Rally for a NO Vote - Sat June 7, EU Offices, Dawson St., Dublin

[Cogsy]

2pm - Saturday 7 June

EU Offices,
Dawson St.,
Dublin 2

ALL WELCOME!

Republican and Socialist youth activists invite you to a rally on Saturday June 7th, on the steps of the EU offices on Dawson St., against the Lisbon Treaty that is virtually identical to the proposed EU constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. The treaty, if ratified, would consolidate and centralise the power of unelected EU institutions, further the militarisation of Europe and advance its neo-colonialist ambitions, and hasten the privatisation of Europe’s public services.

Defend Workers & Migrants’ Rights!

Conflicts between employers and workers will be ruled on by a strengthened European Court of Justice. The European Trade Union Confederation has described several recent ECJ rulings as an “open invitation to social dumping”, launching a race to the bottom for workers’ wages, conditions and rights. Recent ECJ rulings, like the cases of Viking and Laval, in effect limit the effectiveness of trade unions in defending their members’ interests and taking collective action. These cases are redolent of the Irish Ferries dispute in 2005 and a YES vote would further pave the way for a race to the bottom.

Against EU Militarisation!

Irish troops are currently participating in a French-dominated EU intervention into the conflict in Chad. The Irish establishment parties, including Labour and the Greens, are trying to sell the military intervention as a “humanitarian assistance action”. In reality, the EU is aiming to consolidate their influence in Chad which exports bigger quantities of oil and uranium since 2003. The Lisbon Treaty would facilitate more controversial EU military activity of this kind, since the militarily dominant states are former colonial powers. The treaty also stipulates that “all member states shall undertake to progressively improve their military capabilities”. Increased military spending is a requirement of the treaty, unlike health or education.

Resist Privatisation!

Competition is one of the EU’s organising principles and is the framework for all other policies. Since the 1980s the EU has also moved to restructure essential public services such as water and sanitation, public transport, energy, post and telecoms as private businesses. In 1999, for example, the European Parliament passed the water directive, which is responsible for our schools being charged for drinking water this year. This is liberalisation in practice. And now, health, education and social care systems are in focus as competition law prohibits state aids (subsidies) to industries or services “which distort or threaten to distort competition” (Art 87 TFEU). Neo-liberalism has become the dominant paradigm in the EU over the past 15 years and it's pushed further by this renamed constitution.

It’s in the interests of all the working people of Europe for the NO vote to win in the upcoming referendum. When we vote on this treaty we vote not just for ourselves, but also for others in Europe who are denied a vote. The first step to building an alternative and a concerted resistance across Europe against the EU’s neo-liberal project is to reject the Lisbon Treaty. There will be an open mic (within reason) provided and participants are encouraged to bring banners, flags and noise. See you on the 7th!

For details, Contact:
Darren - 0861943837
Oisin - 0851494123

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Lies.

Most ECJ rulings which go against workers are more down to the ECJ deciding to keep out of domestic conflicts than actively interfering against the workers. And besides, the Lisbon Treaty does not make the ECJ any more likely to rule against workers. The Charter of Fundamental Rights brought in by the Treaty cements the right of workers to collective bargaining and the EU is largely responsible for the freedom of movement of European workers today.

Article 31(1) of the TEU, before and after the Lisbon Treaty, clearly states that any military action taken by or on behalf of the EU requires unanimity in the Council. That means that every member state, including Ireland, may veto any proposed military action. Thus, the Lisbon Treaty will not force militarization or military action on Ireland or any other nation. The commitment to improve military capabilities is left for each member state to interpret as it pleases. There are no specific requirements or goals set. Without these the Treaty cannot force us to increase military spending, or mandate any such spending. This provision does not pose a threat. Current activities in Chad are not related in any way to the Lisbon Treaty. They will not be affected by a Yes vote, and a No vote will not stop them, so there is no reason why you would vote based on the situation in Chad.

The privatization lie is a particularly malicious one. If you look at Article 87 of the TFEU, the competition guarantee is immediately qualified where it says "Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties". Now, the Lisbon Treaty also amends Article 16 (Article 14 post-Lisbon) of the TEU so as to commit member states to ensure that "services of general economic interest" (public services) run on economic and financial principles "which enable them to fulfil their missions". Therefore, the competition clause in Article 87 is subject to the requirement that public services be allowed to fulfil their missions (a requirement which, by the way, was not there before the Lisbon Treaty; the Lisbon Treaty ensures for the first time that a state will not allow a public service to collapse). Furthermore, Article 87 also provides for many situations which are exempt from the competition clause, including "aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers"; "aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences"; "aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment" etc.. Amongst the exemptions are "such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council on a proposal from the Commission", meaning that this principles is not absolute and is in fact very limited in scope. It is clear from all this that privatization will not be brought in by the Lisbon Treaty.

[BOZG]

Lies.

Most ECJ rulings which go against workers are more down to the ECJ deciding to keep out of domestic conflicts than actively interfering against the workers. And besides, the Lisbon Treaty does not make the ECJ any more likely to rule against workers. The Charter of Fundamental Rights brought in by the Treaty cements the right of workers to collective bargaining and the EU is largely responsible for the freedom of movement of European workers today.

Article 31(1) of the TEU, before and after the Lisbon Treaty, clearly states that any military action taken by or on behalf of the EU requires unanimity in the Council. That means that every member state, including Ireland, may veto any proposed military action. Thus, the Lisbon Treaty will not force militarization or military action on Ireland or any other nation. The commitment to improve military capabilities is left for each member state to interpret as it pleases. There are no specific requirements or goals set. Without these the Treaty cannot force us to increase military spending, or mandate any such spending. This provision does not pose a threat. Current activities in Chad are not related in any way to the Lisbon Treaty. They will not be affected by a Yes vote, and a No vote will not stop them, so there is no reason why you would vote based on the situation in Chad.

The privatization lie is a particularly malicious one. If you look at Article 87 of the TFEU, the competition guarantee is immediately qualified where it says "Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties". Now, the Lisbon Treaty also amends Article 16 (Article 14 post-Lisbon) of the TEU so as to commit member states to ensure that "services of general economic interest" (public services) run on economic and financial principles "which enable them to fulfil their missions". Therefore, the competition clause in Article 87 is subject to the requirement that public services be allowed to fulfil their missions (a requirement which, by the way, was not there before the Lisbon Treaty; the Lisbon Treaty ensures for the first time that a state will not allow a public service to collapse). Furthermore, Article 87 also provides for many situations which are exempt from the competition clause, including "aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers"; "aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences"; "aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment" etc.. Amongst the exemptions are "such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council on a proposal from the Commission", meaning that this principles is not absolute and is in fact very limited in scope. It is clear from all this that privatization will not be brought in by the Lisbon Treaty.

You're whole argument is based around some sort of idea that the European ruling classes and bourgeois parties are honest, decent people who have the interests of the working class in mind and that the European Union has no political or economic purpose other than uniting Europe in the interests of all. That is nothing but reactionary rubbish.

Look at every country around Europe! Every government is implementing attacks on wages, conditions and pensions. Military spending is consistantly increasing. Public services are being privatised and eroded. "Competition", "free market", "liberalisation", "wage restraint" are the common catchphrases of the European bourgeoisie. Are you honestly telling me that while these governments are introducing all these neo-liberal policies that they're also introducing a treaty that defends public services, defends wages and conditions and opposes militarism?

If the Treaty is so benevolent and beneficial to the working class of Europe, why have a number of European politicians openly said that the Treaty was designed to be obscure and unreadable, on the basis that if people could actually understand what the Treaty is about, they'd never accept it. Why has the European bourgeoisie refused to allow referendums on the Treaty even saying that they have called it a Treaty, rather than a constitution because they wouldn't need a referndum then.

[Honggweilo]

in addition; please sign this petition!

http://www.irish-friends-vote-no-for...=sign_petition

Competition is one of the EU’s organising principles and is the framework for all other policies. Since the 1980s the EU has also moved to restructure essential public services such as water and sanitation, public transport, energy, post and telecoms as private businesses. In 1999, for example, the European Parliament passed the water directive, which is responsible for our schools being charged for drinking water this year. This is liberalisation in practice. And now, health, education and social care systems are in focus as competition law prohibits state aids (subsidies) to industries or services “which distort or threaten to distort competition” (Art 87 TFEU). Neo-liberalism has become the dominant paradigm in the EU over the past 15 years and it's pushed further by this renamed constitution.

Name one EU country where the public transportation, sanitation, water supply, energy, education and social security systems have been nationalized or "socialized" in benefit of the consumer since 1999?! Instead, most of these sectors have been privatized all over Europe, and taken over multinational monopolies in favor of "creating a more competitive economy then the UK and US by the year 2015"

For example

TNT postal service has taken over the whole postal service in belgium, germany and the netherlands and caused massive lay-offs, exploitation of student workers, lowering minimum wage and minimum age, raising prices, closing post offices, abolishing pensions and labour security.. all in line with the "flexicury" guideline set out by the lisbon strategy.

And the list goes on; privitasation and outsourcing of public transportation, energy market, water supply, higher/lower education (Bologna Accords) and the elimination of labour rights and social security. The Bolkenstein treaty which moves major industries towards eastern european nations to profit from the lack of labour rights and the inhumane wages there, and to reduce economic immigration to the founding EU countries. Not to mention the dismantlement of the european left in the EU parlement, forcing them into reformism through McCarthyte forced renouncements of communism in general.

Vote YES to the Lisbon Treaty! It's like taking a shit on the Netherlands and France!

Keep your feces to yourself you sick patty fuckwit!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You're whole argument is based around some sort of idea that the European ruling classes and bourgeois parties are honest, decent people who have the interests of the working class in mind and that the European Union has no political or economic purpose other than uniting Europe in the interests of all. That is nothing but reactionary rubbish.

In other words, you can't argue with the facts so you are trying to claim that they are non-facts. I don't believe that the ruling parties often have working class interests in mind, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. European governments, however right-wing or anti-worker they may be, cannot overstep the boundaries of the law, and the law which is brought in by this treaty protects workers' rights and human rights in general. It also gives a much-needed kick up the hole to the Commissioners who get paid large amounts of taxpayers' money to do half the work they did a decade ago. According to the BBC/Wikipedia, European Commissioners get paid €217,280 a year. We could axe 9 of these Commissioners without any actual decrease in effectiveness, so why not do so? The Lisbon Treaty does this. You cannot rationally ignore these benefits.

Look at every country around Europe! Every government is implementing attacks on wages, conditions and pensions. Military spending is consistantly increasing. Public services are being privatised and eroded. "Competition", "free market", "liberalisation", "wage restraint" are the common catchphrases of the European bourgeoisie. Are you honestly telling me that while these governments are introducing all these neo-liberal policies that they're also introducing a treaty that defends public services, defends wages and conditions and opposes militarism?

It does defend both public services and wages. It defends public services by committing member states to keep public services running on sufficient financial backing so as not to fail. It defends wages by explicitly guaranteeing the workers' right to engage in collective bargaining. It doesn't really oppose militarism, all the military clauses contained in the treaty are pretty ineffective and meaningless to be honest. All these provisions really do is restate the political cooperation that has been going on between member states for years. It has no practical benefits, for better or for worse.

All these facts are contained both in the Treaty and in any impartial assessment of the Treaty. You are just blind and naive to ignore them, because they do not fit in with your black and white view of the world. Complaining about capitalism is all well and good but of you really want to help your fellow workers you have to accept that sometimes positive (if inadequate) change does happen within the parameters of capitalism, and you have to fight for this positive change every step of the way. People who stand on the side of the street selling newspapers while voting down agreements which strengthen workers' rights are no better than armchair revolutionaries in my opinion.

If the Treaty is so benevolent and beneficial to the working class of Europe, why have a number of European politicians openly said that the Treaty was designed to be obscure and unreadable, on the basis that if people could actually understand what the Treaty is about, they'd never accept it. Why has the European bourgeoisie refused to allow referendums on the Treaty even saying that they have called it a Treaty, rather than a constitution because they wouldn't need a referndum then.

How the hell would I know why certain people say stupid things? How about this one: if the Treaty is so bad, then why do organizations like Cóir and Libertas have to resort to spreading blatant lies about emotive issues such as abortion to scare people into voting against it? I have not heard one argument against the Treaty which stands up when held to scrutiny.

Regarding the Treaty being incomprehensible; have you ever tried to read any Amendment Act? Try it. Acts and agreements which deal solely with the amendment of other Acts and agreements cannot be read by themselves because any provisions which they implement need to be placed into context. It's no conspiracy, it's just law.

Regarding the other European states not holding a referendum, that is because a referendum is not required by their democratically ratified constitutions. To hold a referendum on every single law to be passed or every single international agreement to be ratified would be an immense waste of time and taxpayers' money. You also risk never getting anything done by constantly asking laypersons to vote on agreements written by and for lawyers and lawmakers, as they can easily be scared or confused into voting down progress by lies and deception as is happening in Ireland. This is the underlying premise of representational democracy, the democratic model chosen by all people of the Western world, and it is hard to deny. Thus, it is standard practice that only very important laws require a referendum, the rest being passed by those deemed competent by the electorate. Now, what constitutes a "very important law" is a matter of the people of each state to decide by ratifying or amending their constitution. The people of Europe have decided that European treaties do not merit a referendum. That is their choice, to say that they are wrong because that's not the way it's done in Ireland is ridiculous and chauvinistic.

[Coggeh]

Lies.

Most ECJ rulings which go against workers are more down to the ECJ deciding to keep out of domestic conflicts than actively interfering against the workers. And besides, the Lisbon Treaty does not make the ECJ any more likely to rule against workers. The Charter of Fundamental Rights brought in by the Treaty cements the right of workers to collective bargaining and the EU is largely responsible for the freedom of movement of European workers today.

If it did why are SIPTU not supporting the treaty because it won't legislate on collective bargaining and also the EU is responsible for the free movement but as socialists we know better than see why , they used it to displace workers especially here in Ireland for the profits of Employers . Clearly not something to be supportive of .

[Qwerty Dvorak]

If it did why are SIPTU not supporting the treaty because it won't legislate on collective bargaining and also the EU is responsible for the free movement but as socialists we know better than see why , they used it to displace workers especially here in Ireland for the profits of Employers . Clearly not something to be supportive of .

You're a fan of SIPTU now are you? You were badmouthing them over on P.ie only a while back. You also don't understand why they have not specifically endorsed a Yes vote. They did not decide the way they did because the Charter doesn't legislate for collective bargaining. The Charter doesn't legislate, it is legislation and as legislation goes it is very pro-worker rights. SIPTU declined to come out in favour of the Treaty because our government will not legislate for collective bargaining. This has nothing to do with the Charter or the Lisbon Treaty. They were trying to use this referendum to get another concession out of the government, they failed. That is all. ICTU, the other main trade union in Ireland, are supporting the Treaty. The Treaty has also been strongly supported by CPSU, PSEU, IMPACT and ex-presidents of SIPTU.

[BOZG]

You're a fan of SIPTU now are you? You were badmouthing them over on P.ie only a while back. You also don't understand why they have not specifically endorsed a Yes vote. They did not decide the way they did because the Charter doesn't legislate for collective bargaining. The Charter doesn't legislate, it is legislation and as legislation goes it is very pro-worker rights. SIPTU declined to come out in favour of the Treaty because our government will not legislate for collective bargaining. This has nothing to do with the Charter or the Lisbon Treaty. They were trying to use this referendum to get another concession out of the government, they failed. That is all. ICTU, the other main trade union in Ireland, are supporting the Treaty. The Treaty has also been strongly supported by CPSU, PSEU, IMPACT and ex-presidents of SIPTU.

He's not saying that he's a fan of SIPTU. His point is that even SIPTU will not support it on the basis that it doesn't copperfasten or guarantee collective bargaining in Ireland. Considering that the right-wing SIPTU leadership has been involved in Social Partnership for two decades and has happily accepted the most vague and convuleted of promises, it says a lot that they're not even willing to support the Treaty.

Yes, our government will not legislate for collective bargaining, even though it's supposedly enshrined in the Treaty. Why? Because this government is a right-wing, neo-liberal government who isn't interested in defending workers' rights or defending the health or education systems. In fact, they're completely opposed to them so why in the fuck would they introduce legislation, as limited as even bourgeois law is, to defend such things when they're opposed to them? And how exactly will the Treaty overrule their position when the Treaty only defends collective bargaining "in accordance with national laws and practices"?

Yes, the Treaty is supported by a number of trade union leaderships? So what? The trade unions are controlled by right-wing bureaucracts who are more interested in entering Partnership and restraining struggle than about defending workers' rights and conditions. What's your point?

This is Revolutionary Left, not the Trinity LawSoc forums if you've got a little confused. This is the place where class analysis of the forces involved, political parties, organisations and institutions are primary and not delusions about the supposed impartiality, supernatural and independent qualities of bourgeois law are significant.

I will reply to your previous posts tomorrow hopefully.

[Honggweilo]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]17[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]th[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] International Communist Seminar (ICS)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]“[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The working class, its role and its mission today. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The tasks and concrete experiences of the Communist Party [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]in the working class and the trade union.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]”[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Brussels, 16-18 May 2008[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]www.icsbrussels.org[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] – [email protected][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Resolution on the Lisbon Treaty and the Referendum in Ireland[/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]to be sent to the Communist Party of Ireland and the Workers Party of Ireland,[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Proposed by the Danish Communist Party, Communist Party of Sweden and New Communist Party of the Netherlands,[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Approved by the body of the ICS Brussels 2008.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Solidarity With the Irish No Campaign On the Lisbon Treaty[/FONT]



[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The ICS Brussels 2008 hereby convey our solidarity with your ongoing struggle to win a “No” at the Irish referendum on the EU Constitution – the so called Lisbon Treaty. This treaty constitutionalises the policies of neo-liberalism, ensures an ongoing armament (militarisation) of the EU member countries, strengthens the imperialist character of the EU thereby imposing an rising threat not only to the peoples of Europe but to the people of the world.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The European political establishment has denied the peoples of Europe the right of referendums to decide whether this document should be ratified. It was denied under the false pretence that the Lisbon Treaty – contrary to the rejected EU Constitution – does not transfer national sovereignty to the EU institutions. Instead, parliaments in EU membership countries are now ratifying the treaty. Surely they know that through open discussions they can never gain massive popular support for the anti-social, neo-liberal policies. The arrogance of the political establishment seems in no way shaken.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]A very important part of our democratic rights, the right of free, collective negotiation on the labour market is already under siege, and has been since the implementation of the EU Stationing Directive (1996). But with the enlargement of the EU in 2004, thousands of workers from the poor membership countries are working in the rich EU membership countries. They work under often clandestine conditions, grossly underpaid, many under slave like conditions. The European corporations use these migrant workers to enforce social dumping and promote division and split the working class.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Vaxholm and Rüffert verdicts of the European Court of Justice represent a blow to the workers’ rights. New political and militant activities and trade union conferences must be developed. The verdicts exactly serve an important goal of the EU: The elimination of the trade union movement as an intolerable obstacle to the “fourth freedom” of all EU-treaties, the free movement of labour. The Stationing Directive, and the Service Directive are the instruments so far in Corporate Europe’s attack on the working class.[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Apart from a consolidation of these damaging measures, the Lisbon Treaty means the end of any real national sovereignty, and will also further the lack of democracy within the union itself. It will mean the end of any future referendum within the EU. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]The Irish No Campaign is fighting for the right of national sovereignty and democracy of all EU membership countries and for the rights of the working class[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif].[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] We look to your struggle and to the struggle of all progressive and anti EU forces for an Irish “No”. Your victory will raise a giant wave of hope and new courage in all of the EU membership countries.[/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]No the Lisbon Treaty[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Solidarity an unity of the workers[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Solidarity with the Irish No Campaign[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Brussels May 18[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif]th[/FONT][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] 2008[/FONT]

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It's voting day tomorrow so I'm not even going to bother hacking away at your copy-and-paste job. Good luck to the Socialist Party and the other Irish No campaigners.

[BOZG]

It's voting day tomorrow so I'm not even going to bother hacking away at your copy-and-paste job. Good luck to the Socialist Party and the other Irish No campaigners.

Obviously, being of such incredible insight that you can grasp what no other left-wing organisation or inidividual in the world can, that your arguments are completely unique.

Sorry, you didn't reinvent the wheel for this one, you're just on the wrong side of the barricades.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well maybe most left-wing organizations or individuals just aren't that bright.

Obviously that's not actually what I believe, but seriously, playing the credibility game by saying that it must be a bad deal for workers because a lot of leftists say so is just flawed. It shows that your claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

[Wanted Man]

And maybe the Irish people aren't either. Looks like only the wealthier areas had more 'yes' votes. Not that it means anything to us, the Dutch government has already said that it will ratify the treaty anyway. After their defeat in 2005, they're never going to allow us to vote on this shit again. The reason: the plebs are too dumb to decide what's good for them. Judging by ever closer union's post, the same must go for the Irish.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well I wasn't actually serious when I said that most leftists aren't very bright. I'm sure they are. I was just tired of the same old elusive and flawed reasoning of the No side. It's been a thoroughly depressing day for those of us who don't actually want to be viewed as gullible, isolationist or professional agitators.

There are several factors which explain the higher No vote in working class areas; again, the world is not so black and white as to allow a conclusion that this was an evil conspiracy to deprive the workers of their rights. First of all, the nature of government in a capitalist system obviously means that there is overwhelming dissatisfaction with the government and the system in general amongst the working class, so that they will immediately distrust the government and also that they will use their vote as a protest against government policies which may have nothing to do with the Treaty. Of course, using your vote as a protest vote is ineffective and pointless as the government are unlikely to listen to your protest, but many people from all classes continue to protest vote for various reasons.

Secondly, there are many reactionary tendencies within the working class. Foremost amongst these is racism, which is rampant in many working class areas. This is bad enough as it is, but I was absolutely sickened to see many so-called leftists exploit this racism. The "No to cheap labour" argument is effectively a "No to dirty foreigners" argument. It is a long-established tactic by the far-right and now by the far-left as well to accuse immigrants of taking native jobs and pushing down the price of labour. Of course, the real culprit here is capitalism, but that doesn't stop many opportunists jumping on the racist bandwagon. It is also interesting to note that the left in Ireland have found a new Eurosceptic ally in this campaign, Cóir, a front for Christian fundamentalist group Youth Defence.

Another reason is that the working class are quite simply less educated than the middle classes. This sounds quite elitist but it is a fact. The middle class obviously has better access to education including third level education. Many university courses, including but not limited to Law, European Studies, Legal Studies, International Relations, Political Science, BESS and many forms of Arts courses (the most popular choice for Irish undergraduates) will all touch at least in brief on how the EU works and what it can and cannot do. Most people with a knowledge of how the EU actually works, and, of course, of the contents of this Treaty, will know that virtually all of the arguments against the Treaty do not stand to scrutiny. Most middle class people either possessed this knowledge or at least had a friend or family member with this knowledge, and thus were able to see through the assorted lies put forth by the No campaign. However, there is a lower level of attendance at such courses amongst the working class (though some working class people do still make it, and they generally end up supporting a Yes vote as well), so when leftists, neo-conservatives and Christian fundamentalists put forth factually inaccurate and sometimes bizarre claims about the Treaty, and the government do little to alleviate the concerns raised by these claims, many working class people are left with little choice but to vote No.