Two out of every three voters in favour of Lisbon.

While the result may have been predicted, the scale of the victory took most seasoned observers by surprise.

In the lead up to October 2nd, pollsters had been recording something in the region of a 50/30/20 split between yes, no and don’t knows respectively. Even accounting for a tendency for don’t knows to vote no, it seemed from the formal polls that the pro-Lisbonites were in the ascendancy.

Anecdotal evidence, however, suggested otherwise. Foot soldiers from both camps as well as the major political parties were predicting a close run contest. With the polls closed on Friday night, the first reported exit poll indicated a marginal victory for the yes side, and this apparent closeness came as no surprise to anyone.

Then came a second exit poll - conducted by Fine Gael on this occasion. It predicted a much more decisive 60-40 split in favour of the yes side. Despite this news, many on the yes side went to bed uneasy leaving their chickens well and truly uncounted.

Within half an hour of the boxes opening on Saturday morning, however, the game was up. Slowly throughout the day the picture of a landslide began to emerge, and at 4:30pm the result was announced – 67.1% of the country had voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty.

And that’s when the celebrations and drowning of sorrows began, and so too the endless rounds of analysis and counter analysis. What exactly had delivered such a decisive victory in favour of Lisbon? Why such a dramatic turnaround in such a short period?

Needless to say, neither side of the debate agree on their analysis of the outcome.

It was the turn of anti-Treatites to cry foul and point to fear-mongering as their undoing. Several prominent members of the “No” campaign, as well independent commentators, highlighted the economic collapse as a key factor in changing voters’ minds. This was a fear which was exploited in their minds by the pro-treatites who actively associated the Lisbon Treaty with economic recovery, and in particular job creation.

Those on the “Yes” side who acknowledged the fear factor pointed out that fear is the most primeval of human emotions and that it exists for a good evolutionary reason – it guides from the path of reckless stupidity.

People are right to be afraid, they argue. Ireland is in a most fragile position, and rejection of Lisbon could have set in motion a chain of events the consequences of which were impossible to predict (although an INDECON report had predicted a financial cost to a second ‘No’ vote.

So when they said “be afraid, be very afraid” they saw no reason to apologise for it.

But there was another emotion emphasised by the “Yes” side. They pointed to the massive groundswell of grassroots organisations – many dominated by the young – that had sprung up across the country to proselytise on behalf of the Treaty (or perhaps more accurately, the EU). This was  a movement borne not of fear but of hope (link).

In the view of such organisations, this was a battle being played out deep in the Irish psyche. This was about the big question, an existential one, for Ireland - who are we and what do we aspire to become?

Crisis often leads to brooding, introspection and critical self-analysis. And this time we projected through the Lisbon referendum our hopes for the future. The battle was not fought on interpretation on the arcane articles, protocols and footnotes (those these may have been useful weapons in the arms of a skilled combatant), as happened in the first Lisbon referendum. This time, it was not a battle of the mind, but one of the heart.

Certainly there was plenty of visceral emotion evident in the hundreds of debates across the country. The conviction and belief on both seems indicative of a country wrestling with its soul.

We could retreat back into our isolationist and more traditional past, or we could keep moving forward into a progressive, modern and uncertain space, shared with our European neighbours. What was it to be?

Whether one emphasises the self -interested fear, or hope for a brighter future – and both factors were probably at play - Ireland has now spoken clearly.

But one perennial question remains: what do we do with those who are not comfortable with where the majority would take us? It is clear that many are from a disadvantaged strata of society, and perhaps naturally feel disenfranchised and disconnected from both modern Ireland and the European project.

This is a challenge that can’t be left to the next referendum in 10 years time before it is addressed. It is a challenge for Ireland and Europe both.