Observations of a swing voter

meglome

I came into this campaign as someone who didn't vote the last time and who really didn't know a lot about the treaty. I have to admit I was tempted to vote No and certainly some of the things I heard from the No campaign were pushing me in that direction.

When it came to Lisbon 2 I thought that I'd better inform myself so I could actually vote this time, whichever way. I was worried about the treaty, about of loss of voting weight, our commissioner and to a lesser extent neutrality. I was worried that it was really undemocratic that we were the only country in the EU have a referendum. I was annoyed we were being asked again in some respects.

So being a long time boards user I thought this would be a great place to start finding out about the treaty. In hindsight maybe the independent referendum commission site would have been useful too, but anyhoo. I heard plenty of dodgy things about the treaty in here as well. So to cut a long story short I starting taking the 'No' claims made about the treaty and searching the treaty for them. Low and behold I wasn't able to find the parts of the treaty where these things happened. Time after time I searched the treaty and couldn't find the sections that caused these bad things to happen. I looked at the claims made on the No posters and checked those claims against the treaty and couldn't find those either.

Maybe it was just me, maybe I wasn't looking at the correct sections or searching for the correct text. I started asking questions and reading the debate. And weirdly even the people making the claims didn't supply the parts of the treaty they were contained in. It didn't take me long to realise the almost the entire No campaign was based on a lie, or rather many many lies. Many No voters did have valid concerns and I'm not suggesting otherwise. It was just the No campaign itself was a bunch of liars. It really píssed me off, I have a pet hate about liars. Especially ones that are basically lying to my face, it so fúcking disrespectful to people. The Yes campaign were pathetic and full of rubbish slogans but they didn't directly lie to my face.

When I was looking for an apartment recently the word 'spacious' lost all meaning to me. Seemingly every apartment in Dublin is spacious. But it's the same way I feel about the word 'bullied' now, it was almost like armed men had called around to peoples house and threatened them in person. The reality is it's common practice in Ireland to have multiple votes on referenda, we've done it eight times I believe. And good ol' Cóir ('we love our constitution') brought on 3 in one year I think.

I'm pro-EU, and I know the EU have done wonders for this country. I hate to think how things would be if we just had our own politicians running things. So while I can understand people don't like the idea of losing some 'independence' I personally see it as a good thing and that's the way it has been so far with EU. To a reasonable degree I trust the EU, they have never intentionally tried to steer us wrong as far as I can see. And when I checked the claim that the EU stole all our fish I found that to be untrue and they have given us a shít load of money. I grew to understand that many people saying they were pro-EU were anything but pro-EU, the whole No campaign has voted against every EU treaty they've been in existence for, and often for the same reasons - none of which have come to pass. How the hell can Sinn Fein claim to be pro-EU and vote against every treaty? It makes no sense unless they are actually anti-EU.

During all this time I realised that I didn't really understand democracy or how the EU works. I realised that how other countries run their affairs is not our business, I remembered from my history books why some country's actually banned referendums due to what had happened in the past (Germany, Italy). I understood that having more democratic votes can never be less democratic. I understood that I was annoyed at the government for running such a shít campaign and leaving many of us in dark which allowed a load of left and right wing crazies to fool us. But none of that had anything to do with the Lisbon treaty.

Look we're all angry and frustrated with how the country is being run but that isn't the EU's fault. We voted in this government and we will vote them out at the next general election (I personally didn't vote for them but obviously lots of people did). So let's all vote for the right reasons and for the good of the country.

I want to thank all the genuine campaigners in here for all the great debate and for teaching this (somewhat) old dog some new tricks. Sure I ended up being a rabid Yes voter but I did listen to all sides and I did appreciate all the effort. I really do hope there is a Yes vote as I believe it's the best for us and the EU. I also hope it's a Yes vote because it will be extremely embarrassing if we vote no again for reasons that are not in the treaty. How can the EU possibly address our concerns when we basically have none that are about the contents of the treaty we're voting on?

And thank fúck it's nearly all over. Amen

Scofflaw

Amen.

respectfully,
Scofflaw

vanla sighs

Em, actually we do have concerns about the contents of the treaty, well I for one do (as do MANY others) QMV is one, unelected President and Foreign Minister......there are loads more you know. And people are free to vote any way they want to and for whatever reasons they want to.....as Libertas say: we can have Cowen for another 3 years or another 3 days......3 days sounds nice......sweet The people already voted and the people said NO, our own government and the EU refused to accept the democratic will of the Irish people, well, hopefully we'll send them that very same message today......respect democracy. Whether we vote yes or No we remain fully engaged partners within the EU.....no change. The Lisbon Treaty is not about our membership of the EU it is simply one, just one, EU treaty. The people will decide today.

meglome

vanla sighs wrote: »

Em, actually we do have concerns about the contents of the treaty, well I for one do (as do MANY others) QMV is one, unelected President and Foreign Minister......there are loads more you know. And people are free to vote any way they want to and for whatever reasons they want to.....as Libertas say: we can have Cowen for another 3 years or another 3 days......3 days sounds nice......sweet The people already voted and the people said NO, our own government and the EU refused to accept the democratic will of the Irish people, well, hopefully we'll send them that very same message today......respect democracy. Whether we vote yes or No we remain fully engaged partners within the EU.....no change. The Lisbon Treaty is not about our membership of the EU it is simply one, just one, EU treaty. The people will decide today.

Sure we're all entitled to our opinion.

Dinner

vanla sighs wrote: »

The people already voted and the people said NO, our own government and the EU refused to accept the democratic will of the Irish people

vanla sighs wrote: »

we can have Cowen for another 3 years or another 3 days......3 days sounds nice......sweet

Wait a second, it's undemocratic to have a second referendum when circumstances change yet you eagerly await an early General Election?

How do you square that circle? FF won the last general election, and with it te right to govern for 5 years. To have a general election half way through their term goes against the democratric will of the people.

vanla sighs

Dinner wrote: »

Wait a second, it's undemocratic to have a second referendum when circumstances change yet you eagerly await an early General Election?

How do you square that circle? FF won the last general election, and with it te right to govern for 5 years. To have a general election half way through their term goes against the democratric will of the people.

FF won the last general election? What do you mean by "won", they didn't win anything.....they are in a coalition government exactly because they DIDN'T win......lol When the government falls there will be a general election, simple. That is democracy in action.

And yes, it is undemocratic to usurp and ignore the democratic will of the people as expressed freely and fairly.......referedums are supposed to be decided at the ballot box and not by post-referendum opinion polls

vanla sighs

meglome wrote: »

Sure we're all entitled to our opinion.

You're the one who wrote: How can the EU possibly address our concerns when we basically have none that are about the contents of the treaty we're voting on?

And I stated we do have concerns about the contents of the treaty, where do you arrive at the conclusion that we don't? :rolleyes:

Dinner

vanla sighs wrote: »

FF won the last general election? What do you mean by "won", they didn't win anything.....they are in a coalition government exactly because they DIDN'T win......lol When the government falls there will be a general election, simple. That is democracy in action.

And yes, it is undemocratic to usurp and ignore the democratic will of the people as expressed freely and fairly.......referedums are supposed to be decided at the ballot box and not by post-referendum opinion polls

Nice. Pick on a small issue and dodge the point.

You want a general election, even though we're not due one for 3 years because you don't support the government, and neither does most of the country if opinion polls are to be believed (are they? I'm not sure where you stand on polls). But they ( + the greens and independents and what was left of the PDs) have the right to govern until 2012. To want a general election any earlier is to disrespect the democratic will of the people as expressed at the ballot box in 2007.

Reading your posts in another thread it seems you only support a second referendum if you agree with the issue, otherwise it's undemocratic;

vanla sighs wrote: »

Well, I'm pro-choice (campaigned actively on related issues back in '92) and actively campaigned for divorce back in '95. I'm pro-EU but anti-Lisbon. Is it logical to vote on the very same issue we have already rejected when no changes have been made to it........hmmmm, let me think, eh, no.

vanla sighs wrote: »

The people spoke, the people said No, thank you.......Democracy is respecting the will of the Irish people as expressed through a free and afir vote.

You actively campaigned for divorce in 1995, despite being rejected in '86. Seems the issue remained the same. The only difference is you agreed with it.

Is it logical to vote on the very same issue we have already rejected when no changes have been made to it

Well, is it? Or will you just pick and choose, and fall back on the old 'oh but there was such a long time between divorce votes' routine.

meglome

vanla sighs wrote: »

You're the one who wrote: How can the EU possibly address our concerns when we basically have none that are about the contents of the treaty we're voting on?

And I stated we do have concerns about the contents of the treaty, where do you arrive at the conclusion that we don't? :rolleyes:

I can link the opinion polls which showed that the majority of reasons people voted No had nothing to do with the contents of the treaty. I didn't say no one had a valid reason to vote no but it's certainly my belief that most of the reasons given for voting no have nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. You see QMV as a bad thing whereas I don't, for example.

vanla sighs

Dinner wrote: »

Nice. Pick on a small issue and dodge the point.

You want a general election, even though we're not due one for 3 years because you don't support the government, and neither does most of the country if opinion polls are to be believed (are they? I'm not sure where you stand on polls). But they ( + the greens and independents and what was left of the PDs) have the right to govern until 2012. To want a general election any earlier is to disrespect the democratic will of the people as expressed at the ballot box in 2007.

Reading your posts in another thread it seems you only support a second referendum if you agree with the issue, otherwise it's undemocratic;



You actively campaigned for divorce in 1995, despite being rejected in '86. Seems the issue remained the same. The only difference is you agreed with it.



Well, is it? Or will you just pick and choose, and fall back on the old 'oh but there was such a long time between divorce votes' routine.

By all means rerun referenda but allow a "reasonable" time between each rerun. I'd suggest 5 years, others may have their own ideas. So, you'd support a Lisbon 3 if Lisbon fails again (as it hopefully will)? About the election thing, you're making no sense......it is perfectly within my rights and that of every other citizen to call for a GE whenever we so choose. It isn't the people per se who can force a GE (unless through national strikes etc) but it is the right of the people to put pressure on their elected representatives, they are the servants of the people - not the masters. Cheerio, time to get ready and go to vote a big fat NO

Dinner

vanla sighs wrote: »

By all means rerun referenda but allow a "reasonable" time between each rerun. I'd suggest 5 years, others may have their own ideas.

Why? Why slap an arbitrary time period between referenda if there's no need to wait. The large gap between divorce was necessary because the whole moral opinion of society had to shift before there was even a chance of it passing. But with Lisbon there's no need to do so. It's a straight forward find the issues -> solve the issues -> rerun the referendum. Now I know you don't feel that your issues have been solved. Fair enough. But there is enough evidence to show that the issues of a quarter of no voters have been solved with the guarantees add to that the ~40% of no voters who didn't know what they were voting on and add to that again the number of yes voters who didn't know what they were voting on and you have a perfectly legitimate reason to have a second referendum.

vanla sighs wrote: »

So, you'd support a Lisbon 3 if Lisbon fails again (as it hopefully will)?

I'd be torn. Democratically speaking, there'd be no problem. It would be just as democratic to have 100 referenda as to have 1. A third one would be taking the piss though, purely because there wouldn't be a chance of it passing. Enough people have swallowed this 'no means no' bollox this time round, imagine what it would be like next year.

From a selfish point of view I'd love a third referendum! It's mean another €350 for sitting on my arse all day. So bring it on!

vanla sighs wrote: »

About the election thing, you're making no sense......it is perfectly within my rights and that of every other citizen to call for a GE whenever we so choose.

I agree, you are well within your rights to call for an election whenever you want, I too would love one. But I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in your thinking when you say that the people spoke in the first Lisbon vote so it's undemocratic to have another, and to then say that you want an early GE even though the people spoke at the ballot box in 2007.

meglome

vanla sighs wrote: »

By all means rerun referenda but allow a "reasonable" time between each rerun. I'd suggest 5 years, others may have their own ideas.

Do yo really think that nothing has changed since the last time?

vanla sighs wrote: »

So, you'd support a Lisbon 3 if Lisbon fails again (as it hopefully will)?

There's nothing legally wrong with it and having more democratic votes can never be less democratic. That said I think it would be pointless to run it a third time.

vanla sighs wrote: »

About the election thing, you're making no sense......it is perfectly within my rights and that of every other citizen to call for a GE whenever we so choose. It isn't the people per se who can force a GE (unless through national strikes etc) but it is the right of the people to put pressure on their elected representatives, they are the servants of the people - not the masters.

And it's perfectly within the rights of the government to call for a referendum whenever it likes. You want it both ways. If you don't like the government having the right to have multiple referenda then I suggest you campaign to have the constitution changed. Although maybe you'll want a rerun in the future and will change your tune.

metrovelvet

Im a swing voter too. I would have voted yes in the first one if I had been registered at the time.

THen with this one, I decided I'd vote no to protest the double election process. This of course would be a protest vote to how the government are carrying on with their democracy. They keep claiming Lisbon wont compromise our democracy and yet at the same time, lose credibility saying that, by carrying out double elections. So I really dont know what to think tbh. Im starting to think, this is not the place or time for my protest vote, that there is a bigger picture here. So, Ive been prevaricating all day, hamletting about, swinging back and forth, back and forth and most likely will not vote because I just cant make a decision, like an ass between two haystacks.

PopeBuckfastXVI

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im a swing voter too. I would have voted yes in the first one if I had been registered at the time.

THen with this one, I decided I'd vote no to protest the double election process. This of course would be a protest vote to how the government are carrying on with their democracy. They keep claiming Lisbon wont compromise our democracy and yet at the same time, lose credibility saying that, by carrying out double elections. So I really dont know what to think tbh. Im starting to think, this is not the place or time for my protest vote, that there is a bigger picture here. So, Ive been prevaricating all day, hamletting about, swinging back and forth, back and forth and most likely will not vote because I just cant make a decision, like an ass between two haystacks.

Kick the governments ass at the next election, vote on the Lisbon Treaty today.

PS: 'I just cant make a decision, like an ass between two haystacks.' is the best simile I've ever read on boards.

moondogspot

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im a swing voter too. I would have voted yes in the first one if I had been registered at the time.

THen with this one, I decided I'd vote no to protest the double election process. This of course would be a protest vote to how the government are carrying on with their democracy. They keep claiming Lisbon wont compromise our democracy and yet at the same time, lose credibility saying that, by carrying out double elections. So I really dont know what to think tbh. Im starting to think, this is not the place or time for my protest vote, that there is a bigger picture here. So, Ive been prevaricating all day, hamletting about, swinging back and forth, back and forth and most likely will not vote because I just cant make a decision, like an ass between two haystacks.

You're 100% right. We shouldn't have to vote again.:(

meglome

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im a swing voter too. I would have voted yes in the first one if I had been registered at the time.

THen with this one, I decided I'd vote no to protest the double election process. This of course would be a protest vote to how the government are carrying on with their democracy. They keep claiming Lisbon wont compromise our democracy and yet at the same time, lose credibility saying that, by carrying out double elections. So I really dont know what to think tbh. Im starting to think, this is not the place or time for my protest vote, that there is a bigger picture here. So, Ive been prevaricating all day, hamletting about, swinging back and forth, back and forth and most likely will not vote because I just cant make a decision, like an ass between two haystacks.

moondogspot wrote: »

You're 100% right. We shouldn't have to vote again.:(

Look it's perfectly legal for the vote to be called again. I've never heard anyone campaigning to have that changed but lot's of people moaning after the fact.

Vote on the issues, and since we've voted several times more than once on other referenda it really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Remember it goes both ways, maybe you'll fully support the next referendum and it will get voted down the first time, then you might want there to be another vote.

metrovelvet

No. I have a lot of problems with the double voting. It isn't right.

Tarobot

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. I have a lot of problems with the double voting. It isn't right.

But there is a big change - we get to keep our Commissioner. Do you not want a chance to take that offer?

There have been precedents for voting twice before and they were on EXACTLY the same thing!

Plus we wouldn't have divorce if we weren't allowed to vote on the same issue twice.

metrovelvet

Tarobot wrote: »

But there is a big change - we get to keep our Commissioner. Do you not want a chance to take that offer?

There have been precedents for voting twice before and they were on EXACTLY the same thing!

Plus we wouldn't have divorce if we weren't allowed to vote on the same issue twice.

Yes I know that. As much as I think divorce should be legal [although I dont think theocracy is ok, which is what made divorce illegal in the first place], as much as I also hate divorce, I dont know if the second vote was really the right thing either.

You cant keep having votes until you get the result you want. That is not good democratic practise.

On the other hand, is it just take at face value now that the first vote doesnt count so no one bothers and we all know its the second one that counts?

Sam Vimes

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. I have a lot of problems with the double voting. It isn't right.

But that's how democracy works. A proposal is put forward, you reject it, explain why, your concerns are addressed and the proposal is put forward again. That's compromise.


The fact that the treaty hasn't changed is not a reflection on the Irish government or the EU, it's a reflection on the Irish people. We were basically tricked into thinking that a load of stuff was in the treaty that actually wasn't so the government got legally binding assurances that those things were not in the treaty so that those people would no longer have a reason to vote no and now we're being asked if we've changed our minds.

That and they've agreed a legally binding decision not to invoke the procedure to reduce the size of the commission if we vote yes. The procedure will be there but they'll be legally prevented from using it. If we vote no the size of the commission will reduce in the next few months

metrovelvet

So am I understanding you correctly in that conditions around the treaty changed since the first election so that it is not a repeat election but a new one?

Tarobot

metrovelvet wrote: »

You cant keep having votes until you get the result you want. That is not good democratic practise.

Yeah I mean I'd be lying if I said it didn't rankle with a little bit. I mean obviously the fact that the government wants it ratified also plays a factor (otherwise they wouldn't have called it). And to be honest if they ever put it to us a third time, even I would vote no - and I'm campaigning for the YES side!

But at the end of the day, I do feel that this deal is different and we the people deserve to have our say on it.

metrovelvet wrote: »

On the other hand, is it just take at face value now that the first vote doesnt count so no one bothers and we all know its the second one that counts?

Last time there was a lot of confusion about the Treaty and I don't blame voters for being confused. Last time I didn't actually vote because I felt I didn't understand it. But this time I have read it and feel it is in my best interests and the best interest of my country.

moondogspot

Tarobot wrote: »

Yeah I mean I'd be lying if I said it didn't rankle with a little bit. I mean obviously the fact that the government wants it ratified also plays a factor (otherwise they wouldn't have called it). And to be honest if they ever put it to us a third time, even I would vote no - and I'm campaigning for the YES side!


Last time there was a lot of confusion about the Treaty and I don't blame voters for being confused. Last time I didn't actually vote because I felt I didn't understand it. But this time I have read it and feel it is in my best interests and the best interest of my country.

In your opinion that is. I personally think it's kissing democracy goodbye.

Sam Vimes

metrovelvet wrote: »

So am I understanding you correctly in that conditions around the treaty changed since the first election so that it is not a repeat election but a new one?

The only thing that has actually changed is the procedure on the commission but yes this is a different proposal. The other guarantees were meant to clarify the treaty because there were so many misconceptions the last time.

For example, if someone voted no because they thought that the treaty would allow the EU to raise our corporation tax they haven't rejected the Lisbon treaty because the treaty doesn't do that. It means that person was deliberately tricked into thinking the treaty did that so they would reject it. Anyone who voted no because of the issue of corporation tax should not vote no this time because we have a legally binding guarantee that it's not an issue:

SECTION B: TAXATION wrote:

Nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union in relation to taxation.

Sleipnir

Tarobot wrote: »

But there is a big change - we get to keep our Commissioner. Do you not want a chance to take that offer?

Correct me if I'm wrong (please, I'll be voting later on!) but I thought we would keep our Commissioner if the treaty is not ratified anyway?

namloc1980

moondogspot wrote: »

In your opinion that is. I personally think it's kissing democracy goodbye.

Lisbon gives the euro and national parliaments a much more enhanced role in decision making in the EU... please elaborate on you point!

Sam Vimes

Sleipnir wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong (please, I'll be voting later on!) but I thought we would keep our Commissioner if the treaty is not ratified anyway?

The size of the commission will be reduced if we vote no because that was decided in Nice. Lisbon defined how it would be done but a decision will have to be taken in the next month or two as to how it will be done if we vote no. We might keep our commissioner, we might not, but someone's losing one if we vote no. They'll probably do a rotating system.

I'm afraid you've been taken in by a Libertas lie

metrovelvet

I dont understand it. I wont pretend I will. Ive read the general pamphlets but Ive also read some of the fine print of the treaty itself and I will never ever understand it. But not understanding it, does not mean, at least to me, that that is something to be afraid of. Hell I still dont understand my own reproductive system most of the time. Do I want it removed? No. I do not. I dont understand aerodynamiics either, but I will still fly. I would have voted yes, understanding it or not.

I do think that Ireland needs Europe [although I am still quite pissed off about the new lightbulb regulations coming into effect, that really is ripping the dick out of over regulation] but my god, what message is this government sending with all these double elections.

Sleipnir

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The size of the commission will be reduced if we vote no because that was decided in Nice. Lisbon defined how it would be done but a decision will have to be taken in the next month or two as to how it will be done if we vote no. We might keep our commissioner, we might not, but someone's losing one if we vote no. They'll probably do a rotating system.

I'm afraid you've been taken in by a Libertas lie

Not anymore. Thanks.

namloc1980

Sleipnir wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong (please, I'll be voting later on!) but I thought we would keep our Commissioner if the treaty is not ratified anyway?

the current nice treaty calls for a reduction in commissioners this year to a number less than 27

marco_polo

moondogspot wrote: »

In your opinion that is. I personally think it's kissing democracy goodbye.

Having seen the gap between what is actually in the treaty and what you think is, that is not overtly surprising.