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

Scofflaw · 28-08-2009 01:38AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Being branded "euroskeptic" is akin to being branded as completely anti-Europe.

What you fail to accept, Oscar, is that there are a lot of people who are ok with the concept of the EU and the transfer of some sovereignty to make it work - but think that the empowering of the EU has gone far enough and should now be stopped.

I don't think anyone fails to accept that - it's a question of how you define 'some' that's important. Also, it doesn't apply to Freeborn John, because he doesn't accept the 'some'.

I know it's an obvious thing to do, by the way, to claim that one's own view has majority or even widespread support, but evidence really is required. There's precious little evidence being presented here that a sizeable minority (never mind a majority) of people feel that EU integration has "gone far enough". When it shows up on the radar at all, it's usually in the single digits.

According to the EU Commission's polling 12% of Irish voted NO "to protect Irish identity", 5% were "against the idea of a unified Europe", 4% "to avoid that the EU speaks with one voice on global issues", 4% "because large Member States decide on EU matters", 3% "to protect the influence of small states". That is 30% right away and numerous other reasons, e.g. protecting Irish neutrality (6%) or tax system (6%) can also be viewed as a desire for self-government.

You should read the context. Those figures apply to "all reasons given", and most No voters gave several reasons:

In order to explore and understand the variety of reasons offered by respondents as explanations for why they cast their vote in a certain way, we focus in this section on the relative weight of each reason within all of the different explanations offered by the respondents. In other words, the percentages in the following charts and tables represent the proportion of the total number of reasons mentioned and not a proportion of the number of respondents in the survey.

You can't add them, I'm afraid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 28-08-2009 01:49AM

freyners wrote: »

intially was adamanty against the treaty but very undecided now
i have read the treaty twice and i have no problems and can see the benefits for most of the treaty. some of it is pure and utter crrap but mostly its a gud doc
however, i have a sticking point.
1.)article 311, which gives the eu power to implement a eu wide levy to fund itself. Considering the amount im forkin out in tax at the moment( while still a student) its a bad point. However im unsure was this covered in the guarentees or is it still there?

The member states fund the EU (out of a VAT levy, largely), so they decide what funding it gets. The article text makes it pretty clear who the paymasters are:

The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies. Without prejudice to other revenue, the budget shall be financed wholly from own resources. The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament adopt a decision laying down the provisions relating to the system of own resources of the Union. In this context it may establish new categories of own resources or abolish an existing category. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall lay down implementing measures for the Union's own resources system in so far as this is provided for in the decision adopted on the basis of the third paragraph. The Council shall act after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

Notice the complete absence of the Commission - this is purely a matter for the Council of Ministers (ie the national governments) and national parliaments, with a nod to the European Parliament. The various Finance Ministers have to agree it unanimously, after which they have to get the agreement of their respective national parliaments.

As marco_polo points out, the article is very similar to the existing Nice one. In fact, the power to give the EU new funding sources already exists (obviously), the article just makes it explicit.

You probably will be called on to pay extra taxes in the near future, but they won't be going to the EU. Mind you, given we're still net beneficiaries, it might not be a bad thing if the EU did get a larger budget.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View · 28-08-2009 08:43AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Being branded "euroskeptic" is akin to being branded as completely anti-Europe.

What you fail to accept, Oscar, is that there are a lot of people who are ok with the concept of the EU and the transfer of some sovereignty to make it work - but think that the empowering of the EU has gone far enough and should now be stopped.

These "some people" are called Eurosceptics. The EU has specific objectives which the member states choose for it. They include the overall goal of "an ever closer union" and the objective of defending the existings EU laws and building upon them (i.e. having treaties like Lisbon etc).

Obviously if you don't agree with the EU's goal or its objectives than you are not pro-EU - in other words you fall somewhere on the Eurosceptic spectrum.

Trying to claim to be pro-EU and fundamentally opposed to its objectives is a contradiction in terms - it would be akin to someone in Ireland circa 1910 saying they were in favour of Irish independence while being opposed to the concept of an (independent) Irish Parliament, Government and Judical system.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 10:54AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On what basis do you hold that there is an EU legitimacy crisis?

Having difficulty reading my last 10 posts? EU referendums have been lost in 7 affluent West European countries over the last decade. The results of those referendums are not assertions. They are clear evidence of a widening and deepening EU legitimacy crisis that is spreading throughout Europe. No serious commentators denies it. Not even the EU Commission deny it, with Barosso calling instead for improved EU delivery to counter it.

The assertions are from those who deny there is a growing EU legitimacy problem, and have no alternative explantion to explain why so many referendums have been defeated, or why (as Charlie McCreevy has said), '95% of countries' would reject Lisbon now.

P. Breathnach · 28-08-2009 11:08AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Having difficulty reading my last 10 posts?

I have difficulty in reading all of your posts. Partly because of the content, but mainly because of the tone, which veers towards the insulting.

EU referendums have been lost in 7 affluent West European countries over the last decade. The results of those referendums are not assertions. They are clear evidence of a widening and deepening EU legitimacy crisis that is spreading throughout Europe.

No, that is not evidence of a legitimacy crisis. Events like that are more like bumps on the road.

No serious commentators denies it. Not even the EU Commission deny it, with Barosso calling instead for improved EU delivery to counter it.

I don't see any serious commentators saying that there is a legitimacy crisis.

The assertions are from those who deny there is a growing EU legitimacy problem, and have no alternative explantion to explain why so many referendums have been defeated, or why (as Charlie McCreevy has said), '95% of countries' would reject Lisbon now.

Charlie McCreevy might have a legitimacy crisis.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 11:21AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

You should read the context. Those figures apply to "all reasons given", and most No voters gave several reasons:

Quote:
In order to explore and understand the variety of reasons offered by respondents as explanations for why they cast their vote in a certain way, we focus in this section on the relative weight of each reason within all of the different explanations offered by the respondents. In other words, the percentages in the following charts and tables represent the proportion of the total number of reasons mentioned and not a proportion of the number of respondents in the survey.
You can't add them, I'm afraid.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If you add up all the percentage figures below they come to 100% suggesting that they can be added up.

These are the reasons given for voting NO, most of which (after stripping out the Don't Knows and Others) amount to wanting 'less Europe'.

Because I do not know enough about the Treaty and would not want to vote for something I am not familiar with 22%
To protect Irish identity 12%
To safeguard Irish neutrality in security and defence matters 6%
I do not trust our politicians 6%
We will lose our right to have an Irish Commissioner in every Commission 6%
To protect our tax system 6%
I am against the idea of a unified Europe 5%
To protest against the government's policies 4%
To avoid that the EU speaks with one voice on global issues 4%
Because large Member States decide on EU matters 4%
To protect the influence of small states 3%
It would allow the introduction of European legislation in Ireland, such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia 2%
To avoid an influx of immigrants 1%
The EU does not need any fixing, it works fine 1%
Other 14%
DK/NA 3

Once again we see that the YES side on this forum is reduced to denying facts and making up quotes that do not appear in the EU Commission's post referendum survey.

Thraktor · 28-08-2009 11:22AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Having difficulty reading my last 10 posts? EU referendums have been lost in 7 affluent West European countries over the last decade. The results of those referendums are not assertions. They are clear evidence of a widening and deepening EU legitimacy crisis that is spreading throughout Europe. No serious commentators denies it. Not even the EU Commission deny it, with Barosso calling instead for improved EU delivery to counter it.

On my count, you have been asked at least three times in this thread why you choose to ignore the many referenda that were passed on EU related topics. You still haven't answered.

Thraktor · 28-08-2009 11:28AM

Freeborn John wrote: »

If you add up all the percentage figures below they come to 100% suggesting that they can be added up.

Em, the reason they add up to 100% is that "the percentages in the following charts and tables represent the proportion of the total number of reasons mentioned", as already pointed out by Scofflaw. Proportions of a total should always add up to 100%, or else there's someone with very poor maths working in the polling company.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 11:38AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't see any serious commentators saying that there is a legitimacy crisis./quote]

You are not looking though are you? Google has 187000 hits for "EU legitimacy" crisis so i suggest you start there. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of books, academic papers, and conferences on the topic. The explanation i have given before for the growing EU legitimacy problem is based on a reading of the best-known academics working in that field.

If i believed the yes-men on here were interested in understanding the problem, and why Lisbon would make it worse, i would point to these sources (again). But it seems very much that you are only interested in sticking your fingers in your ears and over your eyes and saying 'i see no problem' so it would be wasted on you.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 11:46AM

Thraktor wrote: »

On my count, you have been asked at least three times in this thread why you choose to ignore the many referenda that were passed on EU related topics. You still haven't answered.

I do not ignore them. However the votes in other countries only indicate consent in those countries for EU power over those people.

Generally only poor countries vote for the EU on the grounds they will profit from Brussels subsidies. There have only been two referendums in Western European countries in the last decade when people voted YES to an EU measure without having voted against it and forced to vote again. They were the referendums in Spain and Luxembourg on the EU Constitution. The prime minster of Luxembourg threatened to resign unless it was carried, turning it into a vote of NO confidence in the government. The Spanish apparently voted YES to show thanks for all the EU money they had got in the past without it ever being explained to them that the EU Constitution (and now Lisbon) is about an undemocratic political union that will reduce the arena within which their votes can influence the law and policy they live under towards vanishing point in the long-run.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 11:53AM

Thraktor wrote: »

the reason they add up to 100% is that "the percentages in the following charts and tables represent the proportion of the total number of reasons mentioned", as already pointed out by Scofflaw.

Another quote which does not appear in the EU Commission post-referendum survey of Ireland. The bottom line is that scofflaw was wrong to say only 12% of NO voters objected to Lisbon on the grounds that it results in more political integration.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 12:00PM

View wrote: »

These "some people" are called Eurosceptics...

You are confusing the EU and Europe. It is good for all the peoples of Europe to have nation-states and as little undemocratic decision-making in Brussels as necessary. What we have instead is a drive by the politicians to have as much undemocratic decision-making in Brussels as they can get away with. They like the EU because it allows them to take decisions without accountability, which will remain binding on future governments and voters after they have left office. But real voters should always prefer decision-making in the representative institutions of the nation-state such that we can elect new government able to reverse whatever past governments have done.

Scofflaw · 28-08-2009 12:27PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Another quote which does not appear in the EU Commission post-referendum survey of Ireland. The bottom line is that scofflaw was wrong to say only 12% of NO voters objected to Lisbon on the grounds that it results in more political integration.

Rather than adding up percentages, I merely pointed out that your opinion is in a minority. That's entirely reasonable to point out, even if you find it annoying. You can't add the 12% to the 5% because each voter could give multiple reasons, which means that the 5% could be a subset of the 12%.

Those numbers, in turn, are a subset of those that voted No (53%), who are, in turn, a subset of the electorate (53%). That makes that 12% actually represent maybe 3.4% of the electorate. If that's not a minority, the word clearly has a completely different definition from the one in daily use.

Inconvenient things, facts.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 28-08-2009 12:29PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

You are confusing the EU and Europe. It is good for all the peoples of Europe to have nation-states and as little undemocratic decision-making in Brussels as necessary. What we have instead is a drive by the politicians to have as much undemocratic decision-making in Brussels as they can get away with. They like the EU because it allows them to take decisions without accountability, which will remain binding on future governments and voters after they have left office. But real voters should always prefer decision-making in the representative institutions of the nation-state such that we can elect new government able to reverse whatever past governments have done.

Decisions made at a European level by the governments of the member states can be reversed by future governments of the member states, but only at the European level. That does make European legislation harder to shift than national legislation - but then it's a good deal harder to make it in the first place. However, it's certainly not impossible to reverse it.

regards,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach · 28-08-2009 12:40PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

You are not looking though are you? Google has 187000 hits for "EU legitimacy" crisis so i suggest you start there...

I googled the more obvious "eu legitimacy crisis" and the count fell to 230 -- with several of those being your posts. That's not sufficient basis for holding that the existence of an EU legitimacy crisis is an established idea.

marco_polo · 28-08-2009 12:50PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I googled the more obvious "eu legitimacy crisis" and the count fell to 230 -- with several of those being your posts. That's not sufficient basis for holding that the existence of an EU legitimacy crisis is an established idea.

It was not even "eu legitimacy" crisis but simply eu legitimacy crisis without quotes that generates 186,000.

Interestingly the phrase: Eu democracy is great gets 9,200,000 hits under the no quotes rule.

So I guess that settles the matter then.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 12:52PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Rather than adding up percentages, I merely pointed out that your opinion is in a minority. That's entirely reasonable to point out, even if you find it annoying. You can't add the 12% to the 5% because each voter could give multiple reasons, which means that the 5% could be a subset of the 12%.

Those numbers, in turn, are a subset of those that voted No (53%), who are, in turn, a subset of the electorate (53%). That makes that 12% actually represent maybe 3.4% of the electorate. If that's not a minority, the word clearly has a completely different definition from the one in daily use.

Inconvenient things, facts.

regards,
Scofflaw

Inconvenient for you clearly. It is beyond the realms of fantasy that 12% of NO voters did so for half a dozen 'less Europe' reasons with the remaining 88% doing it for other reasons mentioned by only 41% of survey respondents.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 01:05PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I googled the more obvious "eu legitimacy crisis" and the count fell to 230 -- with several of those being your posts. That's not sufficient basis for holding that the existence of an EU legitimacy crisis is an established idea.

There is clearly a widespread disconnect between support for the EU from politicians and popular discontent with its direction of travel as evidenced by the lost referendums in Ireland, France, the Netherlands (on Lisbon / EU Constitution), Switzerland and Norway (on EU membership) and Denmark and Sweden (on Euro membership). There has to be an explanation for so many defeated referendums on measures supported by the entire political and media establishment in many countries. I have made that explanation earlier in this thread, based on the readings of the foremost academics working in the field, and the response of yesmen here is to resort to improbable maths and denial of the facts.

Even barroso does not deny the EU legitimacy problem seeking to combat it in other ways. boards.ie is unique in my experience in that the yes-men cannot even begin to argue the pro-EU case but instead immediately scurry behind a denial of facts.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 01:26PM

The reason that the yes-men deny the facts, is that to admit that the approach followed since Maastricht (i.e. greater use of QMV, in more politically sensitive policy fields, with reduced blocked thresholds, and with more powers for the EU Parliament) has led to the current EU legitimacy problem, would be to admit that Lisbon would only make that problem worse.

When policies that have been pursued for 20-30 years have failed to correct the EU democratic deficit, it is lunacy to try to push on with them regardless. Yet that is exactly what Lisbon does and what the yes-men here are advocating. Lisbon is a treaty establishing an undemocratic political union, being ratified by undemocratic means.

On boards.ie there is an astonishly low level of debate (e.g. compared to politics.ie) with pro-EU supporters immediately resorting to bizarre debating techniqies of asking questions (often ones they asked before) of the other side, calling facts (like referendum results) 'assertions', saying that the basics of democracy (like people voting on the question that appears on the ballot paper) is a 'presumption, etc. and generally doing everything but debate the real issues. Anyone seeking understanding here has come to the wrong place, because the whole aim of the YES supporters is to obscure the issues. They have no explantion for the major trend facing Brussels (which is the delegitmisation of 'ever closer union') and no solution other than to plough ahead regardless by ratifying Lisbon despite the clear evidence that it is not wanted by the peoples of Europe.

marco_polo · 28-08-2009 02:06PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

The reason that the yes-men deny the facts, is that to admit that the approach followed since Maastricht (i.e. greater use of QMV, in more politically sensitive policy fields, with reduced blocked thresholds, and with more powers for the EU Parliament) has led to the current EU legitimacy problem, would be to admit that Lisbon would only make that problem worse.

When policies that have been pursued for 20-30 years have failed to correct the EU democratic deficit, it is lunacy to try to push on with them regardless. Yet that is exactly what Lisbon does and what the yes-men here are advocating. Lisbon is a treaty establishing an undemocratic political union, being ratified by undemocratic means.

On boards.ie there is an astonishly low level of debate (e.g. compared to politics.ie) with pro-EU supporters immediately resorting to bizarre debating techniqies of asking questions (often ones they asked before) of the other side, calling facts (like referendum results) 'assertions', saying that the basics of democracy (like people voting on the question that appears on the ballot paper) is a 'presumption, etc. and generally doing everything but debate the real issues. Anyone seeking understanding here has come to the wrong place, because the whole aim of the YES supporters is to obscure the issues. They have no explantion for the major trend facing Brussels (which is the delegitmisation of 'ever closer union') and no solution other than to plough ahead regardless by ratifying Lisbon despite the clear evidence that it is not wanted by the peoples of Europe.

I can understand why questions would seem bizzare debating technique coming from a environment where there is a culture of silence in the No camp when facts are sought to backup wild assertions.

DrumSteve · 28-08-2009 02:26PM

I voted no the last time.

I will vote no this time.

I am voting no because the are not respecting my first vote.

I am not voting against the government due to their ineptness, Though they are inept.If everyone voted yes would they put it to us again? I think not.

We might only be a small nation but we should not be bullied into this.

ei.sdraob · 28-08-2009 02:38PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

I voted no the last time.

I will vote no this time.

I am voting no because the are not respecting my first vote.

I am not voting against the government due to their ineptness, Though they are inept.If everyone voted yes would they put it to us again? I think not.

We might only be a small nation but we should not be bullied into this.

why did you vote no the first time?

DrumSteve · 28-08-2009 02:42PM

ei.sdraob wrote: »

why did you vote no the first time?

I'd didnt feel comfortable with the content of the treaty. btw I didnt think I was gonna end up conscribed or the EU was going to eat my babies. Granted I have a better knowledge of it this time which has assuaged some of my fears about it. But I voted the first time about this and I dont understand why I need to vote again?

marco_polo · 28-08-2009 02:53PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

I'd didnt feel comfortable with the content of the treaty. btw I didnt think I was gonna end up conscribed or the EU was going to eat my babies. Granted I have a better knowledge of it this time which has assuaged some of my fears about it. But I voted the first time about this and I dont understand why I need to vote again?

Because with a better knowledge and clarifications people hopefully people will be in a better position to make a fair and proper judgement on the treaty. It at least appears that this time around people hae a better idea of what the treaty says and what it doesn't. I really do not see the harm in clarifying a few issues and then asking people to have another look at some 8 years of negotiations before throwing it in the bin for good.

You acknowledge that you have a fuller grasp of the issues this time around, and fair enough if you still feel that a no vote what is best then there is nothing wrong with that.

DrumSteve · 28-08-2009 03:00PM

marco_polo wrote: »

Because with a better knowledge and clarifications people hopefully people will be in a better position to make a fair and proper judgement on the treaty. It at least appears that this time around people hae a better idea of what the treaty says and what it doesn't. I really do not see the harm in clarifying a few issues and then asking people to have another look at some 8 years of negotiations before throwing it in the bin for good.

You acknowledge that you have a fuller grasp of the issues this time around, and fair enough if you still feel that a no vote what is best then there is nothing wrong with that.

i find it best to vote no this time because if we vote yes then it sets a precendent. basically just keep putting the same thing to us and we vote the way they want eventually?

Funny thing is if I had of had all of this information the first time ( and the government actually bothered to explain it to me correctly rather than just saying,"ah the no side are a bunch of cranks, listen to us we know whats best." when they clearly are a bunch of idiots) I would have voted Yes.

Scofflaw · 28-08-2009 03:08PM

Freeborn John wrote: »

Inconvenient for you clearly. It is beyond the realms of fantasy that 12% of NO voters did so for half a dozen 'less Europe' reasons with the remaining 88% doing it for other reasons mentioned by only 41% of survey respondents.

If you don't understand the arithmetic, you should probably stay away from it, really. Your opinion really is a minority one (as, I suspect, is mine) - just get used to it.

amused,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 28-08-2009 03:11PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

i find it best to vote no this time because if we vote yes then it sets a precendent. basically just keep putting the same thing to us and we vote the way they want eventually?

Funny thing is if I had of had all of this information the first time ( and the government actually bothered to explain it to me correctly rather than just saying,"ah the no side are a bunch of cranks, listen to us we know whats best." when they clearly are a bunch of idiots) I would have voted Yes.

I'm rather hoping that it sets a precedent of "in order to get a Yes you need to explain the Treaty fully". Mind you, I was hoping that Nice had set that precedent, and it didn't. Admittedly, the government's information campaign for Lisbon 1 wasn't actually quite as appalling as their 'campaign' for Nice 1, but it was still pretty risible.

Still, I'm sure the government will eventually come to understand that only full disclosure of the Treaty is acceptable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DrumSteve · 28-08-2009 03:15PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm rather hoping that it sets a precedent of "in order to get a Yes you need to explain the Treaty fully". Mind you, I was hoping that Nice had set that precedent, and it didn't. Admittedly, the government's information campaign for Lisbon 1 wasn't actually quite as appalling as their 'campaign' for Nice 1, but it was still pretty risible.

Still, I'm sure the government will eventually come to understand that only full disclosure of the Treaty is acceptable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It is unfortunate that they didnt do that the first time or else we might not be facing this current situation.

Freeborn John · 28-08-2009 03:22PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you don't understand the arithmetic, you should probably stay away from it, really. Your opinion really is a minority one (as, I suspect, is mine) - just get used to it.

amused,
Scofflaw

The sole point of your duff maths is to mislead. 'Integration by stealth' is always about deceit and has been since the 1950s.

Again, the issue is not my opinion, but the majority opinion. The 7 defeated EU referendums in different counties in the last decade are not my opinion, but established facts that indicate the EU increasingly fails to win popular consent (i.e. majority support) for its powers. The forced re-vote in Ireland and the deceit of canceling or ignoring those in other countries can only further increase distrust in the EU and contribue to the ongoing de-legitimisation of Monnet's project.

marco_polo · 28-08-2009 03:24PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

i find it best to vote no this time because if we vote yes then it sets a precendent. basically just keep putting the same thing to us and we vote the way they want eventually?

Funny thing is if I had of had all of this information the first time ( and the government actually bothered to explain it to me correctly rather than just saying,"ah the no side are a bunch of cranks, listen to us we know whats best." when they clearly are a bunch of idiots) I would have voted Yes.

Well I certainly woun't be doing any cheerleading for FF anyway the last referendum was a disaster by the yes campaigners.

There is already somewhat precedent in Nice II and enough people were assured by the Seville Declaration on our neurality to accept it on that occasion. The first defeat was also a largely a result of poor campaign might I add.

No treaty has every been reject twice by the same country before, so there is an element of uncharted waters ahead if that happened. The only thing certain is that Lisbon would be dead. Whichever way the vote goes we won't have to do this again.

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

Comments