I don't think people realise the corner they have put Ireland in........

Randomness

I think it's fair to say that the average Joe who might have a few small issues with the fine points of the Treaty would have liked to have voted No knowing that this would then mean the rest of Europe stopped and said, "well Ireland has said no, hmmmm we need to take a step back here, stop other ratification processes and listen to what they have to say".

However people failed to realise that having debated, discussed and drawn out the treaty for long enough this was never going to be an option for the rest of Europe hence they responded to our rejection with "well lets keep ratifying".

Possible the worst thing that could have happened.

We have now been hit twice, a rejection of a treaty AND the rejection of our E.U friends.

Ireland has taken and taken and in later years started giving back to the E.U.
Now when they ask us to help them out by restructuring and reforming in the best way possible for ALL states we turn are back on them.

We have become selfish - not one person I have spoken to who voted no said "what is the benefit for all of the E.U in the treaty?" all anybody wanted to know was "what do I get out of it?".

In any organisation with 27 members you are never going to be able to please every problem of every member but you can do the best to get as close to that as possible. It's a bit of a kick in the teeth when one of them won't support your efforts to improve.

The E.U is not prefect but it was trying to get there and we blocked that.

Through thick and thin for the last 35 years we have punched above our weight and benefitted enormously. However I fear we have lost some of our closest friends in Europe and this marks the begining of the lost voice of Ireland in the E.U.

This small island which has been heard for so long has drawn the last straw with our neighbours patience and we will unfortunately suffers the consequences.........

Rb

Was a new thread really necessary?

TelePaul

Rb wrote: »

Was a new thread really necessary?

One man, one thread?

turgon

Your claims have already been discussed a length on other threads. The fact of the matter is a No vote was received, but it is not an anti-EU vote. If that cannot be respected by the EU then it is only going to make the No voters even more happy, and is going to make some of the Yes side turn to the No side.

Look, I cant help it if I looked at this treaty and didn't like some of it. I wasnt going to vote Yes just because it was from the EU. That is why each member state ratifies it individually: so that they can deal with it in a selfish manner. Why should I vote Yes just cause its good for the french?

Anyway, Ive already had an uphill battle with sopranos, and I'm not in the mood to debate this again!!!!

hatrickpatrick

Look it's very simple. The people of Europe have consistently stated, time and time again, in various medims, that they simply don't want any more power to be centralized in brussels. The way the political leaders are trying to steer us would end in the abolition of national parliaments, and a sort of Unisted States of Europe style system, with Brussels acting as Washington does in the US.

People simply don't want this. Ireland should be ruled from Dublin, France from Paris Britain from London, etc etc etc. What politicians don't seem to realize is that while integration is good for Europe, we just don't want to lose our individuality and independence. And it's not just the Irish who feel this way either - we just happen to be the only people who've been given the chance to bluntly state how we feel about it. Given the choice, I highly doubt it would have got as far as a referendum in Ireland - someone else would have been bound to vote against it by now...

TelePaul

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Look it's very simple. The people of Europe have consistently stated, time and time again, in various medims, that they simply don't want any more power to be centralized in brussels. The way the political leaders are trying to steer us would end in the abolition of national parliaments, and a sort of Unisted States of Europe style system, with Brussels acting as Washington does in the US.

Link please??? To any information pertaining to the political leaders dastardly scheme to abolish national parliaments.

Irish and Proud

Randomness wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that the average Joe who might have a few small issues with the fine points of the Treaty would have liked to have voted No knowing that this would then mean the rest of Europe stopped and said, "well Ireland has said no, hmmmm we need to take a step back here, stop other ratification processes and listen to what they have to say".

Well, would you sign a contract without knowing the real implications of it??? If we voted for Lisbon, we would certainly have been in unchartered waters - there were far too many vague areas and possible loop holes within the Lisbon Treaty document!

Randomness wrote: »

However people failed to realise that having debated, discussed and drawn out the treaty for long enough this was never going to be an option for the rest of Europe hence they responded to our rejection with "well lets keep ratifying".

...and what involvement did the people of Europe have??? As EU officials and politicians are so arrogant, did you honestly think that the No camp in general would expect otherwise! The said officials and politicians are just proving our concerns over democracy! If there was another Lisbon referendum, the margin of rejection would probably be even greater!

Randomness wrote: »

Possible the worst thing that could have happened.

We have now been hit twice, a rejection of a treaty AND the rejection of our E.U friends.

Firstly, if they don't respect a democratic decision, they are not friends of Ireland, as Ireland is a truly democratic nation! Secondly, we don't know what is going to happen until the EU meeting next week!

Randomness wrote: »

Ireland has taken and taken and in later years started giving back to the E.U.
Now when they ask us to help them out by restructuring and reforming in the best way possible for ALL states we turn are back on them.

We have become selfish - not one person I have spoken to who voted no said "what is the benefit for all of the E.U in the treaty?" all anybody wanted to know was "what do I get out of it?".

Excuse me??? What about our fishing waters? :mad:

Also, how could an undemocratic EU be the best possible way for any member state? Maybe you would rather a super-state that is all about power and influence on the world stage, rather than an EU state that holds its own in world affairs and looks after its people. Also, a super-state that genuinely helps out some of the world's poorest nations is one that will gain respect. Is the US (which is doing to the contrary) gaining world respect as of now??? Eh, that would be a big fat NO!

Randomness wrote: »

In any organisation with 27 members you are never going to be able to please every problem of every member but you can do the best to get as close to that as possible. It's a bit of a kick in the teeth when one of them won't support your efforts to improve.

Eh, you mean: ...when one of then won't support the building of a powerful dictatorship that disregards the interest of its citizens.

Remember all those promised referendums in the various EU countries that didn't materialise.

Remember the comment: "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly" ... "All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way." - V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007

Randomness wrote: »

The E.U is not prefect but it was trying to get there and we blocked that.

You're dead right that the EU is not perfect! Also, I totally agree it is trying to get somewhere mate: that somewhere though is in the form of a perfect dictatorship which would probably materialise within a generation or two!

Randomness wrote: »

Through thick and thin for the last 35 years we have punched above our weight and benefitted enormously. However I fear we have lost some of our closest friends in Europe and this marks the begining of the lost voice of Ireland in the E.U.

As I said above...

Randomness wrote: »

This small island which has been heard for so long has drawn the last straw with our neighbours patience and we will unfortunately suffers the consequences.........

Well I'd rather isolation over dictatorship!

Regards!

Mr.Nice Guy

Randomness wrote: »

Ireland has taken and taken and in later years started giving back to the E.U.
Now when they ask us to help them out by restructuring and reforming in the best way possible for ALL states we turn are back on them.

I think you'll find the selfish ones were those who refused to give citizens of nation-states a referendum on the matter. With particular mention to France and Holland whose people rejected the EU constitution, and Gordon Brown who camapigned on giving the people a referendum.

Randomness wrote:

This small island which has been heard for so long has drawn the last straw with our neighbours patience and we will unfortunately suffers the consequences.........

So we should have backed a Treaty for fear of the consequences? Wow what a wonderful Union that sure is! :rolleyes:

Read our history and you'll see we the Irish people know full well what it's like to be intimidated and threatened by an undemocratic Union. I do NOT wish to see us suffer a similar fate.

They are going to make us suffer? Bring it on. I won't be bullied or intimidated.

TelePaul

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Read our history and you'll see we the Irish people know full well what it's like to be intimidated and threatened by an undemocratic Union. I do NOT wish to see us suffer a similar fate.

Are you really comparing what I think you're comparing? :eek:

Mr.Nice Guy

TelePaul wrote: »

Are you really comparing what I think you're comparing? :eek:

Well I'm not talking about Siptu.

eoin2nc

TelePaul wrote: »

Are you really comparing what I think you're comparing? :eek:

I know, some people in this country thought that agreeing to Lisbon would mean we would lose our own government, and become part of a 'dictatorship'

The cold,harsh facts are Ireland is a tiny country on the edge of Europe. Like it or not the rest of the EU is going to move on. Call it un-democraticc or what you like, we are going to be isolated

RedPlanet

Why should we change our constitution and give up some of our sovereignty to an organisation that obviously doesn't care what we think?

Mr.Nice Guy

eoin2nc wrote: »

I know, some people in this country thought that agreeing to Lisbon would mean we would lose our own government, and become part of a 'dictatorship'

Yeah how could people think such a thing, right?

"The treaty is alive, and we should continue.

"The No vote in Ireland has not solved the problems which the Lisbon treaty is designed to solve... The European Commission believes that the remaining ratifications should continue to take their course."

- Jose Manuel Barroso

"Without doubt it is not good news, but Europe will not stop. I am convinced that, as has occurred at other times in the past in the EU, we will find a solution among ourselves."

- Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos

"I'm not prepared to surmise on that. I'm not ruling anything in or out or up or down."

- Brian Cowen on the idea of another referendum being held.

Nothing dictatorial about that attitude eh! But here's the real crack up of all time if you ask me...

"Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen."

- Preamble from the Lisbon Treaty

Nah, nothing dictatorial about these people DICTATING what happens next, eh? :rolleyes:

eoin2nc

You really dont know what a dictator is.

Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen

Please explain how that is dictatorial.


What would be dictatorial was if less than 1 million NO voters held up the treaty for the 500 million other citizens in the EU. They have every right to continue raitifying the treaty, what they cant do is force Irealnd to ratify it against the wishes of the people.

What will happen is there will be a yes vote to a change lisbon 2 treaty, IMO.The EU needs to reform itself

Mr.Nice Guy

eoin2nc wrote: »

You really dont know what a dictator is.

Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen

Please explain how that is dictatorial.

Oh the words itself are not dictatorial at all but it's a shame they are not true to them. The quotes above it most certainly are. If you think otherwise, please explain to me your reasoning.

eoin2nc wrote:

What would be dictatorial was if less than 1 million NO voters held up the treaty for the 500 million other citizens in the EU. They have every right to continue raitifying the treaty, what they cant do is force Irealnd to ratify it against the wishes of the people.

What will happen is there will be a yes vote to a change lisbon 2 treaty, IMO.The EU needs to reform itself

How is a democratic referendum dictatorial when none of the other hundreds of millions of citizens were consulted about their thoughts on the EU's agenda? They have no right to continue ratifying the treaty since it can't be implemented without all states supporting it. We have shown we do not.

is_that_so

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Oh the words itself are not dictatorial at all but it's a shame they are not true to them. The quotes above it most certainly are. If you think otherwise, please explain to me your reasoning.



How is a democratic referendum dictatorial when none of the other hundreds of millions of citizens were consulted about their thoughts on the EU's agenda? They have no right to continue ratifying the treaty since it can't be implemented without all states supporting it. We have shown we do not.

We have not ratified it and as others have posted ad nauseum different countries have different mechanisms, through parliaments, elected by their people.

Mr.Nice Guy

is_that_so wrote: »

We have not ratified it and as others have posted ad nauseum different countries have different mechanisms, through parliaments, elected by their people.

And as others have posted ad nauseum, France and Holland put essentially the same proposals to their people via referendums and Gordon Brown promised to do likewise prior to the British election.

People seem to forget this was 'Plan B' and the EU's attempt to wriggle around the blows dealt by the French and Dutch initially.

ninebeanrows

People don't seem to realise that Ireland is entering uncertain times and Friday's no vote will only compound the uncertainty with regard to our economy.

What will our multinational companies based in Ireland do when they sense this uncertainty, when they sense that Ireland will become marginalized?

I just hope the people who did vote no realise just what a big decision they have made, Ireland will suffer because of their decision, Ireland position in the EU may become untenable if all other countries ratify the treaty.

We will be asked to give reasons why we did not sign the treaty. How do we answer that.. the neigh-sayers can go and explain why they turned their backs on Europe on what could be a faithful Friday the 13th.

RedPlanet

It's not the Irish electorate that's sidelining itself, rather it's bullies in europe like France for example.
The Lisbon treaty legally cannot come into effect as it requires unanimity.

Tomorrow it's business as usual.

Any talk from the EU of side-lining ireland counts against the yeah-sayers.
Why should we dilute our sovereignty for a group that doesn't care about our opinion?

Why do we waste our time voting when the only vote that counts is the one the powers-that-be desire?

turgon

Weathercheck wrote: »

People don't seem to realise that Ireland is entering uncertain times and Friday's no vote will only compound the uncertainty with regard to our economy.

Weathercheck, the Yes side have constantly given out to the No side for voting No because of only one referenda in Europe, or the lack of respect shown by the EU leaders.

And in fairness, this reason to vote Yes, just to save the economy) is the same. It has nothing to do with the Treaty at all. I would not say Yes just cause were in tough times, that would be irresponsible imo.

Mr.Nice Guy

Weathercheck wrote: »

We will be asked to give reasons why we did not sign the treaty. How do we answer that

We tell them their proposals weren't good enough for Ireland and the rest of Europe. If they dispute this we tell them to put it to their people in a referendum and see what they have to say. We say that to Gordon Brown especially.

It's time we stopped bending over backwards for these people. Sovereignty lies with the Irish people, not with Sarkozy, Merkel and the gang.

force eleven

Weathercheck wrote: »

People don't seem to realise that Ireland is entering uncertain times and Friday's no vote will only compound the uncertainty with regard to our economy.

What will our multinational companies based in Ireland do when they sense this uncertainty, when they sense that Ireland will become marginalized?

I just hope the people who did vote no realise just what a big decision they have made, Ireland will suffer because of their decision, Ireland position in the EU may become untenable if all other countries ratify the treaty.

We will be asked to give reasons why we did not sign the treaty. How do we answer that.. the neigh-sayers can go and explain why they turned their backs on Europe on what could be a faithful Friday the 13th.

Turning our backs on Europe? Perhaps they have turned their backs on us with this treaty? I am sure I am not alone, as an EU watcher for over 20 years see it becoming a more and more powerful entity, way beyond the benefactor it was to us in the 70's and 80's. Back then it was very good for us, trade wise, business wise and economically it made sense. Markets were opened for us and we recieved substantial funding to help our infrasructure. Now, its all about how they interfere, yes, that is the word I have come to use, in most other aspects of our lives. Its not a question of the EU changing the way things are done so that 27 nations can co exist happily. Its about integration, union, the 'Project', and dare I use the word,federalism. I want to be part of the EU, but I don't want to 'integrated'. I don't believe all the outcry this time over our neutrality or abortion etc, but it 'could' be on the cards in a few years time. Who knows? All we really have done in practical terms is pissed of a few hundred federalists and M.Sarkozy's prestige. I can live with that. And I do not want to vote on this again.

Mr.Nice Guy

force eleven wrote: »

Turning our backs on Europe? Perhaps they have turned their backs on us with this treaty? I am sure I am not alone, as an EU watcher for over 20 years see it becoming a more and more powerful entity, way beyond the benefactor it was to us in the 70's and 80's. Back then it was very good for us, trade wise, business wise and economically it made sense. Markets were opened for us and we recieved substantial funding to help our infrasructure. Now, its all about how they interfere, yes, that is the word I have come to use, in most other aspects of our lives. Its not a question of the EU changing the way things are done so that 27 nations can co exist happily. Its about integration, union, the 'Project', and dare I use the word,federalism. I want to be part of the EU, but I don't want to 'integrated'. I don't believe all the outcry this time over our neutrality or abortion etc, but it 'could' be on the cards in a few years time. Who knows? All we really have done in practical terms is pissed of a few hundred federalists and M.Sarkozy's prestige. I can live with that. And I do not want to vote on this again.

Absolutely spot on. Well said.

There are people, including on this forum, who like to present the result as a slap in the face to the EU for the benefits we in Ireland received in the past. However, as you point out, the EU has been slowly morphing into something quite different.

The vote was not about how the EU treated us in the past, but how it would treat us and others in the future. Based on the evidence put before me on that, I felt a No vote was the only sensible decision and, like yourself, do NOT want this vote again.

ninebeanrows

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

We tell them their proposals weren't good enough for Ireland and the rest of Europe. If they dispute this we tell them to put it to their people in a referendum and see what they have to say. We say that to Gordon Brown especially.

It's time we stopped bending over backwards for these people. Sovereignty lies with the Irish people, not with Sarkozy, Merkel and the gang.

Yes Mr Nice Guy, i agree, give a popular vote on the treaty to all EU nations.

Then the treaty would be ratified.

Would you like that? Or would you not because you would lose?

Your view of Democracy leaves alot to be desired, you seem to think Ireland is some big punching weight in the E.U, get a grip, we're Ireland with a population of 4 million. It's about time you realise that. We have achieved so much for a small entity thanks to the E.U .

Mr.Nice Guy

Weathercheck wrote: »

Yes Mr Nice Guy, i agree, give a popular vote on the treaty to all EU nations.

Then the treaty would be ratified.

Would you like that? Or would you not because you would lose?

Your view of Democracy leaves alot to be desired, you seem to think Ireland is some big punching weight in the E.U, get a grip, we're Ireland with a population of 4 million. It's about time you realise that. We have achieved so much for a small entity thanks to the E.U .

I would love to see all nations given a referendum on the Treaty and for every country to have to endorse it. Of course you and your ilk do not want that because you know it would be swiftly rejected. As far as I'm concerned things should have died off following the French and Dutch EU Constitution rejections. If the British were given a referendum on Lisbon they would reject it too.

My view of democracy doesn't leave a lot to be desired. I believe in respecting the will of the people.

Just because you have some inferiority complex with your 'we have a population of 4 million' guff (who cares?) doesn't mean we should become the whooping boys of Europe. I'm proud of this country.

force eleven

Weathercheck wrote: »

Yes Mr Nice Guy, i agree, give a popular vote on the treaty to all EU nations.

Then the treaty would be ratified.

Would you like that? Or would you not because you would lose?

Your view of Democracy leaves alot to be desired, you seem to think Ireland is some big punching weight in the E.U, get a grip, we're Ireland with a population of 4 million. It's about time you realise that. We have achieved so much for a small entity thanks to the E.U .

I agree the governments of the day should make the decisions of the day that they were voted in to do on the bread and butter issues for each country.. However, we are not talking about budgets, or health spending,job creation policy etc or . In this case they want to implement a treaty that will have an impact on ordinary citizens lives, across virtually the whole of Europe. Its that important, that the peoples across Europe should have had a chance to decide. They didn't, but we thankfully did. My views of how the EU should proceed won't be heeded, but as long as I can vote on it, I will try.

dsane1

Just wondering is there any reliable eu wide survey that shows what the people in the rest of europe really feel about the treaty ?

ninebeanrows

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I would love to see all nations given a referendum on the Treaty and for every country to have to endorse it. Of course you and your ilk do not want that because you know it would be swiftly rejected. As far as I'm concerned things should have died off following the French and Dutch EU Constitution rejections. If the British were given a referendum on Lisbon they would reject it too.

My view of democracy doesn't leave a lot to be desired. I believe in respecting the will of the people.

Just because you have some inferiority complex with your 'we have a population of 4 million' guff (who cares?) doesn't mean we should become the whooping boys of Europe. I'm proud of this country.

If there was a popular vote across the EU on the treaty i would be near certain (99.9%) that it would be ratified.
Or do you not respect the opinions of all the European people, i find it likely that you just respect the views of the old block, that's not so democratic. Perhaps you would suggest we pull out of the EU?

ircoha

Weathercheck wrote: »

People don't seem to realise that Ireland is entering uncertain times and Friday's no vote will only compound the uncertainty with regard to our economy.

What will our multinational companies based in Ireland do when they sense this uncertainty, when they sense that Ireland will become marginalized?

I just hope the people who did vote no realise just what a big decision they have made, Ireland will suffer because of their decision, Ireland position in the EU may become untenable if all other countries ratify the treaty.

We will be asked to give reasons why we did not sign the treaty. How do we answer that.. the neigh-sayers can go and explain why they turned their backs on Europe on what could be a faithful Friday the 13th.

In truth Weathercheck you have put it correctly when u say it was a faithful Friday 13th: we were faithful to our values, heritage, culture, history and most of all common sense.
I suspect you meant fateful Friday 13th, but maybe not:)

The treaty was a slight of hand: just look at page 9 and 10 of the RefCom booklet: this would have been our last ref for large tracts of EU business, therefore overwriting our Constitution and Courts.

The 160 odd TD's between them could not set out in plain english what it was about.
The aristocrats in Europe did not publish the full treaty as they did not want it easily readable.

Fially we need to keep our sense of perspective. There is nobody dead

dloob

Well it puts us in a bit of a hole but we can't do anytihng about that now the vote was No, it's up to Cowen to get us out of it.
God help us.

Mr Nice Guy, you say No to another referendum, but would you support one if the treaty was amended to address some of the Irish concerns?
The renegotiation that some on the No side spoke about.
By support I don't mean voting yes to it, but just support the holding of another vote.
That would require re-ratification in the other 26 of course, so I'm not sure it could happen before Jan 1st deadline anyway.

I agree that nobody could justify another vote on the same text without changes.

As an aside I was amused to see the Sunday Mail has discovered we will lose our commisioner next year,a bit late lads.
Of course they are spinning it as revenge from the EU which in their words would "bizarrely have been prevented by lisbon until 2014".

Crash

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I would love to see all nations given a referendum on the Treaty and for every country to have to endorse it. Of course you and your ilk do not want that because you know it would be swiftly rejected.

Actually, I'd say it would pass. Of course, thats on the basis if you went and did it as a general majority vote.

Because to be honest, If you did it as a referenda per country and then each country getting a vote, it'd be equally as undemocratic as it is now. There's only black and white in democracy folks - either something is or isn't.

Mr.Nice Guy

Weathercheck wrote: »

If there was a popular vote across the EU on the treaty i would be near certain (99.9%) that it would be ratified.
Or do you not respect the opinions of all the European people, i find it likely that you just respect the views of the old block, that's not so democratic. Perhaps you would suggest we pull out of the EU?

Hold on, a popular vote across the EU on the treaty? How would that work when the EU is not a nation-state? And you are questioning my democratic values?

Let's put referendums to ALL member states and see where we are. Or do you feel that certain nation-states should be influenced by what goes on in other sovereign states?

dloob wrote:

Mr Nice Guy, you say No to another referendum, but would you support one if the treaty was amended to address some of the Irish concerns?
The renegotiation that some on the No side spoke about.
By support I don't mean voting yes to it, but just support the holding of another vote.
That would require re-ratification in the other 26 of course, so I'm not sure it could happen before Jan 1st deadline anyway.

Not on this Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty should be considered dead. Even those on the Yes side have said as much. Here is what Eamon Gilmore has stated:

The result means that the EU is now entering an uncertain period. The situation will clearly have to be reviewed by EU Leaders at their summit in Brussels next week. However, it is not clear what action, if any, the summit can take. There can certainly be no question of putting the same Treaty back to another referendum in Ireland.

Of course they are entitled to renegotiate another Treaty which would require the support of the Irish people but no more referendums on the Lisbon Treaty and no more referendums prior to January 1st.

Mr.Nice Guy

crash_000 wrote: »

Actually, I'd say it would pass. Of course, thats on the basis if you went and did it as a general majority vote.

Because to be honest, If you did it as a referenda per country and then each country getting a vote, it'd be equally as undemocratic as it is now. There's only black and white in democracy folks - either something is or isn't.

It would be completely unjustifiable and undemocratic to put it to a general majority vote. That would have been akin to putting the Good Friday Agreement to a general majority vote across the island, rather than in both jurisdictions as happened.

Referenda in every country would not be undemocratic. Far from it. If all countries need to support it, then put it to all countries. If one defeats it, back to the drawing board.

axer

eoin2nc wrote: »

What would be dictatorial was if less than 1 million NO voters held up the treaty for the 500 million other citizens in the EU.

Who's fault is that? Is it our fault that we are the only country to ask their people what they thought?

Instead of quoting 1 million blah blah how about quoting 53.4% of europeans asked in referenda voted no.

Some EU members' leaders should be ashamed of themselves. They have since justified the No vote.


p.s. Mr. Nice guy - the quote in your signature is miscredited to Voltaire. It should be credited to E. Beatrice Hall.

Crash

But essentially unanimaty isn't democratic. It places such restrictive constraints that it isn't. If you're going to argue the democracy card every single time, at least sit down and work out exactly what your views on what is democratic and what isn't are, and try to explain them. And if you do, please don't start your sentences with

My view of democracy doesn't leave a lot to be desired. I believe in respecting the will of the people.

I mean, do you believe in direct democracy for large sections of law? only EU law? where do you believe representative democracy stands? Because so far, from a large number of posters here, there is such a conflicting view of how representative democracy is ****, we can't trust our politicians, but at the same time barely 50% of us (from both sides now, i'm not just having a go at your views ) will turn out to vote, but we still can't trust these ****.

I don't get, at all, what half the people here seem to believe as democracy. Its bantered around as a buzz word, but no ones sat down and even tried to properly state it

Mr.Nice Guy

crash_000 wrote: »

But essentially unanimaty isn't democratic. It places such restrictive constraints that it isn't. If you're going to argue the democracy card every single time, at least sit down and work out exactly what your views on what is democratic and what isn't are, and try to explain them. And if you do, please don't start your sentences with...

Democracy means rule of the people. I voted for Labour last year in the election and hoped to see a change of government. It didn't happen but that's democracy. I accept the will of the people even though I didn't like it (and still don't).

crash_000 wrote:

I mean, do you believe in direct democracy for large sections of law? only EU law? where do you believe representative democracy stands? Because so far, from a large number of posters here, there is such a conflicting view of how representative democracy is ****, we can't trust our politicians, but at the same time barely 50% of us (from both sides now, i'm not just having a go at your views ) will turn out to vote, but we still can't trust these ****.

I believe in listening. That's the way it has to be. I wish all of the EU states would do so.

crash_000 wrote:

I don't get, at all, what half the people here seem to believe as democracy. Its bantered around as a buzz word, but no ones sat down and even tried to properly state it

Well to me it involves being answerable to the people and I hope Brian Cowen respects the mandate he has been given, even though he did not ask for it.

dloob

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Not on this Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty should be considered dead. Even those on the Yes side have said as much. Here is what Eamon Gilmore has stated:



Of course they are entitled to renegotiate another Treaty which would require the support of the Irish people but no more referendums on the Lisbon Treaty and no more referendums prior to January 1st.

I guess if they did change it, it would no longer be the Lisbon treaty.
You are right though that another vote on Lisbon as it is cannot be justified.
No excuses about the public didn't understand it. The Yes side (which I supported) knew that was a problem and should have addressed it.

ionix5891

i would like to point out certain inconsistencies in your logic Mr. Spock

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Democracy means rule of the people.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

... it involves being answerable to the people

but?!

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It would be completely unjustifiable and undemocratic to put it to a general majority vote. .

:rolleyes: enough said

limklad

dloob wrote: »

No excuses about the public didn't understand it. The Yes side (which I supported) knew that was a problem and should have addressed it.

You seem to be in the minority on the "Yes Camp" to realise this fact. Well done.

Good changes takes time if it worth doing then it will eventually come into force with the people will and blessing. Lisbon Treaty is the Governments pet project, Not the Peoples (The true boss of the Governments, a fact they fail to realise). Too much has been lost over the centuries on different types of bad governance.

Impatience Politicians cause more harm than good. People with good intention in a hurry cause more harm than good. Our government had plenty of time to explain the treaty and they blew it. The Irish people either did not trust them or believe their message. Trusting Europe Politicians from others countries and who we cannot elect takes time and their comments in the media only causes us to question their true motives.

sink

limklad wrote: »

You seem to be in the minority on the "Yes Camp" to realise this fact. Well done.

I voted yes but I don't belong to any camp, I am independent and make my own decisions. I agree that groups campaigning for a yes vote failed to inform the public why it was a good idea.

I however would say many yes voters like me refuse to get dragged into some sort of partisan head bashing contest. If there is a serious point to be debated I will get involved, but I am not going to get involved in arguments pointless name calling and broad sweeping generalisations.

Edit: This comment is not directly target at you.

limklad

sink wrote: »

I voted yes but I don't belong to any camp, I am independent and make my own decisions.

Independent people and who make their own decisions, I like, because they questioned things, if things are good or bad and democracy protect that.

sink wrote: »

I agree that groups campaigning for a yes vote failed to inform the public why it was a good idea.

Yes, they did and extremely bad explaination and it was one reason why I voted No, if Lisbon was good for us which they kept saying and then they kept explaining past benefits which was the result of Past treaties and was a very good reason to keep the status quo and another reason in why I voted no.

sink wrote: »

I however would say many yes voters like me refuse to get dragged into some sort of partisan head bashing contest. If there is a serious point to be debated I will get involved, but I am not going to get involved in arguments pointless name calling and broad sweeping generalisations.

Independent and emotional maturity, that is good to know, my kind of person.

sink wrote: »

Edit: This comment is not directly target at you.

Do not worry, I do not easily get offended, I just like to debate and discuss facts and events. This post is not all directly at you.

hmmm

limklad wrote: »

and was a very good reason to keep the status quo and another reason in why I voted no.

One thing that should have been explained in the campaign is that the status quo was not on offer. Sure the "no" camp would have you think it was, but it's not. We can either go with our other 26 EU members or we can leave. The other possibility is that we say "no" to everything and they are forced to work around us.

DarkJager

Just read this and personally I think this brainless dick should resign:

RTE.ie Article wrote:

The Dáil concluded its debate on the result of the Lisbon Treaty Referendum earlier this evening.

During the debate, Junior Minister Martin Mansergh suggested that the holding of a referendum on each EU Treaty needed to be looked at.

He said the system of holding referendums 'needs to be looked at carefully if we are not continually to be hampered in the future vis-a-vis all other member states'.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0618/eulisbon.html

Continually hampered??? The NO vote was the people of Irelands decision on the Lisbon treaty, so in essence, this guy is saying the public shouldn't be allowed to vote on such things?

PopeBuckfastXVI

DarkJager wrote: »

Just read this and personally I think this brainless dick should resign:



http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0618/eulisbon.html

Continually hampered??? The NO vote was the people of Irelands decision on the Lisbon treaty, so in essence, this guy is saying the public shouldn't be allowed to vote on such things?

Offside!

That 'brainless dick' basically wrote the good friday agreement and has done more for this country in his lifetime than you ever could in five of yours.

limklad

hmmm wrote: »

One thing that should have been explained in the campaign is that the status quo was not on offer. Sure the "no" camp would have you think it was, but it's not. We can either go with our other 26 EU members or we can leave. The other possibility is that we say "no" to everything and they are forced to work around us.

If you read Page three of the Referendum Commission that they posted to every electorate, you will see what they stated about what happens if we vote YES and Vote NO.

www.lisbontreaty2008.ie wrote:

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/HandBookEng.pdf

What happens if you vote Yes?
If a majority of the voters vote “yes” then the
Constitution of Ireland will be changed and Ireland
will ratify the Treaty. If all the other EU Member
States also ratify the Treaty, then it will come
into effect. The Member States have stated their
intention to bring the Treaty into effect in January
2009 if possible.
What happens if you vote No?
If a majority of the voters vote “no” then the
Constitution will not be changed and Ireland may
not ratify the Treaty. The Treaty will come into
effect only if it is ratified by all Member States.
The EU would continue to operate under its
present rules.

Vote No Means Status Quo unless you still want to disagree with the Referendum Commission.

Why is there such a rush to get Lisbon treaty through? Croatia & Macedonia which is the next state to join is four years away according to commenter’s reports.
After that is the rest of the Balkan states, which is way off in the future for now and Turkey which is complying with the EU is been kept at bay by France who is the Major objector, Not Greece & Cyprus. Both Greece & Cyprus know the the Cyprus issue will be resolve before Turkey will join the EU. I have no problem with Turkey Joining the EU and I will welcome their entry as I did with all the previous countries that joined.

Sarkozy wrote:

French President Nicholas Sarkozy (then a candidate) has stated in January 2007 that "enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not accept...I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union.

A small but productive fraction of Turkish territory lies in the common geographical definition of Europe, but this is where the country's largest city and its economic and cultural capital, Istanbul, is located.

I think it’s a hypocritical comment from Sarkozy since Cyprus is part of the Anatolia's continental shelf, not European Continental shelf.

Turkey have been a Major Player and Infulence in Europe throughout our recent History (going back few centuries).

Read more at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union

So I firmly believe their is many red-herring and scaremongering by the Yes Campaign and by EU leaders.

FrankGrimes

limklad wrote: »

Turkey have been a Major Player and Infulence in Europe throughout our recent History (going back few centuries).

Hey limklad - that's some well made points there. The perceived rush with Lisbon is many of those involved have spent 7 years working on it and so are not likely to be too positive about delays to it.

Just on the Turkish comment, I don't want to take this thread off-topic so will just leave it at this - yes, Turkey had some interactions with Europe throughout history, but go back a few centuries and you'll see one of the fundamental reasons that Europe became the centre of world power at that time was due to its naval strength. And the main reason it developed that naval strength was to obtain an alternative means of accessing the spice trade in the far east as they couldn't get their easily by land as that would have meant going through the landblock controlled by the Ottoman empire, which wasn't something too many Europeans were willing to try.

limklad

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Hey limklad - that's some well made points there. The perceived rush with Lisbon is many of those involved have spent 7 years working on it and so are not likely to be too positive about delays to it.

Just on the Turkish comment, I don't want to take this thread off-topic so will just leave it at this - yes, Turkey had some interactions with Europe throughout history, but go back a few centuries and you'll see one of the fundamental reasons that Europe became the centre of world power at that time was due to its naval strength. And the main reason it developed that naval strength was to obtain an alternative means of accessing the spice trade in the far east as they couldn't get their easily by land as that would have meant going through the landblock controlled by the Ottoman empire, which wasn't something too many Europeans were willing to try.

There been many treaties or should I say many negotiations that been going on longer on and off that took ages before coming to an agreement. Treaties are result from negotiations.
Look at Northern Ireland, there was only two sides and took several decades with behind the scenes negotiations originally between the IRA and the British government!!. The EU took along time to form. There was a lot of talk between governments for years before EC was created for the creation of the EU. They needed to drop "Ecomonic" from the Title and have it "European Community" before proceeding.

Turkey would be a valuable member to the EU much more so than any other country that joined us n recent years, and it would enhance our standing in the Muslim world that we do not discriminate, currently we (The EU) are consider anti-Muslim because of our dealing with Turkey and seen as Pro-Christians only which is untrue.


Back to the Creation of the Lisbon Treaty. As We all know Lisbon Treaty was created after the Failure of the EU Constitution which was rejected by France and Holland. It was written to replace all existing Treaties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Constitution

The New treaty was created to bypass the people to Prevent Rejection which I believe is very undemocratic despite the EU countries governments stating, that the treaty is more democratic. It a very undemocratic way to get more “allegedly” democratic which is still been debated. Main order came from Sarkozy.

But Our Constitution under article 6 and the Crotty Judgement 1987 of the Supreme Court, allowed us to vote on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotty_v._An_Taoiseach


I think the EU commissioner debate is Daft, as we already lost it in the future for periods in time under the NICE treaty. Their role is as quoted below.
“Member states nominate commissioners and while they pledge to serve the interests of the EU”
An EU leader can make a telephone call to the President under the Lisbon Treaty have more an effect than having an commissioner anyway, as the commissioner is the President “employee” who is to serve the EU commission and EU Citizens, not their country.
I also Firmly believe that the Military and Tax issues were secure before Voting NO. I had other reasons as stated in other posts withing the thread of the "European Union" section on boards.ie as well as some mentioned here.

Europe Politicians Quotes wrote:

"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments ... There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at meeting of senior MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007

"The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary ... But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention."
- V.Giscard D'Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007


"Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires. We have the dimension of Empire but there is a great difference. Empires were usually made with force with a centre imposing diktat, a will on the others. Now what we have is the first non-imperial empire."
- Commission President J-M Barroso, The Brussels Journal, 11 July 2007

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
- V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speech in the European Parliament, 27 June 2007

"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004."
- Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007

"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable ... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007

"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."
- Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Economics, 21 February 2007

"If it's a Yes, we will say 'On we go', and if it's a No we will say 'We continue.'"
- Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister and holder of the EU Presidency, Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2005

How can anyone claim that the integrity of the “Lisbon Treaty” is not tarnish by their comments, it is anything else but democratic? These are the People who are the ones who put it together.


Merkel and Sarkozy is both blocking enlargement without Lisbon.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1412461.php/Merkel_backs_Sarkozy_No_enlargement_without_Lisbon__Extra_

Also the Solidarity Clause is very vague to me lots of may and could been mentioned, I did not see it before Voting NO, It is very vague and I hope that "If Lisbon Treaty is passed" that it will not undermine the Military opt out that we currently exists, that depends how the clause can be interpret in Law. It is a concern and I would like the government Lawyers (NOT politicians) & AG to confirm that this is not an issue.

Scofflaw

Also the Solidarity Clause is very vague to me lots of may and could been mentioned, I did not see it before Voting NO, It is very vague and I hope that "If Lisbon Treaty is passed" that it will not undermine the Military opt out that we currently exists, that depends how the clause can be interpret in Law. It is a concern and I would like the government Lawyers (NOT politicians) & AG to confirm that this is not an issue.

Hmm. First, it's actually unrelated to the "common defence" provisions, which exist, and which we have both currently opted out of and introduced a constitutional bar on joining in future, so that a referendum would be required to opt back in.

Second, it's not a military clause itself - it's "aid and assistance" by itself, with a proviso that interpretation of it cannot contradict the security/defence/foreign policies of member state governments - which in our case is military neutrality, so it cannot be interpreted as military aid in our case.

Third, within the proviso mentioned, it is possible for non-neutral states to choose to interpret in a way that allows them to render military aid (but not to require it of others).

That's why it's "vague" - it's up to the interpretation of the individual member state (and no-one else, since the ECJ has no right to rule on military/defence/foreign matters).

Curiously enough, that means we've essentially entered an unequal commitment - if another member state suffers armed aggression on their territory, we are neither obliged nor likely to give them military assistance under the clause (although other member states probably will) - but if we suffer armed aggression on our territory, other member states probably will offer us military aid under the same clause.


cordially,
Scofflaw

axer

Scofflaw wrote: »

but if we suffer armed aggression on our territory, other member states probably will offer us military aid under the same clause.

NATO and the UN already will so why do we need the EU to?

Scofflaw

axer wrote: »

NATO and the UN already will so why do we need the EU to?

Neither NATO nor the UN are obliged to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

axer

Scofflaw wrote: »

Neither NATO nor the UN are obliged to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO wrote:

the organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.

Are you saying that this piece of text about NATO is incorrect?