If Irelands votes no....

oscarBravo

Vinegar Hill wrote: »

A nation should never trade it's sovereignty.

We've done precisely that since 1973, and even most of the "no" campaigners agree that EU membership has been, on balance, good for Ireland.

wahlrab

in response to the OP

answer A

we shall just keeping going til we "get it right", Ireland does not have the power/influence to return a no vote and if we tried to we'd fail, we're in it for the long haul lads, just vote yes to save on having to spend loads of cash on the second referendum

mike65

Being a member of the WTO or indeed the EEC/EC/EU is a compromise of sovereignty. Unless a wall built around the country and no interaction takes place with anyone else on a legistative/legal basis then that bird has flown.

edit oscarBravo got there first.

Mike.

redspider

turgon wrote: »

I personally think thats a poor argument. For example political parties voting Yes to the Lisbon treaty occupy over 96% of the Dail. Do you think the majority among the people is equal? Just because we vote for them doesn't mean we agree with every last thought in their minds.

Well, thats the problem with so-called democracy, isnt it? I have been harping on about the democratic deficit in so-called democratic systems for decades. It is IMPOSSIBLE to vote for a representative and have them represent all of my views or anyone else's in totally for a duration of a government on hundreds and hundreds of issues. Vincent Browne wrote something similar in the Sunday Business Post over the weekend. The system in place cannot be democratic as we barely have a say at all. But governments now have the key to changes in the democratic system so we are snookered.

The Lisbon Treaty is a case in point. There are 96% (taking your figure) of Dail Members in favour of it, yet, that doesnt reflect what people are saying on the ground. The Dail does not represent people's views accurately. It was similar with Nice, but we were asked to vote again and many changed their votes just to say 'okay, you win, to hell with it'. Nice II was the biggest slap in the face for democracy that we have seen in a long time and shows the depths of depravity that politicians will drop to when things dont go their way.

(edit: I meant to also add that even having the Lisbon Treaty itself is similar to Nice II as Lisbon Treaty => EC Constitution II. That in itself, the fact that we are doing it again but in another guise, and the countries that voted against it, Franc and the Netherlands do not even get the chance this time have their say on it. That cannot in any neutral analysis can be called democratic).

Redspider

WooPeeA

axer wrote: »

But they rejected the euro - yet the world has not ended for them and they have not been thrown to the side of europe never to be involved again just because they did not agree. In fact, they seem to be still doing quite well for themselves.

Euro is business of one country. It doesn't matter a lot for the citizens of other countries (except businessmen). But Irish voice on Treaty of Lisbon will have the influence on half of billion Europeans.

So what? Ireland are the only country that are letting their people decide. Other countries that let their people decide, namely france and Netherlands, overruled their peoples decision by going ahead with pretty much the same thing that was rejected.

Similar but not the same.

Netherlands rejected because they had problems with their government and they wanted to show citizens' protest. But they adopted Euro with no problems during previous government..

France rejected because European Constitution was against French constitution. They couldn't work together. Lisbon Treaty was created to do not contradict any other European documents + French government promised to make changes in constitution in the future if EU would like to adopt Constitution once again in the future.

So tell me - what exactly will happen to Ireland if we vote no? Will we be cast into hell?

I guess as Ireland represents 1% of EU population (4,2m to 430m) it may start process of applying for justification of majority of votes in the future.

People say we should vote yes to keep everyone happy like we are some sort of baby country who doesn't want to step on anyones toes for fear they might yell at us which will make us cry. I think that is a very weak argument.

Voting against just because other voted Pro has no sense too. It must me real decision which comes from the people.

Did you know that Treaty of Lisbon will give the citizens a real voice about the future of Europe?

At present national parliaments are not directly involved in EU decision making. After Lisbon Treaty national parliaments-in Ireland's case, the Dail and Seanad will have 8 weeks after the publication of an EU legislative proposal to vet that proposal and offer an opinion. It will give the citizens more rights in deciding about future of Europe!

Visit http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie for more info.

oscarBravo

redspider wrote: »

It was similar with Nice, but we were asked to vote again and many changed their votes just to say 'okay, you win, to hell with it'.

The figures indicate otherwise: roughly the same number voted "no" in the second referendum as in the first.

IRLConor

redspider wrote: »

It was similar with Nice, but we were asked to vote again and many changed their votes just to say 'okay, you win, to hell with it'.

Actually, 5,409 more people voted no the second time round, so if your hypothesis is true then there were plenty of yes -> no switchers too.

|Yes|No
Nice I|453,461|529,478
Nice II|906,317|534,887


People who moan about the two Nice votes ignore two things:

1. The second vote was on different amendment to our constitution. The difference addressed the neutrality concerns expressed the first time round.
2. The second vote had a much higher turnout and hence was a more accurate representation of the views of the population at large.

axer

WooPeeA wrote: »

Euro is business of one country. It doesn't matter a lot for the citizens of other countries (except businessmen). But Irish voice on Treaty of Lisbon will have the influence on half of billion Europeans.

I am talking about how it looks i.e. they say that if we vote no that the rest of the eu won't want to play with us anymore.

WooPeeA wrote: »

Similar but not the same.

Very very similiar. Are you saying that they are significantly different?

WooPeeA wrote: »

Netherlands rejected because they had problems with their government and they wanted to show citizens' protest. But they adopted Euro with no problems during previous government..

They rejected it - no one can say for sure as to each person's motivation for doing so. Just because they adopted the euro doesn't mean they have to agree with everything that comes out of the EU. Fact remains - the people spoke - the people rejected but the government pretended they didnt.

WooPeeA wrote: »

France rejected because European Constitution was against French constitution. They couldn't work together. Lisbon Treaty was created to do not contradict any other European documents + French government promised to make changes in constitution in the future if EU would like to adopt Constitution once again in the future.

That is completely incorrect. The french changed their constitution before the referendum so that if it was approved then it could work with the french constitution. It was the people who rejected it.

WooPeeA wrote: »

I guess as Ireland represents 1% of EU population (4,2m to 430m) it may start process of applying for justification of majority of votes in the future.

So are you saying they will just ignore us?

WooPeeA wrote: »

Voting against just because other voted Pro has no sense too. It must me real decision which comes from the people.

Lol, you seem to think that they will listen to the people's decision. They didn't do that in France, the Netherlands or in Ireland (for Nice).

WooPeeA wrote: »

Did you know that Treaty of Lisbon will give the citizens a real voice about the future of Europe?

At present national parliaments are not directly involved in EU decision making. After Lisbon Treaty national parliaments-in Ireland's case, the Dail and Seanad will have 8 weeks after the publication of an EU legislative proposal to vet that proposal and offer an opinion. It will give the citizens more rights in deciding about future of Europe!

Visit http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie for more info.

So tell me, what can the Irish government really do with its opinion?

redspider

IRLConor wrote: »

Actually, 5,409 more people voted no the second time round, so if your hypothesis is true then there were plenty of yes -> no switchers too.

|Yes|No
Nice I|453,461|529,478
Nice II|906,317|534,887


People who moan about the two Nice votes ignore two things:

1. The second vote was on different amendment to our constitution. The difference addressed the neutrality concerns expressed the first time round.
2. The second vote had a much higher turnout and hence was a more accurate representation of the views of the population at large.

The Nice-I vote should have been accepted and that should have been that - END OF. But it wasnt. Our 'masters' that know better, rehashed it, the change in wording was not majorly significant.

The vote, in percentage terms clearly showed No people moving to Yes. The fact that there were more voters may indicate a greater accuracy but also may not, as at the 2nd vote perhaps many No voters just didnt bother to vote at all.

Here's a thought: If Lisbon fails to pass, will there be a Lisbon-II with slightly different wording?

Also, what exactly is the text we are being asked on to vote. I presume its just the addition of the "Lisbon Reform Treaty" to Article 29.


Redspider

axer

redspider wrote: »

at the 2nd vote perhaps many No voters just didnt bother to vote at all.

Thats a good point. Its highly possible that many thought what is the point of voting no when this government are just going to keep asking us until we say "yes" like a spoilt child would to his parents.

oscarBravo

redspider wrote: »

The Nice-I vote should have been accepted and that should have been that - END OF. But it wasnt. Our 'masters' that know better, rehashed it, the change in wording was not majorly significant.

This is an utterly bizarre position to take. If I offer you a cup of tea and you refuse, does that mean that under no circumstances should you ever be offered a cup of tea again until the day you die?

If the "no" vote to Nice should have been so utterly binding, does that mean that no proposal should ever again have been put to voters that contained a single prase that had appeared in the original amendment or treaty?

Or, as has been pointed out before, we had elections in 1922 - the people made their feelings known. Why do we keep having elections every few years?

The vote, in percentage terms clearly showed No people moving to Yes. The fact that there were more voters may indicate a greater accuracy but also may not, as at the 2nd vote perhaps many No voters just didnt bother to vote at all.

That's pushing logic to breaking point. A higher turnout is more indicative of public sentiment. If ten people were chosen at random, would you expect their views to be more representative than if the entire electorate turned out?

Here's a thought: If Lisbon fails to pass, will there be a Lisbon-II with slightly different wording?

We just don't know - which counters the argument you and others have made, which is that a "no" vote is a vote for the status quo.

Also, what exactly is the text we are being asked on to vote. I presume its just the addition of the "Lisbon Reform Treaty" to Article 29.

You presume wrong.

oscarBravo

axer wrote: »

Thats a good point. Its highly possible that many thought what is the point of voting no when this government are just going to keep asking us until we say "yes" like a spoilt child would to his parents.

It's the same as any election or vote: if you couldn't be bothered voting, you lose the right to complain about the result.

djpbarry

redspider wrote: »

The fact that there were more voters may indicate a greater accuracy but also may not...

The larger the sample size in any survey, the greater the statistical accuracy.

redspider wrote: »

Here's a thought: If Lisbon fails to pass, will there be a Lisbon-II with slightly different wording?

Isn't that what many on the 'NO' side want? Take Gerry Adams for example:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/labour-blasts-sf-plan-b-assurances-if-public-vote-no-1380636.html

IRLConor

redspider wrote: »

The Nice-I vote should have been accepted and that should have been that - END OF. But it wasnt. Our 'masters' that know better, rehashed it, the change in wording was not majorly significant.

The difference was this:

The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section where that common defence would include the State.

which was put there to reassure voters that our neutrality was not going to be affected (which was one of the biggest concerns people had about Nice). How is that not "majorly significant"?

redspider wrote: »

Here's a thought: If Lisbon fails to pass, will there be a Lisbon-II with slightly different wording?

I would expect so. I expect it would be worded differently to take into account the concerns of the people who voted no. Just like they did for Nice.

It's precisely what should be done with any legal document. It should be changed and re-offered until it is acceptable.

Have you ever negotiated a contract? Did you accept it right away or did you say "No, come back to me with the following bits changed..."?

redspider wrote: »

Also, what exactly is the text we are being asked on to vote. I presume its just the addition of the "Lisbon Reform Treaty" to Article 29.

No, it's a little more involved than that.

The Bill containing the exact text of the constitutional amendment is here. Wikipedia's version might be easier reading since it's only in one language.

Liam Byrne

turgon wrote: »

In the case of c i would imagine there would be political unhappiness, which could cause anything from riots to Fianna Fail being raped in the local elections.

When has that ever stopped them ? :rolleyes:

And they're probably going to be hammered in some areas anyway after the way they handled the Aer Lingus/Shannon fiasco and the Shannon/U.S. Government abuse and Tara and the HSE and a whole host of things, so I could see them being arrogant enough to ignore us again....

axer

IRLConor wrote: »

which was put there to reassure voters that our neutrality was not going to be affected (which was one of the biggest concerns people had about Nice). How is that not "majorly significant"?

I would have thought that Ireland losing alot of power to the bigger states would be more significant.

Its a pity that it is only SF arguing for a no vote - what about the other opposition parties? What about a balanced two sided argument?

axer

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's the same as any election or vote: if you couldn't be bothered voting, you lose the right to complain about the result.

Its hard enough to get people out voting in the first place - especially the way they are organised here without just getting them to vote pretty much on the same thing again.

IRLConor

axer wrote: »

I would have thought that Ireland losing alot of power to the bigger states would be more significant.

Well, based on my recollection of the Nice I campaign and the results of both Nice I and Nice II I think the neutrality issue was a big enough issue to sway the issue.

As for the "losing power" arguments, so long as we hold significantly more power in the EU than our size would warrant those arguments don't hold much water with me.

axer wrote: »

Its a pity that it is only SF arguing for a no vote - what about the other opposition parties? What about a balanced two sided argument?

You think the opposition parties should go against their better judgement in order to provide debate?

axer

IRLConor wrote: »

Well, based on my recollection of the Nice I campaign and the results of both Nice I and Nice II I think the neutrality issue was a big enough issue to sway the issue.

I believe they were saying that it would not effect our neutrality anyway thus we didn't even need the declaration. The declaration was added just so they could ask the people if they were sure they picked the "right" answer.

IRLConor wrote: »

As for the "losing power" arguments, so long as we hold significantly more power in the EU than our size would warrant those arguments don't hold much water with me.

So now laws can be forced upon us by the larger states. Granted the lisbon treaty does try to make it a bit more fair but we definitely had more power before the nice treaty - thus Ireland is worse off than before the nice and still worse off if the lisbon treaty is passed.

IRLConor wrote: »

You think the opposition parties should go against their better judgement in order to provide debate?

I think it is their job to highlight the bad as well as the good. They are the opposition parties after all.

oscarBravo

axer wrote: »

Its hard enough to get people out voting in the first place - especially the way they are organised here without just getting them to vote pretty much on the same thing again.

And yet, there was a bigger turnout the second time.

Why do people keep trying to twist the results of the Nice referenda to make it seem as if the second result somehow had less validity than the first?

axer wrote: »

So now laws can be forced upon us by the larger states. Granted the lisbon treaty does try to make it a bit more fair but we definitely had more power before the nice treaty - thus Ireland is worse off than before the nice and still worse off if the lisbon treaty is passed.

Let me see if I've got this straight - you're advocating a "no" vote to Lisbon because, even though it makes things better, they still won't be as good as they used to be?

Moriarty

axer wrote: »

I would have thought that Ireland losing alot of power to the bigger states would be more significant.

axer wrote: »

So now laws can be forced upon us by the larger states. Granted the lisbon treaty does try to make it a bit more fair but we definitely had more power before the nice treaty - thus Ireland is worse off than before the nice and still worse off if the lisbon treaty is passed.

Please provide proof of that with reference to the Lisbon treaty text.

IRLConor

axer wrote: »

I believe they were saying that it would not effect our neutrality anyway thus we didn't even need the declaration. The declaration was added just so they could ask the people if they were sure they picked the "right" answer.

But that's precisely how the system works. You pick the proposal that you think will garner at least 50%+1 votes and present that. If you misjudge it and it falls short, you modify it until it does.

There's no incentive or requirement anywhere for the government to find a solution that is optimally acceptable. Ideally they would, but they'd get a lot less done.

axer wrote: »

So now laws can be forced upon us by the larger states.

This has been the case since we joined the EU. If you have a problem with it then the only logical position to hold is that we should withdraw from the EU entirely.

axer wrote: »

I think it is their job to highlight the bad as well as the good. They are the opposition parties after all.

No, their job is to act according to their principles, ideas and elector demands. If those happen to coincide with those of the government then that's OK.

They're not there to provide a counterpoint to the government. They're there to represent the people who voted them in.

axer

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, there was a bigger turnout the second time.

Why do people keep trying to twist the results of the Nice referenda to make it seem as if the second result somehow had less validity than the first?

It seems underhanded that there was a Nice II in the first place without significant change in the treaty.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let me see if I've got this straight - you're advocating a "no" vote to Lisbon because, even though it makes things better, they still won't be as good as they used to be?

Who said I'm advocating a no vote?

Moriarty wrote: »

Please provide proof of that with reference to the Lisbon treaty text.

Proof of what?

IRLConor wrote: »

But that's precisely how the system works. You pick the proposal that you think will garner at least 50%+1 votes and present that. If you misjudge it and it falls short, you modify it until it does.

You pick a proposal that is best for the country.

IRLConor wrote: »

There's no incentive or requirement anywhere for the government to find a solution that is optimally acceptable. Ideally they would, but they'd get a lot less done.

They are supposed to find solutions that benifit this country as much as possible.

IRLConor wrote: »

This has been the case since we joined the EU. If you have a problem with it then the only logical position to hold is that we should withdraw from the EU entirely.

That larger states have more power than us with regards laws in the EU that effect the irish people?

Moriarty

axer wrote: »

Proof of what?

Proof that Ireland is "losing a lot of power to the bigger states" and that we're "worse off if Lisbon passes".

axer

Moriarty wrote: »

Proof that Ireland is "losing a lot of power to the bigger states" and that we're "worse off if Lisbon passes".

Your quoting of me is called "taking it out of context". Please re-read my post.

nesf

axer wrote: »

Your quoting of me is called "taking it out of context". Please re-read my post.

Is there any other way to read those statements? Even in context, they need the same backing behind them.

IRLConor

axer wrote: »

You pick a proposal that is best for the country.

They are supposed to find solutions that benifit this country as much as possible.

That's why I prefaced it with "But that's precisely how the system works". In the real world what happens is that the government picks a solution that they believe is the best for Ireland (or themselves, depending on the government) and then modifies it until it passes.

I wasn't discussing what should happen, I was discussing what does happen.

axer wrote: »

That larger states have more power than us with regards laws in the EU that effect the irish people?

No, under the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality anything which affects the Irish people more than others would be dealt with on an Irish level.

axer

nesf wrote: »

Is there any other way to read those statements? Even in context, they need the same backing behind them.

That Ireland is worse off due to loss of power since the nice treaty and will not be have pre-nice powe the lisbon treaty. Do I need backing to prove that?

nesf

axer wrote: »

That Ireland is worse off due to loss of power since the nice treaty and will not be have pre-nice powe the lisbon treaty. Do I need backing to prove that?

I misread it as referring to the Lisbon Treaty. My mistake.

sink

Mark Mardell the European editor for BBC news has some very interesting thoughts on what would happen after a no vote.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/05/a_constitutional_catastophe.html

I agree with him that nothing drastic would happen, there would be some negative effects but we would get over them. The third scenario in the report he mentioned does sound like the most likely course of action the government and EU would take. PDF here.