European Tribune

Early voting brisk in the Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty

by Frank Schnittger
Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 10:04:01 AM EST

[Final Update by Frank at 17.30] The Lisbon Treaty has been rejected by Irish voters. A total of 53.4 per cent voted to reject the treaty, while 46.6 per cent voted in favour. All but seven constituencies rejected the treaty, with a total of 752,451 voting in favour of Lisbon and 862,415 votes against. Turnout was 53.1 per cent. The people have spoken - well er, 1.6 Million out of 400 Million.

Update [2008-6-13 10:4:1 by Colman]: Well, that's a no then.

Today is D-Day for the Lisbon Treaty - at least as far as popular endorsement is concerned - although it should be noted that many other countries have yet to ratify it.  Early voting has been brisk with turnouts of up to 25% reported in some constituencies by mid afternoon.  This should be good news for the YES campaign as a low turnout was generally feared to be the chief danger to a YES vote win.  

By way of comparison, the Nice referendum was first defeated in 2001 in a referendum with 35% turnout, and passed (with very minor amendment) a year later with a 50% turnout. However the NO side have run quite a high profile campaign this time around, and were generally regarded as the more motivated campaigners. So it would be unwise to draw the simple conclusion that a higher turnout automatically means that the YES vote will carry the day.

I will try to post more information on voting and results here as they become available - although I will be away for a few hours this evening.  Perhaps other inveterate poll watchers can pick up the slack!  Vote counting is entirely manual in Ireland (following a comical attempt to introduce computerised voting) and counting will not begin until tomorrow morning.  The counting usually takes all day, but trends should be apparent by mid-morning tomorrow if previous referendums are any guide.
Update [2008-6-12 17:58:38 by Colman]: Well, the reporting is pretty awful, but it looks like turnout was 40-50%, expected to be in the mid 40s. That should be positive for the Yes side, on previous experience, but previous experience doesn't go far with referendums ...

UPDATE at 2.10 AM by Frank. Paddy Power pays out early on a YES victory - see comment below

UPDATE at 10.45 AM by Frank. Early tally returns - based on very small samples - suggest a significant NO vote - possibly by as much as 60:40. This cannot be blamed on apathy or a low turnout. It marks a sea change in Irish politics as far as the EU is concerned.

Promoted by Colman


Turnouts in Irish referendum vary very widely depending on how important or controversial the issue:  Referenda on abortion and divorce attracted over 60% to the polls in the 1990'a whilst the Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Good Friday (Belfast) Agreements and a recent referendum on Citizenship attracted turnout in the high 50s.  However less controversial or technical amendments sometimes attract a turnout as low as 30%.  

I would expect the tightness of the vote, and the belated mobilisation of the mainstream parties to result in a c. 50% turnout this time around, but you never know.  Many people felt that the complex and opaque nature of the Lisbon Treaty made it very difficult to understand, and may vote NO or abstain in protest for that reason alone.  Constitutions should be relatively simple, intelligible, even stirring documents, and the sort of fudging that went into Lisbon is wholly inappropriate in that context.  This has allowed the NO campaign to make all sorts of ludicrous claims as to what passing the Treaty would entail, and the YES campaign has consequently been on the defensive throughout.

A recent High Court decision made it illegal for the Government to commit public funds to promoting any referendum which means that political patties were using their own resources to fight the campaign - funds they would far rather use to fund their own election campaigns!  However the "equal time and space" approach adopted by the media meant that all sorts of relatively obscure NO campaign groups achieved a prominence they would otherwise never achieve.  

I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Declan Ganly of Libertas interviewed in the media or quoted in the Press.  As his sole claim to fame is his wealth derived from largely Eastern European and US entrepreneurial activities and as neither he, nor his organisation has never stood in an Irish election, it seems to me that giving him a media prominence on a par with a major party leader seems wholly inappropriate.  He has never been a member of the EU Parliament or any EU institution, and yet his largely speculative views have been given parity with those who have a great deal of experience of how those institutions actually work.

Thus if this referendum is actually passed, it will have more to do with the nature of the opposition.  Many people may not wish to associate themselves with Sinn Fein, Libertas, Coir (a nebulous organisation made up of social conservatives who have previously opposed Divorce etc, in Ireland) and a plethora of small political parties and Union Leaders who have generally opposed all referenda on the EU.

This is not a good omen for Democracy within the EU.  Proposals should be debated and passed on their merits and not based on who is for and against.  I hope we never again see a referendum in Ireland on such a poorly drafted document.  It's time we had a real EU Constitution which actually articulates what the EU is about.

I will update the comments below with results as they emerge.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Poll
The Lisbon Treaty Should be ratified by all countries in the EU
. Yes 83%
. No 16%

Votes: 18
Results | Other Polls
Display:
I've also seen reports of low-turn out in working class areas and higher in   middle class areas, which sounds positive for yes.

However, RTÈ think turnout is slow.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 02:40:53 PM EST
Weren't they supposed to have exit polls?  Or are the polls still open?

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 03:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Polls are open until 10pm GMT+1,
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 03:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wow.  That's pretty late.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?
by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 03:39:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmm, should I have voted no on account of the UK?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 03:16:34 PM EST
Why?  Are you becoming a Tory Eurosceptic?

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 06:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For a moment I forgot the eurosceptics should vote for the Lisbon Treaty because it contains a voluntary withdrawal cause.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 03:38:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was of the impression that Nice included that provision as well?

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 04:12:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The new treaty has an actual mechanism: I don't  believe Nice did.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 04:14:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is correct.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 04:17:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I always found that discussion curious. The rules for withdrawal would be set by customary international law. Anyway, see wikipedia:

Denunciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article 42 of The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that "termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention"[1]. Article 56 states that if a treaty does not provide for denunciation, withdrawal, or termination, it is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:

  • it is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciation or withdrawal; or
  • a right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty.

Any withdrawal under Article 56 requires 12 months' notice.

The Vienna Convention does not apply to all nations; the United States, for instance, is not a Party [2]. This makes it unclear exactly how much notice the U.S. must give when withdrawing from treaties lacking a termination clause. For example, on March 7, 2005, the U.S. announced that it was withdrawing from the Consular Convention's Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, a treaty that lacks a termination clause.


A treaty arranging membership in an organisation could have a naturally implied right of withdrawal.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 04:33:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Customary law is generally an entertaining little minefield.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 05:39:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but it is how law generally, and international law in particular, develops.  Treaties and Legislation are a process of formalising a consensus which forms through custom and practice.  There was and is nothing in law to prevent a country leaving the EU - except the opprobrium of its peers - and whatever influence they can bring to bear.  As always, power is the hidden hand behind many legal processes, balanced only by the fact that a law applied to the weak must (in theory) also be applied to the powerful.  Hence if the US legitimises  torture - the international community cannot really stop it.  What will stop it is a belated realisation in the US is that what goes around, comes around, and it will be in a much more difficult for the US to protect its citizens from torture elsewhere in the future.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 05:58:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, I didn't know about the Law of Treaties.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 05:45:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here is a worrying development in Europe which indicates that it is actually far less democratic than its elites would like us common mortals to believe:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2038813/European-Parliament-to-ban-Eurosceptic-g roups.html

Then we have the numerous referendums in which the people voted NO, only to be ignored. Of course, they were ignored because our political elites know what's best for us.

Then we have Kouchner's threat to the Irish that they'll become victims if they don't vote YES. Euro bullying from a Marxist, turned Trotskyst turned pro NATO Sarkozyst... nothing but an opportunist.

But really, what is Europe about if not business and international power-projecting?

by vladimir on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 03:31:45 PM EST
No, it's an international treaty organization.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 03:41:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This sounds like very traditional push and shove you see in all parliaments between larger groups that want to keep control on things and smaller groups that want to be able to have influence.

It makes the European Parliament ... normal.

Using a Daily Telegraph article to criticize anything European is like using La Croix to criticize abortion.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 03:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The source of the article doesn't change the facts. The fact is that the European Parliament voted to do away with a vocal opposition - which runs contrary to democratic principles. It's done in other parliaments? So what. That doesn't make it any more democratic.

Remember 2005? Referendums in France and The Netherlands. The democratic vote is against Europe as presented by the political elites. Does the people's vote change anything? No.

So my conclusion that Europe doesn't stand for democracy. It stands for promoting business interests and projecting those interests internationally. Whether that's good or bad for European society is a different question altogether.

by vladimir on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 04:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Vladimir, the framing of the article is tendentious. Here are the first three paragraphs:
The European Union assembly's political establishment is pushing through changes that will silence dissidents by changing the rules allowing Euro-MPs to form political groupings.

Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP's pan-European Eurosceptic "Independence and Democracy" grouping.

Under the rule change, the largest and msot pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament's political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.

What is being proposed is to raise the minimum number of MEPs needed to form a parliamentary group.

It is true that with the recent increases in the total number of seats in the Parliament it makes sense to do this. What I personally have disagreed with for a long time is the fact that the non-inscrits (those MEPs who are not part of a group) face draconian limitations to their procedural rights (for instance compared with the Spanish parliament). The rules were written on purpose to encourage MEPs from different countries to form political groups.

There are eurosceptic parties already in EP parliamentary groups - for instance the one that includes the Polish Law and Justice  party and the Irish Fianna Fail.

You may remember with the accession of Romania and Bulgaria the xenophobic parties managed to form a group, which later dissolved when the number of countries represented in it dropped below the threshold. The EP plenary had an ovation when this was announced. I don't fault them.

The Torygraph is presenting fascist and xenophobic parties as eurosceptic and making it look like the new rules will be ideological. We have a [Torygraph Alert] for a reason.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 04:19:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fianna Fail

Who aren't the slighest bit eurosceptic and find the group they're in somewhat embarassing, but they can't be in the same group as Fine Gael ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 04:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They're also in the same group with fundamentalist Christian Kate Sinnott.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 04:32:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yup. Embarrassing.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 04:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The fundamental flaw of a rapidly expanding EU is that one country can block all progress on major issues.  This was acceptable when the EU consisted of 6-9-12-15 members with a high degree of economic convergence, but becomes unworkable in an EU of 27+ members.  4 Million Irish citizens blocking the expressed wishes of 27 Member Governments representing 400 Million people is not necessarily an ideal example of democracy.
vladimir:
It stands for promoting business interests and projecting those interests internationally

Far from being the representative of big business, the "EU elite" are actually bitterly opposed by US neo-cons, Liberal economic business interests and a plethora of xenophobic, nationalist and religious groups.  If the EU is projecting anything, it is a vision of a strong statist tradition regulating markets and promoting social, infrastructural, public service health care and education, and environmental goals were these might not otherwise we supported by a "privatise everything and let the markets decide" approach to public policy making.

If you think the EU is bad in terms of promoting a free market agenda, you should try living in the US.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 07:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

4 Million Irish citizens blocking the expressed wishes of 27 Member Governments representing 400 Million people is not necessarily an ideal example of democracy.

Its kinda funny that the Irish political landscape (with 1 exception Sinn Fein - correct me if I am wrong) is sooo Yes, and, its people is soooo... 50/50 (or so it seems at this time).

It makes me wonder if the other 400 million are being represented in their will by their Govs (which don't want to consult the said people - funny).

Do you think that here (I am UK based) the government represents the will of the majority on this issue?

I would say that your reasoning is a bit overstretched, to be honest.

Also I don't care that much if the "European elites" are a bunch of welfare saints as they seem to be pictured (I actually don't believe that - there is a good deal of "pro unregulated market" ones). They could be god on earth, but I want the decision power to be in the hands of citizens (even if citizens make mistakes - as opposed to those oh-so-fantastic elites).

I don't have an instrumental view of democracy, but a principled one: between a wise dictator(or "elites") and a stupid people I take my chances with the stupid people.

The problem here seems to be the transfer from national (read more democratic) governments and parliaments to a center that is for a big part unaccountable. Even if the treaty EU is more democratic than the EU before-treaty, there is still a transfer of power from states (more democratic at its core) to "Brussels".

Transfer all the power to the parliament (to which I vote), or to a commission chosen by the parliament (low level of indirection from votes) and, from my part, problem solved.

For now, I hope the Irish vote no. At least they (still) can vote.

PS - I could give a few examples of neoliberal decisions by the "European elites": tax competition on VAT and IRS. Deregulation/liberalization of markets (aviation - to which I agree, but that is besides the point, future liberalization of trains...)

Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell

by tiagoantao (put_my_login_here <> gmail com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 07:24:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you miss my point.  I don't have a problem if a majority of EU member states or a majority of citizens vote for or against something, and the more such democracy, the better.  My problem is with the unanimity rule which requires that something major can only happen if it is unanimously supported by all members - which gets patently absurd the larger the EU grows.

What we have now in the EU is the risk of paralysis where a tiny minority - in this case 1% of the EU population - can block a proposal that is supported by the vast majority.  Sure - let France and the Netherlands vote against something - the weighted majority system would mean that a proposal could still pass if most of the other members supported it.

I don't see how more members - e.g. in the Balkans can be admitted into the EU until this changes.  I also don't see how the EU can become a significant balancing force to prevent the US neo-con political elite treating the world as their playground - until the EU has more effective leadership and decision making processes in place.

Most people who whine about the democratic deficit in the EU are also working actively to try to stop it becoming more democratic - because they don't want the EU at all.  And if that happens, the US and Global Capital will rule the world unhindered by any democratic sensibilities whatsoever.

For all it's faults, the EU is a lot better than the alternative - a lot of small and medium size countries being railroaded and ridden roughshod over by the US military industrial complex and by global capital.  And that is the real alternative to the EU which is currently on offer - not some idealised democratic nirvana.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 07:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then have an official explicit EU-wide referendum.

The EU is a confused political mess, and Lisbon hasn't helped this is any way. There's no clear sense of what the EU is, of what it's trying to be, or of why it might be a good thing for countries to belong to it.

There are plenty of hints and suggestions available for the few people who take an interest in EU politics, but they're not necessarily consistent. The Commission likes to doodle neoliberal economic schemes, the ECB largely supports that, the Parliament is more liberal and open.

None of this is obvious to outsiders, who seem to believe there's a single monolith called the EU, and it wants to eat their babies. So the bottom-up reality is that from the outside, the EU political process is almost completely opaque.

I'm sure it's possible to sell the EU project, but the EU pols seem to resent the idea that they should have to.

You can't run a power bloc like this. There's no point trying to expand indefinitely if the home populations aren't solidly supportive and enthusiastic.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 07:26:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
Then have an official explicit EU-wide referendum.
We have advocated this here, but we have also realised that setting up the EU in that way (or in any number of other ways) would require its own treaty and referendums. And the sovereigntist opposition would be much louder especially in small states because  agreements passed by a qualified majority of an EU-wide popular vote would be more legitimate.

Time for me to peddle my mini treaty again?

1. The EU bill of rights (Title II of the current treaty).
2. Union membership rules (Title  IX of the current treaty, including Article I-60 on Voluntary withdrawal from the Union)
3. The 2009 European Parliament will be a constitutional assembly
4. Referendum rules: The treaty shall be put to a vote by referendum simultaneously in all EU members states.

The result of the referendum will be binding if at least 50% of all EU citizens cast a valid vote in it.

The treaty shall come into force only if at least 50% of valid votes in a binding referendum support the treaty. In that case,

  • An EU member state shall be considered to have approved the treaty if it is supported by at least 50% of valid votes in that member state, and the number of valid votes in that member state is at least 50% of the eligible voters.
  • An EU member state where the treaty is not approved shall hold a second referendum within 5 years, with the choices being approval of the treaty or withdrawal from the EU according to the provisions of the treaty.
  • A transitory institutional regime shall apply as long as there are any remaining EU Member States which have not approved the treaty and have not yet held a second referendum.
This will have to pass by referendum or parliamentary vote in all member staes, won't it?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 07:41:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
Then have an official explicit EU-wide referendum.

The problem is that all 27 countries would have to unanimously agree to this as there is no constitutional basis for holding such a referendum at the moment.  And in a purely EU wide referendum the smaller countries would be swamped, and therefor wouldn't agree to it.  That is why we have a slow moving fudge - from unanimity to qualifies majority voting in more and more areas - the "qualified" majority being designed to ensure that larger countries can't railroad smaller ones, and that large majorities are required for changes.  This is an improvement on unanimity, but even that small change has now been rejected and vetoed by 1% of the EU population.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 07:43:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But that is the problem that needs to be solved and prevaricating around the bush (to quote Wallace) is not going to solve it.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 07:48:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, exactly. Lisbon is a not a solution to the problem of balancing national and EU sovereignty. It may have been designed that way, but it really isn't.

You can't have (our usual kind of) democracy without the appearance of an explicit mandate. People really don't like it if you try to take that away from them, no matter how irrelevant it is in practice.

So given that Lisbon has been crafted to avoid the need for a formal popular mandate, it was never going to be acceptable.

The silliness about chipping babies and drafting them into the EU Child Zombie Flesh-Eating Radioactive Army would have been background noise if Lisbon had had a solid populist foundation.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 08:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For a look at how solid the populist foundation of the EU is, you just have to look at the Commissioner's blogs.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 08:26:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Some of that might be solved with an EU wide double-majority referendum. I.e. to pass, it would require a popular majority across the EU, and would have to pass in a majority of the member states.

(Not that I think that would help bringing such a referendum about. No doubt it would still be hard to achieve unanimous agreement amongst the 27 nations. But an EU-wide referendum does not have to mean straight up or down majority popular vote. However, such a plan would run into trouble with the German constitution, which I believe disallows referenda.)

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 08:44:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

such democracy, the better.  My problem is with the unanimity rule which requires that something major can only happen if it is unanimously supported by all members - which gets patently absurd the larger the EU grows.

I agree with you totally. But this solution is far from optimal even in that respect. "Bullying" a country
will only create resentment. I actually think that a "multispeed" EU would be a better approach in that respect. So the UK wants to opt out of almost everything? Go ahead, but let others integrate more deeply if they want to.


I don't see how more members - e.g. in the Balkans can be admitted into the EU until this changes.

I would suggest that your beloved EU bureaucracy made a major blunder in expanding to 25 before changing the rules.


I also don't see how the EU can become a significant balancing force to prevent the US neo-con political elite treating the world as their playground - until the EU has more effective leadership and decision making processes in place.

The neocons have currently enough problems inside the US. And again, that idea that our beloved EU bureaucrats are a bunch of social democratic saints is something that I do take for granted. Actually the current EU commission president is the biggest neocon lap dog I could think off (I still remember of pictures of him, as prime minister of Portugal, in the Azores summit where the Iraq invasion was "legitimized").


Most people who whine about the democratic deficit in the EU are also working actively to try to stop it becoming more democratic - because they don't want the EU at all.  And if that happens, the US and Global Capital will rule the world unhindered by any democratic sensibilities whatsoever.

I respect your opinion, but I actually think it is the other way around: political power detached from the vote will more easy to be corrupted by money/media power. Direct voter accountability, (near) proportional parliament systems and control of campaign financing are cornerstones of assuring that political power will not be hijacked.


For all it's faults, the EU is a lot better than the alternative - a lot of small and medium size countries

Your argument that there are only 2 alternatives is flawed: Lisbon is not the only way to conceive the EU. Their are other alternatives to Lisbon. Had we had decent leadership, more sensible alternatives could have been purposed.


not some idealised democratic nirvana.

The "idealized democratic nirvana" that some of us are talking about is not idealized (it exists, see most of the EU nation states) and is not a nirvana (it has many flaws, but at least it is still reasonably democratic).

Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell

by tiagoantao (put_my_login_here <> gmail com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 08:38:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

beloved EU bureaucrats are a bunch of social democratic saints is something that I do take for granted. Actually the current EU commission president is the biggest neocon lap dog I could

Sorry, I meant: "I do NOT take for granted"

Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell

by tiagoantao (put_my_login_here <> gmail com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 08:42:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
tiagoantao:

I would suggest that your beloved EU bureaucracy made a major blunder in expanding to 25 before changing the rules.

Put that down to a delay in agreeing to a final "Constitution" text due to Aznar's stalling on the Council voting weights issue.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 08:44:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, the too quick expansion blunder was one shared by the entire political class in the EU-15, with the "EU bureaucracy" (why do leftists repeat Tory Eurosceptic buzzwqords?) playing a relatively minor role: in the EU, the final word was the Council's, and expansion had to be approved by national parliaments.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 09:52:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I always find it remarkable how much the hard left take their "facts" and language from the Tory Eurosceptic right.  

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 09:59:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to mention how they vote with them so often. Isn't it weird how the interests of the anti-military crowd line up so neatly with those of the US military-industrial crowd?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 10:02:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes and no: Both want Europe to not have independent military capabilities.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jun 15th, 2008 at 07:08:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you mean the hard left in Ireland?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 10:20:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes - they seem to share a nationalist perspective with the UK Tories

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 10:25:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I always find it remarkable how much the hard left take their "facts" and language from the Tory Eurosceptic right.

Although I am far from being "hard left" (and thus cannot give an answer from that perspective), I have no problems in using Tory (or whatever) words if they seem to be an accurate description of reality.

I would actually invert the argument altogether: do you have any problems in using other people's keywords just because those people are "far away" from you? So casual agreement with the "other side" is a substantial (negative) argument for you?


Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell

by tiagoantao (put_my_login_here <> gmail com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 10:24:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have no problems using any words which describe reality as accurately as I can.  My point was that I believe the hard left in Ireland and the Tory right in the UK have a lot in common - including a shared belief in the primacy of the nation state above all else.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 10:28:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Personally, I do have a problem with that. Political buzzwords carry connotations built up with lots of propaganda. Especially when coming from the right, they don't describe reality; and even if there is a real problem, they shift focus on something else. "EU bureaucracy" is a perfect example.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 10:36:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(For full disclosure: myself, I am a hard-leftist who is strongly pro-EU -as-principle but also strongly critical of the EU as it exists, and I do have some symphathy for fellow hard-leftists on a No-Lisbon platform.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 10:39:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's all about the narratives.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 10:41:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agree. That would be an interesting discussion altogether.

But, from an intellectual perspective, I would argue that people sometimes refuse an argument just because it is made from the "other side". That doesn't seem healthy.

From a media/narrative perspective I see your point.

Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell

by tiagoantao (put_my_login_here <> gmail com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 11:00:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There certainly is a strong "pragmatist" "use the arguments that work" tradition in the French trotskyst hard left parties.

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 10:30:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Far from being the representative of big business, the "EU elite" are actually bitterly opposed by US neo-cons, Liberal economic business interests and a plethora of xenophobic, nationalist and religious groups.

That American biznizmen are opposed to the EU does not in and of itself mean that the EU does not pander to bizniz. Just not the same bizniz as the US panders to.

Class solidarity has its limits, even for fatcats.

Now, if you want to argue that the EU is better at opposing oligarchic bizniz - whether in the forms of local robber barons or trans-national robber barons - than the individual member states, be my guest. I think that there is such a case to be made. But you haven't been making it lately.

The election results are in now. Can we snap out of campaign mode, please?

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 03:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That American biznizmen are opposed to the EU does not in and of itself mean that the EU does not pander to bizniz. Just not the same bizniz as the US panders to.

Very true. And countries can do it, too. Just the other day, we had the strange situation that Sarko and Merkel beat out a 'compromise' on car CO2 emission levels that is rather generous to (and was greeted by) carmakers, while the EU Commission wasn't amused.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 05:17:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
[Torygraph Alert] [Eurosceptic Alert]

This is a proposal by Richard Corbett (PSE) which has not yet passed. It is opposed by a lot of parties in the European Parliament.

Besides, the eurosceptics would not be banned. They would just require more Members of European Parliament to count as a group within the EP. Given that the EP has 785 members, a requirement of 30 MEPs would be a threshold of 3.8%.

I do oppose Corbett's proposal. But this is typical over the top reporting by the British press.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 04:17:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As I mention in my parallel comment Independence and Democracy is an existing eurosceptic group which will not be affected by the rule change.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 04:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not see a 3.8% threshold for forming a group as being unreasonable, and it is natural that the absolute number should increase as the size of the Parliament increases.  I also don't have a problem with the requirement that groups have members from a number of countries - so that debate doesn't crystallize around purely national boundaries.  I don't see why anyone other that the usual eurosceptics should get particularly worked up about this...

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 07:04:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks, Frank! Keep us informed, please!

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char
by Melanchthon on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 03:36:22 PM EST

Vote counting is entirely manual in Ireland (following a comical attempt to introduce computerised voting)

Be glad it is manual.  At least you won't have to wonder about a Diebold style "program for victory," like we (may  have?) had in Ohio in the 2004 presidential election.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST
Yes, it was scrapped precisely because the system chosen couldn't provide a paper trail of votes and independently verifiable counting methods.  The economics of proving a lot of hardware for use once every few years also don't make sense.  

I'm all for computerisation of most things - particularly high volume, repetitive transactions, but voting is such an occasional thing, it doesn't make sense to build a complex and expensive system to accommodate it.  

Besides - the manual vote counting process is one of the great ceremonies of Irish politics and draws in a lot of people - counters, observers, party supporters etc. to create a party atmosphere - and often a lot of real tension.  I'm not one for spending time in a bookies office, but for many there is real entertainment value in watching democracy in action.  

We tamper with that spirit of sociability and participation at our peril.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 07:14:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A NO would be terrible in many ways. Hope it goes through.

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu
by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 03:44:52 PM EST
European Tribune - Early voting brisk in the Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty
Thus if this referendum is actually passed, it will have more to do with the nature of the opposition.  Many people may not wish to associate themselves with Sinn Fein, Libertas, Coir (a nebulous organisation made up of social conservatives who have previously opposed Divorce etc, in Ireland) and a plethora of small political parties and Union Leaders who have generally opposed all referenda on the EU.

This is not a good omen for Democracy within the EU.  Proposals should be debated and passed on their merits and not based on who is for and against.  I hope we never again see a referendum in Ireland on such a poorly drafted document.  It's time we had a real EU Constitution which actually articulates what the EU is about.


This is a bit overdrawn. The Irish referendum is not the only lens through which we should look at the Lisbon Treaty.

Democratic legitimation of the European Union has always suffered from the fact that there is low public understanding, low interest, and low participation. By making the voting weights in the Council more transparent and proportional (somewhere in 2014 or so) and by providing that the European Parliament elections will also determine the President of the Commission, the Lisbon treaty will likely lead to greater public involvement in the European Union, and might well make the EU more political. We'll see how it works out.

As for a Constitution, that has been tried (though it was not really much more of a constitution than the existing treaties). If I could get the kind of constitution that I would like, of course I would approve of trying again. But I don't know if that is possible, or if some Member States are always going to obstruct it for some obscure pretended reason because in reality they see a threat in a more smoothly functioning Union.

So, baby steps.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 04:04:42 PM EST
nanne:
This is a bit overdrawn. The Irish referendum is not the only lens through which we should look at the Lisbon Treaty.

It is, however, the lens which matters right now - particularly if Lisbon is defeated.  If that happens it will not be because the Irish are anti-EU, but because they have a real problem with passing into their constitution a series of proposals to complex and opaque, that even the experts have difficulty in deciphering the exact meaning, intent, and effect of the document.

If anything, this unfortunate campaign has given a platform for every tendency hostile to the EU ideal and given very little concrete to those who support it to work with.  Ireland will probably be less pro-EU as a result of this unfortunate experience - even if the Treaty is ratified - because a degree of trust has been  lost, and a great deal of cynicism has been justified.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 07:21:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ireland will probably be less pro-EU as a result of this unfortunate experience - even if the Treaty is ratified - because a degree of trust has been  lost, and a great deal of cynicism has been justified.

Exactly. Somehow the "marketing" of the EU must have really gone horribly wrong, if they can't sell a reform treaty even in a "eurofriendly" country like Ireland.

I think if referenda had been mandatory in every member country, and a "NO" would have meant immediate withdrawal of that member country, the local governments probably would have done a much better job in "selling" the treaty.

The problem is that nowadays nobody sees the huge advantages of an economic union anymore, because everybody has so gotten used to easy travel, business across country borders without exchange rates and tariffs and all those things. If Ireland would lose the economic advantages of membership from one day to the next, probably most of those Euroskeptics would be the ones to complain loudest of all ...

by rwe (roland.weede_NO@SPAM_gmx.net) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 12:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We've had long debates about that here. I guess we should dig out and/or summarise some of them.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 12:17:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
rwe:
If Ireland would lose the economic advantages of membership from one day to the next, probably most of those Euroskeptics would be the ones to complain loudest of all ...

Some would be quite happy to retreat to an older, more conservative, religious, monocultural and "pure" Ireland.  Some imagine the can secure more power and influence within the nation state than they can within the EU as a whole.  Some see the EU as part of the global capitalist conspiracy to take over the world. Some are "following the money" and ingratiating themselves with their US masters.  Most are just pandering to the frustrations that many people feel in a rapidly changing society.  The problem is there isn't a coherent set of "NO" issues which can be addressed, and therefore no obvious solution to the impasse in EU development.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 12:24:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I already suggested that the EU should just resort to bribery.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 12:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I know you're feeling grumpy, but in fairness many on the  NO side feel they have very real and deep grievances and won't be easily bought off.  What are you going to give them - cheap oil, Charlie McCreevy as a Commissioner for life, a ban on contraception?  Ask your relatives what it would take...

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 12:32:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe a pony is the going rate.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 01:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you have cheap relatives....

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 01:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The EU has the good fortune that the American colonies didn't have when they decided to unite. Since King George is not breathing down Europe's neck, we have the opportunity to get it right the first time, rather than settling for a makeshift Constitution, which, although, serviceable, seems to be deeply flawed.
by unclejohn on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 04:22:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually George is breathing down Europe's neck.

The plural of anecdote is bullshit.
by generic on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 04:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And we have just told him that he can safely ignore Europe as he goes on his next adventure - in Iran

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 08:19:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a bit too much I think. Even if Lisbon had passed half our governments would still be staffed by loyal poodles. And they would have had to decide to confront the US on Iran.

The plural of anecdote is bullshit.
by generic on Sat Jun 14th, 2008 at 07:54:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
[Eurosceptic Alert]

While looking at the Independence and Democracy group page, I found the following press release pertaining to the rumour about European defence which has been used by the no side in Ireland over the past week.

Independence and Democracy: MEP Kathy Sinnott calls on the French government to release the suppressed French white paper on defence (11/06/08)

Kathy Sinnott MEP, Ireland South today called upon the French Government to release their white paper on defence immediately. "It has been ready for release since May but the French government are withholding it until after the Irish referendum. It is clear from Mr. Lequiller's comments in their European Affairs Committee that the intention is to not release this publishable and very relevant document until after our referendum. To try and prevent a NO vote in Ireland."

She continued "It is reasonable for inquiring minds to wonder what is in this Paper that would delay its publication thus far and why it is thought to effect the chances of Lisbon passing on the 12th of June?"

Deputy Sinnott also rejected government obfuscation on the Lisbon Treaty's implications for Irish defence spending. When asked about defence expenditure on RTE's "Week in Politics" program on Sunday night, Minister Lenihan changed the subject and repeated the claim that our neutrality is protected under Lisbon. Minister O'Dea likewise says that the commitment from Lisbon should not mean extra expenditure.

Wikipedia: Kathy Sinnott
(born September 29, 1950 in Chicago, Illinois, USA) is a disability rights campaigner and politician representing Ireland. She is secretary of the Hope Project.

She stood successfully for election as a Member of the European Parliament for Ireland South in the 2004 European elections. She campaigned on disability and education issues, and to a lesser extent Euroscepticism and social conservatism, espousing much of the agenda of the Christian Right, particularly in regard to abortion.
She had stood before in the 2002 general election for a seat in Cork South Central, and narrowly missed out on the fifth and final seat to Fianna Fáil. Her subsequent attempt for a Senate seat also ended in defeat.



When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 04:30:20 PM EST
I wouldn't over-estimate her significance.  She was a very committed worker for disability rights and was elected because this generally evokes a positive response in the Irish electorate, and because our single transferable vote multi-seat constituency system allows scope for one strong independent candidate to garner a lot of first, second and lower preference votes which don't go to the major parties or which don't transfer from one party to another when that party's candidate is eliminated.  Many people wouldn't be particularly aware of her ideological bent - she would be seen as a worthy independent candidate untainted by the establishment political parties.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 07:28:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Today's front page lead in the Irish Times:
ireland.com - The Irish Times - Fri, Jun 13, 2008 - EU countries anxiously await today's outcome of referendum

THE RESULT of the Lisbon Treaty referendum will be declared this afternoon amid considerable concern in other European Union countries about the impact of the decision by Irish voters.

By the time polls closed at 10pm last night, around 50 per cent of the three million people registered to vote are understood to have cast their ballots.

Last night, the Yes camp expressed confidence that it would win, although those on the No side insisted that the result would be close.

Just before midnight, sources from the major parties said there appears to have been higher-than-expected turnout in key areas. In Dublin north-east 54 per cent of eligible citizens had voted, sources said. Other early turnout figures were: Waterford city 60 per cent, Dun Laoghaire 61 per cent, Co Clare 48 per cent, West Limerick 40 and Gorey and Greystones 55 per cent.

Polling stations in middle-class districts are known to have enjoyed high turnouts with one in Celbridge, Co Kildare, registering 50 per cent by 7pm, and parts of Co Wicklow reporting tournouts of 55 per cent by 9.30 pm

The French and German governments are expected to issue a joint statement later today once the Irish verdict is known. The outcome will be discussed by EU foreign ministers, including Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin, when they meet in Luxembourg on Monday.

Counting will begin at 9am today, although early tallies should give a clear indication of the likely final result by lunchtime - unless the gap between the two sides is very tight.

Results from each of the 43 constituencies will be notified as they are completed to the Dublin Castle referendum count headquarters and a final result should be complete between 3.30pm and 5pm.

If there is a difference between the Yes and No sides of fewer than 10,000 votes, there will be a total recount in all constituencies and a result declared by 9pm, the Department of the Environment has said.

Expressing confidence in a Yes outcome, Taoiseach Brian Cowen said as he cast his vote in Tullamore with his wife, Mary: "I've led it in the very best way I possibly could. I've done it from the front. I've gone all over the country. I've put the issues."

Insisting he had run "an honest campaign", he added: "I can safely say I don't think that was replicated on the other side, given the level of misrepresentation and worries that people were articulating to me."

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, who voted in Castlebar, Co Mayo, said he believed that public opinion had changed in the last 10 days of the campaign.

Labour leader Eamon Gilmore, who voted in Shankill, Co Dublin, said questions about the conduct of the Yes campaign should be left "for tomorrow or for the postmortem".

Sinn Féin MEP Mary Lou McDonald said as she cast her vote that she believed today's count would be "very tight", adding that a No result would place "a huge responsibility" on the Government.

The founder of Libertas Declan Ganley, who campaigned for a No vote, voted with his wife Delia at Brierfield National School near Horseleap Cross in north Co Galway, near his home. Expressing a confidence that a No vote would send "a clear message to Brussels", he said: "Whatever the outcome, this is the voice of the Irish people speaking and it's a good day for democracy here in Ireland".

One of the country's leading bookmakers, Paddy Power, decided within minutes of the polls closing to pay out early to those who had bet that the Yes campaign would win.

We don't do exit polling on Referenda in Ireland, but if Paddy Power is paying out early on a yes victory, you can take it that it is odds on the Lisbon will be carried.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Thu Jun 12th, 2008 at 09:07:15 PM EST
RTÉ News: Referendum vote count under way

Ballot boxes are being opened around the country, and while it is far too early to be definitive, the Yes side are not too happy with the early indications.Advertisement

Working class areas of the capital are reported to be voting two to one against Lisbon, while the vote is more evenly split in middle class districts.

In Donegal North East, with 10% of boxes opened, not one has a Yes majority, while in Tipperary North, political sources are predicting that the result will be very close, and in Wicklow.

However, it is very early days, and these are only tallies rather than actual results.

If I can be a discordant voice, this level of working-class anxiety seems to signal more than the effect of the most shrill No campaigners.

The final official result is expected to be announced late this afternoon, but tallies from the 43 constituencies should give a good indication of the likely outcome late this morning.

Each constituency counts its own votes separately, and then sends the result to the Referendum Returning Officer in Dublin Castle, who will announce the overall result.



*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 05:30:01 AM EST
Shrill no campaigners are most likely to be effective with the working classes, as per usual. On top of that you have the fear of the oncoming economic downturn and the damage done by the following of the normal markets-first policies by the government.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 05:38:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
First tally returns - according to media reports - based on very small samples - suggest a significant NO victory.  Large majorities against in some constituents and no better than 50:50 in areas which might be expected to be supportive.  We live in interesting times...

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 05:40:15 AM EST
Especially Paddy Power.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 05:47:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm guessing small numbers of bets at low odds - it's PR for them, not real business.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 05:50:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep - who was going to claim on their bet at midnight anyway?   Paddy Power is a publicity driven machine and everyone loves to see a bookie getting hammered.  However I suspect the amounts bet were very low, and publicity well worth it.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 06:02:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What's your gut feeling on the outcome? I've been expecting a no, and still am.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 06:04:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See my update to main story above:
European Tribune - Early voting brisk in the Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty
UPDATE at 10.45 AM by Frank. Early tally returns - based on very small samples - suggest a significant NO vote - possibly by as much as 60:40. This cannot be blamed on apathy or a low turnout. It marks a sea change in Irish politics as far as the EU is concerned.

Although samples are still small, and some areas are coming in with a YES majority, I can't see the overall trend being overturned at this stage.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 06:08:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ireland.com - Breaking News - Bookie admits blunder after Yes payout

Bookmaker Paddypower has admitted it made a mistake, after paying out more than €80,000 in bets on a Yes vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

As polls closed at last night, the bookmaker made a decision to pay out punters who had backed a Yes vote after unofficial exit polls indicated a late surge in support for the treaty.

The blunder means the bookmaker will be forced to pay out over €180,000 in referendum bets.

In a statement, Paddy Power said: "Last night, there were rumours of an exit poll showing the Yes side in the lead and all the late betting suggested a swing in support for the treaty."

"It's an unlucky Friday 13th for Paddy Power but a lucky one for our punters," it added. 



"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 08:03:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It looks like a comprehensive no. Listening to tallys from all over the country on national radio and it's splitting average around 60% No and 40 % yes. The exception sofar is the Prime Ministers constituency.

Hey there IS an opposition in Ireland after all. This is a rejection of almost the entire political class in the country! The people just don't trust them.

by irishhead on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 06:09:20 AM EST
How much of the success of the no is down to ample funding from US sources, colour-revolution style?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 06:14:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
None at all: this is an honest rejection of lizard-man run pro-abortion, pro-tax, anti-business, pro-business, anti-neutrality conspiracists.

Or possibly it shows that US right-wing style disinformation and propaganda works nicely in Ireland, especially when backed up by the British media that dominates a large chunk of the market here.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 13th, 2008 at 06:17:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]