The 26 County Lisbon Treaty Poll

[INDIANA]

I agree on the 2nd vote issue but not on the others because again I don't see any real reasons there. You have to remember the No campaign started out saying it would harm our corp tax rate, neutrality etc. When you actually read the extracts of the Treaty you realise this is all bullshit.

Personally as a voter I'm interested in substantive issues- not the parliamentary clap trap. Because from I've read any change in our position on this is literally semantics rather than anything substantive.
I'd also like to point out I've never voted FF before and generally I vote the opposite to whatever they do.

[mylestheslasher]

This crap is one of the main reasons I am voting no. The "yes" side is not campaigning on the content of the treaty at all at the moment but is instead warning us not to "upset" the rest of europe or we'll be punished. Is that what democracy is coming to in Ireland now? Sickening to see labour spouting the same crap as FF & FG, clearly all of the Yes parties sat down and agreed that this was the way to campaign. I will not be bullied by anyone.

The 2nd reason I will vote no is because we have already voted and I think a re vote is a disgrace while not one word of the treaty has changed.

The 3rd reason I will vote no (and this is one  that very few bring up) a yes vote means there will never be a referendum on any european issue ever again as the terms of this treaty are so broad. All the referendums he have had on europe were decided by the supreme court as being neccessary some time ago as the resulted in a significant change to what we had agreed to previously. With a treaty so far reaching and vague it will be argued that future decisions will not need the people to vote.

Fair play for addressing your reasons/concerns. I'll give my opinion on them, if I may:

1. I think you'd want to be very soft skinned or biased to think you are being bullied into voting one way or the other. Both campaigns are trying to persuade voters as best they can, and both sides could be accused of going "below the belt" in certain aspects of their campaign. But nobody is forcing you to vote one way or another.Don;t agree there. Was listening to the radio the other day and the amount of people that voted no last time that were now voting yes due to the economic situation. I believe this is a direct result of people been threatened with the consequences of not playing ball with the bigwigs in europe

2. Its not exactly true to say we're voting on the same thing. The substance has been clarified/changed due to the guarantees given. Not 1 word of the treaty has been changed. We are not voting on the so called legally binding guaruntees but instead on an unchanged treaty

All the main polictical parties think Lisbon is good for Ireland, so a company called Millward Brown was commissioned to do a study/survey to find out why people voted no. 1600 No voters were surveyed as to why they voted No. who commissioned the survey, did they have a vested interest in the result?That gives a margin of error of less than 3% in terms of our electorate.

42% of no voters said they didn't understand the treaty. 26% voted no for reasons such as abortion, conscription etc. So on the basis of that, there's a huge chunk of the No vote that could potentially be swayed if they were better informed or the treaty tightened up.

So the government re-ran the referendum, in the hope of explaining it better. They also received legally binding guarantees from the European Council that nothing in the Lisbon Treaty affects :
- Right to Life, family and education
- Taxation
- Security and defence

So in many people's eyes, we are not voting on the same thing again.

3. Not quite true as I understand it.
Lisbon does introduce a new simpler method of amending the treaties in areas of the functioning of EU institutions (internal EU policy). This allows for individual amendments to be passed separately without the need to draft an entire new international treaty, which is very time consuming and expensive. The new procedure still requires the amendments to be ratified by each nation in accordance with their own laws. Because it does not need a new treaty, a referendum will not be required every time something changes - it will just need to be passed like almost every other law in Ireland, i.e. by the Dail.

However, (also like any other national law change), if the proposal is not compatible with our constitution then a referendum will be required.

A benefit of this is that rather than us voting on a huge plethora of changes at once, like in this and previous treaties, it will enable us to vote on individual treaty amendments.

The simplified revision procedure cannot be used to increase the competences of the EU - this would still require a entire new treaty (and a referendum).

To my knowledge this is not correct. Our supreme court was challenge a while ago on whether we needed a referendum on Nice I think. The precedent was set as yes as we were moving outside the bounds of previous agreements. However, since Lisbon is so far reaching and vague it will be almost impossible to argue that you are outside of the bounds of this agreement so basically we will not vote in a european referendum again. Instead we will have to rely on our politicians in the Dail to make these decisions. I'm not happy with that, especially since our voting powers in europe will be less than 1% + we'll have no veto and so uniquely Irish concerns will be steamrolled whatever way the big nations want

[magpie seanie]

Myles - I think your interpretation is correct and at the very least its prudent to read it that way considering the potential consequenes. When this issue is mentioned by the Referendum Commission notice how many times they say "may" and "could" and "possibly".

[magpie seanie]

I'm not sure either way but I certainly don't think the result will be reflective of the latest opinion polls. I expect it to be much tighter.

What lies has Ganley been telling? He actually knows his stuff and is one of the few who can speak with authority on the actual treaty and not introduce misty eyed, misleading rhetoric. Didn't vote for him in the Euro's cos some of his politics doesn't sit well with me but to me he has been the star turn of the campaign.

Speaking of misty eyed and misleading, have you seen Ganley's adverts with the young children who look close to tears?

I saw a poster alright and with all the hoo-haa about it I thought it was a picture of Maddie McCann but obviously its not. I don't think there is too much wrong with it but maybe I'm not PC enough. The ones I found most offensive were Pat the Cope Gallagher's. As if a picture of himself wasn't bad enough he has the following in big letters on it - "Y€S". For some reason that makes my blood boil. Wrong on so many levels.

[Hound]

I'm not sure either way but I certainly don't think the result will be reflective of the latest opinion polls. I expect it to be much tighter.

What lies has Ganley been telling? He actually knows his stuff and is one of the few who can speak with authority on the actual treaty and not introduce misty eyed, misleading rhetoric. Didn't vote for him in the Euro's cos some of his politics doesn't sit well with me but to me he has been the star turn of the campaign.

Speaking of misty eyed and misleading, have you seen Ganley's adverts with the young children who look close to tears?

I saw a poster alright and with all the hoo-haa about it I thought it was a picture of Maddie McCann but obviously its not. I don't think there is too much wrong with it but maybe I'm not PC enough. The ones I found most offensive were Pat the Cope Gallagher's. As if a picture of himself wasn't bad enough he has the following in big letters on it - "Y€S". For some reason that makes my blood boil. Wrong on so many levels.

They clearly tried to obtain Maddie lookalikes. Either way, I'm surprised you think they are perfectly fine.

[magpie seanie]

Sorry Hound, perhaps we have crossed wires. Now that you've explained that it seemed to you that they went for a Maddie McCann lookalike deliberately I can see why folk would be upset. I saw the likeness initially but thought nothing more of it when I got closer and saw it wasn't. On reflection you are probably right to be upset.

[Hound]

1. I think you'd want to be very soft skinned or biased to think you are being bullied into voting one way or the other. Both campaigns are trying to persuade voters as best they can, and both sides could be accused of going "below the belt" in certain aspects of their campaign. But nobody is forcing you to vote one way or another.Don;t agree there. Was listening to the radio the other day and the amount of people that voted no last time that were now voting yes due to the economic situation. I believe this is a direct result of people been threatened with the consequences of not playing ball with the bigwigs in europe

Fecks sake, its hardly a threat. People look at Iceland and say thank feck we're in the EU. Though I think that impact has lessened with time. Now one of the questions people look at is whether or not a Yes to Lisbon will help us get out of recession. Even ignoring all the stuff the politicians say, a very large majority of entreprenuers / job creators in the country think Yes to that. As do a majority of trade unions.

2. Its not exactly true to say we're voting on the same thing. The substance has been clarified/changed due to the guarantees given. Not 1 word of the treaty has been changed. We are not voting on the so called legally binding guaruntees but instead on an unchanged treaty

That's either missing the point or being disengenious. Regardless of the exact number, nobody can deny that a lot of people voted No the last time because they were very worried about particular perceived aspects, for example Right to Life, family and education, Taxation, Security and defence. We now have a legally binding guarantee that these will not be affected. Many people thought they were voting on these things in Lisbon I, now they know they are not for Lisbon II. Therefore the treaty has changed in perception for these people.
 

To my knowledge this is not correct. Our supreme court was challenge a while ago on whether we needed a referendum on Nice I think. The precedent was set as yes as we were moving outside the bounds of previous agreements. However, since Lisbon is so far reaching and vague it will be almost impossible to argue that you are outside of the bounds of this agreement so basically we will not vote in a european referendum again. Instead we will have to rely on our politicians in the Dail to make these decisions.

I can only repeat what I said earlier. We will have referendums for any new treaties in the future. However, there will be less treaties in the future due to Lisbon. From after Lisbon, new treaties will only be required when it is decided to increase the powers of the EU, and there will be a referedum in Ireland in such an event.

We rely on the politicians in the Dail to make almost all our legislation. That will now be the case with most amendments to EU law. However, if there is anything in such changes that does not fit in with our constitution then we are obliged to hold a referedum on that specific point. A fair better system in my view.

[mylestheslasher]

1. I think you'd want to be very soft skinned or biased to think you are being bullied into voting one way or the other. Both campaigns are trying to persuade voters as best they can, and both sides could be accused of going "below the belt" in certain aspects of their campaign. But nobody is forcing you to vote one way or another.Don;t agree there. Was listening to the radio the other day and the amount of people that voted no last time that were now voting yes due to the economic situation. I believe this is a direct result of people been threatened with the consequences of not playing ball with the bigwigs in europe

Fecks sake, its hardly a threat. People look at Iceland and say thank feck we're in the EU. Though I think that impact has lessened with time. Now one of the questions people look at is whether or not a Yes to Lisbon will help us get out of recession. Even ignoring all the stuff the politicians say, a very large majority of entreprenuers / job creators in the country think Yes to that. As do a majority of trade unions.

2. Its not exactly true to say we're voting on the same thing. The substance has been clarified/changed due to the guarantees given. Not 1 word of the treaty has been changed. We are not voting on the so called legally binding guaruntees but instead on an unchanged treaty

That's either missing the point or being disengenious. Regardless of the exact number, nobody can deny that a lot of people voted No the last time because they were very worried about particular perceived aspects, for example Right to Life, family and education, Taxation, Security and defence. We now have a legally binding guarantee that these will not be affected. Many people thought they were voting on these things in Lisbon I, now they know they are not for Lisbon II. Therefore the treaty has changed in perception for these people.
 

To my knowledge this is not correct. Our supreme court was challenge a while ago on whether we needed a referendum on Nice I think. The precedent was set as yes as we were moving outside the bounds of previous agreements. However, since Lisbon is so far reaching and vague it will be almost impossible to argue that you are outside of the bounds of this agreement so basically we will not vote in a european referendum again. Instead we will have to rely on our politicians in the Dail to make these decisions.

I can only repeat what I said earlier. We will have referendums for any new treaties in the future. However, there will be less treaties in the future due to Lisbon. From after Lisbon, new treaties will only be required when it is decided to increase the powers of the EU, and there will be a referedum in Ireland in such an event.

We rely on the politicians in the Dail to make almost all our legislation. That will now be the case with most amendments to EU law. However, if there is anything in such changes that does not fit in with our constitution then we are obliged to hold a referedum on that specific point. A fair better system in my view.

We'll have to agree to disagree on pts 1 & 2 but I can assure you that you are plain wrong on the last point. Find me a quote from anyone on the yes side that says otherwise.

[Hound]

Sorry Hound, perhaps we have crossed wires. Now that you've explained that it seemed to you that they went for a Maddie McCann lookalike deliberately I can see why folk would be upset. I saw the likeness initially but thought nothing more of it when I got closer and saw it wasn't. On reflection you are probably right to be upset.

I do personally fully believe they deliberately went for a Maddie lookalike.

But even if you accept that any resemblance is purely coincidental, putting up posters of a young child who looks close to tears, is way beyond the bounds of acceptable practice in my view. It might not impact too much on adults who are generally wise enough to see the ploy, but I know it does impact on some children.

[Hound]

We'll have to agree to disagree on pts 1 & 2 but I can assure you that you are plain wrong on the last point. Find me a quote from anyone on the yes side that says otherwise.

This is from the extended guide to the Lisbon treaty as produced by the Referendum Commission:
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/
(where is can be dowloaded)

"The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties, although this proposed power is quite limited. Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers (see page 27). In addition, any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council, meaning that any one member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present. "

My reading of this is that a referenudum will be required in the following events:
- Something is proposed that increases the competence/scope of the EU (because in such case you are not allowed to amend a treaty, you must bring in a new one).
- Any single amendment to the treaty is beyond the scope of our constitution, therefore a referednum is required for that aspect (presumably this will be the decision of the Attorney General, but subject to appeal by anyone to the Supreme Court).

[magpie seanie]

Point taken Hound. As I said I didn't pay it much attention myself.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

All Southerners and Nordies with a vote get down and vote, Yes or No its your democratic and moral obligation to vote. Vote YES or NO, I encourage Yes but lets vote folks.

[Zapatista]

"The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties, although this proposed power is quite limited. Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers (see page 27). In addition, any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council, meaning that any one member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present. "

My reading of this is that a referenudum will be required in the following events:
- Something is proposed that increases the competence/scope of the EU (because in such case you are not allowed to amend a treaty, you must bring in a new one).
- Any single amendment to the treaty is beyond the scope of our constitution, therefore a referednum is required for that aspect (presumably this will be the decision of the Attorney General, but subject to appeal by anyone to the Supreme Court).

Both highlighted comments are different.


Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers

This is brilliant. There would be no need for them to increase the 'scope of powers' as they will already have everything they need due to Lisbon. Lisbon allows the EU to act like a state so they would already have the power to do what they want. You can't increase the scope of something that can do whatever it wants to do,

[mylestheslasher]

"The Lisbon Treaty now proposes to give the European Council (Heads of Government) the power to propose changes to certain parts of the governing Treaties, although this proposed power is quite limited. Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers (see page 27). In addition, any such proposals must be agreed unanimously by the European Council, meaning that any one member state may veto such a proposal. If the European Council does agree a proposed change, then in order for it to come into effect, it must be ratified by the member states in accordance with their own constitutional requirements. This may require a referendum in Ireland as happens at present. "

My reading of this is that a referenudum will be required in the following events:
- Something is proposed that increases the competence/scope of the EU (because in such case you are not allowed to amend a treaty, you must bring in a new one).
- Any single amendment to the treaty is beyond the scope of our constitution, therefore a referednum is required for that aspect (presumably this will be the decision of the Attorney General, but subject to appeal by anyone to the Supreme Court).

Both highlighted comments are different.


Any such change cannot increase the competence of the EU – the scope of its powers

This is brilliant. There would be no need for them to increase the 'scope of powers' as they will already have everything they need due to Lisbon. Lisbon allows the EU to act like a state so they would already have the power to do what they want. You can't increase the scope of something that can do whatever it wants to do,

100% correct and time will prove this. Say bye bye to a vote on any major european event, we'll be like every other country now that is making decisions in their parliment even though the majority of people in those countries are not in favour.

[Zapatista]

The Butcher of Baghdad is President elect!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6857807.ece

Nice to see he only needs the support of France and Germany.

So the Presidency will be with the Brits supported by the French and the Germans? What lunatic said the big countries would have more influence?