How can Lisbon II be defeated.

[sarahj]

Ok Sarah, read it again now. Carefully. The quote says "surveys done after the referendum", not opinion polls. The two are different. My point was that the opinion polls before the referendum and the surveys run after seem to have extremely similar figures and serve to back each other up. The surveys run after the referendum are statistically accurate as this is done by "respected and professional companies" such as Gallup. They run these surveys so that they are representative of the peoples opinions, selecting sample sizes and groups to ensure that level of accuracy.



In your opinion maybe. Opinion polls are valid in terms of trying to guage opinion. They are certainly not precise and they are most certainly not binding, but neither should they be discounted completely, as with all the other points of fact I have raised.

In order to find out for definite the French peoples current opinion then yes we probably do need a referendum. But then they have already ratified so it's too late now. Either way I never said my conclusion was definitive. I said it was just that, a conclusion garnered from looking at a number of factors. At the end of the day you are limiting the factors you are looking at to suit your position. I have not done that at all and so my conclusion, though not fact, is more considered and likely more balanced overall than yours.

Obviously we can disagree on the overall conclusion. That's fine by me, as I said it doesn't affect me or the French ratification of Lisbon. But you can't say your conclusion is any more or less "right" than mine, because you simply don't know. Additionally my conclusion, given that it is based solely on facts, deserves as much respect as yours so the refusal to recognise that is, in essence, undemocratic. You are refusing to recognise that I am allowed to have a different opinion to yours after all. Aren't you, darling, petal, my little flower? Eh!?

I apologise if I misread your spiel.

I have no problem with you coming to a conclusion. But that conclusion is not based on legitimate evidence and in a democracy it is my duty to draw attention to that.

[molloyjh]

I apologise if I misread your spiel.

I have no problem with you coming to a conclusion. But that conclusion is not based on legitimate evidence and in a democracy it is my duty to draw attention to that.

And what gives you the right to determine what is and is not evidence? I suggest you look up the definition of the word before attacking someones position. There are 2 types of evidence, direct and circumstantial. A referendum would be direct evidence and an opinion poll circumstantial. The difference being that direct evidence proves a fact, circumstantial infers something to be logically true. The rejection of the EU Constitution 4 years ago is as much circumstantial evidence of opposition to Lisbon 1 year ago as an opinion poll is circumstantial evidence of support of it.

Therefore we are both arguing a case using circumstantial evidence, meaning both cases are as valid as each other. The fact that I have more circumstantial evidence than you, and include the same circumstantial evidence you do, means that my case is probably, but not definitely, more accurate. This, in the absence of any other evidence of any kind, is simply a logical conclusion. Nothing more.

[sarahj]

And what gives you the right to determine what is and is not evidence? I suggest you look up the definition of the word before attacking someones position. There are 2 types of evidence, direct and circumstantial. A referendum would be direct evidence and an opinion poll circumstantial. The difference being that direct evidence proves a fact, circumstantial infers something to be logically true. The rejection of the EU Constitution 4 years ago is as much circumstantial evidence of opposition to Lisbon 1 year ago as an opinion poll is circumstantial evidence of support of it.

Therefore we are both arguing a case using circumstantial evidence, meaning both cases are as valid as each other. The fact that I have more circumstantial evidence than you, and include the same circumstantial evidence you do, means that my case is probably, but not definitely, more accurate. This, in the absence of any other evidence of any kind, is simply a logical conclusion. Nothing more.

An opinion poll is open to an awful lot of bias and is not sufficient evidence to make a decision regarding the will of the French people.

Do I need to say so again?

[molloyjh]

An opinion poll is open to an awful lot of bias and is not sufficient evidence to make a decision regarding the will of the French people.

Do I need to say so again?

You can say it as many times as you like. That's just your opinion. Mine is different. It isn't enough to say anything categorically, but neither can it be discounted completely. Now if you can prove a bias then maybe you'd have a point. Otherwise you're just refusing to look at a fact because it doesn't suit you. That's no way to argue a case.

[FutureTaoiseach]

You can say it as many times as you like. That's just your opinion. Mine is different. It isn't enough to say anything categorically, but neither can it be discounted completely. Now if you can prove a bias then maybe you'd have a point. Otherwise you're just refusing to look at a fact because it doesn't suit you. That's no way to argue a case.

Other opinion polls in France have shown "no" majorities. The only poll that matters is the referendum, and the French people have already made their views known on that matter, as have the Dutch. Recent polls show that the Dutch would vote no again by a similar margin to last time.

[sarahj]

You can say it as many times as you like. That's just your opinion. Mine is different. It isn't enough to say anything categorically, but neither can it be discounted completely. Now if you can prove a bias then maybe you'd have a point. Otherwise you're just refusing to look at a fact because it doesn't suit you. That's no way to argue a case.

No - I am saying that opinion polls are not statistically significant and thus not valid evidence on which to base a view of the preferences of the French people. I never claimed to know what the French people think NOW.

All I said is that the only evidence you can use to make any decision on the French people's views on this issue is the last referendum until another referendum is run.

[free-man]

You can say it as many times as you like. That's just your opinion. Mine is different. It isn't enough to say anything categorically, but neither can it be discounted completely. Now if you can prove a bias then maybe you'd have a point. Otherwise you're just refusing to look at a fact because it doesn't suit you. That's no way to argue a case.

I agree with SarahJ but while we're throwing out random opinion polls here's one taken back in 2008 which shows that the French would prefer to have their voice heard in a referendum on Lisbon (59%)

French Want Vote on Lisbon Treaty: Angus Reid Global Monitor

An opinion poll question can be phrased in such a way as to mislead as we have seen from the Irish Times recently.

I would not put any faith in any opinion poll however since you have I'm sure I can find lots more that show the French would prefer a vote.

[sarahj]

I agree with SarahJ but while we're throwing out random opinion polls here's one taken back in 2008 which shows that the French would prefer to have their voice heard in a referendum on Lisbon (59%)

French Want Vote on Lisbon Treaty: Angus Reid Global Monitor

An opinion poll question can be phrased in such a way as to mislead as we have seen from the Irish Times recently.

I would not put any faith in any opinion poll however since you have I'm sure I can find lots more that show the French would prefer a vote.

Ha - brilliant!!!

[molloyjh]

Other opinion polls in France have shown "no" majorities. The only poll that matters is the referendum, and the French people have already made their views known on that matter, as have the Dutch. Recent polls show that the Dutch would vote no again by a similar margin to last time.

Sources???

No - I am saying that opinion polls are not statistically significant and thus not valid evidence on which to base a view of the preferences of the French people. I never claimed to know what the French people think NOW.

All I said is that the only evidence you can use to make any decision on the French people's views on this issue is the last referendum until another referendum is run.

We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. I think their actions and polled data in the last number of years is relavent.

I agree with SarahJ but while we're throwing out random opinion polls here's one taken back in 2008 which shows that the French would prefer to have their voice heard in a referendum on Lisbon (59%)

French Want Vote on Lisbon Treaty: Angus Reid Global Monitor

An opinion poll question can be phrased in such a way as to mislead as we have seen from the Irish Times recently.

I would not put any faith in any opinion poll however since you have I'm sure I can find lots more that show the French would prefer a vote.

That poll says nothing about how they would vote so I don't see how it is in any way relevant here.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Sources???

Here:

Poll: Dutch would also reject EU Treaty
A majority of the Dutch is against the Treaty of Lisbon, according to a poll by Maurice de Hond. But the Netherlands is going ahead with its ratification.
If the Netherlands were to hold a referendum now on the new EU treaty, 54 percent would vote against it, De Hond reported. He polled the views of the Dutch after the Irish rejected the treaty last week.
A majority (56 percent) wants the Netherlands to also hold a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. It is an adaptation of the European Constitution, on which a referendum was held in the Netherlands in 2005 - which rejected it by 62 to 38 percent...