On three occasions – Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty – voters have initially rejected an EU treaty only to vote in favour of it in a second referendum. Based on research conducted in Denmark and Ireland, Ece Özlem Atikcan assesses the reasons why voters changed their minds in each case. She illustrates that ‘Yes’ campaigners in both states learned from previous referendums and developed an approach that reframed the issue by emphasising concessions gained from the EU and the risks of rejecting a treaty for a second time.
Reforming European Union treaties is a complex process. For a new treaty to enter into force, all member states need to ratify it and they are free to put the question to their electorates, with the system functioning differently for different countries. While bigger member states such as France can – at least temporarily – put the brakes on the integration project when their public rejects a treaty, the smaller member states go back to their voters to persuade them in second referendums. This has happened three times in EU referendums – in Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992-3, Ireland on the Nice Treaty in 2001-2, and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty in 2008-9 – with all of these referendums ultimately proving successful for those backing the treaty. But why do voters change their mind in these repeat referendums?
Explaining the success of second EU referendums in Denmark and Ireland
The answer lies in the specific dynamics of referendum campaigns. In a referendum, the typical No campaign strategy aimed at rejecting the treaty on offer is to associate the proposal with unpopular themes and thereby drive down public support for it. The No campaigners therefore have a structural advantage, as they need only to raise doubts in the minds of voters. This state of play, however, typically only holds for the first referendum held on a treaty, not for the second. Drawing on face-to-face and semi-structured interviews with 38 campaigners in Denmark and Ireland, I have performed an analysis of campaign documents which illustrates that campaign strategies were drastically different in the three ‘second referendums’ held by these countries.
In all three of the second referendums, the Yes campaigners used two new strategies to tie the hands of No campaigners. After the initial rejection, the government sought reassurances from the EU on the controversial themes of the first campaign, effectively allowing them to ask the same question again. Having changed the context successfully, the Yes side could thereby frame the question differently. To achieve this they used their second strategy, which was to raise the stakes of a second rejection. This time the Yes side could use the risk factor, which was more available to the No side in the first rounds. Importantly, Denmark initially designed these strategies, which the Irish learned and adopted later on.
In the first rounds in both countries, as expected, the No campaign’s arguments tapped into the sensitive subjects relevant to society. In Denmark, the No side argued that the Maastricht Treaty would lead to loss of Danish sovereignty in a new United States of Europe, which would undermine or abolish the Danish currency and Danish citizenship. In Ireland during both the Nice and Lisbon referendums, the No campaigners repeatedly argued that the treaties would change Irish laws on abortion, lead to a loss of sovereignty, undermine Ireland’s military neutrality, and remove its permanent EU Commissioner.
In the second round, however, the arguments changed. The Yes side argued that Europe had listened to the Danish/Irish people and responded with legal guarantees, which were specifically on the themes raised by the No side. With the Edinburgh Agreement, Denmark would have four opt-outs in the fields of European citizenship, economic and monetary union, defence policy, and justice and home affairs. Ireland, on the other hand, gained guarantees concerning its military neutrality with the Seville Declaration after the Nice referendum, and on the Irish commissioner, competency over tax rates, abortion, neutrality, and workers’ rights after the Lisbon referendum.
In addition to the arguments on the guarantees, the Yes side emphasised the consequences of a second No vote such as potential exclusion from the EU and economic costs. This shift was visible in the choice of slogans as well. In Denmark, the Liberal Party went from ‘Vote Yes!’ to ‘Go for the safe choice, you will not get another chance’. In Ireland too, abstract Yes slogans such as ‘Europe: Let’s be at the heart of it’ were replaced with more dramatic messages such as ‘Ruin versus recovery’.
Public opinion data parallels these trends. To take the Irish Lisbon referendums as an example, Table 1 below shows that No campaigners succeeded in raising doubts on their themes in the first referendum. In the second referendum, however, the Yes side addressed the contention around these controversial No campaign themes, as shown in Table 2, which confirms that a significant majority of voters agreed that the guarantees protected Irish interests.
Table 1: Agreement with No campaign themes in the first Lisbon Treaty referendum in Ireland
Source: RedC Research
Table 2: Perceptions of the guarantees provided to Ireland prior to the second Lisbon Treaty referendum
Source: Irish Department of Foreign Affairs
Individual-level data confirm these patterns, controlling for alternative explanations such as socioeconomic factors, party identification, level of knowledge, and attitudes towards the government and the Union. This multivariate regression analysis shows that awareness of guarantees on the Commissioner and taxation was associated with voting Yes. As for the success of the second strategy, the same study confirms that the positive evaluation of EU membership, and the expectation that the Yes vote would decrease Ireland’s economic problems, were the key factors explaining the Yes vote in 2009 as well as the switch from a No vote in 2008 to a Yes vote in 2009.
These findings show that the Yes campaigners learned from past experience and built a toolkit for overturning the negative result. In fact, there is evidence that the No side learned as well. During the first Lisbon campaign, Irish No campaigners explicitly stressed that Ireland could get a better deal after a rejection by receiving concessions from the EU. This has implications, signalling a new form of negotiation power for small member states in guiding European integration.
Nevertheless, as Yes campaigner Brendan Halligan put it: ‘If Denmark wants to leave the EU, nobody is going to stop them, it is not a big deal. If Ireland wants to leave the EU, nobody is going to stop us, it is not a big deal. But if France votes No, that is that, there is no EU without France. As Orwell famously said, some are more equal than others’. This implies that direct democracy does not function uniformly across the Union. Depending on their size, member states need different strategies in using the referendum mechanism on European Union questions.
For a longer discussion of this topic, see the author’s recent article in the Journal of Common Market Studies
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. Featured image credit: William Murphy / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1GkkXOv
_________________________________
Ece Özlem Atikcan – Université Laval
Ece Özlem Atikcan is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science, Université Laval in Québec. Her research seeks to explain rapid shifts in public opinion towards the EU, focusing particularly on referendum campaigns. Her work has appeared in the Journal of Common Market Studies, Journal of European Integration, has a forthcoming book published by Cambridge University Press.
The Dutch, French, and Irish people rejected the EU Constitution in referendums, which the EU revamped and called the Lisbon treaty with only Ireland given a referendum on it, which they rejected. So, the Irish people were given a second referendum with only Ireland having such. Further, the Irish NO camp did not even have equal air time, and could not compete with the mammoth financial backing given to YES camp. I should no, because I was one of those activist who tried to help the NO camp as best I could. Information I supplied to a particular NO campaign group operating out of a small office that could only afford hiring school children to deliver their leaflets, the content of which I helped supply.
Note here in England I was only one of those actively involved trying to get Britain a referendum on Lisbon treaty, which Brown denied the British people. I am now one of those pushing for leaving the EU.
Out of interest, how many of the No camp’s arguments actually came true after the Lisbon Treaty came into power?
1. Did Ireland lose its Commissioner? No.
2. Did it force Ireland into a war? No.
3. Did it force Ireland to change laws on abortion? No.
4. Did it lead to a superstate with a powerful President at the helm? No.
Almost everything that was said against it either didn’t happen or (e.g. with gay marriage) did happen but had absolutely nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty.
I live in Ireland.
Yes, we lost voting rights and a commissioner at certain stages.
We joined a battlegroup with Germany.
The change is coming very soon.
Juncker.
What was noticeable in both the Irish situations was that all the major political parties of the time supported the Yes votes, and ALL the media (print, TV, and radio) backed the Yes votes. Media stories engaged in rampant scaremongering. The No side were marginalized. Similar media concentration occurred in Scotland in the referendum for Independence, with BBC Scotland being particularly culpable.
Can the UK request a second referendum over the next few months to re-think brexit?
Sarah – yes it can.
1. Information about legalities and politics here:
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-government-legally-disregard-a-vote-for-brexit/?siteedition=uk
2. Petition for another referendum (with provision for a further referendum if the turnout is under 75% of the electorate and the result less than 60% in favour of either option)
“EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum
We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.”
Over 3 million signatures at the moment with plans for this to be debated in Parliament on Tuesday 28 June:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
We can, and we are
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
we didn’t though did we?
I would want a second referendum. The the result is a disaster.
A second referendum.. Sometimes I swear that I’m the only person who gives a shit about democracy. If the people say no it means no. Any arguments about how people were misinformed at the time of voting does not matter. Do we get to vote again when we vote in bad political parties? No matter of the consequences, the people’s choice on the day of voting is the choice the country makes.
If a second Brexit referendum happens it’s the final nail in the coffin for democracy in Europe.
And also if anyone can make it on their own surely it will be the UK, the country that once ruled most of the world. Have some back bone.
Newsflash Joe, the 2016 referendum *was* the second referendum. It was held precisely because Eurosceptics moaned about people being “lied to” in the first referendum (“we were told it was just about trade not a political union”).
Britain joined the EEC a generation ago.
I believe the people who voted to leave voted so because they want laws passed by their own domestic government who are accountable rather than unelected strangers in Europe who make countries vote over and over until they vote correctly.
Yes, like any referendum it was fueled by fear mongering which sways the uninformed electorate but at the end of the day that was what people voted for. Now instead of backtracking we should focus on what the alternative is. It doesn’t have to be as bleak as what everyone is making it out to be.
What Brexit needs is for strong political leadership to stand up, because right now nobody seems to want the responsibility and that’s causing huge uncertainty both in Britain and in Ireland.
That’s some admirable deflection, but your point was that second referendums are undemocratic full stop. What we’ve done is precisely what you’re complaining about: holding multiple referendums until we get the “right result” (in your eyes a vote to leave) then denying anyone a further say on it forever.
And if you really believe that this is the democratic course of action then it’s not hard to construct a scenario where it becomes hopelessly undemocratic. Let’s say Brexit tanks the economy, causing the pound’s value to tumble so low it creates a financial crisis and public opinion swings drastically towards stopping Brexit. Let’s say it goes so far that 90% of people now want to stay in the EU. Your argument claims it would be democratic to ignore what the public think on the matter, forever, and push on with Brexit regardless. That’s completely illogical.
So your argument fails on two counts: it’s both illogical and hypocritical given the first paragraph of your first comment could have been written almost word for word a few years ago by someone arguing against holding the 2016 referendum on the EU. Democracy is, in fact, a living process. You don’t simply stop asking people what they want because it’s politically inconvenient: which is why we were right to hold the EU referendum and why we’d be right to hold another referendum on the subject if that’s what people want.
Jack, you’re making out that Britain voting to join the EEC decades ago and voting for Brexit now is the same thing as Ireland voting no to Nice one year and yes to Lisbon the next. Its fair to have a vote after a resonable duration of time after the previous has been in effect. The people who voted to join Europe a long time ago are not the same people who voted to leave a much different EU now. That’s the obvious difference I didn’t think was necessary to point out. There’s a big difference between a few months and a few decades.
The whole point of being made vote again immediately is the undemocratic part. The agenda of the in control government is pushed on the people and then they change their mind and give in.
Britain voted for Brexit only a few months ago and haven’t gotten it yet, instead all they’ve gotten is fear from the news. Everywhere you turn it’s anti brexit rhetoric which is mixed with constant negatives like nationalism equals racism. This is where my point of a weak political leadership to handle brexit comes in, all the momentum is with the other side and the rest of Europe are sniggering at Britain for being so unsure of itself.
The Irish people were wrong to vote for Lisbon on the second time out. But they didn’t the best 2 out of 3 scenario did they? The people changed their mind the second time because the government put pretty much the exact same fear into them as what we have now with brexit.
In your eyes is democracy fear mongering the electorate until they give you the decision you want? That’s not my idea of democracy. If the people are just going to be made stay in the EU why ever bother asking them their opinion first of all?
Democracy dies if voters change their mind? What kind of democracy is that? I’ve always been under the impression that a major purpose of all systems of democratic governance was to enable citizens to change their mind on any issue presented to them or that they ask for. Have I been misled?
Yes that’s true but I doubt it applies to a decision that has not even been implemented yet and certainly not within a 2 year time frame.
You vote for something and it happens then some time in the future you get to re-evaluate the decision based on changing circumstances but nothing has changed. We are not even out of the EU so how can anyone at this point say that decision was bad for the UK aside from the EU who require us to stay in to remain in power?
I would hardly compare a decision taken in 1973 with a decision in 2016 as anything like a referendum where nothing has been done in 2016 to a second referendum in 2019 where its the status quo and a march to oblivion would you?
We get so wrapped up in coming up with strange democratic rules that we’ve started to ignore what the actual standard is in a democracy. It doesn’t matter how long has passed, how much has changed, or anything else. The real standard for whether people should be given a vote on something is if there’s evidence it’s necessary.
The latest YouGov poll that just came out had 56% Remain and 44% Leave. If that’s even close to accurate it’s a compelling reason for having a referendum on the topic. If that gap gets even bigger (e.g. above 60%) then the arguments for not having a referendum are almost impossible to take seriously. If on the other hand there’s no real evidence people have changed their minds (e.g. there is a consistent lead for Brexit and people just want us to get on with it) then there’s no purpose to a referendum and it shouldn’t take place.
Public opinion, as best as we can measure it, is what leads this debate. Forcing the public to take a major constitutional change that a sizeable majority opposes isn’t acceptable in any democracy.
There will be a second referendum but we’ll have to wait 15 or more years for it. The referendum meant nothing more than Britain leaves the EU, yet it’s being taken as a mandate for a hard Brexit which would cause immense damage to this country and possibly the break-up of the UK.
Strong political leadership matters little as we are now dependent on decisions taken by others. What sort of relationship does Trump want us to have with the US? What terms will the EU accept? Whatever the outcome, we’re not returning to the sort of 1950s nirvana portrayed by the leave campaign. The EU is our biggest market and replacing it will be difficult, as May’s recent visit to India demonstrated. More deals of the kind offered to Nissan will be required, with the taxpayer picking up the tab. It’s highly unlikely that the lot of the disaffected working class will be getting better anytime soon.
Joe: “Jack, you’re making out that Britain voting to join the EEC decades ago and voting for Brexit now is the same thing as Ireland voting no to Nice one year and yes to Lisbon the next”
Nope, I never said that once. I’m pointing out that you came into this comment section claiming to be making fundamental points about democracy when what you’re actually doing is making an entirely contestable argument that happens to be in accordance with your own view about the EU. Of course now you’ve been called up on that you’ve simply shifted the goalposts and started making completely different arguments related to the amount of time that has to pass between one referendum and another. That’s the typical pattern for how this conversation always goes – and in typical fashion you ignored the hypothetical point I raised which illustrates how wildly undemocratic your approach could actually be in practice.
———
“The Irish people were wrong to vote for Lisbon on the second time out. But they didn’t the best 2 out of 3 scenario did they? The people changed their mind the second time because the government put pretty much the exact same fear into them as what we have now with brexit.”
I’ll remind you that over 67% of voters backed the treaty in that referendum. Your suggestion that they all simply did so because they were too gullible to see through government scaremongering is incredibly insulting.
It’s also completely wrong on a factual level because you’re presenting the standard revisionist account of what happened in that referendum. One of the key reasons why Ireland voted against Lisbon in the first referendum was that the No side campaigned on the threat of Ireland “losing its Commissioner”. That reform was removed from Lisbon in the revised text put to the public so it’s no surprise public opinion swung behind it.
——–
“In your eyes is democracy fear mongering the electorate until they give you the decision you want? That’s not my idea of democracy. If the people are just going to be made stay in the EU why ever bother asking them their opinion first of all?”
This entire argument rests on your flimsy assertion that the Irish electorate were simply too gullible/scared to vote properly in the second referendum. There’s no reason why “fear mongering” should be any more or less of an issue in a second referendum.
As for Brexit, the only way it won’t happen is if the people of this country reject it in a referendum. I can quite understand why you’re terrified about that prospect and want to avoid any further discussion of the topic indefinitely, but don’t disingenuously try and pretend your concern is democracy. Nobody who truly cares about democracy should ever be afraid of asking the people what they think about a topic.
David Camerons government never wanted a referendum . They were forced into it by public opinion. Now they have the result they didn’t want, its all change. Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, all told to go back and be good little chaps and come up with the sensible result next time. Do you really think that a second referendum would have happened had Britain voted to stay in? I don’t think so. The mother of parliaments will see Democracy upheld !
@Joe “A second referendum.. Sometimes I swear that I’m the only person who gives a shit about democracy. If the people say no it means no.”
Your point is sound, and Jack is wrong to refer back to the EEC referendum of the 1970’s. The reason I say this is that we all understand that democratic votes have to be repeated after a certain period of time, hence the reason why we have general elections within five years. If Jack is right, then really the UK should only have had ONE general election in its entire history, if we take his view to its logical conclusion! It is understood that proper democracy works in a temporal cycle, and I can see that this is the context in which you made your perfectly valid comment. It seems you understand more about democracy than Jack does.
We all know what would have happened if the Irish had voted ‘yes’ in the first Lisbon referendum. That would have been the end of the matter (and anyone who thinks otherwise is living in dreamland). The Irish would not have had the chance to “make sure” by having a second referendum. This is not democracy, but the cynical abuse of democracy. In my view a referendum on a particular subject should not be repeated within at least 10 years, and possibly more, but if a matter is brought to the electorate after a generation then it is clearly absurd to say that this should be viewed as “the second referendum”.
The Lib Dems are calling for a second ref as part of their manifesto. This is likely to give them a chance to rebuild support for their party after the last election disaster they suffered. Good luck to the Lib Dems!
Keep doing referendums until we give the elitists the answer they want. Totally undemocratic. The people here should be ashamed of themselves and go and move to North Korea. It would suit yourhard left & socialist views anyway which is the ideology of most safe spaces students. Anyway, the Lib Dems didn’t improve their showing did they? Seems no one wants a second referendum. Labour and the Conservatives have both said they will be leaving the Single Market and combined, they won 84% of the vote. I just thought I would remind you all, during the campaign, it was made clear time and time again by both sides that a ‘vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the Single Market’ & even the EU dictators Angela Merkel & Donald Tusk agree.
Today I was out and about in Beverley, East Yorkshire. There were a group of about 12 people (Labour I think) who were flying the EU flag, handing our leaflets and asking people to sign a petition for a second referendum. My blood boiled so I went to buy a large Union Jack (sadly the only shop selling the flag of the UK was a joke/party shop) and I stood alongside them and reminded them and passers by that we had a referendum and democratically voted to leave. I was of course met with hostility. Some passers by said they were with me and others reminded the remoaners of democracy.
It is unbelievable that these people cannot accept the referendum but so typical that they wish another vote until they get the answer they want; then there will be no more votes of course! They are coming back next week and so will I!
So your blood boils at the prospect of letting people have a referendum, yet you call yourself a democrat. That makes sense.
Lynn, we had a referendum.
The people voted to leave, and the government needs to get on with implementing the will of the people.
If we are to live in a society where the votes are ‘re-counted’ until the right party wins democracy is doomed.
Iwas too young to vote in 1973, by a couple of years, hiwevee, that vote was to jointhe EEC, or not. The EEC with the Maastricht Treaty and the more recent Lisbon Treaty created the EU were never brought to ‘the people’ despite the EU being a much different animal than the EEC. The Lisbon treaty was introduced to replace the failed New European Constitution, but contains much of the continuing Unification. I voted REMAIN in 2016, but would now vote LEAVE, strangelyenough I have not been contacted by any opinion poll.
Ha, ha, ha.
No wonder the lefties get called snowflakes.
Give up lefty land ,your time is up!
The E.U is doomed, sinking fast along with the rest of the world and the hard left controlled media and politicians date to chastise the U.K public for daring to hope for something different to what has being imposed on us.
The E.U is not God.
People are allowed to say no to the European super state you know?
I didn’t vote, but I’m secretly happy that most of the politicians and all the leftwingers are walking about looking as if theyve been to a funeral.
And as it gets closer to the Brexit deadline the desperation from lefty land can almost be smelled coming through our televisions and smartphones.
NO DIGNITY!
The only problem the UK faces after Brexit is trying to fend off a U.S trade deal which will just be a recycled TTIP. Which will go through because our political class is too weak to fight against.
The E.U. could fight off TTIP but the UK on its own won’t.
To overturn voting results “Yes slogans such as ‘Europe: Let’s be at the heart of it’ were replaced with more dramatic messages such as ‘Ruin versus recovery”. Yes indeed. The anti-democratic pro-EU forces used fear to defeat French, Dutch, Danish & Irish opposition to the EU agenda. If those anti-democratic forces were also to defeat the British, the EUrocrats’ ambition would run completely wild. Note how the writer here glibly states that when the EU gets results it doesn’t want, states just “go back to their voters to persuade them in second referendums.” It would be funny if it wasn’t, actually, spine-chilling. We British can’t stop the EU ruling Europe in this awful way. It is up to the wonderful European countries to decide if they want the EU superstate, with its increasingly centralized & unaccountable ‘leadership’. But we can & must work to ensure Brexit happens. We must defeat the EU project to remove power from the people.
Having seen Ireland change it’s opinion twice in second referenda I’m increasingly numbed by Mr Johnson’s insistence on delivering the vote of the people expressed in the last referendum on EU withdrawal. Accepting that , on crucial issues like this, referenda are necessary can I suggest a best of three policy with similar time intervals between the three if the first two results differ . This gives the electorate time to ingest the crucial and complex detail before the process is complete .
Brexit. Not going well is it.