Who to believe?

mandysmithers

I've read up on the Lisbon treaty, and I still can't decide which way to vote. Each side just contradicts the other, and says the other side are lying - that's not much help! So who do you believe?

And also, I can't see what significant changes the Lisbon Treaty will bring about. What's the whole point of it? Will we really notice any difference in our lives if it's ratified - besides the whole 'Ireland will just be a small island at the edge of Europe (geographically and metaphorically), we need Europe for jobs and economic recovery etc.' Where in the treaty is all this stated?

If the bureaucrats in Brussels decide to marginalise us just because we didn't vote as they want, they why would we want to belong to such an organisation? I know we've greatly benefitted from EU membership, and I am pro-EU on the whole, but I don't like the idea that we will be somehow 'punished' for a democratically decided result. Is that just scare-mongering on the part of the Yes side?

It's all very confusing. I'm considering not voting at all, although I hate the idea of not exercising my right to vote.

PopeBuckfastXVI

First of all, nobody but us will be marginalising us. If the other nations of the EU want to proceed with enhanced cooperation in areas like Space, Tourism, Sport, Energy and Climate Change, then who are we to stop them? Voting 'No' to Lisbon is saying we don't want to cooperate in these areas, but that doesn't mean that they can't go ahead in these areas without us. A bit like how we are in the Euro but the UK still has the pound, because it said 'no' to the Euro.

When it comes to trust, I personally believe you should find out about the treaty from impartial sources like the following:

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm
http://www.lisbonexposed.org/

And you can ask questions in this forum, where people will be more than willing to help you.

If you want to know where some of the people in the campaign calling for 'No' are coming from then you might want to check this link out:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61254481&postcount=740

It shows that all these groups have been saying 'No' to every European treaty since we joined. Do you really think they weren't going to say 'No' to this one?

stevoman

personally i wouldnt beleive a word coming from our goverments mouths.

i voted no last time and i will vote no this time again as a matter of principle. once again the irish goverment will insult all of us and democracy by holding an election for a treaty that we have already objected to, stataing that if we dont vote yes this time we must be prepared to be shunned from europe. How is this democracy??? we will be shunned from using our right as a democratic society to a vote!

they did the same with the nice referendum and there excuse that time was that they didnt put enough yes posters up and do a good yes campaign. its a bloody farce it is. that refernedum opened up borders and now we have 80,000 foreign nationals on our live registar along with family supplement payments being shippied off to familys who are not even living in this country. im not a "racist" before the PC's get to me but this is the facts.

as a citizen of this country i actually feel insulted that our goverment cannot take the vote of the irish people and swallow it, instead of being puppets to some people in brussells.

is this really the Ireland that men and women gave their lives for????

Sam Vimes

stevoman wrote: »

personally i wouldnt beleive a word coming from our goverments mouths.

Which is why PopeBuckfastXVI linked to four websites that are not influenced by the government.

stevoman wrote: »

i voted no last time and i will vote no this time again as a matter of principle. once again the irish goverment will insult all of us and democracy by holding an election for a treaty that we have already objected to, stataing that if we dont vote yes this time we must be prepared to be shunned from europe. How is this democracy??? we will be shunned from using our right as a democratic society to a vote!

We voted no, the major issues were addressed, we were asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

stevoman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We voted no, the major issues were addressed, we were asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

my problems are all my reasons which i stated. thats why im voting NO..... again.

Sam Vimes

stevoman wrote: »

my problems are all my reasons which i stated. thats why im voting NO..... again.

You say that being asked to vote again is insulting
I point out how it makes perfect sense because the major issues with the treaty were addressed and ask you what the problem is
You restate that your reason for voting no is that being asked to vote again is insulting


Could you please answer my question:

We voted no, the major issues were addressed, we were asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

stevoman

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We voted no, the major issues were addressed, we were asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

my problems are all my reasons which i stated. thats why im voting NO..... again.

Sam Vimes

stevoman wrote: »

my problems are all my reasons which i stated. thats why im voting NO..... again.

An analogy:
Someone comes to your door and offers you a rotten looking smelly old backpack. You say no and slam the door on him

He rings the doorbell again but this time he opens the bag and shows you the €1 million inside it.

You were offered the same thing both times but the first time you weren't fully aware of all the facts. Would you again slam the door in his face simply for having the cheek to ask you again?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say that being asked to vote again is insulting
I point out how it makes perfect sense and ask you what the problem is
You restate that your reason for voting no is that being asked to vote again is insulting


Could you please answer my question:

We voted no, the major issues were addressed, we were asked if we'd changed our minds. What's the problem?

Can this be taken to another thread? Nothing to do with OP's question.

OP asked who to trust, second reply I suppose said 'I wouldn't trust the government' without really giving any reasons, not that helpful, but at least on topic.

There's a million other threads for arguing about the democratic nature of votes.

meglome

mandysmithers wrote: »

I've read up on the Lisbon treaty, and I still can't decide which way to vote. Each side just contradicts the other, and says the other side are lying - that's not much help! So who do you believe?

And also, I can't see what significant changes the Lisbon Treaty will bring about. What's the whole point of it? Will we really notice any difference in our lives if it's ratified - besides the whole 'Ireland will just be a small island at the edge of Europe (geographically and metaphorically), we need Europe for jobs and economic recovery etc.' Where in the treaty is all this stated?

If the bureaucrats in Brussels decide to marginalise us just because we didn't vote as they want, they why would we want to belong to such an organisation? I know we've greatly benefitted from EU membership, and I am pro-EU on the whole, but I don't like the idea that we will be somehow 'punished' for a democratically decided result. Is that just scare-mongering on the part of the Yes side?

It's all very confusing. I'm considering not voting at all, although I hate the idea of not exercising my right to vote.

I started by reading the things the No campaigners were saying, some of which seemed very far fetched to me. I very quickly realised most of what they were saying was made up. It was then I started actively campaigning for a Yes vote.

The main thing the Lisbon treaty does is make the EU more efficient, it's not very exciting but there you go.

As other's have said read the impartial guides and you won't go too far wrong.

turgon

This is the second time in as many hours I have shamelessly linked to this post, but the major reasons to vote Yes are summed up in sinks (a poster here) post "10 Reasons to Vote Yes to Lisbon."

I hope he will excuse my constant linking to that post, but it really does give 10 Treaty related reasons as to why Lisbon is good for Ireland. He gives numbers to articles in the Treaty so you can confirm what hes saying, if you dont (understandably) take his word as that of God.

As an aside, I have never seen the No side here compile 10 Treaty related reasons to Vote No that weren't disproved in the subsequent thread.


I understand its very hard to wade through the amount of crap put forward by both sides, which is why I think sinks post is so helpful: it talks only of things that will be changed by Lisbon. Its not speculating that Lisbon will bring more jobs (FG) or that Lisbon will cut jobs (Sinn Fein etal). Its limited by the realm of fact.


EDIT: If you want to confirm anything said by sink, or anyone else, the website that PopeBuckfastXVI linked to http://www.lisbonexposed.org/ provides easy access to the Treaties.

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An analogy:
Someone comes to your door and offers you a rotten looking smelly old backpack. You say no and slam the door on him

He rings the doorbell again but this time he opens the bag and shows you the €1 million inside it.

You were offered the same thing both times but the first time you weren't fully aware of all the facts. Would you again slam the door in his face simply for having the cheek to ask you again?

Very bad analogy.
The facts: The Irish people were able to read the treaty, they voted no (for whatever reasons, personal and common good), yet they are being asked to re-vote.

Do you honestly believe Cowen et al weren't given a bollickin and asked to go get a yes vote this time?

Seing as though your argument is that its ok to address the no voter issues and ask for a re-vote, can you please post quotes of the lisbon 1 treaty and then their ammendments for lisbon 2 that addressed our issues? Thanks coz I'm struggling to find them.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Very bad analogy.
The facts: The Irish people were able to read the treaty, they voted no (for whatever reasons, personal and common good), yet they are being asked to re-vote.

Do you honestly believe Cowen et al weren't given a bollickin and asked to go get a yes vote this time?

Seing as though your argument is that its ok to address the no voter issues and ask for a re-vote, can you please post quotes of the lisbon 1 treaty and then their ammendments for lisbon 2 that addressed our issues? Thanks coz I'm struggling to find them.

Can you please point out the articles of the treaty that could have been changed to address the issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner? Before you go and look I'll tell you that you can't because none of them except the commissioner issue were ever in the treaty and that could be changed using an existing rule without changing the text of the treaty.

That's why my analogy said "You were offered the same thing both times but the first time you weren't fully aware of all the facts". The Irish people were lied to and rejected the treaty because of those lies. We have now been guaranteed that our fears were unfounded and granted the change on the commissioner issue so we've been asked if we've changed our minds. Perfectly reasonable

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Can you please point out the articles of the treaty that could have been changed to address the issues of taxation, abortion, neutrality, conscription and the loss of a commissioner? Before you go and look I'll tell you that you can't because none of them except the commissioner issue were ever in the treaty and that could be changed using an existing rule without changing the text of the treaty.

Fair enough but your assuming what the no voters issues were.

How many Lisbon 1 no voters on here were asked for their issues? Anybody?

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Fair enough but your assuming what the no voters issues were.

How many Lisbon 1 no voters on here were asked for their issues? Anybody?

Two independent polls were done, one by a polling company called Millward Brown and one by the EU themselves. The results were similar for both. I'm sure someone can link you to them, they've been linked to often enough

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Two independent polls were done, one by a polling company called Millward Brown and one by the EU themselves. The results were similar for both. I'm sure someone can link you to them, they've been linked to often enough

Thanks I haven't seen them.

I don't know anyone that was asked their opinion for these polls. Interesting to see how many people voted no because they are anti-EU.

mandysmithers

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The Irish people were lied to and rejected the treaty because of those lies. We have now been guaranteed that our fears were unfounded and granted the change on the commissioner issue so we've been asked if we've changed our minds. Perfectly reasonable

I presume you mean we were lied to by the No side? My question is, did they believe that they were telling the truth? Or are they just anti-EU, no matter what, and will do anything to ensure we're not part of it, so decided to just make up lies? Or did they totally misinterpret the treaty? Is there no grain of truth whatsoever in what they are saying?

humanji

mandysmithers wrote: »

I've read up on the Lisbon treaty, and I still can't decide which way to vote. Each side just contradicts the other, and says the other side are lying - that's not much help! So who do you believe?

And also, I can't see what significant changes the Lisbon Treaty will bring about. What's the whole point of it? Will we really notice any difference in our lives if it's ratified - besides the whole 'Ireland will just be a small island at the edge of Europe (geographically and metaphorically), we need Europe for jobs and economic recovery etc.' Where in the treaty is all this stated?

If the bureaucrats in Brussels decide to marginalise us just because we didn't vote as they want, they why would we want to belong to such an organisation? I know we've greatly benefitted from EU membership, and I am pro-EU on the whole, but I don't like the idea that we will be somehow 'punished' for a democratically decided result. Is that just scare-mongering on the part of the Yes side?

It's all very confusing. I'm considering not voting at all, although I hate the idea of not exercising my right to vote.

There's a nasty rumour going around that this treaty is the most important thing int he history of the universe and no matter which way we vote, our lives will never be the same again. The way I see it is that the treaty really will do sweet f*ck all to change our lives. The whole point of it seems to be to cut down the beurocracy a little and make life easier for the various EU politicians who have to keep the EU running and to tighten up a few areas that might make life a little easier for the rest of us.

Sadly the two sides of the argument aren't really helping. You've got out and out lies from the No campaign, and utter condecension and vague warnings about future possibilities from the Yes side. It's best to ignore both.

The links that PopeBuckfastXVI gave are a good starting point. They'll tell you what the treaty entails in simple terms and as he said, you can ask any question you want here as well. And don't feel bad about feeling a little lost because of all this. You can be happy that you've at least made an effort to find out for yourself here. Many people will vote simply because someone else told them to.

super_furry

My position is that I believe both sides are lying and exagerating and I won't be voting.

Sam Vimes

Here are some results from it:

http://euobserver.com/9/26729

42% lack of undersanding - Nothing to change there. Just educate them and ask again when they understand better

Neutrality and taxation - doesn't give percentage but non-issues. No change there.

33% - Conscription - Non -issue. No change there.

40% corporate tax - Non-issue. No change there.

Ireland's place in the EU - Vague. No way to know what to change if anything

13% Domination by larger countries - We won't be

5% loss of sovereignty - This is often touted as the top reason by no campaigners. It could be considered valid but I don't think it's a reason to vote no. Some people see the transfer to QMV as automatically bad but I don't see the EU as an adversary whose trying to force things on us

4% loss of a commissioner - Fixed

8% "bad deal for Ireland" - Meaningless Sinn Fein slogan. They just don't like the EU

6% lack of confidence in the Irish government - Non-issue

Sam Vimes

mandysmithers wrote: »

I presume you mean we were lied to by the No side? My question is, did they believe that they were telling the truth? Or are they just anti-EU, no matter what, and will do anything to ensure we're not part of it, so decided to just make up lies? Or did they totally misinterpret the treaty? Is there no grain of truth whatsoever in what they are saying?

The yes side engaged in vague slogans that some people say are lies but the no side are engaged in deliberate lies. They will say whatever it takes to get people to vote no to this treaty because they all have their own agendas. As with all good BS there is a grain of truth. They take articles of the treaty and misrepresent their meaning to make them look bad.

A great example is the whole €1.84 minimum wage thing. It's a complete fabrication but one of the people from that group was on Newstalk saying it and he said that the labour court agrees with them. This prompted the chairman of the labour court to call into the show and say he was lying

meglome

mandysmithers wrote: »

I presume you mean we were lied to by the No side? My question is, did they believe that they were telling the truth? Or are they just anti-EU, no matter what, and will do anything to ensure we're not part of it, so decided to just make up lies? Or did they totally misinterpret the treaty? Is there no grain of truth whatsoever in what they are saying?

The campaign from both sides has been terrible. But like others have said it's one thing to use vague slogans like the Yes side are doing and a completely different thing to make it up as you go along like the No side are doing.

As far as I can see a lot of No campaigners use the idea that we lose sovereignty as the reason they are voting No. They see the EU as taking more control or 'our' affairs. The problem I have with that is Ireland is a small country at the edge of Europe that needs to export most of our goods to survive, so I don't think it's possible to have the type of sovereignty they are looking for. They seem to want all the good things from the EU without doing anything in return.

I haven't seen one poster from the No campaign that was fully truthful.

Stainless_Steel

meglome wrote: »

The campaign from both sides has been terrible. But like others have said it's one thing to use vague slogans like the Yes side are doing and a completely different thing to make it up as you go along like the No side are doing.

Agree, both campaigns are shocking.

I'm actually starting to despise the Lisbon treaty and all the bull its stirring up.

I'm was a no voter, and have nothing to change my mind.

To all the yes people, I believe there will be a yes vote, and if I was a gambling man that's where my money would be. But please don't kid yourselves into thinking the Irish people are now voting yes because the 'issues of concern were adddressed'.

PopeBuckfastXVI

mandysmithers wrote: »

I presume you mean we were lied to by the No side? My question is, did they believe that they were telling the truth? Or are they just anti-EU, no matter what, and will do anything to ensure we're not part of it, so decided to just make up lies? Or did they totally misinterpret the treaty? Is there no grain of truth whatsoever in what they are saying?

It's hard to tell. Coir definitely knew they were lying about the 1.84 minimum wage thing, that's why they put the ? at the end of it, they thought that absolved them of their lie, in my opinion a lie is a lie, question mark or not, what do you think? Others are leaving out stuff, for instance the Sinn Féin and Coir posters that talk about voting weights only include the population requirement and not the number of countries requirement, it's hard to believe they don't know better and aren't purposefully distorting the truth. Others like PANA change the wording of the text when supposedly quoting the treaty to make it sound worse, again it's hard to think they aren't doing this on purpose, they've obviously read the original and decided to alter it, hard to believe that could be an accident.

Others may be genuine confusion, like I'm sure at least *some* people who say that Article 48 means there'll never be another referendum (it doesn't mean it, by the way) actually believe it themselves. Coir might actually believe we have given away 200bn euros worth of fish (we haven't).

It is true that at least PANA, Coir and Sinn Féin are purposefully distorting the truth to some degree in some of their statements and posters, now you have to ask yourself, why do this? Could it be they are just against the existence of the EU, or at the very least they are against Ireland being part of it, and because Lisbon isn't actually a bad treaty they *have* to lie about it and distort it to fool people into voting against something they actually might support?

And what makes me think they might be just against the EU, or Ireland's membership? Again I'll point you to their record where they called for a 'No' to every single other EU referendum:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61254481&postcount=740

Here's a little article pointing out the tricks and falsehoods in just one PANA interview, but these tricks are reused and recycled (but unfortunately not reduced!) all over the 'No' campaign:
http://www.bloggersforeurope.ie/?p=152

Anyway again I recommend you view the impartial links I provided before, they just say what the treaty does, no nonsense, no judgement on whether it's good or bad, just the facts.

marco_polo

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Agree, both campaigns are shocking.

I'm actually starting to despise the Lisbon treaty and all the bull its stirring up.

I'm was a no voter, and have nothing to change my mind.

To all the yes people, I believe there will be a yes vote, and if I was a gambling man that's where my money would be. But please don't kid yourselves into thinking the Irish people are now voting yes because the 'issues of concern were adddressed'.

What in your opnion were the main issues of concern for the majority of people and how could they have been addressed?

Stainless_Steel

marco_polo wrote: »

What in your opnion were the main issues of concern for the majority of people and how could they have been addressed?

I am semi-anti-EU....if that makes sense. I agree with helping each other (free trade etc.) but don't think the EU should have a parliament, courts, laws etc. So I vote no on anything that strengthens the EU's position in partially governing our country, and am sorry if you don't share my view but thats the way I am.

IF I was to finally agree to the direction of the EU, the bare minumum requirement I would want would be for Ireland to have a veto on all decisions, which Lisbon doesn't give us.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I am semi-anti-EU....if that makes sense. I agree with helping each other (free trade etc.) but don't think the EU should have a parliament, courts, laws etc. So I vote no on anything that strengthens the EU's position in partially governing our country, and am sorry if you don't share my view but thats the way I am.

IF I was to finally agree to the direction of the EU, the bare minumum requirement I would want would be for Ireland to have a veto on all decisions, which Lisbon doesn't give us.

Most of the world wants to lift the embargo on Cuba but they can't because the US vetoes it every time at the UN. They also veto sanctions against Israel that most other countries want. Sanctions against Sudan are vetoed by China who have business interests there.

Do you think that is a good situation?

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Most of the world wants to lift the embargo on Cuba but they can't because the US vetoes it every time at the UN. They also veto sanctions against Israel that most other countries want. Sanctions against Sudan are vetoed by China who have business interests there.

Do you think that is a good situation?

Nope, as I said I don't believe in the EU. BUT IF I had no choice (which I dont as the majority do believe in it), then I would want our country to veto anything not in our best interests. That's why their OUR elected representatives and not the EU's.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Nope, as I said I don't believe in the EU. BUT IF I had no choice (which I dont as the majority do believe in it), then I would want our country to veto anything not in our best interests. That's why their OUR elected representatives and not the EU's.

Do you realise that the EU consists of three bodies, one of which is appointed by OUR elected representatives, one of which is made up of OUR elected heads of state and one of which is made up of OUR elected MEPs?

Also, why must democracy end at the national border? Why can't it extend to sharing decisions between countries, with notable exceptions?

Or why don't we give each county in Ireland a veto so we can only make a change if it's as good for Donegal as it is for Leitrim?

marco_polo

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I am semi-anti-EU....if that makes sense. I agree with helping each other (free trade etc.) but don't think the EU should have a parliament, courts, laws etc. So I vote no on anything that strengthens the EU's position in partially governing our country, and am sorry if you don't share my view but thats the way I am.

IF I was to finally agree to the direction of the EU, the bare minumum requirement I would want would be for Ireland to have a veto on all decisions, which Lisbon doesn't give us.

So you are anti pretty much the whole concept the EU as it stands, and nothing in the lisbon treaty in particular, which is an important distinction.

It does not leave you in a position to suggest that this is the general feelings of the population at large or that the guarantees do not address at least a number of the concerns that the people had about the potential interpretation of the treaty.

Stainless_Steel

:pac:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you realise that the EU consists of three bodies, one of which is appointed by OUR elected representatives, one of which is made up of OUR elected heads of state and one of which is made up of OUR elected MEPs?

Also, why must democracy end at the national border? Why can't it extend to sharing decisions between countries, with notable exceptions?

Or why don't we give each county in Ireland a veto so we can only make a change if it's as good for Donegal as it is for Leitrim?

Yes I realise that, and that doesnt instill any faith in Lisbon for me. I didnt vote in our EU representatives so therefore have a right to call them idiots.

Democracy doesn't have to end at the border, sure let's have a one world government, with GW Bush as the president and Tony Blair as his Sexcetary of State! :pac:

Joking aside, democracy needs some borders/limitations as there are many different cultures and beliefs throughout Europe.

marco_polo

mandysmithers wrote: »

I presume you mean we were lied to by the No side? My question is, did they believe that they were telling the truth? Or are they just anti-EU, no matter what, and will do anything to ensure we're not part of it, so decided to just make up lies? Or did they totally misinterpret the treaty? Is there no grain of truth whatsoever in what they are saying?

I think it is recognised that there is a core anti european vote in all EU referenda in perhaps the region of 25-30 percent. Which is a perfectly legitimate reason to vote no, the problem that I have is when such a person tries to hide that that is the true motivation, and resorts to either outright lies, misinterpretations of the treaty articles (deliberate or otherwise) to persuade others to vote the same way.

Stainless_Steel

marco_polo wrote: »

So you are anti pretty much the whole concept the EU as it stands, and nothing in the lisbon treaty in particular, which is an important distinction.

It does not leave you in a position to suggest that this is the general feelings of the population at large or that the guarantees do not address at least a number of the concerns that the people had about the potential interpretation of the treaty.

Not the whole EU concept my friend, remember when it was the EEC? That was a good concept.

I didn't say my concerns mirrored that of the general population
I was asked by yourself for my opinion.

Stainless_Steel

marco_polo wrote: »

I think it is recognised that there is a core anti european vote in all EU referenda in perhaps the region of 25-30 percent. Which is a perfectly legitimate reason to vote no, the problem that I have is when such a person tries to hide that that is the true motivation, and resorts to either outright lies, misinterpretations of the treaty articles (deliberate or otherwise) to persuade others to vote the same way.

I agree 100%.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

:pac:

Yes I realise that, and that doesnt instill any faith in Lisbon for me. I didnt vote in our EU representatives so therefore have a right to call them idiots.

Yes you did

Our EU representatives are our directly elected MEPs and our Taoiseach.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Democracy doesn't have to end at the border, sure let's have a one world government, with GW Bush as the president and Tony Blair as his Sexcetary of State! :pac:

Joking aside, democracy needs some borders/limitations as there are many different cultures and beliefs throughout Europe.

Which is why we're keeping a veto on important issues such as abortion and taxation. Is there anything specific you're afraid of being forced on us? Having been to many countries in Europe I can confirm that they are very like us and contrary to popular belief do not have ten heads

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Here are some results from it:

http://euobserver.com/9/26729

42% lack of undersanding - Nothing to change there. Just educate them and ask again when they understand better

Neutrality and taxation - doesn't give percentage but non-issues. No change there.

33% - Conscription - Non -issue. No change there.

40% corporate tax - Non-issue. No change there.

Ireland's place in the EU - Vague. No way to know what to change if anything

13% Domination by larger countries - We won't be

5% loss of sovereignty - This is often touted as the top reason by no campaigners. It could be considered valid but I don't think it's a reason to vote no. Some people see the transfer to QMV as automatically bad but I don't see the EU as an adversary whose trying to force things on us

4% loss of a commissioner - Fixed

8% "bad deal for Ireland" - Meaningless Sinn Fein slogan. They just don't like the EU

6% lack of confidence in the Irish government - Non-issue

The link you provided refers to the Millward Brown survey, not the EU commission poll.

The Millward poll asked the question:

"How important/unimportant was each of the following when it came to making up your mind how to vote?"

The following were the reponses by those who voted No who considered these issues as "very important" in descending order:

Workers Rights 52%
Neutrality 47%
Prevent excessive EU regulation 45%
Loss of commissioner 39%
corporation tax 34%
maintain influence in EU 34%
Didn't understand issues 33%
abortion 33%
improve EU efficiency 23%
strenghten EU role 22%

They were not asked if sovereignty was an issue but could it not be assumed that when people were asked about the "prevention of excessive EU regulation", they took this to mean loss of sovreignty? Therefore, in my opinion, the issues that were of most concern according to the poll would be:

1. Workers rights
2. Neutrality
3. Sovereignty
4. Loss of commissioner
5. Corporation tax/maintain influence in EU.

Do you have a link to the European Commission poll so that we can compare the responses?

marco_polo

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Not the whole EU concept my friend, remember when it was the EEC? That was a good concept.

I didn't say my concerns mirrored that of the general population
I was asked by yourself for my opinion.

The EEC had a parliament, courts and laws too.

You implied in an earlier post that the guarantees did not address peoples concerns and would have no bearing on why people may vote yes.

Since you positioned yourself as an authority on the voting reasons of the electorate and you assert that there were no concerns over neutrality, abortion, taxation and the loss of a commissioner, I enquired as to what the true concerns of voters were, and how they might be addressed.

You came back with your own personal reasons.

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes you did

Our EU representatives are our directly elected MEPs and our Taoiseach.


Which is why we're keeping a veto on important issues such as abortion and taxation. Is there anything specific you're afraid of being forced on us? Having been to many countries in Europe I can confirm that they are very like us and contrary to popular belief do not have ten heads

Oh wait....you are saying I voted for the people that run our country and represent us in the EU??? How do you know that?

Do you not agree that the EU is slowly becoming a country in its own right that we are merely a state within?

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

Workers Rights 52%
Neutrality 47%
Prevent excessive EU regulation 45%
Loss of commissioner 39%
corporation tax 34%
maintain influence in EU 34%
Didn't understand issues 33%
abortion 33%
improve EU efficiency 23%
strenghten EU role 22%

Workers Rights - Non-issue despite a concerted effort to convince people otherwise
Neutrality - Non-issue
Prevent excessive EU regulation - Non-issue
Loss of commissioner - Fixed
corporation tax - Non-issue
maintain influence in EU - Vague. We still have influence but the way we're acting is bringing that right down
Didn't understand issues - Nothing to change about that, just education
abortion - Non-issue

improve EU efficiency - Are you sure this wasn't a yes reason?
strenghten EU role - This too?

whatisayis wrote: »

They were not asked if sovereignty was an issue but could it not be assumed that when people were asked about the "prevention of excessive EU regulation", they took this to mean loss of sovreignty?

Not really no

whatisayis wrote: »

Do you have a link to the European Commission poll so that we can compare the responses?

No I don't. I'm sure someone can dig it out

marco_polo

whatisayis wrote: »

Do you have a link to the European Commission poll so that we can compare the responses?

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

Also a third one from the Geary insitiute in UCD

http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/uploads/documents/ucd%20geary%20institute%20report.pdf

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Oh wait....you are saying I voted for the people that run our country and represent us in the EU??? How do you know that?

I'm not saying that you specifically voted for them, I'm saying the Irish people voted them in and they represent you. This is a reason to be against the entire concept of democracy, not the EU.

whatisayis wrote: »

Do you not agree that the EU is slowly becoming a country in its own right that we are merely a state within?

No I don't and very few people in Europe want that, that's why the constitution was changed, because it was too close to statehood.

Stainless_Steel

marco_polo wrote: »

The EEC had a parliament, courts and laws too.

You implied in an earlier post that the guarantees did not address peoples concerns and would have no bearing on why people may vote yes.

Since you positioned yourself as an authority on the voting reasons of the electorate and you assert that there were no concerns over neutrality, abortion, taxation and the loss of a commissioner, I enquired as to what the true concerns of voters were, and how they might be addressed.

You came back with your own personal reasons.

Ok ok....simple question - do you believe that there will be a yes vote because the people's concerns were addressed? And not that our gov is spending lots of money on silly posters, patronising fickle voters, and using the recession as a reason to vote yes.

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Ok ok....simple question - do you believe that there will be a yes vote because the people's concerns were addressed? And not that our gov is spending lots of money on silly posters, patronising fickle voters, and using the recession as a reason to vote yes.

I think (hope) there will be a yes vote because most people in this country support the EU and they only voted no last time because the yes campaign was woeful and they were scared by a massive campaign of lies from the no side. Very very few people have a problem with something that's actually in the treaty

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think (hope) there will be a yes vote because most people in this country support the EU and they only voted no last time because the yes campaign was woeful and they were scared by a massive campaign of lies from the no side. Very very few people have a problem with something that's actually in the treaty

Mate I agree 100% with that. I dont condone the lies of the No side.

Scofflaw

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

I am semi-anti-EU....if that makes sense. I agree with helping each other (free trade etc.) but don't think the EU should have a parliament, courts, laws etc. So I vote no on anything that strengthens the EU's position in partially governing our country, and am sorry if you don't share my view but thats the way I am.

The EU has a court to adjudicate on the meaning of the treaties, and a parliament to provide a citizen watchdog body on EU legislation. I'm not sure why either of those are objectionable.

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

IF I was to finally agree to the direction of the EU, the bare minumum requirement I would want would be for Ireland to have a veto on all decisions, which Lisbon doesn't give us.

Well, that's a fully intergovernmentalist position. The only problem is that every historical international organisation that has operated that way has generally fallen to bits after failing to achieve anything.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Ok ok....simple question - do you believe that there will be a yes vote because the people's concerns were addressed? And not that our gov is spending lots of money on silly posters, patronising fickle voters, and using the recession as a reason to vote yes.

I believe that the guarantees will be a large factor in convincing people to vote yes. I would broadly agree that the governement has run a lazy campaign thus far, but there are plenty of businesses, economists, the opposition parties, farming organisations and trade unionist who seem to hold the same views as the government on this treaty without any obvious reason to, except that they share the belief that the acceptance of the treaty represents the best course of action for Ireland.

Do also firmly I believe that the no side has made hardly any convincing arguments against the treaty based upon its contents thus far. The entire campaign has been based around, outright lies, selective quotation and misintrepretation of the treaty and generally spreading of FUD.

whatisayis

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Workers Rights - Non-issue despite a concerted effort to convince people otherwise
Neutrality - Non-issue
Prevent excessive EU regulation - Non-issue
Loss of commissioner - Fixed
corporation tax - Non-issue
maintain influence in EU - Vague. We still have influence but the way we're acting is bringing that right down
Didn't understand issues - Nothing to change about that, just education
abortion - Non-issue

Actually the point I was making is that the reasons being bandied about as the main reasons people voted No do not bear up with the survey results.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

improve EU efficiency - Are you sure this wasn't a yes reason?
strenghten EU role - This too?

Perhaps people put these in as very important because they didn't think Lisbon would improve EU efficiency and didn't want to strengthen the EU role?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Not really no

Definition of sovreignty: The state of making laws and controlling resources without the coercion of other nations.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I don't. I'm sure someone can dig it out

I looked on the commission website and couldn't find it so hopefully someone can.

whatisayis

marco_polo wrote: »

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_245_en.pdf

Also a third one from the Geary insitiute in UCD

http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/uploads/documents/ucd%20geary%20institute%20report.pdf

Thanks! I couldn't find it. Will have a look.

joseph brand

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6841622.ece

The country might even try to delay it until after the British general election campaign when a Tory victory would see the question put to voters by David Cameron.
Nicolas Sarkozy, who helped to draw up the treaty after the French and Dutch voted against its predecessor, the EU Constitution, has warned Prague that it faces "consequences" if it does not swiftly follow an Irish "yes" with its own ratification.

Interesting comments below the article. They all seem to be against Lisbon part deux.
Here's one:

the 200 pages of the new treaty are virtually unreadable as almost every sentence just says that some other sentence in some other Act is changed in some way. It would take about 3 months, at least, of reading time, plus having all the other acts available to understand what was being changed.

This reminds me of Eurocrat, Charlie McCreepy's answer to being questioned as to wether he read it or not.

"I stay up nightly -- I don't go to bed at all for the last six months reading the Lisbon Treaty, as I know everyone in the country is so doing," he explained earnestly.

laughable

"Noeleen my wife has said to me repeatedly, 'Would you ever leave down that Lisbon Treaty and go and make me a cup of tea,'" he added. "My wife is very upset with me because I haven't spoke to her for months because I'm in the bed reading this treaty all night."

This has bull**it written all over it. Don't buy it for a second.

If we vote 'Yes', thousands of jobs will come flooding back to our shores?? From where?

Also, I, like many others, don't view a 'No' vote as an anti-Europe message, but more of a Pro-democracy-dont-ask-me-twice message.

Put simply: Is there ANY hope that if we vote Yes, there will be a third referendum. :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

whatisayis wrote: »

Actually the point I was making is that the reasons being bandied about as the main reasons people voted No do not bear up with the survey results.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying the surveys were wrong and if so what do you think the reasons for the no vote were? With an indication as to whether you think it's a valid reason or not please.

whatisayis wrote: »

Perhaps people put these in as very important because they didn't think Lisbon would improve EU efficiency and didn't want to strengthen the EU role?

I don't know about that. They both sound like positive statements to me. Are you sure you didn't read it wrong? One of the major points of Lisbon is to improve efficiency so it would be very odd to think it would be bad for efficiency

whatisayis wrote: »

Definition of sovreignty: The state of making laws and controlling resources without the coercion of other nations.

Sovereignty doesn't have to end at the state. We have representatives in the EU so it's a union, not an empire. Anyway, that response sounds to me like people objecting to the EU rules that some people think are ridiculous. You know the ones I'm talking about. I say it's a non-issue because there's nothing to suggest that they will increase with Lisbon. They can bring in stuff like that anyway. I don't get the impression from that sentence that people had any idea of QMV or its implications

joseph brand

and Ireland received 10 billion euro from the EU, the Irish fishing industry lost 30 billion euro. The dying inshore fishery aside, Ireland has lost most of its offshore grounds as well. Due to negotiations with the EU, Ireland effectively auctioned its offshore fishing rights to the Scandinavians and Spanish.

Do the Scandinavians, and Spain not have enough sea already?

http://www.workingwaterfront.com/articles/Apocalypse-Soon-A-Mainer-Watches-the-Twilight-of-Irelands-Inshore-Fisheries/10673/

I've heard numerous people talk of our sacrificed main natural resource, our fishing industry. This may influence their vote more than some other little ammendments to the Treaty? just a thought.

Also, I never would have thought that the losses would run into tens of billions? Is there a chance that we have given away more money than we have received? I ask this as I've read a few posts declaring all the money we have received from the EU, but no mention of what they got in return?