No lead in latest poll

mike65

Well if its a trend (and it sure looks like one) the collective forces for the YES vote better get thier fingers out.

from IT
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0605/breaking84.htm

Poll shows Lisbon Treaty heading for shock defeat

Stephen Collins, Political Editor

The Lisbon Treaty is heading towards a shock defeat with the No side now in the lead, according to the findings of the latest Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll.

It will take an unprecedented swing in the last week of the campaign for the Treaty to be carried.

The poll shows the number of people intending to vote No has almost doubled to 35 per cent (up 17 points) since the last poll three weeks ago, while the number of the Yes side has declined to 30 per cent (down 5 points).

The number of undecided voters is still a significant 28 per (down 12 points) cent, while 7 per cent won’t vote.

The massive increase by the No vote since the last poll has mainly come through gains among undecided voters but, even more ominously for the Yes side, it has lost some support to the No camp.

While the final outcome is still in the hands of undecided voters, the clear momentum is now with the No campaign, and it will take a dramatic shift in public attitudes over the next few days for the Yes side to win.

The swing to the No camp has not been prompted by domestic considerations, with just 5 per cent of those opposed to the Treaty saying they are influenced by a desire to protest against the Government.

The reason most often cited by No voters is that they don’t know what they are voting for or they don’t understand the Treaty, with 30 per cent of No voters listing this as the main reason for their decision.


The poll showed that farmers are opposed to the Treaty by 34 per cent to 31 per cent. The No majority among working class C2DE voters is much bigger with Labour voters shifting in large numbers from the Yes side. It indicates that opposition to the Treaty expressed by some trade unionists is having an impact.

In class terms, the Yes campaign is only ahead among better off ABC1 voters. Fianna Fáil voters continue to back the Treaty, but even in that category the No campaign has made massive strides in the past three weeks with a gain of 15 points to 25 per cent, while the proportion of Yes voters has fallen by five points to 42 per cent.

A clear majority of Fine Gael voters are now against the Treaty by 40 per cent to 30 per cent, while among Labour voters there has been a massive turnaround with the No side almost doubling its support to 47 per cent with 30 per cent of party supporters in favour.

Ironically, given the party’s previous stance on the EU, the strong support for the Treaty comes from among Green Party supporters.

Mike.

dathi1

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

LostinBlanch

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

All this yes camp throwing around the "usual suspects" line against the treaty fails to address the fact that people in the public eye like Gay Byrne, Shane Ross and Kevin Myers, to name but three, have publicly come out against the treaty. Like them or not (and I don't) they have an effect on various constituencies.

The Yes camp are not explaining the treaty properly. Iarla O'Neill couldn't even answer a journalists question at a referendum commission press release yesterday.

Personally speaking, I'm just waiting for the media blackout. It can't come quickly enough.

ateam

Turnout will be a deciding factor. The Yes side need to energise their voters to get out and vote.

Are people voting No because they don't like Eastern Europeans coming into the country? Sorry if that's not politically correct, but that's the impression I'm getting from Dubliners anyway. They actually don't know about the treaty but are voting against it because of the amount of Eastern Europeans that are here "taking our jobs".

is_that_so

I am more put out by the 28% still undecided.

I am not convinced it is "not domestic problems". I think there are a number of factors at work here not least the politics I hoped we might overlook.

FG supporters are still smarting for the Cowen comments. I'd also suggest that a number of others are looking at this as bloody nose time, like the IFA and some of the unions. On top of that there is the "I don't understand it" approach. I'd hazard that includes the "I'm not bothering to read it and will take my cue from wiser heads". The No campaign has picked some easy, very visual messages , however wrong they are.

As posted turnout will affect this along with the "undecideds".

judas101

ateam wrote: »

Are people voting No because they don't like Eastern Europeans coming into the country? Sorry if that's not politically correct, but that's the impression I'm getting from Dubliners anyway. They actually don't know about the treaty but are voting against it because of the amount of Eastern Europeans that are here "taking our jobs".

what affect will a no vote have on that?

mike65

None but peeps are pretty stupid as a whole.

Mike.

utick

yes side has given nothing to vote for, they spend 50% of there time defending the treaty from the no side, then the other 50% of there efforts the best they seem to come up with is 'vote yes or it will hurt foreign investment' or vote yes for a streamlined europe' (i guess you could say giving up vetos would be stream ling) but they never give any postive message of substance

is_that_so

judas101 wrote: »

what affect will a no vote have on that?

None whatsoever but given how things seem to be going down the tubes another reason to be negative without giving it any thought.

judas101

i'm a definate yes.

from what i've seen, people are voting no because its easier to reject something than keep it as it is.

i'm voting yes as a yes vote will speed up the decision making process in the EU which is a good thing.

the big shots in the EU dont **** stuff up.

also, as a recent graduate, a yes vote will be better for jobs and economy.

any person who wants to stay in ireland, work, buy a house ect. would be a fool to vote no.


for all the undecideds yet, i urge you to read the facts and filter the BS from the scaremongers.

johnnyq

judas101 wrote: »

i'm voting yes as a yes vote will speed up the decision making process in the EU which is a good thing.

At our own expense of course losing 30+ vetos in exchange for nothing.

the big shots in the EU dont **** stuff up.

Butter mountain and wine lake spring to mind.
And of course, now, we have food shortages in the EU. Some great management by the big shots there.

also, as a recent graduate, a yes vote will be better for jobs and economy.

This being better jobs at the expense of workers rights I assume?

The economy? lol! ECB are about to increase interest rates which will cripple those with mortgages and the building sector.

any person who wants to stay in ireland, work, buy a house ect. would be a fool to vote no.

Buy a house! Lol! See above.

for all the undecideds yet, i urge you to read the facts and filter the BS from the scaremongers.

I agree. www.lisbontreaty2008.ie independent commission website.

bedrock#1

i was at the socialist party debate in Wynns hotel tonight and joe higgins told of news he recieved that new Irish Times polls showed the opinion 35% undecided 35% NO 30% Yes..... the race is on boys and girls.....

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

Well said Lostinblanch ....

ixtlan

johnnyq wrote: »

At our own expense of course losing 30+ vetos in exchange for nothing.

A statement like this suggests again that it's 26 against one. That we have to be able to block everything to save ourselves from the evil masterminds in Europe out to destroy Ireland.

In exchange for what? How about for the other 26 countries giving up their vetos in those areas too? The loss of a veto does not just mean that we may have to agree to something we do not want. It also means that other counties may have to agree to something that we want. Overall, taking the big picture into account the loss of many vetos over the past few decades has never had any serious adverse effects on Ireland. Part of the reason for this is that the EU does not operate in the adversarial manner that people seem to think. Consensus is the target, and it usually comes about.

Ix.

gurramok

This BS and scaremongering about threatening jobs and economy is whats driving the NO vote also.
With comments like this: (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/crisis-for-cowen-as-no-vote-surges-1399565.html)
"It's a wake-up call and the people of Ireland will have to realise if this doesn't go through there will be emigration again. Jobs, jobs, it's all about jobs and about working to get jobs in the future."

There is not one shred of proof to the above. It's Nice tactics all over again.

ixtlan

As regards the poll. It is indeed a worry for the yes side.

Usually these polls make an attempt to exclude those people unlikely to vote. However I see that here there is 7% who will not vote. Now since in reality probably closer to 57% will not vote, what does this mean?

In the past the no side I think was generally more likely to vote. However now, if the main reason for voting no is a lack of understanding, I wonder if those people may not vote (despite what they have told the pollsters) and the yes side may be more committed.

Certainly all to play for...

Ix.

ixtlan

gurramok wrote: »

This BS and scaremongering about threatening jobs and economy is whats driving the NO vote also.
With comments like this: (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/crisis-for-cowen-as-no-vote-surges-1399565.html)
"It's a wake-up call and the people of Ireland will have to realise if this doesn't go through there will be emigration again. Jobs, jobs, it's all about jobs and about working to get jobs in the future."

There is not one shred of proof to the above. It's Nice tactics all over again.

Indeed, as a yes supporter I agree with your comment. I would add though that the no side is scaremongering just as much if not more. It would be nice to have a rational and reasoned debate on Lisbon but instead it has descended into an almost childish squabble of ... Lisbon will do this... oh no it won't... it will do this... oh no it won't.

I have given this a lot of thought, even before this treaty. One suggestion I had was that after any treaty was agreed at government level, the public (meaning the likely no campaigners) should put their nightmare scenarios forward and the European courts should give some virtual judgments. Maybe these would not be binding, but they would surely be strong indications of what would happen in real-world scenarios.

However even without this, I favour Lisbon because on past performance the treaties have not been twisted to mean something that the signing governments did not intend.

Ix.

mike65

Listening to the likes of Dermot Ahern, Brian Lennihan and Lucinda Creighton on radio today has been illuiminating, they've basicly given up on "higher ideals" of Europe and are threatening us with the prospect of an economic dark age. Desperation stakes really.

Mike

gurramok

ixtlan wrote: »

Indeed, as a yes supporter I agree with your comment. I would add though that the no side is scaremongering just as much if not more. It would be nice to have a rational and reasoned debate on Lisbon but instead it has descended into an almost childish squabble of ... Lisbon will do this... oh no it won't... it will do this... oh no it won't.

It's the politicians who have 95% or whatever of the Dail who are supposed to be above scare tactics and deliver sane arguments.
You'd expect scare tactics from fringe groups but having mainstream politicians doing it is what gets me and we know ordinary joes and janes dont trust politicians.

redspider

I agree with a lot of what you say ixtlan, and you too mike65. The treaty like many is open to interpretation and some court decisions are likely to be required at some future point. There has been FUD on both sides and it has been childish. Real debate is lacking, on a point by point basis. Yes for jobs, No for jobs soundbites are worthless.

Its true that by and large EU treaties are in the main good, but there is no guarantee with that and it should not be a reason for voting Yes this time, in my opinion. Its also possible that a better deal could be stuck up, as Lisbon is really the failed EC Constitution re-packaged, no more no less. There are aspects that I am not happy with, such as losing the Commissioner for each country and the reduction in QMV levels and the major changes in the voting. It would be interesting to vote on the proposals on each item a la carte, but that would be difficult to arrange and next to impossible for the vast bulk of the electorate to follow.

> Turnout will be a deciding factor.

Yes, it will. It is all to play for of course, as anything is thats balanced 35% to 30% in a poll of 1000 people. The level of "No" though is a surprise even to the "No" campaigners and I would say is a complete shock to the "Yes" campaigners. If anything, the momentum seemed to be heading towards "Yes" with the inevitable backing by many 'self-interest' groups such as the IFA, etc.

Turnout could be 50%-60% on this, and it remains to be seen just which side is agitated enough to come out on the day and cast their vote. That has been typically the "No" side, such as in Nice-I, but there are many who may be agitated on the "Yes" side as well.

Hard to call at this point ....

Redspider

is_that_so

mike65 wrote: »

Listening to the likes of Dermot Ahern, Brian Lennihan and Lucinda Creighton on radio today has been illuiminating, they've basicly given up on "higher ideals" of Europe and are threatening us with the prospect of an economic dark age. Desperation stakes really.

Mike

It is not unexpected from the two FF individuals as neither is particularly subtle. I think the time might be better spent explaining to that 28% who don't know and those who are voting No because they don't understand what they are voting for. Wrong people to the fore at this point IMO.

jank

What is worrying for Biffo is that the "undecided's" are very much swinging to the NO side.
That will be very hard to undo.

As a No voter myself im gald!:)

ixtlan

gurramok wrote: »

You'd expect scare tactics from fringe groups but having mainstream politicians doing it is what gets me and we know ordinary joes and janes dont trust politicians.

True, but this is not all the politicians fault. The declining interest in politics and the lack of trust in politicians is of very very grave concern right across Europe. If I might be allowed some scaremongering, this is the kind of attitude, which if it continued to get worse, could lead to new dictatorships in 10-20-30 years. You may laugh, but when you get to a point where 60-70-80% of the public think like this, then opportunities arise for very small intensely committed groups to assume power, and then keep it, based on the fact that people start asking what did democracy ever get us.

So, it's important to vote. I had a Muslim friend who told me that he thought the Christians and other religions were OK, because they believed in something. It was the atheists he had a problem with! I would not approve of this view, but I do feel something similar about voters. I disagree with no voters, but I respect your participation in the process. For the 50% who will not vote at all, I feel some anger and annoyance.

Ix.

brianthebard

mike65 wrote: »

Listening to the likes of Dermot Ahern, Brian Lennihan and Lucinda Creighton on radio today has been illuiminating, they've basicly given up on "higher ideals" of Europe and are threatening us with the prospect of an economic dark age. Desperation stakes really.

Mike

Agree with this. I think the yes side has been all over the place trying to make a case for this treaty. Anyone listening to the debate on the last word yesterday will know that. Also apparently Biffo has said that he hasn't read the treaty, despite the fact that he was involved in drawing it up! If the person who was partly responsible for creating it can't read it why would people want to?

Hitman Actual

brianthebard wrote: »

Agree with this. I think the yes side has been all over the place trying to make a case for this treaty. Anyone listening to the debate on the last word yesterday will know that. Also apparently Biffo has said that he hasn't read the treaty, despite the fact that he was involved in drawing it up! If the person who was partly responsible for creating it can't read it why would people want to?

The statements "hasn't read it" and "can't read it" are two totally different things. If he was involved in drawing up the treaty and understands its substance (better than you or I, I think we can safely assume), why would he need to re-read it?

[Hasn't this been done to death in another thread?]

Sauron

brianthebard wrote: »

Also apparently Biffo has said that he hasn't read the treaty, despite the fact that he was involved in drawing it up! If the person who was partly responsible for creating it can't read it why would people want to?

Maybe he hasn't read it because, having been involved in drawing it up, he's familiar with all the relevant points?

That's like complaining that someone who composes a manifesto - who writes all the main points, edits them, basically knows them inside out - hasn't read it.

Or to use a more extreme analogy, it's like complaining that an author hasn't read his own book after it's been fully edited and published.

Finally, as was said in another thread, we don't elect politicians based on their ability to interpret legal documents; we presume they have experts that can explain it for them.

(Apologies, just saw lenny's post now)

brianthebard

Trying to inspire an electorate to vote yes by saying he hasn't read it (whether he can or can't) is not going to work tbh.

colly10

judas101 wrote: »

a yes vote will be better for jobs and economy.

How exactly? Or is that just yet another statement which is not backed up by anything from the treaty?

ixtlan wrote: »

It also means that other counties may have to agree to something that we want..

Our say will be so small that it will be irrelevent

sink

colly10 wrote: »

How exactly? Or is that just yet another statement which is not backed up by anything from the treaty?

Not necessarily anything specific in the treaty, but the fact that a yes vote will reaffirm our commitment to Europe and maintain stability. Where as a no vote will show we are uncertain of our future and that of Europe's and our commitment to the EU will come into question. These are the type of things investor look at when deciding where to put their money. The IMF has Ireland ranked as one of the most politically stable countries in the world and is one of the main reasons we are ranked so high in competitive terms. Investors like stability not volatility. No one invests in Italy due to their unstable politics.

colly10 wrote: »

Our say will be so small that it will be irrelevent

Our direct voting weight isn't going to change that much. We almost never use our vote anyway because the EU generally rules by consensus and the negotiating skills of our diplomats and politicians play a much bigger role.

ChocolateSauce

30% say they don't know what they're voting for? What pig ignorance! Maybe at first they could have said that, but not after all the information out there has been organised. I've received 4 booklets in the post, two of them not taking a side, just explaining it, and the treaty is readily available on the internet.

There is no longer any excuse. People claiming this ignorance are either wilfully so or are lying to cover ulterior motives.

gurramok

sink wrote: »

Not necessarily anything specific in the treaty, but the fact that a yes vote will reaffirm our commitment to Europe and maintain stability. Where as a no vote will show we are uncertain of our future and that of Europe's and our commitment to the EU will come into question. These are the type of things investor look at when deciding where to put their money. The IMF has Ireland ranked as one of the most politically stable countries in the world and is one of the main reasons we are ranked so high in competitive terms. Investors like stability not volatility. No one invests in Italy due to their unstable politics.

Oh come on, this is laughable.

Between the gap of Nice I and Nice II, there were no consequences.

Denmark has consistently voted no to integration for years and they are doing well. (likewise Norway)
France and Netherlands didn't have any economic consequences of their No votes to the EU constitution way back, they are still going ok!

All these countries are politically stable and strengthened, Italy has a domestic mafia issue, thats why investors would be wary, nothing to do with the EU!!

Hitman Actual

brianthebard wrote: »

Trying to inspire an electorate to vote yes by saying he hasn't read it (whether he can or can't) is not going to work tbh.

I think the fact that he was involved in writing it, especially during the Irish leadership term of the EU, should inspire people a lot more, tbh.

sink

theozster wrote: »

30% say they don't know what they're voting for? What pig ignorance! Maybe at first they could have said that, but not after all the information out there has been organised. I've received 4 booklets in the post, two of them not taking a side, just explaining it, and the treaty is readily available on the internet.

There is no longer any excuse. People claiming this ignorance are either wilfully so or are lying to cover ulterior motives.

I especially find it frustrating that I have gone to the trouble of doing lots of research reading material from both side of the argument and the treaty itself in order to form a well informed opinion. Yet my vote will be cancelled out by a no voter who hasn't bothered to read one bit of information and is only going on sound bites. That said I'm sure there is people on the yes side like that too, but I would imagine they would be far rarer.

The_Minister

gurramok wrote: »

This BS and scaremongering about threatening jobs and economy is whats driving the NO vote also.
With comments like this: (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/crisis-for-cowen-as-no-vote-surges-1399565.html)
"It's a wake-up call and the people of Ireland will have to realise if this doesn't go through there will be emigration again. Jobs, jobs, it's all about jobs and about working to get jobs in the future."

There is not one shred of proof to the above. It's Nice tactics all over again.

I wouldn't write off that point of view altogether. I think that a No vote could be crushing for Ireland, a view that I originally disagreed with.

sink

gurramok wrote: »

Denmark has consistently voted no to integration for years and they are doing well. (likewise Norway)

Both those countries have large domestically owned businesses which export a lot. Most of our exports are from external investment especially from American multinationals. Our economy is far more reliant on investors

gurramok wrote: »

France and Netherlands didn't have any economic consequences of their No votes to the EU constitution way back, they are still going ok!

The French economy has been in the gutter for years now, the no vote certainly didn't help and they are no better off now than before. We in comparison have a relatively strong economy reliant on international investors and have a lot more to loose. I'm not familiar enough with the Dutch economy to comment.

gurramok wrote: »

All these countries are politically stable and strengthened, Italy has a domestic mafia issue, thats why investors would be wary, nothing to do with the EU!!

The Dutch government has collapsed something like 6 times in the last decade France has suffered violent riots in it's poor suburbs and constant strikes. That does not sound like stability to me. It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

brianthebard

The_Minister wrote: »

I wouldn't write off that point of view altogether. I think that a No vote could be crushing for Ireland, a view that I originally disagreed with.

For what reasons?

colly10

sink wrote: »

That said I'm sure there is people on the yes side like that too, but I would imagine they would be far rarer.

I would personally think the exact opposite (eg. im voting yes because the government said to, or im voting yes because you can't trust Sinn Fein etc..)

But in saying that im biased and so are you, don't assume that just because someone is voting no means that they havn't done any research, just as I don't assume I don't assume that about the general yes voter.

gurramok

sink wrote: »

Both those countries have large domestically owned businesses which export a lot. Most of our exports are from external investment especially from American multinationals. Our economy is far more reliant on investors

I'd agree here, so the tax issue is more important than ever then. Where are the home grown Irish industries?

sink wrote: »

The French economy has been in the gutter for years now, the no vote certainly didn't help and they are no better off now than before. We in comparison have a relatively strong economy reliant on international investors and have a lot more to loose. I'm not familiar enough with the Dutch economy to comment.

The French economy has structural problems(public sector reform) for years, it's totally nothing to do with the previous EU vote(it was in 2005).

sink wrote: »

The Dutch government has collapsed something like 6 times in the last decade France has suffered violent riots in it's poor suburbs and constant strikes. That does not sound like stability to me. It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

The Dutch govt has collapsed maybe 6 times in a decade, the EU vote only happened in 2005, its now 2008.
Here is a nice index on stability: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3617160.ece

It has Netherlands one place above Ireland in 9th place and Denmark in 12th. Shocking

The French riots were due to racial issues in employment opportunities and social reasons built up over a generation, nothing to do with the 2005 vote.

It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.

Daftendirekt

colly10 wrote: »

I would personally think the exact opposite (eg. im voting yes because the government said to, or im voting yes because you can't trust Sinn Fein etc..)

I haven't come across any yes voters who claim to be voting yes because the government told them to, and Sinn Féin seem to be just generally anti-European anyway. Although it is telling that they're the only party opposed to it, it still isn't a good thing to base your vote on.

On the other hand, I really wish the government would just shut the hell up about Lisbon at this stage... the scarmongering is only hurting the Yes side. If they'd just try and sell the treaty on it's merits, it'd take a lot of credence away from the no side.

Although I still think it's daft for people to say they're voting no because of the lack of information on the treaty.

djpbarry

colly10 wrote: »

...don't assume that just because someone is voting no means that they havn't done any research...

It's very easy to make that assumption based on some of the slogans being bandied about by different groups on the 'No' side; take Cóir for example:

C&#243 wrote: »

People died for your freedom, don't throw it away
...
No 2 Foreign Rule
...
Under the Lisbon Treaty we’ll be made subject to the EU Court and the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which can force us to change our laws on issues as important as:

• legalization of abortion and euthanasia
• legalization of prostitution and hard drugs

It can be difficult to realise that not everyone on the 'No' side buys into this crap. Put it this way; I've seen few (if any) convincing reasons to vote 'No' on this forum.

djpbarry

Daftendirekt wrote: »

On the other hand, I really wish the government would just shut the hell up about Lisbon at this stage... the scarmongering is only hurting the Yes side. If they'd just try and sell the treaty on it's merits, it'd take a lot of credence away from the no side.

I think it's a case of the government being dragged down to the level of certain elements of the 'No' side; I'm not sure they expected to be dismissing claims about abortion, euthanasia, tax, neutrality, etc.

redspider

sink wrote: »

1. I especially find it frustrating that I have gone to the trouble of doing lots of research reading material from both side of the argument and the treaty itself in order to form a well informed opinion. Yet my vote will be cancelled out by a no voter who hasn't bothered to read one bit of information and is only going on sound bites.

2. That said I'm sure there is people on the yes side like that too, but I would imagine they would be far rarer.

In terms of 1, welcome to democracy! A vote by someone with an IQ of 150 on any matter counts the same as someone who barely understands anything. Knowledge does not come into it, alas. I also wis it were otherwise.

As for 2, with 96% of TD's supporting the Yes side, there is likely to be many more who dont know the details to be voting Yes (ie: following party lines and 'authority'), and those that dont know who may vote No may not just vote at all. Its hard to say though without a definitive exit poll, and even then people are likely to lie on how mich they really know. The only way would be to conduct a brief 10 question quiz on the exit poll to confirm knowledge or otherwise. Over to you Red C.

> 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.

Redspider

mike65

djpbarry wrote: »

Put it this way; I've seen few (if any) convincing reasons to vote 'No' on this forum.

The problem for the yes side is that one can say the same about thier campaign - they simply have not sold it. Because they didn't belive they had too I suspect.

Mike.

colly10

djpbarry wrote: »

It's very easy to make that assumption based on some of the slogans being bandied about by different groups on the 'No' side; take Cóir for example:
It can be difficult to realise that not everyone on the 'No' side buys into this crap. Put it this way; I've seen few (if any) convincing reasons to vote 'No' on this forum.

Well im voting no and I think those slogans are pretty much total ****, based on nothing

djpbarry

mike65 wrote: »

The problem for the yes side is that one can say the same about thier campaign - they simply have not sold it. Because they didn't belive they had too I suspect.

Possibly, but I suspect it is because it is a difficult treaty to sell! There's nothing in there that the government can really point to and say "vote 'Yes' to Lisbon and then <insert favourable outcome here> will happen". As one commentator put it (I can't remember who); "Lisbon is a necessary, but unremarkable treaty".

djpbarry

colly10 wrote: »

Well im voting no and I think those slogans are pretty much total ****, based on nothing

Well I'm glad we can agree on that.

sink

gurramok wrote: »

I'd agree here, so the tax issue is more important than ever then. Where are the home grown Irish industries?

I also agree that the tax issue is more important but I am also convinced that the Lisbon treaty would have no effect. The multinationals that would be most worried about such a move have come out in support of the treaty.

gurramok wrote: »

The French economy has structural problems(public sector reform) for years, it's totally nothing to do with the previous EU vote(it was in 2005).

I will concede on this point. But I still believe that our economy is fundamentally different to the French or Dutch and a no vote will effect us differently.

gurramok wrote: »

The Dutch govt has collapsed maybe 6 times in a decade, the EU vote only happened in 2005, its now 2008.
Here is a nice index on stability: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3617160.ece

It has Netherlands one place above Ireland in 9th place and Denmark in 12th. Shocking

That index does not reflect purely on political stability. It looks at economic stability e.g. financial markets and prosperity. Switzerland would be no.1 on a ranking of purely political stability. The last Dutch government collapsed in 2006 one year after the rejection of the constitution

gurramok wrote: »

The French riots were due to racial issues in employment opportunities and social reasons built up over a generation, nothing to do with the 2005 vote.

It could be argued that the political unrest in France had a causal effect on the rejection of the constitution, and then the rejection itself had compounding effect upon the instability as it severely weakened the government.

gurramok wrote: »

It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.

I apologise I regret writing that comment it was rash and ill judged. You obviously do have a well reasoned argument and I can see it has merit. Although I'm not entirely convinced by it.

menoscemo

ateam wrote: »

Are people voting No because they don't like Eastern Europeans coming into the country? Sorry if that's not politically correct, but that's the impression I'm getting from Dubliners anyway. They actually don't know about the treaty but are voting against it because of the amount of Eastern Europeans that are here "taking our jobs".

As quoted from the Irish times poll,
Reasons give by No voters for voting No:
"To preven too Much Immigration into Ireland" 8% (-2)

Considering the no-voters were able to give mulitple reasons, this figure is very low and suggests there is not as much Ignorance as the Yes side seem to (or would like to) think.

The fact is the yes arguments are weak because they seem to concentrate on telling us that things will not change (tax, abortion etc), but surely to vote for a change (which the Yes vote would do) there would have to be positive benefits for Ireland. I have not heard one yes argument on how things will be better for ireland because of the treaty- just 'it won't change anything'. The fact is voting No won't change anything either.

When faced with a choice of
A) Vote yes because we probably won't lose anything,
and
B)vote no and we definately won't lose anything; obviously people will choose the latter.

brianthebard

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I haven't come across any yes voters who claim to be voting yes because the government told them to, and Sinn Féin seem to be just generally anti-European anyway. Although it is telling that they're the only party opposed to it, it still isn't a good thing to base your vote on.

A large number of FF supporters will be voting yes because Cowan said so.

brianthebard

gurramok wrote: »

I'd agree here, so the tax issue is more important than ever then. Where are the home grown Irish industries?

What, agribusiness counts for nothing now? The brewing and alcohol industry? I'm sure if you actually tried you could come up with some other examples.

djpbarry

menoscemo wrote: »

The fact is the yes arguments are weak because they seem to concentrate on telling us that things will not change (tax, abortion etc), but surely to vote for a change (which the Yes vote would do) there would have to be positive benefits for Ireland. I have not heard one yes argument on how things will be better for ireland because of the treaty- just 'it won't change anything'.

It’s already been pointed out that it is quite difficult to point to specific benefits that would result from voting ‘Yes’; unfortunately it’s just not that black-and-white.

menoscemo wrote: »

The fact is voting No won't change anything either.

It seems one of the biggest reasons people are voting 'No' is because they don't know what they are voting for - so why the **** are they going to vote at all?!?

Irish Times, 05/06/2008 wrote:

The reason most often cited by No voters is that they don’t know what they are voting for or they don’t understand the Treaty, with 30 per cent of No voters listing this as the main reason for their decision.

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

brianthebard wrote: »

A large number of FF supporters will be voting yes because Cowan said so.

I'd imagine a large number of Sinn Fein supporters will vote 'No' for similar reasons.

gurramok

sink wrote: »

I also agree that the tax issue is more important but I am also convinced that the Lisbon treaty would have no effect. The multinationals that would be most worried about such a move have come out in support of the treaty.

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

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

sink wrote: »

You obviously do have a well reasoned argument and I can see it has merit. Although I'm not entirely convinced by it.

I'd probably be a euro-sceptic but i'm not even sure which way I vote.

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

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

How can the yes side defend this?