Lisbon defeated what happens next ?

[michaelm]

I think that much has been made of the various issues but it'll be interesting to learn on how much impact they actually had on the no vote.

I voted No primarily because I'm opposed to further political integration, centralising power in Brussels, but maybe I'm just 1 in 862,415. Secondary issues for me were: being legally bound by the Charter which would be interpreted by the ECJ rather than the Irish Supreme Court; the re-balancing of voting strength in favour of big states; further military integration and spending commitments; and that Lisbon was a rehash of the Constitution which had already been rejected elsewhere. Also I did not believe that I could count on our politicians to stand firm in relation to our veto on tax matters; if the EU genuinely had no designs on tax harmonisation they would write, 'Tax is a sovereign matter for member states, the EU has no competency in this area', into the treaties.

IMHO these are valid reasons for voting No. I believe that the No side where genuine in there actions and that to tar them as US puppets, isolationists and fundamentalists who, against all the odds, tricked the poor unwashed masses into voting No by utilising Nazi-esque propaganda methods, is unwarranted and a disservice to voters.

 

[television]

You may learn that ignoring reality doesn't change it. You have my sympathies that reality doesn't fit your views.
The “what next” is to try to present the facts and reality to the public and not let disingenuous spin peddled by those with, as Garrett Fitzgerald would say, a flawed pedigree, cloud the truth.

A key piece of disingenuous spin is to characterise those who voted no to the treaty as doing so because of ridiculous issues like their fear of gay adoption. It is simplistic to suggest that 53% of the electorate voted no because they were duped by right and left wing reactionaries. No, I am afraid if Gareth Fitzgearld or any other blinkered europhile want to characterise the Irish vote in this regard than they are the ones engaging in the disingenuous spin.

 

[starlite68]

I voted No primarily because I'm opposed to further political integration, centralising power in Brussels, but maybe I'm just 1 in 862,415. Secondary issues for me were: being legally bound by the Charter which would be interpreted by the ECJ rather than the Irish Supreme Court; the re-balancing of voting strength in favour of big states; further military integration and spending commitments; and that Lisbon was a rehash of the Constitution which had already been rejected elsewhere. Also I did not believe that I could count on our politicians to stand firm in relation to our veto on tax matters; if the EU genuinely had no designs on tax harmonisation they would write, 'Tax is a sovereign matter for member states, the EU has no competency in this area', into the treaties.

IMHO these are valid reasons for voting No. I believe that No side where genuine in there actions and that to tar them as US puppets, isolationists and fundamentalists who, against all the odds, tricked the poor unwashed masses into voting No by utilising Nazi-esque propaganda methods, is unwarranted and a disservice to voters.

very good post michaelm....the points you have stated are the main reasons i voted no ...and i would say that includes the marjority of irish voters also.

 

[Purple]

I voted No primarily because I'm opposed to further political integration, centralising power in Brussels, but maybe I'm just 1 in 862,415. Secondary issues for me were: being legally bound by the Charter which would be interpreted by the ECJ rather than the Irish Supreme Court;

I agree that these are valid reasons to vote no.

the re-balancing of voting strength in favour of big states;

I think we still get a fair voice.

further military integration and spending commitments;

We retain the same water-tight position we got before Maastricht so I don’t accept that we could in any way be drawn into this but the plan was for EU as a whole to integrate further. This, in my opinion, was no bad thing as it offered a counterbalance to America (which may have influenced some with strong links to the American military establishment to be against it).

and that Lisbon was a rehash of the Constitution which had already been rejected elsewhere.

But it was changed.

Also I did not believe that I could count on our politicians to stand firm in relation to our veto on tax matters; if the EU genuinely had no designs on tax harmonisation they would write, 'Tax is a sovereign matter for member states, the EU has no competency in this area', into the treaties.

This has nothing to do with Lisbon. Direst taxation is, at the moment, a sovereign matter for the member states. Corporation Tax is a form of direct taxation. This can only be changed with unanimity. Lisbon changed nothing here.

I MHO these are valid reasons for voting No.

I agree that many are.

I believe that No side where genuine in there actions and that to tar them as US puppets, isolationists and fundamentalists who, against all the odds, tricked the poor unwashed masses into voting No by utilising Nazi-esque propaganda methods, is unwarranted and a disservice to voters.

I believe that a minority of the No side were influenced, in part or in total, by the misinformation that was put out. This minority was big enough to swing the vote. The post earlier in this or the first thread on Lisbon about the hairdresser who was voting No because she didn’t want her son fighting in the EU army in Afghanistan typifies how the seeds of fear can grow to entangle the truth.

 

[television]

I believe that a minority of the No side were influenced, in part or in total, by the misinformation that was put out. This minority was big enough to swing the vote. The post earlier in this or the first thread on Lisbon about the hairdresser who was voting No because she didn’t want her son fighting in the EU army in Afghanistan typifies how the seeds of fear can grow to entangle the truth.

A minority of people may have been swayed to vote this way because of reasons not central to the treaty. How many people voted yes because they actually understood the treaty?? How many of these people may have noted no if they were fully aware of the valid issues/concerns raised by among others michaelm last post. I would say a considerable amount. I'd say that would even things up nicely.

As for the hairdresser who vote no because she did not want her son fighting in a European army. See obviously the uneducated unwashed masses like our humble hairdresser are going to be duped by those clever shinners. Stupid woman. She should get back to cutting hair. Convenient little story that but it actually adds little to the general debate.

 

[Purple]

A minority of people may have been swayed to vote this way because of reasons not central to the treaty. How many people voted yes because they actually understood the treaty?? How many of these people may have noted no if they were fully aware of the valid issues/concerns raised by among others michaelm last post. I would say a considerable amount. I'd say that would even things up nicely.

Good point

As for the hairdresser who vote no because she did not want her son fighting in a European army. See obviously the uneducated unwashed masses like our humble hairdresser are going to be duped by those clever shinners. Stupid woman. She should get back to cutting hair. Convenient little story that but it actually adds little to the general debate.

I presume you are being sarcastic. I hope in doing o you are not implying that what you said is my opinion of the lady in question.
I stated before the vote that I thought referenda are a bad idea as in cases such as this they ask us to vote on an issue that none of us can fully understand and certainly cannot see them in a real-politic context since we cannot know what the dynamic is within the EU negotiation teams.

 

[Ceist Beag]

Peeps I think this debate has been done to death at this stage and yer starting to go around in circles. Might be best to leave it now until a decision is made as to the next steps which I believe is around October timeframe. For what it's worth I can see valid points on both sides but I would fear that it may cost us in the long run if a suitable solution can not be found by the politicians but at this stage I don't think we have anything more to debate on it until such time as that solution is proposed.

 

[michaelm]

I think we still get a fair voice.

I think we agree on more than we disagree on. The 'fair voice' you mention may be fair on a per capita basis but it's a dilution of our better current position under Nice. The EU is supposed to be a union of equals but the re-balancing usurps that idea. In fairness, if the UK rejected the treaty then that would have been the end of the matter; that, for me, underlines how big and small states are treated differently.

We retain the same water-tight position we got before Maastricht so I don’t accept that we could in any way be drawn into this but the plan was for EU as a whole to integrate further.

The French and Germans desire an EU army, I could care less, but we should stay out of it. IMHO Ireland's reputation in relation to peace keeping and as an honest broker is being undermined by a steady creep of military integration, including, joining NATO's PfP and EU Battle Groups and, under Lisbon, signing up to Peace Enforcement (and other such misadventure) and committing to military spending. Irish troops should be wearing blue UN hats, when abroad, not EU or NATO-Lite.

But it [EU Constitution] was changed.

I don't think that anyone on the Yes side really believes that there's any real difference between the EU Constitution and Lisbon.

Direst taxation is, at the moment, a sovereign matter for the member states. Corporation Tax is a form of direct taxation. This can only be changed with unanimity. Lisbon changed nothing here.

We have a different interpretation here. For me, if it were a sovereign matter then it wouldn't be an EU competency, but it is, it's an EU competency subject to unanimity. Any Irish government could surrender or trade our veto and it would be gone, forever. A renegotiation of Lisbon, although I doubt it'll happen, could include a clear statement on tax. A standardised method of calculating CT, which France and other big states will push through, is the first essential step if one wished to harmonise rates.

I believe that a minority of the No side were influenced, in part or in total, by the misinformation that was put out.

I think we agreed that after Lisbon the 'Charter' would be legally binding as interpreted by the ECJ; the No side said it could/would mean X, the Yes side said it couldn't/wouldn't. Neither side could say for sure, it's a genuine question mark rather than misinformation. What is for sure is that the Irish would have no recourse to remedy an unexpected and undesirable judgment. As for Afghanistan, who knows where EU Battle Groups will pop up? Irish troops are currently (dubiously) on 'smile and wave' duty in Chad, not being able to tell the difference between Chadian troops and rebels, all armed to the teeth and milling around in pick-up trucks.

This is a long post for me, I prefer brevity . . but I'm just trying to make the point that those who voted No aren't all fools and that those who campaigned for a No aren't all evildoers.

 

[S.L.F]

I voted No primarily because I'm opposed to further political integration, centralising power in Brussels, but maybe I'm just 1 in 862,415. Secondary issues for me were: being legally bound by the Charter which would be interpreted by the ECJ rather than the Irish Supreme Court; the re-balancing of voting strength in favour of big states; further military integration and spending commitments; and that Lisbon was a rehash of the Constitution which had already been rejected elsewhere. Also I did not believe that I could count on our politicians to stand firm in relation to our veto on tax matters; if the EU genuinely had no designs on tax harmonisation they would write, 'Tax is a sovereign matter for member states, the EU has no competency in this area', into the treaties.

IMHO these are valid reasons for voting No. I believe that the No side where genuine in there actions and that to tar them as US puppets, isolationists and fundamentalists who, against all the odds, tricked the poor unwashed masses into voting No by utilising Nazi-esque propaganda methods, is unwarranted and a disservice to voters.

Good post michaelm

much the same reasons I had for voting No.

But I think one of the main reasons for me is I just don't trust the politicians not to slip stuff into it that would be bad for us.

Or the fact that it's not an iron clad treaty what you read from it is open to interpetetion.

 

[cjh]

According to today's Indo Sarkozy thinks we'll have to vote agin:

Tuesday July 15 2008
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said today that Ireland would have to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after rejecting the EU reform package last month, according to reports.

``The Irish will have to vote again,'' he told MPs of his conservative party at a meeting in his office.

An official in Paris confirmed Mr Sarkozy made the comment during the private meeting.

The French President's office declined to comment.

Mr Sarkozy, who took over the EU presidency on July 1, travels to Dublin on Monday with the aim of coming up with a solution to the institutional crisis sparked by the Irish result.

The treaty, which was designed to streamline decision-making in an enlarged EU, cannot be implemented until it is ratified by all member states, although Ireland was the only country to hold a public vote.

 

[michaelm]

IMHO such comments from Sarkozy can only serve to harden opposition to Lisbon. I rarely read the Indo but it's interesting to see that they are pushing the benign line 'The treaty, which was designed to streamline decision-making in an enlarged EU . . '. I've read that line time and time again in the Irish Times' Lisbon articles. I wonder whether they are trying to misdirect their readers and rehabilitate the Treaty or if they are just fooling themselves.

 

[cjh]

Not a fan of the Indo either - but anyway - their online poll today asks "Do you think that if Sarkozy is attempting to bully the Irish people?" and so far it's 86% YES. (The only YES the treaty'll be getting, I think).

 

[Green]

Not a fan of the Indo either - but anyway - their online poll today asks "Do you think that if Sarkozy is attempting to bully the Irish people?" and so far it's 86% YES. (The only YES the treaty'll be getting, I think).

Whether or not Sarkozy is trying to bully or not is open to interpretation but I think the reality is that we will be asked to vote again...however, in typical fashion, we just object to somebody else telling us so...

 

[michaelm]

Whether or not Sarkozy is trying to bully or not is open to interpretation but I think the reality is that we will be asked to vote again...however, in typical fashion, we just object to somebody else telling us so...

Well he's not just saying we have to vote again but, by implication, that we have to vote Yes. To object to such an intervention may or may not be typical but is certainly reasonable.

 

[cjh]

...however, in typical fashion, we just object to somebody else telling us so...

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

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Sarky is no fool.

Everybody else is ratifying, even the Czechs and that Polish President.

We're the ones with the dilemma. Sarky probably realises his intervention is encouraging a NO reaction. He is cleverly managing a situation whereby either:

1) Ireland votes YES with the minimalist of concessions and has its tail between its legs and a big message is sent to others that you don't gain by holding the rest up to ransom.

2) Ireland votes NO or doesn't vote again at all in which case inevitably a new arrangement will be reached by the other 26 which freezes us out. Sarky probably prefers this as it delivers an even stronger message to those small countries who think they will be able to vexatiously exercise their vetos on future progress.

Unfortunately Sarky is calling these matters correctly, Ireland has lost an awful lot with that NO vote and very little can be redeemed, best hope is a tails between the legs "sorry we meant YES". Just look at the relative performance of our stock exchange since we gave that indulgent two fingers to the rest of Europe.

 

[Purple]

This line just robbed your chosen view of credibility. There is absolutely no correlation between the Lisbon vote and our stock market and economy as it stands. The current state of the economy is 99.99% other factors such as the state of the world economy, the property bubble, the high price of Oil and the banking crisis, not to mention the US war in the middle east. Its also the fault of the Euro interest rates being unsuitable for our economy and being chosen for the benefit of Germany. Lisbon is in the halfpenny place.

...and why, if it's all external factors, is Germany doing well? It is the biggest exporter in the world and is selling under the same international pressures.

 

[ubiquitous]

...and why, if it's all external factors, is Germany doing well? It is the biggest exporter in the world and is selling under the same international pressures.

Eh...?

"German confidence plummets to record low" Irish Independent 16-7-2008

 

[sherib]

Can't resist this: Irish woman looking at soldiers marching, turns to friend and says "they're all out of step bar my Johnnie".

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.

Given all the undoubted benefits that have accrued to Ireland since joining the E.U., are we seriously considering cutting ourselves adrift and going it alone? Sounds like independent madness to me. Having said that, President Sarkozy should have kept his opinion re a second Lisbon vote to himself but then he is not exactly renowned for his prudence. Judging by today's radio, the "No" people are already girding their loins for a second defeat and aiming to push their point further in the European elections next year. People might like to read David McWilliams article in today's Irish Independent.

The example of this folly is Germany, which experienced the first EMU-inspired recession in the late 1990s to the early part of this decade. Germany had its unification boom in the early '90s, it spent enormous sums of money trying to absorb the East, the economy boomed for a while, wages rose as did property prices and immigration.

Then in the late 1990s, German industry realised it couldn't compete at these new higher wages and it retrenched. The engine of Europe went into a decade long downturn. Euro interest rates -- although low -- were not low enough for a faltering Germany and the euro was far too strong for German exporters so they took the recession on the chin.

Unemployment rose to over four million and stayed there for close to a decade. German companies became competitive again by shedding jobs. Now after 10 years of a slump, they are world beaters again, but many ordinary Germans suffered much more than they would have had they had their own currency.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

This line just robbed your chosen view of credibility. There is absolutely no correlation between the Lisbon vote and our stock market and economy as it stands.

Okay - objection sustained.

But my main point was that Sarky wants to teach the rest of would be vetoers a lesson. We are simply the self made fodder for that message.

Either we allow him the humble but sane lesson of saying sorry and voting YES second time round or we go the proud but poor route of telling Sarky to shove off - we meant NO. And that means bye bye - not even au revoir.

I personally think that given Sarky's very hawkish stance that he wants the latter - a really strong lesson. Either that or he is not getting to Monte Carla these days.