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

No lead in latest poll

124»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭genericgoon


    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 :p:D;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    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.
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭heyjude


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,209 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭Gibbins123


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,046 ✭✭✭democrates


    The ineptitude of Cowen and co. is a good reason to give the EU more power , I say :p:D;)
    Yes, someoe to kick ass, but then I fear we'd just by making the problem bigger...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    They never gave people even one concrete reason why voting yes would benefit them personally.
    Probably because there is none. You cannot possibly assure a voter that approving an international treaty is going to improve their own life.

    Can you offer a concrete reason for voting 'No' that would benefit me personally?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Gibbins123 wrote: »
    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.
    You are refering to Gay Michael's comments?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Is this another threat?

    "French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has warned that Ireland would pay a high price if it rejects the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum this week."
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0609/eulisbon.html?rss

    Irish people don't like been bullied.:mad:


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    gurramok wrote: »
    Is this another threat?
    No, I don't think so:
    RT&#201 wrote: »
    Mr Kouchner, speaking on RTL radio, argued that the 'Irish would be penalising themselves' by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty on reforming EU institutions and linked its fate to that of Ireland's buoyant economy.
    So basically he's saying we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot and I would tend to agree. I fail to see how this could be construed as “threatening”.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    gurramok wrote: »
    Is this another threat?

    "French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has warned that Ireland would pay a high price if it rejects the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum this week."
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0609/eulisbon.html?rss

    Irish people don't like been bullied.:mad:

    /sigh.

    The supposed 'reasons' to vote yes should speak for themselves rather than resorting to threats.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 412 ✭✭gordon_gekko


    if i was to encapsulate the no voters attitude to europe in a song , it would be janet jacksons , what have you done for me lately

    like the farmers , the only interest we had in europe was what we could get out of it




  • johnnyq wrote: »
    /sigh.

    The supposed 'reasons' to vote yes should speak for themselves rather than resorting to threats.
    Would it make a difference if the 2nd officer who is a first cousin of the third emperor of swaziland said it?

    It shouldn't for either.
    The French foreign minister is talking out of his arsé.
    He probably thinks that there will be a no vote here so he's talking up the response to his countries favour.

    In actual fact he's probably hoping for a no vote to spite Ireland.
    What better way to help things along in that direction but to say something like this.

    they're a new government over there see.
    And they are a right wing government so they are only jealous as to what we secured in the treaty.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    Would it make a difference if the 2nd officer who is a first cousin of the third emperor of swaziland said it?

    It shouldn't for either.
    The French foreign minister is talking out of his arsé.
    He probably thinks that there will be a no vote here so he's talking up the response to his countries favour.

    In actual fact he's probably hoping for a no vote to spite Ireland.
    What better way to help things along in that direction but to say something like this.

    they're a new government over there see.
    And they are a right wing government so they are only jealous as to what we secured in the treaty.
    I very very much doubt that he is hoping for a no vote in Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    johnnyq wrote: »
    I very very much doubt that he is hoping for a no vote in Ireland.
    What makes you think that?
    He may dislike the fact that big countries don't get as much power as they could, and might like a renegotition.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    What makes you think that?
    He may dislike the fact that big countries don't get as much power as they could, and might like a renegotition.
    So he is using reverse psychology you say? to risk upsetting his PM who will implement the changes if given the chance? Don't think so.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    johnnyq wrote: »
    So he is using reverse psychology you say? to risk upsetting his PM who will implement the changes if given the chance? Don't think so.
    You do realise that any renegotiation would have a greater chance of benefitting France as opposed to Ireland?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 641 ✭✭✭johnnyq


    You do realise that any renegotiation would have a greater chance of benefitting France as opposed to Ireland?
    Feel free to adress my point about motive when you get the time

    but about France benefiting at Ireland's expense. We would have to vote for this again not the french citizens, they have been sidetracked. I think you're argument should be that France could gain despite Ireland's gain.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭Duffman


    You do realise that any renegotiation would have a greater chance of benefitting France as opposed to Ireland?

    This may well be the case.

    Something the "better deal" crowd might consider is what happened when the French and Dutch voted no. The Constitutional Treaty, which was at least intelligible and explainable and drawn up after what was probably the most widespread consultation with ordinary citizens and interest groups ever, was shot down.

    Now we have Lisbon which people whine about being impossible to understand. That's legal reality I'm afraid. The voters said they didn't want a constitution, so this is an amending treaty instead - it needs to be this complicated.

    That worked out well for all concerned :rolleyes:

    A rejection today will damage this country more than most people realise. Think very carefully about what you wish for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    If what we're discussing here are the recent remarks by the French Foreign Minister, any analysis that he might have wanted a particular reaction from Ireland rather needs to take into account the fact that the remarks were made in French, in France, to a minor French TV station.

    This is similar to someone at RTE asking Dermot Ahern what he feels the outcome for Irish trade might be of the latest round of ASEAN talks - on TnaG. It is possible that our Foreign Minister might use that as a platform for bullying the ASEAN negotiators - but only in world where Michael O'Leary's fleet consists of porcine animals.

    Fortunately, the keen-eyed boys of the British eurosceptic press picked up the potential "bullying" and fed it back into the Irish referendum. Cheers, Mr Murdoch - we'd never have known we were being bullied in a foreign language on a foreign TV station without you.

    a little sarcastically,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement