Fallout of the No

molloyjh

There's an interesting article in the Irish Times today re the political fallout of the No vote. Regardless of how right or wrong this fallout is, it seems to be real, and was not unexpected by many. Although I'm not sure how well Jamie understands the QMV aspect.....what does anyone else make of it?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0923/1222105124502.html?via=mr

EUROPEAN DIARY: Fallout from the treaty referendum vote is straining diplomatic and social relations, writes Jamie Symth

I USED to be a popular member of the EU press corps and being Irish undoubtedly helped. Coming from a country that has never invaded its neighbours (unless you count the plague of Irish pubs all over Europe) is a good start in Brussels.

Speaking English, but not being English, is also a huge bonus. And it is well known we can throw good parties.

The Irish also had a good reputation among EU diplomats, who praised our ability to broker delicate compromises: remember Bertie's success with the EU constitution.

We also spent a decade at the top of the EU economic growth charts, which attracted a fan base among the new member states. Everybody in Europe loved the Irish, or so it seemed.

I got my first sense this "cool Irish" image was changing when my badminton partner Tom took me to task for my countrymen's No vote a few days after the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

"Why do you want to ruin Europe for everyone else? How could you vote no when you have received so much money from the EU?" he asked incredulously.

Tom doesn't talk politics much, so the verbal attack delivered over the badminton net came as a bit of a shock.

I put it down to his Belgian nationality - Belgians tend to be EU federalists given that their own country regularly hovers on the brink of break-up over disagreements between the Dutch-speaking majority and the French-speaking minority.

But the Belgians are not alone in feeling aggrieved at the Irish No. In the hothouse diplomatic atmosphere in Brussels almost every nationality has a bone to pick with the June 12th result and most for different reasons.

A British friend recently said he attended a party with German diplomats where he had been forced to defend the Irish result.

"The mood was quite dark," said the friend, who joked that this type of tough criticism was usually reserved for the eurosceptic British.

There is a practical side to Berlin's displeasure with the Irish No because Germany would have boosted its influence at the council of ministers through Lisbon's "double majority" voting system, which apportions more voting weight to states with bigger populations.

French diplomats are also furious. It was President Nicolas Sarkozy who came up with the idea of a mini-treaty to replace the now defunct EU constitution.

The treaty was his "baby" and, to make matters worse, the Irish have wrecked his six-month EU presidency.

But even our traditional allies in Europe have deserted us over Lisbon.

British foreign secretary David Miliband may have assured the public on his recent trip to Dublin that there would be no "bullying" of the Irish.

But it didn't stop Gordon Brown from ratifying the treaty just days after our referendum. London wants Lisbon put to bed to prevent it becoming an issue in a 2010 general election.

The Irish No keeps Lisbon on the agenda.

The Dutch and Danish governments are "pissed off" - in the words of fellow journalists from both countries working in Brussels - by the Irish No because it has reignited a bitter debate over whether their electorates were denied a referendum on the treaty.

The political fallout from the Lisbon referendum has also reached eurosceptic Austria, where the coalition fell apart when Social Democrat chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer said future EU treaties should be ratified by referendum. Elections take place this week, with far-right politician Jörg Haider capitalising on anti-EU sentiment and expected to do well.

In Poland the Irish No has created problems for prime minister Donald Tusk. He faces a battle to persuade his political rival President Lech Kaczynski to sign the treaty to complete the ratification process. Kaczynski is using the issue as a bargaining chip to lobby for more power in the field of foreign affairs to be given to his presidential office.

In Spain the big concern is that it will lose the four extra MEPs that it has been promised in the Lisbon Treaty. Eleven other countries will also miss out on extra MEPs if Lisbon does not enter into force and the European Parliament's representation in next June's elections is decided by the rules under the Nice Treaty.

The Portuguese are unhappy because the treaty is named after their capital city, while for candidate countries such as Croatia there are fears that no Lisbon Treaty means Germany and France will refuse to let them join the EU club.

Only the Scandinavians - Finland and Sweden - seem unfazed by the Irish No vote but then they are rarely fazed by anything. "It's as if the word Irish has suddenly been tagged with the word problem," said one Irish official who works at the European Commission.

"Almost every meeting begins with a summation of how the Irish 'no' will affect a particular proposal," she added.

Given the prevailing mood in Brussels toward the Irish it may soon prove necessary to dust off the British passport that I am entitled to as I was born in Northern Ireland. Cool Britannia anyone?

djpbarry

molloyjh wrote: »

...what does anyone else make of it?

Yeah, read it myself this morning - not a whole lot of substance to it, I felt. But, I can see a whole load of 'No'-siders getting all hot and bothered about an Irish journalist expressing concern about the change in attitude towards our little island; sure it's all just scaremongering, isn't it?

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, read it myself this morning - not a whole lot of substance to it, I felt. But, I can see a whole load of 'No'-siders getting all hot and bothered about an Irish journalist expressing concern about the change in attitude towards our little island; sure it's all just scaremongering, isn't it?

Poor little didums - my heart bleeds for him - I can see his lickle lower lip curling up ... those nasty Europeans not being nice to him ... Madam should throw a(nother) right strop about this

ps - he has a very casual attitude to his Irish passport, doesn't he? Pity he can't just get an EU one without the bother of having to be Irish/British!;)

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

he has a very casual attitude to his Irish passport, doesn't he?

What sort of attitude would one expect towards a piece of paper?

tolosenc

djpbarry wrote: »

What sort of attitude would one expect towards a piece of paper?

That doesn't belong to him...

is_that_so

Everything is "scaremongering", up there with that other much-loved cliché "ripoff" Ireland. He's just reporting his observations. In as much as we've got into a tizzy the rest of the EU is also allowed to fret or is that "verboten" under the No means No message as well?

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

What sort of attitude would one expect towards a piece of paper?

If its only a piece of paper and considering he was born in Northern Ireland, why did he choose and Irish over British passport if its so unimportant?

I was asked directions by an elderly Sudanese gentleman recently who was very pleased and proud to tell me he was on his way to get his Irish citizenship (and so eligible for that 'piece of paper'). He couldn't speaking highly enough of Mary Robinson and Irish people in general. I was pleased he had a good experience here and also made me feel lucky that I didn't have to go through what he had to, to get that 'piece of paper'.

PS - much funnier letter in the Sindo from a French lady (The World does not love Irish) :D

The world does not love the Irish
Let farmers take bad with good

Letters Home


Sunday September 21 2008

Sir -- With reference to Brendan O'Connor's page one article: 'No More Mr (Irish) Nice Guy' (Sunday Independent, September 14, 2008), Mr Paddy, sorry for disappointing you, but, no, not everyone likes you.

As a matter of fact, it is pretty amazing how disliked the Irish are.

Of course, this is not said aloud as it is not politically correct. (French and German are the only two nationalities one can hate openly). Anyway as I was saying, keep dreaming.

The great craic: where, when, how, who?

Did I miss anything these last 30-odd years? I never see any craic with the Paddies. I agree, you sincerely believe you've got it, but noooooooo, wrong again. Only when you're binge-drinking do you dare open your mouth. And then, it is to talk total rubbish. You are loud, that's for sure. Well, one is Irish, so, one must pretend to be enjoying oneself. The usual topic is -- God, we are great!!!! Everybody loves us. (Please God, let it be true!).

Your accent? Well, first of all, like in any country, there are different accents. But again, no, no, no, no -- the Irish accent is vile! Last month, I was in Ireland for a week. As soon as I arrived in Dublin and was surrounded by that awful noise coming out of the mouths around me, I wondered how would I be able to last that long. For sure, to wake up next to someone with such an accent must be some anti-climax! Give me the south east English accent anytime. But Irish?

It is a fact that the Irish are totally ignorant regarding the cultures of thousands of beautiful countries and regions all over the world. Most of those cultures include story-telling, playing music, singing. But , again, silly us, we forgot, only the Irish sing and play music .... How many times do you want to hear the boooooooring Danny song?

So Mr Paddy, I've been married to an Irishman for 32 years. I know the Irish history (I made sure I read the books), I know what Ireland was like 30 years ago, I know the mentality of the Irish, I know everything about you all. And it is not very pretty.

The chip on the shoulder? Well, you have one on each shoulder, for balance. And that stops you from rising up. You see the other nationalities, (let's take the French and the German you hate so much) they are very secure about themselves and they are bloody right about it. So, they don't care what anybody thinks about them. I am French (ho la la, a frog!) and the one thing I am proud of is that in France, unlike in Ireland, we are very curious about other nationalities.

My origins are in Brittany. Brittany -- where people do not like the Irish. Why? Because you are ignorant. You are the ones who are not interested in other cultures. The Scottish and the Welsh are loved in Brittany, Why? Because they are interested in all those people coming to the festivals from all over the world to introduce us to their culture. But you? Forget it.

Even when it comes to business in France, you are known as not trustworthy. A lot of bull****, yes!

When I was in sales in London, the Irish clients were the easiest to get. Why? Just telling them, "I am married to an Irishman" was sufficient to get the appointment/the deal. They all thought they were loved. Idiots! Sometimes I even found it too easy.

I have a friend who is the director of a recruitment agency for hotel industry management. Well, guess what? Irish women are the most difficult to place. Why? Because they are vile. They believe that being a good manager is to bully people. Very Irish!

Irish friends? No, it does not exist. I am not saying there are no nice Irish people. But friendship can be difficult among people who begrudge the success of their neighbour. (Don't deny it, even the Irish say it themselves). For whatever reason, you are obsessed with money. In France, we consider it vulgar to talk about money.

So, to your last comment, that everybody likes you when you are rich, let me tell you something. No matter what, Paddy, and don't forget it, no amount of money will hide the smell of dung which will always stick to your magnificent boots wherever you'll go.

And next time, don't mix up "patronising you" with "liking you".

A nationality is just an accident of birth, which means that when people say, for example: "I am proud of being Irish", it is an absurdity. We do nothing in order to have a nationality. And to be proud of something, you must achieve something, work at it, like when you succeed at your exams.

But for sure, I am very happy to be French. Thank God for that accident of birth. How awful to think I could have been born Irish! Italian, Spanish, yes. But Irish! And maybe that is why deep down you're so afraid of not being liked. You realise yourself how pathetic you are.

As for the accent of my husband, he has a great musical ear, and maybe that is why he has hardly any Irish accent. Lucky me!

Anyway, keep dreaming.

PS: All the people I know from Italy, France, Poland, etc are French, Italian, Polish. Nobody calls himself/herself European. Nobody.

Name and address with Editor

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/the-world-does-not-love-the-irish-1479352.html

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

If its only a piece of paper and considering he was born in Northern Ireland, why did he choose and Irish over British passport if its so unimportant?

I have no idea, but I chose Dunnes Stores' Fruit & Fibre over Weetabix for my breakfast this morning; doesn't mean I place any great importance in my preferred cereal of the day.

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

I have no idea, but I chose Dunnes Stores' Fruit & Fibre over Weetabix for my breakfast this morning; doesn't mean I place any great importance in my preferred cereal of the day.

But if (living beside Dunnes), you travelled to the next parish to get Tescos cereal, it would indicate some importance in your choice, wouldn't it (which is what Jamie did here).

passive

Here, delete that letter. There's a whole thread devoted to that in After Hours and it totally derails and distracts from any chance of an actual discussion here on the consequences of the No vote.

O'Morris

I'm glad the Irish are disliked in Europe and I hope we'll be even more disliked when we vote no to the second Lisbon Treaty. Being disliked will make us feel powerful, like the Americans.

thehighground

passive wrote: »

Here, delete that letter. There's a whole thread devoted to that in After Hours and it totally derails and distracts from any chance of an actual discussion here on the consequences of the No vote.

A consequence of the No vote is that Irish people are not 'liked' in Europe anymore. The Irish Times article is by someone who is 'in the know' of the Eurocrats. The Sindo Letter is evidence of the views of an ordinary French person (who is not employed/or makes a living from the existence of the EU)

Fairplay to the Irish Times & Sindo for letting us all know what everyone thinks of us.

Perhaps the discussion should be "Do we care if no one likes us in Europe"?

I'm in the not bothered one way or the other camp whether we are liked or not and that won't be a factor in what way I vote in Lisbon 2.


Found the link on After Hours for anyone who wants to actually discuss this letter

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055382472

turgon

Just a few brief comments on the actual piece.

Irish Times wrote:

"Why do you want to ruin Europe for everyone else? How could you vote no when you have received so much money from the EU?" he asked incredulously.

I love the use of the word you, in the context of a decision in which over 700,000 people agreed with this guy. Apparently the only value he sees in life is money. Poor guy.

Irish Times wrote:

The treaty was his "baby" and, to make matters worse, the Irish have wrecked his six-month EU presidency.

This Sarcozy guy seems touchy. Especially seems even if the vote was YES we would still be under Nice until the conclusion of the French presidency. Whining, imo.

Irish Times wrote:

In Spain the big concern is that it will lose the four extra MEPs that it has been promised in the Lisbon Treaty.

The principle of losing something is that you must already have it. I could not lose an apple I never had. Equally the Spanish cannot claim to have lost four MEP seats they actually never had.

Irish Times wrote:

The Portuguese are unhappy because the treaty is named after their capital city

I never knew the Portuguese took international treaties directly influencing the government of 27 nations so seriously :rolleyes:

Irish Times wrote:

Given the prevailing mood in Brussels toward the Irish it may soon prove necessary to dust off the British passport that I am entitled to as I was born in Northern Ireland.

Be rest assured: if there was a referendum in Britain it would probably have been NO too, the only difference is they didnt annoy Brussels by actually force them to listen.

oscarBravo

As I read that article in the paper edition, I remember thinking: many in the "no" camp were utterly dismissive of the idea that a "no" vote would cost us influence in Europe. Now that it's becoming clear that it has, the attitude will change to "who cares if it costs us influence?"

Seems I wasn't far wrong.

molloyjh

oscarBravo wrote: »

As I read that article in the paper edition, I remember thinking: many in the "no" camp were utterly dismissive of the idea that a "no" vote would cost us influence in Europe. Now that it's becoming clear that it has, the attitude will change to "who cares if it costs us influence?"

Seems I wasn't far wrong.

I must say I thought the same thing!

Turgon - while I agree and find the fact that we have been negatively affected in this way - and the motives for being so affected - as a result of our vote to be ridiculous (in that in a true democracy it shouldn't happen), I also find dangerous driving and the motives for that ridiculous. It's still a reality that we have to deal with though regardless. In an ideal world we wouldn't have to, but this world is far from ideal!

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

The Sindo Letter is evidence of the views of an ordinary French person (who is not employed/or makes a living from the existence of the EU)

Nah, I'd say it's extraordinary!

thehighground wrote:

Fairplay to the Irish Times & Sindo for letting us all know what everyone thinks of us.

Everyone? Are a few Eurocrats and a mad Frenchwoman everyone?

thehighground wrote:

Perhaps the discussion should be "Do we care if no one likes us in Europe"?

I'm in the not bothered one way or the other camp whether we are liked or not and that won't be a factor in what way I vote in Lisbon 2.

Indeed, I don't care what they think, but no doubt these articles will be dragged up by some in a campaign.

thehighground wrote:

Found the link on After Hours for anyone who wants to actually discuss this letter

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055382472

I don't really want to discuss a racists view but I might waste 10 minutes looking at it.

Jade Goodie comes to mind when I think about that letter.

PS. Getting back on topic, I wonder how she voted on the Constitution?

fly_agaric

djpbarry wrote: »

I have no idea, but I chose Dunnes Stores' Fruit & Fibre over Weetabix for my breakfast this morning; doesn't mean I place any great importance in my preferred cereal of the day.

You are in a rich & stable country. Congrats you won the lottery and are able to freely engage in self-deluding "I'm a citizen of the globe" malarky but don't expect us all to buy into it!:)

djpbarry

fly_agaric wrote: »

You are in a rich & stable country. Congrats you won the lottery and are able to freely engage in self-deluding "I'm a citizen of the globe" malarky but don't expect us all to buy into it!:)

In fairness, comparisons were being drawn between Irish citizenship and British; much of a muchness in my opinion. Had we been comparing Irish citizenship with Zimbabwean, then you might have a point.

fly_agaric

djpbarry wrote: »

In fairness, comparisons were being drawn between Irish citizenship and British; much of a muchness in my opinion. Had we been comparing Irish citizenship with Zimbabwean, then you might have a point.

What was that whoosh-ing noise? <listens>
I think I hear the sound of Pearse and co spinning in their graves...:pac:

oscarBravo

What's this? A re-run of the "people died for your freedom" posters?

karen3212

I'm sorry, but I feel like sombody dreamed up this utter ****e to make Irish people more anti- Europe. Would we be up in arms if Belgium had voted no before us or some such, not in general I suspect.

And the French person's letter, well with all the anti-French ****e from the US recently, that's spread like wildfire over here, I'm not surprised someone that could read it all wouldn't go off on one.

Yes a way ahead needs to be looked at, but the article and the letter above are trash.

sink

Our governments decision to guarantee the banks looks like it could be the first victim of the No vote. We have lost support in the EU, support which we badly need to hold off the growing opposition to our governments decision. Paul Gillespie write about it in today's Irish Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1004/1222959349509.html




*Awaits accusations of bullying*

thehighground

sink wrote: »

Our governments decision to guarantee the banks looks like it could be the first victim of the No vote. We have lost support in the EU, support which we badly need to hold off the growing opposition to our governments decision. Paul Gillespie write about it in today's Irish Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1004/1222959349509.html

*Awaits accusations of bullying*

No accusations of EU bullying coming from me. I seem to recall Lenihan saying he contacted the EU before he did what he did and to be told we were on our own.

I've a funny feeling that all those south Dublin bankers who voted 'yes' to Lisbon might feel extraordinary lucky that the Irish Gov., as a sovereign country could actually do what they just did for them and the country.

By the way, if Lisbon was in operation, would the Irish Gov. have been able to bail the Irish banks/econonmy out or would we have to wait for the EU to do it?

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

By the way, if Lisbon was in operation, would the Irish Gov. have been able to bail the Irish banks/econonmy out or would we have to wait for the EU to do it?

With all due respect, if you don't know the answer to that, how can you believe you understand the treaty well enough to vote on it either way?

fly_agaric

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's this? A re-run of the "people died for your freedom" posters?

No, just a joke.
I do see what djpbarry is getting at, but my inner nationalist tendencies rebel somewhat...

I voted yes to Lisbon by the way...

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

I've a funny feeling that all those south Dublin bankers who voted 'yes' to Lisbon might feel extraordinary lucky that the Irish Gov., as a sovereign country could actually do what they just did for them and the country.

Which has no bearing on Lisbon what-so-ever, so why are the 2 being referenced in the same question? Either way anyone who thinks that the senior bankers are sleeping easy these days are fooling themselves. The bail out thing is a different topic, but suffice it to say its really not as big a deal as it sounds.

thehighground wrote: »

By the way, if Lisbon was in operation, would the Irish Gov. have been able to bail the Irish banks/econonmy out or would we have to wait for the EU to do it?

Yes. Lisbon never would have altered anything in that area.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

With all due respect, if you don't know the answer to that, how can you believe you understand the treaty well enough to vote on it either way?

Well, if you believe I shouldn't have a vote for asking a question, what would you do with Brian Lenihan - didn't he contact the EU for clarification about the present situation .... and we haven't even got to Lisbon yet

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

Well, if you believe I shouldn't have a vote for asking a question, what would you do with Brian Lenihan - didn't he contact the EU for clarification about the present situation .... and we haven't even got to Lisbon yet

Again nothing to do with Lisbon. And my interpretation of what Lenihan was asking was around the whole unfair competition thing given that this was just aimed at Irish banks. To be honest I think there was a bit of leeway given (and likely sought) given the current crisis.

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Again nothing to do with Lisbon. And my interpretation of what Lenihan was asking was around the whole unfair competition thing given that this was just aimed at Irish banks. To be honest I think there was a bit of leeway given (and likely sought) given the current crisis.

The point I'm making is that apparently Brian Lenihan is fit to make a decision for this country as Minister for Finance, even though he asks a question/clarification from the EU on whether we are going to find ourselves in hot water with the EU about it. And all I do is ask a similar type question and I'm told by Oscar I shouldn't have a vote

Edit: "To be honest I think there was a bit of leeway given (and likely sought) given the current crisis."

The leeway given was that Lenihan was told we were on our own. Don't think Lenihan was best pleased about that.

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Which has no bearing on Lisbon what-so-ever, so why are the 2 being referenced in the same question? Either way anyone who thinks that the senior bankers are sleeping easy these days are fooling themselves. The bail out thing is a different topic, but suffice it to say its really not as big a deal as it sounds.

You'll have to ask Gillespie in Irish Times. See Sink's post above.

Yes. Lisbon never would have altered anything in that area.

Thanks for answering. So, the EU wouldn't have bailed us out then. Which begs the question - what is the point of closer integration in the EU if when you really need them you are on your own?

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

what is the point of closer integration in the EU if when you really need them you are on your own?

Eh, because if we had more closer integration, we mighn't be on our own?

I do love some of the No siders complaining about how useless the EU are in this crisis, yet if the EU had stopped the Govt. from doing the bailout, they'd be the first to cry about EU interference and our sovereignty etc.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Eh, because if we had more closer integration, we mighn't be on our own?

I do love some of the No siders complaining about how useless the EU are in this crisis, yet if the EU had stopped the Govt. from doing the bailout, they'd be the first to cry about EU interference and our sovereignty etc.

According to molloyjh the Lisbon Treaty would not have helped us out of our present difficulties. Closer integration in this instance would still mean we were on our own.

Forgive me for not seeing that as a positive for voting Yes in the next Lisbon Treaty vote.

Please also forgive me for thinking that if the EU had bailed us out by doing what the Irish Gov. has just done, it would be a reason to vote Yes in the next Lisbon Treaty vote.

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

Well, if you believe I shouldn't have a vote for asking a question...

If you have to misrepresent what I said, it's a clear admission that you don't have a valid point to make. Next time reply to what I said, rather than what it suits you to pretend I meant.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you have to misrepresent what I said, it's a clear admission that you don't have a valid point to make. Next time reply to what I said, rather than what it suits you to pretend I meant.

Oscar, can you please explain in plain English what you meant then (requoted below for your convenience).

QUOTE=oscarBravoWith all due respect, if you don't know the answer to that, how can you believe you understand the treaty well enough to vote on it either way?

oscarBravo

The original quote was in plain English. I'm not sure how to make it plainer. For the avoidance of doubt, I'll point out that I never said or implied that you shouldn't have a vote, which is what you falsely claimed I implied.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

According to molloyjh the Lisbon Treaty would not have helped us out of our present difficulties. Closer integration in this instance would still mean we were on our own.

Indeed, I don't know what they are meeting about today either? Thought I heard it was something to do with the crisis but maybe I misheard?

thehighground wrote:

Forgive me for not seeing that as a positive for voting Yes in the next Lisbon Treaty vote.

Some would see it as EU interference and it would have been spinned as such if Lisbon did include it!

thehighground wrote:

Please also forgive me for thinking that if the EU had bailed us out by doing what the Irish Gov. has just done, it would be a reason to vote Yes in the next Lisbon Treaty vote.

Why would they bail us or indeed any other state out of our own messes?
If they did, who'd finance it?

PS. Hopefully after the last week the argument that we should leave the EU and be like Iceland has ended!

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

The original quote was in plain English. I'm not sure how to make it plainer. For the avoidance of doubt, I'll point out that I never said or implied that you shouldn't have a vote, which is what you falsely claimed I implied.

Well, what did you claim/imply - I'm still none the wiser as to how to interpret this comment "how can you believe you understand the treaty well enough to vote on it either way"?

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, I don't know what they are meeting about today either? Thought I heard it was something to do with the crisis but maybe I misheard?

Some would see it as EU interference and it would have been spinned as such if Lisbon did include it!

Why would they bail us or indeed any other state out of our own messes?
If they did, who'd finance it?

PS. Hopefully after the last week the argument that we should leave the EU and be like Iceland has ended!

Only people putting any sort of a spin on it is Paul Gillespie of the Irish Times who are very obviously in the 'Yes' to Lisbon camp.

I think even if Iceland was a member of the EU it could still have got itself into the mess that its in, just like Ireland, even though a member of the EU has got itself into a right mess as well.

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

Well, what did you claim/imply - I'm still none the wiser as to how to interpret this comment "how can you believe you understand the treaty well enough to vote on it either way"?

It's in English. I can't help you beyond that.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Only people putting any sort of a spin on it is Paul Gillespie of the Irish Times who are very obviously in the 'Yes' to Lisbon camp.

I think even if Iceland was a member of the EU it could still have got itself into the mess that its in, just like Ireland, even though a member of the EU has got itself into a right mess as well.

Hmm. If you're trying to say that Ireland is in as much of a mess as Iceland, you are leaving out rather a lot - 15% inflation, collapsing banks and a collapsing currency.

regards,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. If you're trying to say that Ireland is in as much of a mess as Iceland, you are leaving out rather a lot - 15% inflation, collapsing banks and a collapsing currency.

regards,
Scofflaw

The week is yet young.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's in English. I can't help you beyond that.

Are you the EU official who spoke to Brian Lenihan by any chance

If you have to misrepresent what I said, it's a clear admission that you don't have a valid point to make. Next time reply to what I said, rather than what it suits you to pretend I meant.

Would you please withdraw this comment then please, or else substantiate it.

thehighground

dresden8 wrote: »

The week is yet young.

Exactly what I was thinking!

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Exactly what I was thinking!

Why, are we going to have 15% inflation and the Euro collapsing this week?

I wouldn't be surprised if a bank failed, same as other countries in that respect really.

oscarBravo

thehighground wrote: »

Would you please withdraw this comment then please, or else substantiate it.

Nope. You misrepresented what I said. I'm not impressed that you continue to do so.

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nope. You misrepresented what I said. I'm not impressed that you continue to do so.

Oscar, I don't want to misrepresent you. Help me out please. I don't have a problem admitting when I'm in the wrong.

The Corinthian

Returning to the topic of this thread... yes, politically (i.e. diplomatically) Ireland has lost considerable credibility as a result of the no vote. Our diplomats spent months negotiating the treaty with those of the other member states, came to a common agreement and then went back on it.

That it was defeated in a democratic referendum is not their problem, that's ours. They negotiated a treaty in good faith, we signed up then turned around and said we couldn't go through with it. And that bottom line is what has caused us to lose a lot of influence.

How will this affect us? We're not going to be shown as much good faith in future negotiations. We will not be considered trustworthy and making any agreement is no guarantee that we'll abide by it. There will be far less willingness to give us concessions.

And with the double whammy of a global banking recession and domestic property collapse, a bit of good will from the EU would have been really handy right about now.

I've a number of good friends who are fairly senior diplomats and I'm told that this is pretty much the consensus view in the DFA.

limklad

I do not know why people are linking the credit crunch crisis, with bad lending by Banks, etc is a result of the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. It has got nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty even with a Yes Vote. It was all pre-Lisbon and started in the USA in the Banking system before spreading over here and their failures in their decision making, not Ireland failure for not ratifying the Treaty. It is pure lunacy to link both and it show our insecurity to do so.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Returning to the topic of this thread... yes, politically (i.e. diplomatically) Ireland has lost considerable credibility as a result of the no vote. Our diplomats spent months negotiating the treaty with those of the other member states, came to a common agreement and then went back on it.

That it was defeated in a democratic referendum is not their problem, that's ours. They negotiated a treaty in good faith, we signed up then turned around and said we couldn't go through with it. And that bottom line is what has caused us to lose a lot of influence.

How will this affect us? We're not going to be shown as much good faith in future negotiations. We will not be considered trustworthy and making any agreement is no guarantee that we'll abide by it. There will be far less willingness to give us concessions.

And with the double whammy of a global banking recession and domestic property collapse, a bit of good will from the EU would have been really handy right about now.

I've a number of good friends who are fairly senior diplomats and I'm told that this is pretty much the consensus view in the DFA.

As for Future negotiations? What proof is there it will reflect badly on us? They still need our agreement to ratify new Treaties or change the structure of the EU. This will weight heavily on their minds. They used us as a model over the years of the benefits of joining the EU. They cannot say they did not gain from Ireland. Portugal and Spain economies did not reach the heights our did with the Support of the EU funds. I have no problem of been a contributor to EU coffers to help other countries infrastructure.

The Danish Reject Maastricht Treaty : The Danish may have lost some credibility due to opt-outs. It because of the Opt-outs that their politicians say they have less influence in Europe.
The French & Dutch rejected the EU Constitution:
It does not mean that The French and Dutch have lost credibility. They have considerable larger populations than Ireland and Denmark.

1. The Polish President is rejecting the Sign the Lisbon Treaty into law, even though he signed it in Lisbon. He is using our Rejection to block it.
2. The Czech republic may reject in their Courts, We have to Wait their decision next month. They are taking over the presidency of the European Union for the first half of 2009.
3. The Åland Islands in Finland may reject it too. Finland cannot ratify it without their assent. They (Åland Islands) have a hell of lot smaller population than us. They do not have any say on the EU running or legislation nor have a representative on the EU parliament to speak on their behalf but they must follow all EU rules. There only have a voice on Ratifications of Treaties.

EU politicians have lost credibility after their attacking comments about Ireland Referendum Rejection of Lisbon Treaty attacking our Democratic decision. If they managed to pass Lisbon by bypassing the People of Ireland, then Democracy is Dead in Europe. I am not against a second Referendum, even if it is passed as long it is with the people permission.

But the EU politicians behaviour after the Failed EU Constitution in the way Lisbon treaty was created have seriously got me worried about the version of democracy in Europe our Leaders want heading more towards communism with the exception of the Capitalist view spin. They (EU Leaders) are suppose to a representative of their Populations views not on their own views. If EU Leaders have a problem with us not voting their way, then they might punish us for voting in politicians that they do not like! Sarkozy has openly said he not have put the EU treaties to a referendum in France, that they would fail.

Bruno Waterfield, Telegraph wrote:

Referendums on the new European Union Treaty were "dangerous" and would be lost in France, Britain and other countries, Nicolas Sarkozy has admitted

The French president's confession that governments could not win popular votes on a "simplified treaty" - drawn up to replace the EU constitution rejected by his countrymen two years ago - was made in a closed meeting of senior Euro-MPs.
"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting no. It would happen in all member states if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments," he said.
"A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."
The comments confirm suspicions that the real reason why Britain, and all other EU countries, apart from Ireland, were refusing to hold popular votes was because governments were afraid they would lose them.

Speaking earlier in front of the European Parliament, in Strasbourg, Mr Sarkozy made public comments that would further alarm Downing Street. Mr Brown, when signing the new EU Treaty last month, promised that he would oppose any further European integration for at least a decade.
But the French president told MEPs: "It would be a mistake to think that with the simplified treaty we have sorted everything, we can sleep easy and that no other issues are pending."

He is planning to use his turn at the EU's rotating presidency, in the second half of next year, to call for new European powers in highly sensitive areas such as defence, which will dismay Mr Brown.
The president said: "Now we have got to resolve the political issues and to broach them without fear. We have got to debate them without taboos. Budgetary policy, trade policy, monetary policy, industrial policy, taxation, all policies, any policies."

Even Some diplomats can be out of touch of the Public Pulse. Diplomats are not elected officials. There is no requirement for them to talk to the public unless they have to if their Job requires it. It is not always in their interest to do what is in the public interest but only the Government interest.
Some may be eyeing a bigger job in Brussels. We do not know their motives, good or bad. As Far as I am aware, only our politicians can questioned them.

Lisbon Treaty is a political project, not the EU citizen project.
There was no strikes nor marches in the Streets looking for greater integration and for EU Treaties to supersede the Irish Constitution or either in any other EU State.

The defeated in a democratic referendum is their problem. Before The EU Constitution and Lisbon, there was no proper forum here in Ireland to ask the people what future do they want Ireland to participate in the EU. It never happen in France or Holland after the EU Constitution got rejected. They just decided to bypassed the people by using the treaty route using 90% of the EU Constitution. The other 10% of the text was admitted to be related to the term Constitution. If they did then I definitely would have heard of them, it would have been in the News. As Far as I know there was political meeting not public meetings.

With 95% of our politicians who were in favour the Lisbon Treaty and it was a rejected by 53% of voters, then it shows that our politicians are very much out of touch of the Public opinions. If not though we have not rejected referendums in the recent past. I have count 7 rejected referendums to change the Irish Constitution in our History since the creation of the state.
It goes to show that they either incapable of learning a basic fact that they need to communicate more with their people or they have the arrogant idea that they are in control of the People and that the people should blindly do what they are told. There an article on the Irish Times.

Future EU negotiations will need to have hard proof that our Rights, freedoms and freedom of speech and democracy is fully permanently protected. Up to now it has been protected but the future remains uncertain. Politicians have proven over and over again that they cannot be trusted. They have a lot of hard work to do for the arrogant mess they landed themselves into.

Whatever pressure Irish Diplomats have because of the Rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, they can be assure that their counterparts will be equally under the same pressure, for they know we the Irish voters must pass it.

Scofflaw

Limklad wrote:

As for Future negotiations? What proof is there it will reflect badly on us? They still need our agreement to ratify new Treaties or change the structure of the EU.

Mm - those kind of things come round once every 5-10 years, and EU negotiations happen every day. All EU legislation has to pass the Council - how do you think what gets passed is decided, other than negotiations?

Limklad wrote:

This will weight heavily on their minds.

Indeed it will.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mm - those kind of things come round once every 5-10 years, and EU negotiations happen every day. All EU legislation has to pass the Council - how do you think what gets passed is decided, other than negotiations?

The childish behaviour that they will not gives us any lea way because we (the electorate) do not agree with them only reflects badly on them. It shows bad respect for the decision made by the Irish sovereign electorate in a democratic society. Like it or not, Irish Politicians and diplomats screwed up by not anticipating what the Irish electorate wanted before negotiations, this is a major affect on the current everyday negotiations.

What also reflected badly about other EU states that other leaders blatantly refused referendums and held their electorate in contempt i.e (Sarkozy), by deliberately bypassing them and refusing them (their citizens) voice and opinions in their future direction. As you know, Our government would have done the same, if it was not for for our Constitution, the our High & Supreme Courts and especially Mr Raymond Crotty for taking our government to Court, because the Government was allowing foreign governments via EU intuitions a say in our Foreign policy.
Crotty V. An Taoiseach

Yes EU negotiations do happen every day, bad press coming from the EU towards Ireland will reflect badly on Irish Voters minds on upcoming EU referendums. It is a double edge sword. The EU Diplomats are only shooting themselves in the foot by putting further pressure on Irish Diplomats.

All negotiations if you want something and do not want to give anything, then applying pressure no matter how small the reason is. The other EU diplomats know Ireland is on the Back foot because Irish Politicians & Diplomats are now embarrassed of their failure in passing Lisbon. This was evident during the Referendum debates that No vote would lead the Government and Irish diplomats would lead them to be on the back foot. This as a surrendering tactic that shot themselves before the Referendum Day. Other negotiators have seen this weakness and jump on to get what they want. If they do not like it now then they should quit. Give some else the opportunity to represent the Irish people in Europe who will fight our corner that have that defeatist attitude.

djpbarry

limklad wrote: »

The childish behaviour that they will not gives us any lea way because we (the electorate) do not agree with them only reflects badly on them. It shows bad respect for the decision made by the Irish sovereign electorate in a democratic society.

That's not how it works. The fact that the treaty was rejected by referendum is somewhat irrelevant. The point is that Ireland played a central role in negotiating the treaty, but then failed to ratify it. From the other EU states' perspectives, it seems we have reneged on the agreement.

limklad wrote: »

Like it or not, Irish Politicians and diplomats screwed up by not anticipating what the Irish electorate wanted before negotiations...

What was it that the Irish electorate wanted exactly?

limklad wrote: »

What also reflected badly about other EU states that other leaders blatantly refused referendums and held their electorate in contempt i.e (Sarkozy), by deliberately bypassing them and refusing them (their citizens) voice and opinions in their future direction.

In the case of Sarkozy, as ahs been said countless times before on this forum, he made no secret of this during his presidential campaign, yet he was still elected. What does that tell you?

limklad wrote: »

Give some else the opportunity to represent the Irish people in Europe who will fight our corner that have that defeatist attitude.

Remind me what it is they're fighting for?