Are the big EU countries engaged in bullying Ireland's voters?

darkman2

The Ireland “no” vote: a big earthquake
Despite the protestations of the European elites, the vote changes the whole future of the EUAnatole Kaletsky
What will historians of the future recall as the most important event in Europe during the summer of 2008? Will it be the jump in oil prices to $140 or the aftermath of the great financial crisis? Will it be the orderly succession to the Russian Presidency of Dmitri Medvedev? Will it be the return of 1970s-style stagflation - or maybe even the collapse of Gordon Brown's Government after a summer of discontent? Or will it be the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

Even to mention such a parochial, bureaucratic event in the same paragraph as the economic and political upheavals shaking the world this summer is to invite ridicule as a narrow-minded Euro-obsessive.

That, at least, is the view of the British media and political classes, who lost all interest in the Irish “no” vote within days of this astonishing event. And surely “astonishing” is a fair adjective to describe this overwhelming democratic reaction to the political direction of Europe, by three million people who have risen, in a single generation, from penury to become the Continent's wealthiest nation, as a direct result of joining the EU?

Such “ingratitude” by the Irish people towards the European political elites may strike us in Britain as perfectly natural, since it corresponds so closely to the way most people here feel. Moreover, all three of our main political parties seem to believe they have a mutual interest in treating this as a case of “small earthquake, not many hurt”.

Background

No meant no
In continental capitals, by contrast, the Irish “no” is seen as a tectonic shift that could transform the landscape of Europe for decades to come. Certainly the Irish “no” has triggered much more intense debate from Brussels, Berlin and Paris to Prague, Warsaw and Moscow than it has in London.

The continental interpretation is likely to prove more prescient than the studied indifference of the Westminster Village. First, The “no” vote presents Europe with a deeply embarrassing political dilemma.

Either the EU must abandon the trappings of statehood - a president, a diplomatic service and ultimately an army - created by the Lisbon treaty; or Europe's leaders must back away from their self-righteous pretensions to democracy by overturning a clear and unequivocal democratic judgment, on the ground that voters made the “wrong” choice.

At the very least, the Irish vote - coming after equally clear rejection of previous EU treaties or institutional initiatives, such as the euro, by referendums in France, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden - will deprive the EU's continuing political development of all democratic legitimacy. Anyone who claims that the EU has any interest in reducing its “democratic deficit” will in future be laughed at.

However European leaders respond, the Irish “no” will be seen as a historic confirmation of the anti-democratic nature of the EU project. If the EU political project is now abandoned, it will be a testament to its repeated rejection by voters across Europe. And if the project continues despite the Irish objection, it will be final proof that EU leaders don't care what voters think.

But the damage to the “European project”, as it is conceived in Brussels, Berlin and Paris, will go far beyond such ideological symbolism. As a practical matter, European governments will find it almost impossible to proceed with their political designs. This is not, of course, the message being sent out to the Irish Republic and the outside world from the capitals of Europe (including London). The official line is that the other EU countries will continue to ratify the Lisbon treaty and all the institutional developments will go on. Ireland will then be left in a minority of 26 to 1 - and will be asked to think again.

If the Irish Government refuses to do so, or its people vote “no” a second time, fairly explicit threats are already being issued about expulsion from the EU. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign Minister, was quoted in The Financial Times this week as suggesting that “one way to implement the treaty was for Ireland to withdraw temporarily from the process of European integration”.

For the German, French and EU leadership such strong-arm tactics are now the only way to achieve the political advances they seek - and it is surely right to expect such threats to intensify in the months ahead. Where the conventional wisdom seem wrong, however, is in assuming that these bullying tactics will work. The Irish are a notoriously stubborn people who have withstood many generations of external bullying and they may now start to treat Europe, instead of Britain, as an overbearing colonial power.

To make matters worse. the popularity of the Irish Government, along with all the other governments of Europe, is certain to fall further in the year ahead, as the European economy declines. In Ireland's case, economists now expect the first recession since the early 1980s, hardly a propitious period in which to conduct a second referendum.

This brings us to the second reason for believing that the Irish “no” will permanently change the history of Europe: the Euro-federalists have very little time left either to reverse the Irish “no” or to find a way of expelling Ireland from the EU. This is because of a looming deadline that does not yet seem to have been noticed in Brussels, Berlin or Paris, but which commentators and politicians in Britain should surely recognise.

If Euro-federalists cannot find a “satisfactory” solution within 18 months or so to the Irish problem, the prospects of bullying Ireland into acquiescence will completely evaporate because of a political event here in Britain - the next general election. If the Tories win it, there will no longer be any chance of isolating Ireland in a 26 to one minority. With a Conservative government in Britain a prospect by the spring of 2010, Euro-federalist efforts to isolate or threaten Ireland, would inevitably be opposed by Britain.

Any alternative “process of European integration”, as Mr Steinmeier diplomatically describes the possible expulsion of recalcitrant Ireland, would have to take place without Britain - and with Britain opting out, Sweden, Denmark and several Central European countries, such as the Czech Republic, almost certainly would too. Under these circumstances bullying the Irish voters into changing their minds would result not in Ireland's expulsion, but in the break-up of the EU. That is not a price that either the Germans or the French would pay for the right to have a president of Europe.

So time is on the side of the Irish in their dispute with the Euro-federalist bullies. All the Irish have to do is stick to their guns and keep talking. Luckily the Irish are good at both.

Interesting article from the Times even if I dislike its British tory tones. OK I will say, quite readily, I do feel bullied as an Irish voter at the aggression and ignorance being shown to us by our EU counterparts (governments). When France and Holland voted no they were not being treated like this. We are being threathened with expulsion from a Union we are an integral member of in the most extreme cases but I believe all this is calculated to get the other 26 to ratify and turn around to Ireland and say 'think again'. This is the form of bullying taking place. Its in a sense the hidden bullying that is the most serious by people who dont have the guts to ask their own electorates. It is the contempt shown for a sovereign people who made a sovereign decision that is making me very uneasy. Either we are respected in Europe or we are not. Clearly we are not. I would have voted Yes in a new referendum after the bloody nose the government and EU got if we were being treated like a democratic state. I am not going to do so now. How dare they tell us we are so stupid as a people that we cannot see what we are voting for? Its the way they say it. The condescension is unbeleivable. No other country would put up with this. Brian Cowen should have the balls to go to Europe and say this treaty is dead in return for this treatment. This treaty should be completely dead anyway. At least now we know what the future holds for small countries in the EU in future.

ThE_IVIAcIVIAIV

the EU is not such a bully like YORE MA

Run_to_da_hills

The more I hear of this bullying cr*p the more I dig my heals in, especially from the Finks. F*&^k them.

chem

Some might even say its not just the bigger countries that are bullies. Maybe its closer to home!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PRa-WDJOY

Sherifu

They seem to be trying to convince the voters for next time round alright. Having to vote again is a certainty at this stage imho.

chem wrote: »

Some might even say its not just the bigger countries that are bullies. Maybe its closer to home!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PRa-WDJOY

He could do with brushing up on the law.

darkman2

I hope if there is a second vote the Irish people will remember the reaction to this vote because its not right to put a small country under pressure like this.




On the guard in that clip - id have gone to the Garda station and reported the Guard if it was me - the Guard has no business as far as im aware interfering there. They did not look to be doing anything wrong. But then thats the video - maybe off screen they could have been acting like muppets.

darkman2

lol Check this vid out


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NuBkiaoTa0&NR=1


Look what happens at the end. Obviously the gaurds dont like being filmed:D

chem

Next time they might try the classic YES means NO and NO means YES game! To get the vote going there way.

Yep I agree. A video can be made to look like anything with clever editting, but to not know the law you are ment to uphold, then try to enforce a law you think is there is really the irish way.

Wertz

Saw an interview with William Hague on Ch4 news last night that was saying the same thing more or less as the above article...I hold no love for the tories (f*ck you Maggie) but it was heartening to hear the guy turn around and stick up for the No side and that the most important thing that should come out of this is that this result (and any subsequent ones) should be respected and not just glossed over by the big boys in Brussels...

As for bullying? It's to be expected...these guys want things to go their way...a bunch of eejits on the periphery of the supersta...sorry, continent is standing in their way ("after all we've done for them" ; ingrates)...did anyone really expect them to roll over and say "Oh well, that's that then"? There is far too much at stake for those other countries...our little concerns shouldn't impact on those far away lands...which funnily enough, is my whole problem with an enlarged and empowered EU in the first place...

chem

darkman2 wrote: »

lol Check this vid out


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NuBkiaoTa0&NR=1


Look what happens at the end. Obviously the gaurds dont like being filmed:D

Darkman you might be right there!

Look at this classic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSumJ-X1h8A&feature=related

Might I just point out I have notting to do with shell to sea or anything its just I seen this on youtube after your post.

GhostInTheRuins

chem wrote: »

Some might even say its not just the bigger countries that are bullies. Maybe its closer to home!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PRa-WDJOY

What a prick

utick

another shell to sea one, this time the gardai get physical at the end http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtuhvBpEsIU&feature=related

GhostInTheRuins

utick wrote: »

another shell to sea one, this time the gardai get physical at the end http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtuhvBpEsIU&feature=related

Excellent

alan4cult

It may be bullying but we're winning.

chem

Looks to me like someone is a not happy:o

mickdw

heard some european finance guy talking to irish journalist about harmonisation of taxes across europe. Irish guy asked: Is there any possibility of irish being forced to change company tax laws based on the changes he was proposing.
Answer: Any changes would have to be ratified by each member state.

Those euro chiefs always play that card but now knowing that they pretty much ignore smaller state votes such as the irish vote, does that mean that they would attempt to bully us into tax changes just like they are trying to do now on the lisbon vote. I think so.
Vote NO.

dotsman

chem wrote: »

Some might even say its not just the bigger countries that are bullies. Maybe its closer to home!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PRa-WDJOY

darkman2 wrote: »

lol Check this vid out


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NuBkiaoTa0&NR=1


Look what happens at the end. Obviously the gaurds dont like being filmed:D

chem wrote: »

Darkman you might be right there!

Look at this classic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSumJ-X1h8A&feature=related

Might I just point out I have notting to do with shell to sea or anything its just I seen this on youtube after your post.

utick wrote: »

another shell to sea one, this time the gardai get physical at the end http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtuhvBpEsIU&feature=related

Christ, I wouldn't have minded if the guards had given those gob****es a few slaps.

Some knacks with a camera out trying to stir **** abusing a law that was put in place for good reason.

And what was the one where the english? guys were following a guard around? Where they joyriders or what was the story?

Rb

They're trying to bully the Irish voters, in that Sarkozy is trying to pressure every other country into ratifying the thing asap in an attempt to ensure we're the only ones left out, so to speak.
He'll be over on July 11th in an effort to pressurise Cowen & co into holding another election.

I hope it's put up for another vote, and I hope that it screams No again. These people have the eyes of the media watching right now, yet they could give a fúck. Fúck Democracy, they know what they want and they're going to try to get it in any way possible.

Speaks volumes about the French and Germans, at least their reaction does anyway. One is a country full of cheese eating surrender monkeys who can't even handle immigration & integration, now ruled by some f*cking nutcase who apart from showing his true colours after our result, turned up to G8 summits bollocksed! The other is 100% responsible for the Nazi's and the devastation they caused, which isn't even that long ago. Neither should be given any more power than they already have, these people aren't fit to be Europes voice on the world stage.

F*ckers.

brianthebard

I think it says a lot about the eu that the one time all membes states are supposed to be equal is when the big nations put most pressure on the smaller ones.

darkman2

Ironically this means the Tory party are now our best friends. How the f**k did that happen?



Germany of course has a history of pushing small countries around that they would rather people forget. Thanks for reminding us.

thelordofcheese

Rb wrote: »

Speaks volumes about the French and Germans, at least their reaction does anyway. One is a country full of cheese eating surrender monkeys who can't even handle immigration & integration, now ruled by some f*cking nutcase who apart from showing his true colours after our result, turned up to G8 summits bollocksed! The other is 100% responsible for the Nazi's and the devastation they caused, which isn't even that long ago. Neither should be given any more power than they already have, these people aren't fit to be Europes voice on the world stage.

F*ckers.

Cheese eating surrender monkeys and Nazi's in one post. Genius. And by genius i mean in a "only on the internet could this drivil be utter with such conviction" sort of genius

We're being bullied is it? I don't recall being bullied by anyone. Of course it's easier to imagine a vast and oppressive EU conspiracy and that they're all out to get plucky widdle ireland.
Us against them is easier to present to people than any kind of actual argument rooted in reality.

Rb

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Cheese eating surrender monkeys and Nazi's in one post. Genius. And by genius i mean in a "only on the internet could this drivil be utter with such conviction" sort of genius

We're being bullied is it? I don't recall being bullied by anyone. Of course it's easier to imagine a vast and oppressive EU conspiracy and that they're all out to get plucky widdle ireland.
Us against them is easier to present to people than any kind of actual argument rooted in reality.

In fairness, something has to be said about Sarkozy and Merkel deciding to gather up the representative from every country the day after our vote and going, in the words of the media, "to pressure them into ratifying".

We've already seen the President of Poland backpeddle after having some private words with Sarkozy (god only knows what was said...but it's hilarious that they'd take the country that makes it near to impossible for Poles to get work in seriously), who knows what he's said to the rest of them?

You're naive to think they're not trying to ensure it's an everyone vs Ireland result in order to pressure us into conforming, or being able to use it as leverage to make threats.

hmmm

Rb wrote: »

Speaks volumes about the French and Germans, at least their reaction does anyway. One is a country full of cheese eating surrender monkeys who can't even handle immigration & integration, now ruled by some f*cking nutcase who apart from showing his true colours after our result, turned up to G8 summits bollocksed! The other is 100% responsible for the Nazi's and the devastation they caused,

I can (sortof) understand why people voted no, what I don't understand is where all these xenophobic dailymail readers have emerged from. Were they always around? Where did they crawl out of? I hope they're not representative of all no voters.

It's one thing to say to countries which have been great friends and benefactors of ours over the year that we don't want to join them in their current plans, it's something else to start hurling schoolyard abuse at them.

thelordofcheese

Rb wrote: »

In fairness, something has to be said about Sarkozy and Merkel deciding to gather up the representative from every country the day after our vote and going, in the words of the media, "to pressure them into ratifying".

The media will say whaever will sell the most copies. If they thought they could get away with reporting that Sarkozy and Merkel were attempting to summon satan to get lisbon passed they'd print it.

Rb wrote: »

We've already seen the President of Poland backpeddle after having some private words with Sarkozy (god only knows what was said...but it's hilarious that they'd take the country that makes it near to impossible for Poles to get work in seriously), who knows what he's said to the rest of them?

I'm sure he just glared at them and stroked his persian cat. Seeing as we're going with Sarkozy being some sort of machevellian uber-villian

Rb wrote: »

You're naive to think they're not trying to ensure it's an everyone vs Ireland result in order to pressure us into conforming, or being able to use it as leverage to make threats.

Once again, this only works if you believe the EU is being led by a group of evil masterminds who are out to get us all. I don't.

Then again i don't scream with incoheriant rage when the topic of a second referendum comes up, seeing as it would be great way to address the concerns people claimed to have about lisbon the first time and see if there is actually a workable solution or is the lisbon treaty actually incompatable with the wishes for the majority of irish people.

Thirdfox

I wasn't in the country but would have (idealistically) voted no. Pragmatically I probably have gave it a yes vote (looking at the economic/political implications of a no vote).

However, I think many people who voted no (and those who voted yes) were ignorant of the facts of the treaty itself (not even bothering to read the referendum commission's booklet).

So personally I don't think referendums are the way forward - direct democracy leads to mob rule, and in the case of uneducated people making uneducated decisions this is certainly not what is best for the country in my opinion. At least give people an exam before they are allowed to vote - we have licenses to drive, there should be licenses to vote too.

luckat

I thought Lisbon *was* the second referendum, no? The European Constitution was repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty for us to vote on again, since we didn't like the E-Con?

turgon

utick wrote: »

another shell to sea one, this time the gardai get physical at the end http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtuhvBpEsIU&feature=related

Shell to Sea = full of shìt

Oh so you can film anyone because its a public place. Crap. So I could video little girls in a public place?

Thirdfox

turgon wrote: »

Shell to Sea = full of shìt

Oh so you can film anyone because its a public place. Crap. So I could video little girls in a public place?

Speaking as a law student and as a keen photographer - yes, you can. People have a right to privacy in their own homes. Outside, unless specifically protected no such privacy exists.

If I want to go down to the park and take pictures of children playing etc. I have just as much right to take their picture as any adult/tree/flower's picture. Of course what is legal and what is socially acceptable may be different but if someone takes a picture of your son/daughter and you're not happy you can ask but they have no legal obligation to delete that photo (or ask permission to take it in the first place). There are some issues like harassment etc. but taking one picture of someone in public (child or not) is definitely fine.

Some councils have set up bye-laws prohibiting photography in playgrounds though, which I personally think is idiotic and doesn't protect children from paedophiles at all (which is what you are suggesting in your post I suppose).

brianthebard

Obviously it sucks when people vote against your opinions thirdfox,but that doesn't mean you should sanction them for it.I hold the principles of government by the people and referendum very dear and am a bit miffed when people compare a referendum to mob rule.

Thirdfox

brianthebard wrote: »

Obviously it sucks when people vote against your opinions thirdfox,but that doesn't mean you should sanction them for it.I hold the principles of government by the people and referendum very dear and am a bit miffed when people compare a referendum to mob rule.

In my post I had stated that I personally wanted to vote no... so the result was in line with what I wanted but I am not happy with the way it came about (through lies and half-truths, which many people seemingly believed).

I have started a proper thread in the politics forum about the fundamental meaning of democracy and how best to implement it. AH I realise may not be the best place for such discussions.

I think democracy is the best solution we've come up with so far, but our implementation of it seems to be capable of improvement. I don't want someone who knows nothing (or even worse mis-truths) about something to be deciding my future. And if people aren't willing to inform themselves (that Lisbon Treaty booklet would have taken 15 minutes tops to read) then the privilege of voting should not be extended to them.

dotsman

brianthebard wrote: »

Obviously it sucks when people vote against your opinions thirdfox,but that doesn't mean you should sanction them for it.I hold the principles of government by the people and referendum very dear and am a bit miffed when people compare a referendum to mob rule.

A Referendum, in principle, I hold very dear. i.e. people make an informed decision on what's best for the country. But the Lisbon vote was one of the most perverse examples of democracy I can think of. I'm not talking about the result, more as to why people voted (both the yes and no). TBH, I don't think it should be put to referendum, it's a bureaucratic document that affects the internal running of Brussels, and short of putting the masses through a Law degree and giving them a few years experience in politics, the vast majority are not going to understand it themselves and will listen (and possibly allow themselves to be influenced) by any old crap shouted at them.

Abortion/divorce/death penalty etc are things that people understand and they understand the consequences of how they vote and have a fair (although maybe not 100%) understanding of how it will impact their lives.

Epic Tissue

utick wrote: »

another shell to sea one, this time the gardai get physical at the end http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtuhvBpEsIU&feature=related

The camera man there sounds (and acts) like a real jackass to be honest.
:rolleyes:

darkman2

dotsman wrote: »

A Referendum, in principle, I hold very dear. i.e. people make an informed decision on what's best for the country. But the Lisbon vote was one of the most perverse examples of democracy I can think of. I'm not talking about the result, more as to why people voted (both the yes and no). TBH, I don't think it should be put to referendum, it's a bureaucratic document that affects the internal running of Brussels, and short of putting the masses through a Law degree and giving them a few years experience in politics, the vast majority are not going to understand it themselves and will listen (and possibly allow themselves to be influenced) by any old crap shouted at them.

Abortion/divorce/death penalty etc are things that people understand and they understand the consequences of how they vote and have a fair (although maybe not 100%) understanding of how it will impact their lives.

Hold on - it was put to the people. They said 'NO'. What do you not understand about those two letters?

dotsman

darkman2 wrote: »

Hold on - it was put to the people. They said 'NO'. What do you not understand about those two letters?

I understand the definition of the word "no". I understand it's meaning. I understand it consists of the letters "n" and "o" and not the letter "x". How many people who voted "no" (or some who voted "yes") can say the have the same level of understanding when it comes to the treaty?

randylonghorn

Thirdfox wrote: »

I don't want someone who knows nothing (or even worse mis-truths) about something to be deciding my future. And if people aren't willing to inform themselves (that Lisbon Treaty booklet would have taken 15 minutes tops to read) then the privilege of voting should not be extended to them.

While I agree that people should read / inform themselves, I would also argue that political parties who want people to vote their way should respect their intelligence and engage with them properly, rather than feeding them soundbites of the "Europe is good for you" variety.

They were taught that lesson once before by the Irish people, but it seems they failed to learn it.

And hey, I was a "yes", if not an overly enthusiastic one ...

On the broader issue, what you argue for earlier comes across as "rule of the intelligentsia" ... an at times attractive, but ultimately very dangerous concept.

RATM

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Then again i don't scream with incoheriant rage when the topic of a second referendum comes up, seeing as it would be great way to address the concerns people claimed to have about lisbon the first time and see if there is actually a workable solution or is the lisbon treaty actually incompatable with the wishes for the majority of irish people.

Was it not incompatible the first time? Do you not respect the Irish vote?

thelordofcheese

RATM wrote: »

Was it not incompatible the first time? Do you not respect the Irish vote?

Surveys done post lisbon showed a somewhere around 70% of No voters voted that way because they thought "a better deal could be negotiated for", in essence they were holding out for something like the second Nice vote that adressed their concerns either real or imaginary.

And quite frankly i have no respect for anyone who'd use such a pathetic attempt at a cheap shot like "Do you not respect the Irish vote".

keen

ThE_IVIAcIVIAIV wrote: »

the EU is not such a bully like YORE MA

This is the worst yore ma joke I've seen and your runing it for the decent people that use it in context.

ART6

In the newpaper last week it was said that the German President and the Czechoslovakian Prime Minister had both refused to sign the ratification documents for their countries. If that is true, doesn't it blow the whole treaty out of the water?

thelordofcheese

ART6 wrote: »

In the newpaper last week it was said that the German President and the Czechoslovakian Prime Minister had both refused to sign the ratification documents for their countries. If that is true, doesn't it blow the whole treaty out of the water?

Not really.
The German persident hasn't refused as you suggest, he's been told not to while the german courts are listening to a challenge to the treaty. It'd be downright unlawful for him to sign it befire the courts return their verdict.


As for the Czech situation, they are not going to ratify it until they hear back from their constitutional court as to the compatability of the lisbon treaty and their constitution.

ART6

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Not really.
The German persident hasn't refused as you suggest, he's been told not to while the german courts are listening to a challenge to the treaty. It'd be downright unlawful for him to sign it befire the courts return their verdict.


As for the Czech situation, they are not going to ratify it until they hear back from their constitutional court as to the compatability of the lisbon treaty and their constitution.

Thanks for the correction. I have to admit I didn't really read the article carefully or remember it in any detail. Still, it does seem perhaps that the whole business of the Treaty is not yet finished as the EU leaders might like it to be?

thelordofcheese

ART6 wrote: »

Thanks for the correction. I have to admit I didn't really read the article carefully or remember it in any detail. Still, it does seem perhaps that the whole business of the Treaty is not yet finished as the EU leaders might like it to be?

Not a bother, but it depends what you mean by finished (not to be pedantic, i'm just trying to understand you).
If you're refering to it being 'in the bag' so to speak then i don't think either of these represent a significant setback germany is in general very Pro-EU and Pro-Lisbon. The Czech republic on the other hand is a bit less committed, but the parliment seems to be more in favour of it than the prime minister is. I'd be surprised if it didn't pass there, tbh.
I think that these non eventful stories become more newsworth because it's easy to spin them into a "OMG LISBON IS DOOMED" tale after our vote.

ART6

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I think that these non eventful stories become more newsworth because it's easy to spin them into a "OMG LISBON IS DOOMED" tale after our vote.

Quite agree. That's why I didn't pay too much attention to the article in the first place.

Dyr

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Surveys done post lisbon showed a somewhere around 70% of No voters voted that way because they thought "a better deal could be negotiated for", in essence they were holding out for something like the second Nice vote that adressed their concerns either real or imaginary.

Source/linky?

ART6

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Surveys done post lisbon showed a somewhere around 70% of No voters voted that way because they thought "a better deal could be negotiated for", in essence they were holding out for something like the second Nice vote that adressed their concerns either real or imaginary..

I wonder if such surveys have any value, or are they simply rigged to justify the next action by the politicians? I obviously can't speak for the whole of the NO vote, but my view and that of many people with whom I have discussed the issues was not that we were too dim to understand the treaty. What concerned me at least was:

1. By removing the need for further referenda and providing for majority decisions it enshrined the "one size fits all" concept of the EU. This has already been damaging to the Irish economy IMHO (interest rates, single currency, carbon policies, etc).
2. I am extremely uncomfortable with the deluge of regulation that pours out of Brussels, apparently at the whim of unelected civil servants.
3. I am very, very wary of establishing a military resource that is answerable only to a largely unelected and profoundly undemocratic body, particularly when that body is heavily influenced by the likes of Sarkozy and Merkel, neither of whom have so far demonstrated any leanings towards democracy.
4. I want to live in a sovereign country that is not dominated by, ruled by, or restricted by a foreign state; one where the people can make their own laws and their own decisions, elect their own representatives and rapidly unelect them again in the case of non-performance.
5. I want my country to be free to trade in a common market that is run for the good of all members, not in a federal state that sooner or later will control the way that country trades with others outside of that market. Oh I know we have been assured that will never happen -- I also have a firm belief in fairies. Any federal state must control federal taxes in a uniform manner or face financial chaos.

So, I was never concerned over much by the threat to our neutrality, and I couldn't care less if the political elite do or don't decide to find a formula that will be seen to give Ireland a better deal. I am not overly concerned about the detailed content of the Treaty. I am deeply concerned about the direction the EU is taking, and I do wonder if that had as much to do with the NO vote as anything.

Fratton Fred

so what happens if every country in the EU overwhelmingly votes yes, (Its not gonna happen I know) except for 900,000 people in Ireland. does the treaty get ratified, does ireland get thrown out? should the irish be given another choice, vote yes, or vote no to leave the EU?

I appreciate democracy, but where does democracy stop, at the borders of ireland or of the EU?

fitz0

An Article 48 shall be inserted to replace Article 48 of the TEU:

"Article 33

1. The Treaties may be amended in accordance with an ordinary revision procedure. They may also be amended in accordance with simplified revision procedures.

Ordinary revision procedure

2. The government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties. These proposals may, inter alia, serve either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties. These proposals shall be submitted to the European Council by the Council and the national Parliaments shall be notified.

3. If the European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, adopts by a simple majority a decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, the President of the European Council shall convene a Convention composed of representatives of the national Parliaments, of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, of the European Parliament and of the Commission. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. The Convention shall examine the proposals for amendments and shall adopt by consensus a recommendation to a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States as provided for in paragraph 4
The European Council may decide by a simple majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention should this not be justified by the extent of the proposed amendments. In the latter case, the European Council shall define the terms of reference for a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States.

4. A conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to the Treaties.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

5. If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

Simplified revision procedures

6. The Government of any Member State, the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the internal policies and action of the Union.

The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The European Council shall act by unanimity after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.

7. Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Title V of this Treaty provides for the Council to act by unanimity in a given area or case, the European Council may adopt a decision authorising the Council to act by a qualified majority in that area or in that case. This subparagraph shall not apply to decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence.

Where the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for legislative acts to be adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, the European Council may adopt a decision allowing for the adoption of such acts in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.

For the adoption of the decisions referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, the European Council shall act by unanimity after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.".

Taken from the Libertas website. This is the main reason I voted no. I am especially worried about point 5 that would take away the unanimous approach to ratification. I don't like the way the EU is going and I especially don't like the way we are being bullied by France and Germany because we took a stand against somethign that is not good for us. Just because the EU has been good for us does not mean we have to lie down and let it walk all over us.

thelordofcheese

ART6 wrote: »

1. By removing the need for further referenda and providing for majority decisions it enshrined the "one size fits all" concept of the EU. This has already been damaging to the Irish economy IMHO (interest rates, single currency, carbon policies, etc).

I'm still amazed people believe this.

Run_to_da_hills

fitz0 wrote: »

Taken from the Libertas website. This is the main reason I voted no. I am especially worried about point 5 that would take away the unanimous approach to ratification. I don't like the way the EU is going and I especially don't like the way we are being bullied by France and Germany because we took a stand against somethign that is not good for us. Just because the EU has been good for us does not mean we have to lie down and let it walk all over us.

+1

ART6

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'm still amazed people believe this.

You and I are getting into quite an argument about this:D
In a large federal state, which is what the EU apparently wants to become, we are dealing with countries from the Mediterranean to (nearly) the Artic Circle. We are dealing with a wide range of climates, cultures, and languages, all of whom have their own ideas of what constitutes a society, and many of those have a very different idea of democracy to that which we, with centuries of evolution, understand. We also, more importantly, have a wide range of economies. Some of them are successful due to low labour and tax rates, and some are more established in the European regimes of high taxes, high labour rates, high social costs. Yet somehow the EU, more so now that ever, is supposed to try to reconcile all of those isssues to produce a structure that will apply everywhere. Some are (apparently) determined to hang on to their vision of Europe that maintains their position in it (France?).

Meanwhile, the developing countries are powering ahead with growth rates we can only dream of, and the EU's answer to that is a bit more regulation, and a financial procedure that supports the increasingly moribund economies of France and Germany -- a central bank interest rate that applies to the lowest common denominator. And the EU paymaster, the US economy, is in trouble.

So. What's the solution? If I knew that I'd rule the world, but I suspect (note the emphasis) that from the Irish point of view, step one is to withdraw from the Single Currency (which was a political rather than a financial programme in the first place). Step two is to devalue. Tough, but that's where we are. Then take control of our interest rates and our economy. For the first time since Charlie McCreevy we have a finance minister who could do that.

Go for it thelordofcheese. This is what Boards.Ie should be about?

Dyr

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I'm still amazed people believe this.

*ahem* speaking of not believing, and second time of asking, can we have a Source/linky for this quote:

thelordofcheese wrote:

Surveys done post lisbon showed a somewhere around 70% of No voters voted that way because they thought "a better deal could be negotiated for", in essence they were holding out for something like the second Nice vote that adressed their concerns either real or imaginary.