Fallout of the No

thehighground wrote: »

According to molloyjh the Lisbon Treaty would not have helped us out of our present difficulties. Closer integration in this instance would still mean we were on our own.

Indeed, I don't know what they are meeting about today either? Thought I heard it was something to do with the crisis but maybe I misheard?

thehighground wrote:

Forgive me for not seeing that as a positive for voting Yes in the next Lisbon Treaty vote.

Some would see it as EU interference and it would have been spinned as such if Lisbon did include it!

thehighground wrote:

Please also forgive me for thinking that if the EU had bailed us out by doing what the Irish Gov. has just done, it would be a reason to vote Yes in the next Lisbon Treaty vote.

Why would they bail us or indeed any other state out of our own messes?
If they did, who'd finance it?

PS. Hopefully after the last week the argument that we should leave the EU and be like Iceland has ended!

thehighground wrote: »

Only people putting any sort of a spin on it is Paul Gillespie of the Irish Times who are very obviously in the 'Yes' to Lisbon camp.

I think even if Iceland was a member of the EU it could still have got itself into the mess that its in, just like Ireland, even though a member of the EU has got itself into a right mess as well.

Hmm. If you're trying to say that Ireland is in as much of a mess as Iceland, you are leaving out rather a lot - 15% inflation, collapsing banks and a collapsing currency.

regards,
Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Exactly what I was thinking!

Why, are we going to have 15% inflation and the Euro collapsing this week?

I wouldn't be surprised if a bank failed, same as other countries in that respect really.

I do not know why people are linking the credit crunch crisis, with bad lending by Banks, etc is a result of the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. It has got nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty even with a Yes Vote. It was all pre-Lisbon and started in the USA in the Banking system before spreading over here and their failures in their decision making, not Ireland failure for not ratifying the Treaty. It is pure lunacy to link both and it show our insecurity to do so.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Returning to the topic of this thread... yes, politically (i.e. diplomatically) Ireland has lost considerable credibility as a result of the no vote. Our diplomats spent months negotiating the treaty with those of the other member states, came to a common agreement and then went back on it.

That it was defeated in a democratic referendum is not their problem, that's ours. They negotiated a treaty in good faith, we signed up then turned around and said we couldn't go through with it. And that bottom line is what has caused us to lose a lot of influence.

How will this affect us? We're not going to be shown as much good faith in future negotiations. We will not be considered trustworthy and making any agreement is no guarantee that we'll abide by it. There will be far less willingness to give us concessions.

And with the double whammy of a global banking recession and domestic property collapse, a bit of good will from the EU would have been really handy right about now.

I've a number of good friends who are fairly senior diplomats and I'm told that this is pretty much the consensus view in the DFA.

As for Future negotiations? What proof is there it will reflect badly on us? They still need our agreement to ratify new Treaties or change the structure of the EU. This will weight heavily on their minds. They used us as a model over the years of the benefits of joining the EU. They cannot say they did not gain from Ireland. Portugal and Spain economies did not reach the heights our did with the Support of the EU funds. I have no problem of been a contributor to EU coffers to help other countries infrastructure.

The Danish Reject Maastricht Treaty : The Danish may have lost some credibility due to opt-outs. It because of the Opt-outs that their politicians say they have less influence in Europe.
The French & Dutch rejected the EU Constitution:
It does not mean that The French and Dutch have lost credibility. They have considerable larger populations than Ireland and Denmark.

1. The Polish President is rejecting the Sign the Lisbon Treaty into law, even though he signed it in Lisbon. He is using our Rejection to block it.
2. The Czech republic may reject in their Courts, We have to Wait their decision next month. They are taking over the presidency of the European Union for the first half of 2009.
3. The Åland Islands in Finland may reject it too. Finland cannot ratify it without their assent. They (Åland Islands) have a hell of lot smaller population than us. They do not have any say on the EU running or legislation nor have a representative on the EU parliament to speak on their behalf but they must follow all EU rules. There only have a voice on Ratifications of Treaties.

EU politicians have lost credibility after their attacking comments about Ireland Referendum Rejection of Lisbon Treaty attacking our Democratic decision. If they managed to pass Lisbon by bypassing the People of Ireland, then Democracy is Dead in Europe. I am not against a second Referendum, even if it is passed as long it is with the people permission.

But the EU politicians behaviour after the Failed EU Constitution in the way Lisbon treaty was created have seriously got me worried about the version of democracy in Europe our Leaders want heading more towards communism with the exception of the Capitalist view spin. They (EU Leaders) are suppose to a representative of their Populations views not on their own views. If EU Leaders have a problem with us not voting their way, then they might punish us for voting in politicians that they do not like! Sarkozy has openly said he not have put the EU treaties to a referendum in France, that they would fail.

Bruno Waterfield, Telegraph wrote:

Referendums on the new European Union Treaty were "dangerous" and would be lost in France, Britain and other countries, Nicolas Sarkozy has admitted

The French president's confession that governments could not win popular votes on a "simplified treaty" - drawn up to replace the EU constitution rejected by his countrymen two years ago - was made in a closed meeting of senior Euro-MPs.
"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting no. It would happen in all member states if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments," he said.
"A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."
The comments confirm suspicions that the real reason why Britain, and all other EU countries, apart from Ireland, were refusing to hold popular votes was because governments were afraid they would lose them.

Speaking earlier in front of the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, Mr Sarkozy made public comments that would further alarm Downing Street. Mr Brown, when signing the new EU Treaty last month, promised that he would oppose any further European integration for at least a decade.
But the French president told MEPs: "It would be a mistake to think that with the simplified treaty we have sorted everything, we can sleep easy and that no other issues are pending."

He is planning to use his turn at the EU's rotating presidency, in the second half of next year, to call for new European powers in highly sensitive areas such as defence, which will dismay Mr Brown.
The president said: "Now we have got to resolve the political issues and to broach them without fear. We have got to debate them without taboos. Budgetary policy, trade policy, monetary policy, industrial policy, taxation, all policies, any policies."

Even Some diplomats can be out of touch of the Public Pulse. Diplomats are not elected officials. There is no requirement for them to talk to the public unless they have to if their Job requires it. It is not always in their interest to do what is in the public interest but only the Government interest.
Some may be eyeing a bigger job in Brussels. We do not know their motives, good or bad. As Far as I am aware, only our politicians can questioned them.

Lisbon Treaty is a political project, not the EU citizen project.
There was no strikes nor marches in the Streets looking for greater integration and for EU Treaties to supersede the Irish Constitution or either in any other EU State.

The defeated in a democratic referendum is their problem. Before The EU Constitution and Lisbon, there was no proper forum here in Ireland to ask the people what future do they want Ireland to participate in the EU. It never happen in France or Holland after the EU Constitution got rejected. They just decided to bypassed the people by using the treaty route using 90% of the EU Constitution. The other 10% of the text was admitted to be related to the term Constitution. If they did then I definitely would have heard of them, it would have been in the News. As Far as I know there was political meeting not public meetings.

With 95% of our politicians who were in favour the Lisbon Treaty and it was a rejected by 53% of voters, then it shows that our politicians are very much out of touch of the Public opinions. If not though we have not rejected referendums in the recent past. I have count 7 rejected referendums to change the Irish Constitution in our History since the creation of the state.
It goes to show that they either incapable of learning a basic fact that they need to communicate more with their people or they have the arrogant idea that they are in control of the People and that the people should blindly do what they are told. There an article on the Irish Times.

Future EU negotiations will need to have hard proof that our Rights, freedoms and freedom of speech and democracy is fully permanently protected. Up to now it has been protected but the future remains uncertain. Politicians have proven over and over again that they cannot be trusted. They have a lot of hard work to do for the arrogant mess they landed themselves into.

Whatever pressure Irish Diplomats have because of the Rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, they can be assure that their counterparts will be equally under the same pressure, for they know we the Irish voters must pass it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mm - those kind of things come round once every 5-10 years, and EU negotiations happen every day. All EU legislation has to pass the Council - how do you think what gets passed is decided, other than negotiations?

The childish behaviour that they will not gives us any lea way because we (the electorate) do not agree with them only reflects badly on them. It shows bad respect for the decision made by the Irish sovereign electorate in a democratic society. Like it or not, Irish Politicians and diplomats screwed up by not anticipating what the Irish electorate wanted before negotiations, this is a major affect on the current everyday negotiations.

What also reflected badly about other EU states that other leaders blatantly refused referendums and held their electorate in contempt i.e (Sarkozy), by deliberately bypassing them and refusing them (their citizens) voice and opinions in their future direction. As you know, Our government would have done the same, if it was not for for our Constitution, the our High & Supreme Courts and especially Mr Raymond Crotty for taking our government to Court, because the Government was allowing foreign governments via EU intuitions a say in our Foreign policy.
Crotty V. An Taoiseach

Yes EU negotiations do happen every day, bad press coming from the EU towards Ireland will reflect badly on Irish Voters minds on upcoming EU referendums. It is a double edge sword. The EU Diplomats are only shooting themselves in the foot by putting further pressure on Irish Diplomats.

All negotiations if you want something and do not want to give anything, then applying pressure no matter how small the reason is. The other EU diplomats know Ireland is on the Back foot because Irish Politicians & Diplomats are now embarrassed of their failure in passing Lisbon. This was evident during the Referendum debates that No vote would lead the Government and Irish diplomats would lead them to be on the back foot. This as a surrendering tactic that shot themselves before the Referendum Day. Other negotiators have seen this weakness and jump on to get what they want. If they do not like it now then they should quit. Give some else the opportunity to represent the Irish people in Europe who will fight our corner that have that defeatist attitude.

limklad wrote: »

The childish behaviour that they will not gives us any lea way because we (the electorate) do not agree with them only reflects badly on them. It shows bad respect for the decision made by the Irish sovereign electorate in a democratic society. Like it or not, Irish Politicians and diplomats screwed up by not anticipating what the Irish electorate wanted before negotiations, this is a major affect on the current everyday negotiations.

What also reflected badly about other EU states that other leaders blatantly refused referendums and held their electorate in contempt i.e (Sarkozy), by deliberately bypassing them and refusing them (their citizens) voice and opinions in their future direction. As you know, Our government would have done the same, if it was not for for our Constitution, the our High & Supreme Courts and especially Mr Raymond Crotty for taking our government to Court, because the Government was allowing foreign governments via EU intuitions a say in our Foreign policy.
Crotty V. An Taoiseach

Yes EU negotiations do happen every day, bad press coming from the EU towards Ireland will reflect badly on Irish Voters minds on upcoming EU referendums. It is a double edge sword. The EU Diplomats are only shooting themselves in the foot by putting further pressure on Irish Diplomats.

All negotiations if you want something and do not want to give anything, then applying pressure no matter how small the reason is. The other EU diplomats know Ireland is on the Back foot because Irish Politicians & Diplomats are now embarrassed of their failure in passing Lisbon. This was evident during the Referendum debates that No vote would lead the Government and Irish diplomats would lead them to be on the back foot. This as a surrendering tactic that shot themselves before the Referendum Day. Other negotiators have seen this weakness and jump on to get what they want. If they do not like it now then they should quit. Give some else the opportunity to represent the Irish people in Europe who will fight our corner that have that defeatist attitude.

There is no clear consensus of what those who voted No wanted as an alternative to Lisbon. SF want one thing, the SWP another, the Torygraph-channeling eurosceptics yet another, and who knows what Libertas want? Some people voted No because the reforms didn't go far enough, others because they went too far. Quite a lot of people appear to have voted No because the government didn't try hard enough to sell it to them - which is actually the most damaging reason, as well as being entirely justifiable.

All those who voted Yes voted Yes to Lisbon as a package, whereas those who voted No voted against different bits. So no alternative package actually has the same level of support as the package actually negotiated.

If the No side can offer a better deal, let them do so - but there isn't a single No side, and in any case they can't actually claim to speak for all No voters.

As to the question of our negotiators now 'being on the back foot' in Europe, that's certainly true, but the idea that it can be compensated for by being combative is pretty silly. The government fluffed it - negotiated it, then failed to sell it properly to the country - but turning round to the other countries and saying "yeah, tough, suck it up baby!" isn't likely to be at all productive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

There is no clear consensus of what those who voted No wanted as an alternative to Lisbon. SF want one thing, the SWP another, the Torygraph-channeling eurosceptics yet another, and who knows what Libertas want? Some people voted No because the reforms didn't go far enough, others because they went too far. Quite a lot of people appear to have voted No because the government didn't try hard enough to sell it to them - which is actually the most damaging reason, as well as being entirely justifiable.

All those who voted Yes voted Yes to Lisbon as a package, whereas those who voted No voted against different bits. So no alternative package actually has the same level of support as the package actually negotiated.

If the No side can offer a better deal, let them do so - but there isn't a single No side, and in any case they can't actually claim to speak for all No voters.

As to the question of our negotiators now 'being on the back foot' in Europe, that's certainly true, but the idea that it can be compensated for by being combative is pretty silly. The government fluffed it - negotiated it, then failed to sell it properly to the country - but turning round to the other countries and saying "yeah, tough, suck it up baby!" isn't likely to be at all productive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In this referendum there are three groups not two.

1. Yes Campaign
2. No Campaign
3. And Us the Irish Electorate (Who makes a final decision)

I do not disagree that the government fluffed it and No one says "yeah, tough, suck it up baby!" on the Voting ballot at the EU. It was not an option maybe they should add it to future ballots for them to have their say and then just count the No and Yes votes! The EU commission poll on the day of the referendum was obvious that the Irish people had various reasons why they voted no and we are still very much pro EU nation. One of the Highest and consistently high over the years, so the "yeah, tough, suck it up baby!" did not registered to them.

The spoilt or protest vote did not rate highly on EU Poll, and it a huge insult to those voters who actually have Valid reasons and concerns about Lisbon and to taint them with those voters and can be considered been bullied for their NO choice.
Only insecure people from the Yes campaign, and Lisbon Supporters says that No voter are saying "yeah, tough, suck it up baby!" in order to smear the No voters in order to humiliate and embarrassed them. It is an attack on a person democratic right to vote under no duress!! Other wise we might as well and abandon Democracy and bring back dictatorship/Communist back to Europe.

The main complaint over the years about the EU was the lack of democracy of the EU Commission. That does not change with Lisbon.
Many in the No campaign have put forward their views, and very vocal at it. They are been ignored by the Yes Lisbon supporters in Europe.

There is a huge swing between the last NICE treaty referendum and the Lisbon treaty referendum with the swing from yes to No with the same % turnout, that is why a second Lisbon Referendum will be very risky and Cowan Job will be on the Line if he failed again.

If there is no clear consensus to proceed with reforms of the EU then the present rules of past agreed treaties remain. The EU will not grind to a halt as Sarkozy says. I am trying to find a report I read not long ago from a Paris university who examined legislation passing through the EU parliament. It proved that after expansion that more legislation got passed that before expansion of the Last 12 states. It found that it was Countries like Britain, France and Germany mainly block legislation using NICE rules before expansion of the Eastern Block. After Expansion their influence in the EU waned, that is why Sarkozy wants Lisbon to gain more influence again and to create his super state with an army.