble in the long term anyway.

I wasn't aware that the EU did vengeance, although the use of irrational and emotive language seems to be a calling card for those leaning towards No. However it is abundantly clear that while the No side have all that logic on their side they seem to think in passing this back to the EU, a "better deal " whatever that means can be had.

Your own conclusion is more in hope than in knowledge.

BlitzKrieg · 07-06-2008 10:50pm

I can agree that it's a difficult thing to try and explain at the best of times, and yes a lot of people like to hear soundbites. But the government came very late into the game, and Cowen huffing and puffing that FFers better toe the line or else can't disguise that fact. the No campaign were let run at it early on, and set the agenda. And the Yes campaign has been a mixture of complacency, arrogance and a lot of stick with no carrot. They never gave people even one concrete reason why voting yes would benefit them personally.

I would agree with you. Cowen etc have handled the whole thing so badly its laughable.

I just personnally wish that it would be them who will suffer from a *no* vote and not europe.

genericgoon · 08-06-2008 12:02am

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I would agree with you. Cowen etc have handled the whole thing so badly its laughable.

I just personnally wish that it would be them who will suffer from a *no* vote and not europe.

The ineptitude of Cowen and co. is a good reason to give the EU more power , I say

nesf · 08-06-2008 12:28am

The_Minister wrote: »

Can I ask what people think of my previous post?

You made some decent points, the thing is, "No, means the status quo" is a mantra, not a logical statement by the No side.

The_Minister wrote: »

I've been expanding this theory, and the more I see, the more I feel like bricking it if there is a No vote.
I am actually genuinely worried now.

A No vote could be costly in the medium term, the problem is, I don't think the people behind the No campaign could give a **** about that. There is no serious political party (read: in it for the long run) other than Sinn Fein, who are opposing this. That reads volumes for anyone with half a ounce of knowledge about how politics, and international politics in particular, works. The thing is, your average person is woefully ignorant of such things, which is fine normally because we've a Government to deal with foreign policy for the most part, but if we're going to have direct democracy on matters such as these people could at least have the decency to go figure out what something is about before bothering to go to the polls.

The idea that "not understanding the Treaty" should mean a No vote is possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. I mean seriously, what do people want, a treaty that comes in haiku form? The "Teletubbies say hello to the Lisbon Treaty"? Some people seem genuinely offended by the idea of a complex legal document, i.e. an international treaty between 27 countries, actually being a complex legal document. The mind boggles, seriously. The only thing I find impressive is that the No groups have figured out that enough people are dumb enough to think this, to make this a good soundbyte.

heyjude · 08-06-2008 12:42am

nesf wrote: »

You made some decent points, the thing is, "No, means the status quo" is a mantra, not a logical statement by the No side.

Some people seem genuinely offended by the idea of a complex legal document, i.e. an international treaty between 27 countries, actually being a complex legal document. The mind boggles, seriously. The only thing I find impressive is that the No groups have figured out that enough people are dumb enough to think this, to make this a good soundbyte.

But an intelligent person can appreciate that a 'complex legal document' can be open to legal interpretation, so that while the text may seem to say one thing, there may be some disagreement on its exact meaning in the future, resulting in sections of the treaty being referred to the European Courts for interpretation and it is possible that their verdict on what the treaty says, may differ from what was intended by the Treaty's authors. The other issue is the issue of trust and frankly many people wouldn't trust a single word that comes from the mouth of a politician, so given that politicians drafted or at least approved the wording of the Treaty, there would naturally be suspicions that the complex language in the Treaty is specifically intended to camouflage its real aims.

Scofflaw · 08-06-2008 1:14am

heyjude wrote: »

But an intelligent person can appreciate that a 'complex legal document' can be open to legal interpretation, so that while the text may seem to say one thing, there may be some disagreement on its exact meaning in the future, resulting in sections of the treaty being referred to the European Courts for interpretation and it is possible that their verdict on what the treaty says, may differ from what was intended by the Treaty's authors. The other issue is the issue of trust and frankly many people wouldn't trust a single word that comes from the mouth of a politician, so given that politicians drafted or at least approved the wording of the Treaty, there would naturally be suspicions that the complex language in the Treaty is specifically intended to camouflage its real aims.

So it should be rejected because it was negotiated by politicians (well, civil servants), and is open to interpretation by lawyers.

Not really a lot of treaties or legislation left over after that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan · 08-06-2008 1:37am

heyjude wrote: »

But an intelligent person can appreciate that a 'complex legal document' can be open to legal interpretation, so that while the text may seem to say one thing, there may be some disagreement on its exact meaning in the future, resulting in sections of the treaty being referred to the European Courts for interpretation and it is possible that their verdict on what the treaty says, may differ from what was intended by the Treaty's authors.

Possible yes, but likely? We can go on what has happened in the past, and I am not aware of any court ruling which completely re-interpreted the meaning of any treaty.

The court is likely to take into account what was intended by the Treaty's authors. The idea that there is some kind of DaVinci code hidden in the treaty which will be finally sprung after all countries have ratified is highly improbable. Impossible no... just as it's not impossible that France will nuke us to get it's way (someone else suggested that). However if one wished to live life with that level of paranoia, I assume you would never drive, stay at home most of the time, disconnect electricity and gas, live in a bungalow (stairs are dangerous), eat only food that you have grown, and generally have a miserable time.

So yes, people can take cases to the court, but usually these cases clarify minor points. They don't twist meanings into completely new shapes.

Ix.

nesf · 08-06-2008 2:48am

heyjude wrote: »

But an intelligent person can appreciate that a 'complex legal document' can be open to legal interpretation, so that while the text may seem to say one thing, there may be some disagreement on its exact meaning in the future, resulting in sections of the treaty being referred to the European Courts for interpretation and it is possible that their verdict on what the treaty says, may differ from what was intended by the Treaty's authors. The other issue is the issue of trust and frankly many people wouldn't trust a single word that comes from the mouth of a politician, so given that politicians drafted or at least approved the wording of the Treaty, there would naturally be suspicions that the complex language in the Treaty is specifically intended to camouflage its real aims.

Eh, welcome to politics? Do you honestly, for a second, believe that any treaty between 27 countries could ever be any other way? I can respect people believing we should not be part of the EU, but if we are going to be part of it, complex legal documents are how it's going to be done and there's no escaping that. You cannot have one without the other, anyone telling you that you can is lying to you or doesn't know what they're talking about or usually some mixture of the two. I do not see how an intelligent person could hold the view that we should be part of the EU while also having ironclad waterproof treaties not open to legal interpretation. It's simply not a possibility for a huge multi-state union to avoid legal complexity when setting out it's internal systems.

Also, why could we, as a country, not simply just pull out of the EU if it tries to become something we want no part of? You talk as if our decision of Thursday will forever decide our future, it won't. The gaps in the present treaty will be dealt with through negotiation and amendment, just like most other legal documents it isn't an absolute thing fixed in stone and immutable.

is_that_so · 08-06-2008 10:14am

The Sunday Business Post poll suggests a slender lead of 3% for yes but more interestingly 9% amongst those who say they will definitely vote. Skimming through it the questions seem to focus on likelihood to vote. As most of us are aware turnout is absolutely crucial in this.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=IRELAND-qqqm=nav-qqqid=33567-qqqx=1.asp

Lisbon: Yes vote is still ahead despite No gains

08 June 2008
By Pat Leahy, Political Editor
The Yes side in the Lisbon Treaty campaign remains ahead among crucial committed voters, despite gains for the No side in the past fortnight, according to the final tracking poll of the campaign.

The Yes side retains a slender 3 point lead among all those entitled to vote. However, among the 50 per cent of voters who say they are absolutely certain to vote, the Yes side leads by 9 points - a substantial, but not decisive, lead to take into the final days of campaigning.

After a long campaign, the race remains finely balanced, and a late surge for either side would swing the result in their favour. Turnout remains crucial to the result, and both sides will redouble their efforts to get out their voters in the coming days, as well as appealing to remaining undecided voters.

Among all voters, support for the Lisbon Treaty is at 42 per cent, an increase of one point since the last poll a fortnight ago, while the No vote is at 39 per cent, an increase of 6 points.

However, among voters who say they are absolutely certain to vote the Yes side leads by 46 to 37 per cent, with 17 per cent still undecided. Among those who say they are very likely to vote, the Yes side maintains this lead.

The gains made by the No side in the past weeks have been chiefly among voters who say they are not certain to vote next Thursday. By contrast, support for a Yes vote is strongest among voters who told pollsters that they are absolutely certain to turn out.

Support for the treaty has increased strongly among Fine Gael and Labour voters in recent weeks, as those parties have intensified their campaigns. Half of all Fine Gael voters say they will vote Yes.

Support also remains strong among Fianna Fail voters, almost 60 per cent of whom say they will support the treaty. The treaty also now enjoys a lead among farmers.

Women and younger people are the most negative towards the treaty. Support is also weaker among working class voters.

The poll was conducted among over 1,000 voters last Tuesday, Wednesday and the previous Friday.

Gibbins123 · 08-06-2008 11:51am

dathi1 wrote: »

I'm not surprised, I've been canvassing No for the last few days in Firhouse and Ballinteer. I found I didn't have to say much before I got the answer..."don't worry I'm voting no!" We're doing this on our own without any help from any organisation but I get my cues from libertas.
Just in the door at 11pm. I'm out again 6pm tomorrow.

Isn't it ture that Libertas has US connections, and the US doesn't want the EU to become more powerful than it?

Forget Libertas. Do your own research. Make up your own mind. Don't let Libertas/the U.S. persuade you.

mike65 · 08-06-2008 3:17pm

Nip and tuck. All campaigns have a peak I have a feeling the NO high water mark was reached in the past week, it really is down to getting the car out for the grannies that'll decide it.

Mike.

democrates · 08-06-2008 6:22pm

genericgoon wrote: »

The ineptitude of Cowen and co. is a good reason to give the EU more power , I say

Yes, someoe to kick ass, but then I fear we'd just by making the problem bigger...

No lead in latest poll

Comments