Lisbon defeated what happens next ?

[Green]

It's called 'thinking for ourselves'. People are allowed to do that in a democracy.

Of course, we can think and vote for ourselves. I call it "the Michael Lowry Syndrome", the bould Michael wasn't paying any tax on payments he got from Ben Dunne, he also lied to the Dail when he said he didnt have an offshore account. However, when it came to the election he laid the blame at the door of the Dublin media and, true to form, he was relected by the good folk of Tipperary. Naturally it wasnt his fault it was that of the Dublin media!

Likewise, there were many rumours and much speculation following the Lisbon vote that the Government were considering a second referendun, indeed they have yet to rule it out. I think Sazkozy's intervention is unhelpful, and certainly the latest in gaffes on the Yes side. In saying that i doubt if any of the big four would pass this referendum.

 

[Purple]

Eh .. perhaps you can rephrase your question ? I never said it was 100% due to external factors. In fact I never speculated upon this. What I did infer was that Lisbon is probably the least of possible suspects for why things are going wrong now. The markets probably assume we'll end up signing up to it in the end anyway which may be true or false. So please explain how voting yes to Lisbon would have made us as efficient as the Germans ? Or would have taken the gombeenism and clientelism out of our politicians or eradicated the mismanagement of the economy over the last 10 years , the property bubble or inflation ? How would it have made us any more competitive.
Voting 'yes' to Lisbon wasnt going to stop the crap we are in now. How was it going to eliminate the decline in the construction industry, the risk of bad debts in our banks due to 100% mortgages etc. The state of our economy is of our own making.

Fair enough, I was pointing out that Germany continues to show good economic growth with a substantial growth in exports (despite low consumer confidence). They are also in the Euro and subject to the same international factors that we are.

 

[ashambles]

I've never been an uncritical European and always knew that we paid and repaid dearly for all those structural funds by giving away the waters around our island - worth billions - in perpetuity.

Not again, it's not gone away you know - the fishermen and fish finger making alternate-economy fallacy.

So because it's in perpetuity we can multiply the pathetic actual earnings from fish by any number to make an impressive sounding total.

Using similar logic how much would someone agree to pay for 1 acre of land growing 1000 euro of spuds a year would it be around around 10-20k or because it'll grow spuds "in perpetuity" should it be valued at millions or even billions?

You could even argue 100k in a bank earning 5k a year interest is also worth millions because it's in perpetuity. Surprisingly, perhaps, it's actual value is closer to ... 100k.

 

[Purple]

But I don't get how is any of that relevant to the Lisbon treaty thread or to what Harchibald said (and later retracted) ?

It has nothing to do with the Lisbon vote. I was replying to your comments that our economic woes are due to other factors, the list of examples that you gave included external factors which every country in the EU is exposed to.
Anyway, lets get back on topic...

What next?
Another vote with a possible Lisbon II treaty or just the same thing again with a better campaign from the Yes side and a reality check from you neighbours.
I suspect that the vote will be "no" again and we will be left on the sidelines for the next few years. The world will keep on turning and we will slowly move back into the UK’s orbit.

 

[Purple]

Ugh. In which way will we move back into the Uk's orbit ? The number of exports or what ? What exactly does being in the Uk's orbit mean ? I'd appreciate having that clarified because I have heard it said before. Won't we continue to be caught between Europe (of which the UK is a part) and the USA and arent' we opening up new markets in China etc ?

Our economy is still very close to the UK. They are our biggest trading partner and that generates its own pull.

 

[ashambles]

Also in an enforced or "voluntary" via referendum Euro currency exit, the least economically painful way would be to try to somehow join or link up our new punt with the sterling zone. Much as we were for a few hundred years in some form or other up to around 1979.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I was replying to Harchibalds comment attributing all our economic woes to Lisbon which could not in the interests of truth be allowed to stay unchallenged.

I think that is a bit of a misrep of what I said. I was referring to our recent dismal stock exchange performance which is due to international investors attaching leper status to the wounded celtic tiger. Lisbon is only a small part of this sentiment but it certainly didn't help.

Back to topic - it is becoming abundantly clear that we either crawl back with a "YES, sorry" or we are facing some form of exclusion from mainstream EU. Does it mean exclusion from the Euro as purple has hinted? Much as I was against entry into the Euro a departure from it now would seem to be an unmitigated disaster.

 

[redstar]

I think we'll probably stumble into another referendum.

Although, there is an outside chance that the Lisbon Treaty could be referred to the Supreme Court to decide which, if any, parts of it would require a referendum. They could decide a referendum may not be necessary.

At least they would actually read the damn thing too

 

[shnaek]

Why do you think departing from the euro would be a disaster ?

There's a debate on that in the 'Great Financial Debates' section if you are interested.

I believe that if there was another referendum people would vote 'Yes'. I am meeting one of my friends who campaigned on the 'No' side this weekend, and I'll be interested in hearing what he would think of a second referendum, and what he thinks the 'No' vote achieved.

 

[room305]

As an ardent supporter of the Yes campaign, I have to question if there is really any point in running a second referendum. In other to try and restore any measure of the goodwill lost as a result of the No vote, a second referendum would have to win by an absolutely thumping majority. I just can't see it happening.

Time to start looking at other options as other posters have suggested.

 

[diarmuidc]

I don't see any point in a second referendum, the Irish have made their decision. I can only see two possibilities:

1. Some of the other countries (CZ,UK, and a few others) will not ratify the treaty and the Lisbon treaty will die.
2. The others will finish ratifying the treaty and Ireland will be pushed to the sidelines and somehow we will have to figure out a way of interfacing with the rest.

I think it's naive to believe that a country the size of Ireland alone will be the downfall of the Lisbon treaty.

 

[cjh]

2. The others will finish ratifying the treaty and Ireland will be pushed to the sidelines and somehow we will have to figure out a way of interfacing with the rest.



I think it's naive to believe that a country the size of Ireland alone will be the downfall of the Lisbon treaty.

2. This is not possible.

It's not just the irish that don't agree with the treaty - 75% of europeans would like to be given the opportunity to vote and 53% of the french said they would vote NO if they had a vote (not forgetting that this treaty has already been rejected by Ireland, France and The Netherlands under it's guise as Nice. There can hardly be any doubt either that the UK would reject if given a vote.

 

[diarmuidc]

53% of the french said they would vote NO if they had a vote ..... the UK would reject if given a vote.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Their governments are ratifying (apart from a few teetering on the edge as I mentioned) and they won't get a vote.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

2. This is not possible.

It's not just the irish that don't agree with the treaty - 75% of europeans would like to be given the opportunity to vote and 53% of the french said they would vote NO if they had a vote (not forgetting that this treaty has already been rejected by Ireland, France and The Netherlands under it's guise as Nice. There can hardly be any doubt either that the UK would reject if given a vote.

My guess is that if this was put to referenda it would be rejected in 27 countries. I also guess that if the annual Finance Bill was put to referendum it would never get passed. Why oh why were we so naive to hold a referendum?

 

[lightswitch]

"My guess is that if this was put to referenda it would be rejected in 27 countries. I also guess that if the annual Finance Bill was put to referendum it would never get passed. Why oh why were we so naive to hold a referendum? "

Bit of a wild guess here but could it be because with are a democratic country with a constitution?

 

[DavyJones]

My guess is that if this was put to referenda it would be rejected in 27 countries. I also guess that if the annual Finance Bill was put to referendum it would never get passed. Why oh why were we so naive to hold a referendum?

if the lads thought there was anyway around holding a referendum, then they would have taken it. God bless our constitution.

 

[nad]

So now we know what's going to happen,it's Nice all over again with an other vote, until the goverment gets the result they want.

 

[NorthDrum]

So now we know what's going to happen,it's Nice all over again with an other vote, until the goverment gets the result they want.

If theres a no this time, any hope they had of a yes is gone.