[Article] Why the Irish Voted No - The Economist

free-man

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/09/why_ireland_voted_no.cfm

20:55 GMT +00:00
Why Ireland voted no

Posted by: The Economist | BRUSSELS Categories:Ireland THE Irish government today published the fruits of an expensive, painstaking research project aimed at identifying why voters rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum in June. It is to the government's credit that the full study—conducted by a commercial polling firm—has been made public. The foreign minister, Micheál Martin, also has a stab at sounding objective about both yes and no voters, and what we now know about them. The biggest reason for voting no was a lack of information about the treaty, he notes. One third of all voters thought the treaty would have introduced conscription into a European army. The young voted no in large numbers, he conceded when unveiling the research, and " there were also differences between socio-economic groups".
All of this is very tactfully put, but it takes a politician down a very slippery slope indeed. Dig into the data of the research, and hotbeds of no voting include the poor, the less educated, young people and women. A third of voters bought into warnings from no campaigners that the treaty would weaken Ireland's laws against abortion, the study notes. Focus groups revealed that many people worried about Ireland losing its full-time right to an EU commissioner because they wrongly thought that would mean Ireland had no other form of voice in the EU structure. One focus group of women who abstained in the referendum found that many could not name the main political parties in Ireland. The well-educated and affluent, especially those who could answer general knowledge questions about the EU (how many countries are in it, whether Switzerland is a member, that sort of thing) were much more likely to vote yes. And so on.
Where does this research lead you, though? These people vote in general elections, too. As this blogger said in a column at the time of the no vote, if Ireland still maintained a 19th century electoral roll, limited to older men of property, the treaty would have romped home. But is that where Irish politicians want to go with this argument?
Because many of the yes voters were also, in their own way, being bamboozled by the government camp, even if the yes camp was more honest, in the main, than many no campaigners (who were all too happy to accuse Lisbon of any number of fictional ills). For example, the study reports that 56% of Irish voters thought that the treaty would bring about more efficient decision-making in the EU, and 61% thought it would strengthen Europe's role in the world. Those are, indeed, two of the proudest boasts of the pro-Lisbon camp. Alas, they are not objectively proved facts at all. "Efficient" decision making is a codephrase for more majority voting (which is certainly quicker, some of the time, than trying to secure unanimous support for new laws). But since when was it efficient to pass laws more quickly? Indeed, since when was it a good thing to pass laws more quickly? The North Korean parliament is a marvel of efficient decision-making, as is a torch-wielding lynch mob. Neither is an attractive model for the EU.
It is also highly debatable that the Lisbon treaty would magically give the EU a bigger role in the world. Take the current stand-off with Russia, and EU demands that Russian troops be withdrawn from buffer zones round South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Does anyone believe that the Russian government would be more likely to back down if faced with a "double-hatted" high representative for foreign affairs, who serves both the European Commission and the Council of the European Union? (For that is the main foreign policy innovation contained within Lisbon, together with the creation of an EU diplomatic service). The EU's clout abroad depends on the degree of unity and political will displayed by its 27 members. Not on the job titles printed on its envoys' business cards.
So are there any useful lessons to be learned from the study? Plenty, starting with the degree to which EU business is a mystery to all voters, no matter their education levels.
And finally there is this warning, in the report conclusions, about the risks of imposing a second referendum on the Irish

In the focus groups there was a very general feeling that the Irish people were going to be asked to vote again, sooner or later, whether on the same or on a revised document. Although many had voted No simply through lack of understanding, and some were prepared to consider changing their minds if the same document were presented with clearer explanations, the general consensus at the time, was that if presented unchanged it could result in an even more negative result. No voters in particular often expressed offence at the idea that their decision would not be respected.

Something for other EU governments to ponder, as they bully Ireland to vote again as soon as possible.

suckslikeafox

This is the first I've heard of the reports findings, so basically it paints all us no voters as slobbering idiots then?

justmehere

...because they trampled over the rights of the other member countries by not allowing them to vote. This was because they knew the treaty would also be rejected, but the Commission does not have the right to take that decision.

So any other vote in future they think won't go their way, they just take away people's right for their voices to be heard?

Don't think so.

CiaranC

Why are we paying for expensive research into why Ireland voted no? What difference does it make?

Phototoxin

I dont see why this BS treaty keeps coming up. We voted no. Endof.

If they overturn this then rape will be legal as no evidently wont mean no. It will mean keep asking until they say yes. My placard will read 'bum biffo as no means we agree'

Breezer

suckslikeafox wrote: »

This is the first I've heard of the reports findings, so basically it paints all us no voters as slobbering idiots then?

No, it objectively shows, through tried and tested statistical means, that approximately 40% of people voted No because they did not understand the treaty. Whether that means the treaty wasn't presented in a clear fashion, or the voters didn't have the brainpower to comprehend it, isn't stated; it merely states the fact and offers no further opinion on that fact.

CiaranC wrote:

Why are we paying for expensive research into why Ireland voted no? What difference does it make?

It makes a difference because the governments of 26 other countries expects our government to come up with some suggestion on how Europe can move forward. The only sensible approach is to conduct research. The only alternative would be for the government to make assumptions; if it were to do that, people would (rightly) be shouting about how it was even more out of touch than we thought at the time of the Lisbon vote.

Phototoxin wrote:

I dont see why this BS treaty keeps coming up. We voted no. Endof.

How exactly is it "Endof"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but was the crux of the No campaign not "Go back and negotiate a better deal"? Surely the only way to do that is to find out exactly why people voted No, what they want to see instead of the treaty they rejected, and then to go back to Europe with proposals based on this information? We need something to work from if we're going to get this "better deal" No voters apparently wanted. Or do you expect the governments of 27 countries to draw up an entirely new treaty, making sure not one element contained within it bears any resemblance to anything mentioned in Lisbon? What do you want?

is_that_so

Probably one of the worst Economist articles I've ever read. So blindly venomous that it might as well have been reprinted from the EU worshipping Torygraph. Think there's already a thread on this.

CDfm

I agree with everyone that says the article lacks objectivity.

But like it or not its great to clap ourselves on the back but we are very dependent on the EU.

EU expansion is like a rolling train and it will go on without us.

I dont know who my local MEP is and certain didnt see any canvassing for Lisbon.

If they cant be bothered cant see why it was soo surprising it wasnt passed.

free-man

It seems the below paragraphs sum up accurately my opinion on why all the reasons for ratifying this treaty are inherently wrong.

For example, the study reports that 56% of Irish voters thought that the treaty would bring about more efficient decision-making in the EU, and 61% thought it would strengthen Europe's role in the world. Those are, indeed, two of the proudest boasts of the pro-Lisbon camp. Alas, they are not objectively proved facts at all. "Efficient" decision making is a codephrase for more majority voting (which is certainly quicker, some of the time, than trying to secure unanimous support for new laws). But since when was it efficient to pass laws more quickly? Indeed, since when was it a good thing to pass laws more quickly? The North Korean parliament is a marvel of efficient decision-making, as is a torch-wielding lynch mob. Neither is an attractive model for the EU.

and...

It is also highly debatable that the Lisbon treaty would magically give the EU a bigger role in the world. Take the current stand-off with Russia, and EU demands that Russian troops be withdrawn from buffer zones round South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Does anyone believe that the Russian government would be more likely to back down if faced with a "double-hatted" high representative for foreign affairs, who serves both the European Commission and the Council of the European Union? (For that is the main foreign policy innovation contained within Lisbon, together with the creation of an EU diplomatic service).

Can a yes supporter please comment on the above?

I've always struggled to find a good reason for voting yes and not maintaining the current status quo which has done so well for Ireland (and Europe).

As they say, if it ain't broke why try to fix it? And if it is broke, how exactly? and how would "efficient" decision making help Europe?

Also I would have to 2nd Ciaran C's comment of Why we are paying for this expensive research when our citizens have already cast their vote?

Did we commission research when abortion was rejected? If not why is Lisbon been given special treatment?

sink

suckslikeafox wrote: »

This is the first I've heard of the reports findings, so basically it paints all us no voters as slobbering idiots then?

I don't think he was calling 'all' no voters idiots, indeed that would be a statistical impossibility. But there are plenty of people in the world that are idiots and some of them happen to be Irish and some of them happened to vote no to the Lisbon treaty. Whether their deficit of functioning higher brain power drove them to vote no or whether it was just a simple binary function of ticking one box or the other is debatable. I have met people in this country who didn't know where Wales and Scotland are located and thought they were constituent parts of England.

Breezer

free-man wrote: »

Can a yes supporter please comment on the above?

On your first point: in a Union which has nearly doubled in size in the last 5 years, and which may well increase in size in the future, it makes sense to take preventative action now to avoid a potential stalemate on matters arising in the future. Extra qualified majority voting would have helped achieve this. The staus quo worked fine in the past, but forward planning is generally a good idea.

On your second point: no one would have expected Russia to suddenly back down. However, having one "Foreign Representative" (rather than the current two), who would have overall responsibility for representing Europe's views on the world stage, would make it easier for Europe to present its collective view on matters. Whether Russia wants to accept that view or not is up to Russia. I admit this is nothing earth-shattering; on the other hand it's nothing to fear either. I don't think very many people voted No because they disagreed with this.

Also I would have to 2nd Ciaran C's comment of Why we are paying for this expensive research when our citizens have already cast their vote?

I answered that already.

Did we commission research when abortion was rejected? If not why is Lisbon been given special treatment?

Ireland's position on abortion is an internal matter and 26 states are not waiting for us to provide answers on abortion. It's a completely different situation.

K-9

free-man wrote: »

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2008/09/why_ireland_voted_no.cfm

For example, the study reports that 56% of Irish voters thought that the treaty would bring about more efficient decision-making in the EU, and 61% thought it would strengthen Europe's role in the world. Those are, indeed, two of the proudest boasts of the pro-Lisbon camp. Alas, they are not objectively proved facts at all. "Efficient" decision making is a codephrase for more majority voting (which is certainly quicker, some of the time, than trying to secure unanimous support for new laws). But since when was it efficient to pass laws more quickly? Indeed, since when was it a good thing to pass laws more quickly? The North Korean parliament is a marvel of efficient decision-making, as is a torch-wielding lynch mob. Neither is an attractive model for the EU.
It is also highly debatable that the Lisbon treaty would magically give the EU a bigger role in the world. Take the current stand-off with Russia, and EU demands that Russian troops be withdrawn from buffer zones round South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Does anyone believe that the Russian government would be more likely to back down if faced with a "double-hatted" high representative for foreign affairs, who serves both the European Commission and the Council of the European Union? (For that is the main foreign policy innovation contained within Lisbon, together with the creation of an EU diplomatic service). The EU's clout abroad depends on the degree of unity and political will displayed by its 27 members. Not on the job titles printed on its envoys' business cards.
So are there any useful lessons to be learned from the study? Plenty, starting with the degree to which EU business is a mystery to all voters, no matter their education levels.
And finally there is this warning, in the report conclusions, about the risks of imposing a second referendum on the Irish

In the focus groups there was a very general feeling that the Irish people were going to be asked to vote again, sooner or later, whether on the same or on a revised document. Although many had voted No simply through lack of understanding, and some were prepared to consider changing their minds if the same document were presented with clearer explanations, the general consensus at the time, was that if presented unchanged it could result in an even more negative result. No voters in particular often expressed offence at the idea that their decision would not be respected.

Something for other EU governments to ponder, as they bully Ireland to vote again as soon as possible.

They are not proven facts, because, Lisbon has not been accepted!

It's debatable if it would bring more efficient decision making as the one country one vote is still very important on many issues and there are vetoes on others! In many ways it gives smaller countries like Malta more power.

The Treaty has measures to increase larger countries power and some to counter act that! It's a political compromise after all!

Strengthen Europes' role in the world is a big generalisation, same as many of the No categories. In what way? Foreign policy would still need unaminous approval. So if Britain and France disagree on something it doesn't become EU Policy.

Phototoxin

Ireland's position on abortion is an internal matter and 26 states are not waiting for us to provide answers on abortion. It's a completely different situation.

you'd think that but the UN are worried about the 'rights' of women to murder their babies actually.

Scofflaw

free-man wrote: »

For example, the study reports that 56% of Irish voters thought that the treaty would bring about more efficient decision-making in the EU, and 61% thought it would strengthen Europe's role in the world. Those are, indeed, two of the proudest boasts of the pro-Lisbon camp. Alas, they are not objectively proved facts at all. "Efficient" decision making is a codephrase for more majority voting (which is certainly quicker, some of the time, than trying to secure unanimous support for new laws). But since when was it efficient to pass laws more quickly? Indeed, since when was it a good thing to pass laws more quickly? The North Korean parliament is a marvel of efficient decision-making, as is a torch-wielding lynch mob. Neither is an attractive model for the EU.

Can a yes supporter please comment on the above?

I've always struggled to find a good reason for voting yes and not maintaining the current status quo which has done so well for Ireland (and Europe).

As they say, if it ain't broke why try to fix it? And if it is broke, how exactly? and how would "efficient" decision making help Europe?

Essentially, it's because at the moment, the EU is operating on something of a maintenance basis. Legislation is being passed, CAP money is being handed out, Ireland is still getting €500 million from the kitty, etc etc - all looking good.

Except that looking at it a little more deeply, what is happening is that nothing difficult is getting done. Areas like energy policy, climate change, foreign relations, are being avoided - except for the blandest possible minimum - because nobody wants even to start to tackle them while every country has a veto. No point wasting time on initiatives that can be killed off by a single country.

That's what the "efficiency" gain is about - being able, with something as unwieldy as the EU-27, to actually make difficult decisions. Group action isn't easy - and it's a whole lot less easy when anyone can simply say "no", and the whole action stops.

Is it a necessary step? Well, would you say there are difficult decisions to be made?

Is what's in Lisbon the best possible solution? Perhaps not, but it is the solution that 27 countries have managed to agree on, after half a decade's negotiations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

Phototoxin wrote: »

you'd think that but the UN are worried about the 'rights' of women to murder their babies actually.

Any further off-topic discussion on the rights and wrongs of abortion will incur an indefinite ban. This is the only warning.

CDfm

its the Eurovision isnt it.

RTE sends Dustin and we all think we are funny and vote NO - pity Europe didnt get the joke.

This aside the Eurovision did demonstrate European voting as block votes especially in the accession countries so why enter a contest you wont win dont know the languages etc.It demonstrates the speed EC has enlarged.

Economics was my thing.so that aside, its not hard for others to see the Euro Interest rate increase as a kick the head for Ireland. Punishment for a no vote as Ireland being a small open economy would be very very vulnerable to an interest rate increase and we were.European Central Bank used interest rate as a political tool- thats worth an article.

Maybe people need to wake up that the EC is not all fun and games and can be nasty when it wants to.Vote Yes but know the fe***** play dirty hurling when it suits.

sink

CDfm wrote: »

its the Eurovision isnt it.

RTE sends Dustin and we all think we are funny and vote NO - pity Europe didnt get the joke.

This aside the Eurovision did demonstrate European voting as block votes especially in the accession countries so why enter a contest you wont win dont know the languages etc.It demonstrates the speed EC has enlarged.

Economics was my thing.so that aside, its not hard for others to see the Euro Interest rate increase as a kick the head for Ireland. Punishment for a no vote as Ireland being a small open economy would be very very vulnerable to an interest rate increase and we were.European Central Bank used interest rate as a political tool- thats worth an article.

Maybe people need to wake up that the EC is not all fun and games and can be nasty when it wants to.Vote Yes but know the fe***** play dirty hurling when it suits.

Seems a bit paranoid to think that the ECB (which is not controlled by the politicians) is going hike interest rates up to punish 1.3% of it's users while seriously inconveniencing 98.7% and possibly pushing half the Eurozone into recession. Maybe they had other motivations like keeping inflation low.

CDfm

sink wrote: »

Seems a bit paranoid to think that the ECB (which is not controlled by the politicians) is going hike interest rates up to punish 1.3% of it's users while seriously inconveniencing 98.7% and possibly pushing half the Eurozone into recession. Maybe they had other motivations like keeping inflation low.

i dont know

maybe its a muscle flexing thing to keep the others in check

you have to ask yourself who did the interest hike benefit and who did it not

there was a theory called tranasactional analysis used by economists years back on this- but which economies benefited -the germans or french and who else

who didnt benefit

among the radio broadcasts i heard was a call for the polish voting to be weighted to include projected population on the basis of war dead. Was this kind of debate scary for irish voters- why does newsweek include it? lazy journalism

Ckal

Sorry to bump this thread.

But I'm fed up with of reading all these articles saying that the reason why people voted no was due to lack of knowledge of the treaty. I find this an excuse to a huge problem. I couldn't vote because I was under 18 at the time of the referendum, but I would have voted no. I knew what the treaty was about and so did all the other people I know and they were all voting no.

I find it hard to believe that a yes vote would lead to faster decision making within the EU. Fast decision making went down the tubes in 2004 when half of Europe joined the union.

People were also voting yes because they thought Abortion would be legalized then. But that's not an EU matter. That's a problem in Ireland. The EU couldn't give a cow if it was illegal or not. Ok, maybe one day it would be legalized if we voted yes, but it will one day be legalized here. I won't get started on Abortion because I guess that's not the issue here (but I'm pro-choice, just for the record :P)

Also, the French are getting a little bit annoying now. Sarkozy is the biggest tool and it's very easy for him to pick on Ireland because we are so small. I always said that if Germany rejected the treaty, there wouldn't have been such a hu-ha over it. But France and Germany and the rest of the Pro-EUers seem to think that they can bully Ireland into a yes vote. Well, that's not going to happen. And I'll be feckin delighted if the Czechs and Swedes reject it. It would make my day.

CDfm

I have to agree on the annoying bit.

But there were a host of reasons why Ireland voted no.

Pity that none of them being about the treaty - I personally think that traffic jams etc in Carlow and the state of the roads in Castledermot had more to do with it.

It certainly told everyone in Europe about Galways water quality and its a big error that the Economist left it out of the ariticle.

marco_polo

CDfm wrote: »

I have to agree on the annoying bit.

But there were a host of reasons why Ireland voted no.

Pity that none of them being about the treaty - I personally think that traffic jams etc in Carlow and the state of the roads in Castledermot had more to do with it.

It certainly told everyone in Europe about Galways water quality and its a big error that the Economist left it out of the ariticle.

Not to mention forced conscription to the non existent EU army.

djpbarry

Ckal wrote: »

I knew what the treaty was about and so did all the other people I know and they were all voting no.

So what aspects of the treaty do you object to?

CDfm

marco_polo wrote: »

Not to mention forced conscription to the non existent EU army.

I think an Irishman should head the EU army.

Ckal

djpbarry wrote: »

So what aspects of the treaty do you object to?

(Sorry for the late reply! )

I wasn't 100% anti-Lisbon. I liked some aspects of the treaty. But I think the whole EU is getting a bit out-of-control.

The thought of a Rotating EU President makes me feel uneasy.

The thought of member states having to assist others if a member state is victim of terrorist attacks makes me feel uneasy also. I know we wouldn't have to have any military action in such a case, but I don't like the idea of it.

I'm NOT anti-EU. I liked the original concept of it, but in modern days it's getting a bit too superstate-ish. I want it to go back to what it was. A bloc of free trade helping economies grow. I don't want to have to abide to EU laws. I want to abide to IRISH laws.

I guess there are advantages and disadvantages to everything. The EU is the biggest un-democratic pile of bull****, IMO of course. :P

djpbarry

Ckal wrote: »

I wasn't 100% anti-Lisbon.
...
I'm anti-EU.

So, like so many other 'No' voters, your vote had very little to do with the content of the treaty.

O'Morris

Ckal wrote: »

I'm anti-EU. I liked the original concept of it, but in modern days it's getting a bit too superstate-ish. I want it to go back to what it was. A bloc of free trade helping economies grow. I don't want to have to abide to EU laws. I want to abide to IRISH laws.

Seconded.

Did you mean to say that you're not anti-EU.

oscarBravo

Ckal wrote: »

I wasn't 100% anti-Lisbon. I liked some aspects of the treaty.

Such as?

The thought of a Rotating EU President makes me feel uneasy.

Unlike the current situation, where we have... oh.

The thought of member states having to assist others if a member state is victim of terrorist attacks makes me feel uneasy also.

Are you equally uneasy about the idea of other member states assisting us if we are the victim of an attack?

What's so unpalatable about the idea of helping your neighbours?

CDfm

Ckal wrote: »

(Sorry for the late reply! )

I wasn't 100% anti-Lisbon. I liked some aspects of the treaty. But I think the whole EU is getting a bit out-of-control.

The thought of a Rotating EU President makes me feel uneasy.

The thought of member states having to assist others if a member state is victim of terrorist attacks makes me feel uneasy also. I know we wouldn't have to have any military action in such a case, but I don't like the idea of it.

I'm anti-EU. I liked the original concept of it, but in modern days it's getting a bit too superstate-ish. I want it to go back to what it was. A bloc of free trade helping economies grow. I don't want to have to abide to EU laws. I want to abide to IRISH laws.

I guess there are advantages and disadvantages to everything. The EU is the biggest un-democratic pile of bull****, IMO of course. :P

wait a minite - you voted for a two-tier europe with ireland as the only member?

did you seriously believe that ireland was going to derail or hold back Lisbon on its own.

Thats plain daft.

thebman

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's so unpalatable about the idea of helping your neighbours?

Our neighbours have a lot more potential to get in trouble than we do so most see it as a negative for us.

The whole, what on earth would be the point of attacking Ireland argument.

oscarBravo

brim4brim wrote: »

Our neighbours have a lot more potential to get in trouble than we do so most see it as a negative for us.

If my next door neighbour is more likely to get burgled than me, does that make it OK for me to refuse to get involved in the neighbourhood watch scheme?

There's a growing trend of selfishness and mé-féinism in this country that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

O'Morris

brim4brim wrote: »

Our neighbours have a lot more potential to get in trouble than we do so most see it as a negative for us.

The whole, what on earth would be the point of attacking Ireland argument.

Exactly. We don't have the enemies that other European countries have and I want us to keep it that way. If the British or the Poles want to engage in behaviour that pisses off the muslims or the Russians then that's up to them. They can't expect to drag the rest of us into it.

oscarBravo wrote:

If my next door neighbour is more likely to get burgled than me, does that make it OK for me to refuse to get involved in the neighbourhood watch scheme?

It does if the reason your neighbour is more likely to get burgled is due to their own reckless and irresponsible behaviour.

oscarBravo wrote:

There's a growing trend of selfishness and mé-féinism in this country that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

It's no different from people being opposed to a united Ireland because of the increased risk of terrorism.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

We don't have the enemies that other European countries have and I want us to keep it that way.

Yeah, you're right. Why should we come to the aid of others when we have no history of terrorism in this country...

Oh, wait now...

O'Morris

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. Why should we come to the aid of others when we have no history of terrorism in this country...

It's not about not coming to aid of other countries. I think we should come to the aid of our neighbours in the event of a terrorist attack. I think we should come to the aid of countries that aren't in the EU as well. If Norway or Iceland is attacked I think we would have the same moral obligation to help them.

What I object to is the political obligation to stand by other countries just because they're in the EU. That implies an alliance and it could have the potential to drag us into something that we have no business being dragged into. Poland's enemies are not our enemies.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

I think we should come to the aid of our neighbours in the event of a terrorist attack.

...

Poland's enemies are not our enemies.

Poland isn't our neighbour?

The Corinthian

Ckal wrote: »

The EU is the biggest un-democratic pile of bull****, IMO of course. :P

Then you would support the EU becoming democratic, such as removing executive power from the commission and giving it to the European parliament, which is democratically elected.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If my next door neighbour is more likely to get burgled than me, does that make it OK for me to refuse to get involved in the neighbourhood watch scheme?

The reality is that the vast majority of Eurosceptics are in reality 'little islanders' who don't really view the rest of Europe as other than 'those foreign types'. They'll tell you that they oppose the EU because it's undemocratic or because it'll result in our being drafted into a European army and gods knows what, but if you press them long enough on such objections they'll eventually admit that it just comes down to not being the same as 'those foreign types'.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

If Norway or Iceland is attacked I think we would have the same moral obligation to help them.
...
Poland's enemies are not our enemies.

So Norway and Iceland qualify as neighbours, but Poland does not? How does that work?

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote:

Poland isn't our neighbour?

No, it isn't. Look at the map, an entire continent separates us. Warsaw is over a thousand miles from Dublin.

And even if they were our neighbours that would still not mean we should enter into any formal alliance with them guaranteeing that we'll come to their aid if they're attacked.

The Corinthian wrote:

The reality is that the vast majority of Eurosceptics are in reality 'little islanders' who don't really view the rest of Europe as other than 'those foreign types'. They'll tell you that they oppose the EU because it's undemocratic or because it'll result in our being drafted into a European army and gods knows what, but if you press them long enough on such objections they'll eventually admit that it just comes down to not being the same as 'those foreign types'.

There's more to it than that. Eurosceptics are not anti-foreigner, they're pro-Irish. I love Europeans and I work with many of them. I just don't want to be governed by them. I don't want to be governed by Americans, Brazilians, British, Russians or Chinese either. I want to be governed by a democratically elected Irish government in Ireland. Most Irish people value our independence and our sovereignty and see them as an important part of our national identity. We don't want see any reason to sacrifice any more of that sovereignty to a foreign multinational body that does not and never will be able to claim our loyalty. I don't know why people such as yourself have such a hard time understanding that.

djpbarry wrote:

So Norway and Iceland qualify as neighbours, but Poland does not? How does that work?

I don't think they are our neighbours. They have as much right to be considered our neighbours as Poland does though. I think we have as much reason to come to their aid as we do to come to the aid of the Poles.

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

No, it isn't. Look at the map, an entire continent separates us. Warsaw is over a thousand miles from Dublin.

Oslo is 785 miles from Dublin; Reykjavik is 929. Is there a magic 1000-mile demarcation line that determines neighbourhood?

And even if they were our neighbours that would still not mean we should enter into any formal alliance with them guaranteeing that we'll come to their aid if they're attacked.

Why not? By the same token, why bother with a formal trade alliance? After all, we have a moral obligation to allow goods to move freely between us and our neighbouring countries. That should be enough, right?

There's more to it than that. Eurosceptics are not anti-foreigner, they're pro-Irish. I love Europeans and I work with many of them. I just don't want to be governed by them.

Good news: you're not, and you wouldn't have been had Lisbon been ratified. I don't know why people such as yourself have such a hard time understanding that.

thebman

The Corinthian wrote: »

The reality is that the vast majority of Eurosceptics are in reality 'little islanders' who don't really view the rest of Europe as other than 'those foreign types'. They'll tell you that they oppose the EU because it's undemocratic or because it'll result in our being drafted into a European army and gods knows what, but if you press them long enough on such objections they'll eventually admit that it just comes down to not being the same as 'those foreign types'.

Total nonsense TBH.

Any evidence to back this up?

I'm pro Europe but you can be damn sure I'll analyse everything that comes from Europe to see if there is anything dodgy in it that I should be against.

They are politicians after all and that is at the heart of the matter for me. I don't trust Irish politicians, I think whatever power we can hand over to Brussels the better in a lot of ways especially with regard to regulatory bodies. I'd much prefer single regulatory bodies over areas such as broadband and consumer affairs etc... if at all possible. I believe it keeps them more honest because there are more people watching them. Take as much of that power away from government as possible I say. If the politician's I know are this bad, it is going to be very hard for me to trust the politicians I don't know.

I think we should come to the defense of other members of the union if they are wrongfully attacked. I don't believe we should have to assume they are always in the right just because we are in a union with them. Do we have to defend a nation if they get attacked after they do something that damages the non-member state either financially or otherwise. What if they do something most would consider unethical although not violent toward a non-member state? Do we have to support them anyway? It would be nonsense to suggest we should IMO.

Anyway, even without anything on paper, it would pay us to come to the defense of another member state if we have economic ties with them would it not? We are going to have to help pay to rebuild their infastructure if the country is torn apart anyway similar to how we got money for infastructure projects from the EU so it actually pays us economically to defend them. We would have less trade with them if they had to rebuild their nation and it wouldn't be good for either nation.

I think it would not only pay us to defend them but it pays us more to defend them early as the longer we let them be attacked, the more rebuilding of infastructure that will be required.

oscarBravo

brim4brim wrote: »

Anyway, even without anything on paper, it would pay us to come to the defense of another member state if we have economic ties with them would it not?

See my earlier point: why bother with a formal trading bloc, since it's self-evidently in a country's interest to have free trade with other countries?

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

There's more to it than that. Eurosceptics are not anti-foreigner, they're pro-Irish.

Meaningless cliché.

I love Europeans and I work with many of them. I just don't want to be governed by them. I don't want to be governed by Americans, Brazilians, British, Russians or Chinese either. I want to be governed by a democratically elected Irish government in Ireland.

Enter the 'little islander'. You don't want us to be governed by 'those foreign types'. Unless they're from Northern Ireland, that is. We're culturally and ethnically homogeneous with them after all... oh wait...

brim4brim wrote: »

Any evidence to back this up?

O'Morris was kind enough to supply some.

Don't get me wrong - I don't believe that all Eurosceptics are xenophobic 'little islanders' or that criticism of the EU implies this. Euroscepticism isn't simply valid criticism of the EU or Europe; it is a fundamental rejection of the idea of Europe as anything other than a geographical term.

However, in my experience, the vast majority Eurosceptics tend to boil down to people like O'Morris - they'll typically come out with economic or democratic arguments against EU integration, but the litmus test is that if you present solutions to these arguments they'll change tactic until they are forced to admit that it simply comes down to 'those foreign types'.

thebman

oscarBravo wrote: »

See my earlier point: why bother with a formal trading bloc, since it's self-evidently in a country's interest to have free trade with other countries?

Well I didn't say I was against an alliance, I'm just against an alliance that insists we defend actions even if we think they are unethical.

There should always be the option for us to consider that they were just wrong that dosen't involve leaving the union.

That would go against the reasons for an alliance in the first place. In other words, there should be a way for the other countries to kick an allicance member that is misbehaving out of the alliance so they don't have to defend them if they decide they'd like to tick off another neighbouring country. One member should not be allowed put the whole alliance at risk.

On the economics side of things there are safeguards in place for countries with cowboy economic policies.

I think some Irish people are afraid that this scenario might occur where one country near Russia would allow the US to put a missile defense system in their country which would p*ss off Russia who may then attack against this installation and I'm not sure whether most people would think that it is right to expect the alliance to jump to their defense when they knew there was a strong possiblity Russia might attack the installation but the member state allowed it to be built anyway.

CDfm

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. Why should we come to the aid of others when we have no history of terrorism in this country...

Oh, wait now...

the Treaty of Rome which Ireland signed in 1973 says that the EU member states are desirous of a closer union - so - if such an act gives expression to such a desire its part of the european project.

Thats not terrorism.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

I want to be governed by a democratically elected Irish government in Ireland.

You are. Lisbon would not have changed that fact.

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think they are our neighbours. They have as much right to be considered our neighbours as Poland does though. I think we have as much reason to come to their aid as we do to come to the aid of the Poles.

So we should assist other nations if necessary?

djpbarry

CDfm wrote: »

the Treaty of Rome which Ireland signed in 1973 says that the EU member states are desirous of a closer union - so - if such an act gives expression to such a desire its part of the european project.

Thats not terrorism.

I have absolutely no clue what you're saying here.

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

See my earlier point: why bother with a formal trading bloc, since it's self-evidently in a country's interest to have free trade with other countries?

It's not self-evident at all.

http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-miscellaneous/4138812-1.html

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2002-03/03RN02.pdf

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-dumping.html

There are a crapload of links out there.

Free trade has had the effect of devastating a lot of less powerful country's economies.

That's why we need to be in a trade bloc.

suckslikeafox

suckslikeafox wrote: »

This is the first I've heard of the reports findings, so basically it paints all us no voters as slobbering idiots then?

yes.

CDfm

djpbarry wrote: »

I have absolutely no clue what you're saying here.

For those who are not familiar with the Treaty of Rome by which Ireland joined the EU in 1973 - the country signed up to an agreement which expressed a desire for a closer union.

While this wasnt expressly a military union - it doesnt take a superbrain to work out that a free trade (customs) union, and political union etc might some day lead to a military union of sorts.

To infer that this is someway terrorist or that anything concerning a military agreement of some sort within the EU framework is a surprise or wasnt known about since 1973 is to be deaf dumb and blind to the Union of States we joined in 1973 is misleading. Its there in black and white in the Treaty of Rome 1957 the founding document of the EU.

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote:

Oslo is 785 miles from Dublin; Reykjavik is 929.

They're both closer to us than Warsaw. They have therefore as much claim to being our neighbours as the Poles have.

oscarBravo wrote:

Why not?

Because it could mean that we become needlessly entangled in other countries quarrels and thereby get on the wrong sides of the enemies of other EU member states.

There are signs of a confrontation up ahead between the Russians and the Poles over the decision of the Polish government to allow the Americans to build an anti-missile system in Poland. What obligation does the EU have to Poland under the current arrangements, and more importantly, what obligations would it have to Poland if the Lisbon Treaty had been ratified?

oscarBravo wrote:

By the same token, why bother with a formal trade alliance?

Because we benefit from a trade alliance with Europe. We don't benefit from a political alliance of a kind that would see us automatically coming to the defence of another EU member state in the event of a terrorist attack.

we have a moral obligation to allow goods to move freely between us and our neighbouring countries. That should be enough, right?

Absolutely. That's what eurosceptics like myself have been saying all along. Free-trade is enough. We should be making money not war.

Good news: you're not,

And long may it continue.

The Corinthian wrote:

Enter the 'little islander'. You don't want us to be governed by 'those foreign types'.

That's correct. I want us to govern ourselves.

djpbarry wrote:

So we should assist other nations if necessary?

Of course we should, as I've already said above in a previous post. If another country is the victim of an unprovoked terrorist attack then we should not hesitate to offer our help, as long what's asked of us is reasonable and doesn't involve us in any kind of military business. It should make no difference whether the country attacked is in the EU or on the other side of the world.

What I'm opposed to is the idea of us being obligated to helping other countries just because they're in the EU. I think that will add a political dimension to our assistance and might send the wrong kind of signal to the wrong kind of people.

Ckal

O'Morris wrote: »

Seconded.

Did you mean to say that you're not anti-EU.

Yeah, sorry! I forgot the NOT in there! I'll go back and edit that in.

djpbarry wrote: »

So, like so many other 'No' voters, your vote had very little to do with the content of the treaty.

I couldn't vote, I wasn't 18 at the time. And if I could, my vote would have been based on my opinions on the treaty, like the ones I explained in my post.

And I'm also fed up with people dishing crap at no voters. This isn't directed at you personally, it's directed at all yes voters - Why did you vote yes? What are YOUR reasons for voting yes? I'm just curious because it seems that the no voters are the ones who have to explain themselves.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Such as? Unlike the current situation, where we have... oh. Are you equally uneasy about the idea of other member states assisting us if we are the victim of an attack?

What's so unpalatable about the idea of helping your neighbours?

We are a neutral country. If we were to run to the UK or Germany with help after they've been hit by terrorist attacks then that doesn't look good for us. Neutral means we shouldn't help or support either of the two opposing sides. It should stay that way.

Scofflaw

brim4brim wrote: »

Well I didn't say I was against an alliance, I'm just against an alliance that insists we defend actions even if we think they are unethical.

There should always be the option for us to consider that they were just wrong that dosen't involve leaving the union.

That would go against the reasons for an alliance in the first place. In other words, there should be a way for the other countries to kick an allicance member that is misbehaving out of the alliance so they don't have to defend them if they decide they'd like to tick off another neighbouring country. One member should not be allowed put the whole alliance at risk.

On the economics side of things there are safeguards in place for countries with cowboy economic policies.

I think some Irish people are afraid that this scenario might occur where one country near Russia would allow the US to put a missile defense system in their country which would p*ss off Russia who may then attack against this installation and I'm not sure whether most people would think that it is right to expect the alliance to jump to their defense when they knew there was a strong possiblity Russia might attack the installation but the member state allowed it to be built anyway.

I don't think being attacked by Russia qualifies as a terrorist attack (or natural disaster). I think you'll find that in those circumstances the relevant obligations would be NATO ones.

We are a neutral country. If we were to run to the UK or Germany with help after they've been hit by terrorist attacks then that doesn't look good for us. Neutral means we shouldn't help or support either of the two opposing sides. It should stay that way.

Assistance to another country in the event of a terrorist attack doesn't compromise Irish neutrality. Neutrality would be compromised in the event that we became involved (on one side only) in a conflict between states.

cordially,
Scofflaw