Anyway the Lisbon Treaty poll shows that 35% intend to vote Yes, 18% No and 47% Don't Know. It would be interesting if there was a fourth option given to those polled, namely "What you talking 'bout" - I suspect that many of the Don't Knows are in this group.
That said the presence of tens of thousands of posters throughout the state provides a very visible nudge to the electorate that they are being asked to decide on something, and soon.
With 25 days to run the Yes side, although ahead on a 2:1 basis, are far from safe as the IT notes;
This campaign is going to be decided in the last three days, the Yes voters and campaigners I have met and debated are uneasy and intend supporting the Treaty for largely emotional reasons or fuzzy logic; grateful to Europe, Europe is good, need to be in Europe.The first Irish Times poll during the Nice referendum campaign in 2001 showed the Yes side with a bigger lead of 52 per cent to 21 per cent, yet the No side won a month later.
By contrast the No campaign is clear on the dangers of the Treaty and the main groups have managed to articulate it in a precise fashion, and the most welcome and surprising development, in a sober manner without try to spin utter nonsense and ripping into one another.
I've two non constituency Lisbon events this coming week.
On Monday at lunchtime I am debating with Fine Gael MEP Gay Mitchell and Brendan Kiely of the Alliance for Europe, also speaking from a No perspective is Declan Ganley of Libertas.
The debate is a little different, its on a lunchtime in the KPMG office in the IFSC, the attendance will be mainly those working in the centre. Not exactly the people who will be hardcore Shinner voters.
Both Gay Mitchell and Brendan are aggressive debaters so while the panel may enjoy themselves there's a chance that it will become bogged down in too fine a detail on the text of the Treaty for many in the audience to engage with.
On Thursday I back to Dublin Castle for the last time in the current round of National Forum on Europe debates. Thursday features the new veliki sir. The format is protective of the guest speaker so I would expect Cowen to deliver a well researched civil servant written speech, light on whats good in the Treaty, but heavy on history.
Cowen's response to the questions he will be asked will be interesting; he can choose to evade the questions and finish content that he will have secured his 15 seconds and soundbite on the 6'O Clock news, or he maybe tempted to get stuck in.
Given that its not clear how much he knows about The Lisbon Treaty, any attempt by him to assert himself holds the real danger (for him) of making a false claim on the benefits of the Treaty.
Here's hoping he goes for the latter option.
9 comments:
Was speaking to 2 members of YFG yesterday about the treaty. The guy started talking about how the polls were in his favour blah blah blah...
Then the girl said she hadn't decided how she was voting because as she hadn't seen any good reasons to vote "Yes".
When I pointed this out to the bloke, (who happens to be the chair of a YFG branch), that his own party weren't even convinced, he hit the roof.
I can still hear him shouting at her now.
Mark, FG stance on this is most interesting. They are nominally the most "federalist" of all the parties but clearly are torn of the Lisbon Treaty. Gay Mitchell today at the KPMG debate was basically telling people that they had to vote for the Lisbon treaty so as to avoid another european war. Not the way to appeal to uncommitted voters I would say.
Seriously? Well it's probably one of the few arguments theyve tried to make. The rest of their points consists of what the EU has done for us in the past and not what it will do for us in the future.
The debate on Questions and Answers on RTE was a joke today. Every person on the panel was from the Yes side, and the No people in the audience were continually shouted down.
Incidentally the only FG member in the audience (chair of Dublin North Central, Colm Lauder, and a Unionist with a love for UFF murals) only asked about Dustin the Turkey in eurovision and didn't open his gob on the treaty.
Also a lifelong FG member (and lecturer in law's) only comment about the Lisbon treaty was, "anyone who votes against it is an idiot".
With so many of their members prepared to engage in actual debate, surely they'll win Killian? ;)
Mark, your comment about someone not expressing an opinion on the Treaty when called to ask a Q on Q&A is frankly nonsense. People are selected in advance to ask a particular question and it is bad pool to ask something completely different, they're not selected at random to ask anything that comes into their heads.
I do think RTE are skating on or maybe just around thin ice when it comes to discussion of the Treaty in that they allowed a question that was about the conduct of the campaigns rather than the issues so they could suggest that the McKenna judgement didn't apply. I think replacing Louis Walsh with someone from the No side would have been more equitable.
I'd agree with you about them avoiding the issues. But I think the fact that the continual shouting down of members of the audience coupled with the lack of representation on the panel only helped the No side. It looked as if these "elites" were trying to suppress debate.
Also I wasn't aware the people were told what questions to ask, I just thought they were given the choice of asking questions on various topics.
Also I'm not sure of your political leanings but do you not find it rather strange that a Unionist is the chairperson of a YFG branch in Dublin??? I though FG claimed to have republican roots?
Mark, "Also I wasn't aware the people were told what questions to ask, I just thought they were given the choice of asking questions on various topics."
The following is the general process for Q&A as I'm sure Killian can vouch for, since he has been an audience member. Audience members are told possible topics for questions when they are herded into the waiting area around 9pm and then they asked to submit any questions they like on the sheet Q&A provide. However the likelihood of they picking a question outside the suggested topics is minimal. So these sheets are collected and then they come back in after 20 minutes or so and call out 4/5 people whose questions have been selected. They do this to make sure you're not a mumbler or have some reason not to put you on telly (being butt ugly is no problem - I even got to ask a question once) but having a bright shiny "Vote for Jack - No.1" badge on display or would probably be a no-no. They then practice a bit with you reading out the question, which they may have tidied up a bit and will also have typed up. They tell you what order you will be called in with contestant no.5 drawing the short straw in that they may not be called on at all.
It is worth noting that the panellists are apparently told the topics in the afternoon, allowing the politicos in particular to research or get their staff to research the area. And there you have it.
"Also I'm not sure of your political leanings but do you not find it rather strange that a Unionist is the chairperson of a YFG branch in Dublin??? I though FG claimed to have republican roots?"
I tend to take references to people being unionists from some elements of the self described republican movement with a truck or two of salt. And as I understand it, the 'republican movement' is broadly supportive of the Union continuing in its current form for the time being. As for not being aware of my political leanings, I really must remember to engage in more self promotion. Click the link to my blog, and it should be reasonably obvious. If not then that is my failing. I write all my own speeches and comments!
That "fuzzy logic" from the yes side reminds me very much of how I justified voting for the Nice and Amsterdam Treaties. I am pro-EU but I think an end to further European integration has to come sometime or we will wake up one day and find we have no autonomy left, with Dail Eireann reduced to a glorified county council with Brian Cowen as Lord Mayor of Ireland.
Remember that France and Holland voted no and remain full members of the EU club. Dutch unemployment at 2% is the lowest in the EU, and French unemployment has even fallen since then. We need some backbone in this country like the men and women of 1916 whose legacy of a free Ireland is betrayed by this Treaty.
The loss of vetoes is unnecessary. The yes side says it's needed to prevent gridlock in the enlarged EU. This is patently nonsense. 2 studies, one by Helen Wallace at the London School of Economics and another by Science-Po University in Paris, have shown that EU decision-making continues just as fast if not faster than before Enlargement. Indeed the latter found that decisions were now being taken 25% faster. In that context, the argument for giving up more vetoes is a fraud and it's important we don't fall for it. This is not a no to Europe, it is a no to the Treaty that is bad for Europe and which 2 states have already rejected in essence (it's 95% the same as the EU Constitution).
If RTE don't cop on, then the no side should go to the Supreme Court to challenge this onesided coverage.
FT, don't know if you caught the somewhat one sided waht the treaty is all about presentation done by Prime Time tonight. More of the same.
Dan is right on the Q&A it is straightforward for political parties to get tickets. The problem with the last few shows is not in the audience but on the panels.
It all fits in with the predesigned aim to potray the No side as isolated and lonely.
Post a Comment