Lisbon Voters Please Answer These Questions

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zzippy wrote: »

Would you say sharing our fishing rights has been a good thing? 18% of EU territorial waters and only 4% of the quota. A fishing fleet that is outcompeted by larger countries with free access to our fish stocks, declining employment and no resources to modernise...
Whatever about other sectors, the management under Europe of our fish stocks has certainly been a "race to the bottom".
Its all very well saying Ireland has done well out of Europe, of course we have, no one disputes that, but we must also acknowledge that our neighbours have done extremely well out of Ireland since 1973.

There's no equivalence though.

If you give me 100 euros, and I give you half my dinner, which I wasn't going to finish, have you 'done extremely well' out of me?

ei.sdraob

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

There's no equivalence though.

If you give me 100 euros, and I give you half my dinner, which I wasn't going to finish, have you 'done extremely well' out of me?

you should add to that analogy that the the person that you gave half the dinner you weren't gonna eat gave you a plasma TV in return

the NO side keep forgetting to mention (well Coir just peddled another lie) that the farmers have done extremely well out of EU

Scofflaw

Zzippy wrote: »

Would you say sharing our fishing rights has been a good thing? 18% of EU territorial waters and only 4% of the quota. A fishing fleet that is outcompeted by larger countries with free access to our fish stocks, declining employment and no resources to modernise...
Whatever about other sectors, the management under Europe of our fish stocks has certainly been a "race to the bottom".
Its all very well saying Ireland has done well out of Europe, of course we have, no one disputes that, but we must also acknowledge that our neighbours have done extremely well out of Ireland since 1973.

Actually, that's 8% of EU waters and 4% of the quota - in other words, we get half of what comes out of Irish waters. Before we joined the EU, we got about 10%. All told, other EU countries have had about $8bn from our waters since we joined, and we've had about $4.5bn. The EU has both paid for most of Ireland's fisheries protection vessels and supported the Irish fishing industry through funding - a funding level which runs at about 7% of the Irish fishing industry's income.

Figures are here and here.

None of which should be taken to mean that the CFP has been anything but a disaster, but the "EU stole our fish" narrative is a fake.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zzippy

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

There's no equivalence though.

If you give me 100 euros, and I give you half my dinner, which I wasn't going to finish, have you 'done extremely well' out of me?

I said in my post that yes, we have done well out of Europe, but your analogy is exaggerated. Its more like "if you give me 10 euros, and I give you the dinner for 10 people that you didn't have electricity to cook, have you done extremely well out of me". I can't find it on google at the moment*, but I've seen figures that show Europe has caught far more in value terms of fish in our waters than we have received in subsidies from Europe, including farm subsidies. I'm not saying we haven't done very well out of Europe, I'm just pointing out that the reverse is true also. And it was in response to an earlier poster who said that sharing our resources had never been bad for Ireland.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you should add to that analogy that the the person that you gave half the dinner you weren't gonna eat gave you a plasma TV in return

the NO side keep forgetting to mention (well Coir just peddled another lie) that the farmers have done extremely well out of EU

See my reply above. Yes, Irish farmers have done extremely well out of Europe. But that was because our government in 1973 gave up possibly our most lucrative and sustainable resource in return for those farm supports. Irish fishermen were not able to modernise or expand properly to exploit the resource without the same supports that farmers got, and with the unfair competition from other countries who got a disproportionate share of fishing quotas.

The share out of the quota in 1973 was based on political negotiation, and went in favour of the nations with the larger commercial fishing fleets at the time. Yes, Ireland had a small fleet, and hence the analogy of "the dinner I wasn't going to finish", but the restriction to 4% of the quota meant that our fishing industry was effectively aborted at birth, and never had the chance to expand to what if could have been, given the huge resource there.

In addition, Irish fish stocks have suffered from overfishing caused by the Common Fisheries Policy, which consistently ignored scientific advice on conservation in favour of maintaining large and unsustainable quotas to appease political interests and the fishing lobby. If that's an example of how Europe has been good for Ireland, then no thank you.

*I can't find the actual report. If you look on google there are links to claims by Sinn Fein and others on this issue, but I would only use verified figures to back up my argument.

ei.sdraob

Zzippy wrote: »

. But that was because our government in 1973 gave up possibly our most lucrative and sustainable resource in return for those farm supports..

see Scofflaw's post above and this key thread of his

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zzippy wrote: »

I said in my post that yes, we have done well out of Europe, but your analogy is exaggerated. Its more like "if you give me 10 euros, and I give you the dinner for 10 people that you didn't have electricity to cook, have you done extremely well out of me". I can't find it on google at the moment*, but I've seen figures that show Europe has caught far more in value terms of fish in our waters than we have received in subsidies from Europe, including farm subsidies.

Then the figures you saw are entirely, completely and utterly incorrect, and your analogy based on them isn't based on reality. I picked the massive imbalance in my analogy because it is a reasonably accurate portrayal of the scale of the imbalance.

The EU has absolutely not 'done extremely well' out of Ireland, Ireland, as a whole, has 'done extremely well' out of the EU directly, and even better out of our membership.

koHd

On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you believe you know on the Lisbon treaty?

4/10

Will you be voting Yes or No?

Undecided.

What did you vote last time?

Didn't vote.

And What are your reasons for your choice in vote?

Undecided.

marco_polo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Then the figures you saw are entirely, completely and utterly incorrect, and your analogy based on them isn't based on reality. I picked the massive imbalance in my analogy because it is a reasonably accurate portrayal of the scale of the imbalance.

The EU has absolutely not 'done extremely well' out of Ireland, Ireland, as a whole, has 'done extremely well' out of the EU directly, and even better out of our membership.

I see on some recent No campaign leaflets it has gone up from 200 to 600 bn. 400bn taken out of our waters since Lisbon I alone :eek:

Zzippy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, that's 8% of EU waters and 4% of the quota - in other words, we get half of what comes out of Irish waters. Before we joined the EU, we got about 10%. All told, other EU countries have had about $8bn from our waters since we joined, and we've had about $4.5bn. The EU has both paid for most of Ireland's fisheries protection vessels and supported the Irish fishing industry through funding - a funding level which runs at about 7% of the Irish fishing industry's income.

Figures are here and here.

None of which should be taken to mean that the CFP has been anything but a disaster, but the "EU stole our fish" narrative is a fake.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Where are you getting the 8% figure from? Including the total EEZ of France in EU waters is not really a true reflection, as very few boats from Irish or other EU nations are going to be fishing in the Indian Ocean.
From the graph you posted there, its very hard to make out where you can extract figures to say $8bn. It also shows Norway with a substantial catch, but as they're not in the EU they have no fishing rights in Irish EEZ waters.

I 100% agree that the CFP has been an unmitigated disaster. I also agree that the EU didn't steal our fish. We gave it away freely.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

see Scofflaw's post above and this key thread of his

The premise of the calculations used in that thread are, I venture, a large underestimation. I personally know many of the sea fisheries officers in this country, they have no vested interest in this either way, and are 100% sure that other countries declared landings from Irish waters are a complete fiction, based on what they see every day. For instance, a UK boat (UK-registered, usually Spanish crew), may have a quota of 40 tonnes of hake from area VIa. They may catch 10t from Area VIa and 30t from Area VIb, but declare the lot from VIa. Even with satellite tracking technology it is impossible to prove non-compliance, all a boat has to do is steam slowly around in VIa for a few hours and you can't prove they didn't catch all their 40t there. Unfortunately, we have a dedicated and professional sea fisheries protection authority, whereas other countries are not interested in regulating their own fleet. An anecdote - a friend accompanied an EU inspector from Brussels on a visit to check monitoring of Spanish fishing vessels in northern Spain. The fishery officer who met them couldn't even find the entrance to the port.
Basically, I have been told by people working in the industry, and people who are paid to regulate the industry, that landings data is laughable. Another reason the CFP has failed - even the scientists recommendations for quotas are based on flawed data.

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Then the figures you saw are entirely, completely and utterly incorrect, and your analogy based on them isn't based on reality. I picked the massive imbalance in my analogy because it is a reasonably accurate portrayal of the scale of the imbalance.

The EU has absolutely not 'done extremely well' out of Ireland, Ireland, as a whole, has 'done extremely well' out of the EU directly, and even better out of our membership.

If the figures I saw are utterly incorrect, perhaps you would care to correct them with the real figures, and back up your statement that the EU has absolutely not done extremely wel out of Ireland? As I said, I can't find the official figures, as I have serious doubts abnut those provided by Scofflaw here, or about official landings figures, see above.

marco_polo wrote: »

I see on some recent No campaign leaflets it has gone up from 200 to 600 bn. 400bn taken out of our waters since Lisbon I alone :eek:

As I said earlier, I refuse to quote any figures used by the No campaign, I would rather find the accurate figures from a real report. I am sceptical about a lot of claims the No camp makes too.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zzippy wrote: »

Where are you getting the 8% figure from? Including the total EEZ of France in EU waters is not really a true reflection, as very few boats from Irish or other EU nations are going to be fishing in the Indian Ocean.
From the graph you posted there, its very hard to make out where you can extract figures to say $8bn. It also shows Norway with a substantial catch, but as they're not in the EU they have no fishing rights in Irish EEZ waters.

I 100% agree that the CFP has been an unmitigated disaster. I also agree that the EU didn't steal our fish. We gave it away freely.



The premise of the calculations used in that thread are, I venture, a large underestimation. I personally know many of the sea fisheries officers in this country, they have no vested interest in this either way, and are 100% sure that other countries declared landings from Irish waters are a complete fiction, based on what they see every day. For instance, a UK boat (UK-registered, usually Spanish crew), may have a quota of 40 tonnes of hake from area VIa. They may catch 10t from Area VIa and 30t from Area VIb, but declare the lot from VIa. Even with satellite tracking technology it is impossible to prove non-compliance, all a boat has to do is steam slowly around in VIa for a few hours and you can't prove they didn't catch all their 40t there. Unfortunately, we have a dedicated and professional sea fisheries protection authority, whereas other countries are not interested in regulating their own fleet. An anecdote - a friend accompanied an EU inspector from Brussels on a visit to check monitoring of Spanish fishing vessels in northern Spain. The fishery officer who met them couldn't even find the entrance to the port.
Basically, I have been told by people working in the industry, and people who are paid to regulate the industry, that landings data is laughable. Another reason the CFP has failed - even the scientists recommendations for quotas are based on flawed data.



If the figures I saw are utterly incorrect, perhaps you would care to correct them with the real figures, and back up your statement that the EU has absolutely not done extremely wel out of Ireland? As I said, I can't find the official figures, as I have serious doubts abnut those provided by Scofflaw here, or about official landings figures, see above.



As I said earlier, I refuse to quote any figures used by the No campaign, I would rather find the accurate figures from a real report. I am sceptical about a lot of claims the No camp makes too.

I refer you to Scofflaws figures, which I trust, if you don't, list your reasons and take it up with him.

Don't ask me to prove a negative please. The burden of proof on the claim that the EU has 'done extremely well out of Ireland' based on the money we have received versus the catch taken from Irish waters remains with you.

Scofflaw

Zzippy wrote: »

Where are you getting the 8% figure from? Including the total EEZ of France in EU waters is not really a true reflection, as very few boats from Irish or other EU nations are going to be fishing in the Indian Ocean.

I don't see any problems including France's EEZ. Irish boats like Atlantic Dawn have gone pretty much anywhere there's fish, and a French vessel fishing in the Indian Ocean is not fishing in Irish waters. You can't compare total catches and not compare total areas.

Zzippy wrote: »

From the graph you posted there, its very hard to make out where you can extract figures to say $8bn. It also shows Norway with a substantial catch, but as they're not in the EU they have no fishing rights in Irish EEZ waters.

There's a link marked "show tabular data" at the bottom left below the graph. Norway has negotiated access to EU fishing waters (see here for example).

Zzippy wrote: »

I 100% agree that the CFP has been an unmitigated disaster. I also agree that the EU didn't steal our fish. We gave it away freely.

Surprisingly little of it, though, compared to the fantasy figures being bandied about.

Zzippy wrote: »

The premise of the calculations used in that thread are, I venture, a large underestimation. I personally know many of the sea fisheries officers in this country, they have no vested interest in this either way, and are 100% sure that other countries declared landings from Irish waters are a complete fiction, based on what they see every day. For instance, a UK boat (UK-registered, usually Spanish crew), may have a quota of 40 tonnes of hake from area VIa. They may catch 10t from Area VIa and 30t from Area VIb, but declare the lot from VIa. Even with satellite tracking technology it is impossible to prove non-compliance, all a boat has to do is steam slowly around in VIa for a few hours and you can't prove they didn't catch all their 40t there. Unfortunately, we have a dedicated and professional sea fisheries protection authority, whereas other countries are not interested in regulating their own fleet. An anecdote - a friend accompanied an EU inspector from Brussels on a visit to check monitoring of Spanish fishing vessels in northern Spain. The fishery officer who met them couldn't even find the entrance to the port.
Basically, I have been told by people working in the industry, and people who are paid to regulate the industry, that landings data is laughable. Another reason the CFP has failed - even the scientists recommendations for quotas are based on flawed data.

The figures I have quoted are based on an academic survey which takes unreported catches into account, as far as that's possible.

Zzippy wrote: »

If the figures I saw are utterly incorrect, perhaps you would care to correct them with the real figures, and back up your statement that the EU has absolutely not done extremely wel out of Ireland? As I said, I can't find the official figures, as I have serious doubts abnut those provided by Scofflaw here, or about official landings figures, see above.

As I said earlier, I refuse to quote any figures used by the No campaign, I would rather find the accurate figures from a real report. I am sceptical about a lot of claims the No camp makes too.

I don't doubt there is a degree of error in the figures the Sea Around Us project provides (which hopefully you can now look at), but the No campaigns need them to be out by orders of magnitude. If you ever find figures at a comparable level of detail and objectivity to the ones I have provided, please don't hesitate to bring them up here. I won't hold my breath though, because the figures used by the No campaigns are based on a process of guesstimation and inflation which is relatively obvious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PKel

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hi Paul,

Not going to quote machine gun you here as we're getting closer and closer to agreement on the meaning, if not the worth of the text...

Well, I agree there are differences in how we interpret them. Just because I can see your point of view, does not mean we're "closer to agreement on the meaning if not the worth".

First of all, I do believe that we should copy and paste the Lisbon guarantees into every future treaty. It would make us look like backwards self obsessed paranoid idiots in front of the rest of Europe, but if the shoe fits...

Your implication is that those who may have qualms (whether you accept their validity or not) are backwards and paranoid?

Apparently the Yes side seem to think people must uncritically [meaning without thinking/analysing] accept whatever is dished out. My motto, "If it doubt, check it out" , speaks exactly to this and hence my questions.

Again, "sincere cooperation" not present under Nice. Why is it necessary to introduce the idea? The old wording suffices in this particular case. Of course this is never going to get a mention elsewhere. To understand it, I would like to know what the intention is behind it. I WANT to be convinced. But the EU rolls on.

As for the language change, remember Lisbon is a step back from the European constitution, which indeed set out to more closely integrate the Union in a more state-like way. Some of that language survives, I don't have a problem with it (but then I wouldn't), but it's not exactly inducing servitude. I think it's right that Union members should refrain from acting against the Union, where the Union has an agreed objective. If you disagree with the objective then seek to change it.

I have a copy of the EU Constitution and its not exactly that different from Lisbon in terms of content, especially in the terms of its provisions. As far as I see, there is nothing in the Constitution that cannot be undertaken using the Lisbon version.

But, how am I supposed to do that seek to change in any of Union's objectives, as you suggest? Every political party in a position to attempt this is hardly going to listen. Ganly proves you can't start to successfully elect such a "reform" party.

And, puh-lease don't say that under Lisbon you get to directly petition the Commission. A million people signing something sounds great. But, to quote you, what is the "worth" of it? A million voters spread across 27 States and over hundreds of constituencies, and that's if you see MEPs as accountable to listening/not listening to a petition to the Commission. I don't see the gain here. It can (too!) easily be ignored. It *is* good PR though!

I guess I have less paranoia about an institution

There you go again. Those who have objections/queries are paranoid. All I have done is compare the Nice version and Lisbon version and I'm unhappy, to say the least.

To analyse something with a critical mind is NOT to look for a reason to reject it, but to examine and evaluate the positives and negatives. That's how I decide to vote on anything. The result for me had been yes to all the treaties until Nice. And, as you can see, I am now effectively defending Nice.:eek:

that has been overwhelmingly benign both to Ireland,

I wouldn't argue against that. And you point out many of the benefits of the EU.

Nonetheless, the scare tactics used by BOTH sides must be disregarded.

My intention in posting is to suggest that people should freely think for themselves, check the changes and make their decision based on the treaties. Many may not have the time, or would rather make a decision based on more immediate worries/concerns (eg economic woe, anti-government). But Europe isn't going anywhere, we're not leaving the euro or the EU [nor should we]. Actually, I can even see that Ireland could participate in "enchanced cooperation" on whatever matters and remain at the heart of Europe. [And the government may not need to have a referendum for that]

A No to Lisbon is NOT a No to Europe.

Paul.

PopeBuckfastXVI

PKel wrote: »

Well, I agree there are differences in how we interpret them. Just because I can see your point of view, does not mean we're "closer to agreement on the meaning if not the worth".

Your implication is that those who may have qualms (whether you accept their validity or not) are backwards and paranoid?

Very much so, yes. If we must be given guarantees on abortion & neutrality in every treaty, because every time there's a treaty we assume the EU is out to force abortion and an end to neutrality on us, like they even care, then yes, we show ourselves as backwards and paranoid.

PKel wrote: »

Apparently the Yes side seem to think people must uncritically [meaning without thinking/analysing] accept whatever is dished out. My motto, "If it doubt, check it out" , speaks exactly to this and hence my questions.

I couldn't agree with your motto more.

PKel wrote: »

Again, "sincere cooperation" not present under Nice. Why is it necessary to introduce the idea? The old wording suffices in this particular case. Of course this is never going to get a mention elsewhere. To understand it, I would like to know what the intention is behind it. I WANT to be convinced. But the EU rolls on.

Perhaps because they want to stress that the cooperation is indeed sincere, and not a marriage of convenience that future members may join to reap the benefits without giving anything themselves.

PKel wrote: »

I have a copy of the EU Constitution and its not exactly that different from Lisbon in terms of content, especially in the terms of its provisions. As far as I see, there is nothing in the Constitution that cannot be undertaken using the Lisbon version.

But, how am I supposed to do that seek to change in any of Union's objectives, as you suggest? Every political party in a position to attempt this is hardly going to listen. Ganly proves you can't start to successfully elect such a "reform" party.

Well if enough people don't share your views then you'll just have to live with it, I'm afraid. That's democracy for you.

PKel wrote: »

And, puh-lease don't say that under Lisbon you get to directly petition the Commission. A million people signing something sounds great. But, to quote you, what is the "worth" of it? A million voters spread across 27 States and over hundreds of constituencies, and that's if you see MEPs as accountable to listening/not listening to a petition to the Commission. I don't see the gain here. It can (too!) easily be ignored. It *is* good PR though!

Frankly I think a million signatures is too few in a population of 500 million to take up the commissions time considering. I'm not too interested in the citizens petition, I can see it being used by special interest groups to push their own agenda's a lot, frankly I think it will be a bit of an annoyance. We can probably look forward to Ray D'Arcy Show organised petitions to declare Roy Keane the best ever premiership footballer.

PKel wrote: »

There you go again. Those who have objections/queries are paranoid. All I have done is compare the Nice version and Lisbon version and I'm unhappy, to say the least.

To analyse something with a critical mind is NOT to look for a reason to reject it, but to examine and evaluate the positives and negatives. That's how I decide to vote on anything. The result for me had been yes to all the treaties until Nice. And, as you can see, I am now effectively defending Nice.:eek:

To seek to infer nefarious purposes on a historically benign organisation is a little paranoid though.

PKel wrote: »

I wouldn't argue against that. And you point out many of the benefits of the EU.

Nonetheless, the scare tactics used by BOTH sides must be disregarded.

My intention in posting is to suggest that people should freely think for themselves, check the changes and make their decision based on the treaties. Many may not have the time, or would rather make a decision based on more immediate worries/concerns (eg economic woe, anti-government). But Europe isn't going anywhere, we're not leaving the euro or the EU [nor should we]. Actually, I can even see that Ireland could participate in "enchanced cooperation" on whatever matters and remain at the heart of Europe. [And the government may not need to have a referendum for that]

A No to Lisbon is NOT a No to Europe.

Paul.

Indeed, but a No to Europe most definitely is a No to Lisbon, it's hard to tell them apart sometimes.

Plotician

Good discussion there chaps. Might be inclined not to use the word 'democracy' too much in this debate though.

I refer to The Department of Foreign Affairs who consider a 'yes' result a successful referendum (thereby inferring a 'no' result is a referendum failure).

meglome

Plotician wrote: »

I refer to The Department of Foreign Affairs who consider a 'yes' result a successful referendum.

Shouldn't they?

Plotician

Oh boy, here we go again.
A successful referendum is one that results in a democratic decision. It doesn't matter what that decision is, or the result, just that the will of the people has been acknowledged.

To clarify:

"If a second referendum is successful, Ireland’s instrument of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, to be lodged with the Italian Government, will refer to both the Treaty and the Decision."

That means whether its a yes or a no it still gets ratified? Not in my book.

ei.sdraob

Plotician wrote: »

Good discussion there chaps. Might be inclined not to use the word 'democracy' too much in this debate though.

I refer to The Department of Foreign Affairs who consider a 'yes' result a successful referendum (thereby inferring a 'no' result is a referendum failure).

1. they are not the Referendum commission and are not required to be neutral

2. the DFA are professionals and get to deal with EU daily in order to cut deals for irish people on EU stage

analogy:

---

if your mechanic (DFA) tells you that your car needs to be inspected, fixed and upgraded or nct'ed (Lisbon)

would you listen to him,

or

would you listen to the neighborhood priest (Coir) or that dodgy neighbor (Sinn Fein)

when it comes to getting advice about fixing cars

K-9

Plotician wrote: »

Oh boy, here we go again.
A successful referendum is one that results in a democratic decision. It doesn't matter what that decision is, or the result, just that the will of the people has been acknowledged.

To clarify:

"If a second referendum is successful, Ireland’s instrument of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, to be lodged with the Italian Government, will refer to both the Treaty and the Decision."

That means whether its a yes or a no it still gets ratified? Not in my book.

No, I think that is why they put the If part in.

You are being a bit semantic about the term successful. They mean passed or failed. They always use it in Referenda.

Plotician

Bl**dy hell guys,
neither of those arguments stack up!

Want to give it another go?

K-9

Plotician wrote: »

Bl**dy hell guys,
neither of those arguments stack up!

Want to give it another go?

If the Referenda FAILS it will not be lodged.

That better?

The Government was unsuccessful bringing in the last Abortion Referendum. Why so tetchy over a term?

Plotician

ok K9, can see where you're coming from. Its not good use of words though as in the broader sense a successful referendum should simply mean a legal decision was arrived at.

Giving a 'no' result a negative connurtation (forget the issue being debated) is not a well balanced stance.

ei.sdraob

Plotician wrote: »

ok K9, can see where you're coming from. Its not good use of words though as in the broader sense a successful referendum should simply mean a legal decision was arrived at.

Giving a 'no' result a negative connurtation (forget the issue being debated) is not a well balanced stance.

but NO vote will have negative consequences and does not mean a status quo

Plotician

ei.sdraob wrote: »

but NO vote will have negative consequences and does not mean a status quo

Not true. The last referendum resulted in a no and had positive consequences.

Scofflaw

Plotician wrote: »

Not true. The last referendum resulted in a no and had positive consequences.

Positive consequences if you vote yes this time, though. Negotiation is like that. If you hold out for ever you get nothing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Plotician wrote: »

Not true. The last referendum resulted in a no and had positive consequences.

such as

Plotician

you're right there Scof, however i'm not arguing on whether a yes or no is the right result, just that either a yes or a no is a successful result. (ie: democracy served and we live with the outcome).

Plotician

ei.sdraob wrote: »

such as

Legal assurances and a change to the commissioner rules (or are they irrelevant in your opinion?)

Scofflaw

Plotician wrote: »

you're right there Scof, however i'm not arguing on whether a yes or no is the right result, just that either a yes or a no is a successful result. (ie: democracy served and we live with the outcome).

True, but that's such a given it doesn't really mean anything. If someone said that Ireland had "successfully held a referendum" meaning that it had happened I'd ask what exactly was going to prevent them? Iraq, now, could "successfully hold a referendum" and mean that everyone wasn't killed on their way to the polls, and that the result wasn't declared invalid by virtue of intimidation.

Otherwise, I'd go with successfully holding a referendum meaning that the government carried the day, since they're the only people who call them. Oddly enough, I've just used the term on another thread about a Sinn Fein referendum to reverse Lisbon - it would be "successful" if it succeeded in reversing Lisbon. That wouldn't be a success from my point of view, obviously, but it would be from the point of view of those who called the referendum.

Come to think of it, isn't it normal to describe a referendum as having been "defeated" whenever the answer is a No? See here, for example.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Scofflaw wrote: »

True, but that's such a given it doesn't really mean anything. If someone said that Ireland had "successfully held a referendum" meaning that it had happened I'd ask what exactly was going to prevent them? Iraq, now, could "successfully hold a referendum" and mean that everyone wasn't killed on their way to the polls, and that the result wasn't declared invalid by virtue of intimidation.

Otherwise, I'd go with successfully holding a referendum meaning that the government carried the day, since they're the only people who call them. Oddly enough, I've just used the term on another thread about a Sinn Fein referendum to reverse Lisbon - it would be "successful" if it succeeded in reversing Lisbon. That wouldn't be a success from my point of view, obviously, but it would be from the point of view of those who called the referendum.

Come to think of it, isn't it normal to describe a referendum as having been "defeated" whenever the answer is a No? See here, for example.

cordially,
Scofflaw

After all referendum is simply an attempt by the Government to get permission from people to make a change to the constitution, generally so that they can enact a particular piece of legislation. It is not really possible to view the granting of that permission as anything but successful from that point of view?

Plotician

I'd be more tempted to stay with the definition of 'referendum:

"a form of direct democracy ideally favouring the majority".

If it achieves that then it is successful. (The result being somewhat irrelevant).

I agree the term 'successful' gets used to reflect the objective(s) of those that put forward the referendum in the first place, but as an example if we were being asked to decide whether to host US nuclear missiles would you still be happy to term a 'yes' result as successful?