Ganley looking good in Early Tallies

cornbb

You know what, instead of having a second referendum on the treaty we should have a referendum on changing the bit of the constitution that demands we have a referendum for every treaty. Wouldn't be a very popular move, I know, but it would avoid this ridiculous situation that sees us having to vote twice on every EU treaty.

Dinner

ShooterSF wrote: »

Any of the actual pro lisbon discussion I read was here because all FF and co were doing was putting out vague pro europe comments with nothing to do with the treaty.

They took the lazy option. Rather than explaining why Lisbon would be good they took the attitude of "We're the government, take our word for it. And anyway, Europe has been good to us.".

In a way I can see why. There's very little in Lisbon which can be condensed down to a snappy slogan to put on a poster, which is where, I imagine, a good few people get most of their information. So rather than make the effort to explain it, they took the easy road.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rabble wrote: »

Our constitution demanded a referendum - where in the constitution does it say we have to keep having referenda until we get the result that the establishment wants?

Probably somewhere around the powers of the government?

Also, bear in mind that Lisbon I (if we can call it that already) didn't change the constitution, so as far as the constitution is aware that vote never happened.

Rabble

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Probably somewhere around the powers of the government?

Also, bear in mind that Lisbon I (if we can call it that already) didn't change the constitution, so as far as the constitution is aware that vote never happened.

Good point - so we have got to keep voting until we get the result desired by the establishment because the constitution is untouched by the NO vote.

Maybe a referendum vote paper could have boxes we could tick in the same way that a lottery form does - so we can make our choices for the next 4 votes or even a quick pick to randomise the choice!

Not sure what a "referendum plus" would consist of though!

Scofflaw

Dinner wrote: »

They took the lazy option. Rather than explaining why Lisbon would be good they took the attitude of "We're the government, take our word for it. And anyway, Europe has been good to us.".

In a way I can see why. There's very little in Lisbon which can be condensed down to a snappy slogan to put on a poster, which is where, I imagine, a good few people get most of their information. So rather than make the effort to explain it, they took the easy road.

Maybe "vote Yes for increased democracy, transparency, and subsidiarity"? Admittedly, the last word there will have people going "subsidiwhat?", but what the heck - maybe we can have a positive (and truthful) slogan and expand people's vocabularies!

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

The Corinthian wrote: »

Looking at this, he got screwed with the Labour transfers that he was banking on at least 40% going to him. After that, it was all over, TBH.

I think someone can do a good write up on Ganley and the proportional system arguing that negative politics that is so prevelent in the US will simply not work here because of the transfer system.

If ganley didnt lash out at *all* the established parties, but focused on Fianna Fail and the Greens, he might have achieved somewhat closer to that 40%

but the reality is because all the libertas candidates lashed out they got poor transfers from anyone. I think this was the killing blow for Ganley at least, the other two candidates were simply useless to begin with.

And Sinn Fein are not a good party to rely on getting transfers from as shown at these elections.

Scofflaw

Rabble wrote: »

Good point - so we have got to keep voting until we get the result desired by the establishment because the constitution is untouched by the NO vote.

Maybe a referendum vote paper could have boxes we could tick in the same way that a lottery form does - so we can make our choices for the next 4 votes or even a quick pick to randomise the choice!

Not sure what a "referendum plus" would consist of though!

I'm almost at the copy-and-paste stage with this one. The answer is that the government calls referendums, and the government's policy is to ratify Lisbon - which would equally be the policy of any currently conceivable Irish government. They can't ratify it themselves, they have to call a referendum, but there's no limit on the number of referendums they can call.

It should be obvious, of course, that they're only calling one because they think people have changed their minds. If the No vote appeared rock-solid, and was really based on a genuine objection to elements of Lisbon, there would be no point, and the government would just have to lump it. However, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Granted, that doesn't make sense to anyone whose No is rock-solid, to whom it can appear instead as an act of tyranny (defined as 'things the government does without your personal consent, and which you object to'). As pointed out repeatedly, though, it's a free vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI

Rabble wrote: »

Good point - so we have got to keep voting until we get the result desired by the establishment because the constitution is untouched by the NO vote.

snipped nonsense

The constitution gives the government the right to run referenda, and doesn't limit how many times they can run them.

A negative referendum does not affect the constitution, nothing in the constitution changes, therefore there is no constitutional way to account for a 'no' vote.

You would have to make a change to the constitution that recognises a no vote as altering the constitution, perhaps something like voting either.

The government may ratify Lisbon
or
Lisbon may not be ratified by the government

You could then add a constitutional clause to block reversing of a constitutional change (including the negative change above) for a minimum period, say 5 years (to take it into the life of the next government).

In that scenario the government would be constitutionally barred from holding a second referendum within 5 years. But it would take 2 seperate changes to the constitution, one to allow negative change referenda, where 'no change' is not an option, and another to stop constitutional changes being reversed within a fixed time period. I doubt any government would propose such changes though.

Anyway, currently the government has the power to hold as many referenda as they want, on any constitutional change they want.

Rabble

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm almost at the copy-and-paste stage with this one. The answer is that the government calls referendums, and the government's policy is to ratify Lisbon - which would equally be the policy of any currently conceivable Irish government. They can't ratify it themselves, they have to call a referendum, but there's no limit on the number of referendums they can call.

It should be obvious, of course, that they're only calling one because they think people have changed their minds. If the No vote appeared rock-solid, and was really based on a genuine objection to elements of Lisbon, there would be no point, and the government would just have to lump it. However, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Granted, that doesn't make sense to anyone whose No is rock-solid, to whom it can appear instead as an act of tyranny (defined as 'things the government does without your personal consent, and which you object to'). As pointed out repeatedly, though, it's a free vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So no place for the Quick Pick option then?

Scofflaw

Rabble wrote: »

So no place for the Quick Pick option then?

It has a certain charm...on the other hand it doesn't force the government to sit up and pay attention every few years.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Happy Monday

Rabble wrote: »

So no place for the Quick Pick option then?

Well said - rerunning Lisbon but not going to the country following a disastrous set of results at the end of the week.

When the Tories come in across the water they are pledging to hold a referendum on Lisbon - if and when the people there vote no in line within British constitutional convention and shoot down Lisbon, the pro Lisbon people on here will be in no postion to condemn them based on their views here.

Scofflaw

Happy Monday wrote: »

Well said - rerunning Lisbon but not going to the country following a disastrous set of results at the end of the week.

When the Tories come in across the water they are pledging to hold a referendum on Lisbon - if and when the people there vote no in line within British constitutional convention and shoot down Lisbon, the pro Lisbon people on here will be in no postion to condemn them based on their views here.

A UK referendum on Lisbon would be a very dishonest referendum, though. They should hold one on leaving the EU first - which we all know would be a Yes - before purporting to decide on the merits of a treaty altering an organisation they'd prefer to leave. Not, of course, that the Tories would have the courage to do that.

regards,
Scofflaw

Happy Monday

Scofflaw wrote: »

A UK referendum on Lisbon would be a very dishonest referendum, though. They should hold one on leaving the EU first - which we all know would be a Yes - before purporting to decide on the merits of a treaty altering an organisation they'd prefer to leave. Not, of course, that the Tories would have the courage to do that.

regards,
Scofflaw

The UK held such a referendum in the mid 1970s which was rejected by the British people. There is little desire across the water to leave the EU with its attendant economic benefits. The real issue there is excessive poltical integration which is at the heart of Lisbon.

How can you and others defend the right of the Irish government and French government for that matter to exercise their right to continually pursue ratifaction of the treaty but immediately condemn the Brits for doing just the same?

Scofflaw

Happy Monday wrote: »

The UK held such a referendum in the mid 1970s which was rejected by the British people. There is little desire across the water to leave the EU with its attendant economic benefits. The real issue there is excessive poltical integration which is at the heart of Lisbon.

That was 34 years ago.

Happy Monday wrote: »

How can you and others defend the right of the Irish government and French government for that matter to exercise their right to continually pursue ratifaction of the treaty but immediately condemn the Brits for doing just the same?

I don't - I'm pointing out that the results are a foregone conclusion for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty. It's a show referendum.

regards,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

a lot of ukip and other parties did very well in the elections - i suppose a referendum on leaving the uk would be the best option first.

The Corinthian

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

If ganley didnt lash out at *all* the established parties, but focused on Fianna Fail and the Greens, he might have achieved somewhat closer to that 40%

A fair point.

And Sinn Fein are not a good party to rely on getting transfers from as shown at these elections.

Sinn Fein votes traditionally don't transfer all that well; a certain number go to Fianna Fail and independents, but most tend not to transfer at all.

TimHanley

So Ganley failed to get any sizeable votes.

Any chance that all the Lisbon propagandists will stop citing him for "brainwashing" the dumb people into voting NO? I voted No, and Ganley had no influence on my opinions, and it appears that he had no influence on most people according to his terrible poll results.

PopeBuckfastXVI

TimHanley wrote: »

So Ganley failed to get any sizeable votes.

Any chance that all the Lisbon propagandists will stop citing him for "brainwashing" the dumb people into voting NO? I voted No, and Ganley had no influence on my opinions, and it appears that he had no influence on most people according to his terrible poll results.

I don't think he brainwashed people, I do believe that the half truths and lies he planted on lamp posts up and down the country did serve to confuse the issue, as to what was actually in or not in Lisbon.

This was before anyone knew much about Ganley himself, it wasn't like he was personally appearing on his posters, with his background and aims printed in big bold letters for all to see.

Perhaps when people learned about him they didn't want to vote for him, even if they were influenced (not brainwashed) by his posters before they knew who Libertas were, or anything about them.

I think it's possible to overestimate how much of a 'no' vote those posters are responsible for, I don't think it's anywhere close to the majority of the 'no' vote, but if it was between 10 and 20 percent then that was just enough to swing the referendum to no. Remember in the end the vote was pretty evenly split.

Not hard to imagine 10 percent of 'no' voters did so out of fear of the supposed consequences of voting 'yes' on the Libertas posters, or at the very least confusion about them and 'voting no for the status quo'.

So it's not necessarily unfair to postulate that were Ganley not involved in Lisbon I there may well have been a 'yes' vote.

TimHanley

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

This was before anyone knew much about Ganley himself, it wasn't like he was personally appearing on his posters, with his background and aims printed in big bold letters for all to see.

Ganley was getting personally attacked long before the first Lisbon vote. Would you like me to do an irish times search?

The Corinthian

TimHanley wrote: »

Ganley was getting personally attacked long before the first Lisbon vote. Would you like me to do an irish times search?

No doubt he was, but very few made any connection between him and Libertas or the No campaign - he was unknown to most. He was identified with the campaign, in popular terms, only after the referendum.

TimHanley

The Corinthian wrote: »

No doubt he was, but very few made any connection between him and Libertas or the No campaign - he was unknown to most. He was identified with the campaign, in popular terms, only after the referendum.

OK, so you do want me to prove you wrong.

Times 25th May 2008.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4028006.ece

PopeBuckfastXVI

TimHanley wrote: »

OK, so you do want me to prove you wrong.

I'd be interested Tim, thanks.

So assuming Ganley had absolutely no influence on the first vote, and assuming that his vote was massively overstated at 13.7% (above the 20% influence on 'no' voters I postulated, assuming a relatively even split, and that his vote came from 'no' voters).

Assuming all of that, you should have no worries about another referendum, right?

TimHanley

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Assuming all of that, you should have no worries about another referendum, right?

Worries?? If the people said No that should be it. What happened to our "elected representatives" following the will of the people?

However as I said at the time, this country would be brought to its knees before a second vote is put to the people. Now look at things.

PopeBuckfastXVI

TimHanley wrote: »

Worries?? If the people said No that should be it. What happened to our "elected representatives" following the will of the people?

However as I said at the time, this country would be brought to its knees before a second vote is put to the people. Now look at things.

The government has the right to put referenda to the people, and the people have the right to reject them.

If the people wish it, Lisbon and the new guarantees will be rejected at the next referendum.

Are you suggesting Fianna Fáil orchestrated the crash of the international property bubble and the credit crunch in order to turn the tide of public opinion in favour of the Lisbon treaty?

I knew they were in bed with the developers and the banks, but I think that's giving them a little too much credit for their influence...

The Corinthian

TimHanley wrote: »

OK, so you do want me to prove you wrong.

How does that prove me wrong? The point I made is that very little was known about him by most people before the last referendum. That a number of articles may have been written about him at that stage does not change the fact that your average voter on the street wouldn't have had a clue who he was until after. The limelight hit him only afterwords.

TimHanley

The Corinthian wrote: »

How does that prove me wrong? The point I made is that very little was known about him by most people before the last referendum. That a number of articles may have been written about him at that stage does not change the fact that your average voter on the street wouldn't have had a clue who he was until after. The limelight hit him only afterwords.

Would you like a list of articles. Everyone was well aware of the "radical, nut job, military" Ganley long before the vote.

P. Breathnach

TimHanley wrote: »

... What happened to our "elected representatives" following the will of the people? ...

We don't actually elect people to follow our will. We entrust them with the powers to manage things so as to give best effect to our various conflicting, irreconcilable, and inconsistent wishes.

It's a pity so few of our representatives are not really frank about things: "You want A and B, but it is impossible to have both; I'm choosing A because, on balance, I think it is better for people."

TimHanley

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Are you suggesting Fianna Fáil orchestrated the crash of the international property bubble and the credit crunch in order to turn the tide of public opinion in favour of the Lisbon treaty?

I knew they were in bed with the developers and the banks, but I think that's giving them a little too much credit for their influence...

The bankers run this show, FF are nobodies.

TimHanley

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We don't actually elect people to follow our will. We entrust them with the powers to manage things so as to give best effect to our various conflicting, irreconcilable, and inconsistent wishes.

It's a pity so few of our representatives are not really frank about things: "You want A and B, but it is impossible to have both; I'm choosing A because, on balance, I think it is better for people."

Bit of an idealised vision there. They are elected to represent the will of the people, you seem to think they are there to dominate and fool the "stupid masses".

PopeBuckfastXVI

TimHanley wrote: »

Would you like a list of articles. Everyone was well aware of the "radical, nut job, military" Ganley long before the vote.

Still, he did get 13.7% of the vote when he ran, and this is many months later, with way more exposure. So one could still make the argument that he could have swung 13.7% of the vote at least, assuming not many people have changed their minds either way since then. What was the margin by which the referendum was defeated again?