Where do we go from here?

TelePaul

I'd like to preface this by requesting that people keep things civil in this thread - if you're going to make a sarcastic or personal attack, just don't, save it for another thread. Obviously, a great deal of boardsies took this treaty and it's implications seriously, so I think it's possible to discuss the aftermath and reprecussions of the "No" vote in the same manner.

Feel free to discuss both the reprecussions with respect to Ireland within the EU and the potential challenges facing Ireland's political environment domestically. In all cases, try to reinforce speculation with at least a degree of factual information.

gordon_gekko

if there is another referendum , what the goverment has to do is to generate a feel good factor about the treaty , something which they failed to do , the people who swung this treaty were people who hadnt the foggiest idea what the thing was about , they bought the bogus criteria that if you dont no , vote no
there were only a small minority of true believers on the no side
theres no point in sending the goverment back to europe to negotiate new terms as most people who voted no didnt know what the terms of the 1st deal were
when it came to trying to appeal to peoples hopes or fears in this referendum , the politics of fear won out

TelePaul

gordon_gekko wrote: »

if there is another referendum

While I agree with what you've said, can we take a step back. How realistic is the prospect of another referendum?

leninbenjamin

we go nowhere. Europe spends a few more years stagnating until another treaty is though of...

marco_polo

TelePaul wrote: »

While I agree with what you've said, can we take a step back. How realistic is the prospect of another referendum?

There is unlikely to be any further negotiations on the treaty, and as a result there is unlikely to be another referendum.

Zube

Barosso has already announced his intentions: to push the other 26 nations to ratify the treaty. Presumably with the intention of getting the Irish into reverse their decision like in Nice II.

There is also a legally tricky path by which the rest could continue without us, creating a two-tier EU with us alone on tier 2.

Check this out:

Speaking in Brussels, German MEP [URL="javascript:showPlayer('/news/2008/0613/1news_av.html?2387011,null,230')"]Martin Schulz[/URL] said that if there is a no vote in Ireland it will be one of the biggest problems in the European Union for a long time.
He said that it is now up to the Irish Government to explain to Europe how we should proceed.
Mr Schulz said he thinks the other states should also openly say if they want this union in this style, or another one.
He added that there should open a debate about the future of the European Union with those states who want to deepen the integration.
He said that perhaps those states who do not want to deepen the integration should not be included.

mcaul

OK, the EU can't shut us out, but I'd expect that for a while at least we will only get what we deserve for a country of 4 million, whereas up to now we've enjoyed a far bigger slice of the action than we should ahve for having less than 1% of european population.

The other side would be the the EU is happy that just a small country like Ireland has said no and that maybe some changes will be made to make the treaty more simplified so all negative people in Europe will be happier- but this is difficult as its a legal document and must be written in a legalistic way.

It will certainly have some negative consequences and business will be first to feel it and we can certainly wave goodbye to any form of growth in the economy for this year & next.

I won't blame the no side entirely - I partially blame the people who said yes but didn't bother their arse to vote!

sink

We are now left with the decision on what to do next; it's a difficult one because it's not entirely clear what has just happened. The EU for the next while will be looking inward trying to figure a way out of this mess, unfortunately that means all other consideration will be put on the back burner for at least a year if not several.

What options do we realistically have? Not many, the only way from here is forward we can't go back. 26 other nations are not going to accept the status quo, they are all geared up to moving forward and they're not going to put their plans on hold just for us. But with us in the union the way forward has become increasingly more difficult if not impossible.

Most of Ireland's demands are already met in the Lisbon treaty or are superfluous to it. There are almost no areas of the treaty open renegotiation from what I can see. Lets look at what the no camps general concerns and see why there is no room for renegotiation.


1. Ireland is losing influence/Our vote does not count as much

The voting weight for Ireland in the council would've stayed pretty much the same; the UK, France and Italy were losing a lot more of their vote than we were. So if other countries relative to us lost some of their vote and others like us have kept pretty much what they had before and only the smallest countries gained influence (Luxembourg, Malta). How is it possible that we could insist in getting more than our fair share of the vote? We currently have about 4 times the voting power per citizen in the council compared to Germany, and we have almost 2.5 times the representation in the parliament compared to Germany. Is it fair that we should even ask for more? Especially when considering a large proportion of what Germany paid into to the union was paid out to us over the last 30 years. I don't think it's fair or right that we should even ask for more, I think we are being incredibly selfish to even think it. The only real loss of power we have suffered is due to dilution as more members joined, should we stop expanding the borders of the EU into the Balkans because we don’t want any more dilution, possibly destabilising the region again? I think we have an obligation to help the Balkans out as we received so much support to solve our troubles, are we really selfish enough to turn our back on them when the international community could have so easily turned their backs on us?

2. We lose our commissioner

There seems to be a lack of understanding in Ireland as to what the commission does. People seem to think it's were decisions are made when it's not. People also think that the Irish commissioner acts purely for Ireland's benefit, they do not. People seem to think we lose a vote when we don't have a commissioner, when the commission doesn't even have a vote. Given these misunderstandings it entirely reasonable to see why people are worried about losing a commissioner, the only way to allay these concerns is to educate the people on the role of the commission.

We can't negotiate a better deal, the downsizing of the commission is written into the Nice treaty, we have complete equality to nominate commissioners with all other member states. A commission of 27 or more members is a joke; I don't think we really want a commissioner for multilingualism, or to split portfolios so that the leadership and strategy is compromised in very important departments such as finance. There was a suggestion that we could have deputy commissioners, but in my opinion there is not real purpose for them to fill, they won't control anything and they won't be doing anything that civil servants are already doing. So it would be seen as placating the voters without much substance behind it, and therefore would more than likely be rejected.

3. Militarisation of the EU

We are almost alone on this issue. All the large countries are for it, many of the eastern states are also for it, and even the UN wants a European military. We have secured opt-outs along with Denmark and we only need to co-operate on matters we agree to, we can’t ask for any more. The other states are so much in favour that they will not tolerate Ireland blocking them from forming a Military alliance, and I don't think we have a right to stop them. The part about being obligated to improve our military capabilities is a red herring as it is already part of our defence forces doctrine, and it does not require us to spend anymore than we are presently spending. Our only options here are to leave the EU or to let the other countries to get on with what they want to do securing sufficient opt-outs for ourselves, which we just rejected. This is a major issue for us as if we are unwilling to budge we could very be asked to leave. We can’t impose our will on the rest of the EU.

4. The EU lacks democratic accountability

All EU law making is ratified through two democratic institutions, the Council and the Parliament. There are no unelected bureaucrats that have any role or say in ratifying legislation. I really don’t know where this impression comes from besides pure ignorance. How can the EU become more democratic than it all ready is? The issue about the unelected President and Foreign Minister is a red herring as neither of them have any executive powers, they can only act trough consensus from the council, their only role is to give the council a single voice to speak for it, rather than 27 separate ones and they are elected by the democratically elected leaders in the European council. Besides direct elections are impractical for 27 nations with 20+ different languages, I’ve heard this idea put forward plenty of times but I’ve yet to hear any practical way to carry them out.

5. Loss of veto’s

We lose vetos only in areas where the EU has a better capacity to act than we do or in areas that only relevant to the EU and would not affect member states. And the areas that are important to us individually such as immigration, judiciary and policing we had secured opt-outs. It might be possible to scrap the loss of vetos in a new treaty and maybe push them through individually in the future as seperate amendments.

All the other issues appear to me to be completely superfluous to the treaty so that there are no grounds for negotiation (tax/abortion/EU laws becoming superior etc.). As far as I can see the only thing that can be done is another referendum with the government and yes campaigners better informing the people of the benefits of the treaty and not just using platitudes like ‘Europe is great, the Lisbon treaty is great’ without any substance. The only other real option for us is to suspend our membership of the EU, to let the other 26 countries to go forward while we sort ourselves out and try to educate ourselves on what the EU actually does.

Kovik

The government will obtain an EU consensus document declaring outrightly that the absurd allegations being made by the No camp to be absurd. A second referendum will be declared in which, this time, the Yes camp fights fire with fire and assassinates the characters Declan Ganley and any Sinn Féin campaigners in the public eye (both of which are easily done).

Basically, instead of arguing on the terms of No campaign (attempting to neutralise the nebulous and often falsified claims being made) the government and the opposition will have to control the debate, attack the integrity (or lack thereof) of the No side and keep control of message heading into a second vote.

TelePaul

Kovik wrote: »

The government will obtain an EU consensus document declaring outrightly that the absurd allegations being made by the No camp to be absurd.

Is this legally possible?

Kovik

TelePaul wrote: »

Is this legally possible?

They can add a rider to the treaty that states "no, we're not legalising abortion" and soforth without enormous legal wrangling.

TelePaul

Kovik wrote: »

They can add a rider to the treaty that states "no, we're not legalising abortion" and soforth without enormous legal wrangling.

Like the Seville declaration for Nice?

Kovik

TelePaul wrote: »

Like the Seville declaration for Nice?

Similarly, yes. It would require more specificity in this case which could make things more difficulty, but adding non-binding qualifiers to certain treaty terms in order to declare their relationship (or lack thereof) with certain issues of concern here should be doable.

Zube

I think Cowen and all FF, FG, Labour and Green TDs should resign, and refrain from running Dail candidates in the next (and only the next) election. Let's have a Government of Sinn Fein, Libertas and Cóir TDs in coalition, and we'll see how that goes.

TelePaul

Zube wrote: »

I think Cowen and all FF, FG, Labour and Green TDs should resign, and refrain from running Dail candidates in the next (and only the next) election. Let's have a Government of Sinn Fein, Libertas and Cóir TDs in coalition, and we'll see how that goes.

Okay, can we stick to what WILL happen for now? As opposed to what should/should not, I'm sure alot of people of are a similar opinion to yourself, but let's look at the most likely outcomes.

Zube

OK, likely outcomes are:

a) another Nice II deal, where all of the mad nonsense dragged up by the "no" campaign is explicitly denied in writing in a rider to the treaty, and we have another vote at Halloween. That seems to be what Barosso is talking about today.

b) They scrap Lisbon and start another multi-year discussion on the future, while limping along under the Nice arrangements.

ixtlan

Well... since the entire debate pretty much descended into what the treaty meant, it would not be unreasonable to have the EU come up with some form of clear declaration of what it means.

It's crazy to send politicians back to re-negotiate when they already believe they got all they needed. The problem is that people do not appear to have believed those assurances.

So, how to help people believe the assurances?

The only concrete proposal would be keeping the commissioner, but that would be a change which seems unlikely.

So, no changes but clarifications.

Ix.