The behaviour of President Klaus

cactus flower wrote:

Paul R wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

Another thing that gave No side groups like Libertas and Cóir an advantage over the Alliance is that the formers groups made claims that people would be more likely to stop and listen to. Alarmist stories about abortion, internment of 3 year olds and losing our voice are much more likely to attract attention than more factually based claims about streamlining the institutions, inserting a commitment to fighting climate change etc. The Alliance for Europe had the unenviable task of combatting unscrupulous smear and lies with solid, objective information. Never easy.

I agree but part of the problem with the Yes campaign was it ended up always "returning serve" to the No campaign's allegations. This was largely as a result of the entire "departure of Bertie as Taoiseach" period which meant most politicans were not focused on the run up to the referendum. In retrospect, Yes supporters should have spent more time selling the positives (i.e. "serving") and less on trying to counteract a lot of the No nonsense. Much of the electorate  were I believe looking for positive reasons to vote Yes - they didn't hear them (loud enough) - and defaulted then to No.

I think that FF instinctually felt that there was a voter resistance to the EU and were reluctant to take that on. I don't think the Bertie business can explain the weakness of their campaign.

I didn't explain that very well but what I meant is the body politic was distracted in the run up to the referendum and preparations for the campaign suffered accordingly. The message for the campaign should have positive. It should have been more like:By voting Yes:

1. We will increase the powers of our democratically elected European Parliament,
   
2. We will ensure that the CAB and their equivalent bodies will have the power to freeze the assets of drug-dealers and terrorists in every one of the 27 member states with one court order,
3. We will make it harder for people to commit fraud with our - the tax-payers' - money as the powers of the Court of Auditors will be strengthened.
   

This then puts the No side arguing as to why these are bad ideas.  They are then on the defensive.After all, why did the "concerned democrats" on the No side campaign against greater democratic powers for our democratically elected European Parliament?

Paul R wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Paul R wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

Another thing that gave No side groups like Libertas and Cóir an advantage over the Alliance is that the formers groups made claims that people would be more likely to stop and listen to. Alarmist stories about abortion, internment of 3 year olds and losing our voice are much more likely to attract attention than more factually based claims about streamlining the institutions, inserting a commitment to fighting climate change etc. The Alliance for Europe had the unenviable task of combatting unscrupulous smear and lies with solid, objective information. Never easy.

I agree but part of the problem with the Yes campaign was it ended up always "returning serve" to the No campaign's allegations. This was largely as a result of the entire "departure of Bertie as Taoiseach" period which meant most politicans were not focused on the run up to the referendum. In retrospect, Yes supporters should have spent more time selling the positives (i.e. "serving") and less on trying to counteract a lot of the No nonsense. Much of the electorate  were I believe looking for positive reasons to vote Yes - they didn't hear them (loud enough) - and defaulted then to No.

I think that FF instinctually felt that there was a voter resistance to the EU and were reluctant to take that on. I don't think the Bertie business can explain the weakness of their campaign.

I didn't explain that very well but what I meant is the body politic was distracted in the run up to the referendum and preparations for the campaign suffered accordingly. The message for the campaign should have positive. It should have been more like:By voting Yes:

1. We will increase the powers of our democratically elected European Parliament,
   
2. We will ensure that the CAB and their equivalent bodies will have the power to freeze the assets of drug-dealers and terrorists in every one of the 27 member states with one court order,
3. We will make it harder for people to commit fraud with our - the tax-payers' - money as the powers of the Court of Auditors will be strengthened.
   

This then puts the No side arguing as to why these are bad ideas.  They are then on the defensive.After all, why did the "concerned democrats" on the No side campaign against greater democratic powers for our democratically elected European Parliament?

The problem was there was a trade off of a little bit more democracy at EU level and consequently giving some up at National level. It was an in the balance judgement as to whether the one warranted the other. Having said that, I agree that the Yes supporters did not provide any clear and compelling reasons why we should vote for Lisbon, beyond "We say its good for you" and "They've been very good to us". The political practice over the years of selling the EU to Irish voters solely on grounds of direct financial issues i.e. the size of payments of EU funds came home to roost as soon as we became net contributors.

cactus flower wrote:

Paul R wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Paul R wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

Another thing that gave No side groups like Libertas and Cóir an advantage over the Alliance is that the formers groups made claims that people would be more likely to stop and listen to. Alarmist stories about abortion, internment of 3 year olds and losing our voice are much more likely to attract attention than more factually based claims about streamlining the institutions, inserting a commitment to fighting climate change etc. The Alliance for Europe had the unenviable task of combatting unscrupulous smear and lies with solid, objective information. Never easy.

I agree but part of the problem with the Yes campaign was it ended up always "returning serve" to the No campaign's allegations. This was largely as a result of the entire "departure of Bertie as Taoiseach" period which meant most politicans were not focused on the run up to the referendum. In retrospect, Yes supporters should have spent more time selling the positives (i.e. "serving") and less on trying to counteract a lot of the No nonsense. Much of the electorate were I believe looking for positive reasons to vote Yes - they didn't hear them (loud enough) - and defaulted then to No.

I think that FF instinctually felt that there was a voter resistance to the EU and were reluctant to take that on. I don't think the Bertie business can explain the weakness of their campaign.

I didn't explain that very well but what I meant is the body politic was distracted in the run up to the referendum and preparations for the campaign suffered accordingly. The message for the campaign should have positive. It should have been more like:By voting Yes:

1. We will increase the powers of our democratically elected European Parliament,
   
2. We will ensure that the CAB and their equivalent bodies will have the power to freeze the assets of drug-dealers and terrorists in every one of the 27 member states with one court order,
3. We will make it harder for people to commit fraud with our - the tax-payers' - money as the powers of the Court of Auditors will be strengthened.
   

This then puts the No side arguing as to why these are bad ideas. They are then on the defensive.After all, why did the "concerned democrats" on the No side campaign against greater democratic powers for our democratically elected European Parliament?

The problem was there was a trade off of a little bit more democracy at EU level and consequently giving some up at National level. It was an in the balance judgement as to whether the one warranted the other. Having said that, I agree that the Yes supporters did not provide any clear and compelling reasons why we should vote for Lisbon, beyond "We say its good for you" and "They've been very good to us". The political practice over the years of selling the EU to Irish voters solely on grounds of direct financial issues i.e. the size of payments of EU funds came home to roost as soon as we became net contributors.

Except that we're not net contributors...nor likely to become so this side of 2020.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Paul R wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Paul R wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

Another thing that gave No side groups like Libertas and Cóir an advantage over the Alliance is that the formers groups made claims that people would be more likely to stop and listen to. Alarmist stories about abortion, internment of 3 year olds and losing our voice are much more likely to attract attention than more factually based claims about streamlining the institutions, inserting a commitment to fighting climate change etc. The Alliance for Europe had the unenviable task of combatting unscrupulous smear and lies with solid, objective information. Never easy.

I agree but part of the problem with the Yes campaign was it ended up always "returning serve" to the No campaign's allegations. This was largely as a result of the entire "departure of Bertie as Taoiseach" period which meant most politicans were not focused on the run up to the referendum. In retrospect, Yes supporters should have spent more time selling the positives (i.e. "serving") and less on trying to counteract a lot of the No nonsense. Much of the electorate were I believe looking for positive reasons to vote Yes - they didn't hear them (loud enough) - and defaulted then to No.

I think that FF instinctually felt that there was a voter resistance to the EU and were reluctant to take that on. I don't think the Bertie business can explain the weakness of their campaign.

I didn't explain that very well but what I meant is the body politic was distracted in the run up to the referendum and preparations for the campaign suffered accordingly. The message for the campaign should have positive. It should have been more like:By voting Yes:

1. We will increase the powers of our democratically elected European Parliament,
   
2. We will ensure that the CAB and their equivalent bodies will have the power to freeze the assets of drug-dealers and terrorists in every one of the 27 member states with one court order,
3. We will make it harder for people to commit fraud with our - the tax-payers' - money as the powers of the Court of Auditors will be strengthened.
   

This then puts the No side arguing as to why these are bad ideas. They are then on the defensive.After all, why did the "concerned democrats" on the No side campaign against greater democratic powers for our democratically elected European Parliament?

The problem was there was a trade off of a little bit more democracy at EU level and consequently giving some up at National level. It was an in the balance judgement as to whether the one warranted the other. Having said that, I agree that the Yes supporters did not provide any clear and compelling reasons why we should vote for Lisbon, beyond "We say its good for you" and "They've been very good to us". The political practice over the years of selling the EU to Irish voters solely on grounds of direct financial issues i.e. the size of payments of EU funds came home to roost as soon as we became net contributors.

Except that we're not net contributors...nor likely to become so this side of 2020.

According to the Department of the Taoiseach before 2013. But I'd be happy to split the difference.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2841

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Except that we're not net contributors...nor likely to become so this side of 2020.

According to the Department of the Taoiseach before 2013. But I'd be happy to split the difference.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=181&docID=2841

2013, though, was based on extrapolations from before the economy went down the tubes (2006 I think), and assumed continued growth at rates then obtaining. A little bird informs me that this is not what is happening!