What has been changed ?

umberto

Hi, I'm Umberto an Italian living in Vienna.

I was wondering what has been changed in Ireland from the previous referedum on Lisbon threaty to the last one, so that a "NO" converted to "YES".

Is it due to the financial crisis ? Or to a different political advertising ?

Thanks

ei.sdraob

people came to their senses

steamjetjoe

umberto wrote: »

Hi, I'm Umberto an Italian living in Vienna.

I was wondering what has been changed in Ireland from the previous referedum on Lisbon threaty to the last one, so that a "NO" converted to "YES".

Is it due to the financial crisis ? Or to a different political advertising ?

Thanks

Spot on umberto. The treaty was passed largely due to the financial crisis. The gov said that a yes vote would bring jobs. :rolleyes:

Dinner

steamjetjoe wrote: »

Spot on umberto. The treaty was passed largely due to the financial crisis. The gov said that a yes vote would bring jobs. :rolleyes:

Yeah...And back in reality, Post Lisbon II Polls showed that the public had a much greater understanding of the treaty this time round.

This, coupled with the legally binding guarantees caused the major swing to yes.

But don't let the truth get in the way of your suspicions masquerading as facts.

meditraitor

umberto wrote: »

Hi, I'm Umberto an Italian living in Vienna.

I was wondering what has been changed in Ireland from the previous referedum on Lisbon threaty to the last one, so that a "NO" converted to "YES".

Is it due to the financial crisis ? Or to a different political advertising ?

Thanks

Edit, the Irish people were given proper information the second time. Not lies by crazy christians, far right brit, investment bankers and Us arms companies.

Scofflaw

umberto wrote: »

Hi, I'm Umberto an Italian living in Vienna.

I was wondering what has been changed in Ireland from the previous referedum on Lisbon threaty to the last one, so that a "NO" converted to "YES".

Is it due to the financial crisis ? Or to a different political advertising ?

Thanks

A bit of both, really. The second time round there was a rather greater appreciation that we weren't in a position to thumb our noses at anyone, since the ECB was already bailing out our banks - but there was also a much stronger Yes campaign and a much weaker and more divided No campaign. Many of the lies that had been told first time were shown to be lies in the time between the referendums, and there weren't many new lies made up.

The first time the Yes campaign was really very bad - it started four or five months after the No campaigns got going, it didn't seem to know the Treaty, it didn't seem able to disprove the lies, it fumbled, faltered, looked shifty and ignorant, and didn't seem to be serious - the Yes side posters were usually pictures of politicians, with a tiny little "vote Yes" in the corner.

The No side first time round, on the other hand, came on strong right from the start, had legal-sounding explanations for everything, looked confident, seemed to know the Treaty, and had a nice respectable-looking front man in the shape of Declan Ganley, who quickly became a media favourite by virtue of flashy stunts and high spending.

The second time round the picture was largely reversed, with a strong and confident Yes campaign starting a couple of months before the No campaign, while the No campaign seemed to believe it was beaten from the start.

However, it's important to remember that the change from No to Yes took place months before the referendum, and certainly months before the government started saying "say Yes for jobs". The campaigns just made solid the change.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

umberto wrote: »

Hi, I'm Umberto an Italian living in Vienna.

I was wondering what has been changed in Ireland from the previous referedum on Lisbon threaty to the last one, so that a "NO" converted to "YES".

Is it due to the financial crisis ? Or to a different political advertising ?

Thanks

Financial Crises, High unemployment. People fear of losing Jobs. Too afraid of pissing off EU so they can bail us out. oh also the big lie, they claim that Lisbon will create and save Jobs at the posters said in the last Referendum by all the major players who supported the Lisbon Treaty.

RandomName2

limklad wrote: »

Financial Crises, High unemployment. People fear of losing Jobs. Too afraid of pissing off EU so they can bail us out. oh also the big lie, they claim that Lisbon will create and save Jobs at the posters said in the last Referendum by all the major players who supported the Lisbon Treaty.

Still waiting for a job to be created...

Apart from the EU president (which is genuinely a new job in terms of employment; as previously the head of state would be conducting, as it were, two jobs, tsk, tsk)

Is the white smoke visible yet?

The very fact that there was a second referendum, by definition was going to dent the No side.

The fact that the Yes side no longer looked like isolated Irish entities (whether or not they represented the vast majority of the Irish body politic) but rather frontmen/ partners of the other EU governments, and EU as a whole, made the Yes side appear to be not only more powerful, but coherent, mainstream and knowledgeable than the No side, the latter of which genuinely did consist of isolated Irish political deviants.

So financial crisis and political advertising, then.

Edit: Oh, it's Van Rompuy, who's an incumbent. No new jobs at all then.

Son Of A Vidic

Fear - got Lisbon through nothing else. I don't think peoples knowledge of the treaty was an issue. Just plain scaremongering did the trick, shame on the Irish people for having the stupidity to fall for it. Our status as equal members of the E.U. was never in question regardless of how we voted. As for the legal guarantees - absolute bull****! Why are senior officers in the defense forces currently negotiating with Canadian officials about our possible contribution to the Afghan mission. Which is a NATO mission the last time I checked, oh but this is just the start of it. Then we have the E.U. tax on the way soon enough, no time is been wasted. From a common market, to a giant monolith. No doubt in the future we'll have to expand our E.U. Rapid Reaction Force into a proper E.U. Army. The Fourth Reich is around the corner!
(P.S.) I hold all Left, center and Right wing politicians in the same light - self centered, incompetent muppets. I support the party of my own counsel and conscience, it's not a bad party to support. At least I can sleep soundly at night knowing I wasn't lead like a lamb.

View

medicman2009 wrote: »

Fear - got Lisbon through nothing else. I don't think peoples knowledge of the treaty was an issue. Just plain scaremongering did the trick, shame on the Irish people for having the stupidity to fall for it.

Fear stopped Lisbon being passed in the first referendum. You don't think it was a coincidence that the No side was using Abortion, Conscription, Corporate Tax and anything else they could think of in the referenda?

Problem with that strategy though is once the government came back with any one of the guarentees (that the scares were nonsense), Lisbon was all set to pass the second time around.

medicman2009 wrote: »

Why are senior officers in the defense forces currently negotiating with Canadian officials about our possible contribution to the Afghan mission. Which is a NATO mission the last time I checked,

You might want to read this http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/Security%20Council%20Resolutions/1868.pdf and also this http://unama.unmissions.org/Portals/UNAMA/Security%20Council%20Resolutions/08sep22-no-1833.pdfThey are the UN resolutions extending the mandates of the UN missions in Afghanistan. Irish personnel have been in Afghanistan since 2001.

medicman2009 wrote: »

Then we have the E.U. tax on the way soon enough, no time is been wasted.

Really, when did the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers agree to this? Oh wait, they didn't.

Incidentally, you do know that a portion of the VAT you pay goes to the EU? It takes money to run it.

medicman2009 wrote: »

I support the party of my own counsel and conscience, it's not a bad party to support.

That would indeed be a good party to support if you bothered to check up basic facts. As it is, even the most mis-informed of the political parties probably has a better grip on reality.

BetterLisbon

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_284_en.pdf
The eurobarometer survey did as comprehensive a dissection as you possibly could. covered almost every angle. A variety of reasons were given but two stood out.
1- a belief that a yes vote would help the economy recover.
2- people "felt" better informed.

1. is easily explained by the echo chamber that was painstakingly constructed by the government since june 13th 2008 plus the decision to change broadcasting rules to give media preference to the yes side helped big time. The failure of the referendum commission to point out that this "argument" was speculative and subjective and had no treaty basis was a travesty.
The no campaign failed to anticipate that the yes campaign were not going to base their case on the treaty text but on the "consequences" of rejection. As such the yes camp caught the no camp totally unprepared on this crucial issue.

2. Is easily explained by the "impartial information" from the EU commission and the referendum commission (all 5 officers appointed by the government and with no expertise in EU law).
The media bias allowed spurious claims from the yes side to go unchallenged and articulate no campaigners like jens peter bonde and susan philips to be frozen out in favour of those most likely to put off swing voters (coir, swp etc.).
The no campaign got going far too late although this was due to low finances and a media shut out until september on the basis that "the campaign hadnt started". The no campaign should have been distributing leaflets and street campaigning once cowen agreed to the rerun.
The yes campaign was far more aggressive and they were not contemplating defeat. The 2008 strategy was "the best campaign is no campaign" hoping a general fuzzy europhilia would pass it without looking at the treaty's flaws. The 2009 stategy was "the sky will fall in so regardless of the treaty's flaws swallow it or else".

What proved very interesting was that the "legal guarantees" + commissioner promise appeared to have only a very small effect in persuading voters to switch from no to yes.

prinz

RandomName2 wrote: »

Still waiting for a job to be created...

You must not be paying attention then. I have seen a lot of jobs created in the last few weeks.

RandomName2

The No 'campaign' was dire. It would be equivalent to Communists in the early 1930s saying rubbish like 'don't vote NAZI because they will give the Rhineland to France, let Turkey into the Reich and replace the Wermacht with the SA.' Germans, quite reasonably, were unconvinced by the lunatic far-left.

E1.82 minimum wage? [the question mark was a disclaimer for nonsense, apparently - at least according to the head of Coir during a major debate on Lisbon]

RandomName2

prinz wrote: »

You must not be paying attention then. I have seen a lot of jobs created in the last few weeks.

I have. I've seen a net decrease in jobs in the last few weeks

Not that that had anything to do with Lisbon being ratified.

Has Intel won its legal challenge yet?

BetterLisbon

To put it succinctly the yes campaign sensed the public mood and the no campaign didnt. The No campaign assumed same treaty same winning formula. The yes campaign realised that when cold economic winds were blowing they could concede Lisbon was flawed and sell the message that we couldnt afford to say no.
Having actively participated in both campaigns i can tell you how the public mood changed from April/May/June 2008 to August/September/October 2009. Last year people on the street wanted to hear me explain why they should vote no. However this year no-one stopped to talk. Their mind was made up months beforehand, they didnt care if Lisbon was a good or bad treaty, they didnt care if we had "legal guarantees" or if we were keeping/losing our commissioner they were simply afraid of the fallout from another no vote. They were ready to sell their grannies if you like!
In that sense the yes campaign was masterful. It was so neatly prepared. All the "social partners", "independent" economic "experts" and managing directors of multinationals who came out to bat made a big big impact. Getting the broadcasting rules changed etc. set up a perfectly tuned echo chamber. The no side didnt stand a chance, we needed a 30% turnout to win and we ploughed on in hope.

Nigel Farage

umberto wrote: »

Hi, I'm Umberto an Italian living in Vienna.

I was wondering what has been changed in Ireland from the previous referedum on Lisbon threaty to the last one, so that a "NO" converted to "YES".

Is it due to the financial crisis ? Or to a different political advertising ?

Thanks

Hi Umberto. You raise a very valid concern. The only reason there was such a swing was because the government and Irish media went on a scare campaign to hoodwink the Irish voters. Promises of jobs for people who were unemployed and vulnerable. So a couple of months on, where are these jobs? The unemployment figures continue to grow and businesses fall by the wayside. It's a sorrowful state.

00sully

the scare mongering and lies by the no campaign were more prevalent the first time around - EU army, minimum wage etc... It was a sick no campaign and I remember thinking at the time "my, the only way to win a vote campaign seems to be by lying". so the Yes campaign did a little the 2nd time around - to get those on board who haven't a clue and really should have to take a test before voting.

the lies are only for the imbiciles. on both sides.

meditraitor

Nigel Farage wrote: »

Hi Umberto. You raise a very valid concern. The only reason there was such a swing was because the government and Irish media went on a scare campaign to hoodwink the Irish voters. Promises of jobs for people who were unemployed and vulnerable. So a couple of months on, where are these jobs? The unemployment figures continue to grow and businesses fall by the wayside. It's a sorrowful state.

Your not exactly telling the truth here Umberto! This is how the first Lisbon treaty was lost, we took what PEOPLE like you said at face value..... Didnt happen the second time.

Lisbon - October 2nd 2009

Unemployment was growing steadily for 21 months leading up to October 2009, at which time it stopped and even reduced slightly.

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/sasunemprates.htm

Apologies for the insult...... It was uncalled for.

Mark

Nigel Farage

Who are you calling Umberto? Was the personal dig necessary?

r14

RandomName2 wrote: »

Has Intel won its legal challenge yet?

Are you trying to present Intel price-fixing and running its competitors out of business as a good thing? The EU regulates the way business is conducted but this does not mean a decrease in jobs.

Bear in mind the US, one of the strongest economies in the world, got to that position by rigorously enforcing competition law. Just like the EU they investigated Microsoft and are looking at investigating Intel for the exact same behaviour that saw them fined in the EU.

We could do with more competition enforcement here and it would undoubtedly help the economy. Just because the EU advocates it does not mean that it is of neccessity evil.

incidentally Intel has lost its legal challenge.

prinz

RandomName2 wrote: »

I have. I've seen a net decrease in jobs in the last few weeks

But jobs are being created..;) Without those jobs being created we would have a much larger decrease.

meditraitor

Nigel Farage wrote: »

Who are you calling Umberto? Was the personal dig necessary?

What personal dig? The one were I pointed out your lies?

Nigel Farage

meditraitor wrote: »

What personal dig? The one were I pointed out your lies?

No, the one where you said bugger off. I would rather engage in intelligent posting than schoolyard nonsense.

meditraitor

Nigel Farage wrote: »

No, the one where you said bugger off. I would rather engage in intelligent posting than schoolyard nonsense.

Post edited to reflect, now can you please address the other part of the post?

RandomName2

prinz wrote: »

But jobs are being created..;) Without those jobs being created we would have a much larger decrease.

True... but I don't think the jobs that are being created (which unfortunately are mostly call-centre jobs at the moment) have anything to do with Lisbon being passed or rejected.

170 jobs lost today

RandomName2

r14 wrote: »

Are you trying to present Intel price-fixing and running its competitors out of business as a good thing? The EU regulates the way business is conducted but this does not mean a decrease in jobs.

Bear in mind the US, one of the strongest economies in the world, got to that position by rigorously enforcing competition law. Just like the EU they investigated Microsoft and are looking at investigating Intel for the exact same behaviour that saw them fined in the EU.

We could do with more competition enforcement here and it would undoubtedly help the economy. Just because the EU advocates it does not mean that it is of neccessity evil.

incidentally Intel has lost its legal challenge.

Oh no, monopolies are not a good think. Intel deserved to lose. However, your link, as far as I know, is old news. Intel is hoping that the EU will reward them for their political machinations. Let's see if they do.

prinz

RandomName2 wrote: »

Still waiting for a job to be created...

RandomName2 wrote: »

True... but I don't think the jobs that are being created (which unfortunately are mostly call-centre jobs at the moment) have anything to do with Lisbon being passed or rejected.

So you are waiting for jobs to be created....yet when jobs are you can deny they have anything to do with Lisbon....so what's the point of bringing up jobs again ... Basically you're going to harp on about jobs being created and then deny any jobs that are being created have anything to do with Lisbon.. :rolleyes: Lisbon was never about creating jobs. It was about creating an EU where trade and commerce can flourish..

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1112/breaking8.htm

.... technology, risk management, qualitative analysis... contracting work breaking Paddy Power into the French betting market...

RandomName2

prinz wrote: »

So you are waiting for jobs to be created....yet when jobs are you can deny they have anything to do with Lisbon....so what's the point of bringing up jobs again ... Basically you're going to harp on about jobs being created and then deny any jobs that are being created have anything to do with Lisbon.. :rolleyes: Lisbon was never about creating jobs. It was about creating an EU where trade and commerce can flourish..

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1112/breaking8.htm

.... technology, risk management, qualitative analysis... contracting work breaking Paddy Power into the French betting market...

No, no, the EC was about creating an environment where trade and commerce could flourish.

Lisbon has less to do with the economy than the debate on whether or not the Seanad should be abolished.

The yes campaign lied and lied and lied. They said that the capacity for Ireland to create jobs was intrinsically tied to Lisbon being passed. What is more, they said that recovery would be tied to Lisbon being passed.

The no side lied as well - but look above as to why that is of no real importance (but you actually already know why).

You can say that the Irish public deserve what they get for believing the yes side lies (they never gave a huge deal of credence to no side lies - far more people generally cited either ignorance, or fundamental, true aspects of the treaty when they voted no the first time).

I can forgive people for being ignorant of economic cycles. Unfortunately if they ever learn their mistake there will be nothing that they can do about it. Not that you could ever say that the peoples of Europe made any direct 'mistake' vis a vis Lisbon - their mistake came from when their constitutions were being written. Not that their constitutions were drawn up by the public, of course.

prinz

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, no, the EC was about creating an environment where trade and commerce could flourish.

The yes campaign lied and lied and lied. They said that the capacity for Ireland to create jobs was intrinsically tied to Lisbon being passed. What is more, they said that recovery would be tied to Lisbon being passed..

Do you realise that the EU could have ground to a shuddering halt had Lisbon not been passed?

RandomName2

prinz wrote: »

Do you realise that the EU could have ground to a shuddering halt had Lisbon not been passed?

You mean like it did five years ago?

Nigel Farage

prinz wrote: »

Do you realise that the EU could have ground to a shuddering halt had Lisbon not been passed?

This is the sort of grossly exaggerated rhetoric that I was referring to. The EU would have continued to function as normal. This doomsday scenario you are trying to paint is very misleading.