Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
“Certain constituencies who argued against Lisbon did so not because they believed it to be the right thing, but for other reasons”
Read more about: Ireland, Lisbon Treaty
Sarah Carey lifts the lid on the Lisbon campaign from inside the Sunday Times. This one, as they say, has juice with a second referendum coming up - always good to get the narrative up and running early.
Politicians and commentators who argued for the Lisbon Treaty did so because they believed it was in Ireland’s best interests. Of those who argued against the treaty, some believed they were also acting in the national interest, even if I personally disagree with them. But others cannot say the same. In whose interests did the Sunday Times campaign against the Lisbon Treaty to the exclusion of all favourable comment? Was it because they really believed that Ireland is best served by wrecking the treaty or because Eurosceptic views were imported, or worse, imposed, from Britain?
Just, wow. The balls of her.
Soon to be looking for a job elsewhere, maybe (Murdoch having the same reputed policy of ‘no interference’ as a certain native media mogul). But - well done, Sarah.
Getting To Yes - an activists handbook.
“my side good, work for Ireland”
“your side bad - work for Brits. You like the Brits! wanna be a Brit?”
Add in a couple of “well look at Iceland you like Iceland, wanna be like Iceland”
Vary in as many ways as you can but never stray off the message.
that being said an interesting article but I wonder if she wrote a piece for the Irish Times saying the No vote was right would she get an invite to write next week.
“your side bad - work for Brits. You like the Brits! wanna be a Brit?”
I’ve had mixed opinions of Sarah Carey before, but I feel the need to step up to the plate and defend her on this one. And the question of outside influences trying to game the Irish Referendum - the ‘Oirish’ ones included - are fair topics for debate.
Even if that does inconvenience the Murdoch papers. Or “Libertas”.
that being said an interesting article but I wonder if she wrote a piece for the Irish Times saying the No vote was right would she get an invite to write next week.
I suspect she might. The IT, for all its faults, does publish opinion pieces which run against its editorial policies. There were several examples during the Lisbon Referendum.
EWI,
Sarah is right to make a point but I am not so sure that she is objective on the Yes side who “argued for the Lisbon Treaty did so because they believed it was in Ireland’s best interests.”
Well then we can proceed on to the No side then without a second glance at the Yes side.
Do the Sunday Times and other Oirish rags have this country’s best interest at heart I would think not but I would not so readily assume as Sarah does that everyone in the Yes side has.
If there were a debate about the influence of non-Irish groups exercised on the debate then shouldn’t it look at both campaigns. There are many ways to skin a cat and not just via the oirish rags.
Murdoch and Libertas can be inconvenienced with pleasure
EWI,
On the IT what i was getting at was would Sarah be allowed to publish a consistently anti-Lisbon line in the IT as a staff member not as an occasional opinion piece. that was not clear.
Over on politics.ie (despite the fact it is run by an anti-Lisbon activist) there have been various Lisbon related discussions. One of them was on the apparent campaign by the Irish Times to soften up the electorate for another referendum…. and a +ve result. Typically a series of ‘oh how embarassing’ items from Jamie Smyth in Brussels, so who says the IT is ‘neutral’
Fair play to Sarah. I think we’d all heard the rumours about the Sunday Times and their editorial policy on Lisbon. It’s nice to get some confirmation of this from somebody who was on the inside at the time.
On the IT what i was getting at was would Sarah be allowed to publish a consistently anti-Lisbon line in the IT as a staff member not as an occasional opinion piece
Well, I’ve seen Myers, Waters, Steyn and Krauthammer in the pages of the Old Lady with regular slots at variance with what is perceived to be the IT’s leftward bent.
But who would you suggest to be the anti-Lisbon voice? The best that Libertas can scrape together are Catholic dogmatists and failed wannabe think-tankers of a rightwing bent (and some who are all three).
Typically a series of ‘oh how embarassing’ items from Jamie Smyth in Brussels, so who says the IT is ‘neutral’
I’m not sure I’m seeing your point here.
Unlike certain constituencies who argued for Lisbon? Oh plz. When was the last time an opponent of an EU treaty got a plush office in Brussels? It certainly hasn’t happened with respect to Irish no campaigners. And fair play to the Sunday Times, the Mail and the Sun. The condemnations of those titles from the Lisbonistas especially in the Oireachtas would carry more water had they also been directed at the UK-owned pro-Lisbon press including the Mirror and the Star. The Times, Mail and Sun have brought desperately needed balance into the debate on the EU in this country, as well as challenging the liberal orthodoxy on crime that unfortunately dominates the Old Guard in the Irish Times and Examiner in this country. And to the politicians who are trying to do away with the rules on equal airtime for the yes and no sides in referenda, charging that Libertas, Coir and other groups are “unrepresentative” I have this to say: the Constitution does not distinguish between elected and unelected when allocating rights of freedom of speech. It states that all Irish citizens are equal before the law. It does not state that elected politicians are entitled to a majority of airtime in referenda campaigns. The 50:50 airtime decision and 50:50 state-funding rules derive from the Coughlan and McKenna judgements and are needed to ensure the govt cannot bamboozle the people with taxpayer-funded propaganda one way or the other. The elected politicians have become seduced by a culture of consensus in Leinster House, which has deprived the electorate of real choice on matters including the EU, immigration and other issues. Until this culture changes, the Irish people will have no real chance of influencing policy through elections, leaving the referendum process as the last remaining tool of doing so. As someone who voted no the first time around, I will do so again without legally-binding changes to the text, including an optout from the Charter of Fundamental Rights in its totality. It is my hope that the more bloody-noses the political-elites get at the ballot box in referenda where we disagree with them, the more the culture of monolithic consensus in Dail Eireann will break down, leading to a more democratic Ireland where the people can actually influence the direction of the country via elections.
It seems that those nice people on the “Yes” minority side who do everything for our good cannot get over the majority, ungrateful, stupid and slavish nature of the “No” side.
Seems the media is trying to reassert that they are powerful. Lets remember what the polls said about why the vote was no.
People did not understand the treaty was by far the biggest reason for voting no by people. lack of understanding. Not murdock not Irish Times, but confussion. Trying to put the treaty in that sort of contacts. Does little to help change anything.
Simon is right: Lisbon fell for reasons other than how the media lined out. Apart from a small number of exceptions, the Irish media landscape is not(yet?), by and large, hostile to Europe.
Nevertheless, Carey’s revelation is interesting. And, whatever the rights and wrongs of Lisbon, we should always question the agenda behind any media outfit, especially those which are foreign owned, or those which are essentially multinational.
I would argue that yes voters were just as susceptible to not understanding the issues as the no voters, and I doubt this question would even be asked by the politicians had the vote been a yes. The politicians are engaged in bullying their own people at the behest of foreign powers. I think at the end of the day, the most appalling aspect of Lisbon is that it is 95% identical to the EU Constitution voted down by the French and Dutch peoples, whom we are being asked to overrule. Leaving aside the debate on the contents of the Treaty, there is a more fundamental question here and that is this: if the politicians are in future unhappy with how we vote say in a General Election, and they then refuse to accept the results and force us to vote again until we give the right answer, would that be acceptable? Should George Bush go on TV and tell the American people they gave the wrong answer and didn’t understand the issues (perhaps using the Zogby polls as evidence?), and that they must vote again? Because that is where the principle of second referendums on the same issue takes us. The declarations on taxation, the Commissioner and abortion carry little weight when you consider that under international law, Protocols are legally-binding but declarations are not. If we are in a recession, it is one that is global and not consequent on the defeat of this Treaty, but which has been worsened in Ireland by the incomptence of a govt which ignored the advice of respected economists like David McWilliams who for years have been warning that a property-crash was on the way since 2001. I fully intend voting no a second time unless we get Protocols. The govt has shown great cowardice in meekly refusing to publicly ask for them.
i like to know the other reasons, these people advoacated the no vote, if you could tell me sarah i would be gratefull, also i would like to know did you read the lisbon treaty, please give us a simple explanation, if you can? nearly a million people voted no, and thats not from reading english newspapers, and sarah if you feel so strongly about this failed treaty let us know in laymans terms how the treaty would benifit ordinary people,our goverment are a disgrace, they have ruined this country the are liars the are stupid so anybody who trusts them to negotiate a good deal for ireland must be as stupid themselves, the irish people said NO
Demi, are you familiar with the concept of sentences?
Since Sarah didn’t post her piece here, she’ll probably not read your questions. Try going to http://www.sarahcarey.ie instead.
Eight hundred thousand (approx) voted no so there are probably 800,00 diff reasons for voting no,from genuine reasons to issues that had nothing to do with Lisbon, pure cussedness.agin the govt,annoyance at being taken for granted, NO effort made by FF, the suspicion that Bertie might be the new president of Europe, Cowan’s toxic distain of the oppositon. I think Libertas and The Sunday Times had minimal influence and now this campaign anti Ganley are playing straight onto his hands and shows a pathetic level of cop on. We need amasive change of attitude and a bit of very humble pie on the yes side and proably a few heads before another referendum.
We are the third country to reject the Lisbon/EU Constitution blueprint in a referendum. It was rejected because it’s a bad treaty. The sooner the political and media Establishment accept that fact and tear up this treaty the better. I don’t feel we are isolated in Europe. It’s the politicians who are isolated because they are too afraid to ask their peoples in the 26 other member states how they feel about the treaty in a referendum, suggesting they suspect the answer would also be no. It’s like the customer being always right. The voter is always right in a democracy and the elites must accept that fact and get off their high horse. We are not children needing telling off for being naughty. We are adults and unless the EU is Zimbabwe we have a right to expect our decision to stand.
thanks niall,i did not know this was an english test, did you not understand my few words? so that little input was as useful as your last silly sentences, who cares about the sunday times i would be more concerned about the irish times and there bias, or have you noticed there feelings on the dead treaty, stick to the point
and, my apologies if my sentences are wrong this is all new to me.
I understood it alright Demi - or at least I think I do. It’s just that it made my head hurt. Welcome to the blogosphere. Perfect grammar and syntax are not required, but the basics are. Apologies if you didn’t find the link to Sarah’s website helpful, but since you addressed a question to her, and she’s not commenting on the above post on this blog, if you’d like her to answer the questions, I’d recommend her site. If the question was in some way rhetorical, my apologies, but your unique way of structuring sentences makes it difficult to decipher your true meaning.