10 REAL reasons to vote NO to Lisbon

turgon

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Some people will slip through the Schengen net anyway, and they will find their journey to Ireland unimpeded because of Schengen.

In the same way that some will slip through Ireland's net anyway, so this argument is irrelevant.

FutureTaoiseach

turgon wrote: »

In the same way that some will slip through Ireland's net anyway, so this argument is irrelevant.

That's a ludicrous comparison. If passport-checks are abolished from travel from the Schengen Area, then of course thousands of those who would otherwise be refused permission to land would instead get through because the net would have been removed. That stands to reason. :rolleyes:

turgon

No. You said it would be bad because some would slip into Shengen past immigration. I said that you could apply the exact same logic to the current situation.

But I see you called the infallible rolleyes. /discussion

FutureTaoiseach

turgon wrote: »

No. You said it would be bad because some would slip into Shengen past immigration. I said that you apply the exact same logic to the current situation.

But I see you called the infallible rolleyes. /discussion

You've got the one end of the stick. The primary problem with Schengen is those already living illegally in the Schengen area will now have no problem travelling to Ireland. My point that some will slip through Schengen's net is intended as a secondary-point.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It stands to reason that where there is a loophole, like the old citizenship-loophole, it will be exploited. This discussion with your reminds me of the no campaign in the Citizenship referendum, constantly demanding absolute proof the system was being abused. The clandestine nature of illegal immigration makes exact proof hard to find, but we can certainly say that many thousands of people were refused "permission to land" in Ireland by our immigration officers, and that if Schengen comes into force in Ireland, they will not longer have those powers with respect to illegals travelling here from the Schengen area.

In 2003 and 2004, 4,827 and 4,844 people were refused "permission to land". If Schengen had been in force in Ireland at the time, Ireland would not have the power to refuse those of their number travelling from Schengen countries permission to land. How many of them would have been let in under the Schengen regime is unclear, because we don't have data on their nationality. But I have no intention of voting to make it easier for illegals to enter our country. We have been generous enough in the last 10 years.

To the extent that Ireland has a problem with illegal workers, which is not large, it is primarily the result of 'language students' working more than the permitted hours, or legal immigrants overstaying their visas. Schengen will not make any difference to that.

You've got the one end of the stick. The primary problem with Schengen is those already living illegally in the Schengen area will now have no problem travelling to Ireland. My point that some will slip through Schengen's net is intended as a secondary-point.

So, once people have slipped through the Schengen net, they will be inexorably drawn to Ireland...

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

x MarK x wrote: »

I totally agree. If i were to simplify why im against Lisbon and the EU generally, it would be for simple stuff, like you mentioned. I feel it is impossible to have, so many member states, with so many different cultural backgrounds, religions, beliefs, desires, constitutions, values etc, to then try have a "one fits all" type of thing, it just wont work, period.

As I've said before, being anti-EU is a perfectly acceptable reason to vote "no" to Lisbon.

ixtlan

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

I see very little differences between our main political parties, just varying shades of grey. The fringe parties are crackpots bordering on lunacy (Shinners, Workers Party and dare I say it the Greens), so who is one supposed to cast their vote for to represent their views?

It's true all the main parties are in the centre, where they stay because that's what get's most votes. I don't see how you can hope to have a main centralist party which is opposed to EU development. It's a contradiction in terms, I'm afraid.

Prosperous Dave wrote: »

As someone who chose not to vote last year as I wasn't given enough information to make an informed decision (unlike those who voted yes or no without knowing what they were voting on), I will vote no this time on the grounds that a democratic decision of my countrymen and women was utterly ignored and cast aside as soon as the results were becoming known. The arrogance of the political parties, media, and the EU in browbeating us until they get their "correct" answer is sickening and is completely against the principles of democracy. To my mind, its like Fianna Fail losing the next election and then re running the campaign until they wear us down and we re elect them.

I find this rather amusing and sad. You didn't vote because you did not feel informed enough. You believe that many of the people who voted (either way) were similarly un-informed. This time because the answer of the people was not taken as an absolute final answer, you are going to vote no in protest at the question being asked again! Surely you should be glad to have the opportunity to study the treaty and come to an informed decision? Surely you should have been concerned that a "no" was the previous result from an electorate that you said was un-informed. Surely you should have been concerned that there were many (47% of the electorate) who agreed with you that they didn't know enough or care enough to vote at all, and that's not including those who voted no for the same reason. Surely you should want a new detailed debate where the electorate can come to an informed decision?

It is not undemocratic to have another vote, certainly not in legal terms. In fact you are ironically explaining why we should have another vote, as you explain that you didn't vote due to lack of knowledge, which indeed is why many people voted no and many didn't vote.


Ix

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It stands to reason that where there is a loophole, like the old citizenship-loophole, it will be exploited.This discussion with your reminds me of the no campaign in the Citizenship referendum, constantly demanding absolute proof the system was being abused. The clandestine nature of illegal immigration makes exact proof hard to find, ...

I am not demanding "absolute proof" concerning Schengen, let's examine reality instead...

Most EU member states are members of Schengen. If membership of Schengen results in higher illegal immigration, then it would be clear that the Schengen member states have higher illegal immigrants than non-members such as Ireland and the UK. This would result in immediate political pressure in those member states to withdraw from Schengen.

Strangely enough, there is no evidence that membership of Schengen results in greater (or lesser) problems with illegal immigrants than non-membership of Schengen does. Nor is there evidence that the Schengen member states regard Schengen as anything other than succesful.

Likewise, if border controls within the EU are a good idea, we'd expect to see less problems with the availability of illegal drugs in non-Schengen states than in Schengen states. Oddly enough, no one seems to believe that that is the case.

Hence, opting out of Schengen would appear to have little effect in resolving these problems. So, we can reasonably conclude that it does not follow that joining Schengen would result in increased illegal immigration which is what you claimed.

PS The figure were nice but since there is no breakdown of the origin or transit point of the people refused permission to land they don't help much. Most of those refused admission were probably arriving from the UK. If I recall correctly, one Bertie Ahern claimed at one stage that the vast majority (80%?) of illegal immigrants in Ireland (i.e. the RoI) crossed from NI. I have no idea if Bertie was accurate but, if true, it kinda of makes the policy of opting out of Schengen slightly irrelevant.

upthedub

Vote no and thats it!

FutureTaoiseach

View wrote:

PS The figure were nice but since there is no breakdown of the origin or transit point of the people refused permission to land they don't help much. Most of those refused admission were probably arriving from the UK. If I recall correctly, one Bertie Ahern claimed at one stage that the vast majority (80%?) of illegal immigrants in Ireland (i.e. the RoI) crossed from NI. I have no idea if Bertie was accurate but, if true, it kinda of makes the policy of opting out of Schengen slightly irrelevant.

It does no such thing. The reason most of them came in from the UK is that we have a Common Travel Area with them. If we join Schengen, then we will have a CTA with 25 other countries. I also think your analysis fails to take account of the English-language factor and the fact that it and French are the main European languages spoken in Africa. If we join Schengen without the UK, then it could be expected that many illegal immigrants with knowledge of English would be more inclined to travel to Ireland relative to the UK because, unlike travel to the UK, they wouldn't require a passport to travel here.

By cynically inserting the Schengen provision into the referendum legislation in the hope the recession will make the Irish people more inclined to pass measures that might otherwise be controversial, the Government has actively broadened the Lisbon referendum debate beyond Lisbon itself. Schengen is now an issue in it too, as the no side will remind the Irish people before polling-day.

Scofflaw wrote:

To the extent that Ireland has a problem with illegal workers, which is not large, it is primarily the result of 'language students' working more than the permitted hours, or legal immigrants overstaying their visas. Schengen will not make any difference to that.

It is impossible to quantify how large it is, but research in September 2006 commissioned by the National Consultative Committee on Racism and Interculturalism claimed on their own website that the numbers of Chinese (the nationality of most of those here on student-visas) in this country approximate 80,000-100,000 - almost 10 times the official figures from the Census. That suggests it is a considerable problem, rather than a marginal one as you suggest.

coffism

65% of Irish people are either directly or indirectly employed due to participation in the EU.. We are all europeans, it's not an us against them situation. We will receive no advantage whatsoever by not ratifying the Lisbon Treaty... but i'm very confident that it will be ratified.

FutureTaoiseach

coffism wrote: »

65% of Irish people are either directly or indirectly employed due to participation in the EU.. We are all europeans, it's not an us against them situation. We will receive no advantage whatsoever by not ratifying the Lisbon Treaty... but i'm very confident that it will be ratified.

I contend that we are closer to Boston than Berlin. The politicians couldn't credibly claim benefits from EU membership in the 1980's when 600,000 people were leaving the country and we had mass unemployment even higher than at present. Neither did they blame the EU for the 80's recession. Yet because we had a boom from the late 1990's to 2008, followed by a recession, they now want us to swallow the line that the EU was the reason for the good times we had 1/3rd of the time since EU/EEC membership, but is never to blame for the other 2/3rds when the garden wasn't so rosey. And where on earth are you getting that 65% figure from?

Well I'm not buying it any more. I want to remain in the EU for reasons of markets and cooperation. But I want a Europe of nation states, and one where subsidiarity is more than something scribbled on a piece of paper. I also believe that further European integration would make Ireland a mere shadow of a country, with little control over its own affairs, and with Dail Eireann finding itself hemmed in from all directions when it tries to legislate for this country's national interests. I also oppose the race to the bottom in the private-sector, and in these contexts, I will vote no. How a power is likely to be used is as relevant as what those powers exercised by the EU institutions is. The Laval judgement was enlightening in that respect concerning workers' rights. While a critic of the public-sector unions, I regard unions in the private-sector as a necessary protection against the race to the bottom.

rhapsody!

Jesus this is meant to be a choice for the people so just shut up about voting no and let people make their own mind up whether they want to vote yes or no

65% of Irish people are either directly or indirectly employed due to participation in the EU..

No, the unemployment rate is so high due to the irish government pissing away all the money during the whole celtic tiger which caused a recession in the first place, because they have no idea what the hell they're doing. So jobs had to be cut to increase money etc etc etc ETC. They're sitting up there twiddling their thumbs.
"So what should we do about this recession then?"
"I dunno... biscuit?"

Rosser

If they're the 10 best reasons to vote No then it's a Yes from me

meglome

Rosser wrote: »

If they're the 10 best reasons to vote No then it's a Yes from me

That's it for me too. I didn't vote the last time as I didn't know enough about the actual treaty. But since then I've read a lot about it, in here especially, and I have to say guys most of the no voters reasons are fairly pathetic or simply made up. You're entitled to vote any way you like and good luck to you but seriously I'd take a long hard look at your motivations.

coffism

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I contend that we are closer to Boston than Berlin. The politicians couldn't credibly claim benefits from EU membership in the 1980's when 600,000 people were leaving the country and we had mass unemployment even higher than at present. Neither did they blame the EU for the 80's recession. Yet because we had a boom from the late 1990's to 2008, followed by a recession, they now want us to swallow the line that the EU was the reason for the good times we had 1/3rd of the time since EU/EEC membership, but is never to blame for the other 2/3rds when the garden wasn't so rosey. And where on earth are you getting that 65% figure from?

Well I'm not buying it any more. I want to remain in the EU for reasons of markets and cooperation. But I want a Europe of nation states, and one where subsidiarity is more than something scribbled on a piece of paper. I also believe that further European integration would make Ireland a mere shadow of a country, with little control over its own affairs, and with Dail Eireann finding itself hemmed in from all directions when it tries to legislate for this country's national interests. I also oppose the race to the bottom in the private-sector, and in these contexts, I will vote no. How a power is likely to be used is as relevant as what those powers exercised by the EU institutions is. The Laval judgement was enlightening in that respect concerning workers' rights. While a critic of the public-sector unions, I regard unions in the private-sector as a necessary protection against the race to the bottom.

FutureTaoiseach? There will never be a taoiseach of this state with the above beliefs, you are a joke.

Mr Benevolent

coffism wrote: »

FutureTaoiseach? There will never be a taoiseach of this state with the above beliefs, you are a joke.

Indeed. Slightly off-topic, the points the OP made seem quite close to those made by Libertas - protestations of honesty while making irrelevant points about things that have nothing to do with saying 'no' to Lisbon.

Perhaps Libertas is now trying the viral approach after their defeat?

FutureTaoiseach

Confab wrote: »

Indeed. Slightly off-topic, the points the OP made seem quite close to those made by Libertas - protestations of honesty while making irrelevant points about things that have nothing to do with saying 'no' to Lisbon.

Perhaps Libertas is now trying the viral approach after their defeat?

I was never involved with Libertas. I think the electorate voted on national-issues in the Euro elections anyway. Were it otherwise, the local and euro election results wouldn't have correlated in outcome to the extent that they did.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Interesting, but doesn't support the conclusion that the European Parliament is illegitimate. Monarchy is popular - does that make it legitimate? Indeed, dictatorships are often popular - does that make them legitimate? Iran has a huge turnout in its elections - is its government more legitimate than that of the UK?

Further, the fall in European election turnout is largely the result of expansion rather than anything else, which rather weakens a case built on it:

Member States |1979 |1984 |1989 |1994 |1999 |2004 |2009
Belgium |91.36 |92.09 |90.73 |90.66 |91.05 |90.81 |90.39
Denmark |47.82 |52.38 |46.17 |52.92 |50.46 |47.89 |59.54
Germany |65.73 |56.76 |62.28 |60.02 |45.19 |43 |43.3
Ireland |63.61 |47.56 |68.28 |43.98 |50.21 |58.58 |58.64
France |60.71 |56.72 |48.8 |52.71 |46.76 |42.76 |40.63
Italy |85.65 |82.47 |81.07 |73.6 |69.76 |71.72 |65.05
Luxembourg |88.91 |88.79 |87.39 |88.55 |87.27 |91.35 |90.75
Netherlands |58.12 |50.88 |47.48 |35.69 |30.02 |39.26 |36.75
United Kingdom |32.35 |32.57 |36.37 |36.43 |24 |38.52 |34.7
Greece ||80.59 |80.03 |73.18 |70.25 |63.22 |52.61
Spain |||54.71 |59.14 |63.05 |45.14 |44.9
Portugal |||51.1 |35.54 |39.93 |38.6 |36.78
Sweden |||||38.84 |37.85 |45.53
Austria |||||49.4 |42.43 |45.97
Finland |||||30.14 |39.43 |40.3
Czech Republic ||||||28.3 |28.2
Estonia ||||||26.83 |43.9
Cyprus ||||||72.5 |59.4
Lithuania ||||||48.38 |20.98
Latvia ||||||41.34 |53.7
Hungary ||||||38.5 |36.31
Malta ||||||82.39 |78.79
Poland ||||||20.87 |24.53
Slovenia ||||||28.35 |28.33
Slovakia ||||||16.97 |19.64
Bulgaria |||||||38.99
Romania |||||||27.67
Average EU turnout |61.99 |58.98 |58.41 |56.67 |49.51 |45.47 |43While there has been a fall, the addition of the post-Communist Eastern European countries has been the cause of most of it - they are coming on board with turnouts of under 30% in many cases - there is certainly no fall dramatic enough to support a claim of illegitimacy, even if we assume that turnout determines legitimacy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

EP-Elections.png

I put your figures in to a chart and they tell a different story than your comments about the Eastern Block. The Trend of voters voting for MEP's was already going well down before the Eastern Block accession into the EU. With Italy, Germany, Netherlands and France all large population with noticeable drops and UK consistently low turnout well before the Eastern Block Joined. Your Figures you posted proves OP point that people are less interested with the EU Parliament and EU itself. EU Commission Polls also show the same effect.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

EP-Elections.png

I put your figures in to a chart and they tell a different story than your comments about the Eastern Block. The Trend of voters voting for MEP's was already going well down before the Eastern Block accession into the EU. With Italy, Germany, Netherlands and France all large population with noticeable drops and UK consistently low turnout well before the Eastern Block Joined. Your Figures you posted proves OP point that people are less interested with the EU Parliament and EU itself. EU Commission Polls also show the same effect.

I didn't say there was no drop - I pointed out that the accession of the Eastern bloc countries has had the 'dramatic' effect on lowering average turnout. That there's a fall even in the older EU countries is obvious from the figures I posted, but it's hardly "dramatic":

EU-9|66.03|62.25|63.17|59.4|54.97|58.21|57.75
EU-12|||62.87|58.54|55.66|55.9|54.5
EU-15|||||52.42|52.7|52.39
EU-25||||||47.8|47.18
EU-27|||||||43


The drop for the EU-9 has been from 66% to 57% (4 terms stable), for the EU-12 from 63% to 54.5% (also 4 terms static), the EU-15 stayed static 3 terms at 52%, and the EU-25 almost as static at 47% for 2 terms now.

What they've had in common is that each new accession wave has lowered the average, because the new states have come on board with lower turnout. While that may indicate a problem, there is no guarantee that the accession states will stay at their lower turnouts - Sweden and Finland have rising turnouts, as do Denmark, Ireland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and Slovakia.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Freeborn John

limklad wrote: »

EP-Elections.png

I put your figures in to a chart and they tell a different story than your comments about the Eastern Block. The Trend of voters voting for MEP's was already going well down before the Eastern Block accession into the EU. With Italy, Germany, Netherlands and France all large population with noticeable drops and UK consistently low turnout well before the Eastern Block Joined. Your Figures you posted proves OP point that people are less interested with the EU Parliament and EU itself. EU Commission Polls also show the same effect.

I would also argue the current voting numbers for the EU Parliament have been artificially inflated in some countries. Turnout in the UK had dropped to 24% by 1999 for example but was raised by holding local election on the same day as EU Parliament elections since then which boosted turnout by 10% or more.

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It does no such thing. The reason most of them came in from the UK is that we have a Common Travel Area with them.

Yes, FT I know. My point was that in many ways undermines the rationale for opting out of Schengen. Having an open border on one side and a "secure" border on the other side is a bit akin to closing and activating a burglar alarm on the doors and windows of the one side of your house and leaving them wide open with a "Welcome Burglars" on the other side of your house.

Obviously, if there is evidence that Ireland and the UK have a lower rate of illegal immigrantion than the Schengen states, opting out of Schengen would make sense. If, however, after having done so the rate of illegal immigration is essentially the same, or even higher, than the net result is we are spending a lot of tax-payers money with little to show for it.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

By cynically inserting the Schengen provision into the referendum legislation in the hope the recession will make the Irish people more inclined to pass measures that might otherwise be controversial, the Government has actively broadened the Lisbon referendum debate beyond Lisbon itself. Schengen is now an issue in it too, as the no side will remind the Irish people before polling-day.

Nice try FT, but currently the Government can join Schengen whenever it so chooses. It has the freedom to do so under the existing constitutional provisions. If you have a modicum of sense you'd know that should the British cabinet decide the UK will join Schengen in the morning, our cabinet will decide tthat Ireland will do so in the afternoon.

FutureTaoiseach

View wrote:

Nice try FT, but currently the Government can join Schengen whenever it so chooses. It has the freedom to do so under the existing constitutional provisions. If you have a modicum of sense you'd know that should the British cabinet decide the UK will join Schengen in the morning, our cabinet will decide tthat Ireland will do so in the afternoon.

If they already have the freedom to do this, why are they inserting this enabling power into our Constitution? It suggests to me they are unsure of their ground on this matter. The fact remains that the relevant provision was not in the original Lisbon I legislation, and it has to be asked why it has been inserted into the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

If they already have the freedom to do this, why are they inserting this enabling power into our Constitution? It suggests to me they are unsure of their ground on this matter. The fact remains that the relevant provision was not in the original Lisbon I legislation, and it has to be asked why it has been inserted into the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2009.

It suggests to me that they wish to be sure of preserving any move to Schengen from constitutional challenge. As to what's happened in the past year to cause them to insert this, presumably it's the result of UK moves in respect of the Common Travel Area over the intervening period.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Freeborn John wrote: »

I would also argue the current voting numbers for the EU Parliament have been artificially inflated in some countries. Turnout in the UK had dropped to 24% by 1999 for example but was raised by holding local election on the same day as EU Parliament elections since then which boosted turnout by 10% or more.

Somehow, that manages to sound like you're opposed to people voting, as opposed to concerned about it. I'm sure it did boost turnout, but since local election turnout itself has been falling for years, and now hovers around the 36% mark, one could equally well argue the opposite case.

amused,
Scofflaw

nesf

limklad wrote: »

EP-Elections.png

I put your figures in to a chart and they tell a different story than your comments about the Eastern Block. The Trend of voters voting for MEP's was already going well down before the Eastern Block accession into the EU. With Italy, Germany, Netherlands and France all large population with noticeable drops and UK consistently low turnout well before the Eastern Block Joined. Your Figures you posted proves OP point that people are less interested with the EU Parliament and EU itself. EU Commission Polls also show the same effect.

Indeed, however; it's quite clear the effect of introducing 5 or 6 countries with 10-30% turnout rates will have on the average will do. Low numbers were far more common than high numbers among new entrants. Yes the turnout was falling in some of the older EU countries but that's a side issue, what we saw was a large change in the balance of countries between those with typically high and those with typically low turnouts. Most countries stayed in the same group over the period. Turnout on average dropped but this is expected as political apathy sets in tbh.


What I'd really be interested in is taking a look at the trend in national elections over this period. The Irish electorate has become much more apathetic since the 70s across the board, not just in EU elections for instance. (76% in 73 and 67% in 07 for instance)

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Indeed, however; it's quite clear the effect of introducing 5 or 6 countries with 10-30% turnout rates will have on the average will do. Low numbers were far more common than high numbers among new entrants. Yes the turnout was falling in some of the older EU countries but that's a side issue, what we saw was a large change in the balance of countries between those with typically high and those with typically low turnouts. Most countries stayed in the same group over the period. Turnout on average dropped but this is expected as political apathy sets in tbh.


What I'd really be interested in is taking a look at the trend in national elections over this period. The Irish electorate has become much more apathetic since the 70s across the board, not just in EU elections for instance. (76% in 73 and 67% in 07 for instance)

UK general elections:

Year|1945|1950|1951|1955|1959|1964|1966|1970|1974F|1974O|1979|1983|1987|1992|1997|2001|2005
% Turnout|72.63§|83.61|81.91|76.79|78.73|77.09|75.81|71.95|78.79|72.78|75.98|72.66|75.34|77.72|71.29|59.38|61.36

Source

More generally:

Country|Average general election turnout|Election turnout c.1970|Election turnout c.2002|Change from 1970–2002|Compulsory voting|Average turnout in Euro elections 1979–99|Type of Electoral system|Sunday / Weekday voting
Belgium|92.78|91.50|90.60|-0.9|Yes|89.40|PR|Sunday
Austria|88.74|91.80|80.40|-11.4|No|58.30|PR|Sunday
Sweden|88.51|88.30|81.40|-6.9|No|39.90|PR|Sunday
Luxembourg|88.33|90.10|86.50|-3.6|Yes|89.60|PR|Sunday
Italy|88.08|93.20|81.40|-11.8|Yes-until-1993|79.10|Mixed|Sunday
Denmark|86.85|87.20|87.10|-0.1|No|50.20|List-PR|Weekday
Germany|85.35|91.10|82.20|-8.9|No|58.00|PR|Sunday
France|82.24|84.20|79.70|-4.5|No|53.20|Majority|Sunday
Netherlands|81.84|79.10|73.20|-5.9|No|44.60|PR|Weekday
Greece|81.01|79.60*|89.00|+9.4|Yes|78.60|PR|Sunday
Portugal|77.00|91.70*|61.00|-30.7|No|49.80|PR|Sunday
Spain|73.64|79.40*|73.80|-5.6|No|61.90|PR|Sunday
Finland|73.64|83.60|65.20|-18.4|No|45.20|PR|Sunday
UK|72.99|72.20|59.40|-12.8|No|32.30|Plurality|Weekday
Ireland|71.23|77.80|62.70|-15.1|No|53.90|PR-STV|Weekday
Average|82.15|85.39|76.91|8.48||58.93

*dictatorships in 1970

Source

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

nesf wrote: »

What I'd really be interested in is taking a look at the trend in national elections over this period. The Irish electorate has become much more apathetic since the 70s across the board, not just in EU elections for instance. (76% in 73 and 67% in 07 for instance)

That's a fair point, was going to make it myself. EU Elections shouldn't be viewed without referring to this point.

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

UK general elections:

Year|1945|1950|1951|1955|1959|1964|1966|1970|1974F|1974O|1979|1983|1987|1992|1997|2001|2005
% Turnout|72.63§|83.61|81.91|76.79|78.73|77.09|75.81|71.95|78.79|72.78|75.98|72.66|75.34|77.72|71.29|59.38|61.36

Source

More generally:

Country|Average general election turnout|Election turnout c.1970|Election turnout c.2002|Change from 1970–2002|Compulsory voting|Average turnout in Euro elections 1979–99|Type of Electoral system|Sunday / Weekday voting
Belgium|92.78|91.50|90.60|-0.9|Yes|89.40|PR|Sunday
Austria|88.74|91.80|80.40|-11.4|No|58.30|PR|Sunday
Sweden|88.51|88.30|81.40|-6.9|No|39.90|PR|Sunday
Luxembourg|88.33|90.10|86.50|-3.6|Yes|89.60|PR|Sunday
Italy|88.08|93.20|81.40|-11.8|Yes-until-1993|79.10|Mixed|Sunday
Denmark|86.85|87.20|87.10|-0.1|No|50.20|List-PR|Weekday
Germany|85.35|91.10|82.20|-8.9|No|58.00|PR|Sunday
France|82.24|84.20|79.70|-4.5|No|53.20|Majority|Sunday
Netherlands|81.84|79.10|73.20|-5.9|No|44.60|PR|Weekday
Greece|81.01|79.60*|89.00|+9.4|Yes|78.60|PR|Sunday
Portugal|77.00|91.70*|61.00|-30.7|No|49.80|PR|Sunday
Spain|73.64|79.40*|73.80|-5.6|No|61.90|PR|Sunday
Finland|73.64|83.60|65.20|-18.4|No|45.20|PR|Sunday
UK|72.99|72.20|59.40|-12.8|No|32.30|Plurality|Weekday
Ireland|71.23|77.80|62.70|-15.1|No|53.90|PR-STV|Weekday
Average|82.15|85.39|76.91|8.48||58.93

*dictatorships in 1970

Source

cordially,
Scofflaw

Right, now adjust EU turnouts by the change in General Turnouts to see how big the separate downturn is (it will be there, but it'll be interesting to see the diversions from the national election norm).

Observe how when sick I get others to do my stats work for me..

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Right, now adjust EU turnouts by the change in General Turnouts to see how big the separate downturn is (it will be there, but it'll be interesting to see the diversions from the national election norm).

Observe how when sick I get others to do my stats work for me..

Oh, alright then:

Country|Average general election turnout|Election turnout c.1970|Election turnout c.2002|Change from 1970–2002|Compulsory voting|Average turnout in Euro elections 1979–99|Average 2004/9|Change|Difference|Type of Electoral system
Belgium|92.78|91.5|90.6|-0.9|Yes|89.4|90.6|1.2|2.1|PR
Austria|88.74|91.8|80.4|-11.4|No|58.3|44.2|-14.1|-2.7|PR
Sweden|88.51|88.3|81.4|-6.9|No|39.9|41.69|1.79|8.69|PR
Luxembourg|88.33|90.1|86.5|-3.6|Yes|89.6|91.05|1.45|5.05|PR
Italy|88.08|93.2|81.4|-11.8|Yes-until-1993|79.1|68.39|-10.72|1.09|Mixed
Denmark|86.85|87.2|87.1|-0.1|No|50.2|53.72|3.52|3.62|List-PR
Germany|85.35|91.1|82.2|-8.9|No|58|43.15|-14.85|-5.95|PR
France|82.24|84.2|79.7|-4.5|No|53.2|41.7|-11.51|-7.01|Majority
Netherlands|81.84|79.1|73.2|-5.9|No|44.6|38.01|-6.6|-0.7|PR
Greece|81.01|79.60*|89|9.4|Yes|78.6|57.92|-20.69|-30.09|PR
Portugal|77|91.70*|61|-30.7|No|49.8|37.69|-12.11|18.59|PR
Spain|73.64|79.40*|73.8|-5.6|No|61.9|45.02|-16.88|-11.28|PR
Finland|73.64|83.6|65.2|-18.4|No|45.2|39.87|-5.34|13.07|PR
UK|72.99|72.2|59.4|-12.8|No|32.3|36.61|4.31|17.11|Plurality
Ireland|71.23|77.8|62.7|-15.1|No|53.9|58.61|4.71|19.81|PR-STV


Interesting - lies, damned lies, and statistics, as they say. A couple of dramatic results (Greece and Spain), but otherwise not exactly conclusive evidence of something specifically wrong with the European elections.

cordially,
Scofflaw