Lisbon Treaty

[Macy]

Leave aside whether the result was a good thing or not, a significant percentage of the population didn't understand what they were voting on.

Both Yes and No voters though, which is often over looked. Could turn out ill informed Yes voters could switch too

[mypost]

Absolute ******** and confirmed as such in multiple polls since.

So the polls are gospel then?? If so, how come all the polls suggested a Yes victory, until a week before the vote??

Leave aside whether the result was a good thing or not, a significant percentage of the population didn't understand what they were voting on.

Put it this way, if they did understand what they were voting on then a second referendum should hold no fear for the No camp, it would surely only reinforce the decision. Why in that case are you arguing vehemently against a second vote? Fear that the main parties will get their act together and sell it better this time?

In the poll/research that the government are treating as the definitive reasons behind the vote, only 18% of the 46% Yes voters stated they knew what they were voting on. The other 28% voted Yes, because a) they also didn't understand what they were voting on, and b) the government (and mainstream media) told them to.

The main reason why No voters didn't understand the Treaty, was that despite the info from websites, the canvassing, and the leaflets, the government didn't explain what it was about. Why? Because a) they couldn't and b) they didn't want to.

Secondly, you're a Euro-sceptic. Your posts are not just anti-Lisbon, they are anti-EU, yet you won't even admit this.

More blx.

I am in favour of EU integration, (currency, trade, new members, etc) but not EU political union. The EU that Brussels wants, is very different to what the majority of the people they "represent" want, but they're willing to ignore the will of their own voters. That is not democratic, and therefore I can't support it.

[OneRedArmy]

If there's anything undemocratic its a situation whereby everybody "gets a turn" at Governing regardless of relative population, one man one vote etc.

Thats generally known as gerrymandering.

[mypost]

It's called sharing power, something that politicians here, and in NI, should be used to.

If there was a nuclear terrorist attack on France/Germany/UK tomorrow, resulting in mass evacuations among the population, those countries may not have the biggest populations in the EU anymore, but under Lisbon, it would be seen that way. Which shows the uselessness of governing by population size.

Berlusconi made comments last week, seen as "racist" by some towards the new American President. If he was EU President and representing the views of all member states, we yes Ireland, would have to face the fallout of such comments for up to 5 years, instead of the current system where a new President can clean up the diplomatic breakdown after 6 months. His EU Presidency in 2003 was disasterous, but within 6 months, Bertie had cleaned up the damage. That's the benefit of the current system.

[Angus]

I take your point and my response was slightly in jest, but its hard to argue that Ganley made the biggest impact in the campaign and undoubtedly swung the vote.

post hoc ergo propter hoc

From the Latin which means just becasue it followed it doesn't mean it caused it.

I kknow exaclty where you are coming from and you are right but as a wider point, we really should move away from the idea that we should vote , or did vote, a particular way because of a campaign or becasue of who it will please / annoy.

I have voted for things in the past where my fellow travelleres were among the most despicable people - this is in the nature of things and unfortunately is a major flaw of our system.

We get to decide in soundbites and opposed to in prose - we cannot deliver nuance - we are asked to give a yes or no answer pretty much consistently which provides for awkward bedfellows....

[Bald Student]

If there was a nuclear terrorist attack on France/Germany/UK tomorrow, resulting in mass evacuations among the population, those countries may not have the biggest populations in the EU anymore, but under Lisbon, it would be seen that way. Which shows the uselessness of governing by population size.

That's a good point.

[OneRedArmy]

post hoc ergo propter hoc

From the Latin which means just becasue it followed it doesn't mean it caused it.

Also the title of the second episode of the first series of the West Wing.

[pete]

Ganley has no actual convictions. For some unknown reason he was opposed to Lisbon & doubt we will ever find out why. The fact that he has aligned himself with any anti EU or Lisbon group shows this.

[mypost]

Ganley has no actual convictions. For some unknown reason he was opposed to Lisbon & doubt we will ever find out why.

It's public knowledge what his reason was for opposing Lisbon. I've already stated it once today.

[pete]

It's public knowledge what his reason was for opposing Lisbon. I've already stated it once today.

Why has he aligned himself with every anti-EU group you can think of. He wasn't even willing to distance himself from lies of some Irish groups.

[Student Mullet]

Why has he aligned himself with every anti-EU group you can think of. He wasn't even willing to distance himself from lies of some Irish groups.

Sure, he was telling some of the lies himself.

I remember John McCain had a line during the election, "We went to change Washington but we let Washington change us.". Libertas didn't seem to need to go through a conversion process, they arrived pre-packaged with all the worst elements of politics from dodgey claims to dodgey finances.

[mypost]

The pro-treaty camp, both here and abroad, told their own version of lies. And as for their finances, there's a fair bit of that too.

Why has he aligned himself with every anti-EU group you can think of.

He wants to defeat the Treaty, it's mainly Euro-sceptic groups that are anti-Treaty. From the Tories in Britain to the Northern League in Italy. This treaty is a politician's dream charter, so 90% of them across Europe want it, even if citizens hate it, and it has been rejected by 3 electorates.

What they mean by "efficiency", they actually mean dictatorship. The ex-Russian countries promised to be "strong", "united", and "efficient" too from the end of WWII. The fact that all the "strong, united voice" and "efficiency" bullsht, led to the economic collapse of their country, and the impoverishment of the people didn't matter to them. They didn't care how it affected their electorates then, and they don't care how it affects them now. They want it, and they're willing to stamp over the wishes of their own people to get it. Well, we'll tell them that they can't and they won't.

[mypost]

Wallstrom was in town last night for an interview with Ursula Halligan. It was supposed to include a webchat Q&A part.

Halligan is a poor interviewer, and it was 20 minutes in before anything serious was discussed. 20 minutes later, questions were invited from the floor.

There were no questions taken from the web.

[SMorgan]

There was a responsibility on both sides of the debate to make the issues clear and ensure that people knew what they were voting on. Both sides misrepresented their cases and in such situations the opposing side should have gained an advantage by outlining the actual situation. What if the No side win the next vote? Will you be back looking for another vote with the silly argument that if the No side feel they have the support of the nation then they shouldn't be opposed to a new poll. With that line of thinking we'd be voting every six months on the issue until you get the result you want, then of course it will be the end of the matter. Ireland exercised its right to have a referendum on the issue and after a full debate the nation voted No. Why can you not accept the decision?

[OneRedArmy]

Ireland exercised its right to have a referendum on the issue and after a full debate the nation voted No. Why can you not accept the decision?

There wasn't a full debate.

Thats exactly the point.

[mypost]

Ireland exercised its right to have a referendum on the issue and after a full debate the nation voted No. Why can you not accept the decision?

We didn't have a right to have a referendum, it was mandatory under our constitution, but the federalists were never going to accept the result. They wanted to deny us a referendum like everywhere else, never mind accept the No answer.

[Student Mullet]

We didn't have a right to have a referendum, it was mandatory under our constitution, but the federalists were never going to accept the result. They wanted to deny us a referendum like everywhere else, never mind accept the No answer.

Libertas are federalists and have accepted the result. From what I can tell the people who are most annoyed are those who want to keep the power with the national governments and away from federally elected elected politicians.

[mypost]

Libertas are democrats, and fought the ref on that basis. There are many references to the level of democracy in the EU, on their site.

Those who are annoyed with the result are the reverse of who you state.

[Student Mullet]

Libertas are democrats, and fought the ref on that basis. There are many references to the level of democracy in the EU, on their site.

Democrats and federalists aren't opposites of each other, it's possible to be both.

[mypost]

Democrats and federalists aren't opposites of each other, it's possible to be both.

On this specific issue, they are.

The democrats want the politicians to be held accountable at the ballot box, the federalists want to govern without having to be accountable for their decisions.