# Lisbon defeated  what happens next ?



## nad

Just wondering in the event of this treaty been defeated, which at the moment according to the early tallys could be a real possibility,what happens next, will it be renegotiated after all, or will there be another vote simililar to what happenned with Nice.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*

Lots in LOS on this.


----------



## Geraldine2

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*

Perhaps the core founder members  (France, Germany, Italy and Benelux) and Spain may think about refounding a new Europe on their own.  Just an idea!


----------



## triplex

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*

history will merely repeat itself..

we will be forced to vote again, and again, and again....


until we say yes....

democracy? i don't think so!


----------



## aircobra19

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*

Maybe they'll finish it before asking people to vote on it next time.


----------



## truthseeker

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*



triplex said:


> history will merely repeat itself..
> 
> we will be forced to vote again, and again, and again....
> 
> 
> until we say yes....
> 
> democracy? i don't think so!


 
Mrs Doyle Democracy: Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on.......


----------



## Ceist Beag

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*



truthseeker said:


> Mrs Doyle Democracy: Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on.......



 Ya will ya will!


----------



## z105

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*

I personally think there is a huge protest vote in the result, I get the impression that people are fed up with not just the Government but the "opposition" parties also, they are sick of the lack of true representation and the way citizens of Ireland are being treated. The arrogance has to stop, maybe they'll sit up and listen. IMO it's a wider issue than just the Lisbon Treaty referendum.


----------



## Guest117

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*



Havealaugh said:


> I personally think there is a huge protest vote in the result, I get the impression that people are fed up with not just the Government but the "opposition" parties also, they are sick of the lack of true representation and the way citizens of Ireland are being treated. The arrogance has to stop, maybe they'll sit up and listen. IMO it's a wider issue than just the Lisbon Treaty referendum.


 

Fully agree - this is not a vote against Lisbon but rather a vote against the arogance of Fianna Fail.

We were all told 12 months ago ( especially by our now taoiseach ) that we had to vote Fianna Fail because no other party could safeguard the strong economy and the celtic tiger etc. What a big load of Fianna Fail Bullocks

FF have told us that Lisbon cannot be renogiated if we vote NO - Let's see if this is yet another lie


----------



## aircobra19

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*

I think there was an element of, this is a dogs dinner, go away and try harder next time.


----------



## Green

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*



badge55 said:


> Fully agree - this is not a vote against Lisbon but rather a vote against the arogance of Fianna Fail.
> 
> We were all told 12 months ago ( especially by our now taoiseach ) *that we had to vote Fianna Fail because no other party could safeguard the strong economy and the celtic tiger etc. What a big load of Fianna Fail Bullocks*
> 
> FF have told us that Lisbon cannot be renogiated if we vote NO - Let's see if this is yet another lie


 
Regretably enough people in the country actually believed them...I see Mickey Martin is now trying to hang on a lack of information..wonder is he trying to hang Referendum Commission?


----------



## Brouhahaha

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*



badge55 said:


> Fully agree - this is not a vote against Lisbon but rather a vote against the arogance of Fianna Fail.


 
If people voted no because of this then they need to seriously get their priorities straightened. It was a treaty that affected 500m people and should have been considered on its merits. Rejecting it or accepting it has serious repercussions and to belittle it to some kind of kick in the shin for Cowen is daft.


----------



## so-crates

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*

He certainly seems to be trying to hang them. They provided the information as per their remit. It isn't their job to campaign for a yes vote. It is there job to provide a balanced referendum. FF in particular had the task of campaigning for a yes vote, the failure is theirs in particular. They approached the voters in arrogance and have been burnt for it. It isn't sufficient to present as your over-arching argument that "it will be embarrassing" or "the rest of the EU won't like us" or similar arguments, they aren't arguments and they aren't for anything. FF ran a Yes campaign which seemed to consist of, at best, reasons not to vote no rather than reasons to vote yes. As I said elsewhere, the best Yes campaign advertisement I saw was the one that Prionsias De Rossa put out, in it he listed reasons to vote yes and better still he cross-referenced them to the treaty and the rights charter. I know he isn't in the Dáil but why was the opposition putting forward a better argument than the government?


----------



## Green

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*



so-crates said:


> He certainly seems to be trying to hang them. They provided the information as per their remit. It isn't their job to campaign for a yes vote. It is there job to provide a balanced referendum. FF in particular had the task of campaigning for a yes vote, the failure is theirs in particular.


 
This approach would be consistent with the search for a person to hang in other issues such as child sex cases and those issues which led to the Travers Report.


----------



## so-crates

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*

Well the unpalatable alternative to someone else being to blame is that FF are at fault  which clearly is not to be countenanced 

(I know they aren't the only Yes side but they were by far the worst offenders, instead of insightful articles and arguments from Garret Fitzgerald and his ilk as well as reasoned and well founded information from Labour we had a surfeit of people like Bertie telling us not to embarrass them)


----------



## Sim Two

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*

It would be almost impossible to outline the reasons why the Treaty was voted down - a lot of local and national issues not related to the Lisbon Treaty per se have been used as a protest vote ( e.g hospital protest committees, fishermen complaining about high fuel prices, parts of Limerick not wanting to be part of the Kerry electoral constituency  etc).

What didn't help either was the Government asking us to trust them on this Lisbon issue while we had to listen to the daily relevations from Dublin Castle about sterling lodgements and horserace winnings !! 

Trust is a two way street.


----------



## z103

> It was a treaty that affected 500m people and should have been considered on its merits.


Which were?



> This view was not given to me legally as a third option to check a box apart from 'yes' and 'no' which said ' i dont know' or 'abstain' .


You should have spoiled your vote. Put a tick in both boxes.
One major mistake the 'Yes' side made, was to inform people to spoil votes if they were unsure, not just vote 'No'.


----------



## so-crates

leghorn said:


> You should have spoiled your vote. Put a tick in both boxes.
> One major mistake the 'Yes' side made, was to inform people to spoil votes if they were unsure, not just vote 'No'.


 
I concur that if you want to register a protest at your options a spoilt vote indicates this whereas not voting simply registers indifference (or laziness some would say)

On the other points you have made... Huh? Firstly I saw no information from either campaign but certainly not from the yes telling people to spoil votes if they were unsure, can you please provide some reference material to back up your contention?

On the second point, why in heaven's name would the YES campaign tell anyone to vote NO. LOGICALLY what would happen if someone indicated they were unsure is they would ask why and try to explain away their fears. What sort of person would tell you to vote NO when they want to you vote YES?


----------



## aircobra19

uiop said:


> At the end of the day I didnt bother to vote as I felt neither 'Yes' nor 'No' sides deserved a vote in their favor. I dont like how in situations such as these there is noone impartial who can be trusted to put forward an unbiased argument in favor of the facts. I expressed my view by staying away. This view was not given to me legally as a third option to check a box apart from 'yes' and 'no' which said ' i dont know' or 'abstain' .
> What I hope will now happen is for an opt out of any tax harmonisation to be included . In which case, speaking as an ordinary man I would do the EU elites a favor and vote yes.
> Consider everything this country went through in the past with clauses and changes to divorce and abortion referendums, one after another simply because a few cranks were unhappy. Is it beyond the power of those who negotiated this treaty for us to
> have added in a clause protecting our low corporation tax rate and/or our tax rate in general ?
> The ordinary hard working man in the street knows this low tax rate is our bread and butter and gives us an advantage at this peripheral location in Europe far away from large populations and markets. We should have the right to decide how much of our taxes we are willing to allow be swallowed up by the state. If they want a 'yes' vote the elites should listen to this concern and act accordingly.


 
What specifically in the treaty directly effects our tax, or introduce tax harmonisation?


----------



## so-crates

uiop said:


> At the end of the day I didnt bother to vote as I felt neither 'Yes' nor 'No' sides deserved a vote in their favor. I dont like how in situations such as these there is noone impartial who can be trusted to put forward an unbiased argument in favor of the facts. I expressed my view by staying away. This view was not given to me legally as a third option to check a box apart from 'yes' and 'no' which said ' i dont know' or 'abstain' .
> What I hope will now happen is for an opt out of any tax harmonisation to be included . In which case, speaking as an ordinary man I would do the EU elites a favor and vote yes.
> Consider everything this country went through in the past with clauses and changes to divorce and abortion referendums, one after another simply because a few cranks were unhappy. Is it beyond the power of those who negotiated this treaty for us to
> have added in a clause protecting our low corporation tax rate and/or our tax rate in general ?
> The ordinary hard working man in the street knows this low tax rate is our bread and butter and gives us an advantage at this peripheral location in Europe far away from large populations and markets. We should have the right to decide how much of our taxes we are willing to allow be swallowed up by the state. If they want a 'yes' vote the elites should listen to this concern and act accordingly.


 
Hmm, and IBEC and the IDA etc. who would have the greatest interest in protecting our corporate tax regime, were sooooo against the treaty? I think mayhap you listened to propoganda without investigating what lay behind it.


----------



## so-crates

Did anyone else find the notion of SF and SWP "protecting" our corporate tax regime amusing?


----------



## DavyJones

so-crates said:


> Did anyone else find the notion of SF and SWP "protecting" our corporate tax regime amusing?


 
Funniest thing I heard all campaign, was enough for me to vote yes. Most people I spoke to that voted no, did it cause they didn't understand what it was about and nearly all of them didn't bother to even do the most basic of research to try and find out. All because they heard it was impossible to read the actual legal document.  I'm all up for decision's by the people but atleast find out what it is you are voting for/against.


----------



## aircobra19

I think thats one of the big issues with the treaty. Why make something you need everyone to vote on, so incomprehensible to most of your voters. People are going to be suspicious of that from the start.


----------



## Guest117

uiop said:


> At the end of the day I didnt bother to vote


 
What ever your reasons this is unforgiveable - 

Would you like to give up democracy altogether because of some poor campaigning for this referendum?


----------



## z103

> On the other points you have made... Huh? Firstly I saw no information from either campaign but certainly not from the yes telling people to spoil votes if they were unsure, can you please provide some reference material to back up your contention?
> 
> On the second point, why in heaven's name would the YES campaign tell anyone to vote NO. LOGICALLY what would happen if someone indicated they were unsure is they would ask why and try to explain away their fears. What sort of person would tell you to vote NO when they want to you vote YES?


I've badly phrased my post

I believe that many people voted 'No', because they were unsure. A better option might have been to spoil their vote. If the 'Yes' campaign highlighted this (inform unsure people to spoil rather than vote 'no'), then the 'No' vote might be less. In other words, the 'No' camp got the 'Noes' and 'unsures'.

With regards to explaining away fears, how many weeks do we have? The change to the constitution was gobbledegook in my eyes.


----------



## so-crates

badge55 said:


> What ever your reasons this is unforgiveable -
> 
> Would you like to give up democracy altogether because of some poor campaigning for this referendum?


 
badge55, it must be something about the top of the keyboard!!!! 

We have qwertyuiop bemoaning the idiocy of people who vote because (s)he contends that their votes don't count. And now we have mini-(qwerty)uiop saying they couldn't be bothered to vote. Top of the keyboard seems to be the Slough of Despond.


----------



## Guest117

Well spotted Soc - maybe they have some kind of secret top of the keyboard society


----------



## so-crates

leghorn said:


> I've badly phrased my post
> 
> I believe that many people voted 'No', because they were unsure. A better option might have been to spoil their vote. If the 'Yes' campaign highlighted this (inform unsure people to spoil rather than vote 'no'), then the 'No' vote might be less. In other words, the 'No' camp got the 'Noes' and 'unsures'.
> 
> With regards to explaining away fears, how many weeks do we have? The change to the constitution was gobbledegook in my eyes.


 
Ah that makes much more sense. Yes I'd agree, the logical thing for the disaffected (particularly these) or the unsure if they aren't willing to vote yes would be to register a Dustin the Turkey vote and spoil their ballot rather than just plumping for no out of fear rather than conviction.

Oddly most people's fears weren't centred around the changes to the constitution per se, their fears were those whipped up by the no campaign relating to taxation, militarism, privatisation, etc.


----------



## rmelly

What happens next? We move on and we get the Europe WE want, not one dreamed up by a bunch of unelected eurocrats in Brussels.


----------



## DavyJones

rmelly said:


> What happens next? We move on and we get the Europe WE want, not one dreamed up by a bunch of unelected eurocrats in Brussels.


 
Dream on, WE will never get the Europe WE want. The Irish people don't do comprimise.


----------



## z105

> Would you like to give up democracy altogether because of some poor campaigning for this referendum?



Along with others, I had 2 votes in this referendum, and this is democracy ?

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=83866&highlight=voting+cards


----------



## Guest117

rmelly said:


> What happens next? We move on and we get the Europe WE want, not one dreamed up by a bunch of unelected eurocrats in Brussels.


 

Just curious Rmelly - what is the Europe you want ?

Please share with the rest of us !


----------



## so-crates

rmelly said:


> What happens next? We move on and we get the Europe WE want, not one dreamed up by a bunch of unelected eurocrats in Brussels.


Or rather one carefully teased out and painfully negotiated between 27 sovereign states with a wide-range of vested interests?

I reckon many a Eurocrat had years of nightmares


----------



## rmelly

Well for a start there would be no foreign minister, and the president would be elected.

Fundamentally, it would focus on what it was conceived as - an ECONOMIC union, and wouldn't seek to influence every aspect of our lives as they now appear intent on, whether that's the curvature of our bananas, water charges etc.

I don't want a U.S.E. and that is inevitably where we are headed if these eurocrats have their way.


----------



## Guest117

Rmelly

We are going a little off topic here so I will just ask do you really think that this no vote is going to completely change the course that the union is on?

oh and why should we not pay water charges? Do you know of a magical source of treated, potable water that can be spirited to everyone's house without a pipe network?


----------



## rmelly

I'm hoping that it does change the course, yes. Do you think these guys have a pre-ordained right to take us down a path of their choosing? 

There is a lack of democracy at the core of the EU, this needs to be addressed. Had other countries had the opportunity to vote, polls show that it would have been rejected elsewhere.

Why exactly do we pay taxes again?


----------



## rmelly

> I wasnt given a third option to mark my abstention or a ' dont know' down on the ballot paper ?


 
If in doubt, say No.


----------



## askalot

*Re: Lisbon defeated  what happens next.*



YOBR said:


> I see Mickey Martin is now trying to hang on a lack of information..wonder is he trying to hang Referendum Commission?



It's the start of the slow softening up of the public for Lisbon 2. 

"You see, the punters just didn't understand it, not that it's their fault of course. You have to respect the voice of the people; anyway we'd better do it again".


----------



## television

so-crates said:


> Ah that makes much more sense. Yes I'd agree, the logical thing for the disaffected (particularly these) or the unsure if they aren't willing to vote yes would be to register a Dustin the Turkey vote and spoil their ballot rather than just plumping for no out of fear rather than conviction.
> 
> Oddly most people's fears weren't centred around the changes to the constitution per se, their fears were those whipped up by the no campaign relating to taxation, militarism, privatisation, etc.


 

It never makes sence to spoil a vote.


----------



## eileen alana

I thought it rather strange that the rural community voted so heavily against the treaty, given the massive grants and subsidies the farmers received from the EU in times past.


----------



## z103

> It never makes sence to spoil a vote.


Why not?



> I thought it rather strange that the rural community voted so heavily against the treaty, given the massive grants and subsidies the farmers received from the EU in times past.


Not everyone in rural communities are farmers.


----------



## DavyJones

eileen alana said:


> I thought it rather strange that the rural community voted so heavily against the treaty, given the massive grants and subsidies the farmers received from the EU in times past.


 
It's not about the past, it's about the future.


----------



## so-crates

television said:


> It never makes sence to spoil a vote.


I would disagree. Spoilt votes are counted. Votes that aren't cast aren't counted at all. So if someone takes the time to turn up and the spoil a vote it indicates disaffection rather than disinclination.

The classic spoilt vote was Dustin the Turkey in the presidential election. People spoilt their vote by adding his name to the ballot paper. It occurred with such frequency in some constituencies that it was actually counted.


----------



## aircobra19

uiop said:


> After I clearly explained my lack of understanding of this treaty apart from uncertainty about taxation, how can you ask me this question and expect an authoritative response ? Do you not get what I said ?


 
Because you raised very specific concerns about tax issues in the treaty, as if these were negatives about it. 



uiop said:


> What I hope will now happen is for an opt out of any tax harmonisation to be included .....





uiop said:


> Is it beyond the power of those who negotiated this treaty for us to have added in a clause protecting our low corporation tax rate and/or our tax rate in general ?.....


 


uiop said:


> ...our government still did not manage to get us any opt outs whatsoever to do with tax. ....


 
AFAIK (and I could be wrong and please correct me if I am) theres nothing in the Lisbon treaty to do with corporation tax, tax harmonisation or indeed our tax system. Also we do have the power of veto. 

What has been suggested is that other countries could create a common tax policy between them, which would put pressure on Ireland to join up with that, especially if it causes trade difficulties. But that can happen now even with out the treaty. 

So no tbh I don't "get" what you said at all.


----------



## z103

> AFAIK theres nothing in the Lisbon treaty to do with corporation tax,


Interesting. 'As Far As I Know'. Do you know this for certain?

Here is a typical example from the Treaty of Lisbon text;



> Article 7 shall be amended as follows: (a) throughout the Article, the word "assent" shall be replaced by "consent", the reference to breach "of principles mentioned in Article 6(1)" shall be replaced by a reference to breach "of the values referred to in Article 2" and the words "of this Treaty" shall be replaced by "of the Treaties";




(Just noticed that you've edited your post.)


----------



## aircobra19

leghorn said:


> Interesting. 'As Far As I Know'. Do you know this for certain?
> 
> Here is a typical example from the Treaty of Lisbon text;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Just noticed that you've edited your post.)


 
AFAIK means you're not certain. Well AFAIK. YMMV


----------



## aircobra19

The Treaty is deliberately obtuse. Which is reason enough to tell them to take a hike.


----------



## television

so-crates said:


> I would disagree. Spoilt votes are counted. Votes that aren't cast aren't counted at all. So if someone takes the time to turn up and the spoil a vote it indicates disaffection rather than disinclination.
> 
> The classic spoilt vote was Dustin the Turkey in the presidential election. People spoilt their vote by adding his name to the ballot paper. It occurred with such frequency in some constituencies that it was actually counted.


 
Dissatisfaction aginst whom exaclty? who benEfits exaclty a spoilt vote. Its counted as a spoilt vote it has no affect. Its worthless.


----------



## aircobra19

uiop said:


> And you didnt help answer those concerns. I was quite honest about my ignorance. Instead you thought that asking questions rhetorical or not was helping but this not true when specifically addressed to me. I came here to learn , not to teach.


 
I wasn't trying to help you. You commented on tax issues so I wanted clarification on what part of the treaty you were talking about.  



uiop said:


> Which english language sentence constructions posted by myself do you have difficulty with ?


 
I just thought you knew something of those issues, I realise now you don't. AFAIK none of that is in the treaty.


----------



## rmelly

AFAIK uiop is a bit of a fantasist...


----------



## diarmuidc

rmelly said:


> Well for a start there would be no foreign minister, and the president would be elected.



That's what *you* want. Not necessarily what the EU wants. The EU consists of representative democracies which agreed via their elected representatives that the Lisbon treaty was what they wanted. The fact the it did not line up with what *you* want does not mean it's not the EU "*we*" want


----------



## diarmuidc

uiop said:


> Otherwise how come Libertas has gotten away with claiming it has for so long ?


Because people like you believe them


----------



## aircobra19

uiop said:


> I already explained my limited knowledge of the treaty in black and white. I came to learn something at this forum. Not to teach anything. I explained this clearly in the previous posts. I dont believe you can prove with certainty that Lisbon did'nt mean a threat to our low corporation tax. Otherwise how come Libertas has gotten away with claiming it has for so long ? And our governmnt were not able to prove ( and I dont mean with just words and election type promises) to the electorate that it was otherwise ?....


 
I'm simply saying AFAIK its not in the treaty, which was brought up in many debates already. You don't seem to be aware of that. But lets be honest the Govt and the yes side overall did a dire job in presenting the treaty, and the No side played a much smarter campaign and picked holes in the treaty and played to peoples fears. Many of which aren't in the treaty. Which just illustates how poor most people are looking through the smoke and mirrors.


----------



## rmelly

diarmuidc said:


> That's what *you* want.


 
Fair point, but the people of Europe deserve the opportunity to vote on this. Given that most of the Irish political parties were in favour, had this been ratified in parliament, it would have pasesd - clearly against the wishes of the population. 



> Not necessarily what the EU wants.


 
Is it reasonable to assume that the parliaments of the other 26 member states may not represent the views of their people? We know this is the case in France and the Netherlands. Not holding referendums this time around was an act of cowardice on the part of these and the other 6 countries who held or planned to hold referendums on the original constitution.


----------



## rmelly

uiop said:


> I already explained my limited knowledge of the treaty in black and white. I came to learn something at this forum. Not to teach anything. I explained this clearly in the previous posts. I dont believe you can prove with certainty that Lisbon did'nt mean a threat to our low corporation tax. Otherwise how come Libertas has gotten away with claiming it has for so long ? And our governmnt were not able to prove ( and I dont mean with just words and election type promises) to the electorate that it was otherwise ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attacking me directly with such nonsense is a disgraceful thing to say. You have no basis for that statement. I am too much of a gentleman to even enter such a nasty dialogue as you have earned.
> Please leave me alone now and in future. You have not added to the thread topic but instead have brought nastiness to it.


 
Did you even vote? If not you have nothing to add to this thread.


----------



## aircobra19

rmelly said:


> Fair ... Not holding referendums this time around was an act of cowardice on the part of these and the other 6 countries who held or planned to hold referendums on the original constitution.


 
Bravery isn't a requirement. Besides it was done very deliberately and I'd suggest cynically.


----------



## Nemesis

rmelly said:


> Fair point, but the people of Europe deserve the opportunity to vote on this. Given that most of the Irish political parties were in favour, had this been ratified in parliament, it would have pasesd - clearly against the wishes of the population.
> 
> 
> Is it reasonable to assume that the parliaments of the other 26 member states may not represent the views of their people? We know this is the case in France and the Netherlands. Not holding referendums this time around was an act of cowardice on the part of these and the other 6 countries who held or planned to hold referendums on the original constitution.



The fact is the people in France, the Netherlands, Germany or anywhere else don't really care that much about it. It never featured as a major issue in their general elections. Economic and social issues closer to home dominated. Parliamentary democracy forces people to prioritise what's really important. Take Scotland for example, the desire to break free from the control of Westminster is strong there and manifests itself in a political party - the SNP. People in Scotland care enough about the issue to vote members of this party into parliament. In the rest of the UK, there now is UKIP of course which proclaims its desire to leave the EU. If the EU is the terrible undemocratic beast so many seem to believe, they can vote for this party in such numbers as would allow them to leave. In any case, the Tories are drifting more and more this way anyway so that may be an option too.

The point is, there is an avenue open for all the peoples of Europe to limit the EU or get out of it altogether if it really is that bad. They live in democracies. They just have to care enough about it. The fact that it doesn't feature as an issue says to me that for all the moaning and complaints the EU isn't that bad. If it was it would be a major election issue.


----------



## rmelly

Was this treaty a major issue in our last General Election? No, yet we voted No, so the above isn't an appropriate gauge of the ill will the people of Europe may or may not have for the EU.

Why is everyone so afraid of them having the opportunity to decide their own fate? Is it the realisation from all in the EU that they have lost touch with the people they claim to represent and work for?


----------



## Nemesis

rmelly said:


> Was this treaty a major issue in our last General Election? No, yet we voted No, so the above isn't an appropriate gauge of the ill will the people of Europe may or may not have for the EU.
> 
> Why is everyone so afraid of them having the opportunity to decide their own fate? Is it the realisation from all in the EU that they have lost touch with the people they claim to represent and work for?



Yeah we voted No. Cos it's so easy to vote No. The fact remains those other countries that heroic Ireland has sacrificed its influence for couldn't care enough about it to make it a general election issue. They grumble and moan but it's no big deal. What we're going to have to cope with in the future is a big deal however although clearly not many people can see it yet.


----------



## rmelly

More scaremongering - you guys will never learn...

Have you forgotten the French & Dutch No votes? Did the world fall apart? There WILL be a Plan 'C'. And maybe it will be a democratic one.


----------



## rmelly

Nemesis said:


> They grumble and moan but it's no big deal.


 
Maybe they're afraid to do much more - if the eurocrats are as vindictive as the Yes side have been making out, who in their right minds would cross them?


----------



## shanegl

Exactly which eurocrats are unelected by the way?


----------



## rmelly

All of them, other than the MEP's?


----------



## shanegl

Who are all of them? The council of ministers perhaps?  They aren't elected?


----------



## rmelly

Elected to local parliaments, not EU positions. Did we directly elect our representative at council of ministers specifically to that role?


----------



## shanegl

rmelly said:


> Elected to local parliaments, not EU positions. Did we directly elect our representative at council of ministers specifically to that role?



We don't directly elect the Taoiseach, we elect representatives who choose our Taoiseach for us. The Taoiseach then choosers our ministers for us. Everyone should understand that these ministers will represent us at the Council. So no, we didn't directly vote our representative to that role, but then we didn't elect them to their role in the Irish cabinet either.

According to your logic, we should we get pick our Taoiseach, or our Finance minister.


----------



## Nemesis

rmelly said:


> More scaremongering - you guys will never learn...



I have no reason to scaremonger. The vote is over.



rmelly said:


> Have you forgotten the French & Dutch No votes? Did the world fall apart? There WILL be a Plan 'C'. And maybe it will be a democratic one.



France is a very different player to Ireland in this. The Netherlands was covered somewhat from negative consequnces by the French voting before them. I am genuinely very concerned about what has happened and where this leaves us. I'm glad you're so confident and secure about the outcome. Time will tell.


----------



## Nemesis

rmelly said:


> Maybe they're afraid to do much more - if the eurocrats are as vindictive as the Yes side have been making out, who in their right minds would cross them?



Oh god. The poor little dears are afraid. Why? Is it the secret police of those big bad states that will take them away in the night if they express dissent?


----------



## starlite68

Nemesis said:


> I have no reason to scaremonger. The vote is over.
> 
> 
> where this leaves us. I'm glad you're so confident and secure about the outcome. Time will tell.


 "where this leaves us" is exactly where we were a few days ago,except now the EU will have to come back to us with a better deal. there is noting at all worry about......i think you will find there is always a plan B...thats how the world works!


----------



## diarmuidc

shanegl said:


> We don't directly elect the Taoiseach, we elect representatives who choose our Taoiseach for us. The Taoiseach then choosers our ministers for us. Everyone should understand that these ministers will represent us at the Council. So no, we didn't directly vote our representative to that role, but then we didn't elect them to their role in the Irish cabinet either.
> 
> According to your logic, we should we get pick our Taoiseach, or our Finance minister.



Well said. The NO side portray "these unelected Eurocrats" as people trying to subvert the whole democratic process but really all it does show is that they completely lack an understanding of what  *representative* democracy is.


----------



## rmelly

uiop said:


> Please do not ever address me again in future.


 
Excuse me?


----------



## rmelly

Nemesis said:


> I am genuinely very concerned about what has happened and where this leaves us. I'm glad you're so confident and secure about the outcome. Time will tell.


 
If this isn't scaremongering, I don't know what is.


----------



## Nemesis

starlite68 said:


> "where this leaves us" is exactly where we were a few days ago,except now the EU will have to come back to us with a better deal. there is noting at all worry about......i think you will find there is always a plan B...thats how the world works!



You honestly think the world works like that? One small country on the periphery of Europe can frustrate the plans of 26 democratic states to move forward. If that is what happens then it makes Europe look like a joke to the other powerful blocs in the world like Russia, China, USA etc. That's certainly not good when Europe is at the mercy of a very unpredictable and undemocratic Russia for much of its energy needs. Oh of course, I can't talk about things like that cos I'm scaremongering. I can only talk about positive outcomes from a No vote otherwise those who voted No will get upset.


----------



## rmelly

Nemesis said:


> Oh of course, I can't talk about things like that cos I'm scaremongering. I can only talk about positive outcomes from a No vote otherwise those who voted No will get upset.


 
Any we can't question the Almighty Treaty - we should be ashamed of ourselves for doubting and questioning our betters in Brussels.


----------



## aircobra19

Nemesis said:


> ...Europe is at the mercy of a very unpredictable and undemocratic Russia for much of its energy needs. ....


 
Please expand on that, because I haven't a clue whats that all about or how it relates to the treaty.


----------



## rmelly

From the looks of things Russia is a bit more democratic than the EU - at least they go through the pretence of running elections and giving the people the appearance of democracy.


----------



## starlite68

[quote=Nemesis;64880 One small country on the periphery of Europe can frustrate the plans of 26 democratic states to move forward. 
 according to reports comming out of europe yesterday...many in these countries were very happy we voted NO...explain that?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

This vote proves one thing.  The EU needs reform.  Imagine the Irish people having a veto at the United Nations.  Strange we accept resolutions in that quarter which actually do comit us to military action and we never dream of putting them to referendum.

The Catch 22 for the EU is how do you get Ireland to vote that in future its vote won't be necessary?


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> This vote proves one thing. The EU needs reform. Imagine the Irish people having a veto at the United Nations.
> 
> 
> 
> the french russians americans british chineese already do.
Click to expand...


----------



## diarmuidc

starlite68 said:


> according to reports comming out of europe yesterday...many in these countries were very happy we voted NO...explain that?



And those same countries are still moving forward with the ratification of the Lisbon treaty today. oops. Someone should tell Gerry A and Mr Ganley that it's tough to negotiate "a better deal for Ireland" when no one in interested in renegotiating.


----------



## rmelly

Lets give the dust some time to settle - they came out with the same pronouncements after the Constitution was rejected in France, and we know what happened then...


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

And another thing. It is absolutely ridiculous that the No promoters got equal air time on RTE as the Yes. Who is this Ganley guy anyway? How does he deserve the same air time as the Taoiseach? What if I, Harchibald, put up a few No posters, would I get equal air time with, say, Enda?

I read the BBC website. They describe RTE as the State television station, a bit like Pravda. If I was Merky or Sarky I would be asking Rubber Lips "how come you say you support Yes and then let the looneys equal air time on your State television station? How naive are you Irish anyway?"


----------



## Nemesis

aircobra19 said:


> Please expand on that, because I haven't a clue whats that all about or how it relates to the treaty.



Russia has moved far away from democracy under Putin's leadership. Yes there are elections, but the result is never really in doubt, the media is almost completely controlled by the authorities. A few small outlets are tolerated of course, just to give the appearance of a free press. The government and much of the business elite are connected in some way to the FSB (old KGB). A majority of Russians do support Putin but they're never really given the chance to hear opposing views. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was thrown in jail and his company Yukos taken over by the state. Why? Because he sought to challenge Putin politically. Had he played along, the Kremlin would have been quite happy to let him keep his millions regardless of how he may have acquired them. The message goes out that you can make money but do not challenge the authorities in the political arena. There would certainly be no tolerance for a Declan Ganley to come along and upset the carefully laid plans of the government. It's a completely different political culture to that found in the member states of the EU. The power brokers in the Kremlin must be much amused at gentle noble democratic Europe bending over backwards to listen to the wishes of small states when historically the tradition of the great powers has been to swallow up small countries as they see fit.

My point is that the powers of Europe would appear weak and frankly ridiculous if they said we can't proceed because a little state on the edge of Europe with no real strategic significance won't let us. At the same time nationalist sentiment is rising in Russia, there is a bitterness towards the West about how Russia was treated after the fall of Communism. A feeling that Western states took advantage of its weakness and encroached on its traditional sphere of influence. Also the chaotic handling of the economy during the change from state-control to a market economy in the 90s when more liberal and democratic forces were in power has led to a deep disillusionment with our style of democracy. Russians want strong leadership, a strong economy and a strong military and aren't much minded about the niceties of free speech and political dissent right now. Add to that Russia's huge oil and gas reserves and the fact that Europe is so dependent on them for its energy needs and you have a position where the EU really must appear strong and credible as a power. I'm not saying Russia is going to invade Europe or anything like that. But I would prefer a strong Europe in the event that more nationalistic forces come to power in the years ahead.


----------



## cole

Harchibald said:


> And another thing. It is absolutely ridiculous that the No promoters got equal air time on RTE as the Yes. Who is this Ganley guy anyway? How does he deserve the same air time as the Taoiseach? What if I, Harchibald, put up a few No posters, would I get equal air time with, say, Enda?


 
The cheek of the broadcasters affording equal air time! That might lead to an informed debate.



Harchibald said:


> I read the BBC website. They describe RTE as the State television station, a bit like Pravda. If I was Merky or Sarky I would be asking Rubber Lips "how come you say you support Yes and then let the looneys equal air time on your State television station? How naive are you Irish anyway?"


 
I don't think calling the taoiseach or the No voters names adds to the debate.


----------



## cole

Nemesis said:


> My point is that the powers of Europe would appear weak and frankly ridiculous if they said we can't proceed because a little state on the edge of Europe with no real strategic significance won't let us.


 
This keeps coming up. All 27 countries agreed that there had to be a unanimous decision. If they don't like the fact that one country won't ratify the treaty then they shouldn't have agreed to a unanimous decision in the first place. Granted it was an unexpected decision. Anyway, it looks like they're ploughing ahead regardless.


----------



## Nemesis

Harchibald said:


> And another thing. It is absolutely ridiculous that the No promoters got equal air time on RTE as the Yes. Who is this Ganley guy anyway? How does he deserve the same air time as the Taoiseach? What if I, Harchibald, put up a few No posters, would I get equal air time with, say, Enda?
> 
> I read the BBC website. They describe RTE as the State television station, a bit like Pravda. If I was Merky or Sarky I would be asking Rubber Lips "how come you say you support Yes and then let the looneys equal air time on your State television station? How naive are you Irish anyway?"



Exactly. Why did the media fawn over Ganley so much and give him so much airtime? Ok, they needed people to represent the case for a No. But why was Ganley on all the time? Jim Corr or Sinead O'Connor had as much right to represent the No side as him. Just because he spent a million or two to swing the vote didn't mean he had to be given such a prominent position in debates on radio and Tv.


----------



## television

Nemesis said:


> Exactly. Why did the media fawn over Ganley so much and give him so much airtime? Ok, they needed people to represent the case for a No. But why was Ganley on all the time? Jim Corr or Sinead O'Connor had as much right to represent the No side as him. Just because he spent a million or two to swing the vote didn't mean he had to be given such a prominent position in debates on radio and Tv.


 
The unions all political parties the majority of newspapers were telling Irish people to vote yes to this. A rag bag allience of devients were telling people to vote no. When will the yes side get it. People voted no not because of the devients but because they felt that the wool was being pulled over their eyes that the establishment was telling them "vote for this its good for you, Im not going to bother explaining it to you because your not going tounderstand it anyway". 

For something so important as changing our constitution we need tohave a full open debate teasing out the yes and no positions.If the yes position was so obviously stronger they had plenty of oppurtunity to cnvince the irish people. They failed. The yes side should analyise the real resons for thier failure not bemone 50/50 coverage.


----------



## room305

triplex said:


> history will merely repeat itself..
> 
> we will be forced to vote again, and again, and again....
> 
> 
> until we say yes....
> 
> democracy? i don't think so!


 
It's representative democracy not direct democracy. If you your elected representatives come back with another Lisbon Treaty referendum then vote for someone else. Like Sinn Fein, Declan Ganley or Youth Defence.



uiop said:


> have added in a clause protecting our low corporation tax rate and/or our tax rate in general ?


 
Ireland maintains a veto on direct taxation. That said, we could have added a clause to treaty to counteract the rumours being spread by Ganley/SF et al. The means to attack our low corporation tax already exist post-Nice but I reckon the No vote will encourage elements in France to do exactly so as it has always been a sore-point for them.



aircobra19 said:


> The Treaty is deliberately obtuse. Which is reason enough to tell them to take a hike.


 
I'm not sure how you can infer any obtuseness is deliberate. Also it is a legal document and quite a deal clearer than many that have been passed by the Dail.



Nemesis said:


> The fact that it doesn't feature as an issue says to me that for all the moaning and complaints the EU isn't that bad. If it was it would be a major election issue.


 
Excellent point. Much was made by the No campaign that we were voting on behalf of the people of France who didn't get the opportunity to vote on the treaty. Yet the French people didn't seem much bothered about the fact.



rmelly said:


> Have you forgotten the French & Dutch No votes? Did the world fall apart? There WILL be a Plan 'C'. And maybe it will be a democratic one.


 


starlite68 said:


> "where this leaves us" is exactly where we were a few days ago,except now the EU will have to come back to us with a better deal. there is noting at all worry about......i think you will find there is always a plan B...thats how the world works!


 


rmelly said:


> Lets give the dust some time to settle - they came out with the same pronouncements after the Constitution was rejected in France, and we know what happened then...


 
We are not France. We do not have a population of sixty million. We are not a net contributor to EU funds. Is it hard for people to grasp that it might be easier for the rest of the EU to press ahead without us?

We need the EU more than the EU needs us. How can we be in a position to renegotiate a better deal?



Nemesis said:


> Exactly. Why did the media fawn over Ganley so much and give him so much airtime? Ok, they needed people to represent the case for a No. But why was Ganley on all the time? Jim Corr or Sinead O'Connor had as much right to represent the No side as him. Just because he spent a million or two to swing the vote didn't mean he had to be given such a prominent position in debates on radio and Tv.


 
Well have no fear you won't see much of Declan Ganley again. He's already said as much. Back off to the US to work on some of the very lucrative communications contracts his company has secured.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Room305_, you have summed it up better than I could ever have. And I am going to scream if I hear again the platitude "we must respect the will of the people". Sarky for one shows no signs of such respect , and can you blame him.


----------



## rmelly

room305 said:


> We need the EU more than the EU needs us. How can we be in a position to renegotiate a better deal?


 
I don't want or expect a 'better deal'. I have made clear I think this project/experiment whatever you want to call it, is heading in the wrong direction and needs to be reigned in. 

Also, as of next year we will be net contributors.


----------



## Nemesis

rmelly said:


> I don't want or expect a 'better deal'. I have made clear I think this project/experiment whatever you want to call it, is heading in the wrong direction and needs to be reigned in.



When you say it needs to be 'reigned in' what exactly do you mean by that? and what would be the right direction? If the other 26 states decide to proceed with the changes in the Lisbon treaty, are you prepared to accept Ireland's isolation and possible exit from the Union (or exclusion from any new Union which would replace it) as a result?


----------



## rmelly

Nemesis said:


> When you say it needs to be 'reigned in' what exactly do you mean by that? and what would be the right direction? If the other 26 states decide to proceed with the changes in the Lisbon treaty, are you prepared to accept Ireland's isolation and possible exit from the Union (or exclusion from any new Union which would replace it) as a result?


 
Well for a start, as has been pointed out, proceeding with ratification where one country has rejected it is against the terms of the Treaty, although it wouldn't be the first time the eurocrats deceived us.

This talk of exclusion is pure scaremongering and again has been repeated numerous times - lets see what happens. Clearly you don't have much faith in our european brethren.

Again as I have said, this was conceived as an economic union - I see no need for a Foreign Minister, a national anthem, an army etc. This is clearly heading towards a U.S.E., each Treaty is a step closer.


----------



## cole

rmelly said:


> Well for a start, as has been pointed out, proceeding with ratification where one country has rejected it is against the terms of the Treaty, although it wouldn't be the first time the eurocrats deceived us.
> 
> This talk of exclusion is pure scaremongering and again has been repeated numerous times - lets see what happens. Clearly you don't have much faith in our european brethren.
> 
> Again as I have said, this was conceived as an economic union - I see no need for a Foreign Minister, a national anthem, an army etc. This is clearly heading towards a U.S.E., each Treaty is a step closer.


 
Agreed.


----------



## Nemesis

rmelly said:


> Well for a start, as has been pointed out, proceeding with ratification where one country has rejected it is against the terms of the Treaty, although it wouldn't be the first time the eurocrats deceived us.
> 
> This talk of exclusion is pure scaremongering and again has been repeated numerous times - lets see what happens. Clearly you don't have much faith in our european brethren.



It's not about faith. It's about the hard realities of politics and the relationships between powerful states and those with relatively little power.



rmelly said:


> Again as I have said, this was conceived as an economic union - I see no need for a Foreign Minister, a national anthem, an army etc. This is clearly heading towards a U.S.E., each Treaty is a step closer.



Just as a matter of interest, if you could be sure that this treaty was the final treaty and no further changes could take place without broad support among the peoples of each member state, would you have been prepared to accept it? I know you might say there's no way you could be sure, but just for the sake of argument. I suppose what I'm getting at is whether your objection is mainly to the prospect of further integration beyond Lisbon or to the changes proposed in the Lisbon treaty itself which I regard as modest and not in themselves bringing about a superstate.

I ask this as my own position is that if I was asked to vote on another treaty in a couple of years requiring further integration beyond what is proposed in Lisbon I would probably vote No. This is not because I am against further integration but because I recognise that there is little appetite for this among the peoples of Europe. However I do believe the streamlining and reforms contained in Lisbon are necessary for an enlarged Union to function and to enable new states, particularly those of the former Yugoslavia to join the EU. I also believe the other member state governments would not be able to agree any further changes granting yet more powers to the EU anyway.

I really feel we would have been better served to vote to ratify this treaty. This has created a mess that *we* have to deal with. I believe this was the wrong battle to fight and I genuinely can't see how we're going to come out of it without negative consequences. As I said before, it's all very well to talk about standing up for the rights of French and Dutch voters but they will not be affected by this. Regardless of what they say, it is simply not an issue for them. There are no protests on the streets, no strikes, no political parties contesting elections on the issue. That in itself speaks volumes. It is an irritation for them, something to grumble about, nothing more. If we think they're going to pressure their governments not to isolate us and to stand up for our interests we are sadly deluding ourselves.


----------



## rmelly

Hi Nemesis. There is at least one specific issue to the Lisbon Treaty that makes it unacceptable to me - the appointment of a Foreign Minister.

We have no need for a foreign minister - we are 27 seperate soverign member states each with its own foreign affairs apparatus. When the EU is divided over an issue such as Iraq, Iran's nuclear weapons programme, Israel/Palestine etc, who has final call? Majority voting, qualified majority voting? I can envisage many situations where I will find a Foreign Ministers position on issues unacceptable.

One final point. I consider myself to be Irish (nothing to do with North/South etc), i dont consider myself to be 'a European' and don't aspire to be. I live in a country that happens to be part of the (extended) continent of Europe.


----------



## Sn@kebite

Some of the posts in here are so lame. Sounds like the 'yes' side is bitter they didn't get their beliefs to win over the 'no' side.

I think most of the 'no' votes were to do with uncertainty and paranoia at such an ambiguous explanation of the treaty, not really because the 'no' voters genuinely believed it should be a no. Most of Ireland (and me, for the most part) don't understand every bit of it. It appeared to me that the wording was encrypting certain aspects of it, sort of like those picture puzzles in newspapers where you need to stare at it so the image in the background emerges slowly from the background. There was something spurious about the Treaty if you ask me. Not all of us are good readers  and it serves them right that we voted 'no' because it seems they did a cowboy job on the campaign to deliberately keep a lot of us in the dark so we would blindly vote 'yes'...

...Paranoid, I know, but it's my €0.02.


----------



## starlite68

Harchibald said:


> And another thing. It is absolutely ridiculous that the No promoters got equal air time on RTE as the Yes. Who is this Ganley guy anyway? How does he deserve the same air time as the Taoiseach?
> so you think the bigger the party the more air time the should get to get there point across?......   yea that really sounds fair!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

starlite68 said:


> so you think the bigger the party the more air time the should get to get there point across?...... yea that really sounds fair!


All but 6 of our elected TDs were for Yes. IBEC, most trade unions, the farmers etc. were for Yes. I think that entitled the Yes side to more air time than No. Imagine that Ganly was the only person in the whole country for No. RTE would still work on the principle that he should get as much air time as all the rest put together.

Or to pose another hypothetical example. Say we had a referendum banning murder, just to be sure. We would probably have Grisly Adams against it and everybody else for, including Mr Ganly. Would RTE still feel bound to give 50% of their coverage over to Grisly?

I


----------



## television

The point is that its not the people on the various sides that get the air time. Equal time is given to the yes or no argument.


----------



## starlite68

thats exactly right....the argument is yes vs no....so it dose not matter how many people are on what side.......there has to be an equal 50/50 balance


----------



## television

you notice the political commentators who aggreed with Lisbon are so indignant now. See the reason there was a no vote according to them is that the moronic sun reading lower working/classes were duped by Ganley the Shinners and the Murdagh press (and because they are naturally stupid anyway comming from as they do working class areas (what ever the hell that means in postmodern ireland). If only Dunlaorigh were not Ireland we would not be in this mess. Oh what are we going to with all those inconvinient working class folk and their mindless stupidity).


----------



## DavyJones

television said:


> you notice the political commentators who aggreed with Lisbon are so indignant now. See the reason there was a no vote according to them is that the moronic sun reading lower working/classes were duped by Ganley the Shinners and the Murdagh press (and because they are naturally stupid anyway comming from as they do working class areas (what ever the hell that means in postmodern ireland). If only Dunlaorigh were not Ireland we would not be in this mess. Oh what are we going to with all those inconvinient working class folk and their mindless stupidity).


 
Thats the most sense I heard all day . Was surprised to hear areas being described as working class. Now I don't know what class I'm in. I regrett not getting myself an edumacation


----------



## television

are you being Ironic or are you actually aggreing with me?


----------



## Sn@kebite

television said:


> are you being Ironic or are you actually aggreing with me?


Hardly agreeing with you.


----------



## shanegl

> Well for a start, as has been pointed out, proceeding with ratification where one country has rejected it is against the terms of the Treaty, although it wouldn't be the first time the eurocrats deceived us.



Nonsense. If Italy for example want to ratify the Treaty then they have every right to. Contrary to what some people might have claimed, you weren't voting no for the whole of Europe, just Ireland. They can ratify any treaty they please, and its no business of the Irish if they do or don't. 

I think what will happen now is that the other 26 countries will go ahead, and we will get a bolted on legal agreement to opt out of various elements, as they were planning with Denmark for Maastricht. Then the Irish people can decide just how involved they want to be, and the rest of Europe can plough on with the project, leaving us hanging on to their coat tails.


----------



## television

not nonsence. in order for the treaty to come into force all eu countries must ratify it and as one has not logically whats the point in moving on unless we are going to be ignored which completly makes a mockery of the EUs own rules.


----------



## television

Sn@kebite said:


> Hardly agreeing with you.


 
And if the guy is not aggreeing with me let him offer a coherent counter argument rather than a somewhat banal sentence that actually means very little. My point is that certain political commentators seem to see this result a a working class rabble saying no for no reason other than their own stupidity and fears. I think thats a pretty simplictic analysis.


----------



## DavyJones

television said:


> are you being Ironic or are you actually aggreing with me?


 

I do agree with you. TBH I find them rather offensive.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

starlite68 said:


> thats exactly right....the argument is yes vs no....so it dose not matter how many people are on what side.......there has to be an equal 50/50 balance


That is clearly the RTE position.  But is that right? It's certainly not the position of any other of the media. That's why I posed the rather extreme "ban on murder" referendum.  Would RTE give Grisly, the only No supporter, the same air time as everybody else put together?


----------



## Sn@kebite

television said:


> And if the guy is not aggreeing with me let him offer a coherent counter argument rather than a somewhat banal sentence that actually means very little. My point is that certain political commentators seem to see this result a a working class rabble saying no for no reason other than their own stupidity and fears. I think thats a pretty simplictic analysis.


Political commentators have never been anything special anyway. If you (or anyone else) voted 'no' and are offended by them calling you stupid (which I am in no way insinuating) then that imo is quite stupid and infantile. They are merely "attention-seeking". It is rhetoric they speak constantly to promote themselves and get people to reffer to them like you are now and I am. "Controversy sells", and this is what they are creating. We are only doing them a favour by talking about them. Just my personal view.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> That is clearly the RTE position. But is that right? It's certainly not the position of any other of the media. That's why I posed the rather extreme "ban on murder" referendum. Would RTE give Grisly, the only No supporter, the same air time as everybody else put together?


 
I am not a constitutional lawyer but i dont think Murder is actually in our constitution. Referendum in irish law are used in order to change parts of the constitution. So in this resect it is very important to get the two sides of the argument. 

And taking your murder example into account. I'd like to think our politicians/media/unions/church would be able to convince people with 50% of the time that indeed murder is wrong. Maybe not given thier track record


----------



## cole

Harchibald said:


> That is clearly the RTE position. But is that right? It's certainly not the position of any other of the media. That's why I posed the rather extreme "ban on murder" referendum. Would RTE give Grisly, the only No supporter, the same air time as everybody else put together?


 
It is the position of all broadcast media. Print media are not under the same obligation as was evidenced by their overwhelming support for the Yes side.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> That is clearly the RTE position. But is that right? It's certainly not the position of any other of the media. That's why I posed the rather extreme "ban on murder" referendum. Would RTE give Grisly, the only No supporter, the same air time as everybody else put together?


 

All broadcast media are by law responciple for ensuring 50/50 coverage as far as i know. Im not sure about printed media.


----------



## redstar

Lisbon defeated  what happens next ?

I think there will be another referendum before the year is out. It will be on the existing Lisbon Treaty with a lot of opt-outs for Ireland tagged on. However, the Czech Republic may take the heat off Ireland, as their President (a eurosceptic) believes the Treaty is 'dead', and ...



> The Czech Senate decided to postpone the vote on the treaty and asked the constitutional court for its opinion on the treaty to see whether it is in line with Czech law.[66] In the light of the Irish referendum result on the 12th June 2008 rejecting the treaty Czech President Václav Klaus declared that he believed the Treaty was finished, as he felt any further ratification was impossible


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Czech_Republic


----------



## starlite68

television said:


> I am not a constitutional lawyer but i dont think Murder is actually in our constitution. Referendum in irish law are used in order to change parts of the constitution. So in this resect it is very important to get the two sides of the argument.
> 
> And taking your murder example into account. I'd like to think our politicians/media/unions/church would be able to convince people with 50% of the time that indeed murder is wrong. Maybe not given thier track record


 well put television


----------



## ubiquitous

Pat Rabbitte stated emphatically on Friday's Today with Pat Kenny show that the RTE "50/50 stopwatch coverage" was NOT based on any statutory obligation. He said also that no other broadcaster operated this policy. 

He added caustically that if there is ever a referendum to outlaw paedophilia that RTE would presumably feel the need to put on a pro-paedophile representative any time the matter was discussed.


----------



## television

Sounds good but Rabbitte is playing to gallery I think. He knows full well that Referenda are used tochange our constitution. And would obviously never be used with such matters. It actually means noothing. As Far as iwas concerned the 50/50 necessaty came about because of something called the "mecenna Judgement".Im open to  contradiction on that.


----------



## ubiquitous

The  McKenna judgement concerned government spending on referendum campaigns. It had nothing to do with broadcasters.

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2008/jun/15/ten-reasons-why-ireland-said-no-to-lisbon/



> The 1995 McKenna judgement is theoretically based on sound principles as it found that it was unconstitutional for the Irish government to spend taxpayers' money promoting one side of the argument in referendum campaigns. It led to the setting up of the Referendum Commission.


----------



## television

"nothing to do with broadcasters"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!As RTE is run with taxpayer money Id say the mecenna judgement has something to do with levels of coverage.

And I really am so alarmed at the tribunes coverage of this yesterday. Froma so called serious broadsheet.


----------



## ubiquitous

television said:


> "nothing to do with broadcasters"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!As RTE is run with taxpayer money Id say the mecenna judgement has something to do with levels of coverage.


I would be interested in reading any links you can provide to support your contention on this issue. 

ps why all the exclamation marks?


----------



## rob30

We should get rid of referendum as a way of changing our constitution.
Britain has a long tradition of democracy, without a written constitution. 
It would be nice to hear an articulate debate, from politicians that we pay a fortune to make decisions for us, rather than having the usual suspects ( from both sides of the debate) hijacking every possible referendum for personal face time in the media.
If the politicians make the wrong decision, let the voters hammer them in the polls. 
It would be nice to see them take a stance on issues, rather than sit on their hands and squirm at tough decisions.


----------



## cole

rob30 said:


> We should get rid of referendum as a way of changing our constitution.


 
Why?



rob30 said:


> Britain has a long tradition of democracy, without a written constitution. It would be nice to hear an articulate debate, from politicians that we pay a fortune to make decisions for us, rather than having the usual suspects ( from both sides of the debate) hijacking every possible referendum for personal face time in the media.


 
And the British public were promised a referendum on Lisbon by these very politicians.



rob30 said:


> If the politicians make the wrong decision, let the voters hammer them in the polls. It would be nice to see them take a stance on issues, rather than sit on their hands and squirm at tough decisions.


 
By then it may be too late. With regards to the Lisbon treaty, the politicians certianly didn't sit on their hands and squirm.

It seems that the politicians are the only ones with an appetite for Lisbon (across Europe). The public by and large do not. Certainly not here, France, the Netherlands or the UK.


----------



## eileen alana

I don't agree with giving our politicians the choice to vote on our behalf. I think its vital we keep our freedom and to continue have a voice on matters that will impact on us.  The majority of the citizens within the EU wanted to have a say in the ratification process but they were denied it.


----------



## ubiquitous

rob30 said:


> Britain has a long tradition of democracy, without a written constitution.
> .



The problem with this is that the civil rights enjoyed by individuals in the UK are much weaker than here. If you don't believe this, look at their tax system which is riddled with unjust provisions that would not stand up in our courts system, for example the distinction between gift and inheritance taxes, which allow that a gift (even of millions of £) is tax-exempt if the person receiving the gift survives for 7 years afterwards but becomes taxable if they die within those 7 years. So   for example the survivors of someone who dies in a road accident are often lumbered with big tax bills on their bereavement, simply because they have been bereaved.


----------



## michaelm

Harchibald said:


> All but 6 of our elected TDs were for Yes. IBEC, most trade unions, the farmers etc. were for Yes. I think that entitled the Yes side to more air time than No. Imagine that Ganly was the only person in the whole country for No. RTE would still work on the principle that he should get as much air time as all the rest put together.


I believe this to be inaccurate.  Indeed, when the Irish Daily Mail ran an article, during the referendum campaign, entitled 'Radio Lisbon', which accused RTE of bias in favour of the Yes side, RTE replied by letter confirming and justifying said bias.





ubiquitous said:


> Pat Rabbitte stated emphatically on Friday's Today with Pat Kenny show that the RTE "50/50 stopwatch coverage" was NOT based on any statutory obligation. He said also that no other broadcaster operated this policy.


Pat is correct that there is no obligation on the media to provide balanced coverage - this was abundantly evident during the campaign - however any suggestion that RTE did provide 50/50 coverage, which by their own admission they did not, is either misinformed or disingenuous.   It seems that Pat had an epiphany over the weekend as, in his article in the Sunday Independent, he says that "it's sobering to reflect that the people of Ireland, indeed the people of Europe, may not adhere to the EU."


----------



## starlite68

i agree with eileen alana, the public should always have the final say in maters that consern the public.the politicians will always try to make us vote for whatever makes their life easier...the are selfserving by nature.


----------



## eileen alana

We will always have the freedom to do this and we can thank the Supreme Court ruling in 1987 which stipulated that significant changes to the EU treaties require an amendment to the Irish Constitution, carried out by way of a refendum, before being ratified by the State.


----------



## redstar

starlite68 said:


> the public should always have the final say in maters that consern the public.



Like the budget ?


----------



## ubiquitous

The provisions contained in the annual Budget and Finance Act are subject to the provisions of the Constitution. It is only right and proper that the Constitution may only be amended by popular vote, otherwise governments can govern by decree and you will end up with people's rights being infringed in particular ways as happens in the UK - see my recent post above the re the UK tax system.


----------



## michaelm

The surrender of sovereignty is not comparable with the framing of a budget.  There is talk on AAM in relation to 'Representative Democracy' to the effect that our representatives can, and should, do what they will.  We elect representatives, based on a given manifesto, to run OUR country and to make both operational and strategic decisions; they work for us.  Although we invest in them the power to make decisions on our behalf that does not license them to surrender that power to, or pool that power with, others, without consulting us, the people, directly for sanction.


----------



## Sunny

I voted yes for the treaty but having examined the various reactions around Europe I am beginning to think that I was wrong and that the right decision was reached. The undemocratic soundings coming out of Germany and France about practically ignoring the Irish vote run the real risk of damaging the EU's future more than the Irish 'No' Vote.

Here is where I would go from here. The Lisbon treaty is dead so time to forget about it. The French and Dutch rejection of the Constitution and our rejection of this Treaty shows that there are many people in Europe with concerns about the way the EU is going. If I was a politician I would accept this and leave aside all areas of increased co-operation and integration for the moment and concentrate on reforming the workings of the EU itself i.e. the commission and parliment. After all apparently this is what the Treaty's main purpose was. Only when I found a solution to this would I even begin to look at areas like having foreign ministers and presidents, increased military co-operation etc. I don't understand why they tried to put everything through in one complicated treaty when it was obvious that many people were uncomfortable with the pace and amount of change and the French and Dutch had already rejected large parts of it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

michaelm said:


> I believe this to be inaccurate. Indeed, when the Irish Daily Mail ran an article, during the referendum campaign, entitled 'Radio Lisbon', which accused RTE of bias in favour of the Yes side, RTE replied by letter confirming and justifying said bias.


That's a useful clarification. It is interesting that other No supporters, like TV, accepted my simplistic thesis and sought to justify it. Clearly it is unjustifiable to give "50/50 stopwatch coverage" when the overwhelming view was for a Yes.

However, I still think that Ganly/Grisly/Trish etc. got far more air time than is warranted.


----------



## redstar

michaelm said:


> The surrender of sovereignty is not comparable with the framing of a budget.  There is talk on AAM in relation to 'Representative Democracy' to the effect that our representatives can, and should, do what they will.  We elect representatives, based on a given manifesto, to run OUR country and to make both operational and strategic decisions; they work for us.  Although we invest in them the power to make decisions on our behalf that does not license them to surrender that power to, or pool that power with, others, without consulting us, the people, directly for sanction.



Very well put. And in theory is the way it should be.

In practice, though, we end up with 'us, the people' being represented by  half-of-half the electorate, (not just in this referendum). 
Making major constitutional changes is actually left to the largest minority of the electorate, with the majority not voting at all, which essentially defaults to 'I don't know or care about this vote'. A case of who shouts loudest wins out.
This is mainly why I would prefer to leave such decisions to the elected Govts who 'work for us', and can be kicked-out, rather than unelected, well-organised groups with specific agendas who can manipulate the issues and play on peoples fears.


----------



## Sunny

redstar said:


> Very well put. And in theory is the way it should be.
> 
> In practice, though, we end up with 'us, the people' being represented by half-of-half the electorate, (not just in this referendum).
> Making major constitutional changes is actually left to the largest minority of the electorate, with the majority not voting at all, which essentially defaults to 'I don't know or care about this vote'. A case of who shouts loudest wins out.


 
Change the law to make it compulsory to vote would solve that. Or would we need a referendum to change the law! Vicious circle


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Sunny said:


> I voted yes for the treaty but having examined the various reactions around Europe I am beginning to think that I was wrong and that the right decision was reached. The undemocratic soundings coming out of Germany and France about practically ignoring the Irish vote run the real risk of damaging the EU's future more than the Irish 'No' Vote.


_Sunny_, I understand your emotional response but I interpreted this completely the opposite. This is exactly *why* I voted Yes. It was so damned obvious that Europe's political elite would react very negatively against us. All goodwill has been blown. Talk about cutting off our nose to spite our face.


----------



## ubiquitous

Sunny said:


> Here is where I would go from here. The Lisbon treaty is dead so time to forget about it. The French and Dutch rejection of the Constitution and our rejection of this Treaty shows that there are many people in Europe with concerns about the way the EU is going. If I was a politician I would accept this and leave aside all areas of increased co-operation and integration for the moment and concentrate on reforming the workings of the EU itself i.e. the commission and parliment. After all apparently this is what the Treaty's main purpose was. Only when I found a solution to this would I even begin to look at areas like having foreign ministers and presidents, increased military co-operation etc.



This is pretty much what the normally very wise Financial Times editorial recommended on Saturday.



redstar said:


> Making major constitutional changes is actually left to the largest minority of the electorate, with the majority not voting at all, which essentially defaults to 'I don't know or care about this vote'. A case of who shouts loudest wins out.



A majority voted on Thursday. It has been widely lauded, by all sides, as a high turnout.



Sunny said:


> Change the law to make it compulsory to vote would solve that.



Your faith in the state of our electoral register is touching


----------



## Sunny

Harchibald said:


> _Sunny_, I understand your emotional response but I interpreted this completely the opposite. This is exactly *why* I voted Yes. It was so damned obvious that Europe's political elite would react very negatively against us. All goodwill has been blown. Talk about cutting off our nose to spite our face.


 
I understand that but the EU is supposed to be a democracy and has rules in place that says it is all of us together or none of us. Its not perfect but they are the rules. Just because they didn't like the way Ireland voted doesn't give the German foreign minister the right to say that we should take a break from Europe. They weren't exactly threatening France and the Netherlands when they rejected the Constitution which is why we have this treaty in the first place. I just think European leaders need to think before they speak because if they continue to threaten us, other smaller countries are going to be asking themselves 'are they next' if they do something to displease the big boys.

My God, I am turning into a Euro Sceptic..


----------



## Sunny

ubiquitous said:


> Your faith in the state of our electoral register is touching


 

Good point. Another two polling cards for me in this referendum!


----------



## starlite68

redstar said:


> Very well put. And in theory is the way it should be.
> 
> 
> This is mainly why I would prefer to leave such decisions to the elected Govts who 'work for us', and can be kicked-out, rather than unelected, well-organised groups with specific agendas who can manipulate the issues and play on peoples fears.


 

the problem with what you say, is that by the time you get them kicked-out,the damage is already done.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Sunny_, I broadly agree with your analysis, but to get all indignant and try to take the ball off the pitch is madness. We can no more tell France and Germany to stuff their EU than we can tell the US to stuff their Shannon stopovers. _Realpolitik_ it is called, I think.

Sinn Fein - literally Ourselves Alone.  We are certainly a lot closer to theat goal now.


----------



## redstar

ubiquitous said:


> A majority voted on Thursday. It has been widely lauded, by all sides, as a high turnout.



Granted, 53% did turnout. I still have a problem with the 'the Irish people' being represented by 29% of the electorate.

starlite68


> ...by the time you get them kicked-out,the damage is already done.



Well, the debate is about whether or not there is any 'damage'.


----------



## Sunny

Harchibald said:


> _Sunny_, I broadly agree with your analysis, but to get all indignant and try to take the ball off the pitch is madness. We can no more tell France and Germany to stuff their EU than we can tell the US to stuff their Shannon stopovers. _Realpolitik_ it is called, I think.


 
I agree with you and would have no intention of telling Germany and France to stuff their EU. I am sure alot of people who voted 'No' are actually very happy to be in Europe. The fact remains though that while they might be happy with the current Europe, they are not happy with the road it was going down just like the Dutch and Fench who rejected the Constitution. People should not be afraid to voice that view and reject the the Treaty because of fear of reprisal from the powerful Countries. Just like it doesn't make sense to vote for a treaty just to please our big neighbours and keep them happy. The EU might not like it but they have to respect our decision and stop trying to make it seem like we have no right to block this treaty and are being selfish ungrateful morons.


----------



## ubiquitous

redstar said:


> Granted, 53% did turnout. I still have a problem with the 'the Irish people' being represented by 29% of the electorate.


Fair enough if you feel that way. I don't have a problem with this. If some people choose to exclude themselves from the voting process by opting not to vote or by not bothering to vote, that's their problem, not mine. And there will always be a certain percentage of people on the register who cannot vote because they are dead, incapacitated, emigrated or on holidays. A 100% or near-100% turnout is a sign of a rigged vote, not a sign of a healthy democratic process.


----------



## starlite68

i fully agree with you sunny, we should not vote for something we are not happy with just to please our big neighbours.....taking that stance would only lead to a lot more problems down the road.


----------



## rmelly

redstar said:


> Granted, 53% did turnout. I still have a problem with the 'the Irish people' being represented by 29% of the electorate.


 
Was this not a higher % turnout than either of the Nice referendums? One wonders if you had a problem back then 'with the 'the Irish people' being represented by' 31% of the electorate?


----------



## rmelly

uiop said:


> Doesnt a certain percentage of the electorate have to vote in order for a referendum outcome to be valid ?


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland



			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> A simple majority is sufficient to carry an amendment and there is no minimum turn-out required for a constitutional referendum to be considered valid. The vote occurs by secret ballot.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

ubiquitous said:


> A majority voted on Thursday. It has been widely lauded, by all sides, as a high turnout.


 
Make no mistake. This was a massive, massive No vote. Why do I say that? Ask yourself is Grisly a vote winner? Is Dana? Is Joe Higgins? Is Dunphy etc. etc.? This No vote came *despite* the looney bandwagon asking for it and *despite* the Yes support of the vast majority of our political, economic and social leaders. 

My guess is that the Sinn Fein endorsement in particular was probably good for about half of the Yes vote - how many on this very thread stated that they were voting Yes simply because SF were supporting No?


----------



## redstar

rmelly said:


> Was this not a higher % turnout than either of the Nice referendums? One wonders if you had a problem back then 'with the 'the Irish people' being represented by' 31% of the electorate?



Yes to both questions. We have a system of democracy where largest 'minority rules'. I prefer the alternative 'representative democracy' of Govt who were chosen by PR, not a first-past-the-post system where 50% + 1 'winner-takes-all'.
(Maybe this is a topic for a different thread ?)


----------



## Sunny

Harchibald said:


> Make no mistake. This was a massive, massive No vote. Why do I say that? Ask yourself is Grisly a vote winner? Is Dana? Is Joe Higgins? Is Dunphy etc. etc.? This No vote came *despite* the looney bandwagon asking for it and *despite* the Yes support of the vast majority of our political, economic and social leaders.
> 
> My guess is that the Sinn Fein endorsement in particular was probably good for about half of the Yes vote - how many on this very thread stated that they were voting Yes simply because SF were supporting No?


 
Good point.


----------



## ubiquitous

redstar said:


> Yes to both questions. We have a system of democracy where largest 'minority rules'. I prefer the alternative 'representative democracy' of Govt who were chosen by PR, not a first-past-the-post system where 50% + 1 'winner-takes-all'.
> (Maybe this is a topic for a different thread ?)



But no government in at least a generation has been elected to power with the support of 50% of the electorate, or anything near it.


----------



## starlite68

Harchibald said:


> My guess is that the Sinn Fein endorsement in particular was probably good for about half of the Yes vote - how many on this very thread stated that they were voting Yes simply because SF were supporting No?


 
if thats the case,then it really dose show how weak the yes vote was in the first place!


----------



## cork

Sunny said:


> People should not be afraid to voice that view and reject the the Treaty because of fear of reprisal from the powerful Countries. Just like it doesn't make sense to vote for a treaty just to please our big neighbours and keep them happy. The EU might not like it but they have to respect our decision and stop trying to make it seem like we have no right to block this treaty and are being selfish ungrateful morons.


 
But people voted no as a protest vote aganist the health system, abortion, prostitution, etc. 

This had nothing to do with the treaty.

*Don't Know - Vote No* stratergy was also crap.

People were too lazy to educate themselves on the treaty but they voted aganist it.

The no vote will cost this country foriegn direct investment.

Our competitors for FDI must be trilled.


----------



## Nemesis

Sunny said:


> I agree with you and would have no intention of telling Germany and France to stuff their EU. I am sure alot of people who voted 'No' are actually very happy to be in Europe. The fact remains though that while they might be happy with the current Europe, they are not happy with the road it was going down just like the Dutch and Fench who rejected the Constitution.



But nothing stays the same forever. We might very well like the current arrangements but we can't expect everyone else to just stand still, continually postponing structural reform. There are other states queuing up to join the EU. Many of them have no problems with the proposed rules. States like Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro etc. They have bitter experience of what nationalistic and truly undemocratic regimes can lead to and do not view the EU with the fear and suspicion that is so evident here. It is essential that their path to membership is not blocked as it will help to further stabilise that region after the terrible ethnic wars of the 1990s. The prospect of membership has helped to foster the growth of a more progressive political climate there which continues to evolve. Europe has to think about the wishes and aspirations of these people too.

Much is made of the French and Dutch votes but many of the reasons for the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty were not so noble. There was element of 'kick Chirac' at the time, objections to Turkey's membership or that of other states with substantial Muslim populations (Bosnia, Albania, and now Kosovo), resentment at France's diminishing influence within an enlarged Europe etc. In the Netherlands, anti-immigration figured large and fears of Eastern Europeans coming to the country. (In fact, it's arguable that had the decision to expand eastwards been put to a public vote in the 15 member states there would have been a No in more than one country. Yet this expansion has been a great success in stabilising and democratising the region). I'm not saying these reasons make the No vote somehow invalid but sometimes No campaigners get all idealistic about standing up for the rights of the French and Dutch. As I've said before, they're more than capable of standing up for their own rights and if they're really being oppressed why haven't parties been able to tune into this and get elected? Why no street protests? strikes? It simply doesn't matter that much to them. It's irritation not oppression - resentment at the project of the elites. Well, all through the centuries, the elites of Europe had very different projects and I'd much prefer them spend their time on this project than the religious wars or grand imperialistic adventures of their forebears.

Honestly, some on the No side appear to have lost all perspective on this. A trip to the Uzbekistans of this world could open a few eyes. I've heard some No campaigners try to equate Mugabe's disregard for the voters wishes there with what's going on in the EU. In this thread, it is casually stated that Russia might be a bit more democratic than the EU. I am truly gob smacked when I read comments like these. Talk to some of the new members of the EU from the East such as Estonia or Latvia about what things were like under the Soviet Union and what they think of EU membership and you'll hear a different story. Try going to Russia and complaining about the FSB connected bureaucrats and see what happens. The EU isn't even remotely like these cases.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Nemesis_, I think you have touched on the real reason we voted No not just to Lisbon but earlier to Nice. We simply do not like all this expansion stuff and you scare even me when I hear talk of Croatia, Montenegro, Kosovo etc. I would say most people, especially in working class areas, have mixed feelings at best about the immigration to Ireland from Eastern Europe.


----------



## Nemesis

I understand but we can't stop this change. Voting No to Lisbon will not keep the EU the way we might prefer. We have to adapt and learn how to deal with it. Of course the other alternative is to isolate ourselves, wall ourselves off from the EU but that's not likely to help us in the long run either. There are no easy answers.


----------



## Sunny

Nemesis said:


> Much is made of the French and Dutch votes but many of the reasons for the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty were not so noble. There was element of 'kick Chirac' at the time, objections to Turkey's membership or that of other states with substantial Muslim populations (Bosnia, Albania, and now Kosovo), resentment at France's diminishing influence within an enlarged Europe etc. In the Netherlands, anti-immigration figured large and fears of Eastern Europeans coming to the country. (In fact, it's arguable that had the decision to expand eastwards been put to a public vote in the 15 member states there would have been a No in more than one country. Yet this expansion has been a great success in stabilising and democratising the region). I'm not saying these reasons make the No vote somehow invalid but sometimes No campaigners get all idealistic about standing up for the rights of the French and Dutch. As I've said before, they're more than capable of standing up for their own rights and if they're really being oppressed why haven't parties been able to tune into this and get elected? Why no street protests? strikes? It simply doesn't matter that much to them. It's irritation not oppression - resentment at the project of the elites. Well, all through the centuries, the elites of Europe had very different projects and I'd much prefer them spend their time on this project than the religious wars or grand imperialistic adventures of their forebears.


 
But personally I think the lack of reaction among ordinary people in Europe is a sign of the dislocation between what the EU and the man on the street. Just like you say the Dutch and French aren't on the streets campaigning for their say on Lisbon, there is hardly a uproar outside political circles for expansion of European activities. Do ordinary Europeans care enough about what the EU is trying to become? Why should we vote for something to expand and give more powers to if ordinary people have just lost interest in what they are trying to achieve. Like I said, i voted Yes but I think there are questions that now need to be answered by the EU. Bullying Ireland or any other country into ratifying the treaty is not the answer.


----------



## Nemesis

I honestly think the EU will not acquire much more power beyond that envisaged under Lisbon. The sheer number of countries within the Union now makes it incredibly difficult to reach agreement on transferring more and more powers. It was hard enough to reach agreement on the Constitution/Lisbon changes. The more states that join the more difficult it is to create the superstate. The UK was one of the keenest supporters of expansion because of this. I know No voters would probably disagree with me, but I really believe the dream of the superstate died with the decision to admit the countries of Eastern Europe. Of course, it has also caused other issues such as immigration to feature in the debate as _Harchibald_ pointed out above.


----------



## starlite68

what about when turkey joins..with its huge population. that has to have an affect on things


----------



## diarmuidc

starlite68 said:


> what about when turkey joins..with its huge population. that has to have an affect on things


When you do expect this will happen?


----------



## starlite68

i would say in the next few years


----------



## Nemesis

It is by no means certain that Turkey will ever join the EU. The enthusiasm on both sides is diminishing. Turks are tired of being put on hold all the time and Europeans don't seem too keen on welcoming 70 million Muslims into the Union. Interesting to note that both the UK and the USA are supporters of Turkey's bid to join. Again part of the reason here is the view that its membership would make it more difficult for the EU to develop into a superstate.

I personally would like to see Turkey admitted to the Union although it presents quite a challenge for both Turkey and Europe. I genuinely think if it could be achieved it would help greatly in healing divisions and promoting understanding between the Muslim and Christian worlds.


----------



## diarmuidc

starlite68 said:


> i would say in the next few years



Not a chance. 20 years minimium. The French definitely don't want it (47% think "it's a bad thing"), And the Romanians Bulgarians & Greeks definitely don't want it. Too many bad memories


----------



## Purple

On the issue of Turkey joining the EU the fact is that we need their numbers. The population of the EU relative to the USA, China and India is dropping quite dramatically. Either we let in loads of emigrants (like the USA) or we breed like rabbits, or we let the Turks join. I am undecided about whether letting them join is a good idea. I don't like the idea of the EU having a land border with Syria, Iran and Iraq, not to mention Georgia and Armenia.
The history between Turkey and Greece (and Armenia) is well known and may be a problem. The fact that Southern Turkey has unstable and very insecure borders is also a problem.  
In my opinion the USA and UK want Turkey in the EU because it increases the NATO and by extension the American influence on Europe. The last thing the American contingent in NATO wants is a cohesive EU foreign policy backed up by a credible military threat.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> Either we let in loads of emigrants (like the USA) or we breed like rabbits, or we let the Turks join.


I'd go for the rabbits option . Of course (to bang an old drum I haven't picked up in a while) the government would have to reverse engines on its tax individualisation policy for starters, and start supporting families (like France does), to encourage the rabbit solution.


----------



## starlite68

i think turkey has a good chance of being admitted in the not too distant future......maybe thats a good thing...maybe not, who knows? but it dose beg the question..where dose the map of europe"as we know it" finally end?


----------



## diarmuidc

michaelm said:


> I'd go for the rabbits option . Of course (to bang an old drum I haven't picked up in a while) the government would have to reverse engines on its tax individualisation policy for starters, and start supporting families (like France does), to encourage the rabbit solution.


Why?  has a higher birth rate than . And  and  for that matter.
Maybe you are banging the wrong drum?


----------



## csirl

Everyones ignoring the elephant in the room regarding Turkey........its in Asia. 

I'm sure the argument that a little sliver of the country across the straits is in Europe will be made by some posters, but this no more makes it part of Europe than France having a few small island in the Pacific makes France part of Oceania. Is the UK part of South American now? Part of it (Falklands) is in South America!

I thought that the articles of the EU state that membership is for countries in Europe? If we are going beyond Europe, then shouldnt the EU drop the "European" from its name?


----------



## ubiquitous

If Turkey are allowed in, why not Israel?


----------



## csirl

> If Turkey are allowed in, why not Israel?


 
If Turkey and Israel are allowed, then why not Lebanon & Syria? They're geographically closer to Europe than Israel.


----------



## ubiquitous

I don't think they have been competing in Eurovision for as long as Israel


----------



## rmelly

Yes, Israel would be a good addition would show our solidarity.


----------



## Nemesis

csirl said:


> Everyones ignoring the elephant in the room regarding Turkey........its in Asia.
> 
> I'm sure the argument that a little sliver of the country across the straits is in Europe will be made by some posters, but this no more makes it part of Europe than France having a few small island in the Pacific makes France part of Oceania. Is the UK part of South American now? Part of it (Falklands) is in South America!



I see what you're getting at but I don't think that's quite the same. If Eastern Thrace (European Turkey) with nearly 10 million people were a state on its own and complied with the conditions for membership it would be allowed in. It's a gray area and poses some big questions about where the EU's expansion should finally end. I think we can say with some certainty it won't be extending into Syria, Iraq and Iran though. As for Israel, I would say not full membership (but then it's not like my opinion's going to be critical in the final decision )



csirl said:


> I thought that the articles of the EU state that membership is for countries in Europe? If we are going beyond Europe, then shouldnt the EU drop the "European" from its name?



Maybe we'll even take in Russia one day and become the Eurasian Union


----------



## ubiquitous

uiop said:


> Nah we dont need the hassle of importing terrorism.



Good job the Europeans didn't say that to Britain and Ireland in 1973 

There would be a certain historical symmetry in admitting Israel as an EU member a couple of generations after the European Holocaust.


----------



## csirl

> *Re: Lisbon defeated what happens next ?*


 
How about Ireland announcing that it will be using the Nice Treaty "enhanced cooperation" provisions to proceed with enhanced cooperation in the area of democracy in the EU thus leaving the others behind? 

We could announce it as the new two speed Europe with Ireland, and whoever else wants to join us, pressing ahead with democracy in the EU and leaving the slower non-democratic countries behind in their out dated dictatorships. 

Rejection of Lisbon isnt us being left behind, its them reverting to the past (when most of them were undemocratic) and us pressing ahead with the modern concept of democracy. When they all agree to hold referenda, we could consider admitting them to the enhanced cooperation club.


----------



## rmelly

Including Israel would show we acknowledge their democracy (in a continent known for its absence), it should bring stability to the region, perhaps even encourage some of those states towards democracy.


----------



## michaelm

diarmuidc said:


> Why?  has a higher birth rate than .


Birth rate is the wrong measure.  Fertility rate - the average number of children per woman over her lifetime - is what's important; A 2.1 fertility rate is the population replacement rate.  Ireland's current rate is 1.86 and this is projected to drop markedly over the next 15 years.  France has a current rate of 1.98 and it's increasing.  France has family friendly policies, Ireland less so.  I would suggest a correlation, you may disagree.


----------



## diarmuidc

michaelm said:


> Birth rate is the wrong measure.  Fertility rate - the average number of children per woman over her lifetime - is what's important;


Why?



> I would suggest a correlation, you may disagree.


I do. Look at the countries above France on your link. Are you claiming that most or even some of those countries have more "family friendly" policies than the countries below France (on the list)?


----------



## michaelm

diarmuidc said:


> Why?


The tangent I followed was Purples assertion (Post #170) that the EU needs numbers (people).  Fertility rate is the important measure if you wish to increase the population other than through expansion or immigration.  Rather that a 'Why?' response, 'I stand corrected' might have been more appropriate.





diarmuidc said:


> Look at the countries above France on your link. Are you claiming that most or even some of those countries have more "family friendly" policies than the countries below France (on the list)?


It's the EU were talking about, rich western countries have a problem with population replacement.  If EU countries want to encourage an increase in population they need to promote family friendly policies.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

michaelm said:


> Birth rate is the wrong measure. Fertility rate - the average number of children per woman over her lifetime - is what's important; A 2.1 fertility rate is the population replacement rate. Ireland's current rate is 1.86 and this is projected to drop markedly over the next 15 years. France has a current rate of 1.98 and it's increasing. France has family friendly policies, Ireland less so. I would suggest a correlation, you may disagree.


Is it quite that simple _mike_? Ireland might have a lower fertility rate but a higher proportion of women of fertility age (due to immigration). Seems to me that there is no arguing that a higher actual birth rate (other things being equal) must mean a faster growing population.


----------



## starlite68

not trying to get off the subject but i heard an intersting comment from a reporter regarding the lisbon treaty vote....he said the No vote was at its strongest in areas that the celtic Tiger did not visit!    maybe this should be food for thought for our government.


----------



## diarmuidc

michaelm said:


> Rather that a 'Why?' response, 'I stand corrected' might have been more appropriate.


You have not explained why it's more important to have a high fertility rate than have more people born per head of population for growth. You are just claiming to be right. And I don't believe you are (see Harchibald's post)



> It's the EU were talking about, rich western countries have a problem with population replacement.  If EU countries want to encourage an increase in population they need to promote family friendly policies.


Well in that case, Ireland has the second most family friendly policies in the EU. Way ahead of family-hating individualistic countries such as Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and all the other European countries. Yah for us!!!

That or your metric for "family friendly" policies is total bs


----------



## michaelm

diarmuidc said:


> You have not explained why it's more important to have a high fertility rate than have more people born per head of population for growth. You are just claiming to be right. And I don't believe you are (see Harchibald's post)


BTW I was just pulling your chain with the 'I stand corrected' jibe .  I'll try to explain it, Total Fertility rate is the average number of children born per woman over her lifetime.  On the basis of a population with a 50/50 sex ratio (male/female) then we need an average Total Fertility rate of 2.1 to achieve replacement levels, i.e two new people to replace the woman plus one man , the .1 is to allow for infant mortality.  It's actually as simple as that, at less than 2.1 the indigenous population is not sustainable and will fall over time.  Still with me_ Harchi_?  So Birth Rate is a crude measure which does not really tell you what you need to know about population replacement.

Now I'm simply suggesting that if EU governments want to boost Total Fertility rate then they will have to introduce family-friendly policies to encourage this.  France has done so in recent years and this has shown results.

If you're being sarcastic in relation to Swedish policy, I'm not entirely sure, I'll just say that IMHO institutionalised childcare is not a family-friendly policy.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Michaelm_, the math works if everything else is stable, in particular the population exactly represents the mortality curve. But if the population, for some other reason, like immigration or previous high fertility, has more younger females than a stable population then the birth rate can be higher than the ultimate stable position.

Bottom line is that Birth Rate - Death Rate +- Immigration equals population growth and so an increased BR the other 2 being equal must be increasing the population.


----------



## room305

For a slightly lighter opinion on what the No vote actually means ...


----------



## Guest124

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19cohen.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin


----------



## DeeFox

Ratification process is continuing...Britain ratified the Lisbon Treaty last night.  I voted Yes and am very interested in how this will all pan out.


----------



## room305

uiop said:


> That article is unresearched trash.


 
Care to elaborate?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Uiop_. This is how the world sees us and you can call them all the names you like. The NYT is not gutter tabloid press.

Did you see the IT front page today. 6 MEPs fronted by Kathy Synnott staged some sort of stunt at the European parliament, wearing green jerseys saying "Respect the Irish No". There are a lot of people in the European parliament. Who do you think Kathy was able to round up? 4 British Independent Party looneys and an Orangeman. Are these the new friends of Ireland? We have seriously lost the plot.


----------



## cole

_"It has catapulted itself in a few decades from beer-soaked backwater...Biting the hand that feeds you does not begin to describe this act of bloody-mindedness....what the Irish did was unconscionable...."  _

Whatever about the merits or otherwise of the article, using inflammatory language like this only serves to undermine the integrity of the writing. Tabloidism at its best.


----------



## room305

uiop said:


> This isnt how the world sees us. Its how one biased stupid person unworthy of the title of journalist wrote some silly unresearched article.


 
It was a New York Times Op-Ed piece not "gutter press". Written by a distinguished foreign affairs journalist.

Whether you like it or not, this article is fairly reflective of the general consensus in other countries regarding the Irish No vote. Whinging won't change this.


----------



## wavejumper

looks like biffo's trip to cut you a better deal isn't panning out too well, more like a repeat of the Nice mess, with another chance at the referendum to say yes, or to perhaps decide whether to keep you in Europe at all.  Too bad I couldn't vote on this one, instead me and 500 million others have to depend on this country to let the EU move forward.  This should have NEVER have been put to referendum to be hijacked but anti-abortionists, far right xenophobes and people who didn't understand the question.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/19/lisbon.ireland


----------



## television

wavejumper said:


> looks like biffo's trip to cut you a better deal isn't panning out too well, more like a repeat of the Nice mess, with another chance at the referendum to say yes, or to perhaps decide whether to keep you in Europe at all. Too bad I couldn't vote on this one, instead me and 500 million others have to depend on this country to let the EU move forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 500 millon people charged their public representitives with coming up with the rules to ratification. one of these rules these elected representitives came up with was the rule of unanimity.
> 
> 
> 
> wavejumper said:
> 
> 
> 
> This should have NEVER have been put to referendum to be hijacked but anti-abortionists, far right xenophobes and people who didn't understand the question.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/19/lisbon.ireland
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When will those who critized the holding of a referendum in the first place understand that there had to be a referendum as ratification of the Lisbon by ireland would mean changing our constitution. And in order to change the irish constitution by LAW there needs to be a referendum.
> 
> it is very convienent that the now their is a no vote those who dont like the answer claim the ordinary trolls are too stupid to understand the treaty. ONe could argue that the whole political process is too complicated for ordinary people. I know lets set up a russian style bolshivik elete politburo who make the decisions for ordinary people. Because this elete know whats good for everyone. The attack on democracy that is present in the reaction of those who promoted a yes vote is really worrying. It gives those who voted no a clear justification and good conscience about their decision however. It clearly shows Europe does not care about the democratic will of small nations. Europe is pressing ahead with a federal superstate and is unwilling to listen to the voice if ordinary people accross europe who have seroious concerns about the european project. If Europe was serious about a project based on respect and democracy a clear unambigious message would have been sent out people accross Europe> Lisbon is Dead.
Click to expand...


----------



## eileen alana

Harchibald said:


> Did you see the IT front page today. 6 MEPs fronted by Kathy Synnott staged some sort of stunt at the European parliament, wearing green jerseys saying "Respect the Irish No". There are a lot of people in the European parliament. Who do you think Kathy was able to round up? 4 British Independent Party looneys and an Orangeman. Are these the new friends of Ireland? We have seriously lost the plot.


 
I saw her on the TV last evening and wasn't one bit impressed by her. I am amazed to read she is now one of the leaders of the United Kingdom Independence Party.

Eurosceptics in the European Parliament
In 2004, 37 MEPs from the UK, Poland, Denmark and Sweden founded a new European Parliament group called “Independence and Democracy” from the old Europe of Democracies and Diversities (EDD) group. The main goals of this group are to reject the Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe and to oppose further European integration. Some delegations within the group, notably the United Kingdom Independence Party, advocate the complete withdrawal of their country from the EU.
The group’s leaders are Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) (10 MEPs) and, since May 2008, Kathy Sinnott from Ireland South [1]. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism


----------



## Sunny

cole said:


> _"It has catapulted itself in a few decades from beer-soaked backwater...Biting the hand that feeds you does not begin to describe this act of bloody-mindedness....what the Irish did was unconscionable...." _


 
Its the biting the hand that feeds us argument that gets thrown out there by people that is beginning to really annoy me. The EU has played a large part in Ireland's economic success story. It wasn't the only reason for it but nobody can deny it didn't play a large part. Should we be grateful? Of course we should. Ireland is the perfect example of why the EU was formed and all that is good about it. The problem is how we should be expected to show this gratitude. Should it by never challenging anything that comes out of Brussels? Should it by remembering what we were before we got EU money and continue to show gratitude for eternity? Should it be by never standing up for our Soverign rights and rejecting changes to our constitution that the Country fought hard to get in the first place just in case we annoy the big Countries? 
I prefer to think that we have showed our gratitude by using the EU money to turn our economy from a practically bankrupt state to one of the strongest in Europe and to get into a position where Ireland is now in a position to be a net contributor to the EU and be in a position to help other Countries just like Ireland was helped.


----------



## shnaek

It is very hard to know what to say here. On one hand we have the only nation in which there was a vote saying NO to the treaty for a variety of reasons. These reasons must be explored. We hear that Holland and France would probably vote NO if asked. The UK would probably be the same. Germany would vote yes. Because the treaty has to be accepted unanimously, it isn't democracy. It is a unanimous decision. 
The fact that other countries had no vote isn't necessarily undemocratic - the people voted their governments to run their countries on their behalf. Most of these governments took the position of ratifying the treaty. Would those governments sign something which adversely affected their counties? The principle of self interest would suggest that they would not. 
If there was a referendum here where we were asked if we wanted the North to be part of Ireland, and Laois/Offaly had a referendum and voted NO, would the rest of the country respect that decision? 
And yet, we have to have pride in the fact that the Irish stood up and voted NO - probably not to Europe, but to THIS Europe. A Europe which makes decisions behind closed doors. A Europe with little connection to it's people. A Europe, that may in future turn into a surveylance society. A Europe that may follow what the Elite in America have made out of that once great nation. A Europe that rules by fear?
So maybe if the Irish vote causes Europe to pause for a short while and think about where it is going, maybe that's a good thing.


----------



## michaelm

shnaek said:


> And yet, we have to have pride in the fact that the Irish stood up and voted NO - probably not to Europe, but to THIS Europe. A Europe which makes decisions behind closed doors. A Europe with little connection to it's people. A Europe, that may in future turn into a surveylance society. A Europe that may follow what the Elite in America have made out of that once great nation. A Europe that rules by fear?
> So maybe if the Irish vote causes Europe to pause for a short while and think about where it is going, maybe that's a good thing.


Well put.


----------



## starlite68

shnaek said:


> And yet, we have to have pride in the fact that the Irish stood up and voted NO - probably not to Europe, but to THIS Europe. A Europe which makes decisions behind closed doors. A Europe with little connection to it's people. A Europe, that may in future turn into a surveylance society. A Europe that may follow what the Elite in America have made out of that once great nation. A Europe that rules by fear?
> So maybe if the Irish vote causes Europe to pause for a short while and think about where it is going, maybe that's a good thing.


 
i agree..great post,  plenty for our politicans to think about here!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

shnaek said:


> A Europe which makes decisions behind closed doors. A Europe with little connection to it's people. A Europe, that may in future turn into a surveylance society. A Europe that may follow what the Elite in America have made out of that once great nation. A Europe that rules by fear?


 
Are you serious? And what exactly is survey lance? Ireland voted against this because it longs to be back as one of the cozy 10. It hates enlargement, always has. It hates all these Eastern Europeans coming here and taking our jobs? This was a most selfish vote; I have no problem with that, but it was misguided for the selfishness will surely backfire.

To answer OP it is pretty clear what will happen next. All 26 others will ratify. The Treaty will be changed to allow 27 Commissioners. The ref will be held again next spring. Ireland will vote Yes for by that time the penny will have dropped, we cannot stop change and we need the EU far, far more than it needs us.

Sinn Fein will claim we got a better deal. Prima facie, yes, we will have a permo Commissioner. But all goodwill will have been blown. Our CT rate advantage will be gone in a couple of years, and we can forget moaning about anything else or ever daring to use our veto, in fact ironically we probably should then vote No and get out, for we have greatly diminished the advantages of Irish EU membership. 

We have blown it, big time, but I doubt whether Ganly, Dunphy, Gaybo, Dana will be on the dole!!


----------



## Purple

Harchibald said:


> Are you serious? And what exactly is survey lance? Ireland voted against this because it longs to be back as one of the cozy 10. It hates enlargement, always has. It hates all these Eastern Europeans coming here and taking our jobs? This was a most selfish vote; I have no problem with that, but it was misguided for the selfishness will surely backfire.
> 
> To answer OP it is pretty clear what will happen next. All 26 others will ratify. The Treaty will be changed to allow 27 Commissioners. The ref will be held again next spring. Ireland will vote Yes for by that time the penny will have dropped, we cannot stop change and we need the EU far, far more than it needs us.
> 
> Sinn Fein will claim we got a better deal. Prima facie, yes, we will have a permo Commissioner. But all goodwill will have been blown. Our CT rate advantage will be gone in a couple of years, and we can forget moaning about anything else or ever daring to use our veto, in fact ironically we probably should then vote No and get out, for we have greatly diminished the advantages of Irish EU membership.
> 
> We have blown it, big time, but I doubt whether Ganly, Dunphy, Gaybo, Dana will be on the dole!!



Well said


----------



## shnaek

Harchibald said:


> Are you serious? And what exactly is survey lance?



I know how to attack his points  - attack a spelling error! That will show him 

I am not celebrating the no vote. But I don't share your views on the nature of the Irish public. Certain sectors may feel this way, but I believe a good number of people who voted NO did so for positive reasons. Let's see how Europe deals with that. It will tell us more about them than it does about us.


----------



## Nemesis

shnaek said:


> And yet, we have to have pride in the fact that the Irish stood up and voted NO - probably not to Europe, but to THIS Europe. A Europe which makes decisions behind closed doors.



Just to point out that under Lisbon the Council of Ministers would have to meet in public when discussing and adopting laws.


----------



## shnaek

Harchibald said:


> Are you serious? And what exactly is survey lance?


Or perhaps subconsciously I was referring to this site: http://www.surveylance.com/


----------



## shanegl

Nemesis said:


> Just to point out that under Lisbon the Council of Ministers would have to meet in public when discussing and adopting laws.


 
Got in there before me.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Nemesis said:


> Just to point out that under Lisbon the Council of Ministers would have to meet in public when discussing and adopting laws.


This is the incredible thing about the No campaign, I actually believed that _shnaek_ was making some plausible point here. But no, it is just another barefaced populist misrepresentation. Thanks for the clarification _Nem_. 

This is a lesson for the Yes campaign next time round - every time a No campaigner mentions abortion, prostitution, conscription, "behind closed doors", surveylance, taxation etc. etc. they should be immediately challenged and that goes for RTE interviewers as well, who gave the No campaign far too much leeway.


----------



## shnaek

Harchibald said:


> This is the incredible thing about the No campaign, I actually believed that _shnaek_ was making some plausible point here. But no, it is just another barefaced populist misrepresentation. Thanks for the clarification _Nem_.



I'd just like to clarify that I have nothing to do with the NO campaign. Nor the YES campaign. I am simply seeking to analyse the reasons why people voted NO. 

As power moves from local to the centre, the people must be certain that there are checks and balances which prevent abuse by all powerful bureaucracy. I amn't seeking represent anything. I am truely a European, for if work dries up in Ireland, or if I find Ireland doesn't meet my needs I will move to Germany, or France, or Italy - I have nothing but respect for Europe. Nationalism, like religion, can be highly contentious. I am not making a nationalistic arguement. I am arguing from the bottom up. Give us a vision for Europe. Something we can believe in. Something we can be proud of. Something we can trust. 

And perhaps I am wrong in my arguments. I am open to that. I have been an open supporter of the European project all my life, but I would be lying if I didn't admit to feeling a disconnect with it of late. I don't know the reason for this. I am searching for that reason.


----------



## Purple

> Originally Posted by Harchibald
> The Treaty will be changed to allow 27 Commissioners.





uiop said:


> Whats wrong with that ?


A 27 person committee. You think that will work in practice?


----------



## shanegl

Of course. Sure don't dey need a commissioner in charge of making sure de bananas are bendy.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

okay, _shnaek_, I think I understand your emotional "disconnect" and you appear not to have a No agenda, per se, and admit that some of your arguments may be incorrect.

But what is less understandable is when intellectuals like _michaelm_ and _starlite68_ applaud your references to "behind closed doors", "ruling by fear" and "surveylance".


----------



## shnaek

Harchibald said:


> okay, _shnaek_, I think I understand your emotional "disconnect" and you appear not to have a No agenda, per se, and admit that some of your arguments may be incorrect.


I must admit that I was waiting for the YES side to convince me to vote yes. All I got were posters of local councillors decorating the lamp posts, threats from Europe, and initially threats from the main political parties. Now, the NO side had plenty threats too. But I expect a more positive approach when I am being asked to vote for a treaty with far reaching implications for Ireland and where it is going.
My arguments are based on anecdotal evidence. I have not read the treaty. Have you read the treaty yourself? Or are you basing your support for Lisbon on trust?



Harchibald said:


> But what is less understandable is when intellectuals like _michaelm_ and _starlite68_ applaud your references to "behind closed doors", "ruling by fear" and "surveylance".


Aw. I have been relegated from the position of intellectual to that of emotional! I think I need a hug


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

uiop said:


> ... wow fantastic argument considering we were one of only three EU countries along with the UK and Sweden to permit them the right to live and work here.


I am pretty sure that if that decision was put to ref, we would have rejected it. Personally I think our leaders were a bit over Europhile here and it is now backfiring, the Irish people in general have not liked the influx of immigrants - and that is not racism. 


> Whats wrong with 27 commissioners?


 
Fairly harmless really, but see _Purple's_ reply. 



> Why do we need them any more than Switzerland or Norway needs them ?


We neither have cuckoo clocks nor oil. Seriously though, it is a good question. But do you think we would be better off outside the EU? I understand that the No campaign are substantially in favour of our continued membership. 


> Losing our CT rate...So is this what Lisbon would cause under your hypothetical scenario where the exact same treaty is given to us and in which we vote yes due to bullying ?


We are not guaranteed our low CT rate in any scenario. It is a concession already under attack. With this No vote we have lost all goodwill entitlement to it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

shnaek said:


> Have you read the treaty yourself? Or are you basing your support for Lisbon on trust?


 
No and Yes. But my main reason for voting Yes was that No would badly backfire on us, I never even considered it as a realistic option. What have we gained from this, the adulation of the British Independence Party? Yikes.


----------



## shanegl

uiop said:


> Is it a committee or a cabinet or what ? I dont get it.
> 
> But why wouldnt it work ? 27 people debating an issue doesnt seem like an excessive number. Its a lot less than some government committees along with ministers and 'ministers of state' advised by quangos and civil servants etc


 
You want to hold on to 27 commissioners but you don't know how they operate?


----------



## starlite68

the rules of the game were decided upon and set out clearly by the EU themselvs...ie EVERY country must agree to ratify the treaty or it can NOT be passed...simple. but it seems that now because the result of the game dosent suit the EU...They a talking about giving the irish NO vote the two fingers!  now that may seem ok to some...but you would have to say..if thats the way they can break their own rules and agreements..it dose not bode well for any agreements made in the future.


----------



## Sunny

Harchibald said:


> Are you serious? And what exactly is survey lance? Ireland voted against this because it longs to be back as one of the cozy 10. It hates enlargement, always has. It hates all these Eastern Europeans coming here and taking our jobs? This was a most selfish vote; I have no problem with that, but it was misguided for the selfishness will surely backfire.
> 
> To answer OP it is pretty clear what will happen next. All 26 others will ratify. The Treaty will be changed to allow 27 Commissioners. The ref will be held again next spring. Ireland will vote Yes for by that time the penny will have dropped, we cannot stop change and we need the EU far, far more than it needs us.


 
I can see you point but I think you are being unfair to a large amount of people who voted 'No'. You can't brand them all selfish and racist just because they might have doubts about the way the EU is going and have a different prespective to you. I know some very respectable people including a CEO of a multinational financial organisation who voted No and none of his reasons included abortion, war, immigration, state of the economy blah blah blah. I am sure some people did vote for these reasons but people in the Yes campaign need to quickly wake up that there are people out there with genuine concerns and they can't simply put it down to selfishness, ignorance or a protest vote on the state of the economy.


----------



## Sunny

Harchibald said:


> No and Yes. But my main reason for voting Yes was that No would badly backfire on us, I never even considered it as a realistic option. What have we gained from this, the adulation of the British Independence Party? Yikes.


 
I work for a European financial institution and I have had plenty of ordinary French and Italian people say well done to me. Haven't heard one negative comment. Not saying this survey is scientific in any way but it really does seem that the only people who care or are ****ed off are the politicians. Ordinary European people just don't seem to care about the vote or the EU in general.


----------



## Nemesis

starlite68 said:


> the rules of the game were decided upon and set out clearly by the EU themselvs...ie EVERY country must agree to ratify the treaty or it can NOT be passed...simple. but it seems that now because the result of the game dosent suit the EU...They a talking about giving the irish NO vote the two fingers!  now that may seem ok to some...but you would have to say..if thats the way they can break their own rules and agreements..it dose not bode well for any agreements made in the future.



Yes, every country has to ratify the treaty so if Ireland does not hold another referendum or if there was another No vote, the treaty would collapse. However there's nothing to stop the other 26 *democratically elected governments* (just in case we forget, we seem to have a big problem with this concept) from putting essentially the same compromise together under a new treaty title. Noel Whelan highlighted this possibility on last Monday's Questions and Answers. It could be called the Treaty of Paris or Prague, Helsinki wherever. This would be implemented under enhanced cooperation rules leaving Ireland behind in a second class membership position that would be a disaster for this country. We may as well leave the EU if it comes to that.

It is ridiculous to argue that one state can hold up the progress for everyone else. The EU has done everything to try and address the concerns of small states and treat them equally since its inception. No one wants it to come to this, but at some stage hard political realities must come into play. It will be a sad day for the EU if it happens but it seems to me the naysayers here are determined to bring it to a head and force this outcome.


----------



## room305

uiop said:


> Vomit inducing but still such an emotion shouldnt' be the definitive reason for unquestioningly voting YES
> If we are trying to create a truly democratic and humanist Europe then the right to say NO needs to be respected and its the post referendum attitude which surprises me and worries me even more aboput the EU than Lisbon did.


 
You do understand the concept of representative democracy, right? You are aware that Irish elected representatives have signed a number of international conventions and treaties considered binding that were never put to referendum? I would have voted against signing the Kyoto agreement. Is it undemocratic that I didn't get a chance?

Blowing our goodwill in Europe like that was a staggeringly stupid move and one for which we will pay dearly. Will you be able to look people in the eye and tell them about your grand vision to rebuild a humanist Europe in which all races and creeds frolick together in perpetual harmony, if tens of thousands of people are faced with the prospect of telling their family they've lost their job in Dell/Intel/Microsoft?



uiop said:


> We have always been a part of Europe. Its' not all about money. Its about common history and humanity.


 
So what was it we joined in 1973?



uiop said:


> But economically, I would like an answer to this question. Why isnt Norway and Switzerland sh1tt1ng themselves because they are not in the EU ?


 
For one, neither Norway nor Switzerland built an economy based on stealing the corporation taxes of other countries in Europe. Also Norway has a lot of oil. Both countries enjoy free trade with the EU at the discretion of the EU member states. It's a privilege that could be withdrawn.



uiop said:


> How can a high CT rate be forced upon us and through which mechanism if not by a EU federal government ? And how would they compensate us when the FDI dries up and the US companies move elsewhere ? Would they then have to also give us German standard health care... since they have (in this scenario) taken control of our taxes it seems only right that they should also take control of our services? Why not wait for this to happen and then they can pay for our Berlin style Metro system ? I know of towns in Germany a 10th of the size of Dublin which have 5 times as much LUAS as we have.


 
I'm glad you've thought about this logically and are able to express your opinions so succintly. Why would the other EU countries need to actually change our tax rate? They can just negate the advantage by applying a countermanding tariff or taxing corporate profits in the country of sale rather than origin. This would make what we tax the few multinationals that would remain pretty much irrelevant.


----------



## redstar

Norway and Switzerland were always much wealthier than us, so never could see extra benefits from joining EEC/EU. They still have EFTA for free trade. Maybe we should just join that ?
Then we wouldn't be bound by any namby-pamby Charter of Fundamental Rights, Working-week regulations etc ...


----------



## redstar

Since we are wondering about other countries, why do countries such as Croatia want to join the EU, knowing they will have to take the Euro, and sign up to the Lisbon Treaty ? 

Croatia is one of the wealthiest countries in Eastern Europe and ranks 29th out of 50 in the global Material Wealth Index ([broken link removed]) They also had to fight their way out of a different kind of Union.

Italy ranks 25th, not too far ahead.

To paraphrase a previous poster 'they <Croatia> are sh**ing themselves now in case they _cannot join_' the EU if Lisbon fails.


----------



## ashambles

> Norway was only wealthy since the discovery of oil. But what will they do when it runs out ?


I think Norway will be ready for when their oil runs out. Their national pension fund is worth around 250B Euro.

They're in a slightly better place than us right now.


----------



## michaelm

shnaek said:


> I'd just like to clarify that I have nothing to do with the NO campaign. Nor the YES campaign. I am simply seeking to analyse the reasons why people voted NO.
> 
> As power moves from local to the centre, the people must be certain that there are checks and balances which prevent abuse by all powerful bureaucracy. I amn't seeking represent anything. I am truely a European, for if work dries up in Ireland, or if I find Ireland doesn't meet my needs I will move to Germany, or France, or Italy - I have nothing but respect for Europe. Nationalism, like religion, can be highly contentious. I am not making a nationalistic arguement. I am arguing from the bottom up. Give us a vision for Europe. Something we can believe in. Something we can be proud of. Something we can trust.
> 
> And perhaps I am wrong in my arguments. I am open to that. I have been an open supporter of the European project all my life, but I would be lying if I didn't admit to feeling a disconnect with it of late. I don't know the reason for this. I am searching for that reason.


Again shnaek's post is reasoned and reasonable; the calmest voice here.


----------



## redstar

I think shnaek hit the nail-on-the-head there.

A disconnect exists between those politicians and bureaucrats involved in running the EU and the citizens of Europe. They do a poor job of communicating with people, especially on the direction EU is taking. The Irish Yes campaign was a dismal failure due to not properly, and with conviction, communicating the benefits or concerns relating to Lisbon.

This disconnect results in an information vacuum, which was very effectively filled by those with an anti-EU agenda. When people came to make up their minds, what clear information was available to them ? Plenty from the No side, a befuddled mess from the Yes side.

Hopefully the EU heads can learn from this and then maybe something positive will emerge from the No victory.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

michaelm said:


> Again shnaek's post is reasoned and reasonable; the calmest voice here.


_michaelm, shnaek _does indeed seem reasonable and has admitted that she may be wrong about the EU after the Treaty being "run from behind closed doors", "being ruled by fear" and unleashing the dreaded "surveylance". However, you applauded these sentiments, is that what you truly think? 

I am now of the view that the No vote had little to do with the No campaign and was carried *despite* the looney and misrepresentative arguments put forward by them. Once we were the poor vulnerable baby in the cozy family of 10. We were cosseted and mollycoddled and we grew up strong and healthy. Unfortunately we were also spoilt. Now there are lots of new little vulnerable babies. Soon we will be asked to contribute to the family budget. We do not like it one bit and that is why we are throwing the toys out of the cot, to rather get a bit lost in my metaphor.


----------



## Nemesis

Agree with _Harchibald_ here. *Reasonable* yes, and certainly *calm* but it's hardly *reasoned* to say:



shnaek said:


> And yet, we have to have pride in the fact that the Irish stood up and voted NO - probably not to Europe, but to THIS Europe. A Europe which makes decisions behind closed doors.



When the Lisbon treaty actually provided for Council meetings in public when discussing and adopting laws as well as providing increased powers for the European parliament.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Oh dear.  Czech's about to say No.  That is very bad news.  Treaty probably will die now and the blame will forever be on us, not the Czechs.


----------



## shanegl

I disagree. A failure by the Czech Republic to ratify lets us off the hook.


----------



## Nemesis

Eurobarometer post-referendum poll has some interesting findings.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0620/eulisbon1.html
[broken link removed]


Actually, reading through this and reflecting on the last few weeks, I have to agree with _redstar's_ comments above about the Yes campaign. It was a disaster and failed miserably to engage voters. A befuddled mess sums it up pretty well alright. The different groups advocating a No were much better prepared, better organised and more determined and managed to place sufficient doubt in people's minds that they just couldn't give their support to the treaty on the limited information available to them. Like Garret Fitzgerald pointed out and again Noel Whelan on Q & A last Monday night, the government should have prepared for this months beforehand, laying the groundwork and educating the public about what the treaty was actually about before any debate began on the merits/demerits of what was in it (and not about what wasn't in it). They took the easy option and assumed a simple 'trust us' would work and this in spite of having prior experience with Nice.

The true culprits for this fiasco are not an Irish public suddenly turned rabidly Eurosceptic or anti-immigrant or both but the government and the wider political class for taking everything completely for granted.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/the-antieu-leprechauns-bring-us-no-crock-of-gold-1417761.html 

Brilliant article in today's Indo. The cartoon says it all. Has this guy been reading my AAM posts? 

Revised answer to OP. We are goin' to get nuffin'. We are goin' to be asked to vote again next Spring on the exact same Treaty. This time the message that the Yes campaign dare not speak (Bertie came close) will be loud and clear - "take it or lump it". We will vote Yes but our position in the EU will have been hugely damaged.


----------



## room305

uiop said:


> nah they can compromise with us and with the Czechs; then being less democratic than us the rest of Europe can force through the ratification in their home countries. cool eh ;-)


 
This is a consistent theme among No voters. Other countries are _less_ democratic than we are because we had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, when other countries ratified it through parliament. Followed to its logical conclusion then we could become the world's most democratic country by holding a referendum on every bill put before the Oireachtas. That way, if we need to amend our finance regulations we can have Declan Ganley telling us to vote No lest we be conscripted to work in the IFSC, the farmers holding out for more pork, everybody complaining the bill is difficult to read and half the country voting one way because the other half are voting the other way. Democracy, eh?



Harchibald said:


> We will vote Yes but our position in the EU will have been hugely damaged.


 
Exactly. We've used up our goodwill in the EU and to what avail?


----------



## room305

uiop said:


> Why have we blown any more goodwill than for example France, Holland or Denmark when they rejected similar treatys by referendum ? I think you're too much into conspiracy theories here.


 
Because Denmark could renegotiate an opt out on a legitimate concern. What is Ireland asking the EU to negotiate an opt out clause on - stuff that isn't even in the treaty? Holland was let off the hook because they voted No alongside France. Then France is France.



uiop said:


> How is it stealing ? I would call it competition.


 
That isn't what you'd call it if it was your tax money that was being stolen.



uiop said:


> Why arent they worried about losing this 'privilege' ? Wouldnt we also have free trade even as secondary members of a federal EU ?


 
What federal EU? If a second union is formed that doesn't include Ireland I cannot imagine we'd very easily be able to demand that we be allowed to continue to export to the new union without tariffs. Especially if we wished to remain a tax haven for American multinationals exporting to the EU. If it was such an easy thing to negotiate (something I find hard to believe given the protective mindset of the EU bureaucrats), then why haven't more countries on the periphery of Europe done so? 



uiop said:


> So basically are you saying that our free trade agreements as part of the European Union would mean nothing under any scenario and that a punitive tax similar to our VRT would be added to everything produced and sold out of Ireland ? Wouldnt' that be just as illegal as VRT under European law ?


 
Right, and has VRT been abolished? If tax law is sovereign then other countries have the right to enact tax laws that remove the benefit of our low corporate tax rate for companies exporting from Ireland to their respective countries. Our only hope would be too mount a legal challenge that such laws amounted to unfair competition and breached EU internal market rules. However, we may have lost potential allies for that fight. Incidentally, notice the moves afoot to remove McCreevy from his position as internal markets commissioner. It's _realpolitik_ - something the No side seemed to be blissfully unaware of.


----------



## shanegl

> It's _realpolitik_ - something the No side seemed to be blissfully unaware of.



But sure don't they have their newly found principles still? They might not put food on the table, but at least they have them.


----------



## Nemesis

room305 said:


> This is a consistent theme among No voters. Other countries are _less_ democratic than we are because we had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, when other countries ratified it through parliament. Followed to its logical conclusion then we could become the world's most democratic country by holding a referendum on every bill put before the Oireachtas. That way, if we need to amend our finance regulations we can have Declan Ganley telling us to vote No lest we be conscripted to work in the IFSC, the farmers holding out for more pork, everybody complaining the bill is difficult to read and half the country voting one way because the other half are voting the other way. Democracy, eh?



Well said, but you can be sure this won't be the last word on it (though it should be). The No side will still be talking about our undemocratic EU neighbours by the time we're voting again on this next spring.


----------



## television

Originally Posted by *room305* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=652767#post652767 
_



This is a consistent theme among No voters. Other countries are less democratic than we are because we had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, when other countries ratified it through parliament. Followed to its logical conclusion then we could become the world's most democratic country by holding a referendum on every bill put before the Oireachtas.

Click to expand...

__Not well said at all. You are failing to see the obvious . This was a referendum to change our constitution. Under Irish Law their had to be a referendum. Now you might not like this. There is no logical conclusion in what you are saying what so ever. This treaty will radically alter issues surrounding our soverienty and our constitution, (you may argue for the better) issues such as these must be put before the people they are fundemental to our democracy. _


----------



## television

Nemesis said:


> Well said, but you can be sure this won't be the last word on it (though it should be). The No side will still be talking about our undemocratic EU neighbours by the time we're voting again on this next spring.


 

Yes, if you mean failing to respect the democratic wish of the irish people and railroading through another referendum, then I would say Europe has shown its undemocratic credentials. What you are going to see is the government using the dirty tricks of certain no campaigners for its advantage this time, with cosmetic assurances coming from europe and a host of high powered european leaders coming here on winning hearts and minds missions. Remember the rules of LIsbon ratification were set down by all 27 members before the irish no vote. these rules stated the need for unanimity. When they dont get unanimity lets ust change the rules. Is anyone seriously telling me that is democratic?


----------



## room305

television said:


> Yes, if you mean failing to respect the democratic wish of the irish people and railroading through another referendum, then I would say Europe has shown its undemocratic credentials. What you are going to see is the government using the dirty tricks of certain no campaigners for its advantage this time, with cosmetic assurances coming from europe and a host of high powered european leaders coming here on winning hearts and minds missions. Remember the rules of LIsbon ratification were set down by all 27 members before the irish no vote. these rules stated the need for unanimity. When they dont get unanimity lets ust change the rules. Is anyone seriously telling me that is democratic?


 
A unanimous decision is undemocratic by its very nature. Imagine we had a similar system in the Dail. They try to pass a bill to clamp down on child trafficking for the sex trade but it gets held up by Jackie-Healy Rae who says he will only approve it if he gets enough tarmacadam to bury half of Kerry. Would you be arguing that we need to respect the democratic will of the Kerry people?

It is not democratic that Ireland can block the entry of the former Balkans states into the EU, if it is something desired by the citizens of those states and the rest of the EU.

It would also be entirely democratic for the EU to form a new 26 member state union and leave us to our own devices.


----------



## television

room305 said:


> A unanimous decision is undemocratic by its very nature. Imagine we had a similar system in the Dail. They try to pass a bill to clamp down on child trafficking for the sex trade but it gets held up by Jackie-Healy Rae who says he will only approve it if he gets enough tarmacadam to bury half of Kerry. Would you be arguing that we need to respect the democratic will of the Kerry people?
> 
> It is not democratic that Ireland can block the entry of the former Balkans states into the EU, if it is something desired by the citizens of those states and the rest of the EU.
> 
> It would also be entirely democratic for the EU to form a new 26 member state union and leave us to our own devices.


 
A unanimous decision is not undemocratic if that was the rules set up by all 27 demoocratically elected governments during the negotiations re Lisbon. Then it is very much democratic. Your constant use of simplistic analogies is becoming confusing. 



> It is not democratic that Ireland can block the entry of the former Balkans states into the EU, if it is something desired by the citizens of those states and the rest of the EU.


 
Ireland voted change our constitution and to accept the treaty or not. The rules set up by the 27 governments requires unanimity not Ireland specifically. If any country does not ratify Lisbon then Lisbon under the rules of the 27 does not come into being. This was a rule put in place by all 27 governments democratically. It should be abided. Anything else is obviously undemocratic. Is is that simple.


----------



## Nemesis

television said:


> Ireland voted change our constitution and to accept the treaty or not. The rules set up by the 27 governments requires unanimity not Ireland specifically. If any country does not ratify Lisbon then Lisbon under the rules of the 27 does not come into being. This was a rule put in place by all 27 governments democratically. It should be abided. Anything else is obviously undemocratic. Is is that simple.





See here. It's getting quite tiring repeating myself.

Nobody's changing any rules. 26 (or maybe it will be 25) sovereign states are perfectly entitled to agree any treaty between themselves. The rules for enhanced cooperation allow them to leave Ireland behind. 

The amount of misguided idealistic navel-gazing about democracy that goes on among some on the No side is truly staggering. The EU is an oasis of democracy and stability in a dangerous and uncertain world. No, they don't have referenda in every state on every bloody treaty. No it's not perfectly democratic. So what? The sort of perfect democracy that some have in mind would be a recipe for deadlock and stagnation, endless negotiations leading nowhere. A form of democracy that would soon become discredited because it couldn't deliver solutions and address the problems of the day. That's just the kind of weak and ineffective democracy the political extremes of the left and right would love. Democracy failed in Russia and we got Putin (it could actually have been worse), democracy failed in Europe between the World Wars and we got Fascism. Don't think what has happened before couldn't happen again.


----------



## Purple

Nemesis said:


> See here. It's getting quite tiring repeating myself.
> 
> Nobody's changing any rules. 26 (or maybe it will be 25) sovereign states are perfectly entitled to agree any treaty between themselves. The rules for enhanced cooperation allow them to leave Ireland behind.
> 
> The amount of misguided idealistic navel-gazing about democracy that goes on among some on the No side is truly staggering. The EU is an oasis of democracy and stability in a dangerous and uncertain world. No, they don't have referenda in every state on every bloody treaty. No it's not perfectly democratic. So what? The sort of perfect democracy that some have in mind would be a recipe for deadlock and stagnation, endless negotiations leading nowhere. A form of democracy that would soon become discredited because it couldn't deliver solutions and address the problems of the day. That's just the kind of weak and ineffective democracy the political extremes of the left and right would love. Democracy failed in Russia and we got Putin (it could actually have been worse), democracy failed in Europe between the World Wars and we got Fascism. Don't think what has happened before couldn't happen again.



Another excellent post.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Yes, fantastic post _Nem_.


----------



## rmelly

> It's getting quite tiring repeating myself.


 
This thread seems to have gone full circle a few times at this stage, there's even posters getting very emotional while by their own admission they didn't bother voting, so time to move on, nothing to see here...


----------



## television

Nemesis said:


> See here. It's getting quite tiring repeating myself..


 
Your not the only one who getting tired of you repeating yourself.



Nemesis said:


> Nobody's changing any rules. 26 (or maybe it will be 25) sovereign states are perfectly entitled to agree any treaty between themselves. The rules for enhanced cooperation allow them to leave Ireland behind.


 

IS that enhanced cooperation under the terms of the treaty of Lisbon you speak about??. I suggest that you do not fully understand enhanced cooperation. Yes they are entitled to aggree a treaty between themsleves now, but it will not be the Lisbon treaty. And can you deal with the issue of unanimity as democrataclly aggreed opon by all 27 countries??? Why have this condition if it is unworkable??????



Nemesis said:


> The amount of misguided idealistic navel-gazing about democracy that goes on among some on the No side is truly staggering.


 
The very essence of democracy is reflection, questioning, debate, open discussion and yes even naval gazing. Democracy is by its nature idealistic. the untimate aim of an ehanced europe is a great sence of Idealsim, i.e for the role europe can play in tackling climate change, fighting global poverty, and bringing the principals of social justice and democracy around the world. 



Nemesis said:


> The EU is an oasis of democracy and stability in a dangerous and uncertain world. No, they don't have referenda in every state on every bloody treaty.No it's not perfectly democratic. So what? .


 
So your dismissing the anti democratic tendencies within the european project with a simple "so what". Even if we need to be pragmatic sometimes in a democracy. Is it not pragmatic to suggest that a sizable majority of citizens accross Europe have serious doubts about the Lisbon treaty. An indeed if there were referenda accroos Europe they would be defeated in the vast amount of these countries?



Nemesis said:


> The sort of perfect democracy that some have in mind would be a recipe for deadlock and stagnation, endless negotiations leading nowhere. A form of democracy that would soon become discredited because it couldn't deliver solutions and address the problems of the day. That's just the kind of weak and ineffective democracy the political extremes of the left and right would love. .


 
Democracies are not perfect no one is arguing they can be. They must however stick to some basic principals if they are to continue to have legitimacy among ordinary people. Dismiss the application of these principals as naval gazing, but if you do dont call your self a democrat. 




Nemesis said:


> Democracy failed in Russia and we got Putin (it could actually have been worse), democracy failed in Europe between the World Wars and we got Fascism. Don't think what has happened before couldn't happen again.


 
What will make democracy fail in europe above all in the future is dismissing citizens concerns as "naval gazing" and then bulldosing on with a process that has queastionable democratic legitamacy all in the name of a more democratic europe. 

Dismiss those who have democratic concerns as navalgazing. Dismiss thoso who faught for the right for citizens to engage in debate, to say no to a grand political projects such as nazism. Dismiss these easily and you will lead to another hitler in europe quicker than you think. But by the sound of it maybe thats something you want.


----------



## room305

television said:


> A unanimous decision is not undemocratic if that was the rules set up by all 27 demoocratically elected governments during the negotiations re Lisbon. Then it is very much democratic.


 
Isn't it funny then that you chide the other member states such as Britain and France for being undemocratic by not holding referenda to ratify the Lisbon treaty, despite this complying with the rules of their democratically elected parliaments?


----------



## television

I Think it is fine that other countries ratify the treaty in what ever way their democratic structures allow for. I am not questioning this. I was talking in respect of political pragmatism and making the suggestion, quite fairly I think, that if their were referanda in these countries(as france has done with nice)  they would be rected by a majority. Most pro Lisbon parties and governments would aggree with this I think (behind closed doors) of course.


----------



## Nemesis

television said:


> Your not the only one who getting tired of you repeating yourself.



I'm also rather tired of reading your spelling mistakes. You could at least make some effort and put what you intend to post through a spelling checker as a basic courtesy to other posters. It doesn't require that much effort.



television said:


> IS that enhanced cooperation under the terms of the treaty of Lisbon you speak about??. I suggest that you do not fully understand enhanced cooperation. Yes they are entitled to aggree a treaty between themsleves now, but it will not be the Lisbon treaty. And can you deal with the issue of unanimity as democrataclly aggreed opon by all 27 countries??? Why have this condition if it is unworkable??????



Enhanced cooperation under the terms of the Treaty of Nice. And no it won't be called the Treaty of Lisbon, it could be called the Treaty of Ljubljana but essentially contain the same content.



television said:


> Democracies are not perfect no one is arguing they can be. They must however stick to some basic principals if they are to continue to have legitimacy among ordinary people. Dismiss the application of these principals as naval gazing, but if you do dont call your self a democrat.


 
Basic principles yeah. Free and fair elections, a free press, I don't see any of these things lacking among our EU neighbours. What I'm dismissing is the idea that it's not democracy if it doesn't have referenda.



television said:


> Dismiss those who have democratic concerns as navalgazing. Dismiss thoso who faught for the right for citizens to engage in debate, to say no to a grand political projects such as nazism. Dismiss these easily and you will lead to another hitler in europe quicker than you think. But by the sound of it maybe thats something you want.



Yeah, television, I'm dismissing those who opposed Nazism and I want another Hitler 
great line of argument you've got there...


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

This thread is about what happens next. It is now looking very, very likely that the Irish No vote will be ignored and Lisbon will proceed. We will be given a last "take it or lump it " chance, but enormous damage has been done. 

_TV_, you may be right and you can don your oxygen mask and climb up on that high moral ground and rail forever against big bad anti democratic eurocrats, but can't you see, a week after the No vote, that this was a seriously naive blunder by Ireland inc.? 

Put another way, did you foresee such a strong reaction from our European partners? I did. The Irish Times did. Bertie did. My guess is that Sinn Fein did as well and are enjoying Ireland's isolation (after all that's what their name aspires to, how bizzarre that their fellow wallowers are British fascist imperialists).

But I suspect many No voters are taken aback by the negative reaction. This is totally unlike the reaction to Nice. Many of the No voters, especially those who said they didn't understand what they were voting for, will be shocked by the international reaction and by a true awareness of the stakes into making a _realpolitik_ Yes vote next time.  The fact is it was unfair (on Ireland) to ask the people to vote on this but unfortunately that seems to be what Dev wanted.


----------



## starlite68

Harchibald said:


> Many of the No voters, especially those who said they didn't understand what they were voting for, will be shocked by the international reaction and by a true awareness of the stakes into making a _realpolitik_ Yes vote next time. The fact is it was unfair (on Ireland) to ask the people to vote on this but unfortunately that seems to be what Dev wanted.


 there probably were many people who voted no because they did not understand what they were voting for...but the government only has itself to blame for that.      as for people being shocked by international reaction!  i dont think irish people are that easiley shocked.


----------



## television

Nemesis said:


> Yeah, television, I'm dismissing those who opposed Nazism and I want another Hitler





Nemesis said:


> great line of argument you've got there...





In the NAZI era you may have been one of those who aggreed with the enabling act. All those who had problems with it would have been accused of naval gazing about democratic principals. You cant have it both ways.  accusing people who have reasoned arguments against the treaty to be engaging in democratic naval gazing and then give a lecture about the NAZIs.





> Basic principles yeah. Free and fair elections, a free press, I don't see any of these things lacking among our EU neighbours. What I'm dismissing is the idea that it's not democracy if it doesn't have referenda.


 
These are more than basic principals they are sacrosanct to democracy. But there is more than you list. There is sticking by agreements made with other sovereign governments. There is respecting the democratic will of the people (even if the political class believe the people to be misguided or stupid). 

Referendum are not needed according for other countries to ratify the treaty. This is fine that is their democratic decision. It should be respected. Again, 27 governments signed a treaty that stated all 27 must ratify the treaty for it to come into force. These are 27 sovereign countries. They all agreed to the principal of unanimity. Now they have turned their backs on this principal. There is something democratically suspect about this. If you cannot see this that so be it.


----------



## BillK

Room 305,

During the last general Election here in the UK, the Labour party had, as part of their manifesto, the pledge that we would have a referendum on any proposed constitution for the EU.

The Government has reneged on that manifesto pledge on the grounds that the Lisbon Treaty is not a constitutional treaty.

Everyone else involved in drawing up the treaty, including Giscard d'Estaing says that everything that was in the proposal which was rejected by the French and Dutch is in the Lisbon Treaty.

Democratic?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

starlite68 said:


> i dont think irish people are that easiley shocked.


 Proud words but typical of the naivete of the No camp (except the terrorists who are anything but naive).


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> That this was a seriously naive blunder by Ireland inc.?.


 
WIll comment on the rest of this post tomorrow. One thing however. Ireland is a parlimentary democracy. It is not an incorporated company.


----------



## Nemesis

television said:


> In the NAZI era you may have been one of those who aggreed with the enabling act. All those who had problems with it would have been accused of naval gazing about democratic principals.



How you arrive at the idea that I would be "one of those who aggreed with the enabling act" I'll never know. I think it's both offensive and verging on the hysterical to come out with a claim like that.




television said:


> You cant have it both ways.  accusing people who have reasoned arguments against the treaty to be engaging in democratic naval gazing and then give a lecture about the NAZIs.



I'm not talking about *all* people who have arguments against the treaty. I'm referring specifically to those that harp on and on about the lack of referenda in the other 26 states and casually refer to them as being somehow undemocratic because of it. The fact is that these states are acting lawfully and respecting their own constitutional arrangements. I am also taking issue with the idea that 26 governments are acting undemocratically by concluding a new agreement amongst themselves if the Lisbon treaty were to collapse. They are entitled to sign any treaty they wish even if its contents are broadly similar to the Lisbon treaty.

And by the way, it was you who made explicit reference to NAZIs



television said:


> These are 27 sovereign countries. They all agreed to the principal of unanimity. Now they have turned their backs on this principal. There is something democratically suspect about this. If you cannot see this that so be it.



No, it's just realpolitik becoming more brutally apparent, but it was always there and everyone knew it. There's give and take. Big states have to make compromises with small states if they want them to participate and small states have to reciprocate. But everyone knows that big states have more influence and clout. If a small state digs in and makes unreasonable demands then it could push the whole system to breaking point. No one really wants this to happen because it could fundamentally alter the character of the EU which up to now has operated on the basis of unanimity on most issues. Small states know that they maximise their influence by ensuring it never comes to this. Ireland may have set off a political bomb which finally forces the big states to assert their full power overtly. This would be a real tragedy for the EU and particularly for small states as a precedent would be set whereby small states could be left behind. However you could hardly blame them when one small state holds everyone else to ransom even when its principal concerns on taxation, abortion, neutrality etc. have been dealt with.


----------



## television

Nemesis said:


> How you arrive at the idea that I would be "one of those who agreed with the enabling act" I'll never know. I think it's both offensive and verging on the hysterical to come out with a claim like that.


 
You accuse me of a hysterical reaction. However you berate the "no side" for naval gazing about democracy. See on the one hand you talk about that a weak Europe will lead to the conditions where dictatorships may develop in the future and then you bemoan the democratic concerns those on the no side have as "democratic naval gazing". Without reflection, questioning, etc we are more likely to have the kind of conditions where fascism will flourish.
In fact your previous post is verging on a kind of indignant hysteria itself, e.g.




> The amount of misguided idealistic navel-gazing about democracy that goes on among some on the No side is truly staggering.


 



> I'm not talking about *all* people who have arguments against the treaty. I'm referring specifically to those that harp on and on about the lack of referenda in the other 26 states and casually refer to them as being somehow undemocratic because of it.


 
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 fact is that these states are acting lawfully and respecting their own constitutional arrangements. I am also taking issue with the idea that 26 governments are acting undemocratically by concluding a new agreement amongst themselves if the Lisbon treaty were to collapse. They are entitled to sign any treaty they wish even if its contents are broadly similar to the Lisbon treaty.


 
They may be entitled to do this. But what does it say about the European project. What does it say about Europe’s claims that it respects sovereign countries. What does it say about its ability to stick to agreements it makes? They are not acting undemocratically by concluding a new agreement per say, they are acting undemocratically by ignoring the previous agreement they made simply because it does not fit into its grand plan. 



> And by the way, it was you who made explicit reference to NAZIs


 

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





Nemesis said:


> No, it's just realpolitik becoming more brutally apparent, but it was always there and everyone knew it. There's give and take. Big states have to make compromises with small states if they want them to participate and small states have to reciprocate.


 

Very convenient that. Did the citizens of Ireland know this realpolitik? Did they know that their vote meant nothing? It was simply a rubber stamping exercise? These compromises are necessary yes, but they should come during the negotiations about the treaty. This is when the give and take you speak of is necessary. There can be no give and take or realpolitik regarding the democratic will and decision of a soverign country. This is an absolute if democracy.





Nemesis said:


> But everyone knows that big states have more influence and clout. If a small state digs in and makes unreasonable demands then it could push the whole system to breakin point.


 

Irish people hoping the rest of the EU respects democratic decision of a sovereign country is not an unreasonable demand. It is not digging in, and even if it was people in a democratic country have every right to "dig in" it is called exercising their democratic will. Why have a process of full ratification of 27 members? The reason is that 27 individual sovereign countries get into this process in a democratic and open manner. It actually strengthens Europe. Ignore this condition and it takes away the moral authority of an enlarged Europe where all regardless of size are affirmed and democratically validated. 




> No one really wants this to happen because it could fundamentally alter the character of the EU which up to now has operated on the basis of unanimity on most issues. Small states know that they maximise their influence by ensuring it never comes to this. Ireland may have set off a political bomb which finally forces the big states to assert their full power overtly.


 
Again this is a process of sovereign countries respecting each other and respecting the democratic wishes if people. The political time bomb that was set off was the democratic will of a sovereign people (I know I am using this phrase a lot). If these larger state assert their power overtly as you say (and I agree with this analysis) then this makes a mockery of some very basic democratic principals which these larger countries play lip service too. However, ultimately the assertion of this power weakens the moral authority and democratic credentials of the kind of Europe those of us on the no side (but who believe in Europe) want to see.





> This would be a real tragedy for the EU and particularly for small states as a precedent would be set whereby small states could be left behind.


 
A precedent is set where the democratic will of small states is not respected. 




> However you could hardly blame them when one small state holds everyone else to ransom even when its principal concerns on taxation, abortion, neutrality etc. have been dealt with.


 

It is not holding Europe to ransom to exercise democratic will. It is the essence of democracy. I do not believe the concerns you site have been death with as you say but there is also other concerns, The militarisation of Europe, privatisation of public services, the erosion of workers rights, the European constitution having primacy over the Irish constitution, a democratic deficit, European bureaucrats making decisions where their is no accountability. You may argue that Lisbon tried to deal with these concerns. The Irish people were just not convinced of this.


----------



## starlite68

as far as i can see europe is heading in the direction where the big states will hold all the sway,and pay only lip service to the concerns of the small countries..now wonder so many people now feel very disconneced from the EU,


----------



## S.L.F

Nemesis said:


> Democracy failed in Russia and we got Putin (it could actually have been worse), democracy failed in Europe between the World Wars and we got Fascism.



I would have assumed you were talking about Nazis as well.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TV said:
			
		

> Did the citizens of Ireland know this realpolitik? Did they know that their vote meant nothing? It was simply a rubber stamping exercise?


This was the big failure of the Yes campaign. Somehow it dare not spell out the truth - No effectively means you want out of the EU. The RC booklet was a waste of space in stating that No means everything stays as it was, we now know that was completely wrong, everything has changed utterly with this No vote.

It seems now that the the vote will be put in these stark terms next spring (In or Out). Interesting thing is the enormous clamour from the No camp, ranging from Murdoch's Sunday Times to the British fascist party not to hold a second vote. What are they afraid of? After all wasn't it a resounding No? They know that second time around the Yes side will not be so coy,it will be gloves off, and they no Yes will win when people get the reality check. Will you respect a Yes vote if it happens next time?

BTW congratulations on your huge improvement in spelling, though unfortunately spellcheckers cannot spot the use of "their" instead of "there" and "site" instead of "cite".


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> This was the big failure of the Yes campaign. Somehow it dare not spell out the truth - No effectively means you want out of the EU.


 
A big failure of the yes campaign to suggest that ratifying Lisbon was a rubberstamping exercise? Are you for real? Are you seriously suggesting that the advocates for yes should have claimed this? And if this is the truth then are you prepared to admit that the plan for European expansion is anti democratic. Have you caught the headline on the Tribune this morning? Sounds like you have. The pro Lisbon media are circling the wagons already and making apocalyptic predictions about new referenda to scare the Irish people. Fall for it if you wish. 

http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2008/jun/22/were-either-in-or-out-you-decide/

When the French voted no to the constitution did people seriously suggest that they wanted out of Europe, or the Danes?

You know what you can do with your spelling lesson? Then again I am giving you a lesson in clear and reasoned argument so I guess its fair.


----------



## room305

Television, you make a number of references to the "democratic concerns" of the Irish people and to the EU respecting the "democratic will" of Ireland. You also state these concerns should be addressed during the negotiation and formation of the treaty.

Can you specify what exactly these concerns are that Europe must respect? If it was decided that the treaty should be renegotiated and you were asked to be on the negotiation panel, can you specify what bits of the treaty you would like removed or amended? I haven't spoke to one person who voted No who could tell me what they wanted changed about the treaty.


----------



## lightswitch

"This was the big failure of the Yes campaign. Somehow it dare not spell out the truth - No effectively means you want out of the EU. The RC booklet was a waste of space in stating that No means everything stays as it was, we now know that was completely wrong, everything has changed utterly with this No vote."

What you would appear to be suggesting is that we simply vote Yes to everything put to us in the Future or we will be out of the EU.  I am pro Europe, but not on those terms thanks.  We might as well be out now rather than later.  When exactly did the EU become a dictatorship?

"They know that second time around the Yes side will not be so coy,it will be gloves off, and they no Yes will win when people get the reality check. Will you respect a Yes vote if it happens next time?"

I would not be so sure of that!  If the yes side keep talking down to and bullying the No side then no matter what they put to them may well be rejected again.  If the yes side what the vote to go yes next time (if there is one) they would be well advised to go cap in hand to the electorate.  They people have voted already and this needs to be respected.

With regard to spelling you might take a look at your use of no where know would be more appropriate!


----------



## television

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.


----------



## lightswitch

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.


----------



## 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

lightswitch said:


> 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

television said:


> 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

television said:


> 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

Harchibald said:


> 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

Harchibald said:


> 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

television said:


> 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.



television said:


> 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

Nemesis said:


> 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

uiop said:


> 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

Sunny said:


> 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.




Sunny said:


> 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.




Sunny said:


> 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?



Sunny said:


> 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

so-crates said:


> 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

uiop said:


> _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

Nemesis said:


> 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? 




Nemesis said:


> 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

Nemesis said:


> 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. 





Nemesis said:


> 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.



Nemesis said:


> 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

so-crates said:


> 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

Sunny said:


> 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

room305 said:


> 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.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

TV said:
			
		

> They must clearly deliver the message that the irish people have given their view. Respect this view should be the message.


To respect the view it has to be understood. So the following explanations will be provided.

Irish people do not like abortion and prostitution and they thought that was in the Treaty;

Irish people hate being involved in wars even just wars like against Hitler, after all there has always been somebody like America or Britain to protect them. They thought this Treaty would force them into wars;

Irish women do not want their sons conscripted and they thought this Treaty would do that;

Irish workers do not like competition from Eastern Europe and 70% of them voted No, the killer punch; actually in this case they were accurately interpreting the direction of the European project;

People like _TV_ think the Treaty is going to privitise education, and that is a cold place to be;

Still others are in fear of the dreaded "surveylance";

Others felt that decisions would be made behind closed doors as soon as there was a power cut and the proceedings of the Council could no longer be broadcast.

Our EU colleagues will make up their own minds but we can't insist that they *respect* the above views.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> To respect the view it has to be understood. So the following explanations will be provided.





Harchibald said:


> Irish people do not like abortion and prostitution and they thought that was in the Treaty;
> 
> Irish people hate being involved in wars even just wars like against Hitler; after all there has always been somebody like America or Britain to protect them. They thought this Treaty would force them into wars;
> 
> Irish women do not want their sons conscripted and they thought this Treaty would do that;
> 
> Irish workers do not like competition from Eastern Europe and 70% of them voted No, the killer punch; actually in this case they were accurately interpreting the direction of the European project;
> 
> People like _TV_ think the Treaty is going to privitise education, and that is a cold place to be;
> 
> Still others are in fear of the dreaded "surveylance";
> 
> Others felt that decisions would be made behind closed doors as soon as there was a power cut and the proceedings of the Council could no longer be broadcast.
> 
> Our EU colleagues will make up their own minds but we can't insist that they *respect* the above views.


 
YOU are characterising the no vote under these terms. That’s fine, but it is actually adding little to the discussion. There is little from the above that actually points to any real understanding of why the majority of people may have voted no. Just a blinkered one sided tirade. 

I would say in responding to the above however. To take it point by point. 

1. When this treaty does come into force the European court of justice has a greater say in these kind of ethical issues. It is not so farfetched to suggest that the Irish rules surrounding abortion could be undermined in the future from interpretations from the ECJ??? It is a possibility, and maybe if you agree with abortion a good one, and even if we have got assurances about this from Nice 2 we have got assurances about Lisbon being scraped if there was not unanimity and look where we are heading with that assurance. 

2. Irish people do not like an increasingly militarised Europe which is desperately trying to compete militarily with the big boys of America China etc. They perhaps want Europe to offer a different kind of direction in terms of Global politics rather than just complete in an Arms race and to prop up the fortunes of European armaments corporations. It is a reasonable concern. 

3. Irish workers want their rights and the rights of migrant workers respected in any enlarged project. Another very reasonable concern

4. Yes many people including me believe a reformed public service is the best way to ensure equity to all citizens in terms of accessing essential services like health and education. This is a position I suggest that most European citizens would agree with. 

5. There is a perfectly reasonable and logical ethical argument for suggesting that there is an ever increasing surveillance society emerging. This is a reasonable ethical debate in itself although I have not heard one person arguing this point as a reason for voting against Lisbon.

Continue with the diatribe if you wish. Continue with ignoring or misrepresenting people’s reasonable concerns about Lisbon. Continue to display an arrogant boorishness; it does little for the quality of your argument however.


----------



## csirl

I think the Treaty is dead. The No vote here as focused Europes attention on the Treaty, which many EU politicians had been hoping would get passed without any of their own electorate noticing. I would guess that a lot of these politicians will have to review their stance before the next election in their countries or else risk losing seats. Some of them were already a bit nervous about this treaty beforehand and are even more nervous now. A lot of the negative reaction we've seen in recent days is because of this - we've focused the EU electorates thoughts on the positions of their elected representatives and these representatives are not happy being put in the spotlight.


----------



## shnaek

It turns out that an internal audit of the expenses and staff costs submitted by MEP's this year found serious abuse of the €16,000 a month allowance for paying assistants. Some paid their wives. Others claimed while employing no assistants. 

So the European parliament would want to expose this, right?

Actually the parliament refused to release the report.

But they tell us to 'trust' them. 

I believe that this is the Europe the Irish said no to. 

On a positive note - it is good to see such a debate as we are having here. This same debate should be happening all over Europe, about the future European citizens see for Europe.


----------



## csirl

Any talk of Ireland being forced to leave the EU or being left out by the other 26 is just that. Whereas we may be small, there are other reasons why it is very difficult for the EU to let us go alone.

The EU, like all major world powers, has its thinktanks which consider future scenarios in great detail. No doubt that their strategists have considered the impact on the EU of various possible outcomes. Ireland leaving the EU, whether by choice or forced, is something that the EU cannot afford for the following strategic reasons;

Oil/Gas
Ireland is the only country in the EU that is likely to produce any significant reserves of oil or gas in the medium to long term future. With ever improving off-shore drilling technology, drilling for oil & gas is becoming more and more a reality. Unfortunately for the EU, Ireland has sovereignty over the Atlantic shelf oil and gas reserves.

Fishing Rights;
As per above, the fishing industry in Spain and Portugal would be eliminated overnight if it did not have access to Irish waters. We have sovereignty over the EU's major Atlantic fishing areas.

Air Transport:
Irish air traffic control covers half the Atlantic. Cant realistically fly from Europe to USA without going through Irish airspace. 

NAFTA:
We are the only European country who could negotiate its way into NAFTA (or at least a favourable trading relationship with it), so the EU is not the only show in town for Ireland for free market access. EU would hate to have a NAFTA member on its doorstep.


----------



## television

good posts uiop and csirl.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_TV_ I thought my analysis of the reasons for the No vote was rapier satire. However, you took the majority of my caricatures and actually jusitified them.


But maybe I'm wrong and we can survive without the EU. I take heart from _csirl's_ post that we are verging on super power status if we could only exploit our vast strategic advantages.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> _TV_ I thought my analysis of the reasons for the No vote was rapier satire. However, you took the majority of my caricatures and actually jusitified them..


 
Satire or a tirade? Or only joking or half in earnest?? My point was that some of these concerns are legimate. Even if you do want to make satire out of them (pretty poor satire). As was mentioned earlier, loosing our coroprate tax rate was not in the document but after the no vote the French were quick to role back on that one. Funny that.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Danger of going off topic here, but what's this all about our fishes?  I thought we were only entitled to 3 miles off our coast.  Do we own half the Atlantic fishing rights, except we gave them to the EU?


----------



## shanegl

uiop said:


> I was going to mention fishing myself. Talk is often made of the money we got from the EU. Noone ever mentions the billions upon billions worth of fish we gave back to them ; since 1973, worth far more than we took in EU grants. Barroso won't want to destroy the fishing economy of Portugal. Only problem is Cowen is untested as leader and seems a bit passive in front of these boys from the big EU smoke..



The idea that other countries took more than €50bn worth of fish from our waters is pure fantasy.


----------



## cjh

Harchibald said:


> To respect the view it has to be understood. So the following explanations will be provided.
> 
> Irish people do not like abortion and prostitution and they thought that was in the Treaty;
> 
> Irish people hate being involved in wars even just wars like against Hitler, after all there has always been somebody like America or Britain to protect them. They thought this Treaty would force them into wars;
> 
> Irish women do not want their sons conscripted and they thought this Treaty would do that;
> 
> Irish workers do not like competition from Eastern Europe and 70% of them voted No, the killer punch; actually in this case they were accurately interpreting the direction of the European project;
> 
> People like _TV_ think the Treaty is going to privitise education, and that is a cold place to be;
> 
> Still others are in fear of the dreaded "surveylance";
> 
> Others felt that decisions would be made behind closed doors as soon as there was a power cut and the proceedings of the Council could no longer be broadcast.
> 
> Our EU colleagues will make up their own minds but we can't insist that they *respect* the above views.




I voted NO and I didn't believe any of those things. I voted based on the document. The yes side like to explain away the no vote by attributing it to ignorance - that's just insulting. I voted no because I believe in democracy and guess what - now that France (sorry not France, they voted NO too) but Sarkozy is looking for another vote - I was right - the EU is no longer a democratic place. 
Since when was a NO a YES?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

cjh said:


> I voted NO and I didn't believe any of those things. I voted based on the document.


CJ, can you be more explicit. Was it the colour of the document? Its length maybe? The fact that it was an incomprehensibe amending legal tome? Or is there some particular substantive point you found objectionable?


----------



## rmelly

Harchibald said:


> Danger of going off topic here, but what's this all about our fishes? I thought we were only entitled to 3 miles off our coast. Do we own half the Atlantic fishing rights, except we gave them to the EU?


 
Gave them to the EU, or were tricked out of them by those wiley eurocrats?


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> CJ, can you be more explicit. Was it the colour of the document? Its length maybe? The fact that it was an incomprehensibe amending legal tome? Or is there some particular substantive point you found objectionable?


 
And you are an expert in the document?? Again why are people on here who disagree with the no vote ignoring many legitimate concerns people have about the Lisbon treaty based on the actual document. 

1. Self ammending
2. Takes precident over irish constitution
3. Concerns over possible privatisation of public services (artical 188)
4. Allows for the Further militerisation of Europe (even if Ireland has an opt out, it has a right to voice this concern as European citizens)
5. Forcing us to eat staight bananas.


----------



## S.L.F

Harchibald said:


> CJ, can you be more explicit. Was it the colour of the document? Its length maybe? The fact that it was an incomprehensibe amending legal tome? Or is there some particular substantive point you found objectionable?



"





Harchibald said:


> *I have read none of the Treaty.*


----------



## ashambles

> I was going to mention fishing myself. Talk is often made of the money we got from the EU. Noone ever mentions the billions upon billions worth of fish we gave back to them ; since 1973, worth far more than we took in EU grants. Barroso won't want to destroy the fishing economy of Portugal.


One problem with this is Portugal only joined the EU in 1986 so our waters weren't give away to them or Spain in '73. Spain had been fishing our "precious" before we joined the EEC anyway. As had everybody else since how could we stop them as we've no navy to speak of.

Another problem is "noone ever mentions" isn't true, in the last week every single Noer I've heard has come out with more and more ludicrous estimates of the value of our fishing area. Apparently in the '70s we were a thriving fishing based economy, instead of the struggling backwater with a ramshackle fishing fleet I seem to remember. The EU should be thanking us for joining. 

What's really going here is most reasonable Noers can see that they're being just a little ungrateful, so by "calculating" the value of fisheries they feel a little more comfortable. Much better than admitting that possibly they were wrong.


----------



## television

> I have read none of the treaty


 
Ouch that gotta hurt Harchibald!!


----------



## television

ashambles said:


> One problem with this is Portugal only joined the EU in 1986 so our waters weren't give away to them or Spain in '73. Spain had been fishing our "precious" before we joined the EEC anyway. As had everybody else since how could we stop them as we've no navy to speak of.
> 
> Another problem is "noone ever mentions" isn't true, in the last week every single Noer I've heard has come out with more and more ludicrous estimates of the value of our fishing area. Apparently in the '70s we were a thriving fishing based economy, instead of the struggling backwater with a ramshackle fishing fleet I seem to remember. The EU should be thanking us for joining.
> 
> What's really going here is most reasonable Noers can see that they're being just a little ungrateful, so by "calculating" the value of fisheries they feel a little more comfortable. Much better than admitting that possibly they were wrong.


 
Something dare I say fishy about this whole marine angle. I was waching a documentary about the impact of EU fishing policy on small scale African fishermen specifically Senegal. Something none of us should be proud of.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

television said:


> Ouch that gotta hurt Harchibald!!


Not at all. I have freely admitted that I did not read the document. My vote Yes was on the following planks:

I trust our elected reps and the leaders of our society;

I most certainly mistrust Sinn Fein;

The rest of the looneys - Dana, Dunphy, Rossie, Ganly, Gaybo, Sinead (I have had an abortion) O'Connor, Vincent (I am oh so clever) Browne etc. etc. made Yes a bit of a no brainer;

I don't think it is a good idea to make enemies with Sarko/Merky/Brown et al.

And most definitely I do not want to get into bed with British fascists;

But most of all, No was never going to be allowed to stick. We are going to have to vote Yes eventually or get out. Meanwhile a No vote has completely blown our goodwill where it counts, and boy have we received it up to now and do we need it in future.

CJ rejected all your arguments for a No and a few others I had thrown in. His main objection was with the document itself. I thought that needed some clarification.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> CJ rejected all your arguments for a No and a few others I had thrown in. His main objection was with the document itself. I thought that needed some clarification.


 
To clarify, these were not my arguments they were your attempt at sacrasm. I was simply taking each one and making a legitimate counter argument from certain people who voted no and may have had these concerns. 

One of the reasons I voted no is there all right the others I have not made an argument for.

1.The self ammending aspect of the treaty
2. Artical 188.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> Not at all. I have freely admitted that I did not read the document. My vote Yes was on the following planks:
> 
> I trust our elected reps and the leaders of our society;
> 
> I most certainly mistrust Sinn Fein;
> 
> The rest of the looneys - Dana, Dunphy, Rossie, Ganly, Gaybo, Sinead (I have had an abortion) O'Connor, Vincent (I am oh so clever) Browne etc. etc. made Yes a bit of a no brainer;
> 
> I don't think it is a good idea to make enemies with Sarko/Merky/Brown et al.
> 
> And most definitely I do not want to get into bed with British fascists;
> 
> But most of all, No was never going to be allowed to stick. We are going to have to vote Yes eventually or get out. Meanwhile a No vote has completely blown our goodwill where it counts, and boy have we received it up to now and do we need it in future.


 
And you have the gaul to question why people voted no? Please. I do not see one coherent reason there why you may have voted yes.


----------



## Nemesis

Harchibald said:


> The rest of the looneys - Dana, Dunphy, Rossie, Ganly, Gaybo, Sinead (I have had an abortion) O'Connor, Vincent (I am oh so clever) Browne etc. etc. made Yes a bit of a no brainer;


You forgot Jim Corr


----------



## television

Nemesis said:


> You forgot Jim Corr


 
Again, great reason for voting yes. Beats real analysis of the issues.


----------



## starlite68

Harchibald said:


> I trust our elected reps and the leaders of our society;
> .


you are dead right harchibald......our politicions and leaders are all so trustworthy and honest!   walking saints..all of them.


----------



## shanegl

uiop said:


> Where do you justify your notions about figures from ?
> We have a 200 mile exclusive economic zone. Below is this concept defined for you :
> 
> Now to calculate the value of fish stocks depleted by our EU friends; read this document take the estimated value of fish caught in the Irish Exclusive Economic Zone for a given year, and project it back over the last 35 years.
> 
> Full credit must be given to this website


 
€460m taken from the EEZ, the Irish share is 30%, so that's €322m taken by other countries. €322m * 35 = €11bn

Quote from politics.ie:


> *In the same period as the Irish state lost €1.4 billion in revenues from fishing, it gained €17bn in structural funds, and while it lost €11.27bn of fish from its economy (much of which would have gone on imported oil), it gained a total of €55bn from the EU.*


 
So lets see your calculations then. How have we given "massively more" than €55bn in value of fish?


----------



## shanegl

television said:


> To clarify, these were not my arguments they were your attempt at sacrasm. I was simply taking each one and making a legitimate counter argument from certain people who voted no and may have had these concerns.
> 
> One of the reasons I voted no is there all right the others I have not made an argument for.
> 
> 1.The self ammending aspect of the treaty
> 2. Artical 188.


 
The treaty isn't self amending. We would still need further referenda on constitutional changes. Where did people get this idea that the the Treaty is self amending and we'd never get another referendum? Libertas perhaps?


----------



## Nemesis

starlite68 said:


> you are dead right harchibald......our politicions and leaders are all so trustworthy and honest!   walking saints..all of them.



It's very easy to be cynical _starlite68_. No one said they were 'saints' but they're certainly not all crooks either as you seem to imply. And if there are problems with our political class then you need look no further than the people who elected them. We get the politicians we deserve. They are a reflection of ourselves and our own failings and faults. If you don't like them get out and vote for someone else, join a party or organise with others to form one. You might even stand for election yourself.

It is a far more sensible proposition to trust the collective judgment of the vast majority of our politicians than to fall for the paranoid ramblings of Declan Ganley.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

television said:


> And you have the gaul to question why people voted no? Please. I do not see one coherent reason there why you may have voted yes.


Gaul? As in Asterix? I'll tell Sarky on you.

I didn't read the document. I accepted the arguments, put forward by people whose judgement and bona fides I trust, that this was needed for the effective working of the enlarged EU. 

This was reinforced by the lack of integrity (abortion, conscription etc.) in the arguments being put forward by people who I don't trust, like Sinn Fein/IRA.

A lot is made of this "did you read the document?" by the No side. The Sunday Times fairly beats Biffo up about it. Double standards here. Did anybody ask Grisly did he read the document?

Anyway this thread has taught me that reading the document in isolation would be a waste of space. One would need a week off in a Brussels library to study the whole consolidated text developped over the last 50 years.

This should never, never have been put to referendum.


----------



## shanegl

uiop said:


> Dude. We are giving up this income stream from fishing up for eternity so while the value of EU funds will remain static or decreasing due to our future contributions, we will still lose billions worth of fish. How is an eternal and rising fishing income worth a few years of grants ? Nobody gives nothing for nothing. We are in the EU because its in Europes best interests. Food is becoming more expensive, not less. Add to this the compound interest and the spin off value of having an actual indigeneous fishing industry independent of the whims of outsourcing and mobile multinationals and even a madman would agree this contribution to the EU is significant. And we gave this contribution to the EU when our country and economy was on its knees so let noone ever say we gave them nothing.


 
So you agree then that you were completely off the mark? Ok so.

Oh, and you're forgetting completely about the CAP. We allowed other countries to take fish that _we didn't have the capability to fish or protect anyway_ while at the same time gaining access to the CAP. You seem to think we'd have the capacity to actually earn any of this income. How much income do you think the €55bn ("a few years" of grants) has generated in Ireland? Who in their right mind thinks we got a bad deal?


----------



## diarmuidc

starlite68 said:


> you are dead right harchibald......our politicions and leaders are all so trustworthy and honest!   walking saints..all of them.


*You* voted for them to represent you and make decisions on *your* part. If you don't trust them your shouldn't have voted for them


----------



## csirl

People shouldnt be hung up on the value of fish taken in the past. Its the future worth that the EU are considering. With near to shore fish stocks seriously declining in most EU countries, the Irish fisheries in the north Atlantic take on ever increasing importance as time goes by.

I am of the opinion that the fish stocks are valuable, however the potential oil/gas reserves are potentially more valuable by many multiples. For strategic purposes, the EU is going to need a secure oil supply in future years. Whether the area off Ireland is capable of meeting this need in the medium term future depends on technology, geology etc. - but as things stand, it is the only hope that the EU has of having oil once the North Sea dries up. EU is not going to give up its only hope.


----------



## starlite68

Nemesis said:


> It is a far more sensible proposition to trust the collective judgment of the vast majority of our politicians than to fall for the paranoid ramblings of Declan Ganley.


obvisously the vast majority of irish people did not see fit to put their trust in the collective judgment of our wonderfull politicians!                        and for the record..i did not vote for this government in the last election.


----------



## Sunny

shanegl said:


> The treaty isn't self amending. We would still need further referenda on constitutional changes. Where did people get this idea that the the Treaty is self amending and we'd never get another referendum? Libertas perhaps?


 
Actually the Green Party published it as one of the reasons not to vote for the Treaty as well. Add that to the fact the the Taoisach didn't read it, Mary Coghlan didn't even know how many commissioners each Country had, a High Court Judge couldn't explain qualified majority voting when asked, a booklet produced by the government differed from the one produced by the referendum commission and people still think our elected representatives have any more of a clue of this treaty than the people who are posting on this thread.


----------



## ashambles

> How is an eternal and rising fishing income worth a few years of grants ?


And somebody spends money on infrastructure and the only benefit is the jobs created building the infrastructure? No long term benefit? The long view need only be taken with fish? 

Why do we bother with infrastructure at all? Once spent the money is wasted it seems. With our vast fish based wealth we could have used helicopters to transfer our fish from port to market. 

Do you know if I was a cynic I might think the Noers were trying to maximize the impact from fishing and minimize the impact of infrastructural funds.


----------



## csirl

> With our vast fish based wealth we could have used helicopters to transfer our fish from port to market.


 
Now theres an interesting business idea. "From the north Atlantic to your plate in under an hour"


----------



## Nemesis

Sunny said:


> Actually the Green Party published it as one of the reasons not to vote for the Treaty as well.



I thought the Green Party were officially neutral on the treaty vote. Could you provide a link or more detail on what they had to say about this.



Sunny said:


> Add that to the fact the the Taoisach didn't read it,



This 'the Taoiseach didn't read it' line is getting really tiresome now. Brian Cowen was Minister for Foreign Affairs during the negotiations under the Irish Presidency of the EU that finalised the deal. He was intimately involved in its drafting and he didn't have to sit down and read the treaty cover to cover to know what's in it. Clearly, the mistake he made was actually giving a frank answer to a question. Bet he wished he just lied now.

The McCreevy issue is different. As far as I'm concerned that was a really stupid statement he gave and he obviously completely misjudged the public mood on the whole debate. He certainly looked like a politician "out of touch".



Sunny said:


> Mary Coghlan didn't even know how many commissioners each Country had,



Yeah well, I'm not going to defend her there. I would have expected better



Sunny said:


> a High Court Judge couldn't explain qualified majority voting when asked,



My understanding is he did eventually explain it and I believe RTE's Europe editor Sean Whelan was able to explain it at that press conference. Incidentally Sean Whelan's commentary on the treaty as part of RTE's [broken link removed] is very interesting in clarifying many of the issues that came up in the campaign. Well worth taking the time to listen to for those still interested in the contents of the treaty.



Sunny said:


> a booklet produced by the government differed from the one produced by the referendum commission



What was that about? What were the differences?


----------



## Sunny

Nemesis said:


> I thought the Green Party were officially neutral on the treaty vote. Could you provide a link or more detail on what they had to say about this.
> 
> What was that about? What were the differences?


 
The Green party were neutral but they listed reasons to vote for and against the treaty. The self ammending aspect was one of the reasons against.

http://www.greenparty.ie/en/content/download/15600/197045/file/EU_Reform_Treaty_LR_noreg.pdf

I probably phrased the booklet thing wrong. The referendum commission had to come out after saying it would have no other part to play in the referendum debate to make statements on certain items after people questioned what they said compared to what the Government were saying. To be fair they backed up the government but it just added to the general confusion.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

csirl said:


> ...however the potential oil/gas reserves are potentially more valuable by many multiples.


 
What about the lost city of Atlantis? That could become strategically very important when it is found. Another reason why the EU desperately needs to hold on to Ireland.


----------



## television

Harchibald said:


> Gaul? As in Asterix? I'll tell Sarky on you.
> 
> I didn't read the document. I accepted the arguments, put forward by people whose judgement and bona fides I trust, that this was needed for the effective working of the enlarged EU.
> 
> This was reinforced by the lack of integrity (abortion, conscription etc.) in the arguments being put forward by people who I don't trust, like Sinn Fein/IRA.
> 
> A lot is made of this "did you read the document?" by the No side. The Sunday Times fairly beats Biffo up about it. Double standards here. Did anybody ask Grisly did he read the document?
> 
> Anyway this thread has taught me that reading the document in isolation would be a waste of space. One would need a week off in a Brussels library to study the whole consolidated text developped over the last 50 years.
> 
> This should never, never have been put to referendum.


 
Gaul was a pun in relation to the European angle.

You are the one that is constantly questioning what exactly in the text that people who have voted no objected to. Its a little ironic I think.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Sunny said:


> The Green party were neutral but they listed reasons to vote for and against the treaty. The self ammending aspect was one of the reasons against.
> 
> http://www.greenparty.ie/en/content/download/15600/197045/file/EU_Reform_Treaty_LR_noreg.pdf
> 
> I probably phrased the booklet thing wrong. The referendum commission had to come out after saying it would have no other part to play in the referendum debate to make statements on certain items after people questioned what they said compared to what the Government were saying. To be fair they backed up the government but it just added to the general confusion.


 
Surprisingly good document by the Green Party and if we really had a choice I would probably vote No (some of your points _TV,_ like public service privitisation, do seem valid). 

But my main argument has been that we had no real choice. We have isolated ourselves and made some very strange new friends. We will eventually have to say Yes and dare the Irish government ever try to exercise its veto all alone!! The No camp's gloomy analysis is going to be self fulfilling.

Ok, _TV_, your Gaul pun was a bit too clever for me, thought it was another spello.


----------



## television

Nemesis said:


> I
> This 'the Taoiseach didn't read it' line is getting really tiresome now. Brian Cowen was Minister for Foreign Affairs during the negotiations under the Irish Presidency of the EU that finalised the deal. He was intimately involved in its drafting and he didn't have to sit down and read the treaty cover to cover to know what's in it. Clearly, the mistake he made was actually giving a frank answer to a question. Bet he wished he just lied now.
> 
> The McCreevy issue is different. As far as I'm concerned that was a really stupid statement he gave and he obviously completely misjudged the public mood on the whole debate. He certainly looked like a politician "out of touch".


 
Cowen was displaying a great degree of arrogance by claiming he negotiated the treaty and so did not read it. it shows a lack of political judgement. This document may be long and complex but his backround is in law. Even if he did negotiate it I would have expected he would have read it. Any solicitor worth his salt will always read the fine print and advise his client to do the same.


----------



## shanegl

..


----------



## Nemesis

Sunny said:


> The Green party were neutral but they listed reasons to vote for and against the treaty. The self ammending aspect was one of the reasons against.
> 
> http://www.greenparty.ie/en/content/download/15600/197045/file/EU_Reform_Treaty_LR_noreg.pdf



I find the Green Party document a bit strange and contradictory in places. On the one hand it says this treaty and any further significant changes to EU workings must be put to Irish voters who have the final say and then it says the treaty would be self-amending. Think someone should have spent more time reconciling the cases for and against the treaty before they published that document.


----------



## Sunny

Nemesis said:


> I find the Green Party document a bit strange and contradictory in places. On the one hand it says this treaty and any further significant changes to EU workings must be put to Irish voters who have the final say and then it says the treaty would be self-amending. Think someone should have spent more time reconciling the cases for and against the treaty before they published that document.


 
I agree and I don't think the treaty is self ammending but this is from a party that is in Government and people are saying there shouldn't have been a referendum as elected politicians are more than capable of deciding for us on such compilcated matters. I think our politicians have shown they are not any more capable than the people posting here on making an informed decision. The Czech version of the Financial Times did a survey in the Czech Republic recently as well and found that elected politicans generally had no idea what they were voting on. I reckon it would be the same across Europe.


----------



## television

Nemesis said:


> I find the Green Party document a bit strange and contradictory in places. On the one hand it says this treaty and any further significant changes to EU workings must be put to Irish voters who have the final say and then it says the treaty would be self-amending. Think someone should have spent more time reconciling the cases for and against the treaty before they published that document.


 

Is confusing alright.


----------



## Nemesis

Sunny said:


> I agree and I don't think the treaty is self ammending but this is from a party that is in Government and people are saying there shouldn't have been a referendum as elected politicians are more than capable of deciding for us on such compilcated matters. I think our politicians have shown they are not any more capable than the people posting here on making an informed decision. The Czech version of the Financial Times did a survey in the Czech Republic recently as well and found that elected politicans generally had no idea what they were voting on. I reckon it would be the same across Europe.



Well, I think by the time this saga is all over, we'll all be able to get jobs across Europe as experts on EU treaties and institutions the way this is going


----------



## television

I think a general consusus is emerging. After close analysis and debate among all on here it is clear that a no vote was the most rational decision to make based on the actual treaty. 

All we have to do now is wait for the Yes sides scaremongering and dirty tricks for Lisbon 2.


----------



## diarmuidc

television said:


> I think a general consusus is emerging. After close analysis and debate among all on here it is clear that a no vote was the most rational decision to make based on the actual treaty.



I don't agree. From my point of view, I'm just sick of this debate. How can you reason with people who "know more" about Corporation tax than ISME, abortion than the Catholic church and Irish Neutrality than the Irish government ?

The NO side are in for a tough lesson on European realpolitik.

That's me done in this thread.


----------



## television

Finally, let none of us forget the principals of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Especially you Diarmuid C/ Nemisis.


----------



## Nemesis

I haven't forgotten any principles of democracy (although clearly _television_ has me down as some kind of fascist ) and I certainly wouldn't agree there's a consensus here to support the No vote. It's clear that this debate will rage on and on over the months ahead and into next year and right now I too am sick of debating Lisbon. I know I'll be playing an active part in any future Yes campaign but right now it's time for a break. I'm sure _television_ will not want to leave it just yet though


----------



## room305

Nemesis said:


> I haven't forgotten any principles of democracy (although clearly _television_ has me down as some kind of fascist ) and I certainly wouldn't agree there's a consensus here to support the No vote. It's clear that this debate will rage on and on over the months ahead and into next year and right now I too am sick of debating Lisbon. I know I'll be playing an active part in any future Yes campaign but right now it's time for a break. I'm sure _television_ will not want to leave it just yet though


 


diarmuidc said:


> I don't agree. From my point of view, I'm just sick of this debate. How can you reason with people who "know more" about Corporation tax than ISME, abortion than the Catholic church and Irish Neutrality than the Irish government ?
> 
> The NO side are in for a tough lesson on European realpolitik.
> 
> That's me done in this thread.


 
Ditto for me guys. Apologies for not posting in the last few days but pressure of work and all that. Think every angle has been covered and we are really just rehashing everything all over again. With the possible exception of the fishing angle which is new - can anyone name a single country in the world that become rich from fishing? Thought not, let's knock that one on the head right now.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

room305 said:


> With the possible exception of the fishing angle which is new - can anyone name a single country in the world that become rich from fishing? Thought not, let's knock that one on the head right now.


 
Iceland? According to Irish Times in the top 10 GNP per capita in World. Anyway, I am also signing off. See you all next Ref.


----------



## Sunny

Yeah I think it has been done to death at this stage. Useful debate though with good points on both sides.


----------



## S.L.F

Harchibald said:


> if we really had a choice I would probably vote No.



I'm speechless!!!

Has Harchibald seen the light.....


----------



## television

See its a clear consenus emerging SLF.I think those who read the Greens litrature on the treaty might have shut a few people up. Where they confirmed many of the so called stupid arguments aganist the treaty as genuine reasons for voting no.


----------



## starlite68

i see the government is setting up a special commission to try to find out why the people voted no...i wonder if the vote had gone the other way,would they be as quick to set up a commission to find out why the people voted yes?  its just laughable!


----------



## S.L.F

starlite68 said:


> i see the government is setting up a special commission to try to find out why the people voted no...



I wonder how many millions it will cost?

I mean lets face facts all the fools have to do is take a look at AAM and it will cost nothing.

Another reason to vote NO methinks.


----------



## RMCF

I thought we lived in a democratic country?

The people democratically voted NO but that wasn't right. So I can see a major push over the coming months and perhaps another vote, until we vote YES. 

I can see the Gov's angle now. It will focus on the recent job losses, the recession, the fact that we are bad Europeans and people won't buy anything from us or set up here. Basically scare us into fearing for our jobs - that should do it - then have another vote and you will get a YES.


----------



## elefantfresh

They wont put it to us like the last time as they know we will vote no again. They will scare us into it by saying in or out of EU - that should get the yes they want.
Just on a side issue, why do we all know more than the politicians? Why do the majority of them want a yes yet the majority of us want a no? You would think that they are more clued in than us and should know whats better for the country than we do.
Maybe i live in fantasy land...ho hum..


----------



## S.L.F

RMCF said:


> I can see the Gov's angle now. It will focus on the recent job losses, the recession, the fact that we are bad Europeans and people won't buy anything from us or set up here. Basically scare us into fearing for our jobs - that should do it - then have another vote and you will get a YES.



I don't think so!

They promised to keep the economy strong if they got back in and that had nothing to do with LT

and where are we now?


----------



## starlite68

RMCF said:


> I thought we lived in a democratic country?


 yes i taught we lived in a democratic country too...but it seems its only democratic as long as you vote the way the government want us to vote..otherwise it toys out of the pramb!
some democaricy


----------



## Purple

starlite68 said:


> yes i taught we lived in a democratic country too...but it seems its only democratic as long as you vote the way the government want us to vote..otherwise it toys out of the pramb!
> some democaricy



What's the problem with voting on the same thing twice?
Eventually the fools on the "No" side might see sense.


----------



## S.L.F

Purple said:


> What's the problem with voting on the same thing twice?
> Eventually the fools on the "No" side might see sense.



We have seen sense that's why we voted against it in the first place and we won  

I know people who voted for it because SF were opposed to it now they were fools  

Now if the twats on the Yes side would respect the democratic vote it would be even better....


----------



## Purple

elefantfresh said:


> Just on a side issue, why do we all know more than the politicians? Why do the majority of them want a yes yet the majority of us want a no? You would think that they are more clued in than us and should know whats better for the country than we do


Good point (maybe they do!).


----------



## television

Purple said:


> Good point (maybe they do!).


 
I find one thing interesting about your view in relation to trusting our politicans.



Purple said:


> "You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves"


 
Maybe you could including thinking for oneself?


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Maybe you could including thinking for oneself?



My signature comes from the list of “You cannot” quotes which are usually attributed to Abraham Lincoln but which are also attributed to the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker  who lived some time later. 

The full list is:
_You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves._

As you can see they are all about thinking for yourself and being responsible for yourself.


----------



## starlite68

Purple said:


> What's the problem with voting on the same thing twice?
> Eventually the fools on the "No" side might see sense.


the fools on the"No"side account for the majority of irish voters.......so what dose that make you lot? The fools in the minority


----------



## television

Purple said:


> My signature comes from the list of “You cannot” quotes which are usually attributed to Abraham Lincoln but which are also attributed to the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker who lived some time later.
> 
> The full list is:
> _You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift._
> _You cannot help small men by tearing down big men._
> _You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong._
> _You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer._
> _You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich._
> _You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income._
> _You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred._
> _You cannot establish security on borrowed money._
> _You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence._
> _You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves._
> 
> As you can see they are all about thinking for yourself and being responsible for yourself.


 

Maybe you could live by those maxims and think for yourself is my point


----------



## S.L.F

Purple said:


> _You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
> You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
> You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
> You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
> You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
> You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
> You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
> You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
> You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
> You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves._



I've always wondered where you got the signature from.

Sounds like a good way to think.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Maybe you could live by those maxims and think for yourself is my point


I do think for myself. That's why I don't swallow Goebbels-like propaganda designed to play on the fears of average citizens peddled by military contractors, isolationists with a private army and right-wing religious fundamentalists.


----------



## Purple

S.L.F said:


> I've always wondered where you got the signature from.
> 
> Sounds like a good way to think.


Thanks


----------



## diarmuidc

Purple said:


> I do think for myself. That's why I don't swallow Goebbels-like propaganda designed to play on the fears of average citizens peddled by military contractors, isolationists with a private army and right-wing religious fundamentalists.


 funny 'cause it's true.


----------



## Sunny

diarmuidc said:


> How can you reason with people who "know more" about Corporation tax than ISME, abortion than the Catholic church and Irish Neutrality than the Irish government ?
> 
> The NO side are in for a tough lesson on European realpolitik.
> 
> That's me done in this thread.


 


diarmuidc said:


> funny 'cause it's true.


 
Maybe you could follow Purples example about thinking for himself and start thinking for yourself instead of using other peoples quotes in a debate. Who said it by the way? I know I read it in a paper but I can't for the life of me remember who it was. Thought it was a pretty good line.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> . . Goebbels-like propaganda designed to play on the fears of average citizens peddled by military contractors, isolationists with a private army and right-wing religious fundamentalists.


This is vitriolic conjecture, unbecoming of a hitherto venerable poster.  

The issues were aired, the people decided, it's time that the Yes proponents accepted same.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> This is vitriolic conjecture, unbecoming of a hitherto venerable poster.
> 
> The issues were aired, the people decided, it's time that the Yes proponents accepted same.


Many of the issues aired (abortion, gay adoption, corporation tax etc) have nothing to do with Lisbon. Others, such as the loss of our commissioner for part of the time, had been decided before hand and Lisbon simply presented a mechanism to implement that decision. So most of the arguments against Lisbon were, to say the least, erroneous. The afore-mentioned Joe Goebbels wrote the book (so to speak) on this sort of popular campaign.


----------



## GeneralZod

michaelm said:


> The issues were aired, the people decided, it's time that the Yes proponents accepted same.



In the interest of the country  letting the negative consequences of the no vote play out isn't an option. The Government have to go the far more difficult course of turning around the referendum result to what's in the country's interests before the people have to suffer the consequences of their actions.


----------



## diarmuidc

Sunny said:


> Maybe you could follow Purples example about thinking for himself and start thinking for yourself instead of using other peoples quotes in a debate.


Using other people's quotes? I'm agreeing with his position! You'd think you'd have figured out how these discussion boards work by now


----------



## cole

Purple said:


> Many of the issues aired (abortion, gay adoption, corporation tax etc) have nothing to do with Lisbon. Others, such as the loss of our commissioner for part of the time, had been decided before hand and Lisbon simply presented a mechanism to implement that decision. So most of the arguments against Lisbon were, to say the least, erroneous.


 
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.


----------



## television

Purple said:


> Many of the issues aired (abortion, gay adoption, corporation tax etc) have nothing to do with Lisbon. Others, such as the loss of our commissioner for part of the time, had been decided before hand and Lisbon simply presented a mechanism to implement that decision. So most of the arguments against Lisbon were, to say the least, erroneous. The afore-mentioned Joe Goebbels wrote the book (so to speak) on this sort of popular campaign.


 

Back to that rubbish again. I actaully thought the debate was moving forward.


----------



## Purple

television said:


> Back to that rubbish again. I actaully thought the debate was moving forward.


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.


----------



## michaelm

cole said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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

michaelm said:


> 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

michaelm said:


> 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.


michaelm said:


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


 I think we still get a fair voice.


michaelm said:


> 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). 


michaelm said:


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


 But it was changed.



michaelm said:


> 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. 



michaelm said:


> I MHO these are valid reasons for voting No.


 I agree that many are.


michaelm said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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

television said:


> 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



television said:


> 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

Purple said:


> 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.





Purple said:


> 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.





Purple said:


> 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.





Purple said:


> 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.





Purple said:


> 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

michaelm said:


> 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

cjh said:


> 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

YOBR said:


> 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

YOBR said:


> ...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

uiop said:


> 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

Purple said:


> ...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. 

Click to expand...

_


> _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

uiop said:


> 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.


----------



## Green

cjh said:


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


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

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


----------



## Purple

uiop said:


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


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


----------



## ashambles

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


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

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

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

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


----------



## Purple

uiop said:


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



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

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


----------



## Purple

uiop said:


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


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


----------



## ashambles

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


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

uiop said:
			
		

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


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

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


----------



## redstar

I think we'll probably stumble into another referendum.

Although, there is an outside chance that the Lisbon Treaty could be referred to the Supreme Court to decide which, if any, parts of it would require a referendum. They could decide a referendum may _not_ be necessary.

At least they would actually _read_ the damn thing too


----------



## shnaek

uiop said:


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



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

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


----------



## room305

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

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


----------



## diarmuidc

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

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

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


----------



## cjh

diarmuidc said:


> 2. The others will finish ratifying the treaty and Ireland will be pushed to the sidelines and somehow we will have to figure out a way of interfacing with the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's naive to believe that a country the size of Ireland *alone* will be the downfall of the Lisbon treaty.



2. This is not possible.

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


----------



## diarmuidc

cjh said:


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


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

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


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

cjh said:


> 2. This is not possible.
> 
> It's not just the irish that don't agree with the treaty - 75% of europeans would like to be given the opportunity to vote and 53% of the french said they would vote NO if they had a vote (not forgetting that this treaty has already been rejected by Ireland, France and The Netherlands under it's guise as Nice. There can hardly be any doubt either that the UK would reject if given a vote.


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


----------



## lightswitch

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

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


----------



## DavyJones

Harchibald said:


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




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


----------



## nad

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


----------



## NorthDrum

nad said:


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


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


----------

