What won it for the Yes side?

marco_polo

EF wrote: »

Just a thought, but in order to get the same legal status as the Treaties themselves for the guarantees which were secured by the Irish Government since the first referedum defeat of Lisbon, the next Treaty, more than likely an accession Treaty, will have to be passed, otherwise the guarantees will not be enforceable in the European Court of Justice. The next Treaty will sail through in this country anyway!

Yes but a European council decision is an instrument of secondary European law, and this decision is also being enshrined in international law as a seperate international agreement.

If there is a conflict between secondary and primary eu law (treaties, protocols etc) then primarly law wins. As it is a fact that there is nothing in the treaties that can conflict with the guarantees, this is not an issue.

Turning the decision into a protocol will simply give it the status of primary EU law of equivelance to the treaties. And removes remaining 0.0000001% of whatifery about their status that we have seen in this campaign.

marco_polo

Interesting article, makes some good points points on the reasons for the Yes win, from Shane Coleman in the Tribune.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/oct/04/fifteen-months-and-one-recession-later/

1. The economy stupid - Voters not willing to take a chance on a no vote
2. Guaranteed Irish - Guarantees pulled the rug from under the no side
3.Yes is more - Better Yes campaign.
4. No campaign's limits - No campaign did not provide enough solid reasons for a no vote.
5. 'Cope'-ing with Ganley - Pats the Copes win in the European election took away much of Gantley momentum.
6. Doing the business - Business support for the treaty
7. The Sun wot won it - Even the Murtoch red tops were broadly neutral on this campaign.
8. Voter smarts - Efforts to make it a referendum on Brian Cowen failed *miserably.

panda100

Id say it was the millions of euro's spent by the 'Yes' side. Pretty obscene considering we're in a recession.

OldJay

panda100 wrote: »

Id say it was the millions of euro's spent by the 'Yes' side. Pretty obscene considering we're in a recession.

Do point out these millions that you're privy to seeing.

P. Breathnach

marco_polo wrote: »

Interesting article, makes some good points points on the reasons for the Yes win, from Shane Coleman in the Tribune.

I'd agree with a great deal of that, and add that Ganley was less effective also because the surprise factor was no longer there: people had a better idea of how to deal with him (things like not putting Dick Roche in the same studio as Ganley).

I also thought RTE did a good job overall, in putting Lisbon debates and discussions into the hands of those broadcasters who read their briefing notes and can remember what they read. Nonsense claims were regularly confronted.

Tricity Bendix

I ended up voting yes because the Treaty adds combating climate change to the list of goals of the EU and paves the way for a Common Energy Policy. I also voted yes because Intel and Microsoft seemed to think it was important. Fear also probably had something to do with it, as I could appreciate how much harder it would be for Ireland Inc. to negotiate in Europe after causing all the hassle that a second No would bring. But I don't see why the No side disparage fear as a motive. They were perfectly willing to use it themselves. Libertas' Irish Democracy posters with Maddie McCann and an apocalyptic skyline was terrifying. Joe Higgins told us our schools would be privatised. And what about the blatant scaremongering of the Coir minimum wage poster? I know there is no jobs per se in the Treaty, but things like research grants from Europe depend on our political influence. And if it wasn't good for businesses, why were they lining out to support it?

Handsome Bob

Being able to use a person's worst fears is probably the best resource a spin campaign can have at its' disposal.

Wheely

I would like to say common sense prevailed but in reality it was probably the economy.

Scofflaw

caseyann wrote: »

Oh how very gracious and gentleman like of you :rolleyes: Obviously you would make also a good member of the current Dáil,Its not my fault you are to stuck in your thinking you are overly intelligent.There was nothing wrong with that post it was not rude it was not ignorant just because it wasn't politically atoned its not good enough for you :P

You are been a hypocrite because you and Rb and prinz believe that voting yes is a good move for Ireland,so therefore you believe in the theory i just pointed out to you.;)

Thanks for the welcome though


p.s surprised at prinz but not in slightest surprised at Rb for thanking you for a ignorant condecending rude post

Caseyann, your post attacks or insults at least three other posters. Grow up, behave, or leave.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd agree with a great deal of that, and add that Ganley was less effective also because the surprise factor was no longer there: people had a better idea of how to deal with him (things like not putting Dick Roche in the same studio as Ganley).

I also thought RTE did a good job overall, in putting Lisbon debates and discussions into the hands of those broadcasters who read their briefing notes and can remember what they read. Nonsense claims were regularly confronted.

Thought the "no interrupting rule" on the last Vincent Browne debate was excellent. It suited Michael Martin and I never seen Ganley as nervous and uncomfortable. Martin was able to get his message across and Ganley couldn't lead the debate.

kryogen

K-9 wrote: »

So it was the economy, stupid.

What else won it for the Yes side?

the No campaign and alot of misleading statements

free-man

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

I ended up voting yes because the Treaty adds combating climate change to the list of goals of the EU and paves the way for a Common Energy Policy. I also voted yes because Intel and Microsoft seemed to think it was important. Fear also probably had something to do with it, as I could appreciate how much harder it would be for Ireland Inc. to negotiate in Europe after causing all the hassle that a second No would bring.

I'm sorry, and won't be more curt than is absolutely necessary to preserve existence as it is, but not only does that post make less than no sense, a feat in itself, but it will actually make anyone who reads it slightly less smart than they were before and might cause the universe to give up and collapse in on itself if chanted in a mirror. Please don't view this post as encouraging a reply. I'm usually far less condescending than this but please consider what you're doing to the fabric of time-space when you put words together like that.

asdasd

Hmm, I have definitely read Free-man's exact words before. Is that just boiler plate prose produced when you disagree with something?

EDIT: Originally from sceptre in this thread. Funny enough the quotes, and the links to Chomksy, made no sense in the context of the supposed unreadable quote they were referencing, but a sentance like "and won't be more curt than is absolutely necessary to preserve existence as it is" is less understandable than the post being quoted.

I can work around the tortured prose to work out what it means - time is short - but that is not what it says. What is says is that if he isnt curt ( lets negate the argument), within the limits of curtesy, something is going to happen to not preserve existence. That is not really understandable either.

anyway stop quoting other people's putdowns.

View

free-man wrote: »

I'm sorry, and won't be more curt than is absolutely necessary to preserve existence as it is, but not only does that post make less than no sense, a feat in itself, but it will actually make anyone who reads it slightly less smart than they were before and might cause the universe to give up and collapse in on itself if chanted in a mirror. Please don't view this post as encouraging a reply. I'm usually far less condescending than this but please consider what you're doing to the fabric of time-space when you put words together like that.

In other words, "I'll insult the poster because they didn't vote No".

I'd say your response will probably have confirmed to him/her that he/she made the right decision in voting Yes.

PS Thank you Tricity Bendix!

sold

Ganley won it for the yes side

wolfpawnat

caseyann wrote: »

Fear manipulation and people thinking Ireland would lose out if they didn't. Doesnt matter anyway we will be stuffed either way.

+1

meditraitor wrote: »

I voted yes because I like the fact we are part of Europe and I like what being part of Europe has done for our LITTLE country..... and as the previous poster pointed out look at Iceland for an example of what a small nation can end up like without a little help from friends

Europe has never done anything for any one of the smaller countries without getting something in return. With us it was billions upon billions of Euro of fish. This was not aa treaty on whether we wanted to be part of Europe. We just needed to see if this one treaty was a worth while deal for us as a smaller EU nation.

Jip wrote: »

Completely disagree, those who claim that are giving the electorate very little credit. IMO it was more due to the guarantees about the commissioner and the amount of nutters on the No side.

And the fact that the comissioner is only guaranteed until 2013 means nothing????

It was the misleading posters from the larger parties stating that we would be out of Europe if we said no was one of the biggest things. All my friends who hadn't the interest in the referendum that I had genuinely believed that a no to the treaty was a no to being in the EU! I am finishing college and hightailing it out of here if the EU so much as takes the side of big business over the workers!!!

marmurr1916

Common sense won it for the Yes side.

marco_polo

wolfpawnat wrote: »

+1



Europe has never done anything for any one of the smaller countries without getting something in return. With us it was billions upon billions of Euro of fish. This was not aa treaty on whether we wanted to be part of Europe. We just needed to see if this one treaty was a worth while deal for us as a smaller EU nation.

Sigh! We hav a net loss in fisheries of somewhere in the region of 2 bn since joining the EU. 8.5 bn from Irish waters in total of which 3.9 bn was taken by Irish fisherman. On the flip side we have taken aproximately 3.16 bn worth of stock from British waters in the same period.

And the fact that the comissioner is only guaranteed until 2013 means nothing????

Sigh! The commissioner guarantee applies from 2014 onwards when the commissioner was due to be ruduced under the orignal lisbon terms.

It was the misleading posters from the larger parties stating that we would be out of Europe if we said no was one of the biggest things. All my friends who hadn't the interest in the referendum that I had genuinely believed that a no to the treaty was a no to being in the EU! I am finishing college and hightailing it out of here if the EU so much as takes the side of big business over the workers!!!

Nobody in the major campaigns said we would be leaving Europe, just that our position there would be weakened.

wolfpawnat

marco_polo wrote: »

Nobody in the major campaigns said we would be leaving Europe, just that our position there would be weakened.

Need I say more???

prinz

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Need I say more???

I think you should because I'm not getting anything from that

marco_polo

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Need I say more???

No need. Clearly you voted on the basis of a couple of posters and two misconceptions in relation to fisheries and the Commission.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I think you should because I'm not getting anything from that

I can see your confusion. The logic is along the lines of: if you enter a competition where you could win a million euro and you don't win, you have to give them a million euro

caseyann

View wrote: »

In other words, "I'll insult the poster because they didn't vote No".

I'd say your response will probably have confirmed to him/her that he/she made the right decision in voting Yes.

PS Thank you Tricity Bendix!

Funny how that was directed at me with no warrant for such and attack and no warning given to him because he was admin But thats ok.

wolfpawnat

marco_polo wrote: »

No need. Clearly you voted on the basis of a couple of posters and two misconceptions in relation to fisheries and the Commission.

Actually I went to a debate on the treaty, read literature and watched and read interviews with leaders from both sides of the divide felt that no was the right choice for me!

I don't believe in the posters as they are supposed to try and scare you into voting for their side of the argument. I thankfully was brought up not to take things at face value!

marco_polo

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Actually I went to a debate on the treaty, read literature and watched and read interviews with leaders from both sides of the divide felt that no was the right choice for me!

I don't believe in the posters as they are supposed to try and scare you into voting for their side of the argument. I thankfully was brought up not to take things at face value!

Missed the bit on the Commissioner though.

K-9

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Actually I went to a debate on the treaty, read literature and watched and read interviews with leaders from both sides of the divide felt that no was the right choice for me!

I don't believe in the posters as they are supposed to try and scare you into voting for their side of the argument. I thankfully was brought up not to take things at face value!

And plenty would vote based on No side posters like €200 Billion in fisheries so it balances out.

wolfpawnat

K-9 wrote: »

And plenty would vote based on No side posters like €200 Billion in fisheries so it balances out.

I ignored the posters used by both sides. Both sides bend the truth on them to try a trick you into voting for them!!! A more intelligent person, regardless of the decision they come to would look beyond them!

free-man

asdasd wrote: »

Hmm, I have definitely read Free-man's exact words before. Is that just boiler plate prose produced when you disagree with something?

It was originally posted by a mod here when he disagreed with a poster.

I've received an infraction for this!-I'm querying this at the moment as I'm not sure how one response is not breaking the rules and the same post by a different poster warrants an infraction... can't find anything in the charter about this.

Hydrosylator

In order of effect, in my reckoning:

1. The guarantees
2. Fear
3. Cóir + Declan Ganley

Everyone else who voted Yes did it for the same reason they did last time, I'd imagine.

With the guarantees, both of our governments did the bare minimum needed for a Yes vote.

roosh

The economy