The Second Lisbon Referendum - Date Set for May?

A second referendum seems inevitable. I'm starting this thread, with the idea that the Lisbon Treaty can be discussed here in a Libertas/Ganley-free environment. In fairness, you are asked also to keep any party political pointscoring out of the thread and focus on the merits of the case. This is not intended to exclude any discussion of or by Libertas - there are a number of threads already running where that can take place.

The idea of the thread is that is should focus on the content of the Treaty, and any arguments or reasons based on the Treaty and any associated proposed arrangements as to why people might shift their position from Yes to No or vice versa.

cactus flower wrote:

In fairness, you are asked also to keep any party political pointscoring out of the thread and focus on the merits of the case.

Ah ffs, you’re determined to take the fun out of everything, you must be very hard to live with.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

In fairness, you are asked also to keep any party political pointscoring out of the thread and focus on the merits of the case.

Ah ffs, you’re determined to take the fun out of everything, you must be very hard to live with.

This thread is for people opposed to fun, and in favour of a lot of pain, particularly for you when you take the P, tonys.

It strikes me that the first defeat of Lisbon showed a class divide.

I don't know whether the pro-treaty camp can swing the lower earners around. The biggest lever would seem to be the message that we need the EU now more than ever so people better vote yes or watch their fearc ome through. I also think that there will be a massive turn out amongst middle income and higher income earners to push this over the line.

Another group who will switch ore FGers who voted no just to stick it to FF. It is my belief that there is a certain amount of such voters who always intended voting yes the second time around if the treaty was defeated.

I think a statement on the increase of military spending would help too. That provision is very clear in the Treaty and Micheal Martin's dismissals were too much nod and wink for my liking. I expect we wil increase spending anyway but let it be our own decision.

The air is filled with fear at the moment. Whoever capitalises on that by using it as a motivator or something to be rebelled against will win.

Would it be worth mentioning what the main issues were ? And then considering some of them ?

Loss of Commissioner
Tax sovereignty
EU presidency (was this in Lisbon even )
Increased militarisation
More QMV areas.

What else ?

Increased Democracy
Reporting of Council Meetings
More European Parliamentary oversight
Increased roles for National Parliaments
Exit Mechanism for countires who wish to leave
Increased Legal Status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Would it be worth mentioning what the main issues were ? And then considering some of them ?

Loss of Commissioner
Tax sovereignty
EU presidency (was this in Lisbon even )
Increased militarisation
More QMV areas.

What else ?

The end of all referendums (the famous 'self-amending' clause)
The way the EU stole our fish (admittedly a red herring)
The EU taking over foreign policy (aka High Commissioner)
The refusal of the EU to allow other countries to have referendums
The incomprehensibility of the Treaty, and the "deliberate suppression" of a consolidated version
The dangers of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - abortion, immigration, etc

Hmm. Are we including all the red herrings?

cactus flower wrote:

We had a "Why I Voted Yes/No" thread here immediately after the vote.

This was the summary of the EU "exit poll" questionnaire results:

The “yes” voters'main reason - : it was in Ireland’s best interest

"When asked in an open question about the reasons as to why they voted “yes” (see chart Q8 below), a third of those respondents said they felt this was in Ireland’s best interest (32% of all answers).

The other reasons were some way behind, but most of them were variations on a theme – the advantages the EU provides and provided to Ireland.

One in five voted “yes” because Ireland had got a lot of benefit from the EU (19% of all answers).

Other grounds for voting “yes” (each representing 9% of all answers), were that the Lisbon Treaty would keep Ireland fully engaged in Europe and that it would help the Irish economy.

Although some respondents mentioned other reasons for their voting preference, those numbers were far less significant: the treaty would make the EU more effective in its decision-making (5% of all answers); it would make the EU more effective on the global stage (4%), etc.

"The “no” voters were also presented with a list of the potential reasons for their decision, the responses were diverse and numerous – going from

a lack of information about the treaty to, for example,

a way of protesting against the government’s policies.

A lack of information about “Lisbon” was the main reason for voting against the treaty (22% of all answers), followed by

the desire to protect Irish identity (12% of all answers).

Besides these two main rationales, “no” voters gave a number of other explanations – that together led to a multitude of reasons – these included

a lack of trust in politicians in general;

a wish to safeguard Irish neutrality in security and defence matters;

the desire to keep an Irish Commissioner in every
Commission;

the need to protect the Irish tax system (in each case, 6% of all answers) as well as interpreting their vote as a vote

against a “unified Europe” (5% of all answers).

At the bottom of the list, just 1% of all survey responses adjudged the “no” votes that they cast to be either a way of avoiding an influx of immigrants or

as a method of saying that the treaty did not need fixing, as it was “fine”.

Pardon me for putting words into people's mouths, but doesn't a lot of that on the Yes side add up to "we're doing fine, lets keep it coming". Very little interest in the Treaty itself or what it meant for Europe.

The No vote looks more like a combination of those who were not included in the benefits of the boom, and people with various fears about loss of control and national identity.

Neutrality looks like possibly the only issue of principle.

Both sets of voters appear equally ignorant based on the above extracts.

Can we havea poll - "Do you thnk Lisbon II will be passed?". I certainly think it will be.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Both sets of voters appear equally ignorant based on the above extracts.

Can we havea poll - "Do you thnk Lisbon II will be passed?". I certainly think it will be.

I think it will too. Fear as you suggested will have its effect.

In favour of a YES

- fear
- boredom
- the No Campaign ?

In favour of a NO

- anger and despair
- the unforeseen
- another belated and poor YES campaign ?

That is leaving out the small minority on either side who have specific in-principle issues.

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Would it be worth mentioning what the main issues were ? And then considering some of them ?

Loss of Commissioner
Tax sovereignty
EU presidency (was this in Lisbon even )
Increased militarisation
More QMV areas.

What else ?

The end of all referendums (the famous 'self-amending' clause)
The way the EU stole our fish (admittedly a red herring)
The EU taking over foreign policy (aka High Commissioner)
The refusal of the EU to allow other countries to have referendums
The incomprehensibility of the Treaty, and the "deliberate suppression" of a consolidated version
The dangers of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - abortion, immigration, etc

Hmm. Are we including all the red herrings?

Maybe they all are red herrings ibis, maybe some are not or have bits of red herrings.

If either side want to win a Lisbon II, they will have to go over all the issues again and beat them to death with a big objective stick.

The existing treaties are there in black and white. So is Lisbon. Whoever brings forward the most objective clarity on the issues will win...

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Increased Democracy
Reporting of Council Meetings
More European Parliamentary oversight
Increased roles for National Parliaments
Exit Mechanism for countires who wish to leave
Increased Legal Status of the ECHR

Point of order: The European Convention of human Rights is untouched by Lisbon, and is not even an EU document. The document concerned is the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Apologies!
Should that not have been a point of information though?

cactus wrote:

Pardon me for putting words into people's mouths, but doesn't a lot of that on the Yes side add up to "we're doing fine, lets keep it coming". Very little interest in the Treaty itself or what it meant for Europe.

If you want to cherry pick Yes advocates then you could come to that conclusion. There was a lot of laziness, especially in the early stages of the campaign. But towards the end things started to change. A couple of government ministers, in particular Micheal Martin stepped up and showed a pretty good understanding of the Treaty, and used that to great effect against some of the No side crazies. Others, like Gay Mitchell, Peter Sutherland and to a lesser extent Eamon Gilmore, also stepped up and repeatedly hammered certain members of the No camp in live debates. And, of course, the Irish Alliance for Europe launched their campaign which was truly excellent and completely fact-based. I campaigned with the Alliance and have always resented the fact that our efforts were largely overlooked and we were tarred with the same brush as the worst Yes campaigners that our opponents could dig up.

The point is that towards the end of the Lisbon campaign (when it was, admittedly, too late) the No side argument that the Yes side kept dodging the facts and talking about Europe generally lost a lot of weight and ceased to be true in many cases. But the No side kept making that very argument until the end and the people, blinded by anger and confusion, believed them all the way.

Quote :

The No vote looks more like a combination of those who were not included in the benefits of the boom, and people with various fears about loss of control and national identity.

Come on cactus. You said no talking about the different parties to the debate in this thread. But here you are obviously trying to discuss the members as opposed to the arguments of the No side. So be it, but don't say I'm acting out of line when I say that Declan Ganley doesn't look like he missed out on the benefits of any boom.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Apologies!
Should that not have been a point of information though?

Excellent point of information to my point of order, Zhou. I was thinking that originally. But according to Wikipedia, the Irish Parliament treats a point of order as "a submission to the chair in respect of a decision he has not yet taken with a view to influencing that decision by presenting certain facts or arguments." I thought it appropriate to follow the rules of an t-Oireachtas when discussing such matters as this.

This is, however, a point of pedantry and little more.

evercloserunion wrote:

cactus wrote:

Pardon me for putting words into people's mouths, but doesn't a lot of that on the Yes side add up to "we're doing fine, lets keep it coming". Very little interest in the Treaty itself or what it meant for Europe.

If you want to cherry pick Yes advocates then you could come to that conclusion. There was a lot of laziness, especially in the early stages of the campaign. But towards the end things started to change. A couple of government ministers, in particular Micheal Martin stepped up and showed a pretty good understanding of the Treaty, and used that to great effect against some of the No side crazies. Others, like Gay Mitchell, Peter Sutherland and to a lesser extent Eamon Gilmore, also stepped up and repeatedly hammered certain members of the No camp in live debates. And, of course, the Irish Alliance for Europe launched their campaign which was truly excellent and completely fact-based. I campaigned with the Alliance and have always resented the fact that our efforts were largely overlooked and we were tarred with the same brush as the worst Yes campaigners that our opponents could dig up.

The point is that towards the end of the Lisbon campaign (when it was, admittedly, too late) the No side argument that the Yes side kept dodging the facts and talking about Europe generally lost a lot of weight and ceased to be true in many cases. But the No side kept making that very argument until the end and the people, blinded by anger and confusion, believed them all the way.

Quote :

The No vote looks more like a combination of those who were not included in the benefits of the boom, and people with various fears about loss of control and national identity.

Come on cactus. You said no talking about the different parties to the debate in this thread. But here you are obviously trying to discuss the members as opposed to the arguments of the No side. So be it, but don't say I'm acting out of line when I say that Declan Ganley doesn't look like he missed out on the benefits of any boom.

I wasn't cherry picking, but looking at the very broad brush findings of EU post referendum questionnaire. Zhou made the point as well that the vote split on class/income lines. The arguments, and the reasons for voting, tended to be much less complex, or strictly relevant, than it would appear from a discussion forum in which people are by definition interested in politics. The majority of Yes voters felt good about Europe and what it had done for them. On the No side, there was anger about exclusion, neglect by politicians, being patronised and distrust that Lisbon would not make decision making more remote and ideologically alien. It was probably a protest vote in one way or another for most No voters, it certainly was for me.

Quote :

02/12/2008 - 13:10:05
The Taoiseach Brian Cowen is to visit the EU's most powerful member states over the coming days to discuss Ireland's plans for addressing the future of the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr Cowen will visit Berlin, London and Paris on Thursday and Friday ahead of next week's EU summit in Brussels.

The Irish Government has promised to put forward a plan at the summit for dealing with Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.

Most observers believe a second referendum will be held late next year in an effort to overturn last June's result.

If there was a Referendum held at the end of next year, what legislation/ rules would the European Elections be held under?

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

02/12/2008 - 13:10:05
The Taoiseach Brian Cowen is to visit the EU's most powerful member states over the coming days to discuss Ireland's plans for addressing the future of the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr Cowen will visit Berlin, London and Paris on Thursday and Friday ahead of next week's EU summit in Brussels.

The Irish Government has promised to put forward a plan at the summit for dealing with Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.

Most observers believe a second referendum will be held late next year in an effort to overturn last June's result.

If there was a Referendum held at the end of next year, what legislation/ rules would the European Elections be held under?

It would have to be under the Nice rules.

By the way - something that ought to be required reading - the Dept of Foreign Affairs White Paper on the Treaty.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

02/12/2008 - 13:10:05
The Taoiseach Brian Cowen is to visit the EU's most powerful member states over the coming days to discuss Ireland's plans for addressing the future of the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr Cowen will visit Berlin, London and Paris on Thursday and Friday ahead of next week's EU summit in Brussels.

The Irish Government has promised to put forward a plan at the summit for dealing with Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.

Most observers believe a second referendum will be held late next year in an effort to overturn last June's result.

If there was a Referendum held at the end of next year, what legislation/ rules would the European Elections be held under?

It would have to be under the Nice rules.

By the way - something that ought to be [url=http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fforeignaffairs.gov.ie%2Fuploads%2Fdocuments%2FEU%2520Division%2FEU%2520Reform%2520Treaty%2Fpdf08-white-paper_english.pdf&ei=A5M0Sae-LNzS-QaTlvTFCA&usg=AFQjCNFKTjd-UJ9rC9sZDJD4EZsJFBCzdg&sig2=6ymO17qJOPtAgu2D4oekCQ]required reading[/url] - the Dept of Foreign Affairs White Paper on the Treaty.

I totally I agree with you Ibis. It is far better than the little thing sent around by the Referendum Commission. One should go to every household, soon, with a little update in the back re the legal effects of a Yes or No vote. I did look at it before the Referendum but there was so much stuff to read at the time.

So, I was only wondering where Sinn Fein were all this time, and all of a sudden MLD pops up on Prime Time. She really is starting to sound like a 'learn a language in 10 minutes CD'

The fact is - the reality is - blah blah.

Mary Lou irritates me intensely, but anyway...

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

So, I was only wondering where Sinn Fein were all this time, and all of a sudden MLD pops up on Prime Time. She really is starting to sound like a 'learn a language in 10 minutes CD'

The fact is - the reality is - blah blah.

My very thoughts. I wasn't a Mary Lou fan, but she seemed to show some form in the first Lisbon campaign. Then, after the vote when Sarkozy was here she was not available as she was on holiday. Could you imagine Ganley using that excuse. Part-timer, I think.

Perhaps we're ready to take the subclause off this thread title.

Well from what I gleaned from Prime Time, the Gov are clearly trying to get some binding concessions. This is what SF wanted. Renegotiation. Now they're getting it and still moaning ...

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Well from what I gleaned from Prime Time, the Gov are clearly trying to get some binding concessions. This is what SF wanted. Renegotiation. Now they're getting it and still moaning ...

Sinn Féin have opposed every European Referendum, whatever about other anti-Lisbon campaigns, Sinn Féin will oppose a European Treaty no matter what it says.