Head over to our T
How the No side Could Win.
Read more about: Lisbon Treaty 
I was at a meeting tonight for a local Yes to Lisbon campaign and someone brought along a COIR leaflet, then I came home and I saw Evert’s post – it really highlighted how the No Side could win and how the Yes Side are actually at a disadvantage.
How?
They can afford to misinform, they afford to selectively quote. The Yes side cannot. They must be straight to the point, they have be ironclad, there can not be no doubts.
Evert’s choice of words is a striking example. Instead of referring to the Broadcasting Commission and the Referendum Commission he calls them “The Irish Government”. This is something that is hard to refute as these bodies, though set up by are Government and are independent are seen as Government Agencies as they have a statutory basis.
Lets take a look at the other “facts” claimed by Evert.
The Irish government removes legislation that made for equal airtime for both sides of the debate.
There never was legislation to this effect. There was a court ruling which stated that both sides in a referendum should be given “equity” of time nor equality. Also Broadcasting Commission, if he was referring to them, have nothing to do with RTÉ which he refers to in the comments section. RTÉ has its own authority in relation to this.
The Irish government enters into a contract with a PR firm to handle publicity for the “Yes” campaign without going through the required public tender process.
No public tender was required. Most of the Yes side would have preferred a different PR firm considering the result last time out. Clauses that retain the use of a firm in similar circumstance is standard EU practice.
“No” campaigners get likened to terrorists in the national press.
Its now wrong to have an opinion?
Bill Cullen can just refuse to disclose financial details of his campaign in support of a “Yes” vote. Remember, Declan Ganley got raked over hot coals on his campaigns finances…
Which campaign is Bill on? I don’t recall him fronting a group? If he has made contributions to a group, it will be sent to SIPO at the end of campaign.
Green party suggest postponing vote on NAMA until after Lisbon referendum
Surprising that politicians want to focus on one debate? I see this as a common sense move. Both the Green Party and Fianna Fail are officially pro-Lisbon so what’s wrong with them arranging their schedule to achieve their goals? Even if the grassroots Greens don’t want NAMA to pass they do want Lisbon to pass.
Sinn Fein is still the “Yes” campaigners strongest argument.
Opinion and what are is Evert trying infer? That Sinn Fein are somehow pro-Lisbon and only campaigning to undermine the No side? Really?
Intel can make public statements and run a campaign promoting a “Yes” vote without accusations of it “not being a legitimate political party”.
Nobody asked Intel to start a campaign. Intel is not acting as a political party it is acting as a business which is putting its money where its mouth is. Intel have been challenged on this. SIPO is been contacted on it. So they are not free of accusations.
And the biggest fact: we already voted on this and it hasn’t changed. NO MEANS NO!
We have voted on a number of things more then once in this country.
- Electoral System twice (’59 and ’68)
- Abortion (’83, 92, and ’02)
- Divorce (’85 and ’95)
- Nice Treaty (’01 and ’02)
A lot of the Yes Campaign is going to spent like this, refuting these points which are selective and incorrect.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=00f65707-cb41-4395-9f15-d2939ff3c573)
An excellent post and one which speaks to a particularly big issue for the yes side as far as I can see. The most value for the yes side lies in campaigning on the ground and dealing with people’s concerns as they arise. Yet it seems that the effort is to police the debate via the MSM – which is a vital part of a campaign but this time around doesn’t appear to need mcuh effort. All the major print outlets will be onside, some broadcast will do a fairly helpful job for the yes side and adequate policing will probably be more likely this time than last. However many people will, in truth, be ignoring what is happening at the media / abstract level.
The problem for the yes side at the minute is too many people with photo-ops and headline grabbing press releases and not enough attending meetings like you did tonight, getting armed to canvass and argue the point. Am I wrong in thinking this?
Most of the points you made I would go along with and I think it is difficult to slag off Intel considering the Libertas/Ganley intervention last time out. True the Yes side must be rigid with the truth but they must be thorough with the campaign – one conducted by megaphone will sound like hectoring unless the tone is right (so far it hasn’t felt it) so it needs to be backed up with individual TDs making sure to carry their constituencies, groups making sure to back them up and an information campaign that gets into the heads of people on the ground.
Europe is hard and complex, yes – but it has to be justified and fought for. The yes side must define ‘fight’ as actual, physical, canvassing. Starting now. With proper briefings and everything. That would bring them into contact with the middle ground early, get a feel for what argument works and actually win the argument at the msm level.
Again, good post and I wonder how hard its going to be to translate that rebuttal into votes.
the no will win posts like this from yes’ers
“The Irish government enters into a contract with a PR firm to handle publicity for the “Yes” campaign without going through the required public tender process.”
No public tender was required. Most of the Yes side would have preferred a different PR firm considering the result last time out. Clauses that retain the use of a firm in similar circumstance is standard EU practice.
The Irish government enters into a contract with a PR firm to handle publicity for the “Yes” campaign without going through the required public tender process.
–
“No” campaigners get likened to terrorists in the national press.
Its now wrong to have an opinion?
“No” campaigners get likened to terrorists in the national press.
etc etc
You have hit the nail on the head there Cian! My own group is trying to get media attention for its launch, me and minority are trying to build up a canvassing crew who are well armed with accurate info.
Steve, I fail to see your point.
Stephen,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Evert’s ‘facts’ are not facts at all. They have nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. They’re just his opinion on campaigning tactics/rhetoric employed by some of the ‘yes’ side or entirely periperal issues like the BCI statement or whatever else you might think of, all cobbled together as representing a conspiracy by an ‘establishment’ yet again to trying to foist an unnacceptable EU Treaty on the long suffering Irish people who’ve already rejected it.
I don’t entirely agree with you Stephen that the ‘yes’ side can only advance arguments based on the ‘facts’, while the ‘no’ side have licence to spout whatever nonsense enters their heads. Both sides will be selective in their arguments, as is always the case with political debate.
The problem so far is that no firm basis has yet emerged to contextualise the case for or against Lisbon.
Back in January last Tomaltach and I discussed the possibility of setting up an independent (of the mainstream political parties, that is) ‘yes’ group. But as the year went on it became obvious that the stage was about to get crowded with ‘yes’ groups, with powerful backing and access to funds to match, resources which we certainly couldn’t muster. Add in the campaigns of the political parties, social partners and farming organisations and the ‘yes’ campaign should be tripping over one another looking for airtime and media space in which to convince enough of the electorate to switch last year’s ‘no’ to a ‘yes’ vote and change the result from ‘no’ to ‘yes’ this October. Another group might risk just adding to the background noise, so our idea was stillborn.
I think you and Cian have hit the nail on the head – if you want people to vote ‘yes’ then you have to go out there and ask them for their vote. That’s difficult, as I think Niall pointed out on an earlier thread, and particularly so for the political class since they’re not very popular at the moment. So what we’ve had so far are silly PR stunts and arguments over competing claims, many of which are not based on any issue of substance.
That real issue of substance is what’s in our long term best interests – a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to Lisbon. By their nature, EU Treaties are deadly boring stuff and they don’t fit into the natural political cycle: the sky will not fall in over Ireland tomorrow if the Treaty is rejected again. Sunshine won’t break out over our heads either if we vote ‘yes’. The consequences of both are more long term, particularly in their economic effects on the country. Except one.
The only inevitable political consequence of a second ‘no’ is the collapse of the government and a general election. There are those parties who say they want a general election and call for one at every available opportunity, and most of us may crave a change in government, but it’s arguable if such a development and the political instability it would drag in its wake would be in the best interests of us ordinary Joes and Josephines at this particular point in time.
Since we’re on the brink of bankruptcy – and without the shelter of membership of the eurozone would most certainly have gone belly-up by now – that’s a fairly compelling argument in itself for a resounding ‘yes’ vote. There are other, more positively based ones, that I hope to set out for debate and discussion in a separate thread (when my main PC gets fixed and I can access background documents inconveniently locked into it at the moment!)
Veronica, No need to Correct you as you are right!
What I meant about the facts is the Yes Side have to be more careful with what they use. We can’t be seen to stoop to similar tactics, otherwise its legitimises the No Side, in my opinion.
Campaigning is expensive as I am finding out from being involved in a non-party campaign and there is way to many Yes Groups, but they seems to me that they are more connected then what people think.
Your last three paragraphs, all did was nod my head and agree with ya as you are perfectly correct in what you say!
Stephen,
What is your group? Have you a website?
Might be able to help on PR side and also with local door to door canvassing at a later stage.
I am involved with Generation Yes, check out http://generationyes.ie
Wow, looks like I rubbed some people up the wrong way. I must be doing something right.
Let me make a point clear I do not want or need you to agree with my arguments or validate my points. We’re in opposing camps and there is something rather important at stake here.
The “Yes” campaign has consistently proven that they have no clue what the real objections to the Lisbon Treaty are and the above post & comments again illustrate their fascination with rhetoric & opaque reasoning. Please persist in this.
Evert.
Hmmm, let me see, so I’m the one with rhetoric?? Evert at least I have things to back up my facts, wheres yours?
Evert you haven’t highlighted a single reason why we should oppose the Treaty.
Evert,
You are not rubbing people up the wrong way, certainly not in my case. You’re perfectly entitled to your views. Just as those who find fault with your arguments are perfectly entitled to dispute them.
Personally I don’t think there’s much change in engaging with anyone whose views are so entrenched that they can’t acknowledge that others may have opposing views which are also valid, or who won’t accept they’re wrong when they get things wrong. Bit like banging your head off a stone wall, that.
I’m on the ‘yes’ side because I believe a positive result on the Lisbon Treaty is in Ireland’s best interests, not least our longterm economic interests. I’m not that bothered about the shortcomings, or otherwise, of the Lisbon Treaty. We’ve had that debate the last time out so no need to rehash it again.
“No” campaigners get likened to terrorists in the national press.
Its now wrong to have an opinion?
wheres your fact.
The fact is Steve is that it is someones opinion. Not endorsed by anyone as it was an Op-ed piece.
EB – Wow, looks like I rubbed some people up the wrong way. I must be doing something right.
You’re not rubbing me either which way. I’ve been known to record myself of an evening putting forward one point of view and to then play it back the following morning and then retrospectively argue with myself. OK, that’s a bit of a stretch but I hope to one day be able to disagree with other people for a living this isn’t much compared to that.
EB – Let me make a point clear I do not want or need you to agree with my arguments or validate my points. We’re in opposing camps and there is something rather important at stake here.
I agree there is something very important stake which is why some consistency from people is needed and calling stuff facts when many of which then don’t turn out to be remotely factual is undermining the more legitimate arguments that some speaking on the No side had put forward. You’re only responsible for what you say, but you are 100% responsible for that.
EB – The “Yes” campaign has consistently proven that they have no clue what the real objections to the Lisbon Treaty are and the above post & comments again illustrate their fascination with rhetoric & opaque reasoning. Please persist in this.
Err…I’m not aware that I joined any ‘camp’ or that I’m responsible for everything everyone else says simply because we happen to agree about what side to vote for on one particular referendum. As for not having a clue about what the real objections to Lisbon are and are not, how about you show us what you say are the unreal objections to Lisbon and back it up by showing that no one, at any point in any forum raised those points. If we can show that at least some people raised those objections then they are real.
Veronica,
I fully agree that there quite often is no point in engaging in people so entrenched that they refuse to admit their mistakes. I for one have readily admitted my mistakes when I consider that I’ve made one. See the comments here for example: http://bit.ly/21iVkY
Evert.
Veronica, since Spain voted yes to the EU Constitution unemployment doubled to 18%. You must have a fairly cynical view of the ECB if you think its decisions on liquidity loans to Irish commercial banks will be influenced by the longterm killing off of one treaty that many of their members know in their heart of heaers would have been rejected in their own countries as well. As part of the Eurozone, from which we cannot be expelled, the ECB has an obligation to help our financial institutions out without fear nor favour based on some political-ideology. In any case, NAMA is the saviour of the banks, as shown by the performance of the ISEQ in recent weeks, with BOI shares back over the psychologically important €2 value. I don’t think the Irish people respond well to a yes campaign based on warnings of dire consequences should we vote no. Again, they are not so much running a yes campaign as a “don’t vote vote because” campaign, and are again reduced to answering our charges on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty. To the untrained eye, that implies that Lisbon hasn’t anything positive to show for itself, so the yes camp have to focus on defending it rather than actively arguing for it based on its supposed strengths from the perspective of Ireland.
FT,
Spain’s unemployment rate linked to a ‘yes’ vote on a European Constitution that was never implemented?
Unemployment rates in the EU relate to the economic mix in each individual country and the relative impact of the global economic crisis on their economies, plus the influence of other local factors such as employment laws, geographical proximity to the EU centre etc.
For the record, the rate of unemployment in Ireland has doubled from 6% to 12% since we voted ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty. Is there any connection between the two? Actually, no there most definitely is not.
and you don’t think comparing the no side to terrorist hurts the yes, is that fact?
Steve, not everyone on the Yes side agree with Tony Kinsella. Thats a fact!
Veronica, surely the question of linkage is relevant even if the respective Treaty did not come into force, given IBEC’s emphasis on our “reputation” in Europe and linking a yes vote to economic recovery in that context? Does it not work both ways? Should Spain not likewise have received a boost from improvements in their ‘reputation? If not then why would we?
FT,
It’s not relevant. Period. And by the way, unemployment rates are not a measure of ‘reputation’ either. Can you provide a link to IBEC’s comments on the reputation/economic recovery issue. Whatever criticisms one might make of IBEC’s views at any particular time, they’re very far from being economically illiterate as your interpretation would suggest.
Veronica, you only have to look here where they link economic recovery with what they describe as ‘our reputation’, as if to imply voting to respect the decision of the French and Dutch peoples should in any sense damage our reputation.
FT,
The Lisbon Treaty is NOT the EU Constitution, which was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands. Both of these countries have since ratified the Lisbon Treaty. IBEC’s point about our international reputation is about sending a clear signal to prospective investors that we have a positive attitude to EU insitutional reform that will improve the political and economic functioning of the EU, as referenced by the release which, with apologies to other readers, I’m quoting in full, so that there can be no doubt as to what they mean:
27 July 2009:
IBEC today released the preliminary findings of a new survey of over 300 Irish CEOs from across the country, which found that 84% believe last year’s Lisbon Treaty rejection damaged Ireland’s international reputation. The survey also found that that over 98% of the CEOs believe that EU membership has been important to the success of Irish business. Among companies with over 50 employees the figure was 100%, while for companies with fewer than 50 employees the figure was 97.6%.
Commenting on the survey, IBEC Director of EU and International Affairs Brendan Butler said: “At a time of great economic turbulence a question mark hangs over our reputation and our relationship with Europe. A yes vote is an essential step on the road to economic recovery and will send a very positive signal to our European and international partners.
“When we voted on the Treaty in June last year 100 people a day were losing their jobs, now almost 600 jobs are being lost each day. We face enormous challenges and we must focus on protecting as many jobs as possible. We have an opportunity on October 2 to send a clear message to our European and international partners that we want to play a full and active part in a reformed Europe.
“By removing the uncertainty that currently exists we will ensure that Ireland remains an attractive location for foreign investment, while Irish companies will gain improved access to the European market of over 500 million people.
“The Treaty will protect key national interests and reform the EU to face the challenges ahead. Our ability to set our own tax policy is guaranteed along with arrangements concerning foreign direct investment. This means that Ireland will remain among one of the most attractive places in the world to invest.
“It is vital that Ireland is at the heart of a reformed and better-functioning EU. The Treaty will reform how decision are made in the EU so that Europe can remain an engine for economic growth and prosperity. It will enable the EU to responded faster to the challenges ahead, such as energy security, global health threats, the rise of India and China as economic forces, and climate change. This is vital for the success of business in Ireland.
“Our relationship with the US is of critical importance. There are currently 470 US companies operating in Ireland, which provide over 95,000 well paid jobs. These companies set up here because of our favourable tax rates, our well-educated dynamic English speaking workforce and, crucially, because of Ireland’s constructive and engaged membership of the EU. A second ‘no’ vote would create uncertainty and send a very worrying signal back into the boardrooms of US companies, where decisions are made about future investment in Ireland.”
Veronica, even the elites admit its essentially the same as Lisbon:
# “A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.”
# “Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same.”
— Václav Klaus, Czech President, in Hosposarske Noviny, 13th June 2007
# “In terms of content, the proposals remain largely unchanged, they are simply presented in a different way… The reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty.”
— Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, addressing the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, 17th July 2007
# “As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.”
— Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Taoiseach, Irish Times, 30 June 2007
# “A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.” — Nicolas Sarkozy, French President, The Daily Telegraph, 14th November 2007
# “The good thing is that all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left.”
— Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark, in Jyllands-Posten, 25th June 2007
# “They haven’t changed the substance – 90 per cent of it is still there.”
— Bertie Ahern, Irish Prime Minister, Irish Independent, 24th June 2007
# “The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
— Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, speech to the European Parliament, 27th June 2007
# “There’s nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed.”
— Astrid Thors, Finnish Europe Minister, TV-Nytt, 23rd June 2007
# “For Austria it was important to keep the essence, to keep the institutional side of it intact, and also to keep the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is the essence, and we were able to safeguard that.”
— Ursula Plassnik, Austrian Foreign Minister, BBC 10 o’clock news, 7th September 2007
# “A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties.”
— José Zapatero, Spanish Prime Minister, El Pais, 23rd June 2007
# “The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”
— Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the Constitution, speech to the London School of Economics, 20th February 2007
The first quote was by Sarkozy by the way.