Which way will you vote (if at all)

Bacchus wrote: »

My first post on the Lisbon treaty. Totally agree with the above. Both sides have been scaremongering and I think it's a shame. Why can't they trust to public to listen to the facts and make up their own minds instead of coming out with the likes of "Vote Yes or Europe will get pissy with us" and "Vote No because they took yer commissioner!!"

Well in fairness, people in europe have already began to get pissy with us over the possibility of us rejecting this. The thing is, I firmly believe there is no "better deal" and that to think so is arrogant at worst and naive at best. In that case, we are stuck in this exact setup of the EU for how long?

Unless we get a 'better deal' we won't pass it a second time if we fail now, so the rest of europe wants to get on with this but they can't without us. Does that not create a messy situation?

I'm not saying we'll be excommunicated or that our trading will suffer at all but the point is for me that the uncertainty is not good. Alternatively a yes vote is a lot more predictable imo as at this stage all the lies have been refuted so there is very little to argue about.

Scofflaw

Hermy wrote: »

I fully accept that it is not necessary for every country to have a referendum on the Treaty but I dare say that many more countries might reject the Treaty if it were put to the people.

Well, I think you're entitled to that belief. I'd prefer if those countries that don't have referendums got used to having them first, though. Otherwise, you're really just deciding the future of Europe by shouting match.

We're a relatively sophisticated electorate. We read more newspapers than most other countries. We have a complex and subtle voting system. We're used to divisive and emotional referendums ('Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy' and the like). Yet still this one has many voters simply baffled. How would it be in countries where they're not used to the level of lies and distortion involved?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hermy

Indeed Scofflaw.

So now I need a new reason for voting no.
Terrorism, neutrality, militarisation, scaremongering on both sides...the list goes on!

Hermy wrote: »

I fully accept that it is not necessary for every country to have a referendum on the Treaty but I dare say that many more countries might reject the Treaty if it were put to the people.

If that were true I think the reason would be the ignorance of a lot of people and the fact that they, like many here, are sticking it to the man, 'fighting for freedom' and not understanding the issues. "UNELECTED PRESIDENT OMG!!" would sway a lot of voters alone because they take it at face value.

EDIT: Just in case anyone misunderstands, I'm saying a sizable number of voters are completely ignorant and that that effects the vote. If it was a parliamentary vote everyone would have an understanding of all the issues. Like someone said, a parliamentary vote on something like this is the wiser choice imo.

Hermy wrote: »

I fully accept that it is not necessary for every country to have a referendum on the Treaty but I dare say that many more countries might reject the Treaty if it were put to the people.

They might well, though it's speculative. I don't think treaties like this should really go to referendum even in Ireland. The people have a responsibility to choose a government that reflects their ideals and views. Last year we had an opportunity to do just that and we chose to change little. On some significant divisive cultural issues I can see why a referendum is desirable. However, to expect the people to assess a vast and intricate legal document seems silly, especially when we are already employing a government (who we have chosen ourselves) to do that job for us.

DeVore

URK?!

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

DeV.

Hermy wrote: »

Indeed Scofflaw.

So now I need a new reason for voting no.
scaremongering on both sides...the list goes on!

I know you're probably joking but I don't why's that a reason to vote no.

DeVore wrote: »

URK?!

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

DeV.

As someone said, on these sorts of treaties where people complain they don't understand every word of the document etc. I don't think it's a problem having a parliamentary vote. We don't have a referendum on nearly every other thing and it works for us (unless you think it is appalling that politicians make decisions without our direct say).

Hermy wrote: »

Indeed Scofflaw.

So now I need a new reason for voting no.
Terrorism, neutrality, militarisation, scaremongering on both sides...the list goes on!

Terrorism: I presume you mean the use of the word without definition of what it is? Well I'm pretty sure the word has already been defined in EU law and that definition would therefore apply.

Neutrality: We were never strictly nuetral anyway, more pacifly aligned. We currently operate with the UN and we mantain the right to opt out of any military action.

Militarisation: Its not like the Treaty is asking us to start an arms race. It is just trying to ensure that we each focus somewhat on imporving our defense forces, which is a on going thing currently anyway.

Scaremongering - this has nothing to do with the Treaty itself and is solely to do with the campaigns. It should not affect your vote. Even if it did you say both sides are guilty so why is that a reason for voting no?

DeVore wrote: »

URK?!

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

DeV.

Was that directed at me? I'm certainly not suggesting that the people are incapable of making an informed decision, nor that they should not be allowed to vote based on their capacity to understand the document. What I'm saying is that putting such a document directly to the people is cumbersome and unnecessary. It is wasteful of time, taxes and resources and is a job that they typically would not be expected to have to do in most democracies.

nesf

DeVore wrote: »

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

What about electing a group to deal with such matters on our behalf? It's pretty much what we do with law etc in this country already for the most part. Direct democracy doesn't work very well if the issue at hand isn't easily understood and relatively clear cut. The vast majority of people just won't be willing to put the time in to fully understand anything complicated or legalistic, so we end up with a plebiscite which isn't informed or cogent of the issue at hand. This isn't exactly a good thing.

The key term isn't that the electorate won't understand it, it's that there's little incentive for the electorate to put in the large level of work needed to understand many issues. You'll get a handful who will do it but by and large people want to vote based on bullet point lists and broad principles not interpretations of complicated legalistic documents. They simply don't have the time or the inclination to do things differently, the vast majority of people ignore politics 99% of the time outside of elections and news headlines outside of possibly one pet topic close to their heart that they follow more closely. It isn't a criticism of them or anything, but we should design political systems that don't deny this very strong tendency of human nature.

sink

DeVore wrote: »

URK?!

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.

That cant be what you are suggesting, but it certainly sounds like it.

DeV.

It's not that they don't understand it, it's that they make no attempt to inform themselves. Now there are many people commenting here on boards that have read up on the issues and seem to have well formed arguments upon which to base their opinion. Unfortunately if you expand that to the wider populace you will get a lot of ignorance and those people are happy to be ignorant, how can direct democracy work when people are voting on issues they are clueless about? What would make more sense is if those people to lazy to find out for themselves elected a person to research the issues and vote on their behalf, that is basically what parliamentary democracy is about. That is why I believe we should entrust the parliamentarians to sort these issues out for us, obviously this requires a lot of trust and that trust has been eroded because of the tribunals, which has lead to democracy suffering.

My most ideal society would be true, direct democracy were anybody can get involved in the decision making process, but they would have to inform themselves thoroughly on the issues. This is however in reality is impractical because society as a whole is not bothered. I myself am a political junkie and I will spend 2-4 hours a day reading news websites and another 2 hours commenting, there are not many people that interested in politics.

I accept that I'm playing the man and not the ball.
However we were told that if we rejected Nice the sky would fall down.
It didn't.
Instead we were made to do it all over again until we got the right answer.
The Dutch rejected the E.U. Constitution and the sky didn't fall down.
Ditto the French.
Now we are being told to vote Yes on Lisbon or else.
I decided to vote No because of the dreadful campaigning on both sides which left me baffled.
Why did the government who insist that this Treaty is vital for Irelands future not present the facts to us as per some of the informed and considered responses I've read here today which have me reconsidering my vote.
It wasn't until last weekends poll that the government got the finger out.
It is my view that this government has nothing but contempt for the electorate and as long as this remains the case they will always struggle to convince me that their policies are best.

A perfect argument for voting the government out of power in the next round of local and general elections. Your discontent would go to much better use there. For the record, I'll be right there with you. Don't take it out on Europe.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A perfect argument for voting the government out of power in the next round of local and general elections. Your discontent would go to much better use there. For the record, I'll be right there with you. Don't take it out on Europe.

Additionally the Referendum Commission sent on details of the Treaty from a non-biased point of view. This went to everyone on the register so noone can say not enough was done to clarify the thing.

dlofnep

I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.

sink

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.

Ant the no side aren't?

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.

If you reckoned they were trying to scare you into accepting a free holiday in the sun would you fall for that? Or would you defy them because of their rather misplaced tactics?

Both sides are trying to scare you. They're trying to scare the people who aren't willing to do the research. The tactics of neither side reflect the truth of the Treaty. Do a bit of reading, make your mind up based on that. Don't vote as some kind of act of defiance. Save that for when it counts.

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm voting no. I think the Government is trying to scare a vote out of us and I won't fall for it.

Both sides are doing that. Ignore them both, spend some time looking at the threads here (Scofflaw and sink are pretty well up on the holw thing) and make up your own mind independant from the noisemakers.

Hermy

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The people have a responsibility to choose a government that reflects their ideals and views.

Since getting into government the Green Party don't appear to have the same views and ideals.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

If it was a parliamentary vote everyone would have an understanding of all the issues.

If it was a parliamentary vote, then the voters would be doing what their party whip instructed them to do.

DeVore wrote: »

Am I missing something? The idea of not having a vote on something because the electorate wont understand it, is.... well..... its awful.
DeV.

Here, here.

molloyjh wrote: »

Terrorism: I presume you mean the use of the word without definition of what it is? Well I'm pretty sure the word has already been defined in EU law and that definition would therefore apply.

Does it apply?

Neutrality: We were never strictly nuetral anyway, more pacifly aligned. We currently operate with the UN and we mantain the right to opt out of any military action.

As long as the U.S. military are using Shannon as a stop off we are not neutral.

Scaremongering - this has nothing to do with the Treaty itself and is solely to do with the campaigns. It should not affect your vote. Even if it did you say both sides are guilty so why is that a reason for voting no?

I cannot surely agree to something that I do not understand. It was the task of the government, the opposition, the Yes campaign, the No campaign, the Referendum Commission and other interested parties to inform me.
They didn't!
Ergo, I reject the Treaty because of a lack of understanding and a belief that thing's will carry on as normal if the Treaty is rejected.

Hermy wrote: »

AtomicHorror:
The people have a responsibility to choose a government that reflects their ideals and views.
Hermy:
Since getting into government the Green Party don't appear to have the same views and ideals.

That suggests a logical course of action that has nothing at all to do with the Lisbon Treaty. My point holds.

Hermy wrote: »

I cannot surely agree to something that I do not understand. It was the task of the government, the opposition, the Yes campaign, the No campaign, the Referendum Commission and other interested parties to inform me.
They didn't!
Ergo, I reject the Treaty because of a lack of understanding and a belief that thing's will carry on as normal if the Treaty is rejected.

You've debated it extensively here and the literature is widely available. The campaigns have let us down but that's no excuse for ignorance. If you can't understand what is available to you then that is unfortunate, do your best to make an informed vote either way.

sink

Hermy wrote: »

Since getting into government the Green Party don't appear to have the same views and ideals.

I was never a fan of the GP, I always thought they were to motivated by ideology and were not interested in practicable way of addressing the issues. Now that I have seem them in office and they show willing to compromise ideology to reflect reality I would be more inclined to vote for them in a future election.

Hermy wrote: »

If it was a parliamentary vote, then the voters would be doing what their party whip instructed them to do.

That's how parliamentary parties have always worked in every parliament in the world. Party backbenchers can still rebel if they're so inclined.

Hermy wrote: »

As long as the U.S. military are using Shannon as a stop off we are not neutral.

And what exactly has that to do with Lisbon? How is voting one way or the other in this referendum going to change that?

Hermy wrote: »

I cannot surely agree to something that I do not understand. It was the task of the government, the opposition, the Yes campaign, the No campaign, the Referendum Commission and other interested parties to inform me.
They didn't!
Ergo, I reject the Treaty because of a lack of understanding and a belief that thing's will carry on as normal if the Treaty is rejected.

That is the failing of direct democracy, that is the reason people who don't know shouldn't vote. The information is everywhere, there are about a hundred threads in this forum alone. There have been debates on tv and debates in the newspapers and debates in the streets, cafes, bars restaurants, workplace I even had a debate with a guy in the toilet. If you don't know the issues by now you should do society a favour and not vote.