Home

Why Ireland Rejected the Lisbon Treaty

Posted June 21st, 2008 by quarsan
in

The EC has just released a survey on reasons (pdf) for voting, or not voting in the Irish referndum - our initial analysis is here, and there is also some considered thoughts from Brian Barder.

Please read the whole document but highlights include:

Over half of the people who did not vote in the referendum said this was due to a lack of understanding of the issues; younger people were much less likely to participate than their older counterparts (a ratio of 2:1)
A large majority of Irish voters (68%) said the “no” campaign was the most convincing; even a majority of “yes” voters felt that way (57%)
Presented with a number of possible reasons for not voting in the referendum many respondents said this was either due to a lack of knowledge (52% had not fully understood the referendum’s issues, 42% had not been informed about the issues at stake and 37% felt they were not informed about the Lisbon Treaty’s content) or because the referendum was not important enough for them (just under half – 45% – said they were too busy to vote and 38% had something more important to do than vote in the referendum).

The results are worrying for anyone concerened with reform or improving democracy. It must be said that the EU's Communication Strategy seems to have failed. We are hoping to interview European Commissioner Margot Wallström shortly about this.

It would be easy to dismiss this as another example of the EU failing, but that would be a mistake, the point is to see how, and indeed if, the EU can be made more democratic, transparent and accountable. Is the EU capable of widening dialogue with its citizens?

How can the EU be called democratic when the President is elected by 27 people horse trading behind closed doors? I know this is how a Pope is elected, but is that really the model to adopt for a continent?

What's wrong with having a EU Presidential election at the same time as the EU Parliamentary elections and asking, not 27, but the adult population of the EU to elect a President?

Certainly the EU tries to communicate, but, with highly expensive projects not improving knowledge or awareness, the launch of a EU TV channel, radio station, online forum and possible moves on bloggers, it seems that many are wondering when information becomes propoganda. Are they interested in presenting or controlling information?

These are questions that are being asked, quietly at the moment, by people across the political spectrum in Brussels. Why quietly? Because many of these voices are, one way or another, in receipt of the EU shilling, through NGO's, Lobbyists or those more directly employed by the institutions.

What most are whispering is "I've got some great ideas/analysis, but my boss won't put it through because he doesn't want to upset the Commission/Parliament as we've for a funding review/application coming soon". This is self censorship and the number of people giving off the recored examples of this is getting embarrassing.

Personally, if my (British)

On June 21st, 2008 Brennig Jones (not verified) says:

Personally, if my (British) Government had delivered the referendum it had promised I would have voted no for one simple reason: The documentation was incomprehensible.

 

Would you sign a contract if it was written by a team of people who had completely obscured every single meaning and intention? Of course you wouldn't!

 

I tried to read the Lisbon Treaty - downloaded it and the many referenced documents; all completely incomprehensible. Until the EU learns to write its documentation in language that the public can understand we should continue to say 'No' to everything. It's that simple.