Two-thirds of Irish voters undecided on Lisbon Treaty

[SHAM]

From the Irish Times.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2008/0126/1201301248063.html


The number of people who don't know how they will vote in the forthcoming EU referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has risen for the third successive time and now accounts for almost two-thirds of the electorate, according to the latest Irish Times /TNS mrbi poll. Stephen Collins , Political Editor, reports.

The poll shows that the number of people in the Don't Know category has risen by two points to 64 per cent, compared with the last Irish Times poll in October 2007.

Support for the Yes side has increased by one point to 26 per cent, while the number intending to vote No has declined by three points to 10 per cent.

The pattern over polls going back almost three years shows a steady rise in the Don't Know category from 42 per cent in March 2005, to 64 per cent now. The latest poll also shows a high degree of dissatisfaction among voters at their level of knowledge about what is contained in the Lisbon Treaty.

One of the surprises in the poll is that supporters of the Green Party, which opposed the last five EU treaties, are more supportive of the Lisbon Treaty than the supporters of Fine Gael, which has strongly backed the Yes campaign in every European referendum going back to 1972.

Among Green voters, 30 per cent say they will vote Yes to the treaty while just 11 per cent intend to vote No. The figure for Fine Gael voters is 28 per cent Yes and 10 per cent No.

The Yes campaign does best among the small cohort of PD voters with 34 per cent saying they will vote Yes, closely followed by Labour voters with 33 per cent saying Yes and Fianna Fáil voters showing 32 per cent support. The only group where the No campaign is ahead is among Sinn Féin voters where 21 per cent are intending to vote No and 15 per cent Yes.

In class terms the strongest support for the Yes campaign comes from the better off ABC1 voters where 32 per cent intend to vote Yes and 9 per cent No by comparison with 20 per cent of working class C2DE voters who intend to vote Yes and 10 per cent No. Among farmers 27 per cent favour the Lisbon Treaty while 8 per cent say they will vote against.

Men are significantly more likely to vote Yes to the treaty than women, with 31 per cent of men in support against 20 per cent among women. The number of women who don't know how they will vote at this stage is 72 per cent.

In regional terms the strongest support for the treaty comes in Dublin, closely followed by the rest of Leinster. Support is significantly weaker in Connacht, Ulster and in Munster. Urban voters are more likely to be Yes voters than those living in rural areas.

When asked if they were satisfied with their level of knowledge about what is contained in the Lisbon Treaty, a massive 68 per cent of people said they were dissatisfied with just 12 per cent expressing satisfaction and 21 per cent saying they didn't know whether or not they were satisfied.

One interesting finding is that 68 per cent of those who said they were voting Yes expressed satisfaction with their level of knowledge while that figure fell to just 22 per cent among those who are voting No. Not surprisingly, 88 per cent of those in the Don't Know category are dissatisfied with their level of knowledge about the treaty.

In terms of party support, Sinn Féin voters expressed most satisfaction with their level of knowledge, followed by Green voters. Non-party voters were happiest of all with their level of knowledge, while Fine Gael supporters were least satisfied


Unless the government change there policy of not giving out information on the treaty for the referendum, I would say the outlook is not very good for the treaty.

[Formby]

If the goverment of Ireland lose this vote, they can always have another vote untill they get the result they want.The people of Ireland will use this Treaty as a protest vote,most people are totally dissatisfied with how they have run this country.

[joka]

If Ireland is unable to ratify the Lisbon treaty then I think it's reasonable to expect that Ireland reconsiders it's membership in the EU. It would be a mockery of democracy to have 51% of the Irish to reject something that affects 500 million Europeans.

[SHAM]

If Ireland is unable to ratify the Lisbon treaty then I think it's reasonable to expect that Ireland reconsiders it's membership in the EU. It would be a mockery of democracy to have 51% of the Irish to reject something that affects 500 million Europeans.

I think quite the opposite, it would be an example of democracy in the "Union" at its finest, an example to new and future members, that the vote of the individual counts for something in the "Union", and that the "Union" only moves forward together or not at all.

[futurepilot2004]

It would be a mockery of democracy to have 51% of the Irish to reject something that affects 500 million Europeans.

I consider not letting those 500 million vote on the treaty as a mockery of democracy but each to their own I guess.

[Briggs]

I follow Futurepilot2004's lead. It's a mockery that not every single EU-citizen is to voice their opinion through referendum on a de facto constitutional treaty. Typical EUDD, European Union Democratic Deficit-syndrom. As long as you vote yes, referenda are acceptable. If sh*t may hit the fan, referenda are not the preferred option. EU Referenda are only repeated untill you've said yes.

Problem is: There is no official way out of the European Union. There is no legal framework that regulates it. The EU Constitutional Treaty & Lisbon treaty regulate that.

I bloody well hope the Irish shoot it down, untill this mockery is put to an end & everyone votes.

[joka]

I consider not letting those 500 million vote on the treaty as a mockery of democracy but each to their own I guess.

Oh, so you're talking about a pan-European referendum? And how do suppose that would be arranged? Last time I checked only sovereign states have the authority to arrange referendums, and the EU isn't one of those. As it is now, The EU could not even theoretically arrange a referendum. The member states could coordinate to arrange some sort of non-binding pseudo pan-European referendum. But how comfortable would you and your fellow 4 million Irishmen feel when 82 million Germans, 45 million Spaniards and 60 million Brits (among others) decide your future?

Surely in the name of democracy you will join me in demanding that The EU be granted the permanent right to arrange referendums about what it wants when it wants.

If you're saying that each EU state should organize it's own referendum then don't you think it's somewhat audacious to want to impose your preferred form of governance upon the other 26 EU member states? Are you saying that the Germans are incapable of running their country because their constitution forbids a constitution altering referendum?

This goes to the very core of what the EU should be, an union of independent member states or an union of the people. The more it is a union of the people, the more it is like a country. If we all got to vote on this the EU would de facto be a country, and Ireland wouldn't. Which is why many governments are very keen to keep as much powers to themselves as possible.

Just for the record, I think the EU leaders are harming the EU in the long run by not including the people in this process, but I reject the notion that we should ravage around like an angry mob demanding a referendum on any and everything just to get to vote on something or that "The EU" is at fault here when this whole mess is due to member state governments protecting their powers, your country's sovereignty.

[joka]

As long as you vote yes, referenda are acceptable. If sh*t may hit the fan, referenda are not the preferred option. EU Referenda are only repeated untill you've said yes.

If my leaders knowingly chose an alternative which they thought to be bad for the country to please voters and save their own ass I would consider them spineless and incompetent snakes. If they have guts to put their own careers on the line for, what they believe to be, the common good, I would look up to them, even if I disagreed with them. Each to his own I guess.

[Briggs]

Joka, the European States have to ratify the Lisbon treaty individually.
Hence, a 'pan european referendum' can be held at the national state level, since every National Parliament has to RATIFY the treaty.

As to the arrangement. Population size doesn't matter, ratification by the individual state does. If others want to go further, then they ought to go at it alone...you rather have a EUSSR?

European democracy works on the principle of Nation States. The EU is not a nation state, there is no European Nation nor a European Social contract with the populace. Therefor the EU can never be a federal democracy but rather a federative/confederative democracy. But since supranational and heading towards a federal state...yeah can see there's a tad of a problem.

Problem is that if you let the population decide...the EU could eventually collapse or not progress in its integration as deep & fast as it currently does/did with the current memberstates.

[Briggs]

If my leaders knowingly chose an alternative which they thought to be bad for the country to please voters and save their own ass I would consider them spineless and incompetent snakes. If they have guts to put their own careers on the line for, what they believe to be, the common good, I would look up to them, even if I disagreed with them. Each to his own I guess.

And 'The government never lies'. Politicians are humans as well, they make mistakes and sometimes are selfish pr*ts who only think of their own position or use the EU to strengthen their position.

[Sixpints]

Just bumped into this video on another website:

MEP Exposes The EU Lisbon Treaty


We Are Change Ireland attended the 6 hour Training Day on the Lisbon Treaty, Jan 2008 in Dublin. This was organized by Irish MEP Kathy Sinnott. Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde exposes the lies and manipulations by the EU elites to hide the significance of the treaty by making it unreadable.

video on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE

source: http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=118

[SHAM]

Interesting vid Sixpints.
Dound this from EUX.TVon the same link.
http://www.youtube.com//v/6GnUL69fjNs&feature=related

[joka]

Joka, the European States have to ratify the Lisbon treaty individually.
Hence, a 'pan european referendum' can be held at the national state level, since every National Parliament has to RATIFY the treaty.

As to the arrangement. Population size doesn't matter, ratification by the individual state does. If others want to go further, then they ought to go at it alone...you rather have a EUSSR?

How the individual states ratify or reject The Lisbon Treaty is entirely up to themselves and has nothing to do with the EU. If you think your government is doing something they shouldn't be, take it up with them. This isn't Spouse Swap, you don't get to tell someone else how to run their house, if every government except Ireland's want to ratify this treaty through parliament then that's what they're going to do.

Any calls for a referendum for "all 500 million" either seeks to impose one form of governance on 27 sovereign states, or override the sovereignty of all 27. Which is why it seems so odd to me that it is the very same people who complain about "one size fits all solutions" and about "too much integration" that are the most vocal in demanding "democracy and referendum" from the EU.



European democracy works on the principle of Nation States. The EU is not a nation state, there is no European Nation nor a European Social contract with the populace. Therefor the EU can never be a federal democracy but rather a federative/confederative democracy. But since supranational and heading towards a federal state...yeah can see there's a tad of a problem.

You act as if the nation states descended from the heavens. It isn't the first, it isn't the best and it won't be the last social construction. The amount of people who identify themselves as European increases every generation due to cross border commerce and interaction. It is only natural for people to identify themselves through the people they interact with. It is an interesting subject but it's a tad off topic.



Problem is that if you let the population decide...the EU could eventually collapse or not progress in its integration as deep & fast as it currently does/did with the current memberstates.
That's false. Most European wide polls consistently show the people want more integration. What's more, the more informed people are the more they support integration. The problem, is that our governments are reluctant to give away any powers to the people, though, as a part of their job they really aren't allowed to either.


And 'The government never lies'. Politicians are humans as well, they make mistakes and sometimes are selfish pr*ts who only think of their own position or use the EU to strengthen their position.
Undoubtedly they are humans and many of them even lie. But what's that got do with anything? I said that I have more respect for politicians who can stand by their views even in the face of adversity, whereas you apparently like to have yes-men for leaders. What anyone's true motives are is impossible to know.

[joka]

I think quite the opposite, it would be an example of democracy in the "Union" at its finest, an example to new and future members, that the vote of the individual counts for something in the "Union", and that the "Union" only moves forward together or not at all.


I agree to some extent, but if the alternatives are going back to another 3-5 years of bickering and navel gazing because the Irish populace thought it would be fun to stick it to their government, or continuing without Ireland, I'm inclined to favor the latter. I mean, if Ireland or any EU state for that matter, finds the direction the EU is heading towards as unthinkable, they would be doing everyone concerned a favor by reconsidering their membership.

[Briggs]

I'm not telling the Eires what to do. I'm saying that in every country there should be a referendum concerning such important texts. The government governs for the people, that is why they were chosen for but for some very important issues they should listen to the people and ask their opinion officially through a referendum. It amazes you, where I'm betting on is that there is no popular support for this treaty and that it would be blocked.

Nations form the basis for a long time, its the identitary definition that changes. I'm talking abt the concept nation, not the concept state nor nation-state.

Sure compared to Americans we're Europeans. And people may be a tad more European today. But what does that mean? Does that mean they're more European Unionist or just European from the continent? Is it a fling or has it more substantial basis?

What polls would that be? EU-sponsored polls? Do they form a substantial majority in every state? Then you wouldn't mind if I would turn those pollnumbers into actual numbers in a referendum.

Fact that politicians are people means something. They can be wrong and they don't always act for the good of the people. Thus for such important elements as a crypto-constitutional treaty the people should voice its opinion in a referendum instead of the governments.

[joka]

I'm not telling the Eires what to do. I'm saying that in every country there should be a referendum concerning such important texts. The government governs for the people, that is why they were chosen for but for some very important issues they should listen to the people and ask their opinion officially through a referendum.

The definition of what is an "important text" varies from country to country and person to person. This isn't a black & white, absolute truth issue. I've been trying to explain to you that sovereign states decide for themselves what to ratify and how, I don't seem to be getting through to you. Personally I would consider my own country's leadership guilty of negligence and throughly incompetent if they would allow Finland's interests be compromised by an angry mob convinced that Finland has to arrange a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.



It amazes you, where I'm betting on is that there is no popular support for this treaty and that it would be blocked.

Yes, it truly leaves me flabbergasted how some people can parade around under the banner of democracy with a straight face while only wanting one specific treaty to be put to a referendum because their democratically elected leaders aren't doing what they'd like them to be doing, while opposing everything else that would make the EU more democratic.

I mean surely, in the name of democracy you will now demand the immediate ratification of the Constitutional Treaty since it was not only ratified by the majority of member states, supported by the majority of Europeans but was also voted for by 26 million Europeans in the referendums held (vs 22 million against)? Surely in the name of democracy The European Parliament should have the supreme legislative power in the EU? Surely in the name of democracy national vetoes should be removed? Surely in the name of democracy we should do what the majority of Europeans want as opposed to the 27 national governments?

But somehow, conveniently, when confronted with this reality you make an impressive 180 turn and say the EU shouldn't be about democracy but independent member states. Nothing wrong with that per se, but then stick to that story, don't jump back and forth when it suits your views. You can't have it both ways.



What polls would that be? EU-sponsored polls? Do they form a substantial majority in every state? Then you wouldn't mind if I would turn those pollnumbers into actual numbers in a referendum.

Try this one (http://www.tomorrowseurope.eu/) on for starters, it's an interesting test where a representative group of Europeans were first polled, after which a sample group was selected to participate in a debate where everyone was presented balanced information* about how the EU functions, after which they were polled again to see how opinions had changed.
* You should be pleased to learn that the notable eurosceptic Jens-Peter Bonde participated in the process of gathering the information, so there should be little question regarding it's bias in favor of integration.


there was an increasing sense that the EU should take more of a role for certain issues—support for an EU role in energy supply increased from 52% to 59% and support for an EU role in diplomatic relations increased from 55% to 63%.Personally I think referendums only work for fundamental yes or no questions. eg. EU membership. I don't think putting a several hundred page international treaty up for referendum is a good idea simply because it's going to end up being a referendum about hundred other things except the actual treaty.

But like I already said, I think the EU leaders are making a mistake by not involving the people in this process and they will only harm the EU in the long run. Sooner or later people will vote in politicians that will deliver what they want. I would have no objections to a referendum where more broad questions are asked eg. "Should the EU handle foreign policy" "Should the EU have a president" "Should the EU handle defence policy" etc.
Then the lawyers and politicians figure out the specifics of what is approved.



Thus for such important elements as a crypto-constitutional treaty the people should voice its opinion in a referendum instead of the governments.
Why is that? What is it in this treaty that warrants a referendum? What is the huge fundamental change that it will deliver? The Constitutional Treaty was only called a "constitution" as a symbolic gesture and because it gathered all the existing treaties under one book. Simply saying that the Lisbon treaty is "crypto-constitutional" doesn't mean anything.