Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
European Movement International blames Abortion
Read more about: Lisbon Treaty
The No Campaign failed to make the Abortion issue a major reason to vote no. But they certainly convinced the rest of Europe again. And yet again we have another person rather then reading the Eu-barometer results but let there own bias dictate their views. Sylvie Goulard, the president of the French section of the federalist group European Movement International, ( I know I don’t know what it is either) Seemingly they are a lobby group for a United Europe and Pat Cox is president. And have a crap flag. (left below fold). Anyway Sylvie Goulard is laying the blame on the fall of the Lisbon Treaty at the governments feat.
Goulard also called on Irish politicians to face up to “their responsibilities” by coming up with solutions to the crisis. “We are again witnessing an amalgam where critics say Brussels irritates, that people do not want Europe, when in fact the people responsible for this slip are rather to be found in the national capitals.”
“We had a prime minister who said he had not read the treaty, an Irish European commissioner who said the same,” she pointed out.
And if Irish voters were being made to believe that the treaty influences Ireland’s sovereignty on abortion, defence or tax policy, it is because Irish politicians failed to explain the text properly, which was considered by voters to be too complex.
“These issues were not considered in the treaty,” Goulard points out. “We can therefore measure how much the Irish political class failed in its mission to explain [the treaty].”
Now there is some truth in that politicians did fail to sell the treaty. With 22 % saying they voted no because they did not understand the treaty alot if all the blame lies at the feat of Brian Cowen (all though the EU could have tried making an easier understood treaty). But under 1% said abortion was an issue. Under 1% and yet Goulard believes that this is a major part of the rejection. Has she read the EUBarometer report at all? “These issues were not considered in the treaty” fecking hell some of those issues were not considered in the vote only in the post result spin analysis. While some of the issues like the loss of a commissioner were very much part of the treaty.
She also says
“It seems perfectly normal that all European countries can give their opinion,” she continued, saying today’s prevailing logic is “one of dialogue, not avoidance”.
The fact that she avoids one of the major issues (the loss of a commissioner) instead preferring to go on about Abortion does not give me confidence in her sincerity.
My French isn’t good enough to read the full transcript of the interview, but it seems to me that Sylvie Goulard doesn’t blame Abortion for the “No” vote. She makes reference to the Irish government’s failure to explain the impact (or lack of impact) the treaty makes on “abortion, defence or tax policy.” That’s a very different statement to make. She certainly doesn’t seem to be suggesting that most No voters had abortion on their minds.
Only 2% may have voted against the treaty because they believed the treaty would lead to legalised abortion, but if you asked the ‘I don’t know so I’m voting No’ voters what concerns they had, then they’d probably make reference to uncertainties around the triad of factors Goulard makes reference to.
Outside of the IDKSIVN block, 6% made reference to wanting to protect our tax system. 6% made reference to neutrality. 2% made reference to controversial social policies like gay marriage, abortion and euthanasia. 6% made reference to the loss of a commissioner. Clearly, given that in reality the impact, if any, that Lisbon made on any of these issues was small and had the government convinced us of that, the treaty would have passed by a large margin.
Probably Niall but i am intrigued by how Abortion is highlighted more then anything. The block also includes euthenisia and Gay marriage yet no one referes to Irelands position on either of those two.
It’s probably got something to do with the fact that Ireland’s abortion laws are very prohibitive by most European standards. If the average French or German person remembers anything about Irish domestic politics, it’s that abortion has been a major issue for decades. Our stance is pretty unique by European standards and people tend to remember what’s unique over anything else.
Then again, Coir and the like didn’t really focus as much on euthanasia, gay marriage or prostitution, as they did on abortion. Abortion was always much more likely to come up on panel discussions than gay marriage, prostitution or euthanasia. It probably was a larger part of the campaign than any of the other social issues. And in addition, it’s been an issue when it came to previous treaties, so I understand why abortion gets top billing over the other social policy issues.
Niall, a chara,
more unique it may be but still it wasn’t a factor in the debate as raised by the punters. While RTE may have been happy to run it as a nice understandable topic it wasn’t reflecting the people’s real concerns.
If we had had protocols guaranteeing no abortion, no same sex marriage and no euthanasia the electorate would (IMHO) have still voted NO. As regards the primacy of social issues I think pole position was collective bargaining and other workers’ rights isssues. That was refelcted in the TEEEU and SIPTU’s positioning on the treaty. those two organisations ability to influence debates on social issues surpassed anything that Coir could muster. We may have differing definitions of social issues though so if you focus on issues such as religion, lifestyle etc then yeah abortion was the main one but it was still a minnow in a large pond.
You make a point on the triad of issues and I think you are right but that Goulard has them in the wrong order i feel. received wisdom was that a fixed grouping always voted no and i would suggest that it was that group which was most open to arguments of defence and neutrality, abortion and same sex argument( with defence and neutrality issues being by far the main ones). However with a high turnout that grouping was suppposed to be out numbered but thats not what we saw in this referendum and i think thats why its risky to assign motives to the no voters and how they prioritised their motives. having said that I’ll prioritise and suggest that the swing voter that caused the treaty to fail was influenced by arguments of tax soverignty the loss of national soverignty.
Jer, I’m not sure I’d agree with you. Let’s say we got the 2% who claimed the controversial social policy issues were their main concern to switch. That wouldn’t have swung the referendum. However if the public were convinced that Lisbon would not have resulted in abortion etc. then I’d say that a few per cent of the IDKSIVN might have switched to Yes. It would have lead to less uncertainty overall.
You’re right that Goulard had the issues in the wrong order, but then again, I’m not sure whether the order in which she mentioned them reflects her opinions about their relative importance.
I would agree that Abortion and the like were not major issues for most voters, but the referendum was lost by a reasonably small margin. Had the government dealt with the fears of this relatively small group, they might have been able to carry the referendum. Likewise, had the government pointed to people that we were about to lose our commissioner anyway and that loss had nothing to do with Lisbon, they could probably have taken another few per cent away from the No camp because many who voted ‘no’ did so because they thought Lisbon was a fault for this situation. You could say the same about neutrality. Yes, the fixed block of “Vote No to NATO” types were there, but this time, others were convinced of their argument or at least, sufficiently confused by their arguments to either vote ‘no’ or stay at home. If the major parties want to get a ‘Yes’ next time, then they need to target the confused voters and that will have to involve the obliteration of arguments put forward by the likes of Coir.
Niall, hear your point on the the need to swing relatively small blocks of voters from nay to yay. Agree with that. now its going to be about targeting those 2-5% with very sectional interests and scaring the bejaysus out of the rest by saying are youse in or out.
BTW The Yes campaign already got all the confused voters on side though didn’t they
To be honest, there were enough confused voters to go around. Even most Yes supporters thought that Lisbon would lead to loss of a commissioner. But the numbers of people who thought that Lisbon might possibly have some impact on things like corporation tax, the creation of an EU army, the legalisation of abortion etc, well most of those either voted ‘No’ or stayed at home. Remember for every IDKSIVN ‘no’ voter who usually , there was probably another potential voter who stayed at home because they felt they didn’t understand enough.
I’d really like to think that the government wouldn’t launch an ‘yer in or yer out’ campaign, but…
Just an interesting not. Would the next campaign be targeted at a few people. (neutrailty no voters for instance) rather then the general population. I.e turn just enough to get 50.1% rather then 100%
Well that would be the smart approach. Of course the hydra has many heads so all they’d probably have to contend with people who were pissed off with being asked to vote twice or who felt they were being bullied, so they’d have to be very careful and not just rely on a single strand.
Neutrality voters would probably be the toughest sell of the three. The commissioner voters would probably be a good option, or maybe the taxation voters. The abortion voters might be difficult to sell the message to if only because it’s hard to see what else you could give them.
I think any second Yes campaign would have to do at least two things:
1.Fill the information gap. It is true that far more people who knew little about the treaty voted NO. So first, get the message across about what the treaty is intended to do. (leaving aside interpretations of whether these changes are good or bad).
2.Address the top concerns. I think the Commissioner and Military aspects will be toughest here. Unless the commissioner scheme is re-opened, the Yes camp will be back to convincing people why this is not a big concern - not easy because their arguments are bound to get bogged down in details about how the commission works and the institutional balance etc. The Neutrality/Military one will be the hardest sell. It will depend on how many of the so called ‘neutrality’ voters were actually worried about Irish neutrality and opts outs and how many were concerned about the increase in the military dimension to the Union. Irish neutrality itself can, and arguably has been, fairly well fenced off. But the increasing military side of the Union cannot be denied, only acknowledged and explained away.
I think in the end immigration and abortion etc were not and will not be a major battleground.
If there is a more general mood of unease about the deepening of the integration project and about loss of sovereignty, then this will be harder to address. In fact, I happen to believe that this is a factor, but I get that only from a gut feeling and from a number of friends who think that integration has ‘gone far enough’. This is more of a sentiment rather than an objection to a specific provision, and is therefore far harder to measure. (Except for those who show up on the more nationalist end of the spectrum and are more clearly identifiable).
Tomaltach,
(1) get the message across and leave aside interpretations.
- hard to just explain the treaty though. Look at the learned Judge Iarfhlaith O’Niall and how he struggled. The document is written obscurely. Will the European courts be the interpreter and if so can everyone point with clarity what there calls would be and why or is it going to be very subjective. Not a good basis for a contract.
I would also challenge how much the people voting Yes knew about the treaty either. i.e possible Question Do you know why you voted Yes Asnwer - Certainly, Europe has been good for Ireland, Staying at the heart of Europe, I dont want to cause world war 3, Brian Cowen told me to etc etc? Great reasons all of them and equal in weight to euthanasia and conscription.
The Yes side cant argue that the people who voted no were confused but the people who voted yes were enlightened. Its buying into your own propaganda.
I agree with you that abortion is not an issue. Immigration is though and its not because people are crazy racists but because you cant increase the country’s population by the size of cork and galway in only a number of years and not expect it to be an issue. Its an issue alright but you are right in that it wont be a battleground.
It’s not surprising to me at all that the Yes side would blame abortion. It obviously suits them to portray the opposition as ignorant, misinformed and the like rather than acknowledging there was anything wrong with the Treaty itself. I can honestly say I didn’t hear a single mention of abortion on the doors and only one mention of immigration and I was canvassing in some of the solidest No territory in the state.