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

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    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.


  • Options
    #63
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    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?


  • Options
    #64
    ateam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 986 ✭✭✭ateam


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


  • Options
    #65
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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.


  • Options
    #66
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    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?


  • Options
    #68
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    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.


  • Options
    #69
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    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! :)


  • Options
    #70
    LostinBlanch
    Registered Users Posts: 2,908 ✭✭✭LostinBlanch


    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. :o

    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? ;)


  • Options
    #71
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    ixtlan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,209 ✭✭✭ixtlan


    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.


  • Options
    #73
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    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:
    1. should be punished with a 'No' vote.
    2. 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.


  • Options
    #74
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    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.


  • Options
    #75
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    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.


  • Options
    #76
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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.


  • Options
    #77
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    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.


  • Options
    #78
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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.


  • Options
    #79
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    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


  • Options
    #80
    PrivateEye
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,283 ✭✭✭PrivateEye


    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:


  • Options
    #81
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    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.


  • Options
    #83
    PrivateEye
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,283 ✭✭✭PrivateEye


    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)


  • Options
    #84
    The_Minister
    Registered Users Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    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.


  • Options
    #85
    BMH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 804 ✭✭✭BMH


    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.


  • Options
    #86
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    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.


  • Options
    #87
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    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


  • Options
    #88
    democrates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,046 ✭✭✭democrates


    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.


  • Options
    #89
    LostinBlanch
    Registered Users Posts: 2,908 ✭✭✭LostinBlanch


    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 :D

    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.


  • Options
    #90
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users Posts: 14,685 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    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.


Advertisement