If Irelands votes no....

is_that_so

I get the feeling that many in the No campaign have not bothered to think this out beyond "we won". European minds such as Peter Sutherland, that guy mentioned in the BBC link have no clear idea themselves.

I'd hazard a guess that other comments on what will happen have not been forthcoming as they could be viewed as some type of veiled threat to us and would strengthen the No "arguments".

But what they do suggest is that it will precipitate a crisis of some sorts.

Gavin Barrett from UCD in The Irish Times today also posits 5 possibilities and none of them good. I agree the world will not stop spinning but we are not going to benefit from rejection in any positive way, beyond some posters in far off lands praising our defence of "democracy". IMO there is not a snowball's chance in hell of any renegotiation.

My own impression is that Europe will work out some way around it as they always have and Europe will move on . However as non-signatories in the long term we may get less benefit from the EU and I am going with Option 4 here.


http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0607/1212769874871.html
(Premium content sorry )

Five possibilities exist in the event of a No:

1: The collapse of the entire EU reform process for the foreseeable future. For the reasons stated above, this seems wholly unlikely to happen.

2: The renegotiation of the entire Lisbon settlement. This is the Sinn Féin scenario. It seems utterly unrealistic. It would involve the delicately balanced settlement being torn up, with no guarantee that this particular Humpty Dumpty would ever be put back together again. Arriving at the Lisbon Treaty has already taken seven years of negotiations. The other member states will not put themselves through this again, with no guarantee of a successful outcome.

3: The agreement of a mini-treaty containing some but not all of the reforms in the Lisbon Treaty. This was originally suggested by French president Nicolas Sarkozy as the solution to the constitutional treaty crisis and rejected. It seems an unlikely solution to any Lisbon crisis as well, as although it might not require a constitutional referendum in Ireland, it would still involve the other 26 member states being stymied in relation to a broad range of reforms they have agreed upon.

4: The continuation of the Lisbon arrangements by our 26 fellow member states with Ireland excluded from the reformed EU in some form or another. This is the disaster scenario for Ireland. It would also be an option which would create considerable difficulties for our fellow member states - perhaps even requiring the agreement of a new treaty by them - but Irish opposition to the Lisbon Treaty might make it seem worthwhile. The thought has certainly occurred to some serious minds - as last week's reported statements by the chairman of the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee, Jo Leinen MEP (The Irish Times, May 31st) and similar statements by Andrew Duff MEP indicate.

5: The maintenance of the Lisbon settlement but with special arrangements for Ireland. This might involve some special protocols - followed by a further referendum in Ireland to see if Ireland will accept the Lisbon Treaty with these protocols. The difficulty here would be agreeing what such protocols would concern. Even if this possibility did unfold, it is hard to see why the Irish electorate should choose this option on June 12th. In reality, Ireland does not need any such protocols, having gained everything it needs in the current treaty negotiations.

Thomaas1918

read this blog: The Irish can go fuck themselves...

oscarBravo

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

read this blog: The Irish can go fuck themselves...

Again and again and again and again and again the same tired old drivel is wheeled out.

The amendment was a stunt. The European Parliament has no choice but to respect the outcome of the Irish referendum. The sole and only purpose of proposing such a measure was to be able to point an ignorant finger, as you have just indirectly done, at those who quite rightly voted against it.

irish fighter

i think we should vote no because we are irish and not European we are only European when they need us and most irish people dont understand the Lisbon Treaty in full so why take a chance and say yes :mad stand up and be counted people of ireland and vote no and look after irish people for a change .

sink

irish fighter wrote: »

i think we should vote no because we are irish and not European we are only European when they need us and most irish people dont understand the Lisbon Treaty in full so why take a chance and say yes :mad stand up and be counted people of ireland and vote no and look after irish people for a change .

screw de rest of the world we don't need them dumasses roight?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

irish fighter wrote: »

i think we should vote no because we are irish and not European we are only European when they need us and most irish people dont understand the Lisbon Treaty in full so why take a chance and say yes :mad stand up and be counted people of ireland and vote no and look after irish people for a change .

when the hell has europe needed us?

Agent Smith

irish fighter wrote: »

i think we should vote no because we are irish and not European we are only European when they need us and most irish people dont understand the Lisbon Treaty in full so why take a chance and say yes :mad stand up and be counted people of ireland and vote no and look after irish people for a change .

shhhh!
Grown ups are talking.

Winters

irish fighter wrote: »

i think we should vote no because we are irish and not European we are only European when they need us and most irish people dont understand the Lisbon Treaty in full so why take a chance and say yes :mad stand up and be counted people of ireland and vote no and look after irish people for a change .

Good luck in your Junior Cert English exam


Also, Europe does not need us. I'm sure it would be just fine with or without Irish membership. However, Ireland on the other hand really does get many benefits from being apart of Europe. Just because Irish people don't understand the Treaty is not a good reason to vote no, its a reason not to vote until you educate yourselves on what it is you are voting on. If given an agreement you would not sign it (irrespective of the outcome of a signature or not) until you actually read and understand what it is you are signing.

If i am offered Chocolate Cake and I say no, then nothing is going to change (But I will miss out on cake). If I say Yes then one thing is going to change, I shall get awesome chocolate cake.

Thomaas1918

oscarBravo wrote: »

Again and again and again and again and again the same tired old drivel is wheeled out.

The amendment was a stunt. The European Parliament has no choice but to respect the outcome of the Irish referendum. The sole and only purpose of proposing such a measure was to be able to point an ignorant finger, as you have just indirectly done, at those who quite rightly voted against it.

From my point of view it has a symbolic meaning. Somebody suggested to explicitly state that EU will respect Irish referendum and they rejected it. I believe that it will have no impact on the process but I don't see reason why it was right. Can you please explain it deeper?

sink

Thomaas1918 wrote: »

From my point of view it has a symbolic meaning. Somebody suggested to explicitly state that EU will respect Irish referendum and they rejected it. I believe that it will have no impact on the process but I don't see reason why it was right. Can you please explain it deeper?

The Corbett - De Vigo report report contained an amendment which asked that the parliament to "undertake to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland". This report was voted down but not because of this amendment. Reports are not legislation and are not legally binding, they are tools of official communication.

The report itself was a discussion on how superior the failed constitution was in comparison to the reform treaty. If they had voted for it, it would have become part of official parliamentary communications to it's citizens, at a time when the reform treaty was being debated in national parliaments. This would have been completely unhelpful as the constitution was dead and the reform treaty is what we had to go with, plus it was completely pointless as it served no one and wasted money.

WooPeeA

Summer Glau wrote: »

Also, Europe does not need us. I'm sure it would be just fine with or without Irish membership. However, Ireland on the other hand really does get many benefits from being apart of Europe.

I think Ireland could give a lot to Europe. Such as great culture, beautiful music which whole Europe is really admiring and most of all Guinness.

Also, Ireland i making lots of money on that in Europe.

Scofflaw

Interesting Guardian article on possible knock-on effects from an Irish No.

cordially,
Scofflaw

mike65

Bump! Anyone fancy anymore predictions?

Sarky and Merkel are going to issue a joint statement later. I imagine it'll tell Ireland to get back in its box in a very polite and subtle fashion.

Mike.

mike65

dresden8 wrote: »

Minor changes, throw us a bone over something small and then make us vote the right way again.

We've been here before, don't you people not learn from experience? Are you all insane?

I guess you win the prize!

The thought just entered my tiny head, what if Irelands votes no again? and I checked back on this thread. Soz for the bump.

partholon

not quite mike.

there arent any changes to lisbon, just promises of protocols to be stuck in a possible accession treaty for croatia in a couple of years time which im SURE our government will pursue with vigour once lisbon 2 is passed

wont happen though as its blindingly obvious the second referendum is doomed from the start, particularly if its going to be run from what ive seen in the media so far (the primetime special on ganley was hysterical can you imagine what would happen if he actually mattered ? )

getting back to your point though got a question for you yourself.

what do you think this new united europe project is going to be called?

it cant be called the EU because we're in that organisation and they cant kick us out so once we reject lisbon again the remaining 26 will have to draft a new treaty (miraculously the exact same as lisbon but exempting us) in order to get around us and implement it.

creating an "inner core" if you will.

what would you call it?

BigUnit

partholon wrote: »

there arent any changes to lisbon, just promises of protocols to be stuck in a possible accession treaty for croatia in a couple of years time which im SURE our government will pursue with vigour once lisbon 2 is passed

No changes, our lads will be in no rush to do anything. What promises???? Sure the dumb Irish will never remember anyway......

20goto10

partholon wrote: »

what do you think this new united europe project is going to be called?

it cant be called the EU because we're in that organisation and they cant kick us out so once we reject lisbon again the remaining 26 will have to draft a new treaty (miraculously the exact same as lisbon but exempting us) in order to get around us and implement it.

creating an "inner core" if you will.

what would you call it?

Funny you should point that outr cause if my memory serves me correctly wasn't the creation of a 2 tier Europe a reason used by the No side? But as you quite rightly point out it is voting No that creates the 2 tiered Europe, that is if you can even call us a tier on our own. More like a dead weight.

partholon

that was in the NICE treaty debate.

we were of course told it was a total load of bollocks and should shut up and vote yes, which of course we did.

now were stuck with it. ya reap what ya sow. if ya voted no to nice you wouldnt be here as the EU would have no legal way of doing it.

Scofflaw

partholon wrote: »

that was in the NICE treaty debate.

we were of course told it was a total load of bollocks and should shut up and vote yes, which of course we did.

now were stuck with it. ya reap what ya sow. if ya voted no to nice you wouldnt be here as the EU would have no legal way of doing it.

Actually, enhanced cooperation, which was the origin of the "vote No against a two-tier Europe" thing, was in Amsterdam.

By the way, speaking as someone who voted No to Nice I and Yes to Nice II, the reason for voting No in the first one was because the government did say "shut up and vote Yes" - the reason for voting Yes in the second was the dropping of that attitude.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

mike65 wrote: »

I guess you win the prize!

The thought just entered my tiny head, what if Irelands votes no again? and I checked back on this thread. Soz for the bump.

That's just my crystal ball that Oscar is so jealous of.

It also got right that there would be a Lisbon 2, when Oscar wasn't so sure there would be one, just a few short weeks ago.

If Oscar needs any more deep, thoughtful and insightful political analysis in the near future I'll be more than happy to consult the self same crystal ball.

For reference posts number 90 and 91

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055420308&page=6

Quote:

Originally Posted by dresden8
Still keeping up the old pretence that there may not be a re-run of the vote eh?

My crystal ball is faulty.

You can tell me I'm wrong when I'm wrong. Don't tell me I'm wrong when I'm obviously right.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

It also got right that there would be a Lisbon 2, when Oscar wasn't so sure there would be one, just a few short weeks ago.

If Oscar needs any more deep, thoughtful and insightful political analysis in the near future I'll be more than happy to consult the self same crystal ball.

I'll be a lot more impressed if you can produce some lottery numbers in advance for me.

If you want a standing ovation for confidently predicting something that was highly likely, then bravo. You da man. Colour me impressed, that was an amazing feat of prognostication.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll be a lot more impressed if you can produce some lottery numbers in advance for me.

If you want a standing ovation for confidently predicting something that was highly likely, then bravo. You da man. Colour me impressed, that was an amazing feat of prognostication.

Well, that's the point isn't it.

Ever since the no result we knew what the government were going to do and they've gone and done it.

"No" was never an option.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Well, that's the point isn't it.

Ever since the no result we knew what the government were going to do and they've gone and done it.

"No" was never an option.

Indeed - personally, I'd say that the second referendum was so obviously likely that it was itself a factor in the referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

But what of our fact-finding Oireachtas commission?

The polls and discussions the government had with the electorate?

What of Cowen's hard fought negotiations with Europe to secure our second referendum?

You're not saying they were a charade are you?

Please don't tell me Lisbon 2 is a lie. I'd lose all faith!

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

But what of our fact-finding Oireachtas commission?

The polls and discussions the government had with the electorate?

What of Cowen's hard fought negotiations with Europe to secure our second referendum?

You're not saying they were a charade are you?

Please don't tell me Lisbon 2 is a lie. I'd lose all faith!

Well, I should hate to be the cause of that, obviously. However, there seems to be some elements of confusion - no negotiation with Europe is required to run a second referendum. Indeed, nothing is required to run a second referendum except the government's wish to do so.

Similarly, the point of the polls, discussion, and Oireachtas committee was to see what concerns could be addressed, and the negotiations with Europe to provide the wherewithal to address those concerns.

That was the point of voting No, after all, wasn't it? To force the government to address people's concerns about the Treaty? I appreciate that the sight of the government doing its job is novel and shocking, but it's surely not something to lose faith over.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Thank God for that.

If the government hadn't worked so hard for us we'd never have the chance to have that second referendum.

Phew!

dresden8

And of course if, after all that, Oscar's crystal ball couldn't see this coming I hope it's still under warranty, because it's obviously a piece of crap!

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Thank God for that.

If the government hadn't worked so hard for us we'd never have the chance to have that second referendum.

Phew!

Well, not really. They could hold another referendum without doing anything to try and address anyone's concerns.

Are you under the impression that there is some kind of constitutional hoop to be jumped through before one can hold a referendum?

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

And of course if, after all that, Oscar's crystal ball couldn't see this coming I hope it's still under warranty, because it's obviously a piece of crap!

Tell you what: I guarantee you, as a FACT!! that Galway won't be wiped out by a giant asteroid within the next week. That's just how amazingly effective my crystal ball is.

Now, if you're someone who believes in the value of precise language over woolly thinking, you'll point out that I can't possibly know this for a fact, but rather that I'm predicting something that's so likely as to be a near-certainty so I can look all clever when it turns out that I'm right. If, on the other hand, you're someone who's only interested in using rhetoric to score petty points - because that, after all, is the whole point of discussion, isn't it? - you'll admire my ability to make a pithy remark rather than actually contribute something that's worth reading.

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are you under the impression that there is some kind of constitutional hoop to be jumped through before one can hold a referendum?

Are you under the impression that dresden8 is interested in a grown-up conversation?