For the "If you don't know, vote no" brigade.

Gobán Saor · 20-05-2008 11:28am #1

Have you guys ever bought a house? If you did, I presume you didn't sign for it until you read all the deeds and understood them fully. What, you didn't?! They were too complicated?? You trusted your solicitor??? Sure, everybody knows they're all on the take, aren't they?

Look folks, some things, especially legal things are just complicated. The bundle of deeds that denotes ownership to a simple 3-bed semi-d in Dublin is far more "unintelligible gibberish" than the Lisbon treaty is and far more difficult to comprehend.

Now, of course land deeds could be simplified and the Lisbon treaty could be better drafted. So could the Finance Act each year - that governs your life to a far greater extent than Lisbon does. Yet nobody suggests there's some sort of democratic deficit because its written by unelected civil servants, passed by TDs who never read it and imposed an a populace that doesn't understand a fraction of it.

Cop on. Do you seriously expect a document that sets out detailed rules for 500 million citizens in 27 different countries to be easy to understand? If your attitude is "I'm not voting for it until I understand it" then stop complaining and start reading it. There's enough material on the internet alone to keep you busy until polling day.

IRLConor · 20-05-2008 11:33am

Not just that, but it's not unintelligible gibberish. I have no legal training whatsoever and I've managed to read it. It's English. Complex English, yes, but still intelligible.

turgon · 20-05-2008 5:08pm

One thing I will give out about is this claim that you need a copy of the original treaties, a copy of the Lisbon treaty and a legal knowledge to be able to read them.

Oh wait, not you dont, just read the consolidated treaty!! Which as well as being on the net is at you local library. Some people need to wake up and not be spoonfed.

towel401 · 20-05-2008 5:42pm

so the OP is from the 'I can`t tell you what`s in it but just trust me its good for you' camp?

PaintingMedium · 20-05-2008 5:47pm

One of the weakest arguements I have heard in favour of voting Yes.

If you get a house, vote Yes. What happens if there is some ancient Indian burial ground under the house?

Is Lisbon the house with the ancient Indian burial ground?

If you do not know which way to vote, try and read more and ask more people, it is that simple. Try talk to people from both sides and see which side convinces you. If they start comparing it to buying houses though, I would probably back away quietly!

bonkey · 20-05-2008 6:04pm

PaintingMedium wrote: »

One of the weakest arguements I have heard in favour of voting Yes.

Except it wasn't an argument in favour of voting yes. It was a post pointing out the incorrectness of one of the arguments for voting no.

If you get a house, vote Yes.

Not what was said.

Jeez...if you guys can't understand such a simple point, simply put, its no wonder that many find the Lisbon Treaty to be gibberish.

If you do not know which way to vote, try and read more and ask more people, it is that simple.

Which, funnily enough, is entirely in line with what the OP said, despite you misunderstanding and attacking their point.

Try talk to people from both sides and see which side convinces you.

Pay particular close attention to which side get things wrong more often in terms of their explanation.

sink · 20-05-2008 6:35pm

The amount of crap flying around out there, coming from both sides but primarily the no. Tells me that you can not take anyones word, read the treaty and the information from the referendum commission and make up your own mind. I don't buy the 'the treaty unintelligble gibbereish' argument for a minute. I read it, I have no formal training in legal documents, I wouldn't call myself brighter than the average and I could understand it. Read it yourself and get informed before you start listening to other peoples crap, including mine.

http://www.iiea.com/publicationx.php?publication_id=33

jetski · 20-05-2008 6:42pm

Sorry but explain to me why youd expect me or anyone to agree to something they dont under stand, if you agree to anything you doint understand, especially if its as serious as the lisbon treaty your being stupid... simple as

anyone ever hear of the phrase sheeple.... certinly springs to my mind

ircoha · 20-05-2008 7:21pm

Without knowing who funds them it is impossible to establish their real credentials

Not much room for joe public.

'Europe House, the Institute's city-centre Dublin premises, provides a forum for dialogue between representatives from government, business, industry, the civil service, the diplomatic corps, the legal professions, NGO's, trade unions, the media and academia.'

On the front page
'The Treaty is to be the last institutional reform adopted by the European Union for some time, designed to prepare the EU and its Member States to collectively face future challenges, such as international terrorism and trans-border criminality, climate change, energy and food security, global poverty and stimulating growth and innovation in the Union's economy.'

I met some Irish eurocrats last weeek in Brussels and on the issue of increased efficiency: their view, at 100k plus pa tax free, was this was like turkeys voting for Christmas.

They need to get their act together on being up to date.

Patron Mary McAleese President of Ireland
President Dr. Garret FitzGerald former Taoiseach (prime minister) of Ireland
Members of the Comite d'Honneur:
Bertie Ahern, T.D. An Taoiseach (Prime Minister),
John Bruton former Taoiseach,
Charles McCreevy European Commissioner for Internal Trade,
Dr Patrick Hillery former President of Ireland,
John Bruton former Taoiseach,
Mary Robinson former President of Ireland,
Albert Reynolds former Taoiseach,
Pat Cox former President of the European Parliament,
Richard Burke former European Commissioner,
David Byrne former European Commissioner, Padraig Flynn former European Commissioner,
Ray MacSharry former European Commissioner,
Micheal O'Kennedy former European Commissioner,
Peter Sutherland former European Commissioner.

bonkey · 20-05-2008 7:55pm

jetski wrote: »

Sorry but explain to me why youd expect me or anyone to agree to something they dont under stand,

I wouldn't...but on that basis, I would expect someone who took the stance of "I don't understand" to admit that they don't understand the current structure to the degree that they are holding the proposed structure to.

Such people, are therefore in a position that I would expect them to not vote yes, and not vote no.

if you agree to anything you doint understand, especially if its as serious as the lisbon treaty your being stupid... simple as

But like I said...I'd equally say that if you agree to keep the current system in place, and don't understand that to the degree that you believe you should understand the new system, then you're equally stupid. Simple as :0

anyone ever hear of the phrase sheeple.... certinly springs to my mind

No...sheeple are the people who vote one way or the other based on anything except a good understanding of the issue.

Sheeple are the one's who'll argue its their right to vote and their right to choose what reasons to use to vote, but see no reason to actually try and get informed on the issue. They're the ones who will decide that they don't like that chap bonkey, so they'll vote no. They're the ones who will decide that they'll follow their Party, so they'll vote yes. They're the ones who don't read the discussions, and don't look at who's saying what and whether it actually makes sense.

No-one's asking anyone to become fluent in legalese, but as the OP said...when you buy a house, you get someone to explain the legalese to you. If you're buying a second-hand car, you don't trust the person selling it, you get a mechanic you trust. If you're taking a chance on which movie to see, you might pick the one that a reviewer who's taste generally matches yours has tipped as a good bet.

If you don't have someone who you can trust, then you can read up multiple opinions and see what they say. You can read discussions that others have had on the topic, and see whether or not some of the points being made appear to be porkies, or being overstated, or whatever.

But if you're not willing to ask someone you trust to explain it to you, or do some work yourself in trying to figure it out, regardless of whether or not you can read the actual document....then you're one of the sheeple.

jetski · 20-05-2008 8:29pm

sorry but buying a house is completly different,

you know you will own it when its paid for.....

It wasn't me! · 20-05-2008 9:57pm

The idea that if you don't understand the treaty you should just vote no is condescending bollocks, and nothing more. If you want to vote, understand the material. If you don't understand it, you're not in a position to make a decision one way or the other. Informed people should vote. Those who are not informed, should not.

Susannahmia · 20-05-2008 10:18pm

I have to say I study social policy and I found it quite difficult to understand at first. However we were lucky enough to get a few lectures on the topic where it was explained in a way that was understandable. A lot of the stuff out there is imo purposely and unnessarily complicated. The actual treaty if explained properly is fairly easy to understand.... For the record I will be voting no.;)

redspider · 21-05-2008 10:55am

The point about the Lisbon Reform Treaty as being a difficult document to read is valid as it is a change document rather than a document that reads sentence by sentence. eg: Article 7 shall be amended as follows: (a) throughout the article, the word "assent" shall be replaced by the word "consent",etc, etc.

So, yes, on the one hand it is true to say that the document is understandable, but it is also true to say that the document when read in isolation as a single document doesnt make a lot of sense. In fact it doesnt make any sense. No 'change only' document ever does nor can it! It is a 'change only' document.

Granted, lots of legislation is passed that way each year, including Finance Bills, but these are not put before the people in terms of a referendum.

I think the Referendum Commission is not adhering to its remit by only publishing a summary document and the 'change only' (official text) document. It should publish the full treaties as they would look after the Lisbon Reform Treaty would be enacted and highlight the changes, leaving what stays the same as the same.

I think parts of both the 'Yes' camp and the 'No' camp, if there are such a thing as a 'camp', have used the presentation of the material to their own aims, the 'Yes' saying it is perfectly readable when the 'change-only' document clearly isnt and the 'No' camp saying it is complex gibberish, which it also clearly isnt.

There are consolidated documents available on the web, but these are not produced by the EU or the Reform Commision as far as I am aware.

There is validity that people should not vote 'Yes' unless they fully understand all the changes that the treaty is proposing, and its these items that should be discussed by voters, one by one. There aren't that many actually, about 10 or so. The pro's and con's of each change should be discussed.

In terms of the property deeds analogy, yes, I have read many, and they are not as 'complex' as the Lisbon Reform Treaty text, and are far more understandable.

Abdicating the decision-making process by Voters would be a mistake as that is the very essence of referenda and democracy, what little we have left! Taking the 'Yes' recommendation from the polticial parties that do so or a 'No' vote as a given would be a mistake for any voter (although we can't legislate for voter stupidity). People need to try and get themselves informed of the issues contained in the proposed change, decide if its good for them, for Ireland and for Europe, and to vote accordingly.

Redspider

redspider · 21-05-2008 11:06am

> Informed people should vote. Those who are not informed, should not.

That is one way of looking at it. But to add to that, people do know the status quo (ie: the situation if voting 'No') by immersion, because they are living in it. If we take your premise, people are informed by the current status quo. Therefore, they have the capability to vote 'No'.

So, if someone is aware of the current sutuation, they are informed enough to vote 'No', even if they do not even read the treaty.

If someone takes the time to inform themselves and understand the issues, they are informed enough to vote 'Yes' or 'No.

I would hazard a guess that there will be many people that will be voting 'Yes' and 'No' that do not know what they are voting for. It was ever thus!

Redspider

bonkey · 21-05-2008 11:08am

Susannahmia wrote: »

A lot of the stuff out there is imo purposely and unnessarily complicated.

Care to give an example?

Given that you study a somewhat related field, and have had it explained to you and so forth, it should be no bother to provide an example of something that you believe is difficult to understand, and a simplified wording that has identical meaning.

It wasn't me! · 21-05-2008 5:50pm

redspider wrote: »

That is one way of looking at it. But to add to that, people do know the status quo (ie: the situation if voting 'No') by immersion, because they are living in it. If we take your premise, people are informed by the current status quo. Therefore, they have the capability to vote 'No'.

So, if someone is aware of the current sutuation, they are informed enough to vote 'No', even if they do not even read the treaty.

If someone takes the time to inform themselves and understand the issues, they are informed enough to vote 'Yes' or 'No.

I would hazard a guess that there will be many people that will be voting 'Yes' and 'No' that do not know what they are voting for. It was ever thus!

Redspider

I disagree. You don't vote no based on the notion that you're not sure what would happen if you voted yes. You shouldn't make a decisive judgement either way if you don't understand the subject, because it affects others. If you don't understand the material, you shouldn't vote. If you want to vote, you should make very sure you know the material to qualify yourself to add your voice to the decision which affects far more people than just you.

kreuzberger · 01-06-2008 5:04pm

jetski wrote: »

sorry but buying a house is completly different,

you know you will own it when its paid for.....

exactly , and usually when you buy a house it doesnt mean youve to fight your next door neighbours battles for him . It also doesnt mean your neighbours can tell you what to do , or move into your back yard

Sauron · 01-06-2008 7:16pm

I whole heartedly agree with the OP.

I have read numerous analyses of the treaty, and I like to think that my paranoia is restrained enough such that I can believe that every single lawyer interpreting the document is not an evil EU agent.Likewise, I'm confident enough to put my trust in sources such as the BBC, who, I should think, are satisfactorily objective.

The argument that you can't be informed unless you've read the actual text is flawed on the most basic theoretical level.

Consider the following sentences:

1. That doorway is very wide!

2. Hark! Yonder threshold appears abundant in girth!

3. Cette porte est très large

3. And so on in every language ad infinitum.

(one of these is extracted from a primary text.)

Now, if you had a trustworthy scholar translate every instance to simple English, you'll find the concept remains the same. No matter how complex the language is, they'll always be saying "that doorway is very wide". Now, what the hell does it matter which one is the "original" sentence?! unless you're studying literature, you won't care because the message is the same regardless! Transpose this to the lisbon treaty and we have the same situation: concepts that remain the same regardless of how they're put.

These wailings by Libertas about politicians not reading the thing are childish and over-zealous.

That said, to be able to vote, you have to be informed somehow (and take care to make sure your claims are sustantiated).
I was out canvassing yesterday and I had a telling encounter. We met a woman, and asked if she was going to vote.

Her: "I'd vote if I had a clue what it's about! There's no information!"

Me (handing her a leaflet): "Well, here's some information; it's quite easy to read."

Her (refusing leaflet): "No thanks."

:S

djpbarry · 03-06-2008 11:32am

kreuzberger wrote: »

exactly , and usually when you buy a house it doesnt mean youve to fight your next door neighbours battles for him . It also doesnt mean your neighbours can tell you what to do , or move into your back yard

Wild stab in the dark, but I'm guessing you haven't read the treaty?

heyjude · 03-06-2008 8:23pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Wild stab in the dark, but I'm guessing you haven't read the treaty?

So probably well qualified to lead the Yes campaign then eh

humanji · 03-06-2008 9:30pm

heyjude wrote: »

So probably well qualified to lead the Yes campaign then eh

If only Libertas hadn't hired him so quickly

craichoe · 04-06-2008 12:42pm

Well ..

I don’t normally have much of an opinion on policital matters, but i think this is a farse. It didnt go through the last time .. so lets change it a little bit and ..well .. this time .. sure the people don’t know whats best for them. Lets make the choice for them.

I firmly believe that Ireland is a republic and it should stay that way. If it goes the way of Harmonisation, the big ones (Germany,France and Italy) will start dumping their problems on everyone. High taxation in Germany is there to offset the problem with paying for the east and their aging population, they really are pushing for a uniform tax rate across europe because of their economic issues (which are improving at the moment)

I’ll be honest, i didnt read the whole thing, its 120 pages long and i only just finished a book. There isn’t any honest information out there from what i can see so, i can only go from the facts.

1. It was introduced, countries had a referendum, some countries (including the Dutchies and Irish) voted NO.

2. It was changed slightly (from what i understand it still has the end result)

3. It was announced that it will be put into practise.

4. Countries that previously voted no were told they cannot vote this time.

5. Ireland announces that its having a referendum on it, Ireland will be the ONLY country in the EU having a vote.

6. This happens:

IRELAND and Europe will “pay a price” if there is a ‘No’ vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso warned voters last night.

To me that should read: “Vote yes or else”

7. This happens:

Protests are being held outside 40 Irish embassies this weekend congratulating Ireland on holding a referendum denied to 487 million Europeans.

To me this strikes me as something that is being forced on the people, if you have to address a nation, that is a Republic, with a reasoning that is “Vote yes, because i said so” what are people supposed to think.

Also, if people are protesting that they don’t have a vote, does this seem right, why would they protest if there wasn’t a problem. I know theres always some nut that comes up with a reason, but these are people in Independant states that previously voted NO.

My issue isn’t with the Lisbon treaty itself, its how its being forced on people. This is not the “United States of the European Union” Anyone else remember who tried to force their Ideals on Europe, who thought they knew best ?

Again, i’ll say it, Ireland is a REPUBLIC people and it should stay that way, it took us long enough to get it , the European Union is great, but its an economic deal at the end of they day and we are keeping to that deal, it did not include forcing “Harmonisation” on people.

Dave! · 04-06-2008 2:50pm

craichoe wrote: »

Anyone else remember who tried to force their Ideals on Europe, who thought they knew best ?

The Romans! Is that the answer? Is it the Romans?

djpbarry · 04-06-2008 2:58pm

craichoe wrote: »

1. It was introduced, countries had a referendum, some countries (including the Dutchies and Irish) voted NO.

2. It was changed slightly (from what i understand it still has the end result)

3. It was announced that it will be put into practise.

4. Countries that previously voted no were told they cannot vote this time.

5. Ireland announces that its having a referendum on it, Ireland will be the ONLY country in the EU having a vote.

Kathy, is that you again?

Honestly, I have no idea where you're getting any of this from. Point number 1 is just plain wrong, as is point number 4. Point number 2 is not entirely correct and I have no idea what number 3 means. Point number 5 is the only one anywhere near reality.

craichoe wrote: »

I’ll be honest, i didnt read the whole thing...

It rather looks like you didn’t read any of it at all, or any supporting information either.

ixtlan · 04-06-2008 6:03pm

craichoe wrote: »

1. It was introduced, countries had a referendum, some countries (including the Dutchies and Irish) voted NO.

We did not vote on the Lisbon treaty. Holland and France voted no on the originally proposed constitution, some other countires voted yes.

craichoe wrote: »

2. It was changed slightly (from what i understand it still has the end result)

True, but those slight changes were row-backs from the more federal nature of the constitution, which was perceived to be one of the reasons it failed to pass in France.

craichoe wrote: »

3. It was announced that it will be put into practise.

The treaty cannot come into effect without all countries ratifying it.

craichoe wrote: »

4. Countries that previously voted no were told they cannot vote this time.

The EU never tells a country how it should ratify a treaty. The governments of some countries that had a referendum on the constitution decided that the changes were sufficient that a referendum was no longer required. Some people in those countries may not be happy with this, but their government is taking the decision.

craichoe wrote: »

5. Ireland announces that its having a referendum on it, Ireland will be the ONLY country in the EU having a vote.

Yes, but it should be added that some legal opinion is that the changes are minor enough that if a case were taken to our supreme court they would not insist on a referendum.

craichoe wrote: »

6. This happens:

IRELAND and Europe will “pay a price” if there is a ‘No’ vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso warned voters last night.

To me that should read: “Vote yes or else”

Rather unfair I think. The emphasis is incorrect. Europe and Ireland will pay a price. Obviously most politicians in Europe believe this is necessary and life will be more difficult without it. Do you expect him to say it's grand either way, that they worked for almost a decade on this, but it doesn't really matter?

craichoe wrote: »

7. This happens:

Protests are being held outside 40 Irish embassies this weekend congratulating Ireland on holding a referendum denied to 487 million Europeans.

Perplexing... they should be protesting outside their own national parliaments and showing that those governments will be voted out of office next election. And if you reply that all their politicians are in favour and who would they vote for.... the answer is that if this is such a serious issue let these people form new political parties. And when you say that won't happen I respond that obviously then the mass of public opinion is not so much against Lisbon... It would be interesting to see how many people "protest". I do not expect it to be many.

craichoe wrote: »

Again, i’ll say it, Ireland is a REPUBLIC people and it should stay that way, it took us long enough to get it , the European Union is great, but its an economic deal at the end of they day and we are keeping to that deal, it did not include forcing “Harmonisation” on people.

I don't really understand your point. Being a "republic" is irrelevant. The US is a republic but is a real federal state. We are not even close to that. I think what you mean is that we are a DEMOCRACY. A democracy involves representative government. Such a government does not have to ask the people for permission to do everything. In this case we are asking but it's up to each country.

Finally, the EU has gone far beyond an economic union, and if you asked people what good has the EU done, many would point out the areas of social justice, environment and equality.

Ix.

Scofflaw · 04-06-2008 6:50pm

ixtlan wrote:

craichoe wrote:

Protests are being held outside 40 Irish embassies this weekend congratulating Ireland on holding a referendum denied to 487 million Europeans.

Perplexing... they should be protesting outside their own national parliaments and showing that those governments will be voted out of office next election. And if you reply that all their politicians are in favour and who would they vote for.... the answer is that if this is such a serious issue let these people form new political parties. And when you say that won't happen I respond that obviously then the mass of public opinion is not so much against Lisbon... It would be interesting to see how many people "protest". I do not expect it to be many.

And here you go - much as you expected. The French protest is 10 people, the Dutch 7 people, the German one may be as many as twenty people or more. All told it may come to a hundred people, maybe not - have to wait until all the pictures are in.

Ive attached the French picture, since a lot of No supporters like to make a big thing out of the French No vote. All pics are available from the linked site, which belongs to the organisers of the protest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

IRLConor · 04-06-2008 6:53pm

DaveMcG wrote: »

The Romans! Is that the answer? Is it the Romans?

And what have they ever done for us? Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the roads what have the RomansEU ever done for us?

But seriously:

craichoe wrote:

Again, i’ll say it, Ireland is a REPUBLIC people and it should stay that way, it took us long enough to get it , the European Union is great, but its an economic deal at the end of they day and we are keeping to that deal, it did not include forcing “Harmonisation” on people.

craichoe, apart from the other stuff which djpbarry took you up on, you mention several times that Ireland is a republic and that it should stay that way. Perhaps you could explain:

Precisely what you mean when you say "republic".
Why such a republic is the best solution for Ireland.
Why such a republic outside a political union is better off than one inside a political union. (Even a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis will do)

Perhaps also you'd like to answer these questions:

Are political unions always wrong or are they only wrong for Ireland? If so, what makes Ireland special?
If Ireland went down the route of only signing up to the economic portions of the EU, would we be capable of getting as good a deal as if we were fully on board with the whole EU package?

ateam · 05-06-2008 11:07pm

If someone doesn't know what to vote for they could exercise their democratic right and spoil their vote. I don't understand why they would want to vote No.

I talked to one person and it was as if she was proud she didn't know anything about it and was going to vote No because of that. So lazy.

zuroph · 05-06-2008 11:14pm

the lisbon referendum is not 1 contract. it is the offer of two contracts, one if you vote yes, one if you vote no.

if you do not understand it, the equivilant of not signing a contract is to not vote at all. if you vote no, you are making a decision and putting your name to something you dont understand.

redspider · 06-06-2008 10:20am

zuroph wrote: »

if you do not understand it, the equivilant of not signing a contract is to not vote at all. if you vote no, you are making a decision and putting your name to something you dont understand.

There is an argument though that people do know what the current set of rules are by 'immersion' as they are living in the EU day-in day-out. At least they know the current situation (warts and all) better than what the proposed Lisbon Treaty will result in. Therefore, without understanding what is in the Treaty, people can legitimately vote "No" as they would be voting for the status quo.

To use your contract analogy,
Voting "Yes" is signing a contract and agreeing to all its terms and ramifications
Voting "No" is not signing the contract and hence not agreeing with the terms

It is not a case of two contracts. There is one "contract", one Treaty, and one proposed set of changes to our constitution to afford that treaty. (the language of said constitutional changes are also quite legalise btw). You either agree with the change or not. And to vote "No", you dont have to understand the treaty at all!

Redspider

IRLConor · 06-06-2008 11:24am

redspider wrote: »

It is not a case of two contracts.

Yes it is.

Contract A (Yes): Rome + Brussels + SEA + Maastricht + Amsterdam + Nice + Lisbon
Contract B (No): Rome + Brussels + SEA + Maastricht + Amsterdam + Nice

Are you saying that if people don't understand A then they'll implicitly understand B even the bits that haven't happened yet?

I find it hard to believe that someone would not be able to understand Lisbon but be able to understand Nice.

ixtlan · 06-06-2008 1:54pm

redspider wrote: »

There is an argument though that people do know what the current set of rules are by 'immersion' as they are living in the EU day-in day-out. At least they know the current situation (warts and all) better than what the proposed Lisbon Treaty will result in. Therefore, without understanding what is in the Treaty, people can legitimately vote "No" as they would be voting for the status quo.

This is a valid point of view, but let me offer another. The status quo in the EU has been stability created by a gradual closer bonding of the member states. We negotiate, agree, and implement new treaties.

If Lisbon falls that will be a divergence from the status quo. We will not be able to implement the reforms that the members states jointly agreed were necessary. The process that began decades ago will be temporarily stalled.

Now I'm not going to scaremonger. Life will go on, the EU will go on. Negotiations will go on in some manner. Maybe Lisbon will be amended. Maybe a new treaty will be created. Certainly though there will be great disappointment among those promoting the EU project and a big delay in any reforms. Also there is no guarantee that the new treaty will be "better" than the existing one. Would you trade some further voting weight to keep a permanent commissioner? Would you agree to increased contributions to the EU to increase our voting weight? Would you like to define sub-groups within the EU who are neutral and have no military contact? Would you like to withdraw from the battlegroups, and hence many likely UN missions?

The No side seems to think that any re-negotiation will easily result in improvements for Ireland in all areas. That view is not a negotiation. A negotiation is give and take. If the EU states give us something they will want to take something too. You don't go to the table with your list of things that you want and offer nothing. Lisbon was considered a good deal by everyone. If it falls we cannot know what we will get a few years down the line.

Ix

bleg · 06-06-2008 5:26pm

if you don't know, vote no?

how bout

take a guess and vote yes

is_that_so · 06-06-2008 8:05pm

bleg wrote: »

if you don't know, vote no?

how bout

take a guess and vote yes

At this stage it might just about be the best catchphrase for the Yes side. regrettably the Yes side has nothing sexier than it changes a few things for the better, tidies up a good few things and doesn't launch into any immediate wars. No contest against the evil of abortion, annihilation, nuclear fallout, loss of democracy, wide scale unemployment, decimated agriculture and the fate of the rest of Europe. No wonder they're struggling.

I must say though much I as support exercising our right to vote I find the notion of using such a half-witted excuse of "if you don't know ..." very disturbing indeed . Read the damned thing, go to the website. Look at the Referendum Commission leaflet. There is plenty of "simple stuff" out there for people, too lazy to bother so at least if you vote No you know why.

Edit: Some links for background reading. Thought there might be a sticky for this stuff.

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/faq/index_en.htm
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EN:HTML -The Treaty text.
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/eutreaty/Consolidated-EUTreaties-English-amended-by-ReformTreaty.pdf (479 pages of all treaties affected)

BMH · 06-06-2008 10:23pm

redspider wrote: »

So, if someone is aware of the current sutuation, they are informed enough to vote 'No', even if they do not even read the treaty.

If someone takes the time to inform themselves and understand the issues, they are informed enough to vote 'Yes' or 'No.

That's ridiculous, a No vote will damage Ireland's credibility at the EU stage and we'll likely be excluded from future reforms that member states want to take on. If a boring document on the structure of the EU can conjure up issues like abortion and euthanasia, and fail because of it, things like the Schengen zone haven't a chance. While I admit we're nowhere near leaving the EU, and foreign investment will almost certainly not take a hit, stating that a No vote will have no repercussions beyond continuing with our inefficient status quo is false.

utick · 07-06-2008 2:20am

zuroph wrote: »

the lisbon referendum is not 1 contract. it is the offer of two contracts, one if you vote yes, one if you vote no.

if you do not understand it, the equivilant of not signing a contract is to not vote at all. if you vote no, you are making a decision and putting your name to something you dont understand.

Incorrect, voting no is rejecting the treaty, refusing to sign a contract is rejecting the contract,

not voting in this treaty would be the equivellent of letting someone else sign a contract for you, possibly someone who knows even less then you

is_that_so · 07-06-2008 8:09am

utick wrote: »

Incorrect, voting no is rejecting the treaty, refusing to sign a contract is rejecting the contract,

not voting in this treaty would be the equivellent of letting someone else sign a contract for you, possibly someone who knows even less then you

Voting no on a treaty you don't "claim not to understand" is stupidity of the highest order and a complete copout. If you want to vote No say so and inform yourself.

murphaph · 07-06-2008 9:48am

BMH wrote: »

That's ridiculous, a No vote will damage Ireland's credibility at the EU stage and we'll likely be excluded from future reforms that member states want to take on.

The french and dutch are 'allowed' (well not really, they've been denied the choice second time round!) to vote NO and we are not?

Guys...the Nice treaty referendum here resulted in the 'wrong' result so were told to vote again and vote differently (I voted yes both times btw!). The European Constitution referenda in France and the Netherlands resulted in the 'wrong' result and so they've just told them they're not going to ask them again. If the Lisbon treaty is so win-win for all of Europe then why not ask the french and dutch again?

There's something sinister in the recent developments if you ask me and I'm not comfortable with it. If you're not comfortable with it too, vote NO!

JC 2K3 · 07-06-2008 11:48am

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The idea that if you don't understand the treaty you should just vote no is condescending bollocks, and nothing more. If you want to vote, understand the material. If you don't understand it, you're not in a position to make a decision one way or the other. Informed people should vote. Those who are not informed, should not.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

If you don't understand the material, you shouldn't vote. If you want to vote, you should make very sure you know the material to qualify yourself to add your voice to the decision which affects far more people than just you.

Sauron wrote: »

to be able to vote, you have to be informed somehow

That's not how democracy works.

You could argue that we have a government that was elected largely due to voters who just vote for FF no matter what.

In the same way, the Yes side is going to have many voters who simply support their political party's stance on the issue, rather than really understanding what Lisbon is about.

Given the existence of the above type of voter, you could say the "If you don't know, then vote No" brigade is necessary to even the playing field.

Sauron · 07-06-2008 12:21pm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

That's not how democracy works.

Hold on a minute there, I didn't say it was. I said that's how it should work, and there's no substantial reason why it can't.
To be able to vote effectively, ie. for what you really want, you have to be informed, there's no question of that.

You could argue that we have a government that was elected largely due to voters who just vote for FF no matter what.

You could also argue, using that logic, that that's how any government in the world is elected. General elections are a completely different kettle of democracy. Loyalty, past record, etc; there's no comparison.

In the same way, the Yes side is going to have many voters who simply support their political party's stance on the issue, rather than really understanding what Lisbon is about.

Given the existence of the above type of voter, you could say the "If you don't know, then vote No" brigade is necessary to even the playing field.

Ok, many people don't know what it's about; we're not saying this is a good thing. We'd rather they did know what it's about.

Are you seriously proposing that to "balance out" ignorance on one side, we deploy further ignorance on the other? Symmetry is hardly something we want in the case of ignorance.

You do realise that we then have two sides fighting, and they're not even sure why?
There's no playing field to be levelled here; it's not a team sport!

Our point is simple; if you do not know what the treaty is about, try to find out. Ideally, you should not vote for any other reason than the substance of the document. Of course there are external factors, we don't like them, but they are there and we should try to avoid them.

In summary: The less uninformed votes, the better.

JC 2K3 · 07-06-2008 12:27pm

Heh, I agree with you. I just think there will be as many uninformed Yes votes as there are uninformed No votes, but you don't hear many people talking about the uninformed Yes side.

djpbarry · 07-06-2008 12:33pm

murphaph wrote: »

Guys...the Nice treaty referendum here resulted in the 'wrong' result so were told to vote again and vote differently (I voted yes both times btw!).

Judging by the result, people didn't vote differently; more people voted 'No' to Nice II than Nice I. It could be argued that Nice II was a more accurate reflection of public opinion because far more people voted.

murphaph wrote: »

If the Lisbon treaty is so win-win for all of Europe then why not ask the french and dutch again?

You'll have to ask the French and Dutch governments about that.

murphaph wrote: »

There's something sinister in the recent developments if you ask me and I'm not comfortable with it. If you're not comfortable with it too, vote NO!

Actually, I think I'll stick to voting on the content of the treaty itself; thanks all the same.

murphaph · 07-06-2008 12:45pm

djpbarry wrote: »

You'll have to ask the French and Dutch governments about that.

Well, I like to dig a little deeper and not accept things at face value anymore (cynicism comes with age I find, sad but true!). I can't ask the dutch and french governments why they have opted not to put the same (previously rejected) question to their people and to push it through their parliaments despite the treaty being 90% the same. Seeing as neither the actual french or dutch public can properly debate the issue this time I will do my european duty and vote NO. Lots of campaigns around Europe are demanding their referendum which they are being denied...let's help our european cousins out and vote NO to force a rethink on the whole thing. The public haven't been consulted on the european project as a whole. Why not debate where we are going before forging ahead.

djpbarry · 07-06-2008 12:54pm

murphaph wrote: »

Seeing as neither the actual french or dutch public can properly debate the issue this time I will do my european duty and vote NO.

Why do you assume that the French and Dutch people want you to vote 'No'? Why do you assume that they are not happy to let their parliaments ratify the treaty?

murphaph wrote: »

Lots of campaigns around Europe are demanding their referendum which they are being denied...

The only campaigns/demonstrations I have seen have involved handfuls of people. I don't think the people of the EU are as bothered about this treaty as the 'No' side would have us believe.

murphaph wrote: »

The public haven't been consulted on the european project as a whole.

Yes they have, albeit indirectly. The treaty was negotiated by our elected representatives who (in my opinion) did a pretty good job in looking out for the interests of the Irish public.

BMH · 07-06-2008 5:33pm

murphaph wrote: »

The french and dutch are 'allowed' (well not really, they've been denied the choice second time round!) to vote NO and we are not?

Guys...the Nice treaty referendum here resulted in the 'wrong' result so were told to vote again and vote differently (I voted yes both times btw!). The European Constitution referenda in France and the Netherlands resulted in the 'wrong' result and so they've just told them they're not going to ask them again. If the Lisbon treaty is so win-win for all of Europe then why not ask the french and dutch again?

There's something sinister in the recent developments if you ask me and I'm not comfortable with it. If you're not comfortable with it too, vote NO!

Because governments are elected to deal with complex legal documents like this. Every 5 years, we choose who to put forward to act in our interests, because having a plebiscite on every proposal would be highly inefficient. We don't vote on the budget, because we elect a government to handle it for us based on their simple, voter friendly manifestos. We elected 160 Pro-Europe TDs. Every country in Europe elected pro-European representatives.These governments construed that as a mandate to act on their behalf to sign a Pro-European document, that they themselves negotiated(that's right, negotiated by member states, like us, not invisible members of international Jewry). We're holding this referendum simply because of a clause in our constitution. It was useful for straight-forward issues like abortion and divorce, but the very fact that this boring document has created a sh¡tstorm with irrelevant issues like euthanasia cropping up justifies the approach of the other governments.

Also, Lisbon was defeated in France and the Netherlands with many exit polls showing the trend towards a federal Europe with an official flag and anthem as a key concern, so they removed them. In Ireland, our key issues, from yesterdays tns mrbi pol, include "I don't know what it is", "I don't like being told what to do", and "I want to support the farmers", despite the fact that the IFA came out in favour of Lisbon. The No campaign is made up of splinter groups on the far left and far right, from the communist party to a supplier of American war technology-what do you think should be added to swing everyone over to Yes?

murphaph · 07-06-2008 6:59pm

Fair enough guys, you're both of the opinion that we elect representatives whom we delegate certain tasks to and we let them get on with it and it's a valid point. I just don't have the same faith in them as you.

I remain unconvinced we actually need another treaty at all and that we can't remain as we are. I believe the pace of change and expanion within the EU has been too rapid of late and I'd like to hold back for a few years before proceeding apace.

sink · 07-06-2008 7:17pm

murphaph wrote: »

I believe the pace of change and expanion within the EU has been too rapid of late and I'd like to hold back for a few years before proceeding apace.

The world won't stop moving while we naval gaze.

redspider · 11-06-2008 10:12am

Hi there, I didnt get around to responding to your post until now.

ixtlan wrote: »

This is a valid point of view, but let me offer another. The status quo in the EU has been stability created by a gradual closer bonding of the member states. We negotiate, agree, and implement new treaties. If Lisbon falls that will be a divergence from the status quo. We will not be able to implement the reforms that the members states jointly agreed were necessary. The process that began decades ago will be temporarily stalled.

Well I dont think you can get around the fact that the staus quo is now, which is without a Lisbon Treaty, that is the status quo. That is the status quo by definition. To state that "If Lisbon falls that will be a divergence from the status quo" is incorrect. However, I do understand the point you are making that the EU has been based on the coming together of negotiated treaties and stuctures and daily 'working together', etc, and that failed treaties is not the trend, but treaties have failed in the past.

To state that the member states jointly agreed on the treaty is incorrect. It cant by procedure be agreed by Ireland unless we vote Yes. It cant be agreed by the EU unless ALL countries vote Yes. The Lisbon Treaty is therefore NOT AGREED yet.

It is true to state that it has been a long time in the making. But that is not a reason for voting it through hastily if it has faults. Legislation, treaties, agreements, and changes to the constitution should never be voted in quickly and in a hurry just because they have been ages in the making and becuase those offering it to us state it is the finished article and there is no other option and by not agreeing to it, it will be bad for Ireland, etc, etc.

We as a nation have a RIGHT to hold this up, if the majority want to do so. A right recognised by the EU. By the current stuctures of the EU. We cannot be punished or ostracised for using that right.

We have a RIGHT to request improvements to the treaty and the EU in general (implicitly or otherwise), if the majority want to do so through a No vote.

It is arrogant and incorrect for our government and ANY EU-nation government to state that there will be nothing better on the table. A "take it or else" option is not an option at all.

If we vote NO, we will be expressly giving our government and representatives the instructions and mandate to go and get a better deal for Ireland, for the EU small nations and for the EU as a whole.

And voting No will keep the status quo. Some may perceive that as stalling, but if it did take 8 years to allow us to vote on it, then who are the stallers? Not the Irish people.

Vote wisely ....

Redspider

seamus · 11-06-2008 10:18am

redspider wrote: »

If we vote NO, we will be expressly giving our government and representatives the instructions and mandate to go and get a better deal for Ireland, for the EU small nations and for the EU as a whole.

How do you propose to communicate this "instruction" to our government? How do you propose to distinguish this "message" from all the grumblers, anti-EUers, anti-war, socialist, anti-FFer's and their messages?

How do you know that the Government won't interpret a "No" vote as, "We don't give a **** about the rest of Europe, we want to get the best deal humanly possible and f*ck everyone else"?

murphaph · 11-06-2008 10:34am

seamus wrote: »

How do you propose to communicate this "instruction" to our government? How do you propose to distinguish this "message" from all the grumblers, anti-EUers, anti-war, socialist, anti-FFer's and their messages?

How do you know that the Government won't interpret a "No" vote as, "We don't give a **** about the rest of Europe, we want to get the best deal humanly possible and f*ck everyone else"?

The government have nobody but themselves to blame for leaving the debate on Lisbon to so late in the day though Seamus. FF were too busy trying to prop Ahern up when it was clear to all and sundry he was a lost cause and by the time he finally resigned (rather than being pushed out last year when it should have happened) it was too late to get into a national debate about Lisbon. They took it for granted that the dopey electorate who repeatedly vote them in (despite their leader and our former Taoiseach being in front of a tribunal investigating CORRUPTION) would simply vote YES like lemmings because of 10,000 posters saying "vote tes". To be honest, the political elite across Europe aren't stupid-they know about all our seedy problems in Dublin Castle and they'll lay the blame for a NO vote squarely at FF I believe. Many European citizens wanted a proper europe wide debate on Lisbon and it never happened.

For the "If you don't know, vote no" brigade.

Comments