Why did they vote No? (EU Constitution)

BlitzKrieg · 11-06-2008 10:45pm #1

from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_constitution#Ratification

In France, rejection was considered a humiliation for then president Jacques Chirac. The TCE was rejected both by right-wing proponents of national sovereignty, such as Charles Pasqua and Philippe de Villiers, and by the anti-globalisation movement, gathered around Socialist Party MP Laurent Fabius, the Communist Party, the Revolutionary Communist League and the Workers' Struggle party. The Socialist party, which had come out in favour after an internal referendum of all its members, saw some of its supporters follow Laurent Fabius instead of its leader François Hollande.

Its a thing I see on a few posters and it gets mentioned here quite a bit. That a reason for voting no is because the French and Dutch voted no to the constitution and this is 95% of the same treaty.

But why did the French and Dutch vote no?

Well Wikipedia isnt alot of help, only the above bit about france.

But looking at it, it does bring one thought into my head. One of the two movements it says was the national soverienty issue, which makes sense because it was happening here in Ireland at the same time in the run up, alot of people were scared of the words constitution, national anthem and flag. That they were going to replace our own and do away with our own nation.

So tell me if I have this right? And if I dont where am I wrong?

Those issues are no longer part of the treaty.

But its because of those issues that a referendum in France was needed in the first place.

So without them, there was no legal need for a referendum in all the other states except Ireland? And therefore there is no real measurement to say that the french would have said no again, and yes it would have been more democratic to have them vote again, but they havnt voted in any of the prior treaties am I right? And while it is more democratic, we dont live in democratic countries (if you want to be reeeeally technical) but representative democracy's and there has been a french election between the constitution and now?

So anyone want to talk about this? (without getting offensive or aggressive please?)

johnnyq · 11-06-2008 10:57pm

BlitzKrieg wrote:

And therefore there is no real measurement to say that the french would have said no again, and yes it would have been more democratic to have them vote again, but they havnt voted in any of the prior treaties am I right?

Well the french and dutch rejected 100% of the Constitution (who are we to say because of what parts) and now 96% is legally binding on them. Doesn't say much does it?

Just using probability alone, the chances are that a major part of the NO vote was in that 96%.

Those who're going to patronise people saying it was because of the name and flag, I hope they join the people who claim we will reject Lisbon because of dustin the turkey.

I don't think that the government vote gives any excuse. Just look at the situation in Ireland, without voting for Sinn Fein who could you vote for not to enact the treaty? No one.

It was clever to rename it as a treaty but it was also sneaky and people aren't stupid. They haven't forgotten that.

ShooterSF · 11-06-2008 10:58pm

hmm you got me interested here. Not sure myself. Typed into google "differences between european constitution and lisbon treaty" and this is the first thing that pops up. Haven't got to read it yet so I'm not sure if its informative or propoganda.[HTML]http://www.indemgroup.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/groupdocs/Research_publication/From_EU_Constitution_to_Lisbon_Treaty_april_2008.pdf[/HTML]

Scofflaw · 11-06-2008 11:09pm

Well the french and dutch rejected 100% of the Constitution (who are we to say because of what parts) and now 96% is legally binding on them. Doesn't say much does it?

Ah now. That's a really specious piece of reasoning.

impressed,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF · 11-06-2008 11:17pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah now. That's a really specious piece of reasoning.

impressed,
Scofflaw

Hmm true its simplified but without giving their people a direct vote to see if they had changed their minds probability is all we have to go on and as such theirs a 4% Chance what they disliked if it were only one issue has been removed and a 96% chance it hasn't. No one knows for certain as they haven't been asked again and werent asked to vote on specific parts. If there's a better way of working this out logically I'd love to hear it.

IRLConor · 11-06-2008 11:18pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

hmm you got me interested here. Not sure myself. Typed into google "differences between european constitution and lisbon treaty" and this is the first thing that pops up. Haven't got to read it yet so I'm not sure if its informative or propoganda.[HTML]http://www.indemgroup.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/groupdocs/Research_publication/From_EU_Constitution_to_Lisbon_Treaty_april_2008.pdf[/HTML]

Given the source, I'd suspect it's propaganda. Jens-Peter Bonde is hardly an unbiased author.

BMH · 11-06-2008 11:21pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Just using probability alone,

A mistake.

BlitzKrieg · 11-06-2008 11:22pm

johnnyq wrote: »

Well the french and dutch rejected 100% of the Constitution (who are we to say because of what parts) and now 96% is legally binding on them. Doesn't say much does it?

Just using probability alone, the chances are that a major part of the NO vote was in that 96%. Those who're going to patronise people saying it was because of the name and flag, I hope they join the people who claim we will reject Lisbon because of dustin the turkey.

And there is still a chance that the crucial part that gave the no vote the upper hand is in that 4%, I am saying I dont know, But I'd like to know what were the actual issues that swung it to a no. The reason I brought up the name and the flag is because thats what I remembered from both Ireland and England when I would sit around tables listening to people talk about it, alot of them didnt like the idea of a european constitution. Its also what I remember being the main discussion in the initial reaction to the vote.

I wouldnt want to patronise anybody but I have seen both with this treaty and with prior ones that while there are many people who know clearly why they voting no or yes, there is always a large number who vote on misunderstood terms or wording and I wouldnt blame them (I have put the blame squarely at the governments feet for the current mishap over this treaty)

I don't think that the government vote gives any excuse. Just look at the situation in Ireland, without voting for Sinn Fein who could you vote for not to enact the treaty? No one.

That is a pickle indeed, how important are EU matters? They never seem to be the deciding factor for our elections nor do the european elections attract much attention. But give us a referendum on a treaty and the whole country explodes with activity.

It was clever to rename it as a treaty but it was also sneaky and people aren't stupid. They haven't forgotten that.

It can be seen as sneaky yes, but it could also be seen as necessity?

Did they have another choice aside from turning it into a treaty?

yes they could have gone back and redid the constitution.

But if the issues of what was wrong with the original constitution, was the fact that it was a constitution, then turning it into a treaty might have been the best solution?

What if between the 27 states none of them on national reasons were willing to give anymore then they already have to the EU or didnt want to give up something they feel the EU needed?

a new piece in Lisbon is Poland's desire to hold off the change in the commission til 2014, how much international debating must have gone back and forth for Poland to get this through?

We can go around in circles about this, unless someone has a grasp on what brought the original constitution down to give us a framework to work with.

johnnyq · 11-06-2008 11:26pm

BMH wrote: »

A mistake.

I was using it as a starting point you know, taking out the bias.

Unless of course you think probability is a bad thing, totally useless and should be rapidly disgarded. I can't believe they're teaching it in schools :rolleyes:

The point is we will never know why. You can't trust media reports unless they poll everyone as they voted and even then they could have lied.

ShooterSF · 11-06-2008 11:26pm

BMH wrote: »

A mistake.

It is but that's the problem unless someone can dig up entry polls asking the french or dutch why they intended to vote no what else to we have? Facts> Probability> Speculation> Anything a politician says.

johnnyq · 11-06-2008 11:29pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And there is still a chance that the crucial part that gave the no vote the upper hand is in that 4%,

And how would you assign that chance, using probability perhaps?:pac:

It can be seen as sneaky yes, but it could also be seen as necessity?

That is relative.

Biffo could say it's a necessity to force through this treaty regardless of the outcome (seemingly the crotty case doesn't cover for some reason?). That's relative. Not a good basis for making sound decisions.

gaf1983 · 11-06-2008 11:33pm

A good counterpoint to the "Well Netherlands and France voted no" argument was provided for by Sean O'Halloran on the letters page of the Irish Times last Saturday:

Madam, - No-to-Lisbon campaigners constantly say that the EU Constitutional Treaty was rejected by the electorate of France and the Netherlands and we now should vote No on this basis. But the citizens of two other EU countries, Spain and Luxembourg, voted Yes in their referendums on the same Constitution. Should their views not be equally respected? - Yours, etc,

SEÁN O'HALLORAN, Adare, Co Limerick

IRLConor · 11-06-2008 11:36pm

gaf1983 wrote: »

A good counterpoint to the "Well Netherlands and France voted no" argument was provided for by Sean O'Halloran on the letters page of the Irish Times last Saturday:

Also, when you add up all of the yes votes and all the no votes across all 4 you get a majority yes vote. Obviously that's not enough since each country has to ratify it individually but it does put to bed the notion of overwhelming popular support for a no vote.

11-06-2008 11:37pm

johnnyq wrote:

Biffo could say it's a necessity to force through this treaty regardless of the outcome (seemingly the crotty case doesn't cover for some reason?). That's relative. Not a good basis for making sound decisions.

He hasn't said that [that he'd force through the treaty because its a necessity] and he won't so your point is misnomerous.

BlitzKrieg · 11-06-2008 11:41pm

And how would you assign that chance, using probability perhaps?

Yes you are right, probability, and chances are very high the reasoning could be in the 96% I wont deny that.

I assume you'd extend the same thinking to the notion that despite how much lower it is in the scale of probability, the chances of it being in the 4% are still there.

ShooterSF · 11-06-2008 11:43pm

Actually to show the complexity of your question when I gave it more thought try this out. We'll bring it closer to home (and should be easier) what part of the nice treaty did we reject the first time and did they fix it in the second. Im sure there are thousands of answers to that question from military to sticking it the government to loosing interest etc. etc. So you can see it's not as easy as it looks!

johnnyq · 11-06-2008 11:45pm

gaf1983 wrote: »

A good counterpoint to the "Well Netherlands and France voted no" argument was provided for by Sean O'Halloran on the letters page of the Irish Times last Saturday:

#

I've read that argument many times and it's flawed. It doesn't matter how many countries voted yes. Once one country votes no it's gone, out the door, zip, i.e. it cannot be introduced full stop.

If everyone but france voted yes it wouldn't matter because the rules said everyone had to vote yes.

But two countries voted no and 3 max voted yes so there you go. Finito.

BlackBriar wrote:

He hasn't said that [that he'd force through the treaty because its a necessity] and he won't so your point is misnomerous

Emphasis was on the could and the dangers of relative thinking. The probability of this happening (once greater than zero) is irrelevant.

sink · 11-06-2008 11:48pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Yes you are right, probability, and chances are very high the reasoning could be in the 96% I wont deny that.

I assume you'd extend the same thinking to the notion that despite how much lower it is in the scale of probability, the chances of it being in the 4% are still there.

And remember that in France it was rejected by a margin of 10% so you only need to change the minds of just over 5% to get a majority. The probability of 5% of 55% disagreeing over the 4% difference in the constitution would be quiet high.

johnnyq · 11-06-2008 11:48pm

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Yes you are right, probability, and chances are very high the reasoning could be in the 96% I wont deny that.

I assume you'd extend the same thinking to the notion that despite how much lower it is in the scale of probability, the chances of it being in the 4% are still there.

Maybe there is a 4% probability of snow tomorrow for the vote. But that doesn't necessarily mean we have the snow ploughs ready.

johnnyq · 11-06-2008 11:53pm

sink wrote: »

And remember that in France it was rejected by a margin of 10% so you only need to change the minds of just over 5% to get a majority. The probability of 5% of 55% disagreeing over the 4% difference in the constitution would be quiet high.

But what technique are you basing that on?

Was it the important 4% the French decided on?
If it wasn't there would be a very low probability of that happening.

Btw. you cant just say well 4% is gone so there is a good chance that the 5% will shift. (i.e. +/- 1%) You'd have to account for the probability of that 4% being important (done by multiplication taking account of 'givens' which gives a much lower chance) and then you have all the factors which change in between the votes to account for. It's not that simple

Scofflaw · 11-06-2008 11:56pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Hmm true its simplified but without giving their people a direct vote to see if they had changed their minds probability is all we have to go on and as such theirs a 4% Chance what they disliked if it were only one issue has been removed and a 96% chance it hasn't. No one knows for certain as they haven't been asked again and werent asked to vote on specific parts. If there's a better way of working this out logically I'd love to hear it.

The French and the Dutch had their negotiating teams in for two years while the Treaty was being negotiated, and participation was invited from civil society groups as well. Plenty of time to get issues addressed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sink · 11-06-2008 11:57pm

johnnyq wrote: »

But what technique are you basing that on?

Was it the important 4% the French decided on?
If it wasn't there would be a very low probability of that happening.

Btw. you cant just say well 4% is gone so there is a good chance that the 5% will shift. (i.e. +/- 1%) You'd have to account for the probability of that 4% being important (done by multiplication taking account of 'givens' which gives a much lower chance) and then you have all the factors which change in between the votes to account for. It's not that simple

Look to be honest I don't believe you can apply probability to social issues due to the theory of reflexivity. So arguing probability is moot, at best you can make a guess.

johnnyq · 12-06-2008 12:08am

sink wrote: »

Look to be honest I don't believe you can apply probability to social issues due to the theory of reflexivity. So arguing probability is moot, at best you can make a guess.

Well stock brokers use it all the time in judgement calls about decisions to buy stocks and shares. But I take your point.

The argument though is that given that all the words are equally important and this is dependent on personal opinion, if those personal opinions balance each other out given the law of large numbers then the 4% in the difference carries that weight of importance.

But then additions could have been made too causing more to vote no who were yes and those who voted yes originally could vote no because of the bits that were left out, which changes things.

I love probability

sink · 12-06-2008 12:13am

johnnyq wrote: »

Well stock brokers use it all the time in judgement calls about decisions to buy stocks and shares. But I take your point.

You should read 'The Paradigm for Financial Markets: The credit crisis of 2008 and what it means' by George Soros. He basically argues against the entire system that economists base their predictions on and also argues that stock markets are inherently unstable due to the theory of reflexivity and that is what causes financial bubbles. It's really quiet an interesting read if that sort of thing floats your boat.

johnnyq · 12-06-2008 12:15am

sink wrote: »

You should read 'The Paradigm for Financial Markets: The credit crisis of 2008 and what it means' by George Soros. He basically argues against the entire system that economists base their predictions on and also argues that stock markets are inherently unstable due to the theory of reflexivity and that is what causes financial bubbles. It's really quiet an interesting read if that sort of thing floats your boat.

Cool will do!

Also Fooled by Randomness by Tabid (sp?)- it's About the black swans anyway

It's a great read about probability and the markets

Edit: to be back on topic - i'd bet there's a good chance those black swans are against lisbon

IRLConor · 12-06-2008 12:17am

johnnyq wrote: »

Maybe there is a 4% probability of snow tomorrow for the vote. But that doesn't necessarily mean we have the snow ploughs ready.

OK, let's reason this out.

Lisbon Treaty = 96% Constitution + Other bits.

I'll assume that your figure of 96% is accurate for the purposes of the argument. I've heard loads of figures and I don't believe any of them but let's just work with them for now.

Let's ignore the other bits added to the Lisbon Treaty that weren't in the constitution. They're not needed for the moment in this discussion.

OK, now we have:

Lisbon Treaty = 96% Constitution

Based on that, what can we reason about the French people's attitude towards Lisbon? Well, how likely is it that the 4% was the bit that irked them the first time round? Let's assume for the sake of argument that the French voters will use the same reasoning and are only voting yes or no rationally on the contents of the treaty.

If the 4% that was removed was removed at random from the constitution, I'd be willing to accept an argument that there's a 4% chance that removing that part would turn a no into a yes and a 96% chance that it wouldn't. (I don't really want a discussion on the statistics of the matter, I'm just saying that this would feel right to me in terms of gut feeling.)

Now, what happens if you specifically select the items that are to make up the 4%?

Let's take the easy part first. If you specifically select non-controversial parts of the constitution and make up 4% from that then you can guarantee that the result will be the same; a no.

Now for the hard part. What if you try to remove the bits that caused a no vote? Well, the first thing you have to do is figure out whether you can fit enough parts into the 4% to sway the vote. Assuming that's true, you have to then select those parts and use them to make up your 4%. If you can fit all of the no-causing parts into the 4% then you can guarantee a yes vote. To do any of this, you need perfect polling to find out the causes of the no vote.

From this, I conclude the following:

We can't determine whether removing 4% or not from the constitution is sufficient to change the vote. We have insufficient information to even calculate the probability of 4% being enough or not.
If it was possible that 4% could change the vote, we don't know if the 4% removed was the right 4% to cause a change in the vote. We also have insufficient information to calculate the probability of this.

Those two points (to me) give a simple conclusion: We cannot determine the probability of any French position on the Lisbon Treaty without further information. The information we have from the constitutional vote is insufficient for that purpose.

BlitzKrieg · 12-06-2008 12:20am

just quickly going back to the effect calling it the constitution might have had.

Note, the response the word President got in the current Lisbon Treaty.

Ignoring the actual position he holds or if he is directly elected or chosen by the ministers (yes this came to me while reading the other thread

)

the term president sent alot of people in a very worried direction.

And that was just a word. One that was and still is misused in some material on the no campaign calling it a *president of europe*.

So could removing the word Constitution might be more important then you are giving it credit?

johnnyq · 12-06-2008 12:21am

I'll level with you Irlconor I read the first line and then the last which said 'we need more information'.

I couldn't have said it better myself:D

But to be fair I will read it in the morning, I'm getting a bit tired of all the probability right now, my head hurts:o

johnnyq · 12-06-2008 12:22am

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

just quickly going back to the effect calling it the constitution might have had.

Note, the response the word President got in the current Lisbon Treaty.

Ignoring the actual position he holds or if he is directly elected or chosen by the ministers (yes this came to me while reading the other thread )

the term president sent alot of people in a very worried direction.

And that was just a word. One that was and still is misused in some material on the no campaign calling it a *president of europe*.

So could removing the word Constitution might be more important then you are giving it credit?

But that is solely limited to your testing of boards.ie/people you've met/media. You'd need to do a rigorous analysis of voters in all regions of all ages etc.. to check if that's the case. Maybe the word "europe" has a greater effect? Who knows?

IRLConor · 12-06-2008 12:29am

johnnyq wrote: »

But to be fair I will read it in the morning, I'm getting a bit tired of all the probability right now, my head hurts:o

Maybe if I keep you awake arguing probability I can break down your defences and persuade you to vote yes.

BlitzKrieg · 12-06-2008 12:31am

Oh yes I agree.

Hence why my original post was mostly question and partly myself remembering how people in Ireland and England reacted to the Constitution (and from that minor piece in wikipedia)

I wanted to know what were the *assumed* reasons (since we will never truely know) for the no vote.

I mean we have people swearing by that 20% of yes voters are doing it because of the party line and 30% of no voters are doing it because they dont understand (not real figures btw just exagerations by me) in other threads, and that was from a newspaper poll.

Was there no similar poll in either country?

What did the No Campaign mostly consist of?

We know the term president and the misled fears associated with the word has had some affect because it has been present in leaflets, posters, debates, threads here on boards and so on. So it has had some affect at least.

IF people vote No tomorrow. They will be able to point to specific topics of Lisbon and say they had a substantial affect in the days and weeks after the referendum.

Where is the same discussion for the French and Dutch vote?

Yes there will exist an element of Bias from the polls and comments, but a general picture should still be possible?

I'm not here to debate I'm here to try and get an idea of that general picture.

Why did they vote No? (EU Constitution)

Comments