[Article] Lack of understanding main reason for Lisbon No

cornbb

irishtimes.com wrote:

The main reason people voted No to the Lisbon Treaty was a lack of knowledge or understanding of what they were voting on, according to the results of an opinion poll carried out for the Government.

A total of 42 per cent of those who voted No cited this as the main reason, according to the poll carried out by Millward Brown IMS in the last week of July.

The poll also demonstrated a poor level of knowledge among the voters about the EU and the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty.

A total of 33 per cent of the electorate thought that the introduction of conscription into a European army was included in the Lisbon Treaty while 34 per cent believed that it would end Ireland’s control over the country’s abortion policy.

“An EU knowledge deficit is clearly present which has undoubtedly contributed to the No vote,” according to the pollsters.

Article continues: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0910/breaking62.htm

I think that speaks for itself really

sink

I've been fairly confident all along that if enough people knew what was actually in the treaty it would pass with an overwhelming majority. Pity the government did not place enough emphasis on educating the public.

Scofflaw

...awaiting outrage...


expectantly,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Not yet, you have to wait until all three of us bully reply.

cavedave

weirdly the people who voted yes without understanding the treaty are not being talked about

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/5.pdf

WooPeeA

How can you understand something that you haven't even read?

How many of you read and understood Irish constitution? Possibly most of people don't even know how many articles does it have..

So why don't reject the constitution too?

sink

cavedave wrote: »

weirdly the people who voted yes without understanding the treaty are not being talked about

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/5.pdf

I agree it's interesting but call me biased I do see a difference. People who vote yes were not citing their lack of knowledge as a reason for voting yes. They are also not citing myths as their reason for voting yes. More often than not they are voting yes because they trust the EU is good for Ireland. If no voters said they voted no because they don't trust the EU is good, fair enough. Not the best reason for voting either way but at least it's not based on ignorance.

The fact is no voters overwhelmingly said that the EU is good for Ireland and voted no because they either didn't know enough which is as much their own fault as anyone else's or they believed in complete myths about the treaty.

WooPeeA

Indeed sink.

Hitman Actual

cavedave wrote: »

weirdly the people who voted yes without understanding the treaty are not being talked about

http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Publications/Post%20Lisbon%20Treaty%20Referendum%20Research%20Findings/5.pdf

I've only had a quick read of the report, but the previous section to the one you've highlighted gives a pretty good analysis of the understanding of the electorate. I think people should judge the document on it's entirety, not just one section which suits ones' agenda.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

I agree it's interesting but call me biased I do see a difference. People who vote yes were not citing their lack of knowledge as a reason for voting yes. They are also not citing myths as their reason for voting yes. More often than not they are voting yes because they trust the EU is good for Ireland. If no voters said they voted no because they don't trust the EU is good, fair enough. Not the best reason for voting either way but at least it's not based on ignorance.

The fact is no voters overwhelmingly said that the EU is good for Ireland and voted no because they either didn't know enough which is as much their own fault as anyone else's or they believed in complete myths about the treaty.

On the other hand, people who vote Yes to things the government wants simply because the government wants them represent probably the single greatest threat to any democracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the other hand, people who vote Yes to things the government wants simply because the government wants them represent probably the single greatest threat to any democracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I take your point, but I don't know what anyone can do to solve the lack of interest in modern Irish and European politics from which this stems.

kmick

I did not vote as I was not in the country but if I was I would have voted no. I understood the issues, agreed that things like conscription, job losses etc were all red herrings and was fairly convinced there was nothing truly evil about the whole thing. However I would have voted no because there is absolutely no advantage in it for us. If you want a fish to bite you need some bait. All we got with that was a very sharp hook and some vague instructions from the government to bite it as hard as we can.

kmick

sink wrote: »

I take your point, but I don't know what anyone can do to solve the lack of interest in modern Irish and European politics from which this stems.

Modern Irish and European politics has few admirers because the people who are at the forefront are seen as gangsters, liars, and worse...

Bertie, Brown, Berlusconi, Sarkozy

Thees people are tolerated rather than admired.

sink

kmick wrote: »

I did not vote as I was not in the country but if I was I would have voted no. I understood the issues, agreed that things like conscription, job losses etc were all red herrings and was fairly convinced there was nothing truly evil about the whole thing. However I would have voted no because there is absolutely no advantage in it for us. If you want a fish to bite you need some bait. All we got with that was a very sharp hook and some vague instructions from the government to bite it as hard as we can.

That's the problem, the treaty wasn't about benefits specifically for us. The treaty was purely about the internal functioning of the EU which would have an indirect benefit for us. The EU on this occasion didn't have a bag full of cash on offer and we slapped them in the face because of it.

I posted this before the referendum. I didn't see a comprehensive list of benefits from any of the Yes campaigns until literally 3 or 4 days before the vote.

sink wrote: »

I am not affiliated with any campaign, nor am I a supporter of any particular party. My 10 top reasons for voting yes are.

1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.

The parliament currently votes on only 80% legislation, the Lisbon Treaty increases this to 95%. The parliament currently only approves 20% of the budget, this will be increased to 100%

2. The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally

Under the Nice treaty the commission will be slimmed down in 2009. However the rules are not yet set, Lisbon sets those rules in a manner which gives 100% equality to all states big and small. The larger states originally wanted a permanent commissioner and all the small states would rotate. The Irish delegation got them to agree to agree to a binding system of equality. If the treaty does not pass this is back on the table.

3. Permanent President of the European Council

The current system for President of the European Council rotates between states every six months. The head of government of each state fills the role, this causes the President to push his/her countries agenda often against the will of others. The Lisbon treaty replaces this system with an elected President by the European council for a two and a half year term. The new President will be obligated to do what is best for everyone not just one individual state.

4. The Councils must meet in the open.

At present the European Council and the Council of Ministers meet behind closed doors. This arouses suspicion in the public as they do not get to see how deals are reached. Under the Lisbon treaty the Councils must meet in the open providing valuable transparency.

5. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies

Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own.

6. Greater role for EU peacekeepers

The treaty provides for a greater role for EU militaries to co-operate on UN mandated peacekeeping missions, while guaranteeing our neutrality.

7. Includes charter of human rights

For the first time EU all laws will be based on a charter of rights guaranteeing all EU citizens human rights.

8. Increases co-operation in Justice and Policing

The treaty increases the ability of national police forces and judiciary to combat international crime such as drug smuggling and people trafficking.

9. The two foreign policy posts are merged into one

The Lisbon creates an new role as the High Representative For Foreign affairs. It merges the two positions of 'High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy' with the 'European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy'. This is to provide a coherent and consistent voice for Europe in the international sphere. Currently there are so many people representing the foreign policy of the EU, few governments are clear who to contact in regards to specific areas.

10. Three pillar structure scrapped and merged into one structure

The Lisbon treaty merges the three pillars of the EU into one single organisation. This is designed to improve strategic alignment trough better communications and control and to cut down on costs and bureaucracy by eliminating unnecessary duplicate rolls and reducing staff.

You'll notice that none of them are specific benefits to average ordinary citizens and only affect the day to day operation of the EU. In the same way there were no negatives that would impact on the day to day lives of ordinary citizens but there were no major negatives for democracy, accountability and the functioning of the EU either.

sink

kmick wrote: »

Modern Irish and European politics has few admirers because the people who are at the forefront are seen as gangsters, liars, and worse...

Bertie, Brown, Berlusconi, Sarkozy

Thees people are tolerated rather than admired.

Unfortunately that is too true. The only way to solve that problem if for the people to elect more competent politicians starting at local level.

heyjude

I think the results of this survey must be the most predictable ever. The government have since day one been looking for a reason to have another referendum on the same unaltered treaty, they needed a reason, their preferred option was research finding that a large number of people voted No because they were confused or uninformed.

So they commission a survey into why people voted No and low and behold, the research finds exactly what the government hoped for. Has a company ever commissioned a study and not got the results that they wanted ?

Now the government will claim that we need a new information campaign, following which, they will claim that as people weren't properly informed before the first referendum, the result is open to question and to clarify the issue another vote is needed on the same treaty.


Government claims that they have ruled nothing out is sheer nonsense, they just won't admit it. The only thing they have ruled out is telling the truth, their preferred option from the moment the first vote was lost, was to have another vote. They just needed to find some credible reason why they could ignore the democratic decision, so commission some research and look for some 'golden' reasons among the research findings. Hey presto.

I imagine a great many people were confused after the last general election too, as the promises made, seem to have either vanished altogether or in some cases been totally reversed. I wonder if a survey showed this, would they be contemplating a general election ? Nope, I didn't think so either.

I'd love to interview Dick Roche or any of the other senior ministers with a polygraph, so see whether they have decided when the 2nd referendum will be ? Or whether as they claim, they are looking at other options too, since if you reject every other option, you have reached a decision, but if as it is claimed they have ruled nothing out, then renegotiation or alterations to the Treaty are being considered.

oscarBravo

heyjude wrote: »

So they commission a survey into why people voted No and low and behold, the research finds exactly what the government hoped for. Has a company ever commissioned a study and not got the results that they wanted ?

Let me get this clear: are you accusing Milward Brown IMS of deliberately producing a poll whose results don't reflect the views of the people surveyed?

kmick

1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.
2. The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally
3. Permanent President of the European Council
4. The Councils must meet in the open.
5. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies
6. Greater role for EU peacekeepers
7. Includes charter of human rights
8. Increases co-operation in Justice and Policing
9. The two foreign policy posts are merged into one
10. Three pillar structure scrapped and merged into one structure

Well if these are the benefits then I can see why it failed. At least 8 of them are internal crap that they should just sort out and leave us all alone to pay taxes, live and die.

As for the others environment/human rights these are things which people have to take on themselves. Nothing will change while we drive SUV's and leave our sky box on. As for human rights they dont exist. The dont exist in Asia or Africa or South America. They are disappearing in North America. Europe thankfully is quite a liberal society but its mainly because in the past people thought for themselves. This is disappearing. The EU cannot claim this treaty will benefit Human rights while at the same time supplying passport and other details to the US on request.

I am banging on here. The main point I am trying so badly to make is that the EU does not stand for anything the common man wants to know about. The only thing which affects him/her on a daily basis is interest rates which the EU steadfastly refuses to lower.

Screw them and their elaborate, pointless meanderings into the arseend of nothingness.

Amen

sink

kmick wrote: »

Well if these are the benefits then I can see why it failed. At least 8 of them are internal crap that they should just sort out and leave us all alone to pay taxes, live and die.

Most would see that as anti-democratic and go nuts.

kmick wrote: »

As for the others environment/human rights these are things which people have to take on themselves. Nothing will change while we drive SUV's and leave our sky box on. As for human rights they dont exist. The dont exist in Asia or Africa or South America. They are disappearing in North America. Europe thankfully is quite a liberal society but its mainly because in the past people thought for themselves. This is disappearing. The EU cannot claim this treaty will benefit Human rights while at the same time supplying passport and other details to the US on request.

I tend to agree with you here, but the negatives of not supplying the US with details is no entry to the US.

kmick wrote: »

I am banging on here. The main point I am trying so badly to make is that the EU does not stand for anything the common man wants to know about. The only thing which affects him/her on a daily basis is interest rates which the EU steadfastly refuses to lower.

Screw them and their elaborate, pointless meanderings into the arseend of nothingness.

Amen

That is not being very constructive. The EU has brought in the past many direct benefits to the 'common man' such as investment for jobs, freedom of movement and these reforms will bring further similar benefits but not directly. As a consequence of the reforms on energy, the EU will be in a much stronger position to negotiate a better deal with the likes of Russia and Saudi Arabia for oil and gas which should bring direct benefits to the consumer.

Lowering interest rates now will push up inflation which means paying more for groceries at the checkout counter and greater price instability.

djpbarry

sink wrote: »

I've been fairly confident all along that if enough people knew what was actually in the treaty it would pass with an overwhelming majority. Pity the government did not place enough emphasis on educating the public.

Scofflaw wrote: »

...awaiting outrage...


expectantly,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not yet, you have to wait until all three of us bully reply.

Ah, the three post-men of the Lisbon-ocalypse.

djpbarry

kmick wrote: »

However I would have voted no because there is absolutely no advantage in it for us.

You don’t see any advantage to the EU implementing the list that sink has provided? Out of interest, do you see any disadvantages?

PHB

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let me get this clear: are you accusing Milward Brown IMS of deliberately producing a poll whose results don't reflect the views of the people surveyed?

I'd imagine the weighting and the response rates would reveal that the margin of error is significantly higher than they pretend it to be. Furthermore I'd be very interested to see the weighting they use in order to get a proper sample.

However beyond that, I'm quite unsure as to why this research is being done so late in the day. Is it because the government/media/everyone has been telling people that they don't understand, that conscription was the issue, that so and so and so was this and that.
Why exactly people vote on things is extremely difficult to discern, even with unprompted questions, but asking people why they voted on something 6 weeks ago is always going to be massively influenced by what the media has been reporting.

This has been brilliantly done by the government, and now they are creating a justifiable reason to run it again. Of course the hard core no voters won't accept it, but the moderates might, and thats all they need.

p.s. I'm staunchly in favour of the Lisbon treaty and will be campaiging in the 2nd referendum.

sink

PHB wrote: »

I'd imagine the weighting and the response rates would reveal that the margin of error is significantly higher than they pretend it to be. Furthermore I'd be very interested to see the weighting they use in order to get a proper sample.

In the appendices they show the methodology used and the exact questions asked, which appear to be neutral and balanced. The demographics (i.e. socio economic, age, region) correlate with the countries demographics. Having studied questionnaires for marketing as part of my degree I am confident that the poll was balanced and had a low margin of error.

ChocolateSauce

I don't really believe people who say they didn't have a chance to understand it. It just smacks of either laziness, willful ignorance or ulterior motive. Every household in the country got a book explaining in detail what the treaty did, and most got more than one. I got 4, two pro-treaty, one anti-treaty and one neutral.

Even if they only got one, almost every newspaper had multiple articles outlining multiple aspects of the treaty. I had enough info from them to decide how to vote before I got the books through the door.

As for people who rejected it because they didn't understand the actual treaty, that's what legal experts are for. You don't reject, for example, science, because you don't understand it, you leave it up to those who do.

WooPeeA

kmick wrote: »

I did not vote as I was not in the country but if I was I would have voted no. I understood the issues, agreed that things like conscription, job losses etc were all red herrings and was fairly convinced there was nothing truly evil about the whole thing. However I would have voted no because there is absolutely no advantage in it for us. If you want a fish to bite you need some bait. All we got with that was a very sharp hook and some vague instructions from the government to bite it as hard as we can.

But you wouldn't loose much if the treaty was applied as well.

WooPeeA

If you don't understand something, don't reject it because you can make a mistake..

Well said ChocolateSauce, I wouldn't say that better.

Scofflaw

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I don't really believe people who say they didn't have a chance to understand it. It just smacks of either laziness, willful ignorance or ulterior motive. Every household in the country got a book explaining in detail what the treaty did, and most got more than one. I got 4, two pro-treaty, one anti-treaty and one neutral.

Even if they only got one, almost every newspaper had multiple articles outlining multiple aspects of the treaty. I had enough info from them to decide how to vote before I got the books through the door.

As for people who rejected it because they didn't understand the actual treaty, that's what legal experts are for. You don't reject, for example, science, because you don't understand it, you leave it up to those who do.

Have you looked at the Creationism thread!?

startled,
Scofflaw

kmick

djpbarry wrote: »

You don’t see any advantage to the EU implementing the list that sink has provided? Out of interest, do you see any disadvantages?

Well this is the thing - I have already said it has nothing really negative in it. But from a personal point of you it has nothing advantageous in it either. I agree the EU has been a godsend for Ireland (that and the 12.5% corporation tax and tax breaks for multinationals) but there is so few positives or negatives to this treaty I just dont get whats in it for the common man.

oscarBravo

kmick wrote: »

...I just dont get whats in it for the common man.

I don't get why someone would vote to veto an international treaty between 27 member states, just because they can't see what's in it for them personally. If you can't see anything positive or negative in the treaty, why bother voting?

kmick

sink wrote: »

Lowering interest rates now will push up inflation which means paying more for groceries at the checkout counter and greater price instability.

I understand these arguments however I was looking for a specific example that applied to the Joe Soap like myself. Inflation is currently driven by high food prices, high oil prices (neither of which are likely to change much) and rampant spending. The interest rates have curbed the rampant spending for sure but the other two are far beyond the control of the EU. So now we have stagflation where prices rise but growth is negative. I'm not an economist but I cant see how keeping rates high helps this. Plus the blinkered view that they are only responsible for inflation and are oblivious to all other inputs is not something addressed by Lisbon.

Also any suggestion that the Lisbon treaty will somehow affect oil prices downwards is a red herring. Oil is a commodity whose price is driven by demand. I work in this area and understand the mechanics reasonably well.

kmick

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't get why someone would vote to veto an international treaty between 27 member states, just because they can't see what's in it for them personally. If you can't see anything positive or negative in the treaty, why bother voting?

I did'nt did you read any of the other posts apart from your own.

oscarBravo

kmick wrote: »

I did not vote as I was not in the country but if I was I would have voted no. I understood the issues, agreed that things like conscription, job losses etc were all red herrings and was fairly convinced there was nothing truly evil about the whole thing. However I would have voted no because there is absolutely no advantage in it for us.

kmick wrote: »

I did'nt did you read any of the other posts apart from your own.

Perhaps I misunderstood your points. When you said - twice - that you would have voted no, what did you mean?

kmick

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you can't see anything positive or negative in the treaty, why bother voting?

I was just responding to this question. The answer is I did'nt vote. Its just splitting hairs really as I did say I would vote no if I had been in the country.

oscarBravo

kmick wrote: »

I was just responding to this question. The answer is I did'nt vote. Its just splitting hairs really as I did say I would vote no if I had been in the country.

It's not splitting hairs. You said that your vote would have been "no" had you been in the country to vote, so the question "why bother voting no?" is pertinent. I'm not sure why you're going to such lengths to avoid answering it.

kmick

Well to me its like this. I own a car - and have enjoyed its benefits. Now someone offers me another car. Its the same model and year but it has a sunroof. French and Dutch car drivers have previously said they don't want the car in 2005. I don't want it either as it smells a bit funny. Therefore I say no thanks.

Does that explain my feelings?

djpbarry

kmick wrote: »

Well to me its like this. I own a car - and have enjoyed its benefits. Now someone offers me another car. Its the same model and year but it has a sunroof. French and Dutch car drivers have previously said they don't want the car in 2005. I don't want it either as it smells a bit funny. Therefore I say no thanks.

Does that explain my feelings?

Problem is, it was agreed in October 2002 that changes need to be made to the car. Your representatives then negotiated said changes on your behalf. You have said no thanks, but changes need to be made never-the-less, as previously agreed.

cornbb

kmick wrote: »

Well to me its like this. I own a car - and have enjoyed its benefits. Now someone offers me another car. Its the same model and year but it has a sunroof. French and Dutch car drivers have previously said they don't want the car in 2005. I don't want it either as it smells a bit funny. Therefore I say no thanks.

Does that explain my feelings?

Yep. Pity you're ignoring the tangible benefits the car offers you though, like increased fuel efficiency and more streamlined bodywork.

kmick

kmick wrote: »

1. Increase of power to the European Parliament.
2. The commission is slimmed down fairly and all states are represented equally
3. Permanent President of the European Council
4. The Councils must meet in the open.
5. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies
6. Greater role for EU peacekeepers
7. Includes charter of human rights
8. Increases co-operation in Justice and Policing
9. The two foreign policy posts are merged into one
10. Three pillar structure scrapped and merged into one structure

Well if these are the benefits then I can see why it failed. At least 8 of them are internal crap that they should just sort out and leave us all alone to pay taxes, live and die.

As for the others environment/human rights these are things which people have to take on themselves. Nothing will change while we drive SUV's and leave our sky box on. As for human rights they dont exist. The dont exist in Asia or Africa or South America. They are disappearing in North America. Europe thankfully is quite a liberal society but its mainly because in the past people thought for themselves. This is disappearing. The EU cannot claim this treaty will benefit Human rights while at the same time supplying passport and other details to the US on request.

I am banging on here. The main point I am trying so badly to make is that the EU does not stand for anything the common man wants to know about. The only thing which affects him/her on a daily basis is interest rates which the EU steadfastly refuses to lower.

Screw them and their elaborate, pointless meanderings into the arseend of nothingness.

Amen

I already gave my feedback to the 'tangible benefits' this treaty provides and gave the opinion that 8 of them are internal housekeeping and two are impossibles/improbables/unachievables.

I just dont want what they are selling. There are no tangible benefits to me.

cornbb

kmick wrote: »

I just dont want what they are selling. There are no tangible benefits to me.

Have you considered that the benefits the treaty offers to the EU and to Ireland can have a knock-on effect on your everyday life? Increased economic activity, enhanced co-operation on defence and crime etc... Instead of thinking "how is this good for me" try thinking "how is this good for everybody".

Scofflaw

kmick wrote: »

Well to me its like this. I own a car - and have enjoyed its benefits. Now someone offers me another car. Its the same model and year but it has a sunroof. French and Dutch car drivers have previously said they don't want the car in 2005. I don't want it either as it smells a bit funny. Therefore I say no thanks.

I'm not sure about that analogy at all, though, because Lisbon isn't a new Treaty but a series of amendments to the existing treaties. In that sense, it's rather more like saying that you have a car, which you think is working well, but which your garage says needs some fixes under the hood - and they give you a complicated explanation about compressors and spark ratios. They claim that it will make your car run better, and future-proof it for another couple of years.

Mates of yours, with the identical car, already said no to the fixes a couple of years ago. A load of other people around you claim you'd be better off with an entirely different car, or even ditching cars altogether.

Essentially, the question is - do you trust the garage? Are they just making this stuff up for their own benefit?

cordially,
Scofflaw

WooPeeA

kmick wrote: »

Well to me its like this. I own a car - and have enjoyed its benefits. Now someone offers me another car. Its the same model and year but it has a sunroof. French and Dutch car drivers have previously said they don't want the car in 2005. I don't want it either as it smells a bit funny. Therefore I say no thanks.

Does that explain my feelings?

kmick, but they offer you an extra car - you still can keep yours.

molloyjh

heyjude wrote: »

I think the results of this survey must be the most predictable ever. The government have since day one been looking for a reason to have another referendum on the same unaltered treaty, they needed a reason, their preferred option was research finding that a large number of people voted No because they were confused or uninformed.

So they commission a survey into why people voted No and low and behold, the research finds exactly what the government hoped for. Has a company ever commissioned a study and not got the results that they wanted ?

Now the government will claim that we need a new information campaign, following which, they will claim that as people weren't properly informed before the first referendum, the result is open to question and to clarify the issue another vote is needed on the same treaty.


Government claims that they have ruled nothing out is sheer nonsense, they just won't admit it. The only thing they have ruled out is telling the truth, their preferred option from the moment the first vote was lost, was to have another vote. They just needed to find some credible reason why they could ignore the democratic decision, so commission some research and look for some 'golden' reasons among the research findings. Hey presto.

I imagine a great many people were confused after the last general election too, as the promises made, seem to have either vanished altogether or in some cases been totally reversed. I wonder if a survey showed this, would they be contemplating a general election ? Nope, I didn't think so either.

I'd love to interview Dick Roche or any of the other senior ministers with a polygraph, so see whether they have decided when the 2nd referendum will be ? Or whether as they claim, they are looking at other options too, since if you reject every other option, you have reached a decision, but if as it is claimed they have ruled nothing out, then renegotiation or alterations to the Treaty are being considered.

As the ad says, there's always one. Although I'm surprised there wasn't more.

Yes this is all a huge conspiracy against the Irish people, despite the fact that the results are quite similar to the EU flash poll run by Gallup immediatley after the referendum itself and despite the fact that there has been no evidence to refute either poll in any way shape or form, still it must be lies. :rolleyes:

As has been discussed elsewhere a GE is a very different matter with a large number of variables and personal interpretations, whereas something like Lisbon is more solid and definable.

As for the "no benefit to me" stance taken by kmick I have to say, and apologies for being harsh, but that very me fein attitude is exactly why this country is such a mess poltiically. The Lisbon Treaty didn't contain any direct benefits, but more indirect benefits. And if its not a good or a bad thing for you, but it is a good thing for others, i.e. the various departments within the EU etc, then it is purely selfish to deny those others beneficial changes just because it has no effect on you. If others stand to benefit and you don't stand to lose then surely you should vote Yes? Otherwise you're having a net negative impact when it could be net positive....

kmick

cornbb wrote: »

Have you considered that the benefits the treaty offers to the EU and to Ireland can have a knock-on effect on your everyday life? Increased economic activity, enhanced co-operation on defence and crime etc... Instead of thinking "how is this good for me" try thinking "how is this good for everybody".

Ask not what your country can do for you rather what you can do for your country sort of thing? This type of thinking is fine when you talk about helping out in the community, volunteerism, activism. But I have no loyalty to the EU ideal. As far as I am concerned we are a common economic and social block and currently a net contributor to this block via my taxes. We are doing our bit.

As I keep saying this is 80% internal housekeeping 20% unachievable.

WooPeeA wrote: »

kmick, but they offer you an extra car - you still can keep yours.

Why do I need two cars?

kmick

molloyjh wrote: »

As for the "no benefit to me" stance taken by kmick I have to say, and apologies for being harsh, but that very me fein attitude is exactly why this country is such a mess poltiically.

The country is in a mess politically because politicians have consistently shown themselves to be serial underachievers and in many cases crooks.I am just adopting the same attitude as them. They were my role models.

molloyjh wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty didn't contain any direct benefits, but more indirect benefits. And if its not a good or a bad thing for you, but it is a good thing for others, i.e. the various departments within the EU etc, then it is purely selfish to deny those others beneficial changes just because it has no effect on you. If others stand to benefit and you don't stand to lose then surely you should vote Yes? Otherwise you're having a net negative impact when it could be net positive....

"Indirect benefits for others" ha ha ! sounds like a Labour slogan.

Give me 2 or 3 indirect benefits for others from this treaty that are not what joe soap would consider internal housekeeping or unachievable (e.g. Human rights).

WooPeeA

kmick wrote: »

Why do I need two cars?

- For own security
- To have a guy who offered you that car (EU members) as best friends
- To be a part of a big and strong (probably the strongest we ever had in Europe) family
- To be respected in the world

Another thing is that if we won't build stronger Europe, America as well as China and other countries will try to depend Europe on themselves.

I don't think Ireland and Europe are able to face problems of 21st century being in today's condition. Security is own common business. So I think if someone fight against EU, at the same time he fights against his own country.

Remember that today is not yesterday and yesterday's problems are not problems of tomorrow.

sink

kmick wrote: »

Give me 2 or 3 indirect benefits for others from this treaty that are not what joe soap would consider internal housekeeping or unachievable (e.g. Human rights).

I find your attitude difficult to comprehend. It's impossible to know exactly how figuratively speaking 'EU housekeeping' will directly benefit you in the same way that physically tidying your own house will directly benefit you. It simply lowers the risks of something bad happening, it makes the institutions of the EU stronger and better able to work towards your benefit, it makes the EU more competitive on an international level and gives it greater influence giving you more influence.

I could write a list of benefits that Joe Soap will receive but I would just be purely speculating. But because the end results are difficult to see does not mean we should not go down this road.

You seem to be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

kmick

sink wrote: »

But because the end results are difficult to see does not mean we should not go down this road.

I would argue it does.

Heres the poster that will win it for you when it inevitably gets run again.

"Lisbon II - Indirect befits for others"

'Now including some environmental stuff and a Human Rights blurb'

Because you may not know why you want it or need it but I assure you you do.

djpbarry

kmick wrote: »

As far as I am concerned we are a common economic and social block and currently a net contributor to this block via my taxes.

No, we're not. Last year we received about €500 million (net) from the EU. We're currently expected to be a net contributor by about 2013, but that'll probably be pushed back another few years given the current economic conditions.

kmick

djpbarry wrote: »

No, we're not. Last year we received about €500 million (net) from the EU. We're currently expected to be a net contributor by about 2013, but that'll probably be pushed back another few years given the current economic conditions.

Yes you are right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union

molloyjh

kmick wrote: »

The country is in a mess politically because politicians have consistently shown themselves to be serial underachievers and in many cases crooks.I am just adopting the same attitude as them. They were my role models.

So let me get this straight, you look down upon the politicians but still strive to be like them? Sounds like a very weak excuse to me! And what exactly have you, as one of those to whom the politicians are accountable, done to make a difference to politics in this country? Or are you one of these people who moan and complain until election day and then sit it out?

kmick wrote: »

"Indirect benefits for others" ha ha ! sounds like a Labour slogan.

Give me 2 or 3 indirect benefits for others from this treaty that are not what joe soap would consider internal housekeeping or unachievable (e.g. Human rights).

1. The combining of the foreign affairs roles into one role would make the EU a far easier organisation to deal with for external countries. This can help speed up the new membership process for some countries as they will now have one recognisable contact rather than several obscure ones. This then obviously has a knock on effect on the people of those countries.

2. The new QMV system would be dynamic, meaning that any major shifts in populations and/or the introduction of any new members would no longer mean a complete revamp of the QMV weighting each time something like this happened. This, as you can well imagine, would be a source of huge debate and negotiation and so to remove this would allow the Council and Parliament to be able to get on with the real day to day stuff quicker and easier - making life easier on them and indirectly benefiting every one of us also.

3. Less Commissioners and less Commissions means less cost to you and me in that area and the money can be funnelled elsewhere to departments that need it - therefore the people in those departments win, and anyone that benefits from that department benefits also.

4. The Council voting in public gives us the benefit of seeing exactly what our elected representatives are doing on our behalf, which gives us the direct benefit of being able to hold them accountable and putting them under additional pressure to do what we want.

5. Increased co-operation in the areas of policing and justice will no doubt have a very direct benefit on many people, even if you are not one, and really shouldn't need to be explained. However, how could you possibly know what the future may hold and how could you be sure you wouldn't directly benefit from it? This area could well include matters relating to, say, border control, which could prevent the movement of people such as fraudsters etc even if we do not participate ourselves. You and I are just as suseptable to fraud as anyone else is. Either way increased levels of co-operation in these areas will have direct benefits on many through-out the EU, possibly you or I also.

6. This "unattainable" human rights element is a lot more than you seem to think it is. It would mean that the EU as a whole must obey the human rights charter, and give people who feel like they have not been given these rights by the EU a method by which they can take action and receive compensation. That I would deem as a direct benefit to those people.

7. A greater role for EU peacekeepers, like the policing and justice point, should be quite self-explanatory. My dad served with the UN in the former Yugoslavia about 12 years ago and he can personally describe the benefits of peacekeeping as a whole. A greater role for EU peacekeepers would be of direct benefit to the people those areas that the peacekeepers go into. Additionally the EU is not the UN and therefore does not have the ties nor the dependancy on the US or its support.

8. The areas of energy and the environment may not have a direct impact on us or anyone of this current generation, but has the possibility to directly impact future generations, again this is pretty self explanatory. I presume you either do have kids or will have some one day (given that the vast majority of us do/will).

9. The President post will be elected by the Parliament giving us indirect input for each President for 2.5 years every 2.5 years rather than direct input for 6 months every 13.5 years. This makes each President accountable for their role in the position to the entire EU directly rather than a chance for each head of state to push their own agenda with no real EU accounatability at all. This may be an indirect benefit to us as it would pressure the person in the post to act in all of our interests, but it still a benefit.

10. The Citizens Initiative gives people direct input into EU decision making and as a tool petitioning has worked well on the continent even if we haven't seen the benefits of it here. In fact I believe it was a petition from EU citizens that led to it being included.

You asked for 2 or 3 I gave you 10, and these were just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I were to sit down and go through this properly I'd come up with more. But despite all of this because you can't see any immediate and direct benefits to you as an individual you oppose it. That is why I deem your position a selfish one. It ignores the possibility that maybe you may fall foul of the criminal element in society that the greater cooperation in policing could prevent, but most importantly ignores every single other human being, not just within the EU, but also outside it. You have said you voted no because you saw no direct benefits to yourself, not because you saw no direct benefits to anyone else. Increased police co-operation could help bring an end to a number of human trafficing rings, which I would hope we all want to see happen. It could help deal with drug trafficing also, which again I hope we all want to see. But from your perspective none of this matters because it has no direct impact on you.

"To hell with a utopia for all, I just want a utopia for me."

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

"To hell with a utopia for all, I just want a utopia for me."

So, you think the other countries involved are not looking out for their own interests.

Fairplay to Spain - not only have they legally helped themselves to most of our fish, they are going to get €2.2 bn (07-13), while Ireland's waters will still be fished and all we get is €0.6 bn in the same period.

No surprise that Poland will want to support the EU elite over the Lisbon Treaty - they are in line for €65 Bn. Surprise, surprise that Luxembourg's parliament wouldn't want to upset the EU elite - they are in line for €7.7 bn (that works out at €15,170 per person as compared to Ireland's €139 per person).

EU Budget Table here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_the_European_Union