# Another Lisbon treaty referendum



## Ancutza (11 Dec 2008)

Just read that the government is considering putting Lisbon to the vote again in October 2009.

Maastricht here we go again! Just what part of the word 'No' don't the government understand?! Perhaps it's that we're all too stupid to vote correctly so we have to do it again and again until we vote the 'right' way. In what sense is this democracy?


----------



## NorthDrum (11 Dec 2008)

It is democracy, we are being asked to vote again, not being told that we have to vote Yes. Nobody should complain that you actually have the choice to vote on something. We were asked to vote on other things twice before because peoples opinions change. 

It is reasonable to assume that many many people voted no more as a kick in the head for the government rather then not agreeing with the treaty itself. Many people also voted no because they didnt understand the treaty itself. It is also safe to assume that many people voted no based on false comments from Veritas and Sinn Fein. 

Im not necessarily in the yes campaign but I am glad that we have an opportunity to vote on the treaty more on its merits as opposed to the popularity of the government.

Whether or not people understand it much better is debatable, but most people understand that its important that if they do vote on this treaty its important that you make a well judged decision based on the treaty itself rather then voting based on your feelings for your government.


----------



## Caveat (11 Dec 2008)

Ancutza said:


> In what sense is this democracy?


 
In the sense that either way, we still have a choice: Yes or No.

But I know what you mean.


----------



## rmelly (11 Dec 2008)

So will all the other memeber states have a chance to 'unratify' the Treaty?


----------



## Westie123 (11 Dec 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> It is democracy, we are being asked to vote again, not being told that we have to vote Yes. Nobody should complain that you actually have the choice to vote on something. We were asked to vote on other things twice before because peoples opinions change.
> 
> If we are being asked to vote again because "peoples opinions change", why for example did Fianna Fail not hold another general election after last May, just in case the people did'nt understand what they were doing the first time?
> 
> If there was a yes vote in the first referendum, would we be asked to vote again, "just in case we were confused the first time"? I think we all know the answer to that one !!


----------



## RMCF (11 Dec 2008)

It would not surprise me at all to see a YES vote this time, especially if the Gov use the threat of job security/losses in their sales pitch.


----------



## starlite68 (11 Dec 2008)

If there was a yes vote in the first referendum, would we be asked to vote again, "just in case we were confused the first time"? I think we all know the answer to that one !![/quote]

very good point


----------



## S.L.F (11 Dec 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> It is democracy, we are being asked to vote again, not being told that we have to vote Yes. Nobody should complain that you actually have the choice to vote on something. We were asked to vote on other things twice before because peoples opinions change.



The people voted overwhelmingly "No", this should be respected, if it was a real democracy it would be.



NorthDrum said:


> Many people also voted no because they didnt understand the treaty itself.



Many people voted for the treaty even though they didn't understand it at all.

In fact I don't know anybody who could say they understood it.



NorthDrum said:


> It is also safe to assume that many people voted no based on false comments from Veritas and Sinn Fein.



I know my people voted "Yes" because Sinn Fein and the looney left were for a "No" vote.

Having spoken to them afterwards they were happy the treaty didn't pass.



NorthDrum said:


> Im not necessarily in the yes campaign but I am glad that we have an opportunity to vote on the treaty more on its merits as opposed to the popularity of the government.



What on earth makes you think this govt will bother to explain the treaty any better this time?



NorthDrum said:


> Whether or not people understand it much better is debatable, but most people understand that its important that if they do vote on this treaty its important that you make a well judged decision based on the treaty itself rather then voting based on your feelings for your government.



Everyone knows it is important to understand the treaty but since several of our senior politicians haven't even bothered to read the treaty how can the ordinary Joe soaps do it.

Speaking for myself I made a serious stab at reading it I had to give it up when my brain turned to mush.


----------



## micmclo (11 Dec 2008)

Ancutza said:


> Just read that the government is considering putting Lisbon to the vote again in October 2009.
> 
> Maastricht here we go again!



What are you on about about? The Maastricht treaty passed first time way back in 1992 or 1993
What went wrong? What is being repeated here? 

Or you on about the Nice treaty where we voted twice? That was ten years later so you can't possibly be mixing them up

Nice rant OP
What were you saying about the government assuming voters were stupid........


----------



## NorthDrum (11 Dec 2008)

Hold on a second.

We have have referendums more then once before (abortion) because public opinion changed. You would find if there was enough outcry about abortions being made legal we would have another referendum.

And I personally do think that the anger the public had towards the government worked better for the no campaign then anything else that worked for the yes. It was a vote mainly on the government, anybody who thinks anything else is delusional. 

I never said that people will understand the treaty more this time (or that the govt will explain it better), but that more people will understand the importance of their decision (ie not just being about kickin FF in the vunerable ones!).

If the no vote goes through again, then fair enough, I will accept that people just dont want it passed but until there is a revote nobody can say for definate that people really voted on the treaty itself. 

If we have another treaty and the no goes through, it will be interesting to see what happens. Wonder if the EU went ahead and we were left on our own, how many people would look for another referendum to get back into it! Im not scarmongering as I havent decided what to vote yet, but its all good and well and saying we made up our minds. (and by saying voting no on lisbon means isolating ourselves from the EU, is that scarmongering or actually having the foresight to actually inform the public of the POTENTIAL ramifications of a no vote , better then saying it after the vote !)


----------



## S.L.F (11 Dec 2008)

micmclo said:


> nice Rant Op
> What Were You Saying About The Government Assuming Voters Were Stupid........



:d


----------



## S.L.F (11 Dec 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> Hold on a second.
> 
> We have have referendums more then once before (abortion) because public opinion changed. You would find if there was enough outcry about abortions being made legal we would have another referendum.
> 
> ...



Yeah but how do you know they won't keep on having votes till they get what they want?


----------



## NorthDrum (11 Dec 2008)

S.L.F said:


> Yeah but how do you know they won't keep on having votes till they get what they want?


 
Thats a fair point and if they do then I would be inclined to vote no more and more and get more people to vote no.

Im not saying that I want it passed, but I am actually glad that we do have a chance to vote again.

I assumed that we all knew that there would be a loss of independence joining up with the EU. I dont accept that we should have to go along with what the Bigwigs in Germany and France say, but do think that from what I understand from this treaty its mostly about the administration side of the EU then anything else. Will we ever get an EU treaty that all countries agree to . . I think not.

We should not vote yes just because we are afraid of being thrown out of the EU, but likewise we should not vote no in spite of FF or because we are angry with vote 2. I honestly think that this will go through because the whole state of the country has changed since Vote 1 and some people may think taking some responsibility and powers away from our government may not be the worst thing in the world (just kiddin of course!).

I do agree that its not right that we should have to vote again on this referendum (since its the european Ministers - not public - that want us to revote). Again, I am just saying I am glad we actually have a vote! More then most countries, aparantly it was an oversight by FF who couldve done what most other countries did and slyly changed legislation so there wouldnt be any vote (or so I am told!).


----------



## Mpsox (12 Dec 2008)

Ancutza said:


> Just read that the government is considering putting Lisbon to the vote again in October 2009.
> 
> Maastricht here we go again! Just what part of the word 'No' don't the government understand?! Perhaps it's that we're all too stupid to vote correctly so we have to do it again and again until we vote the 'right' way. In what sense is this democracy?


 
I thought one of the fundamental arguements of the No camp in the first refurendum was that if you voted No, the government could go back and renegotiate the treaty. 

People voted no, the government now seems to have renegotiated the treaty, so why shouldn't they put it to the people for another vote?


----------



## Ceist Beag (12 Dec 2008)

Mpsox said:


> I thought one of the fundamental arguements of the No camp in the first refurendum was that if you voted No, the government could go back and renegotiate the treaty.
> 
> People voted no, the government now seems to have renegotiated the treaty, so why shouldn't they put it to the people for another vote?



Agreed. The sad thing for me is that the argument for reducing the number of commissioners in the original proposal was one I actually agreed with and now they're changing back to how it was before! Anyone see Mary Lou last night on Prime Time? When it was put to her that this was their main argument first time around (Vote No to keep your commissioner) she changed tack to say there are other things they really wanted changed in it and didn't even bat an eyelid about this change. Some people are never happy! It just reaffirms my belief that they were always going to advocate a No vote, no matter what was in the treaty, as they have done for every single treaty put to the people.


----------



## csirl (12 Dec 2008)

This will be the end of Cowen's political career. As things stand there is no way that it will pass. None of the core concerns about the original treaty have been addresses, and like all voting opportunities during bad times or when the Government is performing poorly, a large proportion of the electorate will vote No in protest against the Government.

The proposed poll does highlight how out of touch the EU is with the ordinary citizen. How could they even think that this vote could possibly succeed.


----------



## MrMan (12 Dec 2008)

Can the no camp not just vote no again? I would imagine this time around there will be a bigger turn out to vote so it will be interesting to see how public opinion is, I certainly don't think the no camp have a right to prevent a second vote of the people taking place.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Dec 2008)

This will be a resounding YES. So much has happened since the last debate.

1) We got a shock NO result. Goddammit Paddypower had already paid out on YES. The silent majority have been shaken out of their complacency.

2) The reaction of Europe to our NO has made it clear that the message put out by the Ref Commission that NO simply meant things would stay as they were was irresponsibly naive.

3) All 26 others will have gone on to ratify. We didn't stop the train. Clearly if we persist with NO we are going to have to get off the train.

4) And what about the credit crunch and the bank guarantees etc. etc.? We need the EU big time more than ever to prevent us going the way of Iceland.

I don't think the token guarantees and the commissioner thing will change the looney right/left who voted NO but the combination of the above factors will encourage most people of common sense to get out and reverse the original madness.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Dec 2008)

Despite their protestations, a second referendum will play into the hands of the No camp. Watch Libertas win at least 2 seats in Ireland in the Euro elections next June. And watch a panicked Fianna Fail dump Brian Cowen in advance of an October referendum. And watch them lose the second referendum anyway. By that stage, Ganley and co will be serious players, and even a washed-up Sinn Fein will unfortunately be revitalised.


----------



## Caveat (12 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Despite their protestations, a second referendum will play into the hands of the No camp. Watch Libertas win at least 2 seats in Ireland in the Euro elections next June. And watch a panicked Fianna Fail dump Brian Cowen in advance of an October referendum. And watch them lose the second referendum anyway. By that stage, Ganley and co will be serious players, and even a washed-up Sinn Fein will unfortunately be revitalised.


 
Sounds like a reasonable prediction to me.


----------



## micamaca (12 Dec 2008)

I wasn't in the country for the first vote but if I had been, I would have been concerned about the rumours of unaccountability of the top positions arising from this treaty.  

But I haven't heard this issue discussed anywhere in recent times.  For instance, I heard that Jean-Claude Juncker or whatever his name is was in line for the position of President and that this position was accountable to no-one. Now please don't blast me for ignorance but was there any truth in this?  Or are all these high-ranking positions in the EU unaccountable already?


----------



## Ciaraella (12 Dec 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> It is also safe to assume that many people voted no based on false comments from Veritas and Sinn Fein.


 

Off topic but I thought it funny that the christian shops got a mention!


----------



## csirl (12 Dec 2008)

Caveat said:


> Sounds like a reasonable prediction to me.


 

Agree. By going down this path, the Government are effectively giving Libertas a chance to get off the ground and replace the PDs as the self appointed party that watches FF. I'd expand on the above prediction by saying that Libertas will probably pick up 3 or 4 seats the next general election if the No vote prevails.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Dec 2008)

Ciaraella said:


> Off topic but I thought it funny that the christian shops got a mention!



In vino Libertas?


----------



## Betsy Og (12 Dec 2008)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> 2) The reaction of Europe to our NO has made it clear that the message put out by the Ref Commission that NO simply meant things would stay as they were was irresponsibly naive.
> 
> 3) All 26 others will have gone on to ratify. We didn't stop the train. Clearly if we persist with NO we are going to have to get off the train.
> 
> 4) And what about the credit crunch and the bank guarantees etc. etc.? We need the EU big time more than ever to prevent us going the way of Iceland.


 
To 2 above: hasnt the No camp been proven right in that we did get some concessions (... their worth yet undetermined).

Re 3: What say you to a "two track" or "twin speed" Europe? Like Miley used to say in the Kilmeadan ad - "all the taste, none of the waste" - obvously I dont know this for a fact but maybe its worth thinking about. Just how out in the cold would we be??, look at Norway which isnt even part of the EU but signs up to every agreement, is pretty much "compatable", to use an IT word, with the rest of the EU. I certainly dont want to be a speck on the outside of a federal EU because the bigest naievety in all the naievety alleged is that the EU will give a flying proverbial about Ireland unless it also suits them (take the setting of the ECB as an example - would you say the needs of Ireland gets much of an airing in this debate?).

re 4 - do you not remember that Lenihan had to do an 11th hour solo run on the bank guarantee to save the Irish banks, and then got lambasted by the EU for doing it ..... wake up people, Brussels wasnt going to help.


Despite all the above I'm not anti-EU, I just think its gone far enough, NO to a Federal Europe. The Shinners are always anti-EU but for archaic "Caithlin Ni Houlihain" reasons (the old thing of Ireland as a lady being plundered by Britain, now its the EU plundering us). Shinners have nil credibility on just about anything, Libertas - not sure of their long term value or sustainability but they are currently mining a good seam of public opinion.


----------



## michaelm (12 Dec 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> It is democracy, we are being asked to vote again, not being told that we have to vote Yes. Nobody should complain that you actually have the choice to vote on something. We were asked to vote on other things twice before because peoples opinions change.


Would you be happy with a third vote or a fourth?  At what point would you call a No a No?  Yes, we were asked to vote on other things more than once but after a considerable period of time or after a general election (Nice II).  The No result was barely in when the Government were scheming on how to get around it.  For the same matter to be put to the people 'for final decision' twice in the same parliamentary period is unprecedented and unacceptable.





			
				NorthDrum said:
			
		

> It is reasonable to assume that many many people voted no more as a kick in the head for the government rather then not agreeing with the treaty itself. . . It was a vote mainly on the government, anybody who thinks anything else is delusional.


I voted No based on the treaty, not to give the Government a kick.  I don't know anyone who voted No to kick the Government.  I think your assessment is wrong.





NorthDrum said:


> Wonder if the EU went ahead and we were left on our own, how many people would look for another referendum to get back into it! Im not scarmongering . .


This is Yes or No to a treaty not to the EU.  Either you are scaremongering or you don't know what you're talking about.





ubiquitous said:


> Despite their protestations, a second referendum will play into the hands of the No camp. Watch Libertas win at least 2 seats in Ireland in the Euro elections next June. And watch a panicked Fianna Fail dump Brian Cowen in advance of an October referendum. And watch them lose the second referendum anyway. By that stage, Ganley and co will be serious players, and even a washed-up Sinn Fein will unfortunately be revitalised.


Interesting.  I think that there will be a second No and that Libertas will become a force but I don't see any dividend for Shinners.  My preference is for an EU about fair trade and ease of travel (more EEC than EU) rather than the Federal State path we're on at the moment.


----------



## MrMan (12 Dec 2008)

> I voted No based on the treaty, not to give the Government a kick. I don't know anyone who voted No to kick the Government. I think your assessment is wrong.



Maybe not but i think alot either voted no because if in doubt boot it out or just didn't vote because they didn't understand the treaty. If people were given a greater understanding of how the treaty affects Ireland without the usual sensational headlines then there is legitimate reasoning for a second vote.


----------



## michaelm (12 Dec 2008)

MrMan said:


> Maybe not but i think alot either voted no because if in doubt boot it out or just didn't vote because they didn't understand the treaty.


You think a lot didn't vote? This was a big turnout: 175,000 more people voted compared to Nice II.


----------



## MrMan (12 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> You think a lot didn't vote? This was a big turnout: 175,000 more people voted compared to Nice II.



I can only speak for my personal circle of friends family etc, wouldn't our population numbers have increased quite a bi since Nice II.


----------



## aonfocaleile (12 Dec 2008)

I don't know the exact figures but I'm sure we all agree that the population has increased since Nice II. However, a sizeable proportion of this is attributable to inward immigration, which has little impact on the electorate for a referendum. Only Irish citizens may vote in a referendum unlike in other elections, which have wider electorates. I'm sure www.cso.ie would have the statistics on population change over recent years.


----------



## DeeFox (12 Dec 2008)

I am concerned that the government is going to devote huge time, energy and resources in getting the "yes" this time and take their focus off the spiralling economy (if indeed their focus was ever on it).  
I voted yes last time and should be voting yes again - I have yet to speak to anyone who has changed their mind about how they will vote.  And, based on discussions with friends and colleagues, I think that a number of people who voted "no" did so because they were not happy with the government as opposed to their views on what they had read about the Treaty - and surely this effect is only likely to be magnified by the tail end of what is looking to be an economically gloomy 2009?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Dec 2008)

Westie123 said:


> NorthDrum said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a yes vote in the first referendum, would we be asked to vote again, "just in case we were confused the first time"? I think we all know the answer to that one !!
> ...


----------



## Nemesis (12 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> This is Yes or No to a treaty not to the EU.  Either you are scaremongering or you don't know what you're talking about.



It's funny, the No camp are allowed to scaremonger as much as they like (our sons will be press-ganged into a European army, abortion will be introduced, detention of 3 year olds etc. etc.) and nothing is said by those advocating a No here but the minute anyone dares to broach the consequences of putting ourselves in a minority of 1 against 26 other states, it's labelled as scaremongering. Do people honestly believe that if we torpedo the Lisbon treaty with a second No, it won't have any consequences for our place in the EU?, like everything will just happily trundle along the same as it always has without any regard to the political realities of the day? 

That by itself is not reason enough to vote Yes but it should be borne in mind when looking at the merits of the treaty. For those who have doubts or misgivings about the treaty they must ask themselves is it really that bad that we should shoot it down and deal with those consequences? How is it that the Czech PM who is a eurosceptic (but a moderate and pragmatic one) is prepared to ratify it. Or that the UK, Sweden and Denmark who stayed out of the Eurozone could ratify without a huge fuss yet here in Ireland we are going to make a lone heroic stand to bring the whole thing crashing down?

Of course I anticipate part of the response to this will be: What about the French, the Dutch, and the other poor oppressed people of Europe 'denied' a voice over this? Well, last time I checked, they didn't seem to care much. The Greeks are rioting but it's not about Lisbon. And if Declan Ganley feels he can build a trans-European party out of it all then he's welcome to try. I'll be very interested to see how he gets on in this summer's elections.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Dec 2008)

Nemesis said:


> What about the French, the Dutch, and the other poor oppressed people of Europe 'denied' a voice over this? Well, last time I checked, they didn't seem to care much.



It must be a long time since you checked. In the meantime the French & the Dutch have both voted in referenda to reject this project.


----------



## diarmuidc (12 Dec 2008)

Betsy Og said:


> Re 3: What say you to a "two track" or "twin speed" Europe? Like Miley used to say in the Kilmeadan ad - "all the taste, none of the waste" - obvously I dont know this for a fact but maybe its worth thinking about. Just how out in the cold would we be??, look at Norway which isnt even part of the EU but signs up to every agreement, is pretty much "compatable", to use an IT word, with the rest of the EU.


When we become one of the biggest exporters of oil and gas in the world,  with enough cash in the bank that we can wipe our ar*es with tenners , we can start comparing ourselves to Norway, until then Iceland would be a closer comparison.


----------



## diarmuidc (12 Dec 2008)

DeeFox said:


> I am concerned that the government is going to devote huge time, energy and resources in getting the "yes" this time and take their focus off the spiralling economy.


There's very little the Irish government can do about the recession, despite what Labour/SF/SIPTU claim. In fact their only input so far (raise income tax and VAT) will probably make it worse


----------



## Nemesis (12 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> It must be a long time since you checked. In the meantime the French & the Dutch have both voted in referenda to reject this project.



We are talking about the Lisbon treaty as an issue (December 2007). The French had presidential and parliamentary elections since the vote on the Constitution and it did not figure as a pressing theme in those elections. However I welcome the fact that there will be EU elections in advance of any second referendum here, it will help clarify just how big of a deal this is to all those people the No side tell us have been disenfranchised.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Dec 2008)

Nemesis said:


> We are talking about the Lisbon treaty as an issue.



Indeed, but is there any real difference between this and the aborted EU Constitution as rejected by the French & Dutch electorates against the will of both their respective political establishments?


----------



## Betsy Og (12 Dec 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> When we become one of the biggest exporters of oil and gas in the world, with enough cash in the bank that we can wipe our ar*es with tenners , we can start comparing ourselves to Norway, until then Iceland would be a closer comparison.


 
Fair enough, but didnt the EU already show us that they wouldnt be providing any safety blanket as regards banking crises. If Iceland was in the EU are you certain things would be much better? 

To develop the main point further, I know the EU wont wait for Ireland (regardless of the rules), and thats fair enough, they're welcome to "closer integration" or whatever the plan is, but what "sanctions" do you expect from the EU on Ireland:


immediate ejection
loss of grants/funding
travel restrictions
movement of capital restrictions
tbh, regardless of how miffed the top brass are, I cant see them singling out Ireland for specific discrimination. Remember we only barely exist in terms of the European Project, other that creating hassle over a treaty I doubt Europe is convulsed at the thought Ireland wont be .... wait for it ..."At the heart of Europe" (whatever that means). 

Some funding might be vulnerable but arent we supposed to be net contributors at this stage?


----------



## Nemesis (12 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Indeed, but is there any real difference between this and the aborted EU Constitution as rejected by the French & Dutch electorates against the will of both their respective political establishments?



Certainly the Lisbon treaty is broadly the same as the Constitution but the point remains that the French and Dutch are not out marching for the Lisbon process to be scrapped. They have not voted for parties in elections that would seek to stop its ratification. The fact that their governments have sought to ratify the treaty through their respective parliaments does not appear to bother them much. Sarkozy made it clear at the time of his presidential campaign that he intended to deal with this issue through parliament. But like I said if the people of Europe are concerned about parliamentary ratification of Lisbon then they'll now be able to vote for Declan Ganley and Libertas to make their voice heard. Lets see how he gets on.


----------



## diarmuidc (12 Dec 2008)

Betsy Og said:


> Fair enough, but didnt the EU already show us that they wouldnt be providing any safety blanket as regards banking crises.


I think you're focusing too much on a relatively small issue. The French and German governments were not too happy with the way they weren't informed about the guarantee but it was a pretty minor spat. I don't think anyone was expecting the EU to guarantee Irish banks. Why would they?



Betsy Og said:


> If Iceland was in the EU are you certain things would be much better?


Well their currency wouldn't have collapsed and they'd still be able to afford imported goods. Seems they are pretty keen to get in.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Dec 2008)

Nemesis said:


> the point remains that the French and Dutch are not out marching for the Lisbon process to be scrapped. They have not voted for parties in elections that would seek to stop its ratification.



Neither have the Irish. On either count.


----------



## Betsy Og (12 Dec 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> II don't think anyone was expecting the EU to guarantee Irish banks. Why would they?
> 
> 
> Well their currency wouldn't have collapsed and they'd still be able to afford imported goods. Seems they are pretty keen to get in.


 
I'll bow to your expertise on the currency point (macro economics not my thing) but I get the feeling that when most people say "Iceland - it coulda been us !!! " they are thinking that the EU would never let that happen to Irish banks, but as you say yourself, they'd be wrong.


----------



## Nemesis (12 Dec 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Neither have the Irish. On either count.



Yes, why would they? I fail to see the connection between the two cases. Our Constitution requires us to pass such a treaty by referendum. So if the people remain resolutely opposed to the Lisbon treaty then they have no need to march or organise politically to contest elections, they can simply vote No when the question is put to them again. They may well object to being asked twice but no marches, riots or undue effort is required to overturn the process, they merely have to turn up and tick a box. Arguments over whether our constitutional arrangements are better than those of other states is a debate for another thread.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Dec 2008)

Betsy, of course no sanctions. But our very preferential treatment which has been till now tolerated would be under threat. I have in mind the corporate tax haven status. Also the VRT farce which is protectionism by the back door.

I also think Ganley has lost the run of himself.  Does he really think he is going to sweep the pan European elections on the basis that across Europe people feel cheated of a referendum chance to reject Lisbon?


----------



## NorthDrum (12 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> Would you be happy with a third vote or a fourth? At what point would you call a No a No? Yes, we were asked to vote on other things more than once but after a considerable period of time or after a general election (Nice II). The No result was barely in when the Government were scheming on how to get around it. For the same matter to be put to the people 'for final decision' twice in the same parliamentary period is unprecedented and unacceptable.I voted No based on the treaty, not to give the Government a kick. I don't know anyone who voted No to kick the Government. I think your assessment is wrong.This is Yes or No to a treaty not to the EU. Either you are scaremongering or you don't know what you're talking about.


 
No I am not scaremongering, Im pointing out, if we are in fact isolated from europe alot of people who didnt really know what they were voting for (which will happen) will be sorry what they voted for. You are assuming that I am in the yes campaign and just trying to scare people.

Why not talk about the ramifications of voting no to the country. This is not simply a straight forward treaty and to say there are no ramifications to us voting no is to put your head in the sand. (particularly not to take this into consideration).

You agree that we have had more then one vote on differant issues yet are asking me when no is no. If you read my other posts on this topic in the same thread you would see that I think if no is voted next time there wont be another vote (we wont get a chance) and even if we did I would definantly vote no and encourage people to vote no. I dont think the first vote was representitive of peoples true opinions on the treaty itself (more on their feelings of the government who were pushing a yes). Maybe you voted based on your understanding of it but to suggest that everybody else did is truely naive.

You are also giving out about the timescale involved in the revote. It doesnt matter how long its been since the vote, only that we have a vote and that the public vote on what they think is best for our country. Say what you want but we voted to join the EU because we thought it was best for the country. We are now voting on things (which it appears the EU are at least making efforts to accomodate) that will greatly affect our relationship with the EU.

I think its being ignorant by saying that its simply scaremongering to suggest that people voting no could isolate Ireland from the EU. Is it actually a possibility or a probability if the no vote goes through*?* Of Course its a near definate result based on us voting no. what we are clarifying is if people feel strongly enough to vote no based on this probability!

the stupidist thing for anybody to do would be to vote no assuming that its simply a victory for the Irish with no ramifications for the country.


----------



## Nemesis (12 Dec 2008)

diarmuidc said:


> Well their currency wouldn't have collapsed and they'd still be able to afford imported goods. Seems they are pretty keen to get in.



What would Iceland want in the EU? Sure wouldn't they have to give up all their fish. That precious commodity that could have sustained all our infrastructure spending here over the years had we not been conned into handing it over to Brussels back in 1973


----------



## michaelm (12 Dec 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> if we are in fact isolated from europe alot of people who didnt really know what they were voting for (which will happen) will be sorry what they voted for. You are assuming that I am in the yes campaign and just trying to scare people.


What makes you think we will be "isolated from Europe" if we reject Lisbon II; what do you mean by "isolated"?   On what legal basis will the EU isolate or punish Ireland and what would that say about the EU's regard for democracy and it's own rules?  I would be surprised if you had any connection to any Yes campaign.  I believe my views on the subject to be considered, not quite as delusional, naive and ignorant as you suggest.


----------



## Nemesis (12 Dec 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> It is also safe to assume that many people voted no based on false comments from Veritas and Sinn Fein.





Ciaraella said:


> Off topic but I thought it funny that the christian shops got a mention!



Actually, it could be  he was thinking of 

Forgot all about Robert Kilroy Silk's Eurosceptic outfit till I stumbled across this article this evening.


----------



## diarmuidc (12 Dec 2008)

Betsy Og said:


> I'll bow to your expertise on the currency point (macro economics not my thing) but I get the feeling that when most people say "Iceland - it coulda been us !!! " they are thinking that the EU would never let that happen to Irish banks, but as you say yourself, they'd be wrong.


I has nothing to do with the banks but everything to do with the currency. If every Irish bank collapsed tomorrow, our currency would still be Euro and would still have the same purchasing power as it does today.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Dec 2008)

PaddyPower go 4/6 a YES vote, what an absolute certainty. If NO even looks like winning the government will play the Nuke option i.e. they will say NO means we will pull out of the EU. This will be YES by hook or by crook. Bet everything on YES with PaddyPower.


----------



## NorthDrum (13 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> What makes you think we will be "isolated from Europe" if we reject Lisbon II; what do you mean by "isolated"? On what legal basis will the EU isolate or punish Ireland and what would that say about the EU's regard for democracy and it's own rules? I would be surprised if you had any connection to any Yes campaign. I believe my views on the subject to be considered, not quite as delusional, naive and ignorant as you suggest.


 
Ok, do you consider there will be no ramifications for the country if we vote no. Some EU Leaders (french mainly) had been already saying that they would have to look at how to "treat" Ireland as the treaty had been ratified by most countries.

What I am saying is it is Delusional and naieve to suggest that voting no will have no consequences to us as a nation in the EU. What they are, I am not so sure, but I cant believe that there would be such a fuss (from our government or the EU) about "no" if it didnt have such an impact.

Say whatever you want, we have done well out of europe, my GUESS is that if we voted "no" on this treaty we wont be favoured as much when we need their help in the future. Whats there to suggest that this is the case I here you ask, well theres more evidence to suggest that this will be the case rather then if we ratify the treaty (given some of the rumblings after the no from our european counterparts). You should know by now that politicians decide where money or aid is sent, not people. I havent heard too many politicians coming out in support of Ireland since the vote (actually supporting the no!).

Last time I voted no, this time I am undecided (want to see what else comes out of both sides first). If the country votes no, then I dont expect another referendum on this. At no time am I saying that this is the main reason why a person should vote yes, I am saying that this is something that should be considered when deciding what to vote.


----------



## michaelm (13 Dec 2008)

NorthDrum said:


> Ok, do you consider there will be no ramifications for the country if we vote no.


There is no legal basis under which to punish Ireland.  Lisbon would complete the framework for a Federal Europe.  We will not be asked to vote on anything after Lisbon.  I see positives in Lisbon being rejected.  I believe that politicians may finally realise that most people in most countries don't want a Federal EU and will begin to slim down the EU and return competencies to National Parliaments.  At the very least if Lisbon fails the EU will have to be honest about the federal project and seek direct approval from the peoples of Europe.


----------



## NorthDrum (13 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> There is no legal basis under which to punish Ireland. Lisbon would complete the framework for a Federal Europe. We will not be asked to vote on anything after Lisbon. I see positives in Lisbon being rejected. I believe that politicians may finally realise that most people in most countries don't want a Federal EU and will begin to slim down the EU and return competencies to National Parliaments. At the very least if Lisbon fails the EU will have to be honest about the federal project and seek direct approval from the peoples of Europe.


 
Thats the thing though, will they. I would love to think that a "no" would mean what you say, its just (and Im honest enough to say that I wouldnt bet my life on us being excluded from EU if we vote no) I am worried about what they can or might do if they decided literally "to hell with Ireland". Hey maybe they wont, but I would want to know one way or another ! And if it is a case that we cant be "punished" for voting no then the "no" campaign should be making it their main priority to relieve fears by pointing out legislation or actual laws that will comprehensively, unquestionably mean that they cant leave us by the side of the road (however they may be able to do it!).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> At the very least if Lisbon fails the EU will have to be honest about the federal project and seek direct approval from the peoples of Europe.


The Referendum Commission supported this naive interpretation of a NO vote first time round. Can anybody honestly believe that, with all the other 26 countries ratifying the Treaty, with Ireland given a commissioner and with legal guarantees given for its rather quaint sensibilities, if we vote NO a second time they are simply going to scrap the whole project?

That is naive in the extreme. Whether you are against the LT or not is no longer the issue. The LT *will be implemented* irrespective of Ireland's position. The next referendum is not about LT or no LT it is about do we want to be on the train or not - this train is leaving the station, make no mistake about that.

I am tempted to open a new thread entitled "Assuming the LT will be implemented irrespective of our position, what are the implications of a NO vote"?.


----------



## Nemesis (13 Dec 2008)

michaelm said:


> There is no legal basis under which to punish Ireland.  Lisbon would complete the framework for a Federal Europe.  We will not be asked to vote on anything after Lisbon.  I see positives in Lisbon being rejected.  I believe that politicians may finally realise that most people in most countries don't want a Federal EU and will begin to slim down the EU and return competencies to National Parliaments.  At the very least if Lisbon fails the EU will have to be honest about the federal project and seek direct approval from the peoples of Europe.



Could you outline a possible sequence of events for how after the ratification of Lisbon the existing EU will be transformed into a fully fledged federal state. All 27 member states are separate sovereign entities. It is quite a leap to get from where we are now to become a federal state, where countries like France and Spain become nothing more than states like Texas or New York. That is a huge fundamental change in the nature of the Union, and I would suggest that unlike the changes in the Lisbon treaty such a fundamental change in status would require referenda in several countries at least. Take the UK as an example, do you honestly believe that if Ireland passes Lisbon then UK sovereignty will be extinguished for ever? Or that of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland etc. etc.? Do you really believe that the governments of all 27 nations are complicit in this? That all these politicians are intent on dismantling the sovereignty of their respective nations? Such a belief is an example of Euroscepticism turned to outright Europhobia and a complete loss of touch with the reality of the situation.

The dream of turning the European project into a United States of Europe is over (in our lifetimes at least and probably a lot longer). Enlargement has killed it. If the EU had remained small with just the Benelux countries, France, Germany and Italy and they had deepened the Union they may well have created a USE. Then entry to such a bloc would have required an applicant state to surrender its sovereignty or stay out altogether. The benefits of membership could have been jealously guarded by this group as an incentive for those to join up on an all or nothing basis. Of course that's not the path the EU took, it has become a broader union at the expense of being a deeper union. Pragmatic politicians in the UK recognised this and were especially in favour of enlargement into the East to weaken the influence of federalists further. You only have to look at the rumblings in the Czech Republic and Poland to see this has been anything but a federalist's dream. It is much harder to forge a deeper union with 27 member states than it would be with 10 or less.

The reason referenda are not required in more countries is because the Lisbon treaty does not fundamentally alter the nature of the EU. It reforms many of its structures and institutions but it in no way creates a United States of Europe. The Constitutional Treaty required referenda in many countries because it essentially recreated the EU under a new document that would have made the old treaties and amendments obsolete. It is not the nature of the changes per se that required referenda but the fact the old agreements + the changes had to be voted on again to create a single document rather than a collection of amended treaties. Also calling it a constitution and giving legal status to things like the flag and anthem would require a vote in many countries. To suggest that the people of all 27 countries will never be consulted again if Lisbon is passed and will become part of a federal state against their will is simply wrong and dare I say it scaremongering. To believe this requires that all the politicians in government over the course of this process from all 27 states, from left and right of the political spectrum plus the judges on the various courts that have examined the treaty (the Czechs being the most recent) are part of some grand conspiracy against the people of Europe. It would also require that at some stage of the process the constitutions of many states will be violated. This is more in keeping with the kind of Illuminati/New World Order nonsense peddled by David Icke and his ilk than any fair and reasoned analysis of the situation.


----------



## starlite68 (13 Dec 2008)

Duke of Marmalade;
 
I am tempted to open a new thread entitled "Assuming the LT will be implemented irrespective of our position said:
			
		

> i guess we will know the awnser to that come next october, by the way..dont put too much faith in paddy power...he has been know to get it wrong in the past!


----------



## Ancutza (13 Dec 2008)

Well now! That's just plain incorrect as I understand the LT!  No trains are leaving any stations if all the passengers are not on board.

If my government (the one I voted for so help me) can't explain the treaty to me in such a manner so as I can understand it (which I can't from attempting to read it myself) then I will still vote 'No'!

At the moment we, as a nation, are being bullied into accepting something which has not been adequately explained.  Our government, total pussies that they have turned out to be, are also brandishing big sticks at us, the electorate, who put them in power to represent our wishes as a majority. 


The plain fact of the matter is that if we don't roll over and accept Lisbon then it is *DEAD* in  the water and our interests have a better chance of being heard and taken into account in future.

If we accept it then all bets are off and we will be surely marginalised.


----------



## Nemesis (13 Dec 2008)

All this talk of punishing Ireland is not the point. It's not about formal action being taken against us. It's the effect on the goodwill we have built up over the years. It's on the human level that the effect is felt. Finding it difficult to get access to certain bodies and organisations. It's subtle and not part of a sinster plot to hurt us. It's just like in any group or club, if you find yourself in a minority of 1 then people might forget to invite you to a party or where there's limited time to deal with some member's concerns you find you lose out to someone else where before you were given a favourable ear. It's just basic common sense human interaction stuff. It shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.


----------



## Ancutza (13 Dec 2008)

> quaint sensibilities


 
My own quaint sensibilities are at negative odds with issues such as abortion, divorce and conscription. Why, if these are my life-long held beliefs, would I vote to allow these into Ireland by the back door by voting 'Yes' to the LT??


----------



## NorthDrum (13 Dec 2008)

Nemesis said:


> All this talk of punishing Ireland is not the point. It's not about formal action being taken against us. It's the effect on the goodwill we have built up over the years. It's on the human level that the effect is felt. Finding it difficult to get access to certain bodies and organisations. It's subtle and not part of a sinster plot to hurt us. It's just like in any group or club, if you find yourself in a minority of 1 then people might forget to invite you to a party or where there's limited time to deal with some member's concerns you find you lose out to someone else where before you were given a favourable ear. It's just basic common sense human interaction stuff. It shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.


 
Agreed . Its not about scaremongering, its about accepting that there will be repurcussions to voting no and considering this when you make your choice.


----------



## michaelm (13 Dec 2008)

Nemesis said:


> Could you outline a possible sequence of events for how after the ratification of Lisbon the existing EU will be transformed into a fully fledged federal state. All 27 member states are separate sovereign entities. It is quite a leap to get from where we are now to become a federal state,


Lisbon transfers another sizable tranche of competencies to the EU; many areas where vetoes now apply will be switched to QMV; The QMV weighting is to be rebalanced to favour the larger states.  The main function of National Parliaments will be, if it isn't already, to transcribe EU law (proposed by an unelected commission) into local law. 





Nemesis said:


> The reason referenda are not required in more countries is because the Lisbon treaty does not fundamentally alter the nature of the EU. . . The Constitutional Treaty required referenda in many countries because it essentially recreated the EU under a new document that would have made the old treaties and amendments obsolete.


There is no genuine substantive difference between the the EU Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty.  Lisbon was a mechanism to avoid referenda following the rejection of the EU Constitution by the French and Dutch people.





Nemesis said:


> To suggest that the people of all 27 countries will never be consulted again if Lisbon is passed and will become part of a federal state against their will is simply wrong and dare I say it scaremongering.


For Lisbon only 1 of 27 Governments consulted its people.  No future treaty will ever be put to the people of any EU member as, obviously, the people can't be trusted; so much for "the people have spoken . . the b@stards".


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Dec 2008)

Ancutza said:


> My own quaint sensibilities are at negative odds with issues such as abortion, divorce and conscription. Why, if these are my life-long held beliefs, would I vote to allow these into Ireland by the back door by voting 'Yes' to the LT??


I thought we had divorce here.  Anyway we have legal guarantees against the other abominations.  This in no way changes the treaty, the abominations weren't there in the first place.  The quaint 17th century aspect is that Ireland seems to see these abominations in every form of progress.

Nem, you argue your case well if somewhat long windedly.


----------



## Nemesis (13 Dec 2008)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Nem, you argue your case well if somewhat long windedly.



Thanks Duke, I'll try and work a bit harder on the brevity side of things in future


----------



## diarmuidc (14 Dec 2008)

Ancutza said:


> The plain fact of the matter is that if we don't roll over and accept Lisbon then it is *DEAD* in  the water and our interests have a better chance of being heard and taken into account in future.


You're very naive if you believe that.


----------

