Lisbon - a fraudulent referendum?

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What we need to do is stop voting based on misconceptions, lies and issues with nothing to do with the treaty such as a dislike of Fianna Fail

To be fair, a dislike of FF should have been much more of an issue in the 2nd referendum, than the first, so I don't think it was much of an issue at all, in the end.

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

To be fair, a dislike of FF should have been much more of an issue in the 2nd referendum, than the first, so I don't think it was much of an issue at all, in the end.

I don't have any evidence of this but I'd like to think that at least some of them realised that one had nothing to do with the other. Even if they didn't, since the vote was so close the last time even a small number voting for that reason could have swung it

rumour

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What is your point exactly? Are you suggesting that people should have voted no again even if they had changed their minds in the hopes that they would prevent a perception that Irish people are stupid? I thought we had agreed that there is no honour in maintaining a flawed position, would doing that not make them look even more stupid and arrogant and stubborn to boot?

I think there were differnt options open to the government rather than to so quickly call a referendum.

No matter what the dealings with Europe the Government should have been percieved to honour the will of the electorate internationally. Securing extra conditions and guarantess etc should have been done in private.
Instead what we got was a public apology from the Irish leader to Europe for what was the democratic decision of the Irish people. Furthermore it was a fait accompli that there would be another referendum with no changes whatsoever. Luckily we secured something, but as you will have noticed once we apologised and opted for a referendum our bargining power was on the floor. The government were lucky to say the least that economic circumstances changed, the guarantees in more favourable economic times would not have worked.
Brussels did nothing to help circumstances by all of the public statements which effectively for the masses and were construed as bullying . This is not lost on the population of Europe. The EU struggles with a democratic deficit on a European level and for the EU institutions this is ultimately not good.

As you probably know I disagreed with the construct of Europe as defined by Lisbon. I am however pro European and would go the whole hog and have a federal europe. How that is constructed is of enormous interest to me. Our Government had an opportunity to define itself as a nation even after the NO vote, go to Brussels and input into the European debate and present confidently a solution that was palatable. Of course it would take a leader that knew something about Europe (knowing the treaty would have been a good start) other than just what he can get from the ECB tomorrow.

I guess that I differ from you in that the end does not justify the means.

oscarBravo

rumour wrote: »

Our Government had an opportunity to define itself as a nation even after the NO vote, go to Brussels and input into the European debate and present confidently a solution that was palatable.

Palatable to whom? You?

It seems to have escaped your notice that it was perfectly palatable to the two-thirds of the electorate who voted.

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

I think there were differnt options open to the government rather than to so quickly call a referendum.

No matter what the dealings with Europe the Government should have been percieved to honour the will of the electorate internationally. Securing extra conditions and guarantess etc should have been done in private.

Why? There's nothing shameful about that.

rumour wrote: »

Instead what we got was a public apology from the Irish leader to Europe for what was the democratic decision of the Irish people. Furthermore it was a fait accompli that there would be another referendum with no changes whatsoever. Luckily we secured something, but as you will have noticed once we apologised and opted for a referendum our bargining power was on the floor.

No one apologised for anything and if we had given valid treaty related objections in the multiple surveys that were done then voting on the same treaty would not have been "a fait accompli". Your view here is at odds with both the democratic process and reality.

rumour wrote: »

The government were lucky to say the least that economic circumstances changed, the guarantees in more favourable economic times would not have worked.

As Scofflaw pointed out somewhere, Lisbon was very much an anomaly because a far greater percentage of the electorate voted no to it than to any previous EU treaty. I think you're drastically underestimating the guarantees and more education in general. People were just scared the first time

rumour wrote: »

Brussels did nothing to help circumstances by all of the public statements which effectively for the masses and were construed as bullying . This is not lost on the population of Europe. The EU struggles with a democratic deficit on a European level and for the EU institutions this is ultimately not good.

Firstly, only no voters construed the statements as bullying and secondly, Lisbon is meant to address much of that democratic deficit

rumour wrote: »

As you probably know I disagreed with the construct of Europe as defined by Lisbon. I am however pro European and would go the whole hog and have a federal europe. How that is constructed is of enormous interest to me. Our Government had an opportunity to define itself as a nation even after the NO vote, go to Brussels and input into the European debate and present confidently a solution that was palatable. Of course it would take a leader that knew something about Europe (knowing the treaty would have been a good start) other than just what he can get from the ECB tomorrow.

Surveys were done and the Irish people gave their reasons for voting no. The government would have had no mandate to go demanding changes to the treaty that the Irish people had not said they wanted. What would be the point in the EU granting changes that no one wanted only for the treaty to be voted down again?

rumour wrote: »

I guess that I differ from you in that the end does not justify the means.

I'm lost......

P. Breathnach

Sam Vimes wrote: »

... I'm lost......

And you will remain lost as long as you continue in this discussion.

rumour

Sam,

I am a defeated man. You maintain your idelogical belief with absolutism. If I cannot communicate the mess we are currently in and if I cannot communicate how we have damaged ourselves as a nation and how Europe is being constructed on, lets say less than solid foundations. I have failed.

I cannot fathom the absolute greatness of Lisbon as you percieve it, for if history is anything to go by it to will be changed again.

I cannot fathom why it is inconcievable that Lisbon might have errors and your unwillingness to explore these.

Democracy is not a fundamental right it can be traded like any other man made commodity. The value of this commodity has obviously hit rock bottom. For it can be overridden by declaring the people were not informed. This in a western democracy.

Good luck...

Sam Vimes

rumour wrote: »

Sam,

I am a defeated man. You maintain your idelogical belief with absolutism.

I really don't. I just require convincing.

rumour wrote: »

If I cannot communicate the mess we are currently in and if I cannot communicate how we have damaged ourselves as a nation

I know we're in a mess and I know we damaged ourselves as a nation but by voting no the first time based on lies and scaremongering, not by changing our minds when we realised we were wrong.

rumour wrote: »

and how Europe is being constructed on, lets say less than solid foundations. I have failed.

I cannot fathom the absolute greatness of Lisbon as you percieve it, for if history is anything to go by it to will be changed again.

I cannot fathom why it is inconcievable that Lisbon might have errors and your unwillingness to explore these.

I don't think Lisbon is particularly great but nor do I think it's particularly bad. I have explored the errors of Lisbon over and over again and invariably it has turned out that the only errors are in the interpretations of the people who are telling me about imaginary problems with the treaty. Maybe there are serious problems with it but I have yet to be presented with one despite a considerable amount of searching.

Without going into too much detail, what's the one major thing that stands out for you as a problem?

rumour wrote: »

Democracy is not a fundamental right it can be traded like any other man made commodity. The value of this commodity has obviously hit rock bottom. For it can be overridden by declaring the people were not informed. This in a western democracy.

Good luck...

Jesus tap dancing christ man nothing was overridden, they repeated the question and we gave a different and more informed answer the second time. No one "declared that the people weren't informed", they declared it themselves to three independent survey companies and then confirmed it by resoundingly changing their minds the second time

Scofflaw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Jesus tap dancing christ man nothing was overridden, they repeated the question and we gave a different and more informed answer the second time. No one "declared that the people weren't informed", they declared it themselves to three independent survey companies and then confirmed it by resoundingly changing their minds the second time

As well as voting down in the Euro elections all those associated publicly with the No vote.

Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but my own view of the last couple of years goes like this:

In the first referendum, the government faffed around on referendum date for ages, decided the date at the last minute, didn't give the Referendum Commission adequate time to do its job, the political campaigns were brief and utterly uninformative, politicians used the referendum posters to put their faces on, social partners and civil society groups were lukewarm and/or antipathetic, interest groups were allowed to barter their support for obvious concessions, and there was an almost total lack of knowledge about the Treaty.

Following the "shock" defeat (only a shock if you'd been asleep for the entire campaign), the government was clearly forced into an embarrassing position, and had to go off to Europe and explain that they were terribly sorry but they'd blown the campaign, and would everyone mind hanging on while they had another go? They then put in a good deal of work negotiating the guarantees, and rather more getting them agreed to as being turned into Protocols.

The government then paid attention to the issue through the next year, and Lisbon didn't drop off the public agenda. Meanwhile, the brown stuff began to hit the fan in ever larger lumps, and it became much more visible that Europe supports Ireland a good deal more than Ireland supports Europe. Also, the reasons for the first No vote began to look rather embarrassing in the clear light of day, and knowledge of the Treaty increased steadily. The result was that the electorate kicked out or rejected all the MEP candidates publicly associated with the No vote, while the proportion of people who intended voting Yes rose steadily. That rise slowed, and perhaps even reversed, when the Dáil disappeared over the summer,

In the second referendum, the government had a longer campaign, which they visibly took seriously, they were more than adequately supported and preceded by civil society groups, the social partners, and the special interest groups, all of whom were solidly on board, the Referendum Commission was far better prepared, and it also became clear that Lisbon, far from being some kind of make or break for Ireland, was a distraction from our real issues. The result was a resounding Yes.

Now, I have to say that that looks to me like it's simply a case of "take the electorate seriously, and the electorate will take you seriously - fail to take them seriously, and you'll get a bloody nose". The first No was entirely reasonable, based as it was on the complete failure of the government to take the electorate seriously - the mistake made by the No campaigns, I think, was to believe that people had taken them seriously.


cordially,
Scofflaw

View

rumour wrote: »

Our Government had an opportunity to define itself as a nation even after the NO vote, go to Brussels and input into the European debate and present confidently a solution that was palatable.

Our Government plus also representatives of the Oireachtas had the opportunity to "input into the European debate" over many years when: i) the negotiations on the Convention on the EU Constitution, ii) the subsequent inter-governmental negotiations that led to the Treaty on the EU Constitution and iii) the subsequent inter-governmental re-negotiations that led to the Lisbon Treaty.

That was more than a few opportunities for them to do so. And, in fairness, to them, they did actually actively "input" into those debates. Some of the inputs were actually interesting but, of course, little attention was paid by the media/public to these at the time.

Even then, you run into a problem - namely, even if the Government made the "perfect" contribution to the debate which would have hugely improved the EU, all member states have to agree with any proposed changes. Hence, even if 26 member states want to, let's say, radically improve the EU's anti-fraud mechanisms, all it takes is one state to prevent this from going ahead. As such, any changes in the EU will always consist of "small steps". Hence, we can look forward to another treaty soon enough to correct the problems in the post-Lisbon EU Treaties (e.g. the "Klaus against the entire EU" issue).

Finally, domestically speaking, there is almost nothing that the Government could have agreed to that would have made most of the No campaigners happy, short of deciding to dissolve the EU.

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Surveys were done and the Irish people gave their reasons for voting no. The government would have had no mandate to go demanding changes to the treaty that the Irish people had not said they wanted. What would be the point in the EU granting changes that no one wanted only for the treaty to be voted down again?

I'm lost......

can anyone reason that people mainly voted for jobs and not the actual treaty?

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

can anyone reason that people mainly voted for jobs and not the actual treaty?

Voting for jobs is far too simplistic a view to take on it as we have discussed at length but I'm sure many people voted with the economy in mind. When an organisation that has been as incredibly good for Ireland as the EU asks for something we as responsible citizens should not be looking for some compelling motivation to give it to them, we already have our compelling motivation, we should be looking for a compelling motivation not to give it to them and if we can find one then fair enough but if we can't then voting no anyway is just plain stupid and spiteful.

Given that I don't really care much why people voted yes. The only justification anyone has to give imo is "I had no compelling reason to vote no".

Stainless_Steel

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Given that I don't really care much why people voted yes. The only justification anyone has to give imo is "I had no compelling reason to vote no".

That's a shocking outlook you have imo.

K-9

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

That's a shocking outlook you have imo.

Why? The opposite would be "I see nothing bad in the Treaty so I'm voting No!".

Sam Vimes

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

That's a shocking outlook you have imo.

In what way? If you've had a friend for 36 years and he has never done anything to breach your trust and he, say, asks you to help him move house, do you ask him what's in it for you and why should you?

View

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In what way? If you've had a friend for 36 years and he has never done anything to breach your trust and he, say, asks you to help him move house, do you ask him what's in it for you and why should you?

The clear answer for many of the No campaigners to the second question would appear to be yes. Many would only agree to help a friend of 36 years standing if there was something (major) in it for them. Others would refuse to help on principle - having being opposed to that friendship all along. Yet others would assume that the only reason the friend was friendly for the previous 36 years was due to a hidden ulterior motive and that just as soon as you helped him move, he'd spring all sort of dire and unexpected consequences on you... :eek:

Scofflaw

fligedlyflick wrote: »

can anyone reason that people mainly voted for jobs and not the actual treaty?

There has been a post-referendum survey - it seems that people didn't vote "for jobs", or at least people didn't give that as a reason:

IRISH VOTERS changed their minds and backed the Lisbon Treaty because they felt better-informed and believed a Yes vote would boost the economy.

Two-thirds of people also found the Yes campaign more convincing than the No campaign, according to a poll conducted by the European Commission.

One-quarter of people surveyed switched their vote from a No in 2008 to a Yes in 2009 because they believed the treaty would help the economy through the economic recession.

Some 29 per cent say they changed their vote to a Yes mainly due to increased information and communication, while 21 per cent of voters claimed they felt more engaged in the public debate.

Reasons given:

TOP 5 REASONS FOR VOTING YES

EU has been/is good for Ireland 51%

The treaty is good for Ireland/ it was in the best interest of Ireland 44%

It will help the economy 33%

Maintain Irish influence in Europe 11%

The treaty is good for the EU 17%

TOP 5 REASONS FOR VOTING NO

To protect Irish identity 30%

I do not trust our politicians 20%

To protest against the Government’s policies 12%

To safeguard Irish neutrality 11%

Increasing unemployment 10%

Source - I'll keep an eye out for the survey itself appearing online.

Really, people aren't all that easily fooled.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DeVore

Tell yis what lads.... best out of 3 eh?


Also, if this was a fraud then it had to be a pretty huge one to make it 67% in favour...

DeV.

fligedlyflick

cheers scofflaw, i wasn't aware of this post lisbon survey

anyway the results of this survey hardly entail a majority vote for the actual treaty, alas the yes vote seemed to be achieved through disproportionate dwelling on the current economic situation.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

cheers scofflaw, i wasn't aware of this post lisbon survey

anyway the results of this survey hardly entail a majority vote for the actual treaty, alas the yes vote seemed to be achieved through disproportionate dwelling on the current economic situation.

In fairness, the survey hardly entails a majority vote against the actual treaty either.

To protect Irish identity 30% - Our identity is not under threat

I do not trust our politicians 20% - Irrelevant

To protest against the Government’s policies 12% - Irrelevant

To safeguard Irish neutrality 11% - Misconception

Increasing unemployment 10% - Irrelevant

Scofflaw

fligedlyflick wrote: »

cheers scofflaw, i wasn't aware of this post lisbon survey

anyway the results of this survey hardly entail a majority vote for the actual treaty, alas the yes vote seemed to be achieved through disproportionate dwelling on the current economic situation.

I'm not sure quite how you get from this:

1. EU has been/is good for Ireland 51%
2. The treaty is good for Ireland/ it was in the best interest of Ireland 44%
3. It will help the economy 33%

to the view that "the yes vote seemed to be achieved through disproportionate dwelling on the current economic situation". It looks to me more like more people are going on either the past record of the EU, or whether the Treaty is in the best interests of Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

fligedlyflick wrote: »

cheers scofflaw, i wasn't aware of this post lisbon survey

anyway the results of this survey hardly entail a majority vote for the actual treaty, alas the yes vote seemed to be achieved through disproportionate dwelling on the current economic situation.

If memory serves me correctly, Yes voters indicated more or less the same reasons for voting Yes in Lisbon I as in Lisbon II. The only difference is there are a lot more Yes voters this time around.

The crucial difference is the 20% swing from No to Yes. Here as the survey Scofflaw mentioned shows the main reason people switched their vote was because they felt they were better informed this time around.

By way of constrast, the number switching because of economic concerns was much smaller at around 5% of the total voters. Hence, any No voter who believes the No side woul have won if it wasn't for an "economic fear factor" is clearly deluding themselves.

Martin 2

Re survey
The most interesting statistic for me was that 67% of voters felt the Yes campaign was more convincing this time whereas last time 67% felt the No campaign was more convincing; Scofflaw has given detailed reasons why above (post #100) so I won't repeat them here except to say that none of this is to take away from the huge efforts that individual canvassers (and Boardies) made last time with little or no reward for all their efforts.

On the economy, the economic reasons for voting Yes last time were just as valid as this time or any other time however the recession (ie. our position on the economic cycle) shone a light on the economy. Last time just 9% of Yes voters voted yes for economic reasons this time it was 33% and of those who changed from a No to a Yes since 2008, 25% did so for economic reasons (29% for increased information and communication, 21% more engagement in debate....).

It's still good to know that the 2 main reasons for voting yes (wrt survey) were:
EU has been/is good for Ireland 51%
The treaty is good for Ireland/ it was in the best interest of Ireland 44%

fligedlyflick

nobody can ever deny the positives eu membership gave to ireland which outweigh the negatives by a large margin, but using sentimental arguments within the yes campaign, which as the survey pointed out was instrumental in a yes vote, should never have been brought to debate.
it was never a vote on irelands continued membership and while i may agree to a certain extent that the treaty may improve our economic stability the prophecies of doom from michael martin and such were as much responsible for the swing to yes than any full acceptance of the treaty.

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

nobody can ever deny the positives eu membership gave to ireland which outweigh the negatives by a large margin, but using sentimental arguments within the yes campaign, which as the survey pointed out was instrumental in a yes vote, should never have been brought to debate.
it was never a vote on irelands continued membership and while i may agree to a certain extent that the treaty may improve our economic stability the prophecies of doom from michael martin and such were as much responsible for the swing to yes than any full acceptance of the treaty.

Nobody ever suggested it was a vote on Ireland's membership, it was a vote not to deny our 26 very good friends something their governments had ratified for no good reason. It's not all about being fantastic for Ireland specifically, this treaty was about improving the union which is good for everyone

View

fligedlyflick wrote: »

nobody can ever deny the positives eu membership gave to ireland which outweigh the negatives by a large margin,...

Actually many No campaigners (and particularly online No posters) regularly deny the positives of EU membership for Ireland. After all, admitting the EU is positive for Ireland undermines much of the No case as a lot of it is built on the premise that the other member states wake up every morning with the sole intention of doing down little Ireland.

fligedlyflick wrote: »

... but using sentimental arguments within the yes campaign... should never have been brought to debate.

There is absolutely no reason why the Yes campaign shouldn't use sentimental arguments when advancing its case. The use of sentiment is a standard rhetorical device and pointing our the that the EU has and continues to be of benefit to us is perfectly legitimate.

Furthermore, as many of the No campaigns shamelessly used fear tactics in both referenda, it real is a bit rich to criticise the Yes campaign in this regard.

fligedlyflick wrote: »

....
it was never a vote on irelands continued membership

It wasn't? So, you consider it a pure concidence that most of the No campaigners in Lisbon II, were No campaigners in Lisbon I, Nice II, Nice I, Amsterdam, Maastricht, the SEA and (for the really older ones) the Accession referenda?

Let me guess, they are all staunch supporters of the EU but it was just this <insert Treaty name here> that they couldn't support?

PS Read the report on the survey and see how many voters that switched from No to Yes attributed their switch to economic factors.

K-9

It comes back to a core 15/18% of the electorate who are Eurosceptic with probably in or around 25% who are pro EU.

The rest is up for grabs as shown now twice by Nice and Lisbon.

fligedlyflick

@view.
i suspect you think i'm one of them NO infidels who was content to post lies about lisbon in the vain hope someone may be actually listening to me, let me assure you i am not, although i have posted several times displaying my scepticism i never intentionally distorted anything contained within the treaty to attempt sway undecided to the generally viewed "dark side".
my original postings regarding the treaty was to display the reasons why i was voting no again as the reasons the government told me why i voted no last time did not amuse or console me one iota, nobody i know voted against the treaty because of the abortion/commissioner/neutrality issues and the majority of acquaintances who voted yes voted in reaction to the constant doom sayers in the yes camp and the belief in the "yes for jobs" diatribe.
i can understand this debate belongs elsewhere but you too have to understand the reasons why i believe the yes vote was not carried as an endorsement to the treaty as a whole.

back to the current topic, although i don't readily believe the conspiracy of a rigged vote i will acknowledge the desperation by the government to ratify lisbon and when you're dealing with corrupt officials one has to question the desertion of protocol when dealing with the most important constitutional referendum we have had to date.

fligedlyflick

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Nobody ever suggested it was a vote on Ireland's membership, it was a vote not to deny our 26 very good friends something their governments had ratified for no good reason. It's not all about being fantastic for Ireland specifically, this treaty was about improving the union which is good for everyone

i heard several ministers using the past as a foundation for their debates,
and been ireland specific? barosso and the enigma which is pat cox tried that one on too

Sam Vimes

fligedlyflick wrote: »

i heard several ministers using the past as a foundation for their debates,
and been ireland specific? barosso and the enigma which is pat cox tried that one on too

I'm lost.......