Let's get fiscal: the treaty referendum and the 15-second doorstep challenge

Canvassing on the fiscal treaty this week, TDs encountered a well-informed electorate that is unhappy with its political leaders. Many Yes voters were angrier than those voting No, and politicians faced a tough task persuading the Undecideds

A CAR PULLS up at the kerb in the Kinvara estate off the Navan Road in Dublin 7. A woman jumps out of the driver’s seat and makes a beeline for a man with dark curly hair and a long black coat. She is on a mission.

“Oh Paschal!” she commands pleasantly. “Can you explain the fiscal treaty in 15 seconds to my daughter? She’s 18 and it’s her first time voting.” Paschal Donohoe, the Fine Gael TD for Dublin Central, assents to Patricia Kavanagh’s request without blinking. He goes to the rear window to say hello to her daughter, Gemma, who tells him: “I don’t have the first clue.”

The treaty has three elements, he says. The first is the set of rules that ensure the budgets of eurozone countries meet certain targets. Second, it sets out what will happen if they don’t meet those targets. The third part is that a country with funding difficulties will be able to get funds from the ESM.

Not bad, you think. A polished 15-second explanation, distilling an 11-page document almost to the size of a spoken tweet. But as you follow Donohoe around this pleasant middle-income estate you realise the 15-second explanation wasn’t a once-off. When people open their front doors, the politician has the narrowest sliver of time to make the pitch.

On Thursday night, Richard Boyd Barrett, accompanied by a small team, is doing the rounds of Stonebridge, a local-authority estate in Shankill, in south Co Dublin. The People Before Profit TD for Dún Laoghaire has a reputation as a street campaigner and protester, always with a megaphone at the ready. But in this less adrenalin-fuelled situation he is relaxed and does not try to oversell the message.

As in other working-class areas, self-proclaimed Yes voters are thin on the ground: in fact, there are none today. However, even in such a strong No area Boyd-Barrett is challenged a bit, especially on what would happen if the No side prevailed.

Like Donohoe, Boyd Barrett has a mantra, equally short, which goes like this: “There are two main things in the treaty. It requires the national debt to be cut by a huge amount. A big portion of that is bankers’ debt. It will mean billions in cuts and hardship if the treaty is enforced. We do not think it’s fair.”

UP THE COAST in Drogheda, Co Louth, Ged Nash’s team, wearing red YES anoraks, are canvassing Highlands, a private estate south of the River Boyne whose residents are a mix of local people and commuting Dubliners. It’s not easy being a Labour TD canvassing for a Yes vote. Since taking office, the junior coalition partner has taken the bulk of the blame for perceived U-turns on policy.

Nash, like Donohoe, will field some criticism but he is naturally ebullient and does not let the criticism knock him off his stride. He too has a short incantation for each doorstep. The gist of it is: “The treaty will give stabilisation and access to the ESM. We want to return to markets. We need to have that insurance policy of having access to the bailout fund. The No side say we will still have access but they want us to walk on a tightrope.”

Door-to-door canvassing is the political version of a cold call. With the troika “correcting our homework”, to use Pat Rabbitte’s memorable phrase, the mood isn’t exactly conducive. Visiting hundreds of doorsteps over two nights, the underlying mood of anger and bitter resignation is unmistakable. It requires a tough skin to take the flak, and endless patience to listen to a long list of grievances.

In the era of Twitter, Facebook and heavy media coverage, the slog of reaching people one by one seems anachronistic. There is a school of thought within all parties that says doorstep canvassing in a referendum isn’t productive. TDs from all parties say that fewer than 50 per cent have canvassed homes. Most choose shopping centres and train stations instead.

“Referendum battles are won on the airwaves and not on the doorsteps,” says Pat Carey, a former Fianna Fáil TD.

“I remember during the Nice 1 referendum you spent all your time talking endlessly on the doorsteps to the odd person who was interested. You made little progress. Door-to-door was of limited value.” But not without value.

Too few pro-treaty politicians canvassed during Lisbon 1. A myth about conscription to a European army went viral, but it was not counteracted in time for the Yes side, because of bad organisation.

Donohoe, Boyd Barrett and Nash all subscribe to the value of canvassing. “Leaving aside the face-to-face, it does allow you to gauge the mood of the people,” is Donohoe’s analysis.

For Nash, it’s a “ground war”.

“It’s door-to-door combat. Other referendums have been fought in shopping centres and main streets. But people are genuinely engaged on this issue. It’s straightforward to explain: [it’s about] stability and the ESM. This is about being on the doors. You have to fight like it’s an election campaign.”

In the two middle-income areas, Donohoe and Nash get more Yeses than Nos. But few of those Yeses are unequivocal. And both TDs are on the receiving end of some tough criticism of the Government’s performance. “We have lost belief in you as a Government,” a woman tells Nash pointedly. “As a party that is meant to be for the people, Labour is not performing very well. There have been savage cuts. You have taken spending power out of the population.”

Other Labour TDs say privately that they had a hard time on doorsteps initially.

Sharon Roche, who lives in Stonebridge, expresses disappointment. “Labour has been a strong force in this area. Everything they have promised they have let us down on.”

Fine Gael also comes in for criticism. An older man in the Kinvara estate harangues Donohoe for Michael Noonan’s quip about feta cheese. “We can do without that kind of smug comment.”

POLLS HAVE SHOWN the public mood is trending towards Yes, but many voters are still undecided. That is borne out by the three canvasses The Irish Times joined. In working-class areas like Stonebridge there is a clear No majority but Boyd Barrett and his team admit that getting people to vote will be difficult. They also note a fairly high number of Don’t Knows.

Unlike the campaigns before the Nice and Lisbon referendums, during which people who said they didn’t know looked blankly and indifferently at canvassers, many of the Don’t Knows at the doors are well informed and have strong views.

One of the big paradoxes is that many who declare themselves as Yes voters seem more outspokenly negative than No voters.

“Are the Germans going to rule us altogether?” an elderly woman asks Donohoe, repeating a common sentiment across all three canvasess. A smattering of people in Shankill and Drogheda declare the treaty will see Ireland ceding power to Germany, and to Angela Merkel.

The household charge crops up in all three areas, and is mentioned at least half a dozen times in Stonebridge. “I thought the household charge was handled badly. A bill should have come in through the door,” says a retired person in the Kinvara estate who is voting Yes.

Donohoe hears two irate constituents complain about politicians getting paid too much. There are discussions about this week’s big questions: the new president of France, François Hollande, and his wish for a growth pact; calls to delay the referendum; and Richard Bruton’s gaffe on a second referendum.

Far and away the most common theme is banks and bankers.

“What about all the wasted money, all the bailouts to the banks? All of those bankers who will never go to prison. The fact is we are paying for it,” an undecided voter says to Nash. At least a dozen others expressed similar sentiments over the two days.

What makes the fiscal treaty so different from Nice and Lisbon is the extent of engagement. While some admit to struggling with the text, there is a high degree of understanding of the context and of what is at stake.

Nash sums it up well: “People see there is an existential threat. They understand the differences between Yes and No.”

Results of our 16-person vox pop

How is your understanding of the fiscal treaty?Fuzzy: 3. Partial: 4. Good: 9.

Do you know what the ESM is?Yes: 6. No: 10.

Do you know the difference between general and structural debt?Yes: 7 (one gave a correct definition). No: 9.

What is the main influence on your decision?Newspapers: 7. Radio: 2. Internet: 2. TV: 2. Me Ma: 1.

Do you know who will monitor structural deficit?No: 8. Yes: 8 (one was correct).

Have you received referendum commission material?Yes: 11 (of whom seven had read it). No: 5.

Vox pop compiled by Stuart Cross

DAMIEN GODKIN

(from Wexford)

How are you voting?Yes.

How's your understanding of the treaty?Good.

Which side will win?Yes.

No means uncertainty and Yes means safety. Yes makes sense; it is logical. Yes means security. Whatever we need we need that. Yes is a better deal, bottom line.

MARK KERRY

(from Dingle, Co Kerry)

How are you voting?Yes.

How's your understanding of the treaty?Good.

Which side will win?Yes.

We have to go for it whether we like it or not. Long-term, our interests are with Europe. A No vote will mean we are not seen as good Europeans.

KATHERINE TURLEY

(from Co Down)

How are you voting?Yes.

How's your understanding of the treaty?Partial.

Which side will win?Yes.

Yes will mean more confidence for business but desperation for young people . . . Yes will win because, despite the historical Nos, this is about money and not sovereignty.

THERESE MAHON WARD

(from East Wall, Dublin 3)

How are you voting?No.

How's your understanding of the treaty?Fuzzy.

Which side will win?A close Yes.

Yes would mean less independence. It annoys me that they have an Irish flag on the poster . . . They say No would mean dire straits but that is not true. Scaremongering upsets me.

PATRICK BERMINGHAM

(from Baldoyle, Dublin 13)

How are you voting?Yes.

How's your understanding of the treaty?Good.

Which side will win?Yes.

Yes means stability and No means chaos. If we had had something like [excessive deficit procedure] in 1982 we wouldn’t have got into difficulties then.

ANTHONY DUNNE

(from Newbridge, Co Kildare)

How are you voting?No.

How's your understanding of the treaty?Good.

Which side will win?Yes.

Austerity is kicking the can down the road. There is too much waste in the upper levels of the public sector. No will mean we are shunned but it won’t have that big an impact.

MICHAEL STAMP

(from Dublin 7 )

How are you voting?Abstaining.

How's your understanding of the treaty?Good.

Which side will win?Yes.

A Yes vote would be a holding pattern until all the chips fall into place. A No vote would be a politically incorrect statement. We have to be politic.

GRACE CUDDIHY

(from Cork)

How are you voting?Abstaining.

How's your understanding of the treaty?Partial.

Which side will win?Yes.

I was much more informed about Lisbon but when we had to vote again . . . that was a big no-no. There’s no point in voting; whatever way we vote, we have to vote again.

DAVID KINDILLION

(from Ballyferriter, Co Kerry)

How are you voting?Undecided.

How's your understanding of the treaty?Partial.

Which side will win?Yes.

I’m a bit confused. I am going to read about it. About 35 per cent of people don’t know about it. Stop and read: don’t just vote Yes because the politicians say Yes.

CLARE WALSH

(from Cabra, Dublin)

How are you voting?Undecided.

How's your understanding of the treaty?Fuzzy.

Which side will win?Labour.

I’m not sure what a Yes would mean. The Trinity Times and the news will influence my decision. I think there will be a second bailout in five years’ time.