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

Yeah like the you are the millionth visitor to this site banners. Sure they're probably lies but if you don't click you might miss out on millions!!

And what about those random lotteries we win every so often even though we never entered them... Im off to send my bank details and collect my winnings

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yeah like the you are the millionth visitor to this site banners. Sure they're probably lies but if you don't click you might miss out on millions!!

And what about those random lotteries we win every so often even though we never entered them... Im off to send my bank details and collect my winnings

That's not what he was talking about though.

Think of it more like your employer offering you a new contract. Would you say "no" before reading it, because you're happy with the way things are?

No one there seems to think that one might think differently from them.

I think we accept that. The big problem is that the bulk of "no" voters I've spoken to and heard on the radio or online are voting no because they don't understand the treaty or because they have a list of reasons which are 100% incorrect, that they've heard from Libertas and the likes.

There are of course a good deal of No voters who've read the treaty and the amendments and decided to vote no. Good for them. But they're in a minority.

I've yet to hear someone say that they're voting yes because they don't understand the treaty or for some spurious misinformed reason. I accept completely that many people will be voting "yes" because their mammy told them to or because Bertie's team says it's the right thing to do.

seamus wrote: »

That's not what he was talking about though.

Think of it more like your employer offering you a new contract. Would you say "no" before reading it, because you're happy with the way things are?

Actually I can relate to that one if you meant employee I fought withmy own HR over and won because part of a new contract I was offered would have turned me into a general worker able to be made do any task in this business. My co-workers signed out of fear of getting fired. But as I proved when they did nothing you can't legally exclude someone because one person doesn't agree with a new contract because there was already an old one in place. There was nothing per se wrong with the contract it was just worded vaguely and a lot of my co-workers without even noticing lost their right to say "that's not my specific job".

Realistically there will be plenty of informed no any yes voters and plenty of ill informed ones voting either out of fear of how vague the treaty seems to them or equally out of fear of backlash from other eu states (another less pointed out scare tactic!)

O'Morris wrote: »

Is there any reason to believe that it's any different on the other side?

The general experience seems to be that if you haven't read the thing, you'll probably vote no. Which implies that there are more uninformed "No"'s than "Yes"'s.

As I say, most No voters I've interacted with don't seem to be able to back up their vote. Most yes voters do. But perhaps that's because I don't challenge the latter.

sink wrote: »

Do you realise that that is part of the reason our health service is such a mess.

Different debate I could equally say it has to do with all the extra military spending

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Well to be fair, your reason for voting no amounted to because it "is the choice I have made and a referndum is about the opinion of the population as determined by popular vote". After reading information about it you are voting no because of that?

That's not fair really. Phototoxin said they read the treaty and understood it and based on that they decided to vote no.

javaboy wrote:

That's not fair really. Phototoxin said they read the treaty and understood it and based on that they decided to vote no.

Well I dunno, would it not be fair to expect that after someone says "I'm voting no because", they give a reason. How is stating that it is the choice he has made a reason? Or stating what a referendum is? I dunno, it just seems odd the way he says it, maybe I misunderstood what he meant.

diydan wrote: »

If the Treaty requires ratification by each and every country in the EU, and considering that France & Holland have already voted No, why all the fuss?

Holland & France voted No last year to adopting the constitutional treaty. This is a different treaty.

We never voted on the constitutional treaty because the French and Dutch had already rejected it.

Just because they are both percentages doesn't mean you can compare the way a referendum works and the contents of a treaty while maintaining any credibility.
You're trying to use the fact that a majority carrying a decision in a referendum proves that 95% is the same as 100% similarity between the treaty and constitution.

seamus wrote: »

The general experience seems to be that if you haven't read the thing, you'll probably vote no. Which implies that there are more uninformed "No"'s than "Yes"'s.

As I say, most No voters I've interacted with don't seem to be able to back up their vote. Most yes voters do. But perhaps that's because I don't challenge the latter.

The reason why this is "the general experience" is that many people who intend to vote YES do not seem to believe that there is any rational reason why anyone should think differently to them by voting NO, so if they meet someone who intends to vote NO they launch into an interrogation as to why and won't accept as valid whatever reasons are given. However, as you say, if someone says they intend to vote YES, then there are no questions, obviously that person fully understands every line of the treaty, has read it from cover to cover and has reached the only obvious decision. :rolleyes:

YES voters seem to be able to get away with general explanations for their voting choice, such as "Europe has been good for us", "the other countries have agreed to it too", "all the main political parties support it" and "it will improve the efficiency of the EU".

The counter argument might say that past performance is no guarantee of future performance(i.e. just because something has been good to us in the past doesn't mean that has to be true in the future), I don't worry about what other countries are doing as they have to decide for themselves(just because something is right for Greece or Portugal doesn't automatically make it right for us), the main political parties have made careers out of lying to the electorate and also have a history of mismanagement and poor decision making, so they aren't necessarily the best judges of what is right and finally if I wanted to improve the efficiency of the EU I would cut a few thousand civil servants from the bureaucracy that runs the EU and cut several thousand pages from all the rules, regulations etc that the EU has produced and continues to produce annually. If we want increased efficiency, then you cut the bloated bureaucracy not add to it and reducing a few EU commissioners won't put a dent in EU inefficiency.

heyjude wrote: »

If we want increased efficiency, then you cut the bloated bureaucracy not add to it and reducing a few EU commissioners won't put a dent in EU inefficiency.

So you've clearly read it then?

turgon wrote: »

Well what other way could you possibly gauge it??

1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
2. The EU shall enslave you.

And now one that is 95% the same as above

1. The EU shall harmonize taxes.
2. The EU shall never enslave you.

So you see there can be big differences in that 5%.