Lisbon II - Second Poll

Turtwig

Haven't read the entire treaty, read bits and bobs of it.

Voting 'Yes' btw

eoin5

Not voting. Havent read the treaty. I know this sounds horrible but I couldnt be bothered. Just reading it would be the easy part, its a mammoth undertaking to make an informed decision on this. I dont know the first thing about european politics.

robindch

I've read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

Húrin wrote: »

Last year, 42% of people who voted no said that they did so because they didn't know enough about the treaty. I think that level of ignorance (probably also found among those who voted yes) justified a rerun.

Well, it arguably might justify a rerun, there's no legal machinery in place to force a rerun, nor do I think it's useful to try.

It would be interesting, though, to see if this whole episode might prompt a review of how referendums are carried out here -- the issue of deceitful advertising needs to be dealt with, as does the wider problem of voters who don't have a clue what referendums are for, and make little or no effort to understand what the issues are.

Tarobot

I've read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

eoin5 wrote: »

Not voting. Havent read the treaty. I know this sounds horrible but I couldnt be bothered. Just reading it would be the easy part, its a mammoth undertaking to make an informed decision on this. I dont know the first thing about european politics.

eoin5 - if you have 30 minutes you can read the 30 Minute Guide on the Referendum Commission website: www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

A few quick facts if it helps:

1. The Lisbon Treaty is a reform treaty that is designed to make changes to the way the EU works, mainly to accommodate the fact that there are now 27 member states, as opposed to 17 in 2004.
2. It make changes to the way the institutions work (ie the Council, Parliament etc) to help give smaller states a bigger voice.
3. It makes references to new issues like climate change and terrorism that weren't concerns when the last changes were being made (ie the Nice Treaty).
4. It makes the EU more democratic by giving national parliaments a say in drafting legislation.

I say all this as a YES voter but I can back up everything with specific article references if you wish.

Turtwig

Tarobot wrote: »

eoin5 - if you have 30 minutes you can read the 30 Minute Guide on the Referendum Commission website: www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

A few quick facts if it helps:

1. The Lisbon Treaty is a reform treaty that is designed to make changes to the way the EU works, mainly to accommodate the fact that there are now 27 member states, as opposed to 17 in 2004.
2. It make changes to the way the institutions work (ie the Council, Parliament etc) to help give smaller states a bigger voice.
3. It makes references to new issues like climate change and terrorism that weren't concerns when the last changes were being made (ie the Nice Treaty).
4. It makes the EU more democratic by giving national parliaments a say in drafting legislation.

I say all this as a YES voter but I can back up everything with specific article references if you wish.

Tarabot, not meaning to intrude or anything, but I really think Scofflaw's the guy/gal for Eoin:)
I'd Imagine you know a fair bit about the treaty...but the same amount as Scofflaw???:eek:

eoin5

Tarobot wrote: »

eoin5 - if you have 30 minutes you can read the 30 Minute Guide on the Referendum Commission website: www.lisbontreaty2009.ie

A few quick facts if it helps:

1. The Lisbon Treaty is a reform treaty that is designed to make changes to the way the EU works, mainly to accommodate the fact that there are now 27 member states, as opposed to 17 in 2004.
2. It make changes to the way the institutions work (ie the Council, Parliament etc) to help give smaller states a bigger voice.
3. It makes references to new issues like climate change and terrorism that weren't concerns when the last changes were being made (ie the Nice Treaty).
4. It makes the EU more democratic by giving national parliaments a say in drafting legislation.

I say all this as a YES voter but I can back up everything with specific article references if you wish.

I had a quick look and its left me with more questions than answers. I'd be much better off sitting this one out. Nothing short of knowing what an MEP eats for breakfast would satisify me.

Turtwig

eoin5 wrote: »

I had a quick look and its left me with more questions than answers. I'd be much better off sitting this one out. Nothing short of knowing what an MEP eats for breakfast would satisify me.

Ask Scofflaw!!:)

Tarobot

I've read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

Malty_T wrote: »

Tarabot, not meaning to intrude or anything, but I really think Scofflaw's the guy/gal for Eoin:)
I'd Imagine you know a fair bit about the treaty...but the same amount as Scofflaw???:eek:

Malty_T don't be crazy. Nobody knows as much about the treaty as Scofflaw :pac:

But I know a lot about it. I work with Generation YES full time on the Lisbon campaign and can answer most questions (and ask my colleagues about the ones I can't).

eoin5 wrote: »

I had a quick look and its left me with more questions than answers. I'd be much better off sitting this one out. Nothing short of knowing what an MEP eats for breakfast would satisify me.

Yes, if you want answers to specific questions, ask here, PM me or PM the Lisbon Treaty, I mean Scofflaw

123john123

I haven't read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

I'm voting yes again. Didnt read the treaty but what harm can it be being part of Europe. The No campaign also irritate me, Dont like Sinn Fein, Libertas should have been completely wiped out and who the hell are Coir. They say the yes campaign are full of lies but the No-ers are going on about war, abortion etc. I watched the debate on Prime Time which was informative and entertaining (cheers O'Leary)

When SIPTU, small businnesses association, decent politicians, the government etc are all backing Yes and only extremeists are backing No, its a bit of a no brainer.

Still think this should never have gone to referendum and should been passed by the government.

robindch

I've read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

123john123 wrote: »

Still think this should never have gone to referendum and should been passed by the government.

Most treaties are passed by the government without so much as a one-incher at the bottom of page twelve. For anything which modifies the founding treaties of the EU though, the supreme court said twenty years ago that the mods should be approved by national referendum. Hence the vote on Friday.

The Mad Hatter

I haven't read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

I haven't read the treaty, but I've read a fair bit about it, and I think I'm at least adequately informed. I may read it tomorrow night (have a 3.5 hour bus journey), but unless I come across something really despicable I'll be voting yes.

Húrin

I haven't read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

Tarobot wrote: »

But I know a lot about it. I work with Generation YES full time on the Lisbon campaign and can answer most questions (and ask my colleagues about the ones I can't).

I'm voting yes as well but you lot have such bullsh*t, sexist t-shirts, "I only kiss boys who vote yes" - that's just sad. Seems like nearly everyone is out to reduce young women to sex objects.

Tarobot

I've read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

Húrin wrote: »

I'm voting yes as well but you lot have such bullsh*t, sexist t-shirts, "I only kiss boys who vote yes" - that's just sad. Seems like nearly everyone is out to reduce young women to sex objects.

Húrin, I am the biggest feminist on Boards and I really hate those tshirts as well! I refuse to wear them. Some girls really like them so that's up to them if they want to wear them. I would never have approved them if it had been my decision.

I really hope they don't overshadow all the hard work we've done. There are lots of excellent articles on our website and of course our big Trainspotting banner on the side of the POD :pac:

AtomicHorror

I haven't read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

I got an EUInfo leaflet in the door yesterday and it looks like you guys have been misleading me.

Is it true that the Lisbon Treaty will force me to have an abortion, put me on minimum wage, then replace me with 75 million turkeys and then euthanise me?

Because I'm all for that.

redfacedbear

I haven't read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

I'm with Charlie McCreevey on this. You'd be mad to even try reading the actual treaty. I've read summaries and the coverage in the Irish Times and here on Boards. On certain issues that have gained traction (such as the changes to QMV) I've dipped into the treaty just to be fully informed.

I'd consider myself well informed but to actually read the treaty would take too much time I don't have.

I'm voting Yes

ShooterSF

I won't be voting

I've read parts of it but havent attempted cover to cover. Maybe if I had a touch of insomnia!

Not only am I voting no but [...] I'm [...going to break the election law in this country...]

.

Tarobot

I've read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

ShooterSF wrote: »

I've read parts of it but havent attempted cover to cover. Maybe if I had a touch of insomnia! Not only am I voting no but [...] I'm [...going to break the election law in this country...]

So you're openly admitting to voter fraud? If so, I hope you get caught.

.

Malari

I haven't read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

I have to say, ShooterSF, the arguments in your sig would convince me to vote Yes :P (if I wasn't already convinced...)

ShooterSF

I won't be voting

Tarobot wrote: »

So you're openly admitting to voter fraud? If so, I hope you get caught.

I hope I don't

Malari wrote: »

I have to say, ShooterSF, the arguments in your sig would convince me to vote Yes :P (if I wasn't already convinced...)

How so? Were you against Nice and the reduction of the commission so?

Malari

I haven't read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

ShooterSF wrote: »

How so? Were you against Nice and the reduction of the commission so?

The second two statements!

ShooterSF

I won't be voting

Malari wrote: »

The second two statements!

Fair enough. Im no mind reader I disagreed with the second statement in the first referendum but changed it when I seen that re-run could happen in the event people didn't feel decided on the issue.
As for the third statement, well if you prefer having a vote based roughly on your size (being one of the smallest in the committee) rather than a veto to block decisions that's your prerogative. I can see some benefits if you were for passing something and the big members of the committee agreed you wouldn't have to worry about another small member being able to block it. I prefer the other side. I'm not trying to persuade you to vote NO, I'm saying if you shared my belief on the issue you would be better served voting no. You don't so obviously you'll vote yes. I'd still rather you had the information. It's better than "I feel safer in Europe".

Malari

I haven't read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fair enough. Im no mind reader I disagreed with the second statement in the first referendum but changed it when I seen that re-run could happen in the event people didn't feel decided on the issue.
As for the third statement, well if you prefer having a vote based roughly on your size (being one of the smallest in the committee) rather than a veto to block decisions that's your prerogative. I can see some benefits if you were for passing something and the big members of the committee agreed you wouldn't have to worry about another small member being able to block it. I prefer the other side. I'm not trying to persuade you to vote NO, I'm saying if you shared my belief on the issue you would be better served voting no. You don't so obviously you'll vote yes. I'd still rather you had the information. It's better than "I feel safer in Europe".

I had a big discussion with a no-voting barrister over the weekend and for the first time I felt that we were actually coming down on different sides of the same statement, rather than all these straw men that the no-side keeps setting up, which are subsequently knocked down by the yes-side who seem afraid to actually say what you've said in your signature.

I do think our voting strength should be based on our size and I don't want to keep having referenda where people are voting based on how they feel about the government rather than the issue.

But I agree, it's better people have the exact information.

robindch

I've read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not only am I voting no but [...] I'm [...going to break the election law in this country...]

You have announced on a public bulletin board that you're going to commit a criminal offense which could land you a hefty fine, or a term in jail. Or both.

I've seen some dumb posts in my time, but frankly, this one takes the biscuit.

Out of respect for your 3,500 posts to date, our benign overlords have asked for your post to be deleted, but have asked me to let you know that if this threat to break the law is repeated, that you will be site-banned immediately. Further action may also be taken, at the discretion of the site's owners.

This is your one and only warning.

Obni

I haven't read the Treaty and I'll be voting "Yes"

robindch wrote: »

You have announced on a public bulletin board that you're going to commit a criminal offense which could land you a hefty fine, or a term in jail. Or both.

Your post raises an interesting question, that may justify a thread of its own. Although the decision of the boards.ie is clearly correct in this instance, what will happen to this forum when the revised blasphemy law comes into effect. Will it cease to exist for fear of hosting intentional criminal activity? Or will there be a code of conduct required that will front-load all posts with such lengthy disclaimers and intersperse the text with countless parenthetical clarifications that they become unreadable. Hmmm?

Turtwig

Obni wrote: »

Your post raises an interesting question, that may justify a thread of its own. Although the decision of the boards.ie is clearly correct in this instance, what will happen to this forum when the revised blasphemy law comes into effect. Will it cease to exist for fear of hosting intentional criminal activity? Or will there be a code of conduct required that will front-load all posts with such lengthy disclaimers and intersperse the text with countless parenthetical clarifications that they become unreadable. Hmmm?

Well, unless someone here posts something that is REALLY offensive and was done with the INTENT of being offensive we should be okay. The trouble is everyone has different levels of tolerance. Still, I think this forum should be ok.

Dades

I haven't read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

The charter is the only thing people need concern themselves with regarding how they engage in discussion about religion. You'd need to contravene that before any blasphemy laws are broken.

Blasphemy = non-issue

Daftendirekt

I've read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

Voting yes, and I've read about 3/5's of the treaty.

I learned one huge fact about Lisbon from my adventures with the actual text. When the first referendum was run, I knew all the important structural changes, from reading the referendum commission's site, along with other summaries and interpretations. But I thought that since Lisbon was so long, there must be a lot of things that haven't been covered by these summaries.

After delving into the text however, I sort of came to realise that all the major changes are in fact covered in the various analyses, and most of Lisbon is just Nice regurgitated, occasionally with some rephrasing thrown in for clarity or whatever.

The text itself, is actually quite readable too, just very boring.

It's also very interesting to note that in both the A&A polls, the yes side leads by a good margin; the opposite seems to true on EU and After Hours polls, with a smaller difference.

ChocolateSauce

I haven't read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

robindch wrote: »

You have announced on a public bulletin board that you're going to commit a criminal offense which could land you a hefty fine, or a term in jail. Or both.

I've seen some dumb posts in my time, but frankly, this one takes the biscuit.

Out of respect for your 3,500 posts to date, our benign overlords have asked for your post to be deleted, but have asked me to let you know that if this threat to break the law is repeated, that you will be site-banned immediately. Further action may also be taken, at the discretion of the site's owners.

This is your one and only warning.

Just wondering, does that apply to anything? Like if a person stated that they intend to smoke a joint, or refuse to pay their TV license, would that fall under the same rules?

On another note, just got back from a Lisbon debate.

Among university educated, wealthy southsiders, over 90% intend to vote yes, it seems.

robindch

I've read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Just wondering, does that apply to anything? Like if a person stated that they intend to smoke a joint, or refuse to pay their TV license, would that fall under the same rules?

Strictly speaking, yes, it probably would since in permitting somebody to post publicly about the commission of an offense in the future, boards.ie would arguably become an accessory to the offense. I believe there's also a requirement upon all citizens in this country to report knowledge of future crimes to the police, which puts a legal, if slightly unenforceable, onus to snitch upon everybody who reads such a post, especially the site owners. Who don't like being put in that position.

That said, while I can't imagine anybody's going to get too upset reading a post in which somebody says they're going to head out to their balcony for a spliff, there certainly have been cases -- didn't the Virginia Tech gunman do it? -- in which nutters have posted online about far more serious crimes they intend to carry out, before they did carry them out.

All in all, it's really best to keep this kind of stuff to oneself and not put other people into the position of having to decide whether or not to do anything about it, and thereby, make them possibly accessories by omission.

Now, back to Lisbon

robindch

I've read the Treaty and I'll be voting "No"

Daftendirekt wrote: »

The text itself, is actually quite readable too, just very boring.

Yes, I thought so too; it's really not a difficult read at all, though a few salt and pepper shakers, and a few bits of cutlery, certainly do help to visualize how decisions move back and forth from institution to institution.

What struck me most of all is how many caveats there are to everything. And caveats upon caveats. Upon caveats.

Frankly, from my memory of reading as far as I did -- up to around page 200 or so, at which point I felt I'd done more than duty really required -- the EU would have trouble agreeing to launch a six-inch paper boat down the Liffey, let alone demand the townsfolk of Ballydehob conscript themselves into somebody's euroarmy.