Lisbon defeated what happens next ?

[television]

Perhaps three votes for those who buy the Tribune or the Irish Times and four votes for those who display just the right amount of puffed indignation at the stupidity of electorate for questioning Lisbon.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Television, that is exactly the way the Yes side view the No voters! While they're at it maybe they should bring in a system whereby those that they deem intelligent enough get 2 votes.

A lot to be said for that suggestion. A simple spelling test should suffice.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I have faith in the good judgement and sense of the Irish people.

Presumably then you are a great fan of our Government, democratically elected only a year ago. And presumably you will have "faith" in a Yes majority next spring when a more realistic and honest proposition will be put before them viz. "In or Out?". BTW if it was such a stark decision which way would you vote?

 

[room305]

I am specifically talking here about respecting the democratic will of the Irish people in this referendum. You may not like this. You may see a majority of Irish people as irrational, working class and uneducated who are too stupid to understand the treaty and who were duped by a ragbag collection of the loony left and right into irrationally voting no. I see it as a little more complex than that. I have faith in the good judgement and sense of the Irish people. In a previous discussion I have spoken about which parts of the treaty i think feel allow for the gradual erosion of public services. I have also other concerns as have the majority of people who actually voted no. And instead of allaying these concerns the reaction of Europe to the Irish no vote has affirmed them.

I'll ask again. What specifically would you like to see changed in the treaty? If the EU rang you in the morning and said - "Just let me us know what you need changed or omitted and we'll do it" - what would be your reply?

You mention that the No vote must be respected but I have yet to meet a No voter who can mention anything in the treaty that were unhappy with. They either claim not to understand it or felt the EU project had gone far enough. That's fine but the world doesn't exist in stasis for our benefit. The rest of the EU wants to change and new countries want to join. I am really starting to think that it's time we decided whether or not we want to remain in the EU.

 

[lightswitch]

"You mention that the No vote must be respected but I have yet to meet a No voter who can mention anything in the treaty that were unhappy with. They either claim not to understand it or felt the EU project had gone far enough. That's fine but the world doesn't exist in stasis for our benefit. The rest of the EU wants to change and new countries want to join. I am really starting to think that it's time we decided whether or not we want to remain in the EU."

The rest of the EU did not get the opportunity we got to Vote!

 

[television]

Presumably then you are a great fan of our Government, democratically elected only a year ago. And presumably you will have "faith" in a Yes majority next spring when a more realistic and honest proposition will be put before them viz. "In or Out?". BTW if it was such a stark decision which way would you vote?

We have just had a no vote less than 2 weeks ago. Let’s ignore this shall we? Let’s simply move on and have a second vote. We were told quite categorically by Cowen before the vote there would be no new vote. We were told that Lisbon was dead if the Irish voted no. Again this is the terms of the actually treaty which all 27 countries decided upon. Let’s ignore this until we get if right.

Faith and trust are earned. I have faith in Europe if it abides by its own rules. I have faith in our government if did its best to represent the will on the Irish people when in Europe last week.

An in or out scenario is one the yes side would like to frame this. Of course most of the people who voted no, including me believe in the value of the European project. it is as disingenuous and divisive to set up a new votes in terms of a Yes or No to Europe as any kind of divisive scaremongering engaged in by some sections of the no side. However, as someone said "the gloves are off next time".

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

For avoidance of doubt, I personally am nervous of EU enlargement - if for no other reason than the Brits are mad keen, hoping to stem Franco-German influence.

If a return to the cozy 10 were an option I'd vote for it. If a maintenance of the status quo were an option I'd vote for it. My whole argument here is that the No option was disingenuous, we now see we didn't really have this option. Okay, that's unfair, maybe even bullying, maybe even non democratic.

People like TV, and please take this constructively, took the proposition at face value, "No" to stay as we are and "Yes" to change the rules, harmless stuff really. The RC booklet stated this was the situation. That was a complete misread. People like Sinn Fein of course knew and wanted the No vote to isolate us - victory to them and their new found British fascist friends.

 

[television]

People like TV, and please take this constructively, took the proposition at face value, "No" to stay as we are and "Yes" to change the rules, harmless stuff really.

Harmless stuff? Is that the best analysis you have really against my view? I have set out a clear and reasoned against the undemocratic tendencies that are emerging after this no vote. You have chosen not to reflect on these. Perhaps because you have got no constructive responce. Its easly to throw out a line like "harmless stuff" but it means nothing. it shows that you realise that you are loosing the debate through the power of reason and are resorting to mindless insult.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

TV I have come close to almost agreeing with your intrinsic idealistic views. My vote "Yes" was entirely tactical/strategic. "No" was not an option as we now see; we were seriously misled on that.

Now, instead of being regarded as the supreme europhiles, we are the ultimate eurosceptics, in league with the British fascists. Our "No" will not be allowed to stick as we were misled to believe and we will never regain the goodwill lost.

 

[Nemesis]

Again you seem to be a fan of political pragmatism, of understanding the real politick of a situation. Would you agree that the real politick is that European governments are not having referenda because they understand that the people of Europe would reject the Lisbon treaty? Their is a fine line between realpolitick and ignoring democracy to engage in grand elitist plans for explansion.

The other European governments are not having referenda because it is not a requirement to do so and in the case of Germany they are constitutionally debarred from it. Again you show little respect for the constitutional traditions of other countries and instead expect them to ratify according to what you prescribe otherwise they are "ignoring democracy". The implication is that their methods of ratification are somehow inferior or even invalid.

You mentioned fascism after WW1. I assume you were referring to Hitler, Mussolini etc.

It's quite a jump from me referring to Fascism to you claiming that I want another Hitler in Europe and that I would be one of those who would support the Enabling Act. And my point was that 'perfect' democracy is weak democracy and vulnerable to political extermists who can hijack the process and cause mayhem. You only have to look at the hugely disproportionate attention and influence a lunatic outfit like Coir got in this referendum campaign to see what I'm talking about. Sinn Fein never had as much attention despite being rejected by voters last year and suffering a major setback in their electoral ambitions. And a multimillionaire who never even stood for election can come out of nowhere and become an influential figure overnight by taking a position opposite to all the major political parties. You might think that's healthy, I certainly don't. I think people should have to make some effort to be worthy of that attention, it should be earned. Join a political party or start one, put a coherent and comprehensive set of policy proposals before the electorate, put in the work to get elected, gain experience serving the people, be tested in office and let the people judge you at the ballot box. That's healthy and robust democracy and that's the democracy that exists among our EU neighbours. Although some are clearly so blinkered on this issue they think the other EU states are little better than dictatorships. They might try living in a real dictatorship like Belarus for a while to gain a little perspective.

 

[Sunny]

The other European governments are not having referenda because it is not a requirement to do so and in the case of Germany they are constitutionally debarred from it. Again you show little respect for the constitutional traditions of other countries and instead expect them to ratify according to what you prescribe otherwise they are "ignoring democracy". The implication is that their methods of ratification are somehow inferior or even invalid.

I have no problem with other Countries ratifying the Treaty through whatever means is appropriate for each Country whether it be a Referendum, through Parliment or tossing a coin.

A few facts remain. France and the Netherlands sent the European Constitution to its people in the form of a Referendum to decide on. The people of both Countries democratically rejected it. The EU then had the brainwave of calling the Constitution a 'Treaty' and thereby allowing Countries to bypass a referendum that they would more than likely lose and ratify through Parliment even though this 'New' Treaty is almost exactly the same as the Constitution that was rejected. This in my opinion shows contempt for the opinion of the ordinary European citizens who are getting incresingly nervous about an enlarged and integated Europe. This however is not Ireland's concern per se because it is up to the people of other Countries to let their elected representatives know their feelings on the matter.

The rules of the EU means that this Treaty can only come in to force if all 27 Countries ratify it. That hasn't happened so the process should die. Other Countries are free to operate under enhanced co-operation on a number of areas if they so wish but to continue ratifying the Treaty in the hope of pressurising the Irish into seeing sense is once again ignoring the will of the people in a democratic process.

Last but not least if the EU really come to the conclusion that Ireland is full of Eurosceptics in league with British Facists on the basis of this rejection, it shows how removed they are from public opinion. 80% of 'No' Voters consider themselves pro European. Just because they don't share the same views on the future of Europe as those on the 'yes' side doesn't make their views any less valid.

As for where we would go from here, I posted earlier that in my opinion the best way forward is to concentrate on the main purpose of the Treaty i.e. making the EU more efficient and democratic and sell those changes before trying to increase integration etc.

Also probably worth mentioning that the 'No' vote seems to stopped plans for a common tax base for the the moment at least. No harm done if it makes the EU sit back and think on this matter!

 

[so-crates]

Only hard core party political people sometimes masquerading as media stooges will demonstrate any faith in any of the political parties. We have had no choice between electable governments for as long as I can remember. Nearly all parties and TDs wanted a YES vote and despite all this pressure the democratic outcome still was a NO. Irish people have traditionally voted for the lesser of two evils. Despite orchestrated interviews on RTE and in newspapers painting a rosy picture of officials (church leaders being pious, bank officials saying their bank was always the morally superior one until they got caught too etc etc) we are under no illusions and never have been about the quality and behaviour of our politicians. By the way has Brian Cowen actually read the treaty yet ? He admitted he hasnt so how can he tell us to vote for it ? Have any of our elected officials read it ? From what I can see, the NO vote was across party lines at the grass roots of all parties. It cant' be written off as the work of extremists no matter how much the YES campaign would love to do this. There appears to not only be a fundamental disconnect between ordinary people and the EU (as shraek pointed out) but also a fundamental disconnect between ordinary people and their own domestic politicians.

I didnt vote by the way , preferring to leave the issue to those who did understand what the treaty was about.

uiop I would suggest that you preface some of this rant with an "In my opinion" but given that you didn't vote I can't see how you have one...

Brian Cowen and Charlie McCreevy both made interesting statements with regard to the treaty; one that he hadn't read it, the other that he couldn't. This is two politicians out of many, why assume they are all the same? Are you thinking that no politician read it? Extrapolating to hundreds from the statements of two is neither rational nor fair. Also, given that Brian was involved in drafting the treaty perhaps his reading it wasn't of immediate importance to his understanding of it.

The No vote was 53%, it is hardly resounding even if it is decisive. A sizeable minority of the poll was yes and not all of those are "hard core party political people". Some honestly believe that the arguments put forward by the no campaign ranged from the spurious and unsubstantiated (abortion et al) to the foolish and short-sighted (tax harmonisation and loss of commissioner).

I entirely agree with you, the No victory is not the victory of the extremists. I disagree with you though as to the reasons why. I think the Yes campaign lost the argument rather than the No campaign winning it. The "arguments" put forward by the Yes campaign were risible, immature and immaterial for the most part (it will be embarrassing; nobody will like us; trust me, I'm a politician). The arguments put forward by the No campaign were at least mostly about the treaty or the constitutional amendment irrespective of how ludicrous they were.

The extremists didn't need to do much work, the moderate politicians did it for them.

 

[Nemesis]

A few facts remain. France and the Netherlands sent the European Constitution to its people in the form of a Referendum to decide on. The people of both Countries democratically rejected it. The EU then had the brainwave of calling the Constitution a 'Treaty' and thereby allowing Countries to bypass a referendum that they would more than likely lose and ratify through Parliment even though this 'New' Treaty is almost exactly the same as the Constitution that was rejected. This in my opinion shows contempt for the opinion of the ordinary European citizens who are getting incresingly nervous about an enlarged and integated Europe. This however is not Ireland's concern per se because it is up to the people of other Countries to let their elected representatives know their feelings on the matter.

An interesting point on this whole denying the French and Dutch people a voice issue was raised by Martin Manseragh on the Marian Finucane show on Sunday. He stated that Sarkozy stood for an election in May last year with a pledge that he would see through a renegotiation of the Constitution and then he would put it through parliament. So if French voters were so alarmed about their vote being ignored they could have voted for other candidates. They were happy to give Sarkozy a mandate on this platform.

He also made the point that Dutch opinion was particularly concerned about the trappings of the Constitution such as calling it a Constitution, having a flag, an anthem etc. as this seemed to suggest the emergence of a state. He said that their removal from the Lisbon treaty meant it was different for them. It's also worth bearing in mind that the Dutch No was strengthened by the No in France just days before. The shock defeat of the Constitution in France put the whole project in question and there seemed little point in voting Yes. People will say if France why not Ireland. Simple fact is France is a much bigger and more influential player than Ireland or the Netherlands and that's just the realpolitik of the situation even within a structure like the EU.

The rules of the EU means that this Treaty can only come in to force if all 27 Countries ratify it. That hasn't happened so the process should die. Other Countries are free to operate under enhanced co-operation on a number of areas if they so wish but to continue ratifying the Treaty in the hope of pressurising the Irish into seeing sense is once again ignoring the will of the people in a democratic process.

In theory yes, in reality when you've got 26 v 1 you can't expect everyone to just walk away and say that's fine we'll throw 7 years work away and forget all about it cos you ran a rubbish campaign and the people voted no even though many of them were voting on things that weren't even in the treaty (i.e. conscription of our sons for a European army). The key point here is that when we fight for our interests in Europe we form alliances, we make sure we're not standing alone. We side with the French over agriculture issues, with the UK and other small states in the East over taxation etc. That's the smart way to fight battles. What we're doing now is making a suicidal stand that will destroy any influence and power we might have in an enlarged Europe that is quite capable of continuing on without us.

As for where we would go from here, I posted earlier that in my opinion the best way forward is to concentrate on the main purpose of the Treaty i.e. making the EU more efficient and democratic and sell those changes before trying to increase integration etc.

So what do you propose we do? Collapse the existing treaty and open up the Pandora's box of renegotiation again. We might never get any reform in that scenario. What parts do you find objectionable and are they really that bad that it's worth throwing the whole thing out?

Also probably worth mentioning that the 'No' vote seems to stopped plans for a common tax base for the the moment at least. No harm done if it makes the EU sit back and think on this matter!

Shane Ross seems to think this is significant too. Perhaps. I think that what we've lost in terms of influence and goodwill (particularly among the smaller states in the East and future members in the Balkans) was too high a price to pay. We'll see.

 

[rmelly]

uiop I Would Suggest That You Preface Some Of This Rant With An "in My Opinion" But Given That You Didn't Vote I Can't See How You Have One...

:d

 

[so-crates]

room305 , I thought you were smarter than that. In fact I refuse to believe you are not intelligent. Theres no way you could have posted so much and taken such a keen interest in this thread and not known about the Self-Amending Treaty article which many NO voters had specific problems with. Is it the wish of many in the YES campaign to win a second referendum through the creation of confusion and ridicule and the abandonment of civil argument ?

room305 simply stated that they had met no Nay-sayers (you don't count since you didn't vote) that had been able to clearly articulate a reason why they objected. Possibly they haven't met the right ones. My suspicion though is the muddy waters of the No campaign generated a nice level of paranoia without specific issues for the vast majority of voters.

room305, I believe that exit polls revealed that people voted no in line with statements on the No posters. rmelly and others here have given quite clear reasons as to why they objected.

 

[television]

The other European governments are not having referenda because it is not a requirement to do so and in the case of Germany they are constitutionally debarred from it. Again you show little respect for the constitutional traditions of other countries and instead expect them to ratify according to what you prescribe otherwise they are "ignoring democracy". The implication is that their methods of ratification are somehow inferior or even invalid.

Either you are failing to see my point or you are diliberatly ignoring it. (I suspect the former is the case). I have great respect for the constitutional traditions of other countries. However when they choose to ignore an aggreement regarding the unaminity issue. Now they are choosing to ignore it. Do you believe that contries can enter into aggrements and then ignore them when it does not fit into their overall agenda?

And my point was that 'perfect' democracy is weak democracy and vulnerable to political extermists who can hijack the process and cause mayhem. You only have to look at the hugely disproportionate attention and influence a lunatic outfit like Coir got in this referendum campaign to see what I'm talking about. Sinn Fein never had as much attention despite being rejected by voters last year and suffering a major setback in their electoral ambitions. And a multimillionaire who never even stood for election can come out of nowhere and become an influential figure overnight by taking a position opposite to all the major political parties. You might think that's healthy.

No one is arguing that democracy is perfect. But it must be at least principled. A robust democracy allows for the extremes, and if the case against them is strong enough thier extemesim will be seen for what it is. I do not want to go back to the levels of coverage both sides recieved, but in referenda there is a requirment for even coverage of viewpoints accross some media. Coir may have exteme views that are alien to the majority, but they have a right to express these views and a right to campaign in the most effective way they see fit. This is democracy in action. It is the beauty of the system. What you want is to see a broad unquestioning consusus emerging that all people are expected to follow.

I certainly don't. I think people should have to make some effort to be worthy of that attention, it should be earned. Join a political party or start one, put a coherent and comprehensive set of policy proposals before the electorate, put in the work to get elected, gain experience serving the people, be tested in office and let the people judge you at the ballot box.

Yes this is the case if one has a overall political philosophy and one wants to change the political landscape of a country. This is a single issue however. In this case it is reasonable to assume that those who are not in political parties should have a right to campaign and organise to have their voice heard.

 

[television]

An interesting point on this whole denying the French and Dutch people a voice issue was raised by Martin Manseragh on the Marian Finucane show on Sunday.

He would say that would'nt he.

In theory yes, in reality when you've got 26 v 1 you can't expect everyone to just walk away and say that's fine we'll throw 7 years work away and forget all about it cos you ran a rubbish campaign and the people voted no even though many of them were voting on things that weren't even in the treaty (i.e. conscription of our sons for a European army).

If Europe is honest with itself there is extreme aprehension among a majority of EU citizens over the nature of European enlargment. There are significant issues in relation to enlargment that people have problems with. These should not be sidelined and the more exteme issues brought to the fore by those in favour of Yes to Lisbon as a way of undermining peoples genunine concerns.

The key point here is that when we fight for our interests in Europe we form alliances, we make sure we're not standing alone. We side with the French over agriculture issues, with the UK and other small states in the East over taxation etc. That's the smart way to fight battles. What we're doing now is making a suicidal stand that will destroy any influence and power we might have in an enlarged Europe that is quite capable of continuing on without us.

No the key point here is that democracy is more important than cosy little alliences. I hear a lot of this talk among our EU representitives. Firstly they are charged with representing the democratic mandate given to them. You talk about fighting battles, are you seriously telling me the best way to fight battles is to capitulate to Europe on our people saying no to Lisbon. This is a sure way to allow Europe to walk over us. We will not strengthen our position in Europe by doing this. We will weaken it. Our politicans must be strong now. They must clearly deliver the message that the irish people have given their view. Respect this view should be the message. This will make us stronger both on a moral level and in subsequent negotiations.

 

[Sunny]

room305 simply stated that they had met no Nay-sayers (you don't count since you didn't vote) that had been able to clearly articulate a reason why they objected. Possibly they haven't met the right ones. My suspicion though is the muddy waters of the No campaign generated a nice level of paranoia without specific issues for the vast majority of voters.

room305, I believe that exit polls revealed that people voted no in line with statements on the No posters. rmelly and others here have given quite clear reasons as to why they objected.

To be fair some of the reasons given by people who voted 'Yes' as are bad as the reasons given for the 'No' vote. And it wasn't just the 'No' campaign who muddied the waters by creating paranoia. The 'Yes' campaign are just as guilty by going around suggesting that we will be kicked out of Europe or punished if we vote 'No'. That seemed to be their main selling point.

 

[so-crates]

To be fair some of the reasons given by people who voted 'Yes' as are bad as the reasons given for the 'No' vote. And it wasn't just the 'No' campaign who muddied the waters by creating paranoia. The 'Yes' campaign are just as guilty by going around suggesting that we will be kicked out of Europe or punished if we vote 'No'. That seemed to be their main selling point.

Oh I have little or no respect for the way the yes campaign was run. Like I said I think the arguments advanced by the yes campaign were "risible, immature and immaterial". The one exception I would make would be the excellent list of reasons provided by Proinsias de Rossa. However, there does not appear to have been any sense of paranoia achieved by the yes campaign - irritation and annoyance yes; paranoia no. I am probably well-biased by the fact that not only did I vote yes but I investigated on my own steam the substance of any no campaign arguments, I spoke to several people regarding their votes and on the whole (though not universally) it seemed to me that those who took care to look past the posters and try to understand what they were being asked, voted yes. Not 100% true but certainly 80%. Those who voted no in my acquaintance were motivated by anger at the approach of the government, uncertainty and lack of information as to the content of the treaty and suspicion as to the intent of the government and the EU. The third reason appears all-pervasive, even among those who voted yes; hence my reference to "No vote" paranoia.

 

[zephyro]

The rest of the EU wants to change and new countries want to join. I am really starting to think that it's time we decided whether or not we want to remain in the EU.

It seems to me that the most sensible course is a two-speed Europe. It's clear that some countries (led by Germany and France, or at least by their politicians) want to create a federal EU and other countries (led by the UK) don't. We would then need to decide which side we're on.