Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Which Way Will the Undecideds Fall?
Read more about: Government, Irish Politics, Lisbon Treaty
It seems to me over the past week that the polls have this wrong so far, allegorically I have met people who are steadfastly committed to voting no (people I would not have put down for that) in larger proportion than the polls suggest. I wonder if this time there is a chance that the polls might have missed it. There are a large number of undecideds but it is nowhere near as safe to assume that if they turn out they will automatically vote for the Yes side.
This is not scientific, I am just wondering if other bloggers or readers have found the same? The disconnect between media and voter is a given at any election - media will follow stories while voters will do as they always did, their own thing. Yet this time the disconnect seems wider as no one is picking this up (that I have read). The campaign at this point appears to be about megaphone politics shuttling between soundbites, far closer to the american model than is usual and far more likely to yield a “gut result” rather than a “potholes result“.
That gut result may well be swung by a fear of prostitution, abortion, tax consolidation, loss of sovereignty, loss of commissioner or any other of the headlines that are the No campaign. The problem for anyone who wishes to see it move beyond this is that the evidence which rational argument thrives on is so inconclusive. The Treaty is unreadable in isolation, while when put in context it is a complex legal document and like all legal documents it is open to interpretation and implementation. So that by levels of iteration it can justify almost any claim (from any side).
The ensuing confusion, emotion and general scepticism is what strikes me when I talk to friends and people I merely know. I would have had many down as pro-Europe but can see the argument slipping away for the yes side, does it matter that the no side are aiming at segments of society to motivate a vote - and ruthlessly so in some cases - its working. Those I met are not representative as I have said but are they alone?
The undecideds are going to win and he how shouts loudest may reap those rewards.
There are specific reasons to vote No that people can grasp very readily and there isn’t nothing as comparable to convince people to vote Yes. You have to and I said this a few months back actively convince people to Vote Yes and the government has not done that. They assumed the default position for most of the electorate was Yes, and concentrated on making the No side seem like crazy people that shouldn’t be listened to or engaged with. It is as if FF are fighting a Nice I campaign all over again, while the rest of the parties (those who are engaged) are fighting Nice II campaigns.
I would suggest that those who are engaged are FG, SF, and the Socialist Party. The Greens are like some family who are in total denial to each other about what they’re independently doing. The PDs, ah sure the PDs are just after an election themselves and frankly aren’t even going through the motions for the referendum as they’re more directly concerned about holding onto their existing public reps than anything else.
All polls in every single EU referendum csmpsign including Nice II has understated the no vote considerably. Imho, the no side will win unless the media succeed in smearing the no side.
Oh I forgot about Labour, perhaps that is a sign of something. I suspect Labour are half engaged, half not. I think they’re hoping it will pass but that they won’t have to do too much. Which is a pity as the Charter should be something Labour should be crowing about.
I was about to mention Labour as well Dan and the half-in half-out (that is actually the case from what I can gather). The campaign from the big powers has already deteriorated into internal squabbling and i reackon we are in for a discontented summer if this goes negative.
Also hearing that some prominent members of hte Yes campaign are at official functions telling people its lost unless they get the vote out. Have they any hope of getting the vote out?
I’m calling this as a No in the end.
The Yes campaign are their own worst enemy- every time I see them scolding me on the television I want to vote No.
Of course, then I see the various flavours of mental shrieking at me to Vote No and I swing back again.
I’m still an undecided.
I wrote an essay after the first Nice Referendum on why I voted No that time. It might be relevant now.
http://www.tuppenceworth.ie/Politics/nonice.htm
maybe it is the company you keep cian?
maybe it is the company you keep cian?
I agree it is unscientific, though these are not friends as such but also acquaintances and people who strike me as yes voters.
@Simon McGarr - it is the mental that makes one stop but then the unity of those who are calling yes is equally disconcerting.
@Cian: It’s not so much that it’s unreadable as that it’s not the thing you ought to be reading to make a decision.
I’ve come across quite a few people too who are voting no for various reasons, and they’re not silly or crazy reasons either.
I think a deep flaw in the Yes campaign was the lack of real non-partisan outside of politics campaign that had people who were just going to argue the case for the treaty and nothing else. I suspect the Alliance for Europe was meant to be that sort of thing but it comes across as too much part of the political establishment. It is worthing considering that each of these referenda campaigns introduces new figures and depending on how they are perceived so goes the middle ground. I’m stumped to think of someone new that has a convincing narrative about this from the Yes side. I’ve a lot of time for many of the people making the Yes case but this is not a battle to be won solely by skilled legal argument.
I’m a bit older and hopefully wiser than the time of the last referendums and maybe taking more note of the arguments being put forward by both sides. It does seem to me that the No side have put forward an altogether more sophisticated argument this time based on a wider range of points of contention tham previously. I think the Yes side might not be as prepared for such a situation. The Bert calling people loo lahs was hardly an indication of a readiness to argue the issues and when the No side had strong reasoned points rather than just emotive arguments then the Yes side, I think, found itself wrong footed.
Gut feeling opinion polls are never accurate but you can sense a trend and while it may still favour the yes side the no side is mounting a serious, weighted campaign and winning people over who would never have voted no simply based on a vote no for neutrality argument
I agree with Dan: “There are specific reasons to vote No that people can grasp very readily and there isn’t nothing as comparable to convince people to vote Yes.” But one qualification: the specific reasons to vote no may or may not be justified.
There are exciting arguments for voting no; there are good reasons for voting yes, but none are exciting or motivating. It’s just reform, hard to get worked up about. If we had a large electoral, copyright or budget reform bill nationally there would be little interest among the general population; if that bill were put to a referendum, it would likely be difficult to motivate support but all to easy to find bogeymen.
I do think the No side are crazies, and I don’t mind saying so. They are lying, plain and simple. See the Libertas spokesperson in the Times today, banging on again about Lisbon introducing forced detention of children for education purposes. She says Eamon Gilmore needs to read the Treaty/Charter to see where this is. She mentions article 6. Article 6 says nothing about detention, and in fact only guarantees liberty. She might be basing her argument on interpretation or case law, but the way her argument is presented is a lie.
Anyway, I recommend the UK House of Lords EU Committee Impact Assessment of the Lisbon Treaty (and wonder why no such document was prepared in Ireland, where we are voting on the thing). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf It’s a huge document, but you can just wordsearch for “Conclusion” and fast forward through the conclusions.
Money shot: “We are content that the Lisbon
Treaty has no significant impact in the area of financial affairs or
trade policy.”
P.S. Why do people keep calling the EU undemocratic because the other states are not holding a vote? This is clearly a decision only for each member state and the EU has no role/power in deciding whether or not a country holds a referendum. France/Germany/UK may (or may not) be undemocratic, but the EU cannot be tarred with that brush.
Blog, you’re correct in that the specific reason may well not be justified or even real but the Yes side should have been ready for that.
Let’s take just example the loss of a commissioner, for right or wrong, for good or ill people tend to think that the commissioner is our representative on the commission, and removing that was going to give people pause.
I would ask the question of the Yes side of the last 20 years or so (2009 to 1989) which 5 year period and which set of events and initatives from the commission would you have prefer Ireland didn’t have a commissioner for? If you can’t think of a 5 year period in the last 20 years when we wouldn’t have minded having a voice familiar with the Irish political landscape present and when the issues are known to us how can we think of a time into the future when who knows what issues might arise?
I had no time for the “it’s too large and unwieldy” argument when it comes to the commission because we’re reducing the size by 1/3 i.e from 27 to 18 but as more member states join we can easily see ourselves back up to 27 commissioner in the medium term and then what do we do?
A better idea (I’m not claiming solely credit for this) is to have all commissioners serve 6 years with 3 as a junior or understudy to a senior commissioner. So half the commission is changed every 3 years, but everyone gets to have a voice all the time. And we end up with half the number of senior commissioners.
You know for a government with 15 ministers and 20 junior ministers to be making the case about being too large is just farce.
Good points Dan.
There is, of course, a parallel with ministers. Ministers must act for the country on not their constituency, but of course it is nice/a matter of pride to have a local minister (e.g. recent celebrations of Coughlan & Cowen). So, to the No side, yes it’s nice to have a Commissioner but not that big a deal and worth conceding in the long run.
Given that Commissioners act for the EU, and not their country, I am quite sure that you could collate a list of decisions by Charlie McCreevey and his cabinet (or any former Irish Commissioner) which do not necessarily advance our interests nor are favourable to us.
Separately, an interesting point in that HoL Impact Assessment on QMV, which is a big No side issue, is that QMV in new areas can be advantageous in advancing the UK’s interests. Same for Ireland - QMV may count against us in some areas and for us in others (just as the existing system may be better/worse for us depending on the area).
In relation to the Yes side, and particularly TDs, they appear to have little grasp of the issues and arguments. The media/Libertas line that we should all be able to read/understand the Treaty is nonsense: the failure of Yes TDs is not to read the Treaty and memorise references, but to read up on the arguments and justifications/benefits. Instead, we have Gilmore telling his campaigners to “keep it simple” and push the “it’s good for us” line. That’s not good enough.
Blog, I plan on doing a videocast as part of my new exciting “beer and politics” series over the weekend on the inconsistencies of both sides. One more example, people keep taking about a lack of democracy but then criticise our loss of a veto and the fact that bigger countries with larger populations have more say. Aren’t vetoes undemocratic? And I thought democracy meant going in the direction of the greater number of people? And do those supporting more democracy really what the European making more decisions?
I would ask the question of the Yes side of the last 20 years or so (2009 to 1989) which 5 year period and which set of events and initatives from the commission would you have prefer Ireland didn’t have a commissioner for? If you can’t think of a 5 year period in the last 20 years when we wouldn’t have minded having a voice familiar with the Irish political landscape present and when the issues are known to us how can we think of a time into the future when who knows what issues might arise?
While McCreevey has generally been a good commissioner for Europe, if he wasn’t there I don’t think it would make a massive difference to Ireland to be honest. Take a look at the Commission at the WTO negotiations if you believe that an Irish commissioner has a strong influence over what goes on in those areas outside their direct control.
One of the more interesting things I’ve found about the run up to the ref is that this time, people are actually listening to the ridiculous arguments put forward by the NO side. Relatively intelligent people actually believe that this will result in membership of NATO-lite, that we will lose the power to set our own tax rates and that the treaty will have an important role to play in encouraging the legalisation of gay marriage or abortion.