Another Lisbon treaty referendum

[diarmuidc]

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

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

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

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

 

[ubiquitous]

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

Neither have the Irish. On either count.

 

[Betsy Og]

II don't think anyone was expecting the EU to guarantee Irish banks. Why would they?


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

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

 

[Nemesis]

Neither have the Irish. On either count.

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

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

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

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

 

[NorthDrum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nemesis]

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

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

 

[michaelm]

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

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

 

[Nemesis]

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

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

Actually, it could be he was thinking of

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

 

[diarmuidc]

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

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

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

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

 

[NorthDrum]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[michaelm]

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

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

 

[NorthDrum]

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

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

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

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

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

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

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

 

[Nemesis]

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

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

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

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

 

[starlite68]

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

 

[Ancutza]

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

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

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


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

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

 

[Nemesis]

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

 

[Ancutza]

quaint sensibilities

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