Why do voters distrust unanimous advice from establishment?

[patslatt]

The French and Dutch voters rejected the advice of most of their political and media establishments to reject the EU Constitution,showing a startling mistrust of their own elected leaders. There were various reasons for this,in France's case maybe an endemic sense of pessimism about the economic future,coupled with the sense that Eastern European accession states weren't quite so European as near neighbours in Western Europe. For example, newspapers touted the spectre of the Polish plumber replacing French plumbers. In Holland,there may have been a similar attitude to Eastern Europe and a fear of mass immigration from there,given the prevailing Dutch view that the country is too crowded already.

This suggests that the French and Dutch voters used the vote on the Constitution to reject or at least restrain further moves towards "ever closer union" that involve immigration and power sharing with the accession states.

An interesting question is whether France would have rejected the Constitution if its economy had a better record of job creation and growth?

The answer could make a critical difference between the outcome of the referendums in France and Ireland. There is little pessimism on Ireland's economic future among the average voters and with plentiful job creation,the challenge has generally been to find enough qualified people to fill the jobs.

Despite this,polls showing strong support for the No side suggests startling mistrust, similar to that of France and Holland,of the almost unanimous establishment advice to vote Yes.

People say they don't understand the Lisbon Treaty,but neither do many of them understand the complicated issues of many general elections. The difference in general elections is that they can at least sensibly vote their pocket book and on the quality of government services in which they are interested,such as local schools. The Lisbon Treaty is more of an abstraction because the connection with voters' pocket books is unclear, the more so for its legalistic, bureaucratic wording which gives the impression of a pig in a poke.

Still,why not trust the establishment's advice? Are the Irish subconsciously tiring of "ever closer union" which may be proceeding too fast for comfort, with heavy immigration rapidly transforming the make-up of the population.Some primary schools in Inner Dublin,which is experiencing some of the heaviest immigration, have a big majority of immigrant children. This population could contribute to regeneration of many low income,socially deprived areas but the natives may prefer the "Dear Old Dirty Dublin" of the past.

[Electro]

I don't think it necessarily means mistrust, the people have just decided on their own accord that they don't like what's in the Treaty/Constitution regardless of what the establishment says. Should the question not be "why are the establishment so eager to disregard the popular consensus"?

And I think being realistic, Governments and media are there to serve the people and entertain respectively. People do not hold a high level of trust for them, especially if there is this unanimous alliance as we have seen with Lisbon.

[ibis]

I don't think it necessarily means mistrust, the people have just decided on their own accord that they don't like what's in the Treaty/Constitution regardless of what the establishment says. Should the question not be "why are the establishment so eager to disregard the popular consensus"?

Perhaps because if the opinion polls reflect the "popular consensus", that would mean that the government would have started off advocating a Yes, and would now be advocating a No, or a Yes, depending on which recent poll is more accurate. There hasn't been a "popular consensus".

[patslatt]

I don't think it necessarily means mistrust, the people have just decided on their own accord that they don't like what's in the Treaty/Constitution regardless of what the establishment says. Should the question not be "why are the establishment so eager to disregard the popular consensus"?

And I think being realistic, Governments and media are there to serve the people and entertain respectively. People do not hold a high level of trust for them, especially if there is this unanimous alliance as we have seen with Lisbon.

It looks as if the large number of No voters trust their own vague feelings on a Treaty they don't understand over the advice of their elected leaders.

Maybe they need to understand that Treaty mechanisms designed to streamline EU decision making necessarily involve legal boilerplate that is difficult except for those with legal training,although admittedly the Treaty seems to have gone to extremes with the boilerplate. Extreme boilerplate could by itself be sufficient grounds for a No vote but the Irish government claims it secured our interests in the treaty negotiations,which provides reassurance on the threat that the boilerplate could have all sorts of hidden traps as the NO side claims.

[FutureTaoiseach]

A number of reasons. I am one of those in this position. Reasons:

A: The Tribunals. The litany of corruption revelations from the Tribunals has made us deeply distrustful of their motives in supporting a particular decision - especially when businessmen also support it. The corrupt links between businessmen and politicians has made a lot of us suspect that there are ulterior motives in some business people supporting EU treaties. When we seen some of them being appointed by the govt to EU institutions that entrenches that suspicion, as well as when former union, media and farmer figures from past yes campaigns get such appointments. One wonders are they supporting this for our benefit or their benefit? In the case of this treaty I believe the latter is usually the case, especially given certain Irish political figures are being rumoured for appointment as President of the EU Council. Brussels is waving money in the faces of some of our elites who are supporting the Treaty like the rats that followed the Pied Piper.

B: The language the yes campaign has used to describe their opponents has left much of the electorate deeply insulted and angry, and has backfired on the yes side. Language such as mad/lunacy/headbangers from Ahern/Cowen/Kenny etc. is like a wounded animal like the yes campaign lashing out.

C: The yes side has not given us any reasons to vote yes - just reasons why we shouldn't vote no.

D: A feeling of "if they're all in favour there must be something in it for them".

E: At election time, we vote for people we agree with on most/more issues, not because we agree with them on all issues.

But you are also correct that we have deep misgivings on the staggering scale of immigration from the new EU states and the transfer of sovereignty to Brussels. The men and women of 1916 fought for independence, not a European superstate.

[farnaby]

Still,why not trust the establishment's advice?

Anti-establishment sentiment is the norm in political debate these days, and rightly so - we should question consequences and motives when told something by our supposed leaders. I dislike that it veers into utter cynicism at one extreme ("bunch of crooks" etc.) and then the status quo when it actually comes to the ballot box (FF voted back in, not that FG would have been much different). So the outcome tomorrow will be a grudging yes.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Still,why not trust the establishment's advice?

Anti-establishment sentiment is the norm in political debate these days, and rightly so - we should question consequences and motives when told something by our supposed leaders. I dislike that it veers into utter cynicism at one extreme ("bunch of crooks" etc.) and then the status quo when it actually comes to the ballot box (FF voted back in, not that FG would have been much different). So the outcome tomorrow will be a grudging yes.

It will be a narrow no.

[badboy2]

So the outcome tomorrow will be a grudging yes.

It will be a narrow no.

Lets just wait until Friday and see.

I was talking to an FG supporter yesterday and he was agonising over what way to vote as he didn't understand the treaty but was repulsed by the yes campaign and repulsed by the no campaign. He has never failed to vote in his life. He will vote tomorrow, but after talking to him for 15 minutes about it, I am buggered if I know how he will vote. I sispect he will make his mind up as the pencil falls.

After much soul searching i finally made up my own mind but apart from the odd rant here, I feel no desire to try and convert anyone else to my own point of view.

[Aindriu]

we have deep misgivings on the staggering scale of immigration from the new EU states and the transfer of sovereignty to Brussels. The men and women of 1916 fought for independence, not a European superstate.

Absolutely! Well said that man.

[adamirer]

The men and women of 1916 lived in a world where Germany and France were at virtually constant war with each other. Its stupid in the extreme to try and second guess what tuey would have done, or indeed should they be listen to. They weren't exactly popular until they died, its one of the dumbest, most ignorant angles the No side played.