No renegotiation - no means no!

Gadjodilo

Speaking as a ‘yes’ supporter, there seems to me to be a growing expectation that if we vote 'no', we'll get another bite at the cherry. I think this time around, 'no' should be taken to mean 'no' - end of story. A renegotiation will mean our diplomats and leaders asking for something that is either unreasonable or else something that's already there.

Some people are voting 'no' because they think we'll be made vote again. Also, some feel that "we might get a better deal" if we vote 'no' and then try to renegotiate the treaty. I haven't seen anyone say what improvements they'd be looking for. Personally, I don't think it's possible for Ireland to get a better deal than the one described in the current treaty.

As many 'no' people have said, this Lisbon Treaty is very close to the original constitutional treaty. As described in this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055293886

.... the Irish played a crucial role in the negotiation of this. Bruised from the experience of the Nice ratification process, the Irish negotiators made damn sure that all loopholes were closed by the time the paper was signed. Such was the central role of the Irish that they received a standing ovation from the other delegations and huge praise in the international media.

See the section below dealing with "Areas for Renegotiation?". Either we'll be asking for even more when we're getting more than our fair share already or we'll be seeking to have more safeguards around something which is already totally safeguarded. One way or another, our politicians, diplomats and civil servants will look either seriously greedy or just plain silly. God knows what effect it will have on our relationship with the EU but if we vote know on June 12th, that should be it. We deal with those consequences.

Areas for renegotiation?

Let's look at all the areas the 'no' side have been raising and see why there's really nothing left to negotiate:

1. Abortion - Irish position is safeguarded and there is no change

2. Irish Neutrality - so watertight you could make tea in it

3. Corporate Tax - we keep the veto.

4. Health and Education Services - they can't be privatised unless the Irish government agrees.

5. Future referendums - no change, we still have them if the Irish constitution decides so.

6. Veto on trade treaties - no changes, nothing to do with Lisbon Treaty.

7. EU Commission - we'll have exactly the same representation as Germany and the other large countries

8. QMV - We continue to have nearly 5 times the power per capita as Germany, nearly 4 times that of France or the UK.

9. Euro Parliament - same story. We have twice or three times the representation per capita of the large countries.

10. Even if we ask for one more seat in the Parliament or one more vote in the Council, it'll means we'll be asking for more power than countries like Slovakia, Denmark and Finland who have larger populations than us. Do you think they'll agree to that?

If anyone wants to question the above 10 points either from an info point of view or to argue, just ask and I'll give the details.

Daftendirekt

I agree. I don't think that there'll be a Lisbon II like there was with Nice. Partially because, as you've said, this is the Constitution Version 2. I think this time we can either move forward with Europe, or be left behind.

I'd be interested to see what the No side would say should be renegotiated though...

Scofflaw

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I agree. I don't think that there'll be a Lisbon II like there was with Nice. Partially because, as you've said, this is the Constitution Version 2. I think this time we can either move forward with Europe, or be left behind.

Even that is part of the problem - there was no renegotiation at Nice. All that was changed was our amendment. No changes were made to the Nice Treaty.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I'd be interested to see what the No side would say should be renegotiated though...

They don't, with the exception of Sinn Fein (who, as pointed out elsewhere, are mostly asking for things that are already in the Treaty).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Morgans

Would taking out the Fundamental Charter of Human Rights be possible - and leave the Lisbon treaty deal with the Administrative changes?

johnnyq

Renegotiations are always possible and I can't say i'm surprised that Biffo and co. are peddling this lie since they couldn't be bothered. It's just easier to try and sell us what they made earlier.

Personally what I would like a renegotiation on would be:

Must haves:
-Removal of militarisation clause and endorsement of arms industry (esp. for Ireland)
-Figureheads of Europe directly elected i.e. President of European Council, Foreign Minister and Head of Commission i.e. Barrosso.
-Clause to overrule Lavel Case
-Public vote for all countries since this is the constitution after all. Or splitting of militarisation from admin reforms and a public vote solely on militarisation proposals.
-Change that Barrosso cannot overrule a member states choice of commissioner as is proposed in Lisbon (i,e, to maintain current situation tmk)

Also haves
-Removal of NATO reference from Lisbon Treaty
-Formation of sub commissioners (like junior ministers) on rotation basis so no country is without a commissioner.

Would Like (like this will ever happen)
-New emphasis on ethics and a move away from horse trading and bureaucracy
-An understandable redraft of the treaty so that the citizens of Europe can really engage with the EU.
-Review towards making all commissioners directly elected by their citizens

It's not like any of the above are unreasonable or impossible but by accepting the treaty as it stands we are sending the EU a message that it's OK to go down this path which will be sooo difficult to reverse.

There are more but I will list them later.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Renegotiations are always possible and I can't say i'm surprised that Biffo and co. are peddling this lie since they couldn't be bothered. It's just easier to try and sell us what they made earlier.

Possible 'yes', likely 'no'!

johnnyq

But what do you have to back this up?

We can only go on the past where the famous 'triple lock' appeared after we rejected Nice the first time tmk.

Why are we facing a shotgun barrel where we must accept a totally subversive attempt to avoid accountability or face expulsion as it seems to be presented?

A No vote shows how the EU institutions and ambitions have become divorced from the citizens of europe and there is a need to reconcile the two if the european project is to be successful into the future.

Should this threat of marginalisation even exist if the EU was representing it's citizens? Of course not.

The aims of burocrats have become sacrecant and as citizens we only have ourselves to blame if we endorse these aspirations and allow them to railroad through the concerns of the citizens of two founding member states of the european project.

A yes vote is surely a recognition that the EU is capable of no better.

sink

You should read this post here and this thread here.

johnnyq

Okay then,
on the first link it assumes that
- We reject this treaty over and over
- The Conservative government gets elected.
Those two things are by no means guaranteed, verging on pie in the sky.
I'm not even sure these claims are in any way more legitimate than those who claim that Lisbon brings in abortion.
Sure it's possible, but then again so many of the yes campaigners have rejected many NO arguments saying that their claims are possible but not likely.

On the Second one, I must admit to never being fond of that man and would venture that he would never have been a commissioner if he had to be democratically elected. It is scaremongering and you appear to have bought it.

Really, to vote yes on these claims only goes to prove my point that a yes vote is a confirmation that the EU is not capable of being any better.

sink

I am interested in politics, have an education in politics and have observed politics for many years. I am simply accepting the political reality. Not only first do you have to get our government to agree with you, you then have to go and get 26 other governments which have absolutely no responsibility to represent you to also agree. A monumental task that is bordering on the impossible.

johnnyq

Maybe i am taking you up wrong here, but i am getting the impression that you are not actually disagreeing with me when you say 'the political reality'

Political reality = EU Not capable of being better = Resorting to threats and subversion

Maybe i'm the eternal optimist here, but I couldn't accept an EU running along the lines that we have seen in the whole EU constitution/treaty process these last few years.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

Political reality = EU Not capable of being better = Resorting to threats and subversion

Better in your eyes not everyone's. You seem to be under the impression that everyone in Europe should share your view of what is 'better' well i'm afraid that many people don't and that is the reality of democracy i'm afraid.

johnnyq

This being the european 'brand' of democracy where 99% of the population can't even express their view the way we can.

Scofflaw

johnnyq wrote: »

This being the european 'brand' of democracy where 99% of the population can't even express their view the way we can.

There is no "European brand of democracy". Each member state have their own brand. Ours has referendums, and most countries' don't - but none are imposed by "Europe".

regards,
Scofflaw

johnnyq

Hi Scofflaw, as you know we've been through this many times.

I view the lisbon treaty as a cynical name change of the rejected constitution.

It was democratically rejected but yet was still binding by the %$^$% 'brand' of democracy, whatever name change you want to give it.

It doesn't have to be this way.

is_that_so

johnnyq wrote: »

Okay then,
on the first link it assumes that
- We reject this treaty over and over
- The Conservative government gets elected.
Those two things are by no means guaranteed, verging on pie in the sky.
I'm not even sure these claims are in any way more legitimate than those who claim that Lisbon brings in abortion.
Sure it's possible, but then again so many of the yes campaigners have rejected many NO arguments saying that their claims are possible but not likely.

On the Second one, I must admit to never being fond of that man and would venture that he would never have been a commissioner if he had to be democratically elected. It is scaremongering and you appear to have bought it.

Why is it when the No side throws up all manner of horrors it is reasoned argument but anything to the contrary is scaremongering?

Really, to vote yes on these claims only goes to prove my point that a yes vote is a confirmation that the EU is not capable of being any better.

The EU as always will find a way out but that way out does not necessarily include any benefits for Ireland. What you have posted here is a wish list. There are no guarantees whatsoever that renegotiation is an option. My own personal view is that it is likely to be the last option the EU will look at, if at all. You don't know the answer any more than I do. No scaremongering just a simple fact.

This comes back to the reasons for voting and understanding consequences. Oddly this is where the two camps coincide. Both know what a Yes vote means but a No is unknown.

sink

johnnyq wrote: »

It doesn't have to be this way.

Well you can't and neither can any other Irish citizen only the citizens of France and Holland could and they chose not to.

Duffman

johnnyq wrote: »

I view the lisbon treaty as a cynical name change of the rejected constitution.

It was democratically rejected but yet was still binding by the %$^$% 'brand' of democracy, whatever name change you want to give it.

It doesn't have to be this way.

What exactly does "democratically rejected" mean? The constitution was rejected, yes, but the votes were hardly a shining example of democracy in action.

The democratic process requires that the electorate have some faint notion of what exactly they're voting for. The constitution was not rejected by the Dutch and the French because of what it contained.

From the Economist, May 31st:

The European Commission ordered an opinion poll in France immediately after the “no” vote in 2005 which identified three main reasons why French voters rejected the constitution: it would shift jobs out of France; the document was overly liberal and pro-market; and the economy was ailing. (A similar poll carried out after Dutch voters said no in their own referendum, days later, found that only 7% of respondents were worried mainly about the loss of jobs overseas. The most common explanations were “a lack of information” and concerns about national sovereignty.

Voters were either dissatisfied with the domestic economic climate or they didn't have a clue what was in the thing.

The low turnout in each poll also calls the democratic legitimacy of it all into question.

All this aside, your rather blinkered view of what the democratic process actually entails seems to rule out any discretion on the part of elected governments and indeed any possibility that voters might actually change their minds.

Orion

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Areas for renegotiation?

Let's look at all the areas the 'no' side have been raising and see why there's really nothing left to negotiate:

1. Abortion - Irish position is safeguarded and there is no change

We have no position. Anyone who thinks we do is codding themselves really. Like it or not abortion is actually legal in Ireland under certain circumstances. since the X case. But it's true that the Lisbon treaty will change nothing on our non-stance.

Gadjodilo wrote: »

2. Irish Neutrality - so watertight you could make tea in it

How exactly is this watertight? There is nothing in our constitution keeping us neutral. It a traditional neutrality not a legal one. Lisbon could commit us to military action without a UN mandate which is our only current safeguard.

Gadjodilo wrote: »

3. Corporate Tax - we keep the veto.

Until tax is considered by the commission to be an area that can be changed using the treaty and the veto can be removed by a majority vote - i.e. the self-amending clause.

Gadjodilo wrote: »

4. Health and Education Services - they can't be privatised unless the Irish government agrees.

Lisbon removes the veto on trade, health and social services. While this would not automatically remove public health it enables a possible future agreement to liberalise health. A perfect example of this is the water charges. Our government just blame the EU for primary schools getting charged when in fact it's their own damn fault.

Gadjodilo wrote: »

5. Future referendums - no change, we still have them if the Irish constitution decides so.

Not necessarily. If we ratify this treaty then we also accept the new Article 48 of the EU treaty. This would allow the European Council to change any policies within EU competences or to change any unanimous voting requirement to qualified majority voting. The Council is comprised of heads to state and any changes would not even require a vote in Parliament - it would just require approval in Cabinet. No referendum required as we would have already given them the power to do this with Lisbon.

Gadjodilo wrote: »

6. Veto on trade treaties - no changes, nothing to do with Lisbon Treaty.

Trade treaties are separate to Lisbon but in some areas we would be giving the EU the right to negotiate for the whole EC.

Gadjodilo wrote: »

7. EU Commission - we'll have exactly the same representation as Germany and the other large countries

Saying we'd have the same representation as some one else does not mean that it's good. If I went to my boss and said Mr. Y is earning X and I want the same what would his response be?

Gadjodilo wrote: »

8. QMV - We continue to have nearly 5 times the power per capita as Germany, nearly 4 times that of France or the UK.

9. Euro Parliament - same story. We have twice or three times the representation per capita of the large countries.

Seriously if you believe that you're deluded :pac:. Germany may not have the same legal power as Ireland but in real terms it will continue to have more. QMV would not reduce the political power that Germany/France/UK have in the EU.

Gadjodilo wrote: »

10. Even if we ask for one more seat in the Parliament or one more vote in the Council, it'll means we'll be asking for more power than countries like Slovakia, Denmark and Finland who have larger populations than us. Do you think they'll agree to that?

Let's ask the people of Holland and France instead and find out ... oh wait - they aren't being asked in the first place ... oh wait - they were - and rejected the Constitution. And let's be honest here - even Sarkosy has admitted that the Lisbon Treaty is a rebadged Constitution.

Gadjodilo wrote: »

If anyone wants to question the above 10 points either from an info point of view or to argue, just ask and I'll give the details.

I think I just did

Can we look at some other points as well?
A German diplomat said that if we reject the treaty we may be asked to leave the EU - is that democratic? European MEPs voted overwhelmingly (429 to 199) against a motion that ‘The European Parliament undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland’! Even one of our own MEPs (Proinsias De Rossa) voted against this motion. What does this say about the EU that they refuse to respect the decision of the electorate of a country in the Union?

And many Irish and French politicians have said that Ireland will suffer if we reject it. Did Holland and France suffer for their rejection of the Constitution? No they didn't. By voting no we will be voting for the status quo - i.e. nothing changes. The EU continues as it is.

Duffman

Macros42 wrote: »

We have no position. Anyone who thinks we do is codding themselves really. Like it or not abortion is actually legal in Ireland under certain circumstances. since the X case. But it's true that the Lisbon treaty will change nothing on our non-stance.

Yeah this is true, Lisbon doesn't "protect our position" on abortion, it simply has nothing to do with it, indeed no EU treaty does.

Macros42 wrote: »

There is nothing in our constitution keeping us neutral.

Yes, there is. Article 29.4.15 (as amended):

15° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European
Council to establish a common defence pursuant to—

i Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7° of this 20
section, or

ii Article 1.49 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 10° of
this section,

where that common defence would include the State.

Macros42 wrote: »

Until tax is considered by the commission to be an area that can be changed using the treaty and the veto can be removed by a majority vote - i.e. the self-amending clause.

Have you even read the refcom booklet? You have no idea what you are talking about.

The EU cannot act in a particular area unless it has been granted a competence to do so by all Member States. The amendment procedure you mention cannot extend the competences of the Union.

Any amendment under this procedure also requires the unanimous agreement of Member States in the Council.

As for the move from unanimity to QMV for certain policy areas, the Commission does not decide that this will happen. The decision is with the Council acting by unanimity, funnily enough.

Macros42 wrote: »

Lisbon removes the veto on trade, health and social services. While this would not automatically remove public health it enables a possible future agreement to liberalise health. A perfect example of this is the water charges. Our government just blame the EU for primary schools getting charged when in fact it's their own damn fault.

Sigh. The EU already has exclusive competence when it comes to trade policy, Lisbon doesn't change this at all, it merely mentions a competence that is already there.

As for your second point there, you're not making much sense. Your example isn't "perfect" and I don't see how it relates to anything but I will assume that you are talking about the lies floating around surrounding privatisation of public services.

First, liberalisation is not privatisation so there's a fundamental misunderstanding there.

Second, there is no "veto on health and social services" as such.

Third, the Treaty Establishing the European Communities explicitly respects the right of Member States to decide how public services should be owned - it's right there in the text

Article 295

This Treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership.

Legal issues aside, do you think that Ireland is the only country that has public services? Can you imagine the Italians agreeing to sweeping privatisation? Some understanding of the political context and some grip on reality helps here.

Macros42 wrote: »

Trade treaties are separate to Lisbon but in some areas we would be giving the EU the right to negotiate for the whole EC.

"In some areas" - vague, like everything else you are arguing. In what areas? Examples please. The EU already has exclusive competence in trade matters, see above. Lisbon changes nothing.

Macros42 wrote: »

Seriously if you believe that you're deluded :pac:. Germany may not have the same legal power as Ireland but in real terms it will continue to have more. QMV would not reduce the political power that Germany/France/UK have in the EU.

Again, at least a tip of the hat to reality would be nice. Look at what actually happens in practice in EU law-making. The emphasis throughout the legislative process is on reaching consensus. It almost never happens in practice that there is a huge conflict in the Council and a decision comes down to voting weights. The laws that the Council has to consider have been drafted by teams of civil servants from all Members States, representing those Member States. Your view of "power" in the EU is simplistic and incorrect. I'm not saying that the legislative process is easy to understand but you at least have to make some kind of effort before you can legitimately make the kind of arguments that you're trying to make.

Macros42 wrote: »

Let's ask the people of Holland and France instead and find out ... oh wait - they aren't being asked in the first place ... oh wait - they were - and rejected the Constitution. And let's be honest here - even Sarkosy has admitted that the Lisbon Treaty is a rebadged Constitution.

The vast majority of Dutch and French voters didn't have a clue what they were voting for. Main reasons for rejection were dissatisfaction with the economic climate in France and lack of understanding in the Netherlands with a healthy dose of racism thrown in in some cases. This has been verified by independent opinion polls taken shortly after the votes.

Hardly the best example to hold up here.

Macros42 wrote: »

I think I just did

Unfortunately you utterly failed to.

Macros42 wrote: »

Can we look at some other points as well?
A German diplomat said that if we reject the treaty we may be asked to leave the EU - is that democratic?

The suggestion that any Member State is going to seriously consider leaving the EU is quite simply farcical.

redspider

Duffman wrote: »

The vast majority of Dutch and French voters didn't have a clue what they were voting for.

Perhaps, but no doubt we are in the same boat as in the vast majority of people here that will vote wont have a clue what they're voting on either! So the Dutch and French 'No' is equally as valid as our 'Yes' or 'No' is going to be.

One thing is clear, the EU Constitution is the vast bulk (96% according to some) of this treaty, and many in Holland and France that voted No are vexed that they will not even be afforded the opportunity to vote this time around, due to the process. Its backdoor and underhand.

Of all the countries that had an option to decide on the Lisbon Treaty with their electorate, NOT ONE voluntarily did so. We (Ireland) have only done it because our own "wise" governments in the past have been legally forced to do so. So much for democracy in the EU. If the Lisbon Treaty is supposed to support and improve democracy and give a voice to the people, the method of passing it clearly isnt!

> No renegotiation – no means no!

Well, as was seen with Nice I and Nice II, it is possible to change things slightly and legally put a different referendum to the people which is 99.9% the same. In a way, that is what the Lisbon Treaty is already as it is 96% or so the EU Constitution. So, a "new" treaty is of course possible or even the same treaty but with new constitutional text and additional assurances on certain topics.

But it wont be the last EU treaty we vote on, whether Yes or No.

Vote Wisely ....

Redspider

oscarBravo

johnnyq wrote: »

-Figureheads of Europe directly elected i.e. President of European Council, Foreign Minister and Head of Commission i.e. Barrosso.

Let me take you up on this one specific point.

What mechanism do you propose for the direct election of these roles? A simple majority of the EU population? What?

-Review towards making all commissioners directly elected by their citizens

Such a move would be absolutely guaranteed to remove a crucially important aspect of the commissioner: allegiance to the EU, rather than to the member state. To get elected, a commissioner would have to promise to deliver for Ireland, which would compromise his/her role as commissioner.

redspider wrote: »

...many in Holland and France that voted No are vexed that they will not even be afforded the opportunity to vote this time around...

How many?

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

redspider wrote:

...many in Holland and France that voted No are vexed that they will not even be afforded the opportunity to vote this time around...

How many?

Seven, and ten, respectively, according to the pro-referendum demonstrations organised over our bank holiday weekend:

Holland:

France:

Those from the European Referendum Campaign, which describes the events as follows:

The European Referendum Campaign initiated events which will take place in front of Irish embassies over the course of the weekend and on Monday in 14 EU capital cities. Local groups will congratulate the Irish for holding a referendum which has been denied to 487 million Europeans.

Many of the events are being attended by prominent figures e.g. Dutch MP Harry van Bommel in the Hague, Swedish MP Max Andersson and Nils Lundgren MEP in Stockholm, former MEP Jens Peter Bonde and former MEP Ole Krarup in Copenhagen, former MP Gerald Haefner in Berlin, Secretary General of attac France Marc Delepouve in Paris, former Ambassador Prof. Peter Kopecky in Bratislava and Bulgarian anti-corruption activist Nikolaj Bliznakov in Sofia.

All organisations are independent from each other and joined this initiative to show their concern about the undemocratic ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Duffman

redspider wrote: »

One thing is clear, the EU Constitution is the vast bulk (96% according to some) of this treaty, and many in Holland and France that voted No are vexed that they will not even be afforded the opportunity to vote this time around, due to the process. Its backdoor and underhand.

It's a piece of legislation. Trying to assign a random percentage figure to its similarity with the Constitutional Treaty is an exercise in stupidity. Lisbon is at once similar to and dramatically different from the CT.

In terms of substantive changes, yes the vast majority remain. But the Lisbon Treaty is not a constitution. The CT would have created an EU with an entirely different structure from the ground up, Lisbon just amends the treaties we already have.

The CT wasn't perfect but at least it aimed to be explainable to the average citizen. The somewhat perverse result of the French/Dutch rejection is that we're left with something which is necessarily far more complicated.

The No campaign bitch and whine about how hard the document is to understand, the reality is that this situation is largely their own fault.

redspider wrote: »

Of all the countries that had an option to decide on the Lisbon Treaty with their electorate, NOT ONE voluntarily did so. We (Ireland) have only done it because our own "wise" governments in the past have been legally forced to do so. So much for democracy in the EU. If the Lisbon Treaty is supposed to support and improve democracy and give a voice to the people, the method of passing it clearly isnt!

Now you're just being hypocritical. You're worried about respecting democratic principles in the EU and whining about the fact that nobody else is voting on Lisbon. One of the core principles of the EU is that it respects the diverse constitutional and democratic systems of its Member States. It has no business interfering with them.

It is up to each Member State to decide how it should ratify the treaty. What you suggest has more in common with the terrible and imaginary EU that you claim will be imposed on us all if we vote yes than the reality. Make up your mind.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let me take you up on this one specific point.

What mechanism do you propose for the direct election of these roles? A simple majority of the EU population? What? Such a move would be absolutely guaranteed to remove a crucially important aspect of the commissioner: allegiance to the EU, rather than to the member state. To get elected, a commissioner would have to promise to deliver for Ireland, which would compromise his/her role as commissioner.

This is exactly the point. The EU has a carefully created system of checks and balances much like our own Constitution. The whole point of having a Commission is that it acts independently of Member States (although this is a huge oversimplification, Member States have plenty of opportunities to supervise and participate in the Commission's activities in reality).

Again, screwing around with this makes the nightmare Union of your imagination slightly more plausible, only slightly mind.

Assuming for a moment that your fears are actually rational, sounds like you want a yes vote.

Jalapeno Dan

One of the most frustrating things about this campaign is that while the Yes campaign is trying to get the facts of the treaty across to the public (and not always succeeding), the No campaign are relying on the fact that the public know little about the actual running of the EU and the changes the treaty will make. They are using this situation to scaremonger the public by simply lying to them about how it will affect us.

The perfect example is the campaign to keep 'our' commissioner.

Anyone who has a basic understanding of the EU institutions (or who can read), can see that Ireland will have a commissioner for 10 out of every 15 years.

However, the whole arguement is academic as once a Commissioner is appointed, they no longer represent any nation. Their sole purpose is to be 'guardians of the treaties'. That is their only allegience.

Also, the No campaign's arguement that our level of Corporation Tax will be affected is lies also.

Again, anyone who can read can see that Ireland has a veto over any such move, Ireland has had a veto and Ireland will continue to have a veto over this.

Plus, on a personal note for me, I come from the North and have been living in Dublin for a number of years now. I have been a Shinner all my voting life...until now. I think their campaign is embarrassing, contradictory, short-sighted and immature.

I won't be voting for them again.

Daftendirekt

Also, we'll lose our commissioner for 5 out of 15 years anyway from 2009, if Lisbon doesn't pass... all the treaty will do is set it back to 2014.

sink

Jalapeno Dan wrote: »

Plus, on a personal note for me, I come from the North and have been living in Dublin for a number of years now. I have been a Shinner all my voting life...until now. I think their campaign is embarrassing, contradictory, short-sighted and immature.

I won't be voting for them again.

Off topic I know. You really need to get some proper parties up there. Sinn Fein were a one issue party for so long they haven't a clue about anything else, the DUP are the same. I think the normalised political spectrum is in it's infancy in the north and it's going to take years for it to mature.

redspider

> How many?

Well, I'll turn that question back to you in corrollary format. How many are not vexed? (please provide referential and non-partisan sources only!)

Btw, the anecdotal evidence I have is that Dutch people have personally said it to me.

Duffman wrote: »

(1)Lisbon is at once similar to and dramatically different from the CT. In terms of substantive changes, yes the vast majority remain.

(2)You're worried about respecting democratic principles in the EU and whining about the fact that nobody else is voting on Lisbon. One of the core principles of the EU is that it respects the diverse constitutional and democratic systems of its Member States. It is up to each Member State to decide how it should ratify the treaty.

(1) So you agree on that.

(2) No, I am not whining! It is a fact that of those member countries that had an option to decide on ratifying the Lisbon Treaty by a referednum, NOT ONE chose to do so. That is very indicative as to the level of people participation those in power want to disseminate. The UK, French, Dutch and Austrian governments couldn't give a flying fig about democracy. I read that 80% of Austrians WANTED a referendum on the treaty but they have been denied their democratic voice.


Here are some more quotes that may help you and others understand the situation better:

Bernard Kouchner wrote:

France's foreign minister has warned that Ireland will be "the first victim" if voters reject the Lisbon Treaty in this Thursday's referendum. In an interview today, Bernard Kouchner says Ireland had benefited more than others from the EU and Europe should be able to count on the Irish for support. He says Irish voters would only be punishing themselves if they voted No.

Another attempt at coercion. If the EU respects each country's decision on ratifying treaties or not, why would we be a victim after a No decision on this one? This is a threat and reflects France's and others thinking and is a fear our government also holds.

Miche&#225 wrote: »

Foreign Affairs Minister Micheál Martin, meanwhile, said today that Thursday's vote was a choice between Ireland moving forward as a positive member of the EU or taking a different direction.

By implication, Yes makes us a positive member and No a negative member. If Micheál and the EU fully supports the decision making of the people, then a No vote would make us equally a positive member of the EU as a Yes vote would. Exercising our demicratic right one way or the other is equally valid. A No doesnt mean that Ireland is anti-EU.

These, and there are countless more comments, are reasons that people need to be very wary of voting Yes just because it is the requested thing to do, by our own government and the EU governments.

Two other useful articles to read:
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/06/08/story33509.asp
(I agree with their analysis but disagree with some of the conclusions they draw. There is an equal if not stonger case for voting 'No' based on their same analysis.)

Vincent Brown also has an interesting take:
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/06/08/story33488.asp

Redspider

seamus

redspider wrote: »

Well, I'll turn that question back to you in corrollary format. How many are not vexed? (please provide referential and non-partisan sources only!)

A good indicator of happiness is silence. Largely, if people are saying nothing, then they're happy with how things are. If people are unhappy, they tend to voice it.

Take France as a good example, where workers will strike for the most frivilous of complaints. Have you seen any mass protests in France? Any blockades of the Champs Elysees? You can be guaranteed that even if a significant minority of French were in opposition of the Treaty, we'd be hearing tonnes of noise from them.

Even more, there are claims that these countries are annoyed that their no votes are being "ignored" and they're demanding to be given that right. Yet, with the exception of the tiny fringe groups above, there hasn't been much noise from any of the rest of Europe. So how can it be claimed that they want to vote, when they don't seem to be saying that at all?

gordon_gekko

this treaty will be decided by how much of a feel good factor the undecideds of whoom are probably the majority have

most people dont know what its about so how can they know what they want changed , if the yes vote fails , it will be down to the yes side having failed to make the people feel secure in supporting it and having failed to expose the lies of the no side

the no side have run a far better campaign , then again , the no side were prepared to say just about anything , i think i heard one group say we wont be allowed to wear green hats on a tuesday if the treaty passes

seamus

gordon_gekko wrote: »

the no side have run a far better campaign , then again , the no side were prepared to say just about anything , i think i heard one group say we wont be allowed to wear green hats on a tuesday if the treaty passes

That's pretty much it. If you count a "good campaign" as scaremongering, lying and spreading FUD, then the no campaign have done a great job. Very American campaign as a matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they went over to the US and took a few masterclasses from the Republican party.

Duffman

redspider wrote: »

The UK, French, Dutch and Austrian governments couldn't give a flying fig about democracy. I read that 80% of Austrians WANTED a referendum on the treaty but they have been denied their democratic voice.

The British, the French, the Dutch and the Austrians elected their governments. That is how representative democracy works..

redspider wrote: »

Another attempt at coercion. If the EU respects each country's decision on ratifying treaties or not, why would we be a victim after a No decision on this one?

This is not a threat, this is the reality of our situation. If we vote no we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Nobody is going to "do" anything to us, we would simply be deciding something that is against our interests.

redspider wrote: »

These, and there are countless more comments, are reasons that people need to be very wary of voting Yes just because it is the requested thing to do, by our own government and the EU governments.

I suppose voters shouldn't be wary of voting no when requested to do so by the Shinners and a collection of other nutjobs. At least the government enjoys the legitimacy of having been elected :rolleyes:

craichoe

Seven, and ten, respectively, according to the pro-referendum demonstrations organised over our bank holiday weekend:

Holland: http://erc2.org/typo3temp/pics/aba6fa56f4.jpg

France: http://erc2.org/typo3temp/pics/b76e43db4a.jpg

LoL ... i often go into Murphys law for the Jazz on monday nights .. its bloody sad our Embassy in Den Haag is next to a pub

protest was far bigger in Amsterdam though.

djpbarry

craichoe wrote: »

protest was far bigger in Amsterdam though.

If it was that big than I'm sure you can find some media coverage?

Darragh29

Gadjodilo wrote: »

Speaking as a ‘yes’ supporter, there seems to me to be a growing expectation that if we vote 'no', we'll get another bite at the cherry. I think this time around, 'no' should be taken to mean 'no' - end of story. A renegotiation will mean our diplomats and leaders asking for something that is either unreasonable or else something that's already there.

One way or another, we are going to have this treaty or the key contents of it (possibly after it has been dressed up as another entity if it is rejected), pushed upon us. I'm voting no, because I genuinely believe that a no vote will not be tolerated by the EU political class. This is as fundamental a point as I have ever had to vote on, and I'm angry and disturbed that not just our government but also other external government minsiters have put me in a position where I have to put this issue, ahead of what is actually in the treaty itself. Before looking at what you are voting for or against in terms of content, I strongly believe that you have to have a look at how free you actually are to commit to one particular side of the referendum. I can't remember a time previously in our history when we have been told by not just our government but also our opposition, that we simply cannot vote one particular way on any issue. I'm literally alarmed and nothing less than absolutely astounded that I'm reading threads here by posters that appear to be completely unaffected by the fact that no matter what way we vote, the only answer that will be accepted from us is Yes.

How can you walk into a polling station and put any value whatsoever on your right to participate in a ballot, in the full knowledge that if you vote yes your decision will be respected and if you vote no, it will be like as if you just didn't bother to turn up to vote at all??? In effect, by holding a second referendum after an unacceptable decision, what the government is doing is reaching into the ballot box on the second occasion and taking our your ballot paper, if you happen to disagree with them. You wouldn't see the likes of it in Zimbabwe or in South Africa under apartheid. I need to ask how people on the yes side of the debate are able to walk into a polling station and partake in a referendum, knowing that only those who tick on particular box will be considered. I just can't get my head around this, sorry...

djpbarry

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'm voting no, because I genuinely believe that a no vote will not be tolerated by the EU political class.

One of the most common reasons I have heard for voting 'No' (particularly on this forum) and it still makes no sense to me. What do you mean "a no vote will not be tolerated"? That sounds to me like scaremongering, if ever I've heard it.

Darragh29 wrote: »

How can you walk into a polling station and put any value whatsoever on your right to participate in a ballot, in the full knowledge that if you vote yes your decision will be respected and if you vote no, it will be like as if you just didn't bother to turn up to vote at all???

I have absolutely no idea where you've gotten this idea from, but it's complete and utter nonsense. Can you please do the whole EU a favour and base your vote on the actual content of the treaty?

redspider

Duffman wrote: »

(1) The British, the French, the Dutch and the Austrians elected their governments. That is how representative democracy works..

(2) This is not a threat, this is the reality of our situation. If we vote no we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Nobody is going to "do" anything to us, we would simply be deciding something that is against our interests.

(3) I suppose voters shouldn't be wary of voting no when requested to do so by the Shinners and a collection of other nutjobs. At least the government enjoys the legitimacy of having been elected :rolleyes:

(1) Or how representative democracy doesnt work! The French government are on record that they wouldnt trust the French people with another referendum and the Dutch have said so implicitly when asked in parliament. Representative democracy does have inefficiencies, major ones really when you think about it. And we can see it in action here. 96% of TD's who are pusing for Yes are only representing approx 55% (last poll) of Yes voters. So much for representative democracy being representative. It isnt. Wake up and smell the coffee.

(2) This is a threat, and it should not be the reality. Its a bit like saying that, well in theory, we teh EU respect the vote of the Irish people who make the decision in Ireland (not the Dail/Senate), but in practice we the EU will say 'vavancoulou' (sp?) to Ireland. If we vote No, we are not shooting Ireland in the foot, or other EU countries and how is voting No against our interests when people that are voting No see it as protecting their interests?

(3) There are many people advocating No that are representatives. I agree that many have distaste for Sinn Fein who always vote No on EU issues seemingly, but equally there are many that dont like many on the Yes side. Whats important for us all is to decide not based on personalties, allegiances/tribes, but on what's in the treaty itself. Ironically, the Green Party TD's were against the Nice Treaty and now are for the Lisbon Treaty. Go figure that one out. They say that politics is the art of the possible but it also seems to be the art of the spineless or the art of 'anything to stay in power'.


Overall, I think the main Yes side parties, FF and FG, have mismanaged this campaign very badly, perhaps another sign of how poor so-called representative democracy is working. Garret Fitzgerald agreed with that last night on Vincent Brown (although his hint was only in the direction of FF). They should have laid out the Treaty before us, spoke about the pro's and the con's, and they should have given every TD a free right to state what they like and vote which way they like. It should have been open. There should have been no use of the party whip, etc. In other words they should have acted more like the referendum commision.

Vote wisely .... and tomorrow! ;-)

Redspider

djpbarry

redspider wrote: »

...how is voting No against our interests when people that are voting No see it as protecting their interests?

That doesn't mean they're right. They may think they are protecting their interests, but that doesn't mean that they are.

redspider wrote: »

There are many people advocating No that are representatives.

Not that many.

redspider wrote: »

Whats important for us all is to decide not based on personalties, allegiances/tribes, but on what's in the treaty itself.

Agree 100%.

redspider wrote: »

Ironically, the Green Party TD's were against the Nice Treaty and now are for the Lisbon Treaty.

Not entirely true - the Green Party does not have an official stance with regard to the treaty.

redspider wrote: »

Go figure that one out. They say that politics is the art of the possible but it also seems to be the art of the spineless or the art of 'anything to stay in power'.

That's a bit unfair, don't you think? Using your logic, I could argue that everyone voting 'No' is a Shinner. While true in some cases (perhaps a lot of cases), it is certainly not true of everyone.

redspider wrote: »

They should have laid out the Treaty before us, spoke about the pro's and the con's...

But that is essentially the purpose of the Referendum Commission, pro's and con's aside; it's up to the electorate to decide the pro's and con's for themselves.

VoidStarNull

Darragh29 wrote: »

One way or another, we are going to have this treaty or the key contents of it (possibly after it has been dressed up as another entity if it is rejected), pushed upon us. I'm voting no, because I genuinely believe that a no vote will not be tolerated by the EU political class.
...
How can you walk into a polling station and put any value whatsoever on your right to participate in a ballot, in the full knowledge that if you vote yes your decision will be respected and if you vote no, it will be like as if you just didn't bother to turn up to vote at all???

Nobody is threatening to take away the right to vote NO. We can vote NO as many times as we like, until they stop asking. The other member states cannot force us to accept a deal.

Likewise, we cannot force them to re-negotiate and accept a new deal. If we vote NO and the others refuse to re-negotiate, they are entirely within their rights and so are we.

There is no sinister EU political class trying to force people to do something. There are just 27 countries trying to reach an agreement.

Darragh29

djpbarry wrote: »

One of the most common reasons I have heard for voting 'No' (particularly on this forum) and it still makes no sense to me. What do you mean "a no vote will not be tolerated"? That sounds to me like scaremongering, if ever I've heard it.
I have absolutely no idea where you've gotten this idea from, but it's complete and utter nonsense. Can you please do the whole EU a favour and base your vote on the actual content of the treaty?

What do you think I mean??? I mean a NO vote will not be tolerated by this government or the EU. In support of this, I cite the last time this happened, which we all know happened in the Nice Treaty. You are obviously living in some completely parrellel universe if you cannot see this, it is a matter of historical fact. We rejected Nice, we were told to vote again-FACT. It might not suit you that this happened, but the fact is that it did, and I'm not doing anything strange by taking this into account on this occasion. You must be free to vote either way when voting and I genuinely believe that any voter ought to evaluate how a democratically reached decision will be accepted, whatever that decision could be, before voting. I don't want to be part of an EU that cannot accept a democratic decision given by a country. Before all else, I have decided that I don't want that and I'm going to be voting against any EU expansion plans and voting against any EU treaty's for as long as I'm looking at an EU that cannot accept democratic voting decisions. The matter of what is in the treaty is not important to me, there is a problem in the EU with regard to the acceptance of the democratic wishes of electorates and this must be dealt with in the first instance in my opinion and if I cannot say that the EU will accept the decision of this country, whatever that may be, I have to vote against the EU no matter what they are putting before me in an attempt to preserve our right to have the final say, it's as simple as that, the book must stop with us, we have to be the final arbitrators, not the EU, that is the way democracy works.

Darragh29

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Nobody is threatening to take away the right to vote NO. We can vote NO as many times as we like, until they stop asking. The other member states cannot force us to accept a deal.

Likewise, we cannot force them to re-negotiate and accept a new deal. If we vote NO and the others refuse to re-negotiate, they are entirely within their rights and so are we.

There is no sinister EU political class trying to force people to do something. There are just 27 countries trying to reach an agreement.

That is the topic of this thread, that instead of them continually putting us to a vote until we capitulate to what they want, that NO MEANS NO! In my opinion, there is a political class pushing this whole agenda, they oppose referendums and the veto of the people and are simply asking us to rubberstamp whatever whims they dream up. What literally scares me is that people cannot see this. I'm not some frustrated leftie or shinner, but I'm alarmed at this.

seamus

Darragh29 wrote: »

I don't want to be part of an EU that cannot accept a democratic decision given by a country.

But wait, hang on. The same treaty was presented twice, no difference whatsoever. If people were really that against it, wouldn't they have voted "No" the second time?

What Nice was, was a perfect experiment in spin. The exact same treaty was presented twice, but with different propaganda engines each time. The second time, the result changed. What does that say to you?

Also be aware that the first decision on Nice wasn't ignored. Ignoring it would have meant that the Government went ahead and altered the constitution anyway. They didn't. They accepted that people voted "No", and made no changes to the constitution. Then they realised that they had simply failed to make an effort to convince people of the benefits, so provided them with more information, allayed some specific concerns and asked again.
If they had said "No" the second time, that too would have been accepted.

As they say, you get the government that you vote for. Clearly the Irish people are more than happy to continue voting in a Government who will keep asking them the same question over and over until they get the answer they want. If the people who originally voted "No" to Nice were annoyed at being asked a second time, then the Government should have been slaughtered at the General election and Bertie would have been out on his ear. Was he?

As I've been saying here all day today, as "No" vote is not a signal of intention. It's a rejection of a proposal. It doesn't imply nor require that the proposer will go and make any changes or otherwise do anything that any "No" voter is looking for.

A good example is the last abortion referendum. The proposal was defeated, but people were then expecting the government to do something on the back of the "No". But do what? If a proposal is defeated, no further action is required on that proposal. There's nothing *actually* wrong with presenting it for referendum multiple times. If it's a bad proposal, then it should follow that the electorate will continue to reject it and then remove the leaders who keep giving them bad proposals.

djpbarry

Darragh29 wrote: »

In support of this, I cite the last time this happened, which we all know happened in the Nice Treaty. You are obviously living in some completely parrellel universe if you cannot see this, it is a matter of historical fact. We rejected Nice, we were told to vote again-FACT.

That is not entirely accurate; we did not vote on exactly the same thing twice. While the text of the treaty was not changed, the proposed amendment to our constitution was. The following article was included to safeguard our neutrality:

Article 29.4.9 wrote:

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.

To suggest that the 'No' vote in the first Nice referendum was somehow "ignored" is a complete fallacy.

VoidStarNull

Darragh29 wrote: »

That is the topic of this thread, that instead of them continually putting us to a vote until we capitulate to what they want, that NO MEANS NO! In my opinion, there is a political class pushing this whole agenda, they oppose referendums and the veto of the people and are simply asking us to rubberstamp whatever whims they dream up. What literally scares me is that people cannot see this. I'm not some frustrated leftie or shinner, but I'm alarmed at this.

To be honest I don't think this happens for sinister reasons, it happens because the mechanics of trying to re-negotiate these treaties are too difficult. In the case of Nice, it was easier to modify Irish law with the triple lock and vote again on the same treaty. rather than go round all the houses once more to re-negotiate.

The same may happen with Lisbon. But I think pressure may come from other states to modify the treaty, so that in the event of a second Irish rejection they can proceed without us. A second rejected attempt would be a huge time-waster from their point of view, effectively putting them all right back on the starting blocks.

If that happens, then next time round NO may really mean NO.