The Pro-lisbon Parties what will their Strategy be?

Bob Z

There is already talk about RTE should not make the TV coverage 50/50 and how its too complex for the Irish Electorate. What other tactics do you think they will have?

oscarBravo

I think their tactics should be to clearly explain the benefits of the treaty, and to firmly rebut any lies from the "no" camp.

Daftendirekt

What oscarBravo said. In other words, exactly what they should've done last time.

lostexpectation

the biggest difference will be to start campaigning earlier to get their own vote out.

plus they have some sort of wording to say we'll still be neutral (impossible cos we're not neutral) etc

it will pass then.

WooPeeA

Neutrality? There's no such thing.. You're always more into somebody's side.

+ this word vanish from dictionaries during the war..

heyjude

Bob Z wrote: »

There is already talk about RTE should not make the TV coverage 50/50

Same as last time then.

Hogzy

I remember during the last election i saw a poster form Sinn Fein ( they never fail amuse me) that said...

"People died for your freedom, vote no to lisbon"

I mean in all fairness who authorised that!!!

brianthebard

They'll blame the present economic situation on the no vote.
They'll also fail to pull up the no campaign on any "liberties" they take with the truth-the yes campaign should've pointed out that there is no such thing as an Irish commissioner. But they probably had their own reasons for letting people believe there is such a thing, so they were playing games with the truth too.

WooPeeA

Hogzy wrote: »

I remember during the last election i saw a poster form Sinn Fein ( they never fail amuse me) that said...

"People died for your freedom, vote no to lisbon"

I mean in all fairness who authorised that!!!

What scares me the most is the question who they think they are to speak in the name of those people..

Miserable and scary at the same time.

jhegarty

Plus they will remind people there is no point voting no , because we will just have another vote a few months later if we do....

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

They'll blame the present economic situation on the no vote.
They'll also fail to pull up the no campaign on any "liberties" they take with the truth-the yes campaign should've pointed out that there is no such thing as an Irish commissioner. But they probably had their own reasons for letting people believe there is such a thing, so they were playing games with the truth too.

The "Irish Commissioner" has long been touted as a symbol of our complete parity with all the other member nations. For much the same reason, the impression that the Commission is the legislative organ of the Union has been allowed to persist. The workings of the Council, on the other hand, have generally been left rather murky - partly, presumably, because what actually happens there is not what is supposed to happen.

In theory (and in the treaties) the Council operates increasingly by the infamous QMV - where Ireland's official vote is tiny. In practice, the Council does not operate by QMV even where it is supposed to, but by unanimity. Unfortunately, and vitally, it is an informal unanimity ('consensus').

That means that any government Minister can be put on the spot and made to look like either a fool or a liar - their interviewer merely need keep repeating that the Council is supposed to operate by QMV, that it says in the treaties that that is how the Council operates, and how often does Ireland get outvoted, and so on. The Minister's responses are pretty much going to have to along the lines of "it's not like that", and "it's more complicated than that".

The idea of the Irish Commissioner, therefore, is the fake touchstone of Ireland's equality as a member state - the simple untrue cover story that stands in for what is true, but much more complex. Unfortunately, like all lies, it comes back to bite you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

studiorat

Apart from the Lisbon treaty being too difficult to understand etc. The Irish electorate on the whole didn't really want to know about it. During the run up to the last referendum it was noted that people approached by campaigners wouldn't take the time to try and understand the issues, it was simpler to just vote no.

If we cherish the right to vote on a referendum on the treaty so much, there is also an onus on the electorate to become familiar with the issues.

Scofflaw wrote: »

In theory (and in the treaties) the Council operates increasingly by the infamous QMV - where Ireland's official vote is tiny. In practice, the Council does not operate by QMV even where it is supposed to, but by unanimity. Unfortunately, and vitally, it is an informal unanimity ('consensus').

This is I'm afraid, quite untrue and an often stated mis-representation by the No-side. The votes are actually weighted allowing the smaller countries to have a fair say in the voting.

Legislation regarding Tax, Security and other issues will be by unaminous vote. Where any one country will have the right to veto even veto against our wishes.

The commissioners are responsible for each european citizen and not just their countrymen. Now we all know Irelands commissioner is only going to work for the good of Ireland and ignore the rights and needs of other EU citizens, but I reckon the other commissioners should be ok in our favour 'cause we all know everybody loves Ireland and the Craic.. :pac:

The whole notion of a commissioner being from any particular country is the opposite of the EU idea in the first place. An example would be, would Ireland and an "Irish" commissioner stand by and let legislation be passed that affect the rights of citizens of another EU country? And vice/versa, like any deal there is certain amount of trust involved. Not something that Ireland is rated too highly in, in the eyes of many EU citizens already...

Hitman Actual

Someone informing Scofflaw on the Treaty! studiorat, you really need to look back through Scofflaw's contribution to this board. I think you're missing the point of his reply to brianthebard there.

Scofflaw

studiorat wrote: »

This is I'm afraid, quite untrue and an often stated mis-representation by the No-side. The votes are actually weighted allowing the smaller countries to have a fair say in the voting.

Legislation regarding Tax, Security and other issues will be by unaminous vote. Where any one country will have the right to veto even veto against our wishes.

Ireland's formal voting weight on the Council under Nice QMV arrangements is tiny. It's out of line with our population (0.9%), sure, but that doesn't make it not tiny. We have 7 out of 345 votes (2%), 0.85% of the population, and are one out of 27 states (3.7%). There's a nice version to play around with here.

You're right that the apparent drop under Lisbon isn't as frequently touted during the campaign. Some very good analyses have been done, which show the drop is comparatively slight. We gain in relation to some states, lose in relation to others - as far as I recall, we're up on 12, down on 14. The system has been changed sufficiently between Nice and Lisbon that comparisons between them are almost meaningless in any case.

However, the important point is that QMV is not actually used except in roughly 25% of the cases it could be used in. Three-quarters of the time the Council is officially using QMV, it really operates by consensus. The remaining quarter of the time a vote is held as a formality to mark someone's opposition.

The EU cannot operate without willing members. It has very little power to enforce Directives - it can fine, but then has little power to enforce the fines. It relies on willing cooperation, and the way voting is done reflects that.

One might ask - in that case, why have QMV as opposed to official unanimity? The answer appears to be that the knowledge that there is no onus to seek consensus weakens the consensus method - unsurprisingly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sickpuppy32

Hogzy wrote: »

I remember during the last election i saw a poster form Sinn Fein ( they never fail amuse me) that said...

"People died for your freedom, vote no to lisbon"

I mean in all fairness who authorised that!!!

that wasn't SF it was COIR / youth defence

Bob Z

studiorat wrote: »

Apart from the Lisbon treaty being too difficult to understand etc. The Irish electorate on the whole didn't really want to know about it. During the run up to the last referendum it was noted that people approached by campaigners wouldn't take the time to try and understand the issues, it was simpler to just vote no.

If we cherish the right to vote on a referendum on the treaty so much, there is also an onus on the electorate to become familiar with the issues.

But didnt some politicians also say that they didnt read the charter?

PHB

I assume their tactics will be hope somebody else wins the campaign for them, because they clearly suck at it.

Scofflaw

PHB wrote: »

I assume their tactics will be hope somebody else wins the campaign for them, because they clearly suck at it.

I'm afraid that made me laugh...

jovially,
Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008

They will try to get around the McKenna and Coughlan judgements. The yes parties and pro-Lisbon broadcasters on the Committee on Ireland's Future in Europe have already complained about 50:50 coverage, with one even calling the rules a "cranks charter", which I regard as quite disparaging of the Irish people who voted no, and who are overwhelmingly not cranks thank you very much. McKenna is already being circumvented by the funnelling of EU money into 'instutes' that claim to be mounting information campaigns about the EU but are actually fronts for the yes side in these EU referenda e.g. the European Movement Ireland. The third pillar of the strategy is the continued witch-hunt by the apparatus of the State and the yes parties (mostly FF) against Declan Ganley, who is seen as a threat to the Establishment for standing up to them on the Treaty and possibly running under the Libertas banner in next year's local-elections. The fourth pillar involves attempting to link the recession with the no vote, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary including from an IDA representative on the Committee for European Affairs some weeks ago. The last pillar involves non-binding declarations on neutrality, taxation, abortion and keeping our Commissioner which will be just as credible as the 'ending waiting lists in 2 years' promise from Michael Martin in 2002. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Eurosceptic2008 wrote:

...continued witch-hunt by the apparatus of the State...

Possibly you're too young to remember what the apparatus of the Irish State really looks like in repressive/witch-hunt mode, but not all of us are. If you don't actually mean that Declan Ganley is fleeing around the country like Dominic McGlinchey, or only allowed to "speak" on TV dubbed by an actor - and, let's face it, he isn't - then this kind of thing is frankly a hysterical non-addition to the discussion.

Ganley is being given a light dusting of bogeyman in the media on one side, and given hagiographical treatment on the other, but he is not being treated in any way that can realistically be described by the phrase you have chosen to use.

regards,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

Bob Z wrote: »

But didnt some politicians also say that they didnt read the charter?

Instead they had their legal experts do it and report the findings. Perfectly acceptable in my book.

Nice one PHB.....got a chuckle out of that myself. Simple, direct and to the point.