Lisbon vote October 2nd - How do you intend to vote?

RandomName2 wrote: »

couldn't read the voting card properly.

I don't think anyone said that. It's not that hard to read the word No and mark the relevant box

RandomName2 wrote: »

Edit: So anyone who doesn't mention the treaty itself in their complaints don't know what they are talking about,

No, anyone who quotes things that have long been shown not to be in the treaty doesn't know what they're talking about

RandomName2 wrote: »

and anyone who does is anti-EU.

No, anyone who is is voting no because they generally don't like the direction the EU is going but can't point to a specific thing in the treaty that they object to is anti-EU

That's a very thorough misrepresentation of your opponents there. Well done

RandomName2 wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of the leading No campaigners here are Eurosceptics who fundamentally reject the EU as it currently exists. For many of them, this is largely because they have deified the concept of national sovereignty and believe the existing pooling/transfer of sovereignty within the EU is inherently wrong. Hence, the EU must be opposed by whatever means necessary.

These Rejectionists can be pretty much guaranteed to oppose any EU Treaty that comes along - with the possible exception of an EU Treaty that abolishes the EU!

Again the 'yes' side has to decipher the 'no' vote on behalf of the public.

Generally the 'yes' side say that those who voted 'no' didn't know what the Lisbon treaty was, were scared by anti-Lisbon propaganda, or couldn't read the voting card properly.

Alternatively 'The overwhelming majority of the leading No campaigners here are Eurosceptics' and can thus be disregarded as idiotic cranks. Horrah! And all those who follow them. Horrah! That's no better an argument, albeit a tad more articulate, than those who say they will vote 'no' to oppose the NWO.

Edit: So anyone who doesn't mention the treaty itself in their complaints don't know what they are talking about, and anyone who does is anti-EU. I get a whiff of neo-patriotism here. Deifiy national soverignty? What about deifying supranationalism, even if it is a little harder since Lisbon lost the Constitution's anthem :-(

I see that you didn't address the point View was actually making - that nearly all the No groups here have a rejectionist stance towards the EU. Here's a summary which suggests why you might not have taken up that particular challenge:

Group | Accession | SEA | Maastricht | Amsterdam | Nice | Lisbon
| | | | | |
Sinn Fein | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
Socialist Workers' Party | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
P McKenna | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
Anthony Coughlan/National Platform | - | NO | NO | NO | NO | NO
COIR/YD/SPUC | - | - | NO | NO | NO | NO
PANA | - | - | - | NO | NO | NO

Spot a pattern?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have a question that was sorted of already answered but I'm still not clear.

It has been claimed that up to now, changes can only be made as part of a treaty or some kind of package and that, even if most of it could have passed without a referendum, there would always be something in the package that required one so the whole package could be debated.

The problem, apparently, is that the new simplified revision procedure allows proposals to be put forward individually so, for example, they could have put through 99% of the Lisbon Treaty in the parliament without having a referendum and only put the few issues that required one to a vote.

So:
Is there anything stopping them from doing that now, ie repackaging the treaty to take out the parts that require a referendum here and passing the remainder without one?

If so, will they be able to do it after Lisbon?

If they can't do it now and can do it after Lisbon, is that a major problem?

BlitzKrieg

Is there anything stopping them from doing that now, ie repackaging the treaty to take out the parts that require a referendum here and passing the remainder without one?

I cant answer your question, but I'd like to add another onto it

At the moment when parliament makes changes to its structures is there a heavy restriction on it? For example the controvrsal issue of MEP pay abuse etc, the EU addressed the issue back in 2005, but for some reason it couldnt be implemented until the next european election in 2009. Which caused havoc for the EU's reputation as it was stuck with this image of doing nothing about the abuse.

Is this a specific case or is that how any changes within the EU work at the moment, requiring a new term within that institution to pass before changes can be applied?

If so will Lisbon's dynamic treaty elements allow changes to pass quicker?

tolosenc

I guess this may be the place to put this...

I have to be in France at the time of the vote, which I can't avoid (I'm missing my dad's birthday the day before, and it's a big one). Does anyone know if I can register to vote from France, or postal vote or something. I missed out last year due to being abroad, and I don't want to miss out again, as I feel this may be tighter than we think...

obl wrote: »

I guess this may be the place to put this...

I have to be in France at the time of the vote, which I can't avoid (I'm missing my dad's birthday the day before, and it's a big one). Does anyone know if I can register to vote from France, or postal vote or something. I missed out last year due to being abroad, and I don't want to miss out again, as I feel this may be tighter than we think...

Unfortunately, you're not eligible for a postal vote unless you're abroad on government service.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tolosenc

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, you're not eligible for a postal vote unless you're abroad on government service.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dang, as I feared. Cheers.

I'll try to convince one of my apathetic friends to get out and vote yes.

Eire_prince

yes you can but check your local register in your council. here a ref from last year.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_check_the_register.html.

Postal Vote

The last date for receipt of applications for entry in the Postal Voters List (14 May 2008) has now passed.

The following categories of persons are registered as postal voters:

Whole-time members of the Defence Forces; and
Irish Diplomats posted abroad and their spouses.

The following categories of persons may apply for registration as postal voters:

Members of the Garda Síochána;
If you are living at home but you are unable to go to a polling station to vote because of a physical illness or physical disability;
If your occupation is likely to prevent you from voting at your local polling station on the day of the referendum - this includes full-time students who are registered at home but who are living elsewhere while attending an educational institution in the State; and
If you are unable to vote at your polling station due to circumstances of your detention in a prison pursuant to an order of a court.

The Postal Voters List is drawn up at the same time as the Electoral Register. If you are not on the Postal Voters List, you may apply to be put on the Postal Voters Supplemental List through your local authority - contact them to get the relevant form. The latest date for receipt of applications for entry in the Supplement to the Postal Voters List is 2 days after the Referendum polling day order is made.

djpbarry wrote: »

Only because they admitted as much themselves (or at least a sizeable chunk did).

Well, voting No due to lack of understanding of something is surely a better/safer choice than recklessly voting yes for something you have no knowledge of, nor knowledge of the consequences for our country, which many certainly did (I would estimate the bulk majority of the "Yes" side). Those who surely won't own up to it and understandably so, such reckless behaviour could be classified as mildly retarded although not unexpected from the same people who have put, and have kept, FF in power in this country.

Rb wrote: »

Well, voting No due to lack of understanding of something is surely a better/safer choice than recklessly voting yes for something you have no knowledge of, nor knowledge of the consequences for our country, which many certainly did (I would estimate the bulk majority of the "Yes" side). Those who surely won't own up to it and understandably so, such reckless behaviour could be classified as mildly retarded although not unexpected from the same people who have put, and have kept, FF in power in this country.

Frankly, if you don't know at this stage, you've got no excuse. A case of "if you don't know, why the ruddy hell not?", and "if you can't be arsed to find out, why the hell are you voting?".

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Frankly, if you don't know at this stage, you've got no excuse. A case of "if you don't know, why the ruddy hell not?", and "if you can't be arsed to find out, why the hell are you voting?".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Especially with a second referendum.

djpbarry

Rb wrote: »

Well, voting No due to lack of understanding of something is surely a better/safer choice than recklessly voting yes for something you have no knowledge of...

If the question is not understood, then how can it possibly be concluded that a 'no' is "better" than a 'yes'?

Tar.Aldarion

djpbarry wrote: »

If the question is not understood, then how can it possibly be concluded that a 'no' is "better" than a 'yes'?

I think the 'logic' behind that is something like 'If we vote no, then nothing changes, if we vote yes we don't know what will happen, could be something bad!'

Well, at a guess.

Agent J

Scofflaw wrote: »

Frankly, if you don't know at this stage, you've got no excuse. A case of "if you don't know, why the ruddy hell not?", and "if you can't be arsed to find out, why the hell are you voting?".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah hang on.

The libson Treaty is about 400 pages long. Consider the Irish constiution is only about 40/50 and a hell of a lot more readable.

Consider that if the lisbon treaty will have de facto same status as the constitution then voting for something which is 8 times as long and not easily reable isnt something to be undertaken lightly.

If you vote yes. You are voting to sign the contract for the lisbon treaty.
If you want to vote yes without reading the contract yourself and relying on other sources to inform you. Thats your choice.

The other complication in this is that there is a total din surrounding everything. From the No side throwing around unrelated crap to the Yes sides insistance on playing the man and not the ball it is no wonder a lot of people throw their hands up in sheer frustration.

Agent J wrote: »

Ah hang on.

The libson Treaty is about 400 pages long. Consider the Irish constiution is only about 40/50 and a hell of a lot more readable.

The difference being more than compensated for by the huge body of Constitutional law. The Crotty case is 25 pages long on its own, and while their Honours have a fine turn of phrase, it can hardly be described as simple - and that's just one case.

Agent J wrote: »

Consider that if the lisbon treaty will have de facto same status as the constitution then voting for something which is 8 times as long and not easily reable isnt something to be undertaken lightly.

If you vote yes. You are voting to sign the contract for the lisbon treaty.
If you want to vote yes without reading the contract yourself and relying on other sources to inform you. Thats your choice.

The other complication in this is that there is a total din surrounding everything. From the No side throwing around unrelated crap to the Yes sides insistance on playing the man and not the ball it is no wonder a lot of people throw their hands up in sheer frustration.

That Lisbon is complicated isn't an excuse, unfortunately, because it's what we're voting on. There isn't the option of voting on something else - we have a referendum on whether to allow the government to ratify Lisbon or not. There are huge quantities of material available - yes, different slants, but available nonetheless - plenty of people have put out simple guides, pro, anti, official, unofficial. The issue has been prominent in the media for 21 months now - plenty of time to inform yourself to whatever degree you're comfortable with. No excuses.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Just as I voiced my objection to Lisbon II prior to the last referendum, I hereby announce my objection to Lisbon III

ei.sdraob

yes

i hope that puts all these cookoos and lies back in their rat nest and common sense prevails

Scofflaw wrote: »

That Lisbon is complicated isn't an excuse, unfortunately, because it's what we're voting on. There isn't the option of voting on something else -

It may not be an excuse for not knowing what it is about - the only 'excuse' for that is not feeling that voting actually counts (which to a certain extent, for those of us who come to conclusions that are anti-Lisbon, there is a strong case to be made)

However, I still believe that there is no need to create a treaty which covers so many disparate areas, simultaneously.
Lisbon (a slight, neccessary modification to the current system :pac:) gives more authority to:

The Consilium
Parliament
Commission

Changes the structure of both the Parliament and Commission. Changes voting parameters in each - and the relationship to individual governments.

And then there's the Charter of Human Rights.

Not to mention a whole raft of minor stuff about global warming, etc.

Err... I might say 'yes' to the Parliamentary changes. They can keep the rest. So that's a 'no' overall.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes

i hope that puts all these cookoos and lies back in their rat nest and common sense prevails

Cuckoos don't live in rats' nests.

Was that the lie you were refering to?

ei.sdraob

RandomName2 wrote: »

Cuckoos don't live in rats' nests.

Was that the lie you were refering to?

oh where to start, some of the more bigger lies we were told had to do:

* abortion
* conscription
* commissioner
* corpo tax
* voting weights

all have been debunked and discussed to death on this forum

some of these were so absurd they were insulting to anyone with any intelligence

lies lies and more lies we heard, im sorry but its all getting rather old at this moment

i dont like being lied to, but Ganley and Coir and SF make me sick, as i said cuckoos in a rats nest...

cheers
ei.sdraob|boards.ie

djpbarry

RandomName2 wrote: »

However, I still believe that there is no need to create a treaty which covers so many disparate areas, simultaneously.

Which was one of the motivating factors behind the drafting of Lisbon.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Lisbon (a slight, neccessary modification to the current system :pac:) gives more authority to:

The Consilium
Parliament
Commission

Well that depends on how you define "authority". More influence to the parliament? Yes, definitely. But the council and the commission? I'm not sure about that.

I also can’t help noticing that you state Lisbon allows for a “necessary modification”, but you still plan to vote ‘no’?

Agent J

Scofflaw wrote: »

The difference being more than compensated for by the huge body of Constitutional law. The Crotty case is 25 pages long on its own, and while their Honours have a fine turn of phrase, it can hardly be described as simple - and that's just one case.

The constitution has had a 70 year head start though for those judgements to be made.
And those are judgements which can be overturned or not used if need be.
The only way to change the constitution is a referednum

Sorry i am not accepting that line of defence that there is enough time/material to inform one self.
That is your opinion and i do not share it.

I've tried to read the damn treaty repeatly and have found it to be one of the most convoluted documents since in the USA so called "Patriot Act".
I am not going to be told that i have had enough time. Because you know what? I'll still probably vote no again if I'm told "It's this or nothing" because that sounds more threatening more than anything else.

An unfortunalty/fortunatly depending on how you look at it ordinary people have to vote on this and i think a lot of people will fall back into the mindset that you do not sign a contract before you read the terms of it yourself. And i don't really see anything wrong with it. If it has been made too complex for people to be able to get their heads around it then perhaps this in and of itself is a mark aganist it.

Agent J wrote: »

An unfortunalty/fortunatly depending on how you look at it ordinary people have to vote on this and i think a lot of people will fall back into the mindset that you do not sign a contract before you read the terms of it yourself. And i don't really see anything wrong with it. If it has been made too complex for people to be able to get their heads around it then perhaps this in and of itself is a mark aganist it.

And this is why it wasn't put to a referendum in the rest of Europe and why it shouldn't be put to one here. If the treaty was made simpler it would miss important things/be vague or open to interpretation/be pointless because we'd just need another treaty to cover the bits that were left out.

There will always be a substantial number of people who will say "I don't know what it's about and I'm not bothered finding out so I'm just going to vote no" and that approach will make Europe grind to a halt because treaties are always going to be complicated.

If you don't know what it's about, leave the decision to people who do rather than rejecting everything in perpetuity because it's too complicated for you

K-9

Agent J wrote: »

The constitution has had a 70 year head start though for those judgements to be made.
And those are judgements which can be overturned or not used if need be.
The only way to change the constitution is a referednum

Sorry i am not accepting that line of defence that there is enough time/material to inform one self.
That is your opinion and i do not share it.

I've tried to read the damn treaty repeatly and have found it to be one of the most convoluted documents since in the USA so called "Patriot Act".
I am not going to be told that i have had enough time. Because you know what? I'll still probably vote no again if I'm told "It's this or nothing" because that sounds more threatening more than anything else.

An unfortunalty/fortunatly depending on how you look at it ordinary people have to vote on this and i think a lot of people will fall back into the mindset that you do not sign a contract before you read the terms of it yourself. And i don't really see anything wrong with it. If it has been made too complex for people to be able to get their heads around it then perhaps this in and of itself is a mark aganist it.

Others have managed to read it and understand it. Even it it was just a 40 page document this argument would still exist.

And Agent J, you say you tried to read it and you couldn't understand it which is understandable but you don't have to read the whole treaty and if you did you'd certainly misunderstand most of it. When I was forming my opinion I looked at the arguments being made by both sides and checked if they were valid or not so I only read the few articles that were controversial. 99% of the treaty is mind numbingly boring

Agent J wrote: »

The constitution has had a 70 year head start though for those judgements to be made.
And those are judgements which can be overturned or not used if need be.
The only way to change the constitution is a referednum

Sorry i am not accepting that line of defence that there is enough time/material to inform one self.
That is your opinion and i do not share it.

I've tried to read the damn treaty repeatly and have found it to be one of the most convoluted documents since in the USA so called "Patriot Act".
I am not going to be told that i have had enough time. Because you know what? I'll still probably vote no again if I'm told "It's this or nothing" because that sounds more threatening more than anything else.

An unfortunalty/fortunatly depending on how you look at it ordinary people have to vote on this and i think a lot of people will fall back into the mindset that you do not sign a contract before you read the terms of it yourself. And i don't really see anything wrong with it. If it has been made too complex for people to be able to get their heads around it then perhaps this in and of itself is a mark aganist it.

If you can't understand the document, how can you know whether a No or a Yes is better for Ireland and Europe? This isn't the same as signing a contract, where not signing a contract leaves you exactly where you were before - this is the equivalent of agreeing to a medical procedure that the doctors claim is necessary.

Not agreeing to reform the EU is not leaving things at the status quo. The world has moved on since 2001 - and even then, it was known that another treaty would be required, because a lot was left out of Nice as not yet agreed, or not yet possible to agree until the accession countries were actually part of the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

* voting weights

This is a part of the Lisbon Treaty.

Abortion, corporation tax, and conscription are all very specific legislation which are pretty wide of the mark when it comes to discussing Lisbon per se. Shades of all three are to a certain extent an issue - but for someone to say 'vote yes and abortion/ conscription will be legalised' is simply untrue, but is nice and emotive like 'vote no and we will forever be in an economic depression'; which again is simply unture, but does touch on the fact that membership of the common market is more profitable for Ireland.

I am more concerned when elected representatives lie than NGOs.

In terms of it being (a slight, neccessary modification to the current system) I find in no measure slight, the neccesity is debateable, and it is not so much a modification as an overhaul (which generally precipitates a change of name)

As the name of the ECSC, EEC, etc. has continually grown shorter what will it next be called? Just Europe?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Frankly, if you don't know at this stage, you've got no excuse. A case of "if you don't know, why the ruddy hell not?", and "if you can't be arsed to find out, why the hell are you voting?".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Oh I agree, the information is there for those who want to read it and there is no excuse to have absolutely no knowledge of the treaty at this stage.

However, the thought that everyone will have read up on it and made their own mind up is an ideal that we, nor any other electorate, will ever realise.

On both sides, people will be going to the polls with little else than "FF/FG/Michael Jackson said vote Yes so I'm voting yes","SF say vote No so I'm voting Yes","Sf say vote No so I'm voting No"."Sarkozy will eat my babies if I vote Yes so I'm voting No","The EU will punish us with more recessions if we don't vote Yes, so I'm voting Yes" and so on.

The difference this time is that there will be much more hysteria, on both sides, those voting No will be angry that they have to do it again, those voting Yes will be terrified we'll be back to ploughing our own fields and living off the land if the EU pleasing result isn't obtained.

As I said, I'm just looking forward to it being behind us.

djpbarry wrote: »

If the question is not understood, then how can it possibly be concluded that a 'no' is "better" than a 'yes'?

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I think the 'logic' behind that is something like 'If we vote no, then nothing changes, if we vote yes we don't know what will happen, could be something bad!'

Well, at a guess.

Is that not true though? Or at least, in this particular situation?

However, it would not apply to a situation where someone/something was in a bad situation and voting yes would amend that situation positively, whilst voting no would leave the situation as is. A lot view Lisbon (unfortunatley) as the key to the end of the recession and their mentality reflects that of the latter mentioned, whilst in reality it's more similar to the former given that if we vote No, nothing really will change and the only, indirect, consequences is the possibility of an attitude change within the EU leadership/other members towards our country.