TIME magazine article about Ireland's "No"

CtrlSource

From TIME magazine article here (18 June)

Dealing with Ireland's No
By CHARLES GRANT

"The shock waves from Ireland's vote against the Lisbon treaty will reverberate around the European Union and beyond for many years. European leaders were preparing to focus on pressing external challenges such as climate change, energy security, Russia policy and E.U. enlargement; now they will have to turn inward once again to put time and energy into fixing the E.U.'s creaking institutions. The rest of the world may conclude that Europe's ambition to play a greater role on the world stage should not be taken too seriously: the treaty's biggest aim — to better coordinate the members' foreign policies — will certainly be delayed and may never happen.

The Lisbon treaty, the fruit of seven years of interminable negotiations, cannot enter into force unless ratified by all 27 member states. Eighteen have ratified it in their parliaments and a further eight are due to do so later this year. Only Ireland chose to ratify by referendum.

Many Europeans are surprised that 53% of the Irish, who have done so well out of E.U. membership, should vote against the treaty. All their political leaders bar Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams, and all the mainstream newspapers, called for a yes. But Ireland's voters reacted against the establishment telling them what to do by giving it a kicking. A slick no campaign played on fears that the treaty would lead to higher taxes (untrue) and deprive Ireland of its right to appoint an E.U. commissioner (true). The yes campaign failed to provide good reasons for supporting a document that promised mere technical changes to E.U. institutions.

Richer and better educated people tended to vote for the treaty, while working-class Irish mostly opposed it. A similar social division over attitudes to the E.U. is apparent in many European countries. Euro-skeptics are right to portray the E.U. as an élite project that fails to connect with ordinary citizens. Yet pro-Europeans are also right to ask whether voters should have to pronounce on a highly complex legal text that would make no impact on their daily lives.

What happens next is far from clear. Most E.U. governments think current Brussels institutions are hopelessly inadequate. For example, three individuals — the Commissioner for External Relations, the High Representative and the Foreign Minister of the country holding the rotating presidency — try to represent the E.U. externally. This ineffective system causes much confusion in places like Beijing, Moscow and Washington. The treaty would merge the three jobs into one permanent post, supported by an embryonic E.U. foreign ministry.

So the governments will not abandon their quest for better institutions. Nor will they renegotiate the treaty: they fear that to amend one bit of what is a package of finely balanced compromises could lead to other bits unraveling. That leaves two options. One is to bury the Lisbon treaty but try to save some of its key provisions. A few of them, designed to improve cooperation in matters of justice and foreign policy, could perhaps be introduced without a new treaty. Furthermore, the prospect of Croatian membership, expected in two or three years, offers opportunities. Every time a country joins the E.U., voting rules need to be adjusted. Croatia's accession treaty could include the simplified procedure ("double majority voting") that is in the Lisbon treaty.

The other, more likely, option is for the governments to press ahead with the Lisbon treaty in the hope that the Irish will change their mind. The E.U. could offer the Irish a protocol to clarify that the treaty does not affect national powers on taxation, and a promise to use the Croatian accession treaty to restore the one-commissioner-per-country rule. The Irish would then vote again on the Lisbon treaty next summer. But that would be risky: the E.U. would appear arrogantly dismissive of the June 12 result, and the Irish could vote no again.

If the Irish did vote no twice, many countries would want to move ahead without them. Legally, the other 26 could renounce the existing E.U. treaties and recreate them with one fewer member. But that maneuver could not work unless all the members were firmly committed to pushing Ireland out of the E.U. Some of the more Euro-skeptic members, such as Britain and the Czech Republic, might thwart such an effort. But then the majority of the member states could try to create a two-speed Europe: the Irish, British and others reluctant to integrate would be left outside a new club. If that course is pursued, Ireland's referendum will have set off a chain of events that breaks up the E.U. as we know it.

Charles Grant is director of the Centre for European Reform"


Apart from his slightly histrionic opening paragraph, he raises the interesting prospect that we could be kicked out. i really don't see that happening. Would we vote Yes in a Lisbon II in order to stay in? i don't know.

Also, why is this chestnut about social class being repeatedly trotted out: "Richer and better educated people tended to vote for the treaty, while working-class Irish mostly opposed it."

Why do people keep saying it? Are they trying to infer than the richer and more educated you are, that you're likely to be more pro-EU? Or worse, is there a construction being put on this that maybe we should be listening more to those who are perceived as being educated? Smacks of EU elitism to me!

i consider myself quite well educated and while i'm not personally rich, i would probably be described as middle class. i voted No and i think the Yes side needs to engage all of us on the other side in any future debate, regardless of where we live or how much education we've received

mike65

Broadly the richer you are the more likely you are to follow the governments lead. Its safer for your money! The no voters were not engaged by the Powers That Be. SF said "hello, we understand your uncertainty" quite a lot. If the government learns nothing else its got to learn to stop taking the 'great unwashed' for granted.

Mike.

CtrlSource

Mike, SF said nothing to me. They never have. i still don't entirely trust them as a legitimate policital party. They're also too populist for my liking. Likewise Libertas. None of the messages that either of them were spreading formed a part of why i voted No.

Every time someone tries to characterise my vote as a vote in support of or agreement with either Sinn Fein or Libertas, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up

However their influence on any of the other 'great unwashed' is another matter

murphaph

CtrlSource wrote: »

Mike, SF said nothing to me. They never have. i still don't entirely trust them as a legitimate policital party. They're also too populist for my liking. Likewise Libertas. None of the messages that either of them were spreading formed a part of why i voted No.

Every time someone tries to characterise my vote as a vote in support of or agreement with either Sinn Fein or Libertas, the hairs on the back of my arm stand up

However their influence on any of the other 'great unwashed' is another matter

+1. Hardly noticed the Libertas spiel and never listen to SF anyway, still voted NO. Would vote NO again, especially if it's just thrown back at us to "get the right result".

conceited

+1 Same goes for me never even heard of the Libertas crowd untill a few days after i voted no.I'm still going to vote no again considering they have no respect for us as people.

mike65

Didn't hear of Libertas until after? Wow!

Mike.

L1011

The Sunday Times isn't a mainstream newspaper? Don't give me the 'Its an English paper" thing, it shares minimal content in the actual main section with the UK and most of the rest of the paper is gutted and rewritten.

Actually thought the ST's line on it rather disproves the 'it was the middle classes that voted yes' bit, based on who buys it...

conceited

I don't really watch tv I Loathe it.

brianthebard

agree op,i'm sick of hearing this line which infers that the yes vote was the better smarter choice.i'm working class,have a BA and am going on for an MA in september.i'm arguably more educated than many yes voters.and theres plenty others like me i'm sure,who voted no.

thehighground

CtrlSource wrote: »

Mike, SF said nothing to me. They never have. i still don't entirely trust them as a legitimate policital party. They're also too populist for my liking. Likewise Libertas. None of the messages that either of them were spreading formed a part of why i voted No.

Every time someone tries to characterise my vote as a vote in support of or agreement with either Sinn Fein or Libertas, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up

However their influence on any of the other 'great unwashed' is another matter

+ 1

---

Wouldn't mind what these publications have to say. The people who matter know who they are: The guy who wrote the article works for article works for the Centre for European Reform*:- of course he wants his middle class clients to think that it is the 'bloody working classes' who said 'No'! When you think of it, about 40% of the middle class in South Dublin voted 'No'. Just more spin.

*"The Centre for European Reform is a think-tank devoted to improving the quality of the debate on the European Union. It is a forum for people with ideas from Britain and across the continent to discuss the many political, economic and social challenges facing Europe. It seeks to work with similar bodies in other European countries, North America and elsewhere in the world.

The CER is pro-European but not uncritical. It regards European integration as largely beneficial but recognises that in many respects the Union does not work well. The CER therefore aims to promote new ideas for reforming the European Union.

The CER makes a point of bringing together people from the worlds of politics and business. Most of our meetings and seminars are by invitation only, to ensure a high level of debate.

The conclusions of our research and seminars are reflected in our publications, as well as in the private papers and briefings that senior officials, ministers and commissioners ask us to provide. The CER's work is funded by donations from the private sector. It has never received core funding from governments or EU institutions.

---

bbbbb

Only Ireland chose to ratify by referendum.

is incorrect. Should be "Only Ireland was required to ratify by referendum.
If other countries were in a similar position, there would be other no votes.

thehighground

brianthebard wrote: »

agree op,i'm sick of hearing this line which infers that the yes vote was the better smarter choice.i'm working class,have a BA and am going on for an MA in september.i'm arguably more educated than many yes voters.and theres plenty others like me i'm sure,who voted no.

Most irish people stay in school until they are 18. Class isn't such an issue in Ireland as it would be in the UK, or France.

Someone should quote them the PISA - OECD rankings on: Irish 15 year old pupils have above average reading capabilities (along with Netherlands and South Korea). Interesting that the Dutch rejected the Constitution as well.

German, French and UK are only average readers! Might explain why the French decided to let Sarkozy handle it for them the 2nd time.

CtrlSource

MYOB wrote: »

The Sunday Times isn't a mainstream newspaper? Don't give me the 'Its an English paper" thing, it shares minimal content in the actual main section with the UK and most of the rest of the paper is gutted and rewritten.

Actually thought the ST's line on it rather disproves the 'it was the middle classes that voted yes' bit, based on who buys it...

SF = Sinn Féin, not the Sunday Times

Scofflaw

CtrlSource wrote: »

Also, why is this chestnut about social class being repeatedly trotted out: "Richer and better educated people tended to vote for the treaty, while working-class Irish mostly opposed it."

Why do people keep saying it? Are they trying to infer than the richer and more educated you are, that you're likely to be more pro-EU? Or worse, is there a construction being put on this that maybe we should be listening more to those who are perceived as being educated? Smacks of EU elitism to me!

i consider myself quite well educated and while i'm not personally rich, i would probably be described as middle class. i voted No and i think the Yes side needs to engage all of us on the other side in any future debate, regardless of where we live or how much education we've received[/FONT]

Fundamentally, the reason it gets said is because it was the case. The tally results as they came in showed that poorer and working-class areas voted No much more strongly than any other area.

Having said that, it is the case that middle-class areas also voted No, so, as you say, characterising the No vote as a lower-class vote is certainly false.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Irish and Proud

CtrlSource wrote: »

From TIME magazine article here (18 June)

Dealing with Ireland's No
By CHARLES GRANT

"The shock waves from Ireland's vote against the Lisbon treaty will reverberate around the European Union and beyond for many years. European leaders were preparing to focus on pressing external challenges such as climate change, energy security, Russia policy and E.U. enlargement; now they will have to turn inward once again to put time and energy into fixing the E.U.'s creaking institutions. The rest of the world may conclude that Europe's ambition to play a greater role on the world stage should not be taken too seriously: the treaty's biggest aim — to better coordinate the members' foreign policies — will certainly be delayed and may never happen.

The Lisbon treaty, the fruit of seven years of interminable negotiations, cannot enter into force unless ratified by all 27 member states. Eighteen have ratified it in their parliaments and a further eight are due to do so later this year. Only Ireland chose to ratify by referendum.

Many Europeans are surprised that 53% of the Irish, who have done so well out of E.U. membership, should vote against the treaty. All their political leaders bar Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams, and all the mainstream newspapers, called for a yes. But Ireland's voters reacted against the establishment telling them what to do by giving it a kicking. A slick no campaign played on fears that the treaty would lead to higher taxes (untrue) and deprive Ireland of its right to appoint an E.U. commissioner (true). The yes campaign failed to provide good reasons for supporting a document that promised mere technical changes to E.U. institutions.

Richer and better educated people tended to vote for the treaty, while working-class Irish mostly opposed it. A similar social division over attitudes to the E.U. is apparent in many European countries. Euro-skeptics are right to portray the E.U. as an élite project that fails to connect with ordinary citizens. Yet pro-Europeans are also right to ask whether voters should have to pronounce on a highly complex legal text that would make no impact on their daily lives.

What happens next is far from clear. Most E.U. governments think current Brussels institutions are hopelessly inadequate. For example, three individuals — the Commissioner for External Relations, the High Representative and the Foreign Minister of the country holding the rotating presidency — try to represent the E.U. externally. This ineffective system causes much confusion in places like Beijing, Moscow and Washington. The treaty would merge the three jobs into one permanent post, supported by an embryonic E.U. foreign ministry.

So the governments will not abandon their quest for better institutions. Nor will they renegotiate the treaty: they fear that to amend one bit of what is a package of finely balanced compromises could lead to other bits unraveling. That leaves two options. One is to bury the Lisbon treaty but try to save some of its key provisions. A few of them, designed to improve cooperation in matters of justice and foreign policy, could perhaps be introduced without a new treaty. Furthermore, the prospect of Croatian membership, expected in two or three years, offers opportunities. Every time a country joins the E.U., voting rules need to be adjusted. Croatia's accession treaty could include the simplified procedure ("double majority voting") that is in the Lisbon treaty.

The other, more likely, option is for the governments to press ahead with the Lisbon treaty in the hope that the Irish will change their mind. The E.U. could offer the Irish a protocol to clarify that the treaty does not affect national powers on taxation, and a promise to use the Croatian accession treaty to restore the one-commissioner-per-country rule. The Irish would then vote again on the Lisbon treaty next summer. But that would be risky: the E.U. would appear arrogantly dismissive of the June 12 result, and the Irish could vote no again.

If the Irish did vote no twice, many countries would want to move ahead without them. Legally, the other 26 could renounce the existing E.U. treaties and recreate them with one fewer member. But that maneuver could not work unless all the members were firmly committed to pushing Ireland out of the E.U. Some of the more Euro-skeptic members, such as Britain and the Czech Republic, might thwart such an effort. But then the majority of the member states could try to create a two-speed Europe: the Irish, British and others reluctant to integrate would be left outside a new club. If that course is pursued, Ireland's referendum will have set off a chain of events that breaks up the E.U. as we know it.

Charles Grant is director of the Centre for European Reform"

I must agree (with CtrlSource that is!) - that article is pretty slanted!

CtrlSource wrote: »

Apart from his slightly histrionic opening paragraph, he raises the interesting prospect that we could be kicked out. i really don't see that happening. Would we vote Yes in a Lisbon II in order to stay in? i don't know.

IMO, another bullying tactic!

CtrlSource wrote: »

Also, why is this chestnut about social class being repeatedly trotted out: "Richer and better educated people tended to vote for the treaty, while working-class Irish mostly opposed it."

Why do people keep saying it? Are they trying to infer than the richer and more educated you are, that you're likely to be more pro-EU? Or worse, is there a construction being put on this that maybe we should be listening more to those who are perceived as being educated? Smacks of EU elitism to me!

EU elitism and corporate arrogance it would seem!

CtrlSource wrote: »

i consider myself quite well educated and while i'm not personally rich, i would probably be described as middle class. i voted No and i think the Yes side needs to engage all of us on the other side in any future debate, regardless of where we live or how much education we've received

I'd be very much of the same economic background, but I would want a complete overhaul of the EU so that its people are centre-stage, rather than the political elite and vested interests!

Regards!

jellybeans

lets stop all this squabbling about who said who voted for what, what does it matter really at the end of the day, what irritates me is people voting no just to make a bloody point. This should not be used as a weapon to bite ones nose off to bite ones face! lets think of the long term repercussions here folks.

L1011

CtrlSource wrote: »

SF = Sinn Féin, not the Sunday Times

??? Nothing in my post made a reference to Sinn Fein in any way, shape or form...

CtrlSource

MYOB wrote: »

??? Nothing in my post made a reference to Sinn Fein in any way, shape or form...

Yeah i know. You were talking about The Sunday Times, which hadn't been mentioned before in the thread. You talked about it as if it had and then referred to the ST.... i just thought you misread 'SF' and thought we were talking about the Times

ShooterSF

CtrlSource wrote: »

"Richer and better educated people tended to vote for the treaty, while working-class Irish mostly opposed it. A similar social division over attitudes to the E.U. is apparent in many European countries. Euro-skeptics are right to portray the E.U. as an élite project that fails to connect with ordinary citizens. Yet pro-Europeans are also right to ask whether voters should have to pronounce on a highly complex legal text that would make no impact on their daily lives.

Also, why is this chestnut about social class being repeatedly trotted out: "Richer and better educated people tended to vote for the treaty, while working-class Irish mostly opposed it.""

Why do people keep saying it? Are they trying to infer than the richer and more educated you are, that you're likely to be more pro-EU? Or worse, is there a construction being put on this that maybe we should be listening more to those who are perceived as being educated? Smacks of EU elitism to me!

i consider myself quite well educated and while i'm not personally rich, i would probably be described as middle class. i voted No and i think the Yes side needs to engage all of us on the other side in any future debate, regardless of where we live or how much education we've received[/FONT]

Scofflaw wrote: »

Fundamentally, the reason it gets said is because it was the case. The tally results as they came in showed that poorer and working-class areas voted No much more strongly than any other area.

Having said that, it is the case that middle-class areas also voted No, so, as you say, characterising the No vote as a lower-class vote is certainly false.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah yes but they claim it was both richer and better educated that voted for it. Was their an exam on the way in to see who was more educated. The phrase is used to make it look like it was uneducated (thickos from the island) masses that voted against it.
Something tells me this guy wrote this without taking his monocle out.

ART6

The suggestion the the working class bog Irish were responsible for the no vote intrigues me, particularly since I have seen it put forward by a number of other commentators including those in government. Have they some secret formula for deciding if someone is "working class" and therefore stupid because they choose to live in a particular area? Have they extensive statistical evidence to demonstrate that such people are, in fact, stupid? Have they somehow compiled statistics by comparing voting cards with actual votes?

I was born of working class parents and I went to a working class school, although now as a company director I guess I would be called middle class. My parents were not well educated people, but like all of their social status they had a wealth of common sense, and they were very capable of seeing through the spin of politicians. I said NO to Lisbon for the same reasons they they would have chosen. I value my freedom and my right to elect my representatives above all else.

For the great and good to suggest that the "working class" voted no because they didn't understand is highly offensive, and much more of that will guarantee my NO vote if they try another Nice Treaty exercise.:mad:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

ART6 wrote: »

For the great and good to suggest that the "working class" voted no because they didn't understand is highly offensive, and much more of that will guarantee my NO vote if they try another Nice Treaty exercise.:mad:

well, that's certainly intelligent.

CtrlSource

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ah yes but they claim it was both richer and better educated that voted for it. Was their an exam on the way in to see who was more educated. The phrase is used to make it look like it was uneducated (thickos from the island) masses that voted against it.
Something tells me this guy wrote this without taking his monocle out.

Good point. To say that people from lower income areas are less educated is too much of a generalisation, but it's typical of the way opinion polling works.

As you said, they use it to make the voters look thick, which in turn makes them easier to dismiss. The guy who wrote the article though, seems to be just reflecting a lot of similar "analysis" that has been done since the referendum.

ART6 wrote: »

The suggestion the the working class bog Irish were responsible for the no vote intrigues me, particularly since I have seen it put forward by a number of other commentators including those in government. Have they some secret formula for deciding if someone is "working class" and therefore stupid because they choose to live in a particular area? Have they extensive statistical evidence to demonstrate that such people are, in fact, stupid? Have they somehow compiled statistics by comparing voting cards with actual votes?

I was born of working class parents and I went to a working class school, although now as a company director I guess I would be called middle class. My parents were not well educated people, but like all of their social status they had a wealth of common sense, and they were very capable of seeing through the spin of politicians. I said NO to Lisbon for the same reasons they they would have chosen. I value my freedom and my right to elect my representatives above all else.

For the great and good to suggest that the "working class" voted no because they didn't understand is highly offensive, and much more of that will guarantee my NO vote if they try another Nice Treaty exercise.:mad:

It intrigues me too. i don't like using social class labels, because it's rarely so cut and dried, no matter what country you're in and it divides people. Here in Ireland, the vast majority of us are no more than a couple of generations from modest roots.

If all aged eighteen and over are entitled to vote, you've got to deal with them and respect their views. It's not like everyone needs a University degree to be able to vote the way they want to!

Those who use this type of opinion to strengthen their argument are demonstrating a weak and false point of view

murphaph

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote: »

well, that's certainly intelligent.

If a man's vote is ignored and he is told he voted wrongly and must vote again, he has EVERY RIGHT to be offended.

+1 to Art's post. I'll also be voting NO again. The EU has gone far enough for me.....does that make me stupid too?

If I may....I found a few IR£20 notes today. The reverse displays a signed pledge. It reads:

We the undersigned, being convinced that good government and wise legislation can be permanently secured to the irish people only through the instrumentality of an irish legislature, do hereby solemnly pledge ourselves to our country and to each other, that we will never desist from seeking the repeal of the legislative union and, by all peaceable, moral and constitutional means, until government be restored to Ireland. Dated this 30th May 1845. Daniel O'Connell M.P.

I used my constitutional RIGHT to vote NO and my own irish government is more than likely going to ask me to vote again and vote 'properly. What would O'Connell think of that I wonder. Now, I'm no irish nationalist by any stretch of the imagination and actually believe we have a lot in common with the british but the sentiment stands...democracy should be as local as possible. The Lisbon Treaty IS a stepping stone to greater integration. The EU has only gone ONE WAY since its inception. If you are in favour of this, then fair enough, vote yes. I am not and I will continue to vote NO to any further treaties which allow greater integration. Globalisation is not good for ordinary people (including directors!) and the EU project is part of this.

Scofflaw

As you said, they use it to make the voters look thick, which in turn makes them easier to dismiss. The guy who wrote the article though, seems to be just reflecting a lot of similar "analysis" that has been done since the referendum.

So, does anyone have an example of a commentator actually making the point that lower class voters didn't understand the treaty - or is it enough to simply mention both those facts for people to start feeling oppressed?

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyq

Scofflaw wrote: »

So, does anyone have an example of a commentator actually making the point that lower class voters didn't understand the treaty - or is it enough to simply mention both those facts for people to start feeling oppressed?

cordially,
Scofflaw

To be fair Scofflaw, it is highly implied. It might be a bit like putting the words 'creationist' and 'stupid' in the same sentence and being shocked at the conclusion most people would draw from your stance.

What I found fascinating though is that from some statistics I saw on the IT, it was those in the 18-24 bracket who were the largest group who voted no. And yet we hear nothing about age being a factor, mainly 'working class areas'.

Be in no doubt if it were the 60's+ were the predominant No there would be talk of Catholic/1950's ignorance and a load of :rolleyes: smilies used, to show some ridiculous form of elitism which some people on this board (not you Scofflaw;)) seem insistant on to make themselves feel more important.

Maybe i'm wrong but there certainly was an elitist reaction on the first day after the result anyway.

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

To be fair Scofflaw, it is highly implied. It might be a bit like putting the words 'creationist' and 'stupid' in the same sentence and being shocked at the conclusion most people would draw from your stance.

What I found fascinating though is that from some statistics I saw on the IT, it was those in the 18-24 bracket who were the largest group who voted no. And yet we hear nothing about age being a factor, mainly 'working class areas'.

Be in no doubt if it were the 60's+ were the predominant No there would be talk of Catholic/1950's ignorance and a load of :rolleyes: smilies used, to show some ridiculous form of elitism which some people on this board (not you Scofflaw;)) seem insistant on to make themselves feel more important.

Maybe i'm wrong but there certainly was an elitist reaction on the first day after the result anyway.

Hmm. I'm not sure asking "how can people be so ruddy thick?" is actually elitist, though - it's more an expression of frustration than a comment on socio-economic indicators.

As I've said, I don't see that connection being drawn, because working-class areas, for example, already tend to vote SF, so the connection is essentially trivial.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. I'm not sure asking "how can people be so ruddy thick?" is actually elitist, though - it's more an expression of frustration than a comment on socio-economic indicators.

As I've said, I don't see that connection being drawn, because working-class areas, for example, already tend to vote SF, so the connection is essentially trivial.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The problem Scofflaw, I think, is the use of the word educated implying that the working class are uneducated, which would also imply that they didn't understand what they were voting for as they were uneducated masses. It just seems to belittle the no vote.
It's also dangerous to presume that the working class, especially in this day in age where education is available to nearly all the populace, are all uneducated.
I know the writer is careful not to use the word "uneducated" in his text but by aligning rich and educated and opposing them against the working class implies it.

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

, because working-class areas, for example, already tend to vote SF,
cordially,
Scofflaw

Yeah, that's why the Dáil is overrun with them.

FFS!

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

The problem Scofflaw, I think, is the use of the word educated implying that the working class are uneducated, which would also imply that they didn't understand what they were voting for as they were uneducated masses. It just seems to belittle the no vote.
It's also dangerous to presume that the working class, especially in this day in age where education is available to nearly all the populace, are all uneducated.
I know the writer is careful not to use the word "uneducated" in his text but by aligning rich and educated and opposing them against the working class implies it.

Hmm. Again, though, sadly, that's a statistical correlation - the higher the level of education, the more likely to have voted Yes. True for all EU referendums, and for positive views on the EU generally - here and abroad.

In a sense, it would certainly sound equally dismissive to say that the important thing was the failure of the middle class to vote Yes - because that suggests the only important electorate is the middle class one. However, that is largely the case, as even that very funny video acknowledges.

Anyway, all of this comes back to the idea that a second referendum on Lisbon depends on establishing the 'illegitimacy' of the No vote, which isn't the case. Left to their own devices, FF wouldn't run a second referendum for love nor money.

cordially,
Scofflaw

CtrlSource

Scofflaw wrote: »

As I've said, I don't see that connection being drawn, because working-class areas, for example, already tend to vote SF, so the connection is essentially trivial.

Generalisation central! i would suspect (but have no factual proof to hand) that far more "working class" people vote Labour and Fianna Fail. AFAIK, peoples' votes in this referendum tended not to be based on any party allegiances. i do not support Sinn Fein at all, nor do i have much interest in what Libertas have been saying.

Hmm. Again, though, sadly, that's a statistical correlation - the higher the level of education, the more likely to have voted Yes. True for all EU referendums, and for positive views on the EU generally - here and abroad.

How do you actually know the level of education of Yes and No voters?

In a sense, it would certainly sound equally dismissive to say that the important thing was the failure of the middle class to vote Yes - because that suggests the only important electorate is the middle class one. However, that is largely the case, as even that very funny video acknowledges.

It would sound dismissive. It would be insulting to me to somehow be expected to vote a particular way because the general perception was that my "class" are more pro-EU or whatever. You can be pro-EU and pro-Europe and still have problems with this Treaty and some EU policies.

Anyway, all of this comes back to the idea that a second referendum on Lisbon depends on establishing the 'illegitimacy' of the No vote, which isn't the case. Left to their own devices, FF wouldn't run a second referendum for love nor money.

Nobody is going to admit that their trying to query the legitimacy of the vote, but it doesn't hurt them to spin it that way, at least for a while. It may start to put doubts in the minds of swing voters - if we are indeed to be asked to vote again.

i don't have a problem with another referendum, so long as we're voting on a different Treaty, or at least one that has been given more than just a minor cosmetic makeover. If the Irish people are asked to vote on the Treaty again as is, or with very minor semantic alterations / declarations, i won't hesitate in voting No again. It would be a protest vote on my part, whereas the first time i voted based on my opinion of the Treaty

molloyjh

bbbbb wrote: »

If other countries were in a similar position, there would be other no votes.

You know this for a fact? Care to back it up?

molloyjh

murphaph wrote: »

If a man's vote is ignored and he is told he voted wrongly and must vote again, he has EVERY RIGHT to be offended.

Nobody has been told they voted incorrectly. I have yet to hear anyone state such a thing. Many have said that there was an element that voted out of totaly ignorance or with inaccurate info. This seems to be the case judging by the EU Commissions survey and from talking with some of the people that voted on the day.

Noone is telling anyone how to vote either. Its not even 100% certain yet if we will be asked to vote on Lisbon a second time. And even if we are there is no more or less pressure on you to vote one way or the other than there was the first time around.

There seems to be a lot of paranoia and noise making around the possiblity of a second referendum which totally ignores the fact that it allows people to vote No all over again if they so wish, or change their vote from one to the other if they so wish. There is nothing anti-democratic about asking us to vote again. If the result of that vote is rejected by the Government and they proceed with ratifying Lisbon anyway, then people can start talking about the end of democracy. Until then we still live in a free and fair democratic society and there is no suggestion or proof to the contrary.

CtrlSource

If we didn't vote incorrectly, then why consider the need for a second vote?

molloyjh

CtrlSource wrote: »

If we didn't vote incorrectly, then why consider the need for a second vote?

Circumstances have changed. We didn't realise that the EU would plan to go ahead with this anyway and so we didn't have all the nessecary info to hand to make a qualified decision. It would in fact be utterly anti-democratic not to have a second referendum should that be the case as we weren't aware of that possibility before-hand.

My only problem with all of this is that for some reason (and I can only surmise that it is the fault of our Government) the EU leaders seemed to expect us to vote Yes. It came as a shock that we didn't. Given the fact that we voted No to Nice the first time around should have at least raised the possibility of a No result this time around. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that the Irish Government assured the EU leaders that Ireland would vote Yes, which itself would then explain the EU leaders frustrations with Cowen and co for promising something that they couldn't deliver.

CtrlSource

Circumstances haven't really changed. Did you really believe them when they said there was no Plan B? There's always a Plan B! Remember Nice?

i actually thought that Lisbon would be passed by a small majority and i think that the Gov probably did assure the brass in the EU that they'd get a Yes vote.

molloyjh wrote: »

We didn't realise that the EU would plan to go ahead with this anyway and so we didn't have all the nessecary info to hand to make a qualified decision. It would in fact be utterly anti-democratic not to have a second referendum should that be the case as we weren't aware of that possibility before-hand.

i disagree. The link you make is a pretty tenuous one to use in favour of a second referendum

marco_polo

CtrlSource wrote: »

Circumstances haven't really changed. Did you really believe them when they said there was no Plan B? There's always a Plan B! Remember Nice?

i actually thought that Lisbon would be passed by a small majority and i think that the Gov probably did assure the brass in the EU that they'd get a Yes http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=56409127vote.



i disagree. The link you make is a pretty tenuous one to use in favour of a second referendum

But would you personally be against a second referendum in similar circumstances with Lisbon, the addition of protocols to the treaty etc? It is not at all clear what many No campaigners position is on this matter.

molloyjh

CtrlSource wrote: »

Circumstances haven't really changed. Did you really believe them when they said there was no Plan B? There's always a Plan B! Remember Nice?

i actually thought that Lisbon would be passed by a small majority and i think that the Gov probably did assure the brass in the EU that they'd get a Yes vote.

i disagree. The link you make is a pretty tenuous one to use in favour of a second referendum

So then what exactly is the Plan B if one does exist? The realities of the situation as they are currently presenting themselves were not apparent before the referendum. Sure didn't most of the NO campaign say that by voting No nothing would change and we would mantain the stauts quo? Its becoming blatantly obvious that this is not the case. We were not made aware of the strong possibility that the EU would look to move ahead without us and therefore we could not have made a educated decision as we were not furnished with all of the relevant information. It is only fair that we be allowed to have our say again now that the "whole truth" has come to light.

As for Nice it was my understanding that the second referendum wasn't on a plan B at all, but was instead on Nice again with a few stipulations for our benefit???? Isn't this what is being discussed for Lisbon????

Scofflaw

CtrlSource wrote: »

Generalisation central! i would suspect (but have no factual proof to hand) that far more "working class" people vote Labour and Fianna Fail. AFAIK, peoples' votes in this referendum tended not to be based on any party allegiances. i do not support Sinn Fein at all, nor do i have much interest in what Libertas have been saying.

How do you actually know the level of education of Yes and No voters?

The answer to these various points is 'statistics' and 'surveys'! I agree that more working class people probably vote FF/Lab than vote SF, but SF support is strong in working class areas (see here) - and the point that working class areas tend to also be SF strongholds couls also be taken to indicate a more general disgruntlement with the political mainstream than is necessarily reflected purely by SF votes.

As to part affiliation and voting pattern, we have Eurobarometer results:

LISBON: party supporters’ votes
PARTY|YES|NO
Fianna Fáil (41% of those surveyed said they support FF)|60%|40%
Fine Gael (20% of those surveyed said they support FG)|51%|49%
Labour (9% of those surveyed said they support Labour)|45%|55%
Green Party (6% of those surveyed said they support the Greens)|43%|57%
Sinn Féin (6% of those surveyed said they support Sinn Féin)|5%|95%
Progressive Democrats (2% of those surveyed said they support PDs)|69%|31%
All others (17% of those surveyed said they didn’t remember or didn’t answer)|39%|61%



So, 95% of SF voters voted No, which means that effectively the entire SF vote translated into No votes.

CtrlSource wrote: »

It would sound dismissive. It would be insulting to me to somehow be expected to vote a particular way because the general perception was that my "class" are more pro-EU or whatever. You can be pro-EU and pro-Europe and still have problems with this Treaty and some EU policies.

Hmm. Statistics are not normative - that is, they do not tell you how you should vote. They're simply an estimated record of how people did vote.

CtrlSource wrote: »

Nobody is going to admit that their trying to query the legitimacy of the vote, but it doesn't hurt them to spin it that way, at least for a while. It may start to put doubts in the minds of swing voters - if we are indeed to be asked to vote again.

i don't have a problem with another referendum, so long as we're voting on a different Treaty, or at least one that has been given more than just a minor cosmetic makeover. If the Irish people are asked to vote on the Treaty again as is, or with very minor semantic alterations / declarations, i won't hesitate in voting No again. It would be a protest vote on my part, whereas the first time i voted based on my opinion of the Treaty

As I say, I don't see any other option. I am relatively certain we will obtain guarantees and assurances in respect of matters of concern, and we may in theory manage some fudge in the matter of the Commission, but it will essentially be a vote on the same Treaty, this time with the rider that we are voting on our own position in the EU as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Scofflaw wrote: »

17% of those surveyed said they didn’t remember...

Sorry Scofflaw; didn't remember what? How they voted?

Scofflaw

djpbarry wrote: »

Sorry Scofflaw; didn't remember what? How they voted?

Presumably how they voted in the GE last year - that might be people who voted for an Independent as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gurgle

The funny thing about this whole Lisbon treaty is that there was no need for a referendum about it in the first place.

A referendum is to change the constitution, or in the case of the one referred to incorrectly as the 'Lisbon Treaty Referendum' - to cancel it.

The actual change to the constitution was to make it secondary to european law. This was not a requirement to ratify the treaty.

Thats what I voted no to - A constitution that comes secondary to the law isn't a constitution, just a book of suggestions.

If we had another vote, on the Lisbon Treaty this time, I would vote yes.

molloyjh

Gurgle wrote: »

The funny thing about this whole Lisbon treaty is that there was no need for a referendum about it in the first place.

A referendum is to change the constitution, or in the case of the one referred to incorrectly as the 'Lisbon Treaty Referendum' - to cancel it.

The actual change to the constitution was to make it secondary to european law. This was not a requirement to ratify the treaty.

Thats what I voted no to - A constitution that comes secondary to the law isn't a constitution, just a book of suggestions.

If we had another vote, on the Lisbon Treaty this time, I would vote yes.

Eh well not really. There was a slight change to the constitution because of this. Either way the "secondary to the law" bit you're referring to is already there and has been for decades. Its part and parcel of being in the EU. Its not that the Constitution is secondary to the EU law per se, but more that the 2 don't conflict with one another. The logic being that it can't be law until it is passed, and to pass it the EU members must vote on it according to their constitutional requirements, which for Constitutional changes requires referendum here in Ireland.

The article you're referring to (in my mind anyway) is more applicable to new member states as it ensure that their Constitution and the Treaty are not at odds. Any conflicts can be resolved through amendments to eitherr the Treaty or their Constitution. It is less relevant to us as we have input into whether it becomes law or not in the first place.

CtrlSource

marco_polo wrote: »

But would you personally be against a second referendum in similar circumstances with Lisbon, the addition of protocols to the treaty etc? It is not at all clear what many No campaigners position is on this matter.

As i said earlier, i don't have a problem with another referendum, so long as we're voting on a different Treaty, or at least one that has been given more than just a minor cosmetic makeover. If the Irish people are asked to vote on the Treaty again as is, or with very minor semantic alterations / declarations, i won't hesitate in voting No again. It would be a protest vote on my part, whereas the first time i voted based on my opinion of the Treaty

molloyjh wrote: »

So then what exactly is the Plan B if one does exist? The realities of the situation as they are currently presenting themselves were not apparent before the referendum. Sure didn't most of the NO campaign say that by voting No nothing would change and we would mantain the stauts quo? Its becoming blatantly obvious that this is not the case. We were not made aware of the strong possibility that the EU would look to move ahead without us and therefore we could not have made a educated decision as we were not furnished with all of the relevant information

Plan B is exactly what we're living through now. Plan B is EU posturing and tactics aimed at persuading the Government to hold another vote. If you didn't think that would happen in the event of a No vote, fair enough. i did.

It is only fair that we be allowed to have our say again now that the "whole truth" has come to light.

i take your point if you are a No voter who would has had a change of mind and wants to vote Yes. If you are in fact a Yes voter and are trying to use this as an excuse to say that those poor No voters should be allowed to rectify matters after this bombshell came to light, then it's a flimsy argument and i reject it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I am relatively certain we will obtain guarantees and assurances in respect of matters of concern, and we may in theory manage some fudge in the matter of the Commission, but it will essentially be a vote on the same Treaty, this time with the rider that we are voting on our own position in the EU as well.

If this is going to be the prevailing attitude, why don't we simply hold a referendum about whether we should stay in or leave the EU. That would almost certainly result in "we should stay" and then, we should scrap this Treaty ratification by referendum nonsense, as it's a waste of time. Any No vote on a Treaty will be eventually ignored anyway

oscarBravo

CtrlSource wrote: »

If the Irish people are asked to vote on the Treaty again as is, or with very minor semantic alterations / declarations, i won't hesitate in voting No again. It would be a protest vote on my part...

Irrespective of the consequences, whatever they may be?

...why don't we simply hold a referendum about whether we should stay in or leave the EU. That would almost certainly result in "we should stay" and then, we should scrap this Treaty ratification by referendum nonsense, as it's a waste of time. Any No vote on a Treaty will be eventually ignored anyway

A plebiscite on whether or not we should stay in the EU would almost certainly result in a "yes" vote, but that's not the same as asking whether we should ratify Lisbon, complete with a warning that not to do so could leave us outside the EU. Why? Because lots of people would vote "no" either because they don't believe the consequences could be that bad, or out of sheer dudgeon at having the choice presented to them so starkly.

CtrlSource

oscarBravo wrote: »

Irrespective of the consequences, whatever they may be?

Yes, because nothing would have changed and i'd be voting on the same Treaty. If they added a second part asking if i wanted to remain a member of the EU, i'd vote Yes to that.

Scofflaw

CtrlSource wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

I am relatively certain we will obtain guarantees and assurances in respect of matters of concern, and we may in theory manage some fudge in the matter of the Commission, but it will essentially be a vote on the same Treaty, this time with the rider that we are voting on our own position in the EU as well.

If this is going to be the prevailing attitude, why don't we simply hold a referendum about whether we should stay in or leave the EU. That would almost certainly result in "we should stay" and then, we should scrap this Treaty ratification by referendum nonsense, as it's a waste of time. Any No vote on a Treaty will be eventually ignored anyway

Well, that's probably not the choice that will be on offer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

CtrlSource wrote: »

As i said earlier, i don't have a problem with another referendum, so long as we're voting on a different Treaty, or at least one that has been given more than just a minor cosmetic makeover.

So you want changes made for the sake of making changes?

molloyjh

CtrlSource wrote: »

Plan B is exactly what we're living through now. Plan B is EU posturing and tactics aimed at persuading the Government to hold another vote. If you didn't think that would happen in the event of a No vote, fair enough. i did.

So Plan B is just Plan A....again. Not much of a Plan B, but I agree that this was really the only logical outcome from a No vote. So what exacly is your point? You said that they lied when they said they had no Plan B, but a re-hash of Plan A is not really a Plan B at all, its just a re-hash of Plan A (which was Plan B itself to the Constitution anyway!). Plan B suggests an alternate plan, not the same one.

CtrlSource wrote: »

i take your point if you are a No voter who would has had a change of mind and wants to vote Yes. If you are in fact a Yes voter and are trying to use this as an excuse to say that those poor No voters should be allowed to rectify matters after this bombshell came to light, then it's a flimsy argument and i reject it.

I never suggested how people should vote, just that they should be given the opportunity to again should the circumstances change sufficiently. The strong possibility of a two-speed EU is sufficient enough IMO to warrant another referendum.

CtrlSource wrote: »

Any No vote on a Treaty will be eventually ignored anyway

That is nothing more than opinion. It may well be fair to say that if the vast majority of the EU wants something and a negligible amount (like say 0.2% as a "random" proportion) are blocking it then there may be a certain amount of pressure applied to the 0.2% to fall in line with the rest of the Union. After all the EU is really just a body that reflects the combined will of its members and if a tiny proportion of those members are blocking something the rest want its not really an effective partnership. As I said elsewhere maybe if we as a country are so opposed to what would certainly seem to be the will of the rest of the EU we should start to examine closely whether we belong in the Union at all.

triple h

molloyjh wrote: »

. As I said elsewhere maybe if we as a country are so opposed to what would certainly seem to be the will of the rest of the EU we should start to examine closely whether we belong in the Union at all.

I was thinking like this after the No vote won, it is a good point and i think irish people should think hard about this. Maybe most irish people want ireland to join the USA and become the 51st ( i think, 50 something maybe) state.

I voted Yes to Lisbon, i think Yes should have won, but i accept the No vote ( even though it was the wrong result i reckon), i have to accept it. But i will admit, the way some people ( french president the worst ) are acting really annoys me and makes me want to Vote No the next time for spite and another point, i do not see why a result should be ignored and people asked to vote again. That does not sound very democratic to me.

molloyjh

triple h wrote: »

I voted Yes to Lisbon, i think Yes should have won, but i accept the No vote ( even though it was the wrong result i reckon), i have to accept it. But i will admit, the way some people ( french president the worst ) are acting really annoys me and makes me want to Vote No the next time for spite and another point, i do not see why a result should be ignored and people asked to vote again. That does not sound very democratic to me.

Its not undemocratic though either. We all still get the chance to vote No as much as Yes. I think to be honest what has happened is that the Irish Government told the other EU leaders that they would get a Yes vote from the people and didn't. The Yes campaign was quite obviously total rubbish and now the EU leaders are pissed at our politicians for not delivering on their word. Most EU leaders have been quite reasonable on this though. You also have to remember that the realities of voting No were complete unknowns and now that we know what the consequences are, they are sufficiently severe (IMO) as to require another referendum. We didn't realise the first time around what we were really voting on.

Butterbox

molloyjh wrote: »

We didn't realise the first time around what we were really voting on.

Yes and now that we do, I'm voting no.