Why the Yes side won

Wendero · 05-06-2012 04:33PM #1

Why did the Yes side win?

I attended several of the No campaign's meetings, visited their websites, read their booklets etc.

Based on my personal experience, I think what went wrong could be summarized in one sentence: If you want to win a referendum, you have to appeal to a majority of the voters. That is, you have to be able to appeal not only to the pot-smoking leftists (most of whom I imagine still live in their parents basements and claim to have been abducted by aliens).

The No campaign was directed entirely at the left-winged voters, ie those who were already against the treaty. If you want to win a referendum, you need to step out of your comfort zone and pursue the voters who doesn't think like you. If you're a right-winger trying to win a referendum, you have to find arguments that appeal to the left as well.

Instead, the No campaign wasn't so much a campaign against the treaty, as a campaign against capitalism itself. And, surprise, most Irish people even today don't support a planned economy.

I read a booklet published by the No campaign, where instead of pointing out the loss of independence that comes with the treaty, the author went to great lengths in criticizing Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman - both of whom are dead today, and neither of whom supported the EU project in the first place. Talk about a waste of time! And even if Hayek and Friedman had been alive (and had supported the treaty), what's the point in talking about them?

The No side deserved to lose. They could have talked about the loss of independence, the unnecessarity in bringing government debt down to a level as low as 60 % of GDP (many countries -including Germany - have higher debt and are doing just fine), the fact that the bailout fund that Ireland is going to have access to may not become a reality (or may not be as big as is claimed)... there were so many arguments, why only use the arguments that only appeal to hippies?

Libertas was a breath of fresh air, but it came too late.

What do you think was the reason the No side lost?

matthew8 · 05-06-2012 05:31PM

For ULA/SF the no vote went against their own interests. A no vote would've reduced their popularity whereas the yes vote did wonders for them in the polls. This referendum was not about winning for them.

christmas2012 · 05-06-2012 05:33PM

spin and lies,putting down other political parties that advocated a no saying they dont have the 'economic experience' blah blah blah,and the yes to jobs spin,of vote yes vote yes for jobs,didnt they say that with the lisbon treaty?the liars..

If no came through you can bet your ass that we would have been forced to vote again..

MagicMarker · 05-06-2012 05:34PM

Because Yes was the logical option.

christmas2012 · 05-06-2012 05:37PM

I agree yes was ,but how did we get there we allowed for the lisbon treaty,being forced a yes,we allowed the banks to get their way in 2008,when we should have done what iceland did and let them burn..

Kurz · 05-06-2012 05:40PM

Fear of being left with no money, not even bailout money is what won the referendum. Though it was fairly close, it's amazing that 40% of all people in the country are pot smokers who've been abducted by aliens.

DeVore · 05-06-2012 05:41PM

Just because "Yes" was a bad choice, doesnt make "No" the right one... they didnt cop that.

There was, imho, a certain amount of the entryism we've seen in the last 2 decades coming home to roost. I'm sorry, but even as an ardent left winger I simply dont trust SF/ULA/SWP/WP/PBP/whatever-other-names-the-same-people-have-had. They would support anything populist to get "in" with people. Its....creepy.

I felt like they were selling more than a simple "no" when the literature and posters had workers-solidarity symbols all over them... dishonesty turns people off and makes them distrust the whole message.

Its a pity because good voices like GTCost and others were lost in the "all stand together, citizens" style propaganda.

I've said it before, the most off-putting thing about the left wing movement in Ireland is the left wing movement in Ireland.

Augmerson · 05-06-2012 05:45PM

People voted yes because they were afraid.

This is why Lisbon II got passed.

Fear.

The Waltzing Consumer · 05-06-2012 05:49PM

A few reasons I could think of

1) Hypocrisy and language of No groups (Posters, interviews, debates contained the bigger scare mongering language and this alienated voters as the Yes camp kept it simple, clear and positive)
2) Majority of debates and interviews left one giant gap...where do we get the money to fund the state? (Did any No person actually answer this honestly?) The No posters might not agree on this, but they have to admit, this was a consistent failure of their campaigners to address in a decent public way.
3) Declan Ganley's ego
4) Nearly all businesses minus Ganleys, large and small, foreign and domestic, encouraged a Yes vote
5) The biggest "victory" of the No side was that Enda would not appear on a private broadcaster's debate, if that is the biggest, no wonder they lost
6) The last minute court stunt to garner publicity for SF

But as a poster rightly put it in an earlier post, this was all about SF and getting publicity and putting party over country. They lost the referendum, but they won what they wanted.

The Waltzing Consumer · 05-06-2012 05:50PM

Augmerson wrote: »

People voted yes because they were afraid.

This is why Lisbon II got passed.

Fear.

Vote Yes for stability
Vote No "Don't give them another stick to beat you with"
Vote Yes for Growth
Vote No for permanent austerity

I am soooooooooo scared by those positive yes slogans, the fear is unreal

Galwayguy35 · 05-06-2012 05:53PM

The No side were a disaster in the debates apart from Ganley who did well I thought.

hatrickpatrick · 05-06-2012 06:28PM

Wendero wrote: »

not only to the pot-smoking leftists (most of whom I imagine still live in their parents basements and claim to have been abducted by aliens).

Stopped reading there.

hatrickpatrick · 05-06-2012 06:36PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Vote Yes for stability
Vote No "Don't give them another stick to beat you with"
Vote Yes for Growth
Vote No for permanent austerity

I am soooooooooo scared by those positive yes slogans, the fear is unreal

"Vote yes or we'll be f*cked and broke within 2 years"
Sure, the yes side is SO much better :mad:

Wendero · 05-06-2012 06:42PM

I'm not saying 40 % of the country are left-winged potheads - I'm against the treaty (couldn't vote since I'm not a citizen), and I've never tried pot nor am I left-winged (I'm an intellectual conservative who just finished a degree in economics).

But the campaign only really appealed to the loony left-wingers. I think, like someone mentioned, that Sinn Fein wasn't really interested in winning - if they were, they wouldn't have put the name "Sinn Fein" on their posters etc (every time normal people hear that "Sinn Fein wants you to vote no", they become more likely to vote Yes). You have to keep your head down so that you can convince people who don't like you to vote the way you want them to.

Dob74 · 05-06-2012 09:24PM

Yes won because they went out with a simple message.
Stability is important especially to older people receiving pensions.
I would consider myself a strong no voter but I was conflicted til the last moment and could have voted yes. Scared coz i dont want the country to implo

DarkJager · 05-06-2012 09:33PM

Dob74 wrote: »

Yes won because they went out with a simple message.
Stability is important especially to older people receiving pensions.
I would consider myself a strong no voter but I was conflicted til the last moment and could have voted yes. Scared coz i dont want the country to implo

That word in bold there is what turned a lot of people to yes. This disgraceful pack of clowns we have in government can't logically explain anything to the people. They need bully boy tactics, scaremongering and fear to induce the reaction they want, and a majority of the Irish people are stupid enough to buy it.

We seemingly had a new goverment mouthpiece in the news each day over the course of the Fiscal Treaty campaign, warning of doom and gloom if we didn't pass it. Same thing with Hogan during the Household Charge. This is not democracy as democracy should be. Real democracy is a government directed by the people. This government has forgotten that they answer to the people of this country, not the other way around.

I had high hopes for FG/LAB when they got in. Now, I wouldn't vote for either of them if they were the last parties left in the country.

Augmerson · 05-06-2012 10:41PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Vote Yes for stability
Vote No "Don't give them another stick to beat you with"
Vote Yes for Growth
Vote No for permanent austerity

I am soooooooooo scared by those positive yes slogans, the fear is unreal

meglome · 05-06-2012 11:13PM

DarkJager wrote: »

That word in bold there is what turned a lot of people to yes. This disgraceful pack of clowns we have in government can't logically explain anything to the people. They need bully boy tactics, scaremongering and fear to induce the reaction they want, and a majority of the Irish people are stupid enough to buy it.

We seemingly had a new goverment mouthpiece in the news each day over the course of the Fiscal Treaty campaign, warning of doom and gloom if we didn't pass it. Same thing with Hogan during the Household Charge. This is not democracy as democracy should be. Real democracy is a government directed by the people. This government has forgotten that they answer to the people of this country, not the other way around.

I had high hopes for FG/LAB when they got in. Now, I wouldn't vote for either of them if they were the last parties left in the country.

I'm really wondering if some of you guy were in a different country for this referendum. The government as it turned out played it smart, a little of the consequences of a no vote and a lot of posters with positive messages. But I saw no direct lying whatsoever.

But the no posters I saw, and I saw an awful lot, were all negative. The contents were also all either misdirection or lies, or both. I took a load of pictures and I saw several more no posters that I didn't take pictures of. I didn't see a single no poster that was actually correct or positive.

I hate getting into a competition of who had the worst posters because to be honest I'd don't agree with any of them, yes or no but I'm sorry the no posters were far far worse. And the blindness that no supporters show about this is truly amazing.

Augmerson wrote: »

...snip...

Em what do posters from the Lisbon treaty have to do with the Fiscal compact?

Godge · 05-06-2012 11:31PM

DarkJager wrote: »

That word in bold there is what turned a lot of people to yes. This disgraceful pack of clowns we have in government can't logically explain anything to the people. They need bully boy tactics, scaremongering and fear to induce the reaction they want, and a majority of the Irish people are stupid enough to buy it.

We seemingly had a new goverment mouthpiece in the news each day over the course of the Fiscal Treaty campaign, warning of doom and gloom if we didn't pass it. Same thing with Hogan during the Household Charge. This is not democracy as democracy should be. Real democracy is a government directed by the people. This government has forgotten that they answer to the people of this country, not the other way around.

I had high hopes for FG/LAB when they got in. Now, I wouldn't vote for either of them if they were the last parties left in the country.

One man's scaremongering is another man's honest assessment of the abyss that faced us if we voted "no".

It is only scaremongering if the consequences are fanciful. Here are a few examples of genuine scaremongering from older campaigns:

Vote "Yes" and the Germans will bring in conscription
Vote "Yes" and we will have Dutch abortion laws imposed on us
Vote "Yes" and the EU will make us raise our corporation tax.

How do I know these are scaremongering? Because we voted "yes" and these things did not happen.

The SF/ULA axis of ignorance can now peddle the lie that the Government was scaremongering because we voted "yes" as it is impossible for the government to prove what would have happened with a "no" vote.

DarkJager · 05-06-2012 11:48PM

meglome wrote: »

I'm really wondering if some of you guy were in a different country for this referendum. The government as it turned out played it smart, a little of the consequences of a no vote and a lot of posters with positive messages. But I saw no direct lying whatsoever.

They lied about having no other source of funding if the vote was "No". They failed to mention that a No vote would only rule us out of support from the ESM. I think that qualifies as a direct lie, don't you?

Godge wrote: »

One man's scaremongering is another man's honest assessment of the abyss that faced us if we voted "no".

It is only scaremongering if the consequences are fanciful. Here are a few examples of genuine scaremongering from older campaigns:

Vote "Yes" and the Germans will bring in conscription
Vote "Yes" and we will have Dutch abortion laws imposed on us
Vote "Yes" and the EU will make us raise our corporation tax.

How do I know these are scaremongering? Because we voted "yes" and these things did not happen.

The SF/ULA axis of ignorance can now peddle the lie that the Government was scaremongering because we voted "yes" as it is impossible for the government to prove what would have happened with a "no" vote.

I have no allegiance to any party in case your SF/ULA comment is directed at me. Already we have seen Germany give Kennys idea that he had some strengthened plan to get a deal on bank debt a kick in the balls. Just today, we have this coming out of Berlin:

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/germany-wants-state-companies-privatised-labour-markets-reformed-to-promote-growth-475372-Jun2012/

The Journal wrote:

Fiscal orthodoxy and economic growth are “two sides of the same coin,” the document says, using a phrase which Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeated time and again in recent weeks.

“Sustainable growth cannot be bought with public spending programmes, nor with state intervention or a monetary policy that is excessively lax,” the text states.

Germany’s proposals essentially comprise suggestions for reforms to be implemented by the countries themselves and calls for better utilisation of resources and of existing European mechanisms.

Berlin urged its EU partners to “put in place conditions that are favourable to business activity, speed up the privatisation of state companies and reform their labour markets.”

That's goodbye to the corporation tax, hello raising of taxes and slashing of wages across the board. I hope the Yes side still consider it a good vote when the **** really hits the fan in the months to come (especially the budget).

meglome · 06-06-2012 12:14AM

DarkJager wrote: »

They lied about having no other source of funding if the vote was "No". They failed to mention that a No vote would only rule us out of support from the ESM. I think that qualifies as a direct lie, don't you?

What lie? The only current source of funding that we can actually afford is the ESM. The IMF have already loaned us way more than they would normally, because of the backing of the EU. Someone might give us money, but at what cost. Our market rate is around 7% the ESM is 3.85%.

DarkJager wrote: »

That's goodbye to the corporation tax, hello raising of taxes and slashing of wages across the board. I hope the Yes side still consider it a good vote when the **** really hits the fan in the months to come (especially the budget).

I really cannot figure how you got your summary from the piece you linked. It doesn't say the things you believe at all.

But let's be honest about this... we will be raising taxes and cutting some wages, as we can't afford to do otherwise. Besides we are not a high tax country here now, for all the moaning. I'll be very happy with my Yes vote as I'm aware that harsh reality may be harsh but there's nothing we can do about it except get on with it. Anyone who thinks that we are having austerity because Merkel says so is very deluded indeed, we are having austerity as we spend way more than we have.

Augmerson · 06-06-2012 01:46AM

meglome wrote: »

Em what do posters from the Lisbon treaty have to do with the Fiscal compact?

Everything.

meglome · 06-06-2012 01:51AM

Augmerson wrote: »

Everything.

Really? I'm dying to hear the logic on this.

Count Dooku · 06-06-2012 07:27AM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Because Yes was the logical option.

like NAMA was the only game in town

Count Dooku · 06-06-2012 07:31AM

Wendero wrote: »

Why did the Yes side win?

Because it is more easy to transfer all debts on children rather than pay for own mess

Dirk Gently · 06-06-2012 07:32AM

Wendero wrote: »

I'm an intellectual conservative .

is that an oxymoron?

Plazaman · 06-06-2012 07:45AM

christmas2012 wrote: »

If no came through you can bet your ass that we would have been forced to vote again..

It was explained the day before the referendum on Matt Coopers Show that even if we voted No, we could at any time opt back into the Fiscal Treaty. This was the first I heard of that option and from then on I was personally hoping that the No vote would win just to see the Government squirm and it would mean they'd have to do a bit of work.

If we had a competent party running the country, that could have been the push to actually start doing something about stimulating economic growth if only in a small way. If push came to shove and we did absolutley need to access funds, then I assume a second referendum it would be.

Now they have their Yes, it's time for them to sit back on their laurels, take a nice long Summer break and "Yes for Jobs, Stability & Growth", pfft only another promise that can be flushed away with the rest. Rabbitte himself let it slip, they have no plan.

Boskowski · 06-06-2012 08:20AM

Godge wrote: »

Vote "Yes" and the Germans will bring in conscription

That hasn't actually been used right? Off-topic, but I understand the Germans are abolishing conscription themselves.

Boulevardier · 06-06-2012 08:29AM

It was the "blackmail clause" wot won it.

When the polls closed on Thursday, pundits said the low turnout would be good for the no side.

In the event, the low turnout can be explained not by the complacency of the yes voters, but by the large number of people who wanted to vote no but were scared off from doing so by the problem of funding a second bailout.

Without the ESM clause, the vote would have gone no.

seamus · 06-06-2012 09:06AM

Boulevardier wrote: »

When the polls closed on Thursday, pundits said the low turnout would be good for the no side.

In the event, the low turnout can be explained not by the complacency of the yes voters, but by the large number of people who wanted to vote no but were scared off from doing so by the problem of funding a second bailout.

The turnout wasn't really that low in recent history. A normal turnout in an Irish referendum is 50-55%, anything over 60% is a good turnout. Plenty of referendums have seen figures below 40%.

So I don't really think that people were avoiding this referendum in any significant numbers.

Without the ESM clause, the vote would have gone no.

Quite probably. We would have seen a significant number of people abstaining, purely because it would be difficult for any campaign to sell a treaty that doesn't actually contain very many changes from what we already have.
It was already a treaty which it was ridiculous to ask people to vote on, and without the ESM attachment you would be asking Irish voters to give approval for some dull changes to the internal workings of the EU which will have zero impact on them. Many would stay away from voting completely because it would seen as unimportant and the Nos would take it on the basis of anti-EU sentiment and lies.

Thoie · 06-06-2012 09:19AM

Boskowski wrote: »

That hasn't actually been used right? Off-topic, but I understand the Germans are abolishing conscription themselves.

That was used during the Lisbon treaty campaign. IIRC, all our young men (no equal opportunities there) were going to be forced into a giant European Super Army that would go around carrying out abortions while stealing jobs from Ireland and giving them to (hushed voice) other countries. Also, your dog would get worms. I may have made that last one up, but given some of the hysterical posters (on both sides) during the run up to the Lisbon referendum, it wouldn't surprise me if they were holding those in reserve.

Why the Yes side won

Comments