So the L word is back in the headlines. And what no one seems to want to say is 'referendum'.

We did learn a couple of things from rejecting the treaty. We found out that Europe did not appreciate it. If the Plain People of Europe rejoiced and thanked us for our courage, I didn't hear it. Maybe it was drowned out by UKIP's chortling, and the anger of the rest (not to mention Croatia). While fears of Ireland being disowned were untrue, the temperature has dipped considerably.

We found out that it is not up for re-negotiation, at least not to any serious degree. We found out that the other 26 countries are prepared to go on without us, a two-speed Europe. Like everyone else, I was sure that if one country rejected it, the while thing was dropped. That no longer seems to be the case, and while you might rightly say it sucks to change the rules half-way through, that is the reality we have to face. Repeating over and over that the treaty is dead, which seems to be the tactic employed by many No-advocates, simply isn't going to work.

The recent survey for the government merely confirmed what we all knew. Most of the no-voters were uninformed about the treaty and decided to play safe. It was surprising to see how many were afraid of EU conscription. I thought all this was encouraging; it says that an informed electorate could well vote yes again, and that one of the trumps of the no-side was a fantasy.

Ye may have gathered that I favour the yes side. I was cautiously in favour before the election and, apart from some sulking from Barroso and the surprising health of the supposedly dead treaty, I have seen nothing since that has changed my stance.

Well I woud agree that many who voted no didn't have enough knowledge of the treaty, and indeed they admitted as much both to me and to the polls we've all seen.

But how many of those who voted yes were any better? I've always said an uninformed yes vote is a dangerous as uninformed opposition. Possibly even more so, but we'll leave that asside for now.

According to the Eurobarometer poll after the referendum the main reason for voting yes (32%) was "it was in the best interests of Ireland" which doesn't actually give any solid indication of understanding the treaty. The next highest reason was "ireland gets a lot of benefit from the EU" at 19%. Now that is of course true but has even less to do with it than the first reason does.

The reasons for voting no, apart from the lack of knowledge (19%) while they hed smaller percentages they where a lot more numerous and specific.

cookiemonster wrote:

Well I woud agree that many who voted no didn't have enough knowledge of the treaty, and indeed they admitted as much both to me and to the polls we've all seen.

But how many of those who voted yes were any better? I've always said an uninformed yes vote is a dangerous as uninformed opposition. Possibly even more so, but we'll leave that asside for now.

I'd agree with you there - particularly those who voted Yes because that was what the government said to do. Possibly worth an examination in its own right.

cookiemonster wrote:

According to the Eurobarometer poll after the referendum the main reason for voting yes (32%) was "it was in the best interests of Ireland" which doesn't actually give any solid indication of understanding the treaty. The next highest reason was "ireland gets a lot of benefit from the EU" at 19%. Now that is of course true but has even less to do with it than the first reason does.

The reasons for voting no, apart from the lack of knowledge (19%) while they hed smaller percentages they where a lot more numerous and specific.

But some of them were also simply wrong.

Quote :

But some of them were also simply wrong.

Some people were wrong, in the sense that they accepted bad information - though there were surely as many of those on the yes side.

I'm a little disappointed that we haven't had the energy (?) for the level of discussion I would have hoped for after the vote about Ireland's role in Europe and what kind of Europe we want and what is possible. It seems to me that regardless of what decisions are made, change in the EU and of the EU takes place at the pace of a supertanker changing course.

I do notice that those of all colours and constituencies who were on the No side, are pretty quiet while the yes side make various rumblings.

Kate P wrote:

I'm a little disappointed that we haven't had the energy (?) for the level of discussion I would have hoped for after the vote about Ireland's role in Europe and what kind of Europe we want and what is possible.

Me too. maybe RTE could make a reality show out if it "my Kinda Europe". But it seems that the refusal to let go of the Lisbon strings has cause this situation where by all focus is still on the damn treaty and not on, as you say, what kind of Europe we want and what is possible and when I say we I mean all Europeans.

Quote :

It seems to me that regardless of what decisions are made, change in the EU and of the EU takes place at the pace of a supertanker changing course.

I do notice that those of all colours and constituencies who were on the No side, are pretty quiet while the yes side make various rumblings.

cookiemonster wrote:

Kate P wrote:

I'm a little disappointed that we haven't had the energy (?) for the level of discussion I would have hoped for after the vote about Ireland's role in Europe and what kind of Europe we want and what is possible.

But it seems that the refusal to let go of the Lisbon strings has cause this situation where by all focus is still on the damn treaty and not on, as you say, what kind of Europe we want and what is possible and when I say we I mean all Europeans.

While I sympathise with those who expected the whole Lisbon treaty to be dropped, I stress that the reality has to be faced up to. It's no good saying 'what if'; what are we going to do?

Cookie made a remark earlier about uninformed yes votes being just as dangerous as uninformed no votes. True, but I recall seeing somewhere that yes voters felt themselves to be more informed than no voters. That's anecdotal for the moment, I can't back it up right now. You could look at the the demographics and say the yes voters came from more infomed sounding backgrounds but that's hardly a perfect fit.

905 wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Kate P wrote:

I'm a little disappointed that we haven't had the energy (?) for the level of discussion I would have hoped for after the vote about Ireland's role in Europe and what kind of Europe we want and what is possible.

But it seems that the refusal to let go of the Lisbon strings has cause this situation where by all focus is still on the damn treaty and not on, as you say, what kind of Europe we want and what is possible and when I say we I mean all Europeans.

While I sympathise with those who expected the whole Lisbon treaty to be dropped, I stress that the reality has to be faced up to. It's no good saying 'what if'; what are we going to do?

Well I never expected it to be dropped or to go away. Afterall the rejection of it's previous incarnation ,the Constitution wasn't dropped, nor did it go away. But I can't help it if I'm finding the general attitude of "well we're not changing a thing, you'll just have to either accept it or we'll find a way to do it for you" approach a little... jarring. Given that there is now there exists the most obvious indication that a lot of Europe is unsure or unhappy about the path that the EU is taking. And I may not agree with where they want to go (the Eurosceptic, the ones who don't want Turkey, the federalists or the non federalists etc...) but that is beside the point, they were and are all being ignored for the sake of political expediency in the face of previous agreement on unanimous consent.

905 wrote:

Cookie made a remark earlier about uninformed yes votes being just as dangerous as uninformed no votes. True, but I recall seeing somewhere that yes voters felt themselves to be more informed than no voters. That's anecdotal for the moment, I can't back it up right now. You could look at the the demographics and say the yes voters came from more infomed sounding backgrounds but that's hardly a perfect fit.

I was looking for some figures on that myself, 905, but couldn't find any. But I'd sat that "feeling informed" is a lot different from being informed... or correctly informed.

I could argue demographics with you all night but I have had some wine I will spare you for the moment, but I'll come back to that point because it is an interesting one and I *heart* polling data and statistics!

cookiemonster wrote:

Well I never expected it to be dropped or to go away. Afterall the rejection of it's previous incarnation ,the Constitution wasn't dropped, nor did it go away. But I can't help it if I'm finding the general attitude of "well we're not changing a thing, you'll just have to either accept it or we'll find a way to do it for you" approach a little... jarring. Given that there is now there exists the most obvious indication that a lot of Europe is unsure or unhappy about the path that the EU is taking. And I may not agree with where they want to go (the Eurosceptic, the ones who don't want Turkey, the federalists or the non federalists etc...) but that is beside the point, they were and are all being ignored for the sake of political expediency in the face of previous agreement on unanimous consent.

The electorate expected it to be dropped. Well, I did.

I think it might make an interesting discussion and I would encourage a seperate thread on the matter. It would involve far too much detail for me though. I just don't want this thread getting bogged down with something I deem irrelevant.

Has anyone got a link to the Millward Brown study ?

905 wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Well I never expected it to be dropped or to go away. Afterall the rejection of it's previous incarnation ,the Constitution wasn't dropped, nor did it go away. But I can't help it if I'm finding the general attitude of "well we're not changing a thing, you'll just have to either accept it or we'll find a way to do it for you" approach a little... jarring. Given that there is now there exists the most obvious indication that a lot of Europe is unsure or unhappy about the path that the EU is taking. And I may not agree with where they want to go (the Eurosceptic, the ones who don't want Turkey, the federalists or the non federalists etc...) but that is beside the point, they were and are all being ignored for the sake of political expediency in the face of previous agreement on unanimous consent.

The electorate expected it to be dropped. Well, I did.

I think it might make an interesting discussion and I would encourage a seperate thread on the matter. It would involve far too much detail for me though. I just don't want this thread getting bogged down with something I deem irrelevant.

Indeed it would be an interesting thread by itself.

You are (or at least were) a yes voter and you expected it to be dropped post rejection, is that correct?
But the important thing to ask, I suppose, is by whom did you expect it would be dropped, the electorate, the government, the EP, the comission, the council, other EU players?

And as I pointed out above, given the genesis of the treaty, why did you expect it would be dropped?

Also, do you think it should be dropped, at least for the moment? Or is it perhaps being used as a scapegoat by the government for other issues which it may not want the spotlight shined exclusively on?

Off topic, off topic. As far as I'm concerned the constitution was dropped. It was reshaped, but that's different. It doesn't look like any major change is going to happen to the Lisbon treaty, there is no return to the drawing board as there was with the constitution.

As to whether I think it should have been dropped, well that's a question well over my pay-grade. Not to mention possibly inconvenient to my standpoint.

905 wrote:

Off topic, off topic. As far as I'm concerned the constitution was dropped. It was reshaped, but that's different. It doesn't look like any major change is going to happen to the Lisbon treaty, there is no return to the drawing board as there was with the constitution.

As to whether I think it should have been dropped, well that's a question well over my pay-grade. Not to mention possibly inconvenient to my standpoint.

The Euractive site strongly suggests that the Treaty will be amended to allow for a Commissioner for each State.

I have been trying to find a link to the Millward and Brown study - the press reports are garbled and confusing. Has anyone seen the original document ?

905 wrote:

Off topic, off topic. As far as I'm concerned the constitution was dropped. It was reshaped, but that's different. It doesn't look like any major change is going to happen to the Lisbon treaty, there is no return to the drawing board as there was with the constitution.

As to whether I think it should have been dropped, well that's a question well over my pay-grade. Not to mention possibly inconvenient to my standpoint.

Jens peter till has hsi bottle of wine. The Lisbon treaty is the Constitution, it just has different wrapping paper, i think everybody on both sides agrees with that.

cookiemonster wrote:

905 wrote:

Off topic, off topic. As far as I'm concerned the constitution was dropped. It was reshaped, but that's different. It doesn't look like any major change is going to happen to the Lisbon treaty, there is no return to the drawing board as there was with the constitution.

As to whether I think it should have been dropped, well that's a question well over my pay-grade. Not to mention possibly inconvenient to my standpoint.

Jens peter till has hsi bottle of wine. The Lisbon treaty is the Constitution, it just has different wrapping paper, i think everybody on both sides agrees with that.

Up to a point. The point we disagree on is that it's identical, and that, given the renegotiations that followed for the benefit of the Dutch and French, their vote to reject it should be counted against Lisbon. The institutional changes are the same - after all, the Irish government argued very hard for exactly that.

I don't think it can realistically be dropped. If the Constitution and Lisbon set out to address a set of problems that the member states feel the EU has, then those problems do not go away or change by virtue of the No vote - they simply remain there, waiting to be addressed. The solutions that 27 nations are able to agree on are unlikely to change all that much either - well, it would probably be possible to push the members in the direction of agreeing not to solve them, but that's not actually agreeing a solution.

So the idea that the institutional changes in Lisbon are going away isn't really a runner, unless you assume that a lot of people put their necks on the line, and the whole apparatus of 27 governments rumbled into action, only for the sake of something that's actually a complete waste of time, and which they know to be a complete waste of time, because they negotiated it.

The No side is in the enviable position, in one sense, of trying to force politicians to take the easy choice of abandoning a potentially unpopular, and undeniably difficult-to-sell, treaty - as long as they don't mind not solving the problems they intended it to fix. That they have yet to abandon the treaty suggests that they believe those problems really do need to be fixed. Their solutions may not be the right ones, of course, but that is a separate discussion.

cookiemonster wrote:

905 wrote:

Off topic, off topic. As far as I'm concerned the constitution was dropped. It was reshaped, but that's different. It doesn't look like any major change is going to happen to the Lisbon treaty, there is no return to the drawing board as there was with the constitution.

As to whether I think it should have been dropped, well that's a question well over my pay-grade. Not to mention possibly inconvenient to my standpoint.

Jens peter till has hsi bottle of wine. The Lisbon treaty is the Constitution, it just has different wrapping paper, i think everybody on both sides agrees with that.

Wrapping paper that involved years of tortured negotiations. At any rate, wrapping paper that will be mainly absent this time.

905 wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

905 wrote:

Off topic, off topic. As far as I'm concerned the constitution was dropped. It was reshaped, but that's different. It doesn't look like any major change is going to happen to the Lisbon treaty, there is no return to the drawing board as there was with the constitution.

As to whether I think it should have been dropped, well that's a question well over my pay-grade. Not to mention possibly inconvenient to my standpoint.

Jens peter till has hsi bottle of wine. The Lisbon treaty is the Constitution, it just has different wrapping paper, i think everybody on both sides agrees with that.

Wrapping paper that involved years of tortured negotiations. At any rate, wrapping paper that will be mainly absent this time.

Unless the remove all vowels, or only print it in braile...

Millward Brown Lisbon Referendum Study

At last I've found it - thanks to Slugger O'Toole.

It seems that quite a lot of people who didn't understand it voted yes anyway and that a lot of people who tried to understand it and couldn't, were frustrated, and voted no. There was a big class divide in the voting.

Quote :

Focus group results also show some emotional responses in this regard. Frustration was the most common emotion. Many people had made efforts to understand the implications of ratification but could not find the answers they were looking for; it was too complex and confusing. Anger was also commonly expressed. Confusion was a prevailing theme. Many were repeatedly swayed in different directions due to what they described as conflicting evidence. Panic was also evident in some cases –
some felt they did not have enough time and were pressurised into making a decision they were not entirely sure or happy with.
“It’s an awful thing to say but I was completely confused between the two. I felt listening to one politician one day expounding about all the benefits of voting Yes, you kind of say, yeah, I can see that, and then you listen to someone else talking about the No campaign”. Hard No, Female

The lack of any positive message in the Yes campaign was a problem.

Quote :

They couldn’t tell us why it was good for us, nobody was able to tell me this, and believe me, I tried, nobody was able to tell me”

People also felt that things might be "slipped in" to the confusing text of the Treaty.

Immigration was not an issue. The Study makes the assumption that the fears of No voters about loss of influence, loss of low Co. Tax rates, militarisation, have no foundation.

I don't think this study adds much to the EU exit poll published two weeks after the Referendum.

Quote :

The key demographic groups in terms of opposition to the Treaty were, 25-34 year olds (59%), the C2 and DE socio economic groups (63% and 65%) and women (56%). Amongst the main political parties, 63% of Fianna Fail supporters voted for the Treaty, 52% of Fine Gael supporters also voted in favour of it. Labour and Green party supporters both voted against (61% and 53% respectively) as did Sinn Fein supporters (88%).*1

On Lisbon, and the important basket of issues that it contained, the majority of voters went against the "majority" parties.

It is an extraordinary fact of the No vote, that it was won in spite of a majority of FF and FG voters voting Yes. This should seriously put in question the persistent Labour Party/left assumption that it can't contest for government but should indefinitely remain second string. Is the Labour Party holding on to a comfort blanket - does it need to come to maturity, turn out to get new members and offer itself as a serious party of government?

I was called by Gallup to answer questions in a poll on Europe last week. The questions covered some areas of the Millward Brown study, but were broader in scope.Some on perceptions of theEU; onmigrant workers, the location of industries in other EU countries and the impact on jobs here; Anybody know anything about the intentions of the poll or by whom commissioned?

cookiemonster wrote:

Well I woud agree that many who voted no didn't have enough knowledge of the treaty, and indeed they admitted as much both to me and to the polls we've all seen.

But how many of those who voted yes were any better? I've always said an uninformed yes vote is a dangerous as uninformed opposition. Possibly even more so, but we'll leave that asside for now.

According to the Eurobarometer poll after the referendum the main reason for voting yes (32%) was "it was in the best interests of Ireland" which doesn't actually give any solid indication of understanding the treaty. The next highest reason was "ireland gets a lot of benefit from the EU" at 19%. Now that is of course true but has even less to do with it than the first reason does.

The reasons for voting no, apart from the lack of knowledge (19%) while they hed smaller percentages they where a lot more numerous and specific.

So a treaty being in the best interests of Ireland has nothing to do with the treaty, no? Rubbish, "It was in the best interests of Ireland" is entirely relevant (in fact it was probably the most relevant of any reason advanced by anyone) and also does not show an ignorance of the Treaty; if anything it shows a knowledge, if only a layman's knowledge, of Lisbon. To conclude that someithing is in the best interests of your country requires a lot more knowledge of it than to conclude that you don't understand it (obviously).

Quote :

They couldn’t tell us why it was good for us, nobody was able to tell me this, and believe me, I tried, nobody was able to tell me”

Obviously a hard No voter saying this; information was disseminated not only by the main parties but by smaller organizations like the Alliance for Europe who placed a lot of emphasis on the positive aspects of the Treaty, and who did have a website doing the same that would not have been missed by anyone who was actually trying to find out about the Treaty. Now obviously there was a lot of negative campaigning by the main parties and because the AfE had limited funds it could not reach everyone with its leaflets etc. so a lot of people would have missed the positive aspects and that is regrettable. But anyone who says they tried to find what was good for us in the Treaty but couldn't is either lying or deaf-blind and living in a cave. Certainly nobody I talked to could go away saying they hadn't heard anything positive about the Treaty.