Head over to our T
Top 6 Friday. Why Lisbon Was voted down
Read more about: Lisbon Treaty, Uncategorized 
6. Negativity and the French . Through out the campaign Much of the talk about the treaty was how we will become isolated , how we will be damaged and this negativity was totally encapsulated by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner stupid quote of the campaign. The Irish will come “the first Victims” if this is rejected. It is a bit of a cliced but Ireland are a nation with “a victim mentality” We feel easily threatened and respond to it with a kind of “F**K You bravado. Some people who would have voted yes voted no just to stand up to the perceived bullying. If you say to people, do what I say or suffer people will not always back down and most cases face down the received bullying
5. Fighting the Ellite. The way the treaty was sold was terrible. One of the ways it was sold was by the great and the good acting condescendingly to the no side. There seemed to be an atmosphere of we are your betters trust us. This came from all the political parties and the media. Last night Fintan O’Toole said on BBC Newsnight that the reason it was rejected was because of Bertie Ahern making people distrustful of politicians. This is nonsense. People were distrustful of politicians far before that. Indeed we have been distrustful of anyone in power since the year dot. The fact that the likes of Fintan O’Toole stated that this is the reason is itself condescending to people who voted no. Insinuating that the no vote is not a vote against the Treaty but against the Bertie Ahern is in itself elitist. Making it seem that the no voters could not make up there minds themselves. This sort of establishment mentality of trivializing the no concerns made people more belligerent and vote no. The political parties also seemed to be talking down to the electorate. Presuming that the people would do what they say and not think for themselves. They seemed to sell the fact they themselves were saying yes rather then the contents of the treaty
4. EU Spokespeople: Lucinda and Dick Roche were not the ideal people to do early running setting out the Yes agenda while the others waited to see who would succeed Bertie Ahern. While they went much quieter towards the end of the campaign, my own experience was that they were as likely to turn people off their position or voting than support them. It defies logic to my mind that Ahern put Dick in there since he needed to sell strong on the treaty. The spokespeople on the no side might not have been any great shakes either but they had the advantage of a natural scepticism from the electorate.
3. Voting no was ‘pro-EU’: For the first time in the history of EU referenda in this country it was legitimately presented that a vote against the Lisbon treaty was a vote in favour of Europe. The people who consider themselves pro-EU were never able to rationalise a no vote in this way before since most of those opposed to EU would end up taking us out of Europe. The benefit that Libertas brought was an economically minded argument in support of the present EU which allowed those who were “neither hard left nor hard right” to vote against Lisbon and remain supportive of the EU as it is at present. That swung more people than the core 20% against Europe and allowed the no vote to win the day.
2. Class Voting: Ireland has seen an extensive sociological change over the past ten years but it is inescapable that the referendum results point to a stark difference between the more well off in this country and middle class, working class, labourers, farmers etc. Rural Ireland, fishing villages, poorer constituencies all went against Lisbon. Wealthier areas supported Lisbon but – tellingly – there were not enough of them to carry the day. Class may not have dominated our politics but the divide today suggests that a break exists between the establishment, their supporters and the rest of the country. To what extent this informs future politics is difficult to tell but I suspect that upon having delivered a swift kick to the arse, the electorate will revert to type.
1. The Treaty. The Treaty had three flaws that made it lose. One was the loss of a commissioner the other was its length. The EU is seen as a distant entity away from the control of the people. The idea that Ireland would lose what little control they had scarred people. The idea that we could have no say in important matters is not something people wanted to consider and rejected it. The control of Taxes were not set in stone. No one knew what the future of low tax Ireland would be. The other fault with the treaty is its length. It was too long, too confusing and too hard to read. The fact that McCreavy and Cowen said they didn’t read it certainly did not help. People were not clear about what they were signing up to. And the debates seem more intent on warning us of impending doom then selling the treaty. Kevin Myres said.
The final argument from the ‘Yes’ camp is that the ‘No’ side really doesn’t understand Lisbon. And, for once, they’re right. So why should I say ‘Yes’ to a legal document I don’t understand? My lawyer would never urge me to buy a house under such conditions.
Why would we follow different rules when voting for the future of our country?
And in the end people said I wouldn’t follow different rules and voted No.
Thanks to Cian on help in drafting this post
What amazed me is how the ‘Yes’ side failed to point out that we were losing a commissioner no matter what – at least not until the very last week.
It was only then that people pointed out that we’ve agreed to reduce the commissioners to 18 as part of Nice; Lisbon is just about how those commissioners are portioned out.
I think that symbolic of how the Yes side failed to argue its case even close to clearly.
Excellent analysis and spot on.
There were other reasons why people voted ‘no’ that might be added to the list – the militarisation argument, the view among many working people that the vote in favour of enlargement led to too much immigration that has damaged jobs and basic services in their areas and, crucially, that they were misled on this issue at the time of the Nice referendum by the yes campaign and then branded as ‘racist’ whenever they sought to express their resentment. It was also an opportunity for people and interests who feel hard done by from various European regulations – fishermen, farmers etc. – to register their anger at the way things are going for them and some of the nonsensical policies that they perceive as ruining their livelhoods.
But most of all I think the point made in your post that the main political parties – all of them – fought a dreadful campaign, is the most telling. Surely they knew from past experience what was likely to come at them from the ‘no’ factions? Why didn’t they plan out how to deal with each and everyone of these negatives as they arose? Where was the strategy beyond: “Believe me, I’m a politician and I know what’s best for you” ?
Why is it that so many on the ‘yes’ side can only ever discuss the EU in politically adolescent terms, instead of owning up to the reality that there are lots of things about the EU and the way in which it operates that are far from perfect or beneficial to the lives of many of our citizens? Just as there are lots of things that are really super about it? That to engage in a rigorous critique of various EU policies from energy to environment to agriculture or the single market rules is not synonymous with being ‘anti-Europe’? That it’s what thinking people do and it should be positively viewed not frowned upon? That as a small and insignificant country we have to work very hard to hold our own in an expanded EU and that sometimes we are losers as well as winners in policy direction, but that’s life?
I campaigned for a ‘yes’ vote by the way. I think it will be interesting to see what happens as a consequence of our ‘no’ vote and I fear it will not be to our liking or to the expectations of many of those who voted ‘no’ yesterday. But that’s life too, isn’t it?
Again, congratulations on your post.
There were other reasons why people voted ‘no’ that might be added to the list
then it wouldn’t be a top 6
thanks for the interesting comment
Fair analysis. I think the people that the ‘yes’ campaign failed to win because they did not win over the ‘I don’t know so I’m voting no’ block. Personally, I find these people very frustrating to talk to. Weeks before the vote, these people had decided that they would vote ‘no’ simply because they weren’t sure about the treaty, yet most of these people didn’t actually attempt to educate themselves, at least not based on my experience. The ‘Yes’ campagin was less than what it could have been, but if you’re going to bother to vote, then surely you should at least try to comprehend the information provided by the referendum commision.
Niall, I think the “Don’t know so Voting no” people were lost while the yes campaign were waiting to start campaigning and because the Treaty seemed to some of them to come out of nowhere. We need to do more before signing treaties to ensure that the people are aware of why we are doing so instead of bringing them home from aboard like a dicky stomach.
The No Vote in a Wider Context:
http://fichefocal.blogspot.com/
Talk about politicians being patronizing, could it just be that a majority of people understood that the treaty was a nasty little document designed to trump a social EU and replace it with a new rigidly neo liberal Europe. Of course the Irish establishment politicos new only to well that if they opened up a debate about the detail of the treaty, then even more people would vote no, so that simply parroted trust us, we delivered the celtic tiger. true, the people thought but in its wake they have also delivered gross inequality and the start of a depression.
The contract between the EU and its people needs to be completely re-negotiated, lets hope the Irish peoples rejection of Lisbon is the first step down this road. Yes to a social Europe and lets have no more of these grubby document.
Simon,
Your ‘top 6′ are probably the key reasons for the ‘no’ vote. But in the way these things are in referenda, there are probably more than 800,000 reasons why people voted no, if we could discern them. The excellence of your post is that you synthesised those feelings into six coherent arguments, which I would not dispute, and for which I hope I conveyed my admiration and respect that you had managed to do this in so short a time?
No doubt the comments I added would allow you to extend the number of reasons to eight, or more depending if other commentators come along with other points of analysis to add to the mix. I guess that’s what is going to make it so difficult for our government representatives in the next week – how do they explain the ‘no’ vote to their European counterparts since there is no one reason they can latch on to as an explanation? What do we want? Do we know what it is ourselves?
Politically this is a terrible mess and I get the feeling from the intial reaction of the rest of Europe is that their gut reaction is that it is our problem; that we can go and sort it out ourselves. What I found interesting listening to the radio debate this evening was the way in which so many of the ‘no’ side leaders shied away from making any proposals as to what it is we should do next. Instead they seemed content to keep reciting the old propaganda mantras of a debate which they had already won, even if was now suddenly apparent that it had been won on false pretences about a whole range of issues from corporate taxation to militarisation of the EU to special interest issues like abortion.
Back in the 1980s I remember the first referendum on divorce and campaigning on it and I particularly remember the results – the same constituencies that today voted ‘yes’ to Lisbon today (in Dublin anyway), were those who also voted in favour of divorce back then. At the time I remember thinking we should reconstitute the old Dublin Pale of the 1600s; completely intolerant of course on my part, but I can attribute that, and may even excuse it, to my age at the time and my aspirations that we might live in a society that genuinely cared for the rights of others and respected the circumstances of lives that were very different to our own.
I think the first thing we all need to do now is a bit of thinking about who we are and where we want to go as a member of the EU. The ‘no’ vote in Ireland does a lot of damage to the EU in general. That may be unintentional on our part, but we are going to have to live with and bear the consequences of that. Maybe the best thing would be a referendum that asks the simple question: do we want to be part of the EU or not?
The worst outcome of all this is that Ireland may eventually end up having to to implement EU laws deriving from Lisbon without ever having any say on how those laws are devised. Bit like Norway – required to implement EU standards arising from EU Directives, but no seat at the table when same are being framed. except Norway has oil reserves. What do we have as a compensation?
those raising the immigration issue are more likely to be called racist if they voted for FF/PD/FG in the previous elections, who managed this mass working units importation, this means they don’t mind a booming economy but don’t like foreigners.
Ignorance is not an excuse, if youre going to derail a plan that caters for 500 million people you really should make it your business to find out the implications of such a decision.
We have really shot ourselcves in the foot with this one. Voting no doesnt make you some kind of a rebel, it makes you a retard. The economy was already getting worse, we knew we were headed for a recession and what did we do? throw the treaty back in the EU’s face.Wasn’t it the EU who helped us make our way out of the recession of the eighties? Well there is no better deal, in fact Irish concerns were taken into account every step of the way in the 8 year process of drafting of the treaty, anyone who said otherwise lied.
Who would be stupid enough to listen to the far left and right when it comes to the EU? What answers do they have for us now on how we are going to get ourselves out of this mess?
We have really shot ourselcves in the foot with this one. Voting no doesnt make you some kind of a rebel, it makes you a retard
Sorry are you twelve? We like to keep the discussion on Irish election at a decent polite level, use of degagorty terms like retard is not aceptable. Just because you think it is ok to make degagorty terms about mental illness does not mean we have to accept it.
Kevin Myers: “So why should I say ‘Yes’ to a legal document I don’t understand? My lawyer would never urge me to buy a house under such conditions.”
I imagine your lawyer would probably advise you to sign, if he knew what it meant. Yes, Lisbon was/is complicated but then so were Nice, Amsterdam, Maastricht, the Single European Act and Rome. What made the difference this time round was the the ‘yes’ side didn’t have any big idea to sell. In the past this was economic prosperity and in the second Nice referendum is was enlargement.
Michael I think they did have a big idea to sell – there was plenty in the Treaty that would be of benefit to us – like keeping our commisioner for an extra 4 years.
The politicians on the yes side were not hamstrung by a lack of “selling point” no more so than combatting the irrationalism of conscription arguments. Instead they were caught on the hop, badly briefed and badly prepared.
They had a charter of fundamental rights that suddenly allowed them to promote the langugage of human/workers rights but they blew it because they didnt manage the unions. They had a lot of “good points” in there and no way of communicating them.
The law/contract analogy only works if the lawyer appears to be fully competent in their presentation of the contract, ours were nowhere near that standard.
Sessions in the Dail explaining the treaty were attended by about 20% of deputies overall. It was a sign of how interested they were in campaigning 12 months after a GE and 12 before a LE.
Cian, you’ve hit the nail on the head about our national politicians: Europe is just a big yawn to them. It won’t help them get re-elected next time out nor will any referendum on a European Treaty have any resonance with the electorate in next year’s local elections. Positions in the EU, from commissionerships to Court of Auditors sppointments to candidacy in relatively ‘safe seats’for the European Parliament, are used for exiling senior politicians who have passed their electoral sell-by date or don’t fit in with party electoral priorities anymore, or are viewed as ‘retirement presents’ for politicians who wish to resign from national politics or want some reward for having loyally served their time. I’d lay a wager that Oireacthas members generally probably understood a lot less about the Lisbon Treaty and what it represented than any of the posters on this site. And they cared less.