More than 70% of 'No' voters thought a second treaty would be negotiated.

What Vision?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/revealed-why-we-voted-no-to-lisbon-1412027.html

is there allot of egg one someones face.

is this down to the No campaign saying it could be renegotiated and then people believed that there would be a second referendum. Just like Nice²

thecaptain

If you investiagte, you will find that this survey was carried out by the european commission. Biased ????????????????????

They are trying to paint make the sensible, non propaganda effected voters as stupid.

I voted NO, hoping that no second treaty wpuld be negociated.

I want out of Europe. It is the same old media game, people have already accepted a second vote. A disgrace.

And to think this treaty was to make the EU more democratic, and yet we vote NO and it is going to be pushed through regardless.

It has had an interesting side effect, people are finally realising that we do indeed live in a totalitarian state.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you don't have a clue what a totalitarian state looks like.

honest to good, move to north korea for a few years and then tell us how awful europe is to us.

jackass.

What Vision?

No offence but you sound like you are rambling on like a hardcore british eurosceptic.

nesf

What Vision? wrote: »

is this down to the No campaign saying it could be renegotiated and then people believed that there would be a second referendum. Just like Nice²

That would seem like the obvious cause.

Billywalsh

thecaptain wrote: »

If you investiagte, you will find that this survey was carried out by the european commission. Biased ????????????????????

They are trying to paint make the sensible, non propaganda effected voters as stupid.

I voted NO, hoping that no second treaty wpuld be negociated.

I want out of Europe. It is the same old media game, people have already accepted a second vote. A disgrace.

And to think this treaty was to make the EU more democratic, and yet we vote NO and it is going to be pushed through regardless.

It has had an interesting side effect, people are finally realising that we do indeed live in a totalitarian state.

Well go and move out of Europe then... We won't cry, honestly.

Gambler

thecaptain wrote: »

And to think this treaty was to make the EU more democratic, and yet we vote NO and it is going to be pushed through regardless.

So you're saying that Ireland has the right to say to all the other member states that they can't try and implement a new Lisbon treaty of their own?

I personally wouldn't be surprised if the lisbon treaty is put out again as a new treaty to all the member states except Ireland which will then ratify and leave us out in the cold.

What dissapoints me the most is that people accepted all the lies of the no campaign. Actually sorry, let me rephrase that, what dissapoints me the most is that the government didn't do enough to actually challange the claims of the no campaign properly.

The only time I heard proper details about the workings of the QMV system was through posts here on Boards (threads like this one really educated me on what was ACTUALLY going to happen if we voted yes). Why didn't we hear the government take the time to actually make this argument.

We all got one of those "8 reasons to vote no" leaflets, why didn't we get a responding flyer from the political partys challenging each of the points made and showing them for the blatant lies that they were?!

Scofflaw

What Vision? wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/revealed-why-we-voted-no-to-lisbon-1412027.html

is there allot of egg one someones face.

is this down to the No campaign saying it could be renegotiated and then people believed that there would be a second referendum. Just like Nice²

Well...except that Nice wasn't renegotiated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well...except that Nice wasn't renegotiated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Do you think most people really distinguish between adding bells and whistles and full on renegotiation?

force eleven

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well...except that Nice wasn't renegotiated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And yet we still had to vote on it for a couple of forgotten clauses that were added to 'appease' us. Oh, and of course 35% turnout on Nice 1 wasn't really a proper vote. I highly doubt a Lisbon 2 will be offered by the way, but a possible 'EU,take it or leave it' scenario might. That will show how the EU has become.

ixtlan

nesf wrote: »

Do you think most people really distinguish between adding bells and whistles and full on renegotiation?

I agree that they don't and that may be a good thing, because it makes it slightly more acceptable to offer Lisbon 2 with declarations.

That's what was so frustrating about the debate. It was not about the real content but rather a big shouting match about what the content meant.

For example if declarations said...

We solemnly declare that abortion is the domain of the Irish government and her people via referendum. Nothing in this or any future treaty may change that position. The EU will never force Ireland to adopt any laws whatsoever in relation to abortion.

We solemnly declare that Ireland is under no obligation whatsoever to send any military assistance to any EU state in any circumstances. Ireland is not obliged to spend any money whatsoever on it's military if that is it's decision. Any aid and assistance regarding the solidarity clause is entirely at the discretion of the Irish government and may comprise only humanitarian supplies.


Now this is not a renegotiation since the treaty already implies this through the original Maastrict protocol and in the military clause, but you can bet people would consider it so. The anti-groups would still campaign that the treaty itself had not changed and so the danger was still there, but if the people had those simple declarations to read they might very well be satisfied and less likely to be swayed.

Actually I am annoyed the government did not see this coming and didn't get these declarations issued a few weeks before the referendum and then posted to every house.

I do understand that to the no side a re-vote sounds like arrogance and lack of respect for the will of the people. However it seems the will of the people was to get guarantees about some of these matters which they couldn't understand in the treaty.

Ix

nesf

ixtlan wrote: »

Actually I am annoyed the government did not see this coming and didn't get these declarations issued a few weeks before the referendum and then posted to every house.

Noel Whelan on Q&A last night made a good point when he noted that the six month campaign that should have been there prior to the referendum was "hijacked" by FF's own political crisis over the past year. It doesn't excuse it but it does explain the lack of such a campaign.

ixtlan

force eleven wrote: »

And yet we still had to vote on it for a couple of forgotten clauses that were added to 'appease' us. Oh, and of course 35% turnout on Nice 1 wasn't really a proper vote. I highly doubt a Lisbon 2 will be offered by the way, but a possible 'EU,take it or leave it' scenario might. That will show how the EU has become.

Well, if those clauses (declarations external to the treaty actually) satisfied the concerns that the people had, then surely it was democratic to request another vote. If the additions were insufficient we could have said no again, and got more guarantees and so on.

If Lisbon 2 is delayed until 2010, it will become the treaty for the accession of Croatia. Then people will be voting whether to accept the Croats and will have a stronger reason...maybe.

Having said that I can see the shouting matches now, about how Lisbon is not needed to admit Croatia, they could come in under Nice, and the government is trying to hoodwink the people again.

Ix

partholon

well its in the INDO so it MUST be true

NONE of these feckers seen a no coming so why should we trust their "analysis" now?

of course theres going to be another treaty, lisbon is dead, so even if they want to go on with out us a new one will have to be drafted. might only be missing a few lines from this one but it will have another name.

SkepticOne

Gambler wrote: »

The only time I heard proper details about the workings of the QMV system was through posts here on Boards (threads like this one really educated me on what was ACTUALLY going to happen if we voted yes). Why didn't we hear the government take the time to actually make this argument.

Because the country as a whole is fundamentally eurosceptic. Therefore, the government tried to sell the Yes side on the basis of the opt-outs, derrogations, vetoes and so on that minimised the integrationist aspect of the treaty rather than selling integrationism as a positive thing in itself. If the government had gone on about how great QMV is then the Yes vote would have been defeated even more resoundingly than it was.

Hitman Actual

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the figure is as high as 70%. It was Sinn Feins only real message in the campaign, and they pushed it really hard. And I'm sure there are plenty of uninformed Yes voters who would have expected it to be renegotiated if there was a No vote. It's probably unfair to just label the accusation at the No voters.

Sand

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the figure is as high as 70%. It was Sinn Feins only real message in the campaign, and they pushed it really hard. And I'm sure there are plenty of uninformed Yes voters who would have expected it to be renegotiated if there was a No vote. It's probably unfair to just label the accusation at the No voters.

True, SF are proclaiming the vote as being a mandate for renegotiation and as one of the major forces in the no vote with their "activists" its probably a line that was very heavily pushed by them to their target voters.

Mightnt be a bad idea if they were packed off to Brussels to negotiate this Lisbon deal that will favour Irelands interests, without pissing off all 26 other members and their special interest groups. When theyre ready to admit the EU treaty negotiation business is harder than it looks then perhaps things can progress.

Renegotiation isnt likely to be honest - Lisbon was the Plan B, so given it was rejected for reasons that had nothing to do with the Lisbon tready [ abortion, conscription, too many taxis on the streets, I hate Bertie and all them bastards in the Dail, I prayed to God and he told me to vote no to punish the EU for not putting HIM in their constitution etc etc etc....] theres no reason to believe Plan C will pass either so what would be the point?

More likely, what will happen is the other EU states will press on with ratification so only Ireland has failed to ratify. The matter than gets raised to the EU courts and a compromise deal hammered out where the rest of the EU progress with Lisbon, and Ireland agrees to sit out any negotiation or voting which the Lisbon treaty has effect but on the other hand isnt bound by the decisions reached. An EU of two groups occurs, Ireland and everyone else who ratified the treaty. Everyones a winner - the wish of the Irish people is respected, and the rest of the EU continue on their own seperate path.

Re-running the referendum has been ruled out, but its not impossible the UK fails to ratify the treat as Brown is already dying on his arse having learned this PM lark isnt all its cracked up to be. A quick populist "On your Bike Pierre and Fritz!!" move might win over tabloids.

If that happens, then its likely the dispute between the Euro-Lite states ( The UK and friends, presumeably Ireland) withdraw to a second tier free market association with the EU [or withdraw entirely], and the EU states seeking deeper integration continue on with their own plans freed from having to compromise with UK euro-skeptism.

Gambler

SkepticOne wrote: »

Because the country as a whole is fundamentally eurosceptic. Therefore, the government tried to sell the Yes side on the basis of the opt-outs, derrogations, vetoes and so on that minimised the integrationist aspect of the treaty rather than selling integrationism as a positive thing in itself. If the government had gone on about how great QMV is then the Yes vote would have been defeated even more resoundingly than it was.

Where do you get the idea that the country as a whole is fundamentally eurosceptic??? This is the first time in the history of the state that a european referendum with high voter turn out was turned down. Everyone that I spoke to who was planning to vote no was voting purely on this "we'll only have an 8% say in the running of europe" drivel that libertas kept spouting out.

I'd love to see the poll or statistics that show that more than 50% of Irish people would rather see us out of the EU.

is_that_so

SkepticOne wrote: »

Because the country as a whole is fundamentally eurosceptic. Therefore, the government tried to sell the Yes side on the basis of the opt-outs, derrogations, vetoes and so on that minimised the integrationist aspect of the treaty rather than selling integrationism as a positive thing in itself. If the government had gone on about how great QMV is then the Yes vote would have been defeated even more resoundingly than it was.

I wish they had. They sold nothing to the nation apart from touched up posters of their councillors and TDs. I suspect a similar poll on the Yes side would have offered something like,

For the country
Not voting with the Loons
I've read it and I agree with/support it
The party/AN Other told me to.

I disagree that we are fundamentally Eurosceptic, not in the same way Britain is. I don't believe the question was asked anyway. There is no evidence apart from a degree of confusion as to why people voted No. It certainly highlights some level of unhappiness but not what that is.

This time there were any number of arguments for people to say No and few if any to say Yes. The poll at least offers some possible insight into those reasons.

cabinteelytom

The posts on this topic , in different threads, on this website are overwhelmingly pro-treaty; which prompts the question, 'How representative are boards posters of the Irish people?'
Will any poster admit to voting against the treaty, who now regrets their choice, and would, if they had the chance again , vote 'yes'?
Such a 'public' gesture of repentance could be an inspiring role model (cf lives of the saints) which , even if completely bogus, could help the lisbon II campai(g)n.
Come forward, euro-sinners!

The real danger , of course, is that people who are normally kept firmly out of the political decision-making process (otherwise known as the plain people of Ireland) learned on Friday 13th, that they have power...and it might be difficult to put them back in their box.

VoidStarNull

There seems to be a little confusion over what was found in the cited poll. According to the Irish Times article,

When asked what the No vote would mean in the future, 84 per cent of people said it would keep Ireland's tax system; 83 per cent said it would keep Irish neutrality; 77 per cent said the Government would renegotiate; 60 per cent said the Nice Treaty would remain in place; and 59 per cent said that Irish decisions on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage would prevail.

Note that here people are saying what they THINK will happen, not what they want to happen or why they voted NO. Also according to the Irish Times,

When asked to give a single reason for voting No, 40 per cent of people replied that they didn't understand the treaty. A fifth of respondents said they voted No to protect Irish identity while 17 per cent of respondents said they didn't trust politicians or Government policies.

Other reasons cited for voting No were: to protect Irish neutrality (10 per cent); to keep an Irish EU commissioner (10 per cent); and to protect the tax system (8 per cent).

That confirms what many have said, that a lot of people voted NO because they didn't understand the treaty. However, that doesn't mean that they voted out of ignorance. They may have believed that the treaty is in fact incomprehensible or ambiguous, which would arguably be valid reasons for voting NO. (It was also an argument used repeatedly, ad nauseam, by the NO campaign).

VoidStarNull

Another point to make here is that there is not much evidence that NO voters were taken in by false arguments.

The second most popular reason for voting NO, "to protect Irish identity", is a general Euro-sceptic (xenophobic?) viewpoint that does not depend on opposition to the specifics of the treaty.

Of those who voted to protect Irish neutrality, some may have been genuinely concerned about the treaty's (rather weak) references to the military.

Of those who voted to keep our commissioner, many were probably fooled but others may have felt that both Lisbon and Nice can be re-negotiated (!)

Instead, the NO campaign seems to have succeeded in spreading confusion and unease about what is actually in the treaty, rather than convincing voters on specific points (as well as successfully mobilizing those who are opposed to the EU anyway).

Hitman Actual

VoidStarNull wrote: »

Another point to make here is that there is not much evidence that NO voters were taken in by false arguments.

Are you sure? From the same link:

Irish Times wrote:

When asked what the No vote would mean in the future, 84 per cent of people said it would keep Ireland's tax system; 83 per cent said it would keep Irish neutrality; 77 per cent said the Government would renegotiate; 60 per cent said the Nice Treaty would remain in place; and 59 per cent said that Irish decisions on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage would prevail.

Edit: But I guess this includes what Yes voters thought as well, although it doesn't explicitly state that.

Hitman Actual

Also, why did so many younger people vote no:

Irish Times wrote:

Young people between the age of 15 and 29 voted against the treaty by a factor of two to one, a finding that is labelled as "very serious" in an explanation of the referendum result prepared for commission president José Manuel Barroso. The explanation concludes that those on the No side in the referendum campaign saw little negative consequences arising from their vote.

A surreal moment from Saturday night for me: I was in a nightclub and the DJ announced "Congrats to all you guys who voted No", to be greeted by huge cheers. Weird as hell. I don't remember Nice being like this.

Then at a party later, the general consensus was that Ireland had pulled off a great coup by rejecting the treaty. As if we'd defeated our evil EU overlords or something.

hmmm

lenny_leonard wrote: »

Then at a party later, the general consensus was that Ireland had pulled off a great coup by rejecting the treaty. As if we'd defeated our evil EU overlords or something.

Anecdotally I saw two reasons for the high no vote amongst younger voters

1. They hate our current politicians - can't blame them on that
2. They don't understand the economics of Europe i.e. that access to EU markets is what matters, taxation and so on is a secondary issue. E.g. they wanted to protect our corporate tax rate.

The first issue I would tackle by asking people to protest in some other way, maybe at the local elections. The second will take a campaign of education on Europe as a whole.

FrankGrimes

Did the poll include a question to find out how informed the respondents were on the actual content and meaning of the referndum (i.e. 'did you read the treaty, did you read the referendum commission material explaining the treaty, or did you just rely on what you heard from political partoes and campaigners, the media, and word of mouth). I think that would be very interesting information and would probably show just how uninformed the majority of voters (both sides probably) were.

As for the survey results, I really feel it shows how misled a lot of No voters were by the Shinners and Libertas 'we can get a better deal' argument. Will those voters now be asking those parties exactly how they envisaged that better deal happening?

It's a reflection of just how incompetent the Yes campaign was, but there's no denying the findings that a very significant portion of No voters voted that way for reasons that don't actually relate to the contents of this specific referendum. I feel in the absence of much information on why to vote Yes, a lot of people just let themselves be influenced by whatever negatives they heard from the No campaign, regardless of whether or not they were relevant to the treaty in any way.

I also acknowledge that the remainder of the no vote was made up of people who were informed on the content of the referendum and decided they did not support it, though the 20% voting to maintain our sovereignty can probably be regarded as the anti-EU vote as this treaty did not handover any real additional sovereignty. As I have said elsewhere, I have very little regard for anyone voting no as a protest against the government - the effects of accepting or rejecting this treaty will last long after this current set of politicians have come and gone so that sort of narrow-minded, short-term view is a very lazy and misguided option in my opinion.

VoidStarNull

Personally I think the poll shows that the weak YES campaign was the decisive factor in the result.

Although people expressed some confused ideas about what might happen next, relatively few people cited the specific arguments advanced by the NO side as the reason why they voted NO. Decisively, 40% of NO voters were simply unsure and suspicious of what the treaty contained, rather than being upset about any identifiable part of it.

The YES campaign was not able to reassure these voters that the treaty was benign, probably because of comments about not having read it, and the fact that some prominent campaigners were caught out making mistakes. The general impression must have been that the govt simply hadn't done its homework, and that it was safest to vote NO. The widely quoted (and mis-represented) remark from V. Giscard D'Estaing reinforced this view.

PHB

Anyone have access to the polling tables or even a more detailed report?

Morgans

Just to clarify two things before I post. a) I voted Yes and b) Sinn Fein are in no position to be the final arbiter of what the No vote meant. However, to me since last Thursday there appears to be a finger pointing attitude from the Yes side of "look what kind of mess you have got us in" - always saying that the Irish people's vote is repsected, but barely hiding the disdain. Its the same here as in the regular media.

Anyway, in the middle of this "arent we in a pile of doo-doo now" attitude, the Yes side are at pains to support the ratification of the treaty in the other 26 countries. We have to respect the democratic structures of the other EU nations. However, a blind man can see that it has little to do with respecting the democracy of the other nations, but an effort to crystalise the 26 vs 1 sitution that the Yes side warned everyone about. No doubt Libertas and the non-governmental organisations will be chastened.
This will lead to a situation where the arguement of 800K holding back the rest of europe will be hammered down our throat.

Anyway, my basic point is that there is a lot of finger wagging from the defeated side of the treaty saying "see, there wasnt a plan B" "you have hoodwinked the irish public" "arent we in the sh1t now" " See there was no easy renogotiation"

Yet, when asked for their idea of what will happen after all 27 countries have gone through their ratification process, the idea that the Yes side have (Brigid Laffan, Dick Roche and others in various media over the last week) is that despite being unable to legally sanction Lisbon, an agreement will be reached where Ireland can participate with the rest of the EU, which may require another referendum, but may not.

Surely, this agreement will be tailored to bringing Ireland into the fold. Possibly it will state in clearer terms that military expenditure will not be increased, and have pronouncements on Irish neutrality, possibly irish tax, and abortion (god knows why this is an issue). Surely this is the most likely outcome.

If Ireland does get this effort to bring them back to the fold, and its an if, then it is an effective renegotiation of a treaty, and a better deal for Ireland than what the original Lisbon presented. Thus, the No side, and the No vote will have helped the legal standing of Ireland in Europe and would need to be thanked for getting more than was initially offered.

The goodwill effect of the No vote of course is impossible to quantify.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Morgans wrote: »

Just to clarify two things before I post. a) I voted Yes and b) Sinn Fein are in no position to be the final arbiter of what the No vote meant. However, to me since last Thursday there appears to be a finger pointing attitude from the Yes side of "look what kind of mess you have got us in" - always saying that the Irish people's vote is repsected, but barely hiding the disdain. Its the same here as in the regular media.

Anyway, in the middle of this "arent we in a pile of doo-doo now" attitude, the Yes side are at pains to support the ratification of the treaty in the other 26 countries. We have to respect the democratic structures of the other EU nations. However, a blind man can see that it has little to do with respecting the democracy of the other nations, but an effort to crystalise the 26 vs 1 sitution that the Yes side warned everyone about. No doubt Libertas and the non-governmental organisations will be chastened.
This will lead to a situation where the arguement of 800K holding back the rest of europe will be hammered down our throat.

Anyway, my basic point is that there is a lot of finger wagging from the defeated side of the treaty saying "see, there wasnt a plan B" "you have hoodwinked the irish public" "arent we in the sh1t now" " See there was no easy renogotiation"

Yet, when asked for their idea of what will happen after all 27 countries have gone through their ratification process, the idea that the Yes side have (Brigid Laffan, Dick Roche and others in various media over the last week) is that despite being unable to legally sanction Lisbon, an agreement will be reached where Ireland can participate with the rest of the EU, which may require another referendum, but may not.

Surely, this agreement will be tailored to bringing Ireland into the fold. Possibly it will state in clearer terms that military expenditure will not be increased, and have pronouncements on Irish neutrality, possibly irish tax, and abortion (god knows why this is an issue). Surely this is the most likely outcome.

If Ireland does get this effort to bring them back to the fold, and its an if, then it is an effective renegotiation of a treaty, and a better deal for Ireland than what the original Lisbon presented. Thus, the No side, and the No vote will have helped the legal standing of Ireland in Europe and would need to be thanked for getting more than was initially offered.

The goodwill effect of the No vote of course is impossible to quantify.

Given the possible downsides though, and the chance that this 'likely outcome' won't happen, it's a bit of a game of Russian Roulette though.

These 'concessions' are things that were already in the treaty and in Nice, just restated in clearer English.

VoidStarNull

We're probably going off topic here, but what the hell.

The danger that I see is that we end up with a 2-speed Europe, in which Ireland is in the slow lane. In that case our contribution to European policy will be much reduced, which I think is a shame for both us and the EU.

The only way of avoiding a 2-speed Europe is another referendum. But that might take place under circumstances that are humiliating for Ireland, and in any case there is no guarantee it would pass.

The NO vote has launched us into a game of brinksmanship in which we have little to gain and much to lose. Even if the outcome is favourable, I don't think the risk is worthwhile.

PopeBuckfastXVI

VoidStarNull wrote: »

We're probably going off topic here, but what the hell...

+1

I'm all out of 'thanks', can't believe I used my last one on a No voter, hope you're enjoying it ShooterSF

Morgans

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Given the possible downsides though, and the chance that this 'likely outcome' won't happen, it's a bit of a game of Russian Roulette though.

These 'concessions' are things that were already in the treaty and in Nice, just restated in clearer English.

That is fair enough, but even that would be a victory - removing ambiguity from the treaty would have helped enormously, and stopped the No side from engaging in scaremongering.

But again the Yes side are very pointedly saying that there is no renegotiation but then thinking the likely outcome - which might not happen - is an effective renegotiation/clarification.

DublinWriter

SkepticOne wrote: »

Because the country as a whole is fundamentally eurosceptic.

I wouldn't say that, the majority of us have always been happy with being in the EU.

I think the reason the majority of people voted no was because as a nation we're pretty ticked off with our politicians and the way things are going in general with health and transport infrastructures.

So it followed that when our elected betters asked us to vote 'Yes' we voted 'No' as a protest vote more in relation to what was going on at home than in Europe.

SkepticOne

DublinWriter wrote: »

I wouldn't say that, the majority of us have always been happy with being in the EU.

I think the reason the majority of people voted no was because as a nation we're pretty ticked off with our politicians and the way things are going in general with health and transport infrastructures.

So it followed that when our elected betters asked us to vote 'Yes' we voted 'No' as a protest vote more in relation to what was going on at home than in Europe.

When I say eurosceptic I mean there is little enthusiasm for any sort of "European Project". I'm not sure there's much enthusiasm in other countries either, but you will at least find public figures willing to talk about the ultimate purpose of Europe, it's destination.

Do we have figures like Giscard D'Estaing networking behind the scenes promoting, not his vision of France and it's place in Europe, but his vision of Europe itself?

Boggle

I wouldn't say that, the majority of us have always been happy with being in the EU.

There's a difference in being part of the EU and being effectively ruled by the EU which is clearly the end game here.

nesf

Boggle wrote: »

There's a difference in being part of the EU and being effectively ruled by the EU which is clearly the end game here.

Some want that, I'm not sure if they are a big enough group to push it through though.

Boggle

Some want that, I'm not sure if they are a big enough group to push it through though.

And I would have counted myself in that group as I thought that a larger, more professional parliament would be less prone to dumb policies than our own. Unfortunately I now think that bigger governments just need bigger bribes and that maybe its better to have some chance of ousting a bad leader than no chance...

Does that make any kind of sense at all??

Rented Mule

Was I under the misunderstanding that all Member States would have to ratify this document or it would be 'dead in the water' ?

There was no 'Plan B' for Europe is the talk that I heard.

Now all of a sudden they are pushing it through in other Member States and there is talk of a Tier Two Europe in the making ?

The confusion post-election Lisbon Treaty seems to be alot greater than before.

ixtlan

Rented Mule wrote: »

Was I under the misunderstanding that all Member States would have to ratify this document or it would be 'dead in the water' ?

There was no 'Plan B' for Europe is the talk that I heard.

Now all of a sudden they are pushing it through in other Member States and there is talk of a Tier Two Europe in the making ?

The confusion post-election Lisbon Treaty seems to be alot greater than before.

Obviously there was no plan B, and the yes side said that. Why should anyone be surprised at the confusion.

Lisbon is dead in the water. There is a possibility that with added guarantees or small changes we can vote again. However I'd expect that no politician in Ireland would go near that unless opinion polls were showing a big big swing to the yes side.

Regarding ratification it continued after the constitution treaty failed in France for 18 months.

As for the 2-tier Europe, certainly we can block any attempts to create this, but we have to ask the question whether that is in our interest, to be the no man of Europe. The Ian Paisley if you will. It's not unreasonable for the others states to say "fine you don't want Lisbon, but we do, release us to do as we wish". That however is not going to happen without another referendum. If that vote goes no too though you can expect plan B to be ready and waiting.

Ix

hmmm

Rented Mule wrote: »

Was I under the misunderstanding that all Member States would have to ratify this document or it would be 'dead in the water' ?

There was no 'Plan B' for Europe is the talk that I heard.

Now all of a sudden they are pushing it through in other Member States and there is talk of a Tier Two Europe in the making ?

It's fairly simple. Yes Lisbon is dead if one country blocks it.

The EU can do a couple of things
1) Carry on with the ratifications and hope Ireland changes its mind - what they're doing now
2) The other 26 countries can ratify a similar treaty amongst themselves - the 2 tier Europe

We have the right to block Lisbon. We do not have the power to block whatever 26 other countries want to do on their own. The "no" side seems to have peddled this notion that the status quo was on offer if we voted no, it wasn't.

lostexpectation

the entire article is usual indo bumpkin

http://dublinopinion.com/2008/06/17/the-irish-independent-and-the-non-existent-european-commission-report/

SkepticOne

hmmm wrote: »

2) The other 26 countries can ratify a similar treaty amongst themselves - the 2 tier Europe

I'm very interested in this idea. It has been repeated many times but no one seems to know how it might work. It seems to me that these other countries that might ratify a treaty among themselves will still be governed by a commission operating under the Nice framework. Any 'similar' treaty changing the way the EU institutions work will still require Ireland's ratification. I stand to be corrected here, of course.

Can you put some flesh on this idea you have? I can see that, say, Germany, France and Holland might agree to cooperate on, say, scientific research in a particular area, for example, but I don't think that is what people are getting at here.

hmmm

SkepticOne wrote: »

Can you put some flesh on this idea you have? I can see that, say, Germany, France and Holland might agree to cooperate on, say, scientific research in a particular area, for example, but I don't think that is what people are getting at here.

I'm not an expert and I don't know if anyone really knows how to pull it off, but I'm sure it's manageable. There is little to stop a group of countries getting together multilaterally to agree on even some fundamental issues of sovereignty, e.g. the creation of the Euro. As you mentioned there is also few issues with bilateral arrangements.

Where it gets more tricky is institutional change. Here I could see the other 26 countries renaming the Lisbon treaty and ratifying it in their parliaments. They could then ask the Irish government not to veto the revised multilateral treaty under something like enhanced co-operation. I could see Ireland being involved in some meetings but not in others e.g. asked to leave the room when discussion of EU foreign policy takes place. We will have a veto on pretty much everything, but do we really want to be the Ian Paisley of Europe as someone mentioned here earlier by using that veto.

I don't think we'll ever get to that and the prospect of Ireland being "thrown out" is unthinkable, but I'm sure the core Euro countries do not have infinite patience and will wish to move on.

marco_polo

lostexpectation wrote: »

the entire article is usual indo bumpkin

http://dublinopinion.com/2008/06/17/the-irish-independent-and-the-non-existent-european-commission-report/

In fairness it is not impossible that someone could have leaked some of the the preliminary finding to a newspaper is it?

Especially as an article in the Irish Times reported pretty much the same thing too albeit different aspects of it.

lostexpectation

well the indo could have been upfront about it.

rte a reporting it now with direct quotes from the european commision can anyone find the poll.

should it be here

http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_en.htm

lostexpectation

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11579372

A telephone poll of 2,000 people organised by the European Commission found a majority of men voting yes, but a majority of women no. Young people under 29 voted against Lisbon by two to one. In other words, a 19th-century-style electoral roll, restricted to older, male property-owners, would have produced a handsome yes for Lisbon. But would that have been more democratic?

lostexpectation

RD notices the confusion over the poll aswell

http://www.richarddelevan.com/2008/06/19/poll-why-ireland-voted-no/

still don't see it on their site!! i hate org who gives things to the media and don't make it the available on their site.

Crash

So you hate companies that publish information through well defined media outlets, but OMFG ITS NOT ON TEH INTERNET YET?

Jaysus. I think I prefer the days of finding news out in the paper first. People were less needy and demanding.

Hitman Actual

In fairness, in the Times article, they did say they were preliminary findings:

Irish Times wrote:

according to the preliminary findings of the poll of 2,000 voters taken at the weekend.

And:

Irish Times wrote:

A more comprehensive analysis of the results will probably be published by the commission later this week.

So I don't think they're trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes.

lostexpectation

SkepticOne wrote: »

]

crash_000 wrote: »

So you hate companies that publish information through well defined media outlets, but OMFG ITS NOT ON TEH INTERNET YET?

Jaysus. I think I prefer the days of finding news out in the paper first. People were less needy and demanding.

getting the complete numbers rather then select quotes from various newspapers, i would find that pretty damned important.