Why I'm thinking of voting yes this time to Lisbon

democrates

I voted no in the first Lisbon treaty. I still think this treaty is on balance, a step in the wrong direction for the quality of democracy afforded to citizens of EU member states, but now I'm considering a yes for Lisbon 2.

Clearly circumstances have changed, we now have the gun of economic crisis to our heads, as Obama said "the world has changed". Since the markets are based on confidence, it seems reasonable to assume that their reaction to a second no vote would cause deeper and longer economic adversity for citizens, especially since our EU elite have no plan B except the promise of chaos and uncertainty.

Personally I'd be quite willing to deal with temporarily tougher times in order to avoid worsening democracy and to keep the institutional reform agenda alive, but our young people with no say as well as citizens accross the EU would also pay the price. It's likely that Ireland would pay the highest price.

Even if the majority of citizens in EU member states do not see Lisbon as the right direction, not enough are taking to the streets to insist on having their own referenda. If they can't be bothered to influence their own politicians, why would we expect that they would save us from politicial retribution? The fact is the elite have the power, and if we vote no again we can easily (and to a degree justifiably) be blamed for the extent of recessions in member states, having caused a political crisis and market uncertainty at the worst possible time. We alone would pay the price for disobediance and could count on little popular support for our position.

"Pick your battles" springs to mind, and now is no longer the time for this one. If we vote yes it takes us out of the firing line for blame and gives the EU elite enough rope to hang themselves. Let them run amok with their new powers and maybe then, when our fellow citizens accross the EU are finally ready to stand up and fight for their rights, we can gladly join in.

turgon

I swallowed my pride yesterday, so that makes two of us. Although in fairness you still seem to think that Lisbon is actually completely undesirable??

And remember this...

johnnyq wrote: »

Most Passionate No Campaigner - Turgon (and Rb on After Hours)
Most Reasoned No Campaigner - Democrates

Looks like the No side will have to find new debaters for the next round

cozmik

I don't subscribe to your personal view democrates. I intend to vote No again.

Scofflaw

This leaves me pretty torn. On the one hand, I'm glad to see people voting Yes (since I think Lisbon is a step in the right direction, although not a long enough one) - on the other, unless some more rational No advocates step forward, the next debate here will be like playing Space Invaders with muppets. It's also a little depressing that the most powerful argument turns out to be fear - although I can also see what democrates is saying about being pointlessly (and unfairly, perhaps) in the firing line.

Eh, well, we'll see. I wish I could be more gleeful about it.

resignedly,
Scofflaw

democrates

turgon wrote: »

I swallowed my pride yesterday, so that makes two of us. Although in fairness you still seem to think that Lisbon is actually completely undesirable??

And remember this...



Looks like the No side will have to find new debaters for the next round

That's gas! I only found that thread the other month when I googled for another Lisbon thread and didn't recall seeing it before, must say I was very heartened to read the kind words there.

It just shows, people can debate diametrically opposite positions and let alone not fall out over it but gain a level of trust that comes from dealing with someone who expresses themselves honestly, just knowing where you stand with someone if that makes sense.

On Lisbon itself my view is of a mixed set of measures, some things good others not so. On aggregate, the increased centralisation of power without an appropriate level of transparency and accountability is what marks it out for me as a step in the wrong direction. We haven't got our national democracies right and the EU is just doing it on a bigger scale, but it's worse because even though we can topple our own government over some red-line imposition that qmv decision will still stand.

But just as you say in your post yesterday, the wider implications beyond the treaty itself have to be considered. We knew a first no would mean choppy waters politically and that seemed worth the potential gain, but with recession biting the consequences of another no weigh a hell of a lot more. We're stuck with this bitter pill precisely because of the whole "no plan B" brinkmanship, so for me the arcitects of this situation are down more points on that score.

I'm glad of a second chance to vote, in fact I think the government would do well to bring the referendum forward and drive home the message that bringing stability is of critical importance and sooner is better.

There are interesting changes afoot. There's evident tension as a result of the economic turmoil, with governments asking their people to pull together we're hearing responses from the middle classes regarding the well off that one might expect from socialists. I don't think it's a massive lurch over to the left but in a leftward direction, faith in the invisible hand of the unregulated market seems to be generally evaporating. It may pave the way for more change than we've seen for decades so Lisbon may not mark the holiday from institutional reform for as long as it's architects had anticipated.

Interesting times .

democrates

cozmik wrote: »

I don't subscribe to your personal view democrates. I intend to vote No again.

Well there's not a lot there for me to engage on, but I'm glad you're voting. Aside from Lisbon not being the option we'd ideally like, at least we also have in common that we give enough of a damn about the future to exercise our democratic right.

Which reminds me, a git in the local pub got thick with me before the first referendum. I asked if he had a leaning yet on Lisbon, he said "I never vote. Do you know why?" I said "No, and if your opinion isn't going to be counted at the ballot box it doesn't count with me either, conversation over". Amazing the effect of copious alcohol on judgement, he was with his usual bunch of ill whingers and it was only by asking a question to set them at each other that I melted away, it could have turned ugly.

anladmór

can i ask what would have prevented just having a eu wide vote on the treaty with results being based not on the country but the eu as a whole? then if lisbon(which i support) gets the majority vote or vice versa it either goes through or does not which is how a democracy works.

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

This leaves me pretty torn. On the one hand, I'm glad to see people voting Yes (since I think Lisbon is a step in the right direction, although not a long enough one) - on the other, unless some more rational No advocates step forward, the next debate here will be like playing Space Invaders with muppets. It's also a little depressing that the most powerful argument turns out to be fear - although I can also see what democrates is saying about being pointlessly (and unfairly, perhaps) in the firing line.

Eh, well, we'll see. I wish I could be more gleeful about it.

resignedly,
Scofflaw

Looks like I'm in with strange bedfellows whichever way I vote

I'd let the glee flow and optimism too, whatever way the cards fall keep the can do 'tude dude!

sink

anladmór wrote: »

can i ask what would have prevented just having a eu wide vote on the treaty with results being based not on the country but the eu as a whole? then if lisbon(which i support) gets the majority vote or vice versa it either goes through or does not which is how a democracy works.

Because the is an intergovernmental body. Unlike a country which derives it's power directly from the people the EU derives it's power from the national governments of it's member states. The EU has no power to hold referenda and if it were to obtain this power it would in effect become a country in it's own right, with a constitution that completely bypasses the member states constitutions and goes directly to the people.

sceptre

anladmór wrote: »

can i ask what would have prevented just having a eu wide vote on the treaty with results being based not on the country but the eu as a whole? then if lisbon(which i support) gets the majority vote or vice versa it either goes through or does not which is how a democracy works.

All treaties have to be approved by the individual governments. The governments make the call on whether they want to approve the treaty via a parliamentary vote or via a referendum (or in our case, it has to be by referendum).

Despite what some people say, we're nowhere near the stage where a single Euro-wide vote is even possible, let alone legally binding. Even if an EU-wide poll was taken, each individual country would still have to ratify it.

Even in the US, a constitutional amendment has to be approved by three-quarters of the States before it gets passed (as well as both federal houses of congress). There, each State makes the call on whether they want that approval or disapproval decided by state congress or state plebiscite.

Of course that's just the procedural/legal (simplified) answer on why it isn't done. In real practical terms, it may well remain the same in the future (with some modifications like requiring a majority of constituent countries in the EU to approve it rather than being approved by them all) for the same reason as the rule exists in the US - the smaller states see themselves as just as important as the bigger states and don't want to get overruled or overridden by them. The current total EU population is about 500 million people spread across 27 countries. In a Europe-wide popular vote on anything, the decision could be made solely by the largest four countries by population - the populations of Germany, France, the UK and Italy make 266 million, just over half of the total.

Obviously I'm only listing by population, not population with votes but the ratio is still roughly the same

brianthebard

So just to clarify op, all the problems you had with Lisbon remain but because you think for some unknown reason that the current failure of neo liberalism is in some way related to the future vote on Lisbon, you've turned coat? What happened to having some convictions in one's politics? Personally I find your attitude abhorrant.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

So just to clarify op, all the problems you had with Lisbon remain but because you think for some unknown reason that the current failure of neo liberalism is in some way related to the future vote on Lisbon, you've turned coat?

I think that's somewhat inaccurate - what democrates is saying is that the wider consequences of voting No weigh more heavily at the moment than they did last year - and, indeed, are more likely, as anger with the current crisis seeks scapegoats. At least, that's my interpretation of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

democrates

brianthebard wrote: »

So just to clarify op, all the problems you had with Lisbon remain but because you think for some unknown reason that the current failure of neo liberalism is in some way related to the future vote on Lisbon, you've turned coat? What happened to having some convictions in one's politics? Personally I find your attitude abhorrant.

Ok I was expecting some acerbic reaction and I don't even mind if you mean to be personal as that wouldn't be an issue for me to deal with.

I accept the view that I've turned coat on Lisbon, however my loyalty to the people of Ireland is greater than my political convictions, so I haven't turned the big coat.

While the global financial meltdown is indeed a failure of neo liberalism, the markets have not disappeared and are still actively inflicting hardship on targets that are not perceived as sound investments.

That's the reality, no doubt you dislike it as much as I do, I recall when traders attacked the Punt and the mortgage I'd just taken out tripled with the interest rate rise. But that reality means the likely consequences of another no vote in the absence of any plan B are that the EU becomes classified as having an uncertain future, is therefore not as safe a place to invest, and therefore a target for trader attacks.

Much worse would be the reaction against Ireland, the possibillity of our being compelled to leave the EU arises, however realistic that prospect it's the perception that counts, we'd be seen as a far less safe place to invest and get mauled by the markets. Expecting help from the ruling EU elite having just lumped them with an uncertainty attack might be a tad over optimistic.

I'd love to remain defiant and let the EU elite and global profiteers do their worst, the prospect of Ireland being beaten down like Iceland but over time emerging like Switzerland has it's appeal, but I can't in good conscience risk condemning my fellow citizens to pay the interim price with no guarantee of the hoped for society.

That can all be deftly labelled as alarmist fear mongering and dismissed without further consideration, or the responsible approach might be to try for an objective cost/risk/benefit comparison between the outcomes for a yes versus a no, after that, it's down to your value system.

cozmik

democrates wrote: »

Well there's not a lot there for me to engage on,

Well that's because you offered very little other than fear mongering to engage with.

we now have the gun of economic crisis to our heads,

our EU elite have no plan B except the promise of chaos and uncertainty.

we can easily (and to a degree justifiably) be blamed for the extent of recessions in member states

We alone would pay the price for disobediance

TheParrot

Obama is right, the world has changed. The people are getting shafted more than ever before. But one thing will never change, the lack of a backbone in most people.

Such as yourself for example. So you are going to bend over and take it? As everyone should know, the people are going to be given crisis after crisis until this treaty is passed. The dogs on the street know this.

Be a man.

oscarBravo

TheParrot wrote: »

Obama is right, the world has changed. The people are getting shafted more than ever before. But one thing will never change, the lack of a backbone in most people.

Such as yourself for example. So you are going to bend over and take it? As everyone should know, the people are going to be given crisis after crisis until this treaty is passed. The dogs on the street know this.

Be a man.

If you have nothing to contribute to the debate other than a personal attack on another poster (along with some thinly-veiled conspiracy theory), then don't bother contributing.

O'Morris

I'm with democtrates and turgon on this. I'm very much opposed to the Lisbon Treaty but I'm afraid of what will happen to the economy if we vote no a second time. The only option is to vote yes in the second referendum. The economy is the most important thing.

RedPlanet

What's this?
A person voting YES for reasons that are not in the treaty?

It's ok for the YES side, but not ok for the NO side.
How quaint.

Kama

Perhaps the 'Yes' side learnt it's lesson on the correct application of the Black Arts of Propaganda in Round 1, and we can expect both campaigns to be fear-based in motivating the electorate. Nothing says healthy democracy like a forced choice . Doesn't feed into the 'diktat' fears at all at all...

That being said, I went to Susan George (who I generally respect) and found a definite lack of reasoned counters to pro-Lisbon criticism.

turgon

RedPlanet wrote: »

What's this?
A person voting YES for reasons that are not in the treaty?

But these reasons are affected by the Treaty.

Some of the No-side blabber about on other referendums were irrelevant, voting because Irelands standing in Europe will be decreased is not as this will actually be a consequence.

Hitman Actual

RedPlanet wrote: »

What's this?
A person voting YES for reasons that are not in the treaty?

It's ok for the YES side, but not ok for the NO side.
How quaint.

*Sigh* Not this poor argument again. Do you really think voting Yes in the hope of political/economic stability in a time of recession is comparable to voting No due to misinformation on abortion, neutrality, corporation tax, etc? The former argument requires some rational analysis to get to, while the latter requires complete irrationality.

Also, targeting democrates with your point is unfair. He was one of the best No debaters in the run-up to the original referendum, which you would have seen if you had taken part in any of those arguments. Instead, your contribution here has been purely in reaction to the proposed running of a second referendum- I have yet to see you making one cogent argument on Lisbon or indeed any other relevant aspect of EU affairs.

cozmik

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm with democtrates and turgon on this. I'm very much opposed to the Lisbon Treaty but I'm afraid of what will happen to the economy if we vote no a second time.

Don't let the fear-mongers steal your vote.

lostexpectation

worst reason ever

turgon

cozmik wrote: »

Don't let the fear-mongers steal your vote.

Its different when the fears you "monger" are actually genuine.

Im with Scofflaw here, judging by the "second No voters" on this thread, its going to be a long tedious debate.

brianthebard

I don't intend to make personal attacks, unless you see criticism of your logic as personal.

Do you believe that Lisbon is related to the economic climate now? If so why did you vote no the last time?
Did you think at the last referendum that the treaty would have an impact on the economy? If so why did you vote no?
What do you think will be gained from voting yes, economically speaking?
What do you think will happen if you vote no, that was different to the last time you voted?

eta: The possibility of leaving the EU has been covered so many times on these boards already, I'm sure you know by now that its not possible under current EU legislation. So that reason, if nothing else is a non starter here.

democrates wrote: »

Ok I was expecting some acerbic reaction and I don't even mind if you mean to be personal as that wouldn't be an issue for me to deal with.

I accept the view that I've turned coat on Lisbon, however my loyalty to the people of Ireland is greater than my political convictions, so I haven't turned the big coat.

While the global financial meltdown is indeed a failure of neo liberalism, the markets have not disappeared and are still actively inflicting hardship on targets that are not perceived as sound investments.

That's the reality, no doubt you dislike it as much as I do, I recall when traders attacked the Punt and the mortgage I'd just taken out tripled with the interest rate rise. But that reality means the likely consequences of another no vote in the absence of any plan B are that the EU becomes classified as having an uncertain future, is therefore not as safe a place to invest, and therefore a target for trader attacks.

Much worse would be the reaction against Ireland, the possibillity of our being compelled to leave the EU arises, however realistic that prospect it's the perception that counts, we'd be seen as a far less safe place to invest and get mauled by the markets. Expecting help from the ruling EU elite having just lumped them with an uncertainty attack might be a tad over optimistic.

I'd love to remain defiant and let the EU elite and global profiteers do their worst, the prospect of Ireland being beaten down like Iceland but over time emerging like Switzerland has it's appeal, but I can't in good conscience risk condemning my fellow citizens to pay the interim price with no guarantee of the hoped for society.

That can all be deftly labelled as alarmist fear mongering and dismissed without further consideration, or the responsible approach might be to try for an objective cost/risk/benefit comparison between the outcomes for a yes versus a no, after that, it's down to your value system.

BlitzKrieg

Cant say much on the topic, but I will say that it will be a sad debate this time around if all the good debaters are on the same side

Kama

Well, if we are looking at it as a debate in that sense, and given that near-absolute dominance of the pro side in terms of boardsie intellectual heavyweights, and I believe all of the Mods, several of whom have complained that the debate would be 'dull' and wack-a-mole, perhaps some of them could in the interests of objectivity and fairness assume a side that's against their personal interest?

You know, for the good of the discussion

BlitzKrieg

i'd find that actually very hard to do. I could try but I wouldnt know where to begin, what do I use as my sources? I guess that would depend on what points I oppose the treaty with, obviously it would be pointless to take any of the *heard em a million times* points that came up, so its sort of the more classical harder to debate ones such as freedom and democracy, any hardbook source I could use to argue that a 2nd referendum is undemocratic (rather then it being a matter of opinion)


What side of the debate was Sand on again? he's usually good for devils advocate.

Scofflaw

Kama wrote: »

Well, if we are looking at it as a debate in that sense, and given that near-absolute dominance of the pro side in terms of boardsie intellectual heavyweights, and I believe all of the Mods, several of whom have complained that the debate would be 'dull' and wack-a-mole, perhaps some of them could in the interests of objectivity and fairness assume a side that's against their personal interest?

You know, for the good of the discussion

I have been tempted, I admit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have been tempted, I admit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ditto.

Scofflaw

Kama wrote:

Well, if we are looking at it as a debate in that sense, and given that near-absolute dominance of the pro side in terms of boardsie intellectual heavyweights, and I believe all of the Mods, several of whom have complained that the debate would be 'dull' and wack-a-mole, perhaps some of them could in the interests of objectivity and fairness assume a side that's against their personal interest?

You know, for the good of the discussion

Scofflaw wrote:

I have been tempted, I admit.

nesf wrote: »

Ditto.

It would only be fair if they were new and alarming features of Lisbon, though...

thoughtfully,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

and you pm me all the appropiate responses to counter any points you bring up...


please?

nesf

cozmik wrote: »

Don't let the fear-mongers steal your vote.

Explain then my boy how a No vote doesn't undermine confidence in our country and wouldn't potentially prolong a recession here. I assume you can lay out a reasoned argument based on how public debt works and present global economic conditions to show why worries about the effect of a No-vote on international confidence in this country are unfounded and baseless?

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

Explain then my boy how a No vote doesn't undermine confidence in our country and wouldn't potentially prolong a recession here. I assume you can lay out a reasoned argument based on how public debt works and present global economic conditions to show why worries about the effect of a No-vote on international confidence in this country are unfounded and baseless?

Or, alternatively, why you should ignore those consequences?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or, alternatively, why you should ignore those consequences?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Good point.

Daroxtar

i voted yes before and i'll do it again for the same reasons-
europe has money and we need it.
declan ganley is an economic hitman.
in 30 years i'd like to have the european army protecting me from russia, china and the us.

Traditional

Biffo wont be able to aford the voting sheets or you will have to pay to vote , thats sounds about right , introduce another tax , why not .its going down fast now , a race to the bottom !!

brianthebard

nesf wrote: »

Explain then my boy how a No vote doesn't undermine confidence in our country and wouldn't potentially prolong a recession here. I assume you can lay out a reasoned argument based on how public debt works and present global economic conditions to show why worries about the effect of a No-vote on international confidence in this country are unfounded and baseless?

Just as soon as you show that a No vote is conclusively going to deepen a recession and give the necessary data to back up your point, I'm sure there will be several no voters who would then be happy to debate you. What you are saying (very similarly to Democrates op) is complete heresay and fearmongering, the same thing you've complained about from the No campaign for so long.

O'Morris

cozmik wrote:

Don't let the fear-mongers steal your vote.

Too late. I don't know anything about economics so I don't know if there's any truth in the fear-mongering. I think it best to err on the side of caution though.

brianthebard wrote:

Do you believe that Lisbon is related to the economic climate now? If so why did you vote no the last time?
Did you think at the last referendum that the treaty would have an impact on the economy? If so why did you vote no?
What do you think will be gained from voting yes, economically speaking?
What do you think will happen if you vote no, that was different to the last time you voted?

Think of Ireland as a woman from a poor family and the EU as a man from a wealthy and respectable family. The EU proposed marriage to us last year and we rejected it because we thought we could manage alright on our own. Now that our family fortune is quickly disappearing we're going to have to reconsider last year's answer. The next time the proposal is made the answer has to be an unequivocal yes.

nesf wrote:

Explain then my boy how a No vote doesn't undermine confidence in our country and wouldn't potentially prolong a recession here.

I think this might have been one of the main reasons why the other countries decided not to have referendums on the treaty. They knew how damaging it would have been for their own economies if the result had gone the same as it has in Ireland. In fact, I'm sure the French and the Dutch must be worried about how their rejection of the constitution a few years ago has undermined confidence in their countries.

Mena

O'Morris wrote: »

I think this might have been one of the main reasons why the other countries decided not to have referendums on the treaty. They knew how damaging it would have been for their own economies if the result had gone the same as it has in Ireland. In fact, I'm sure the French and the Dutch must be worried about how their rejection of the constitution a few years ago has undermined confidence in their countries.

I thought the main reason the other countries didn't have a referendum on Lisbon was a ) because their constitutions don't require one and b ) the people already elected the Governments to make these decisions on their behalf?

I'm no expert here so feel free to correct me.

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

Just as soon as you show that a No vote is conclusively going to deepen a recession and give the necessary data to back up your point, I'm sure there will be several no voters who would then be happy to debate you. What you are saying (very similarly to Democrates op) is complete heresay and fearmongering, the same thing you've complained about from the No campaign for so long.

Nope, it's rather simple from an economic point of view and is far from hearsay. As it stands any uncertainty about this country punishes it in the public debt markets. This makes it harder (and most importantly, more expensive) for the Government to borrow money. A No vote breeds uncertainty simply because no one knows what will follow it. We know the consequences of a Yes vote, we do not know the consequences of a No vote, which we should all be able to agree on. Anything that decreases confidence in Ireland (i.e. increases uncertainty) will negatively effect us and our recovery by making borrowing (which we have to do) more expensive and harder to do.

The risks of a No vote in this context are very real. You can still argue that it's worth the risk because of X (where X is whatever reason you put forward to vote No) but the risks can't and shouldn't be dismissed as mere scaremongering.


To be clear:

In the last referendum on Lisbon a No vote wouldn't have significantly impacted our ability to borrow as a country. Anyone telling you that it would was scaremongering. Our tax income at the time was still healthy. At worst it would have negatively effected FDI and even then it wasn't going to have an enormous effect. The problem is that the situation is very much different now. We already are having problems borrowing as a country and are paying far higher interest rates than we did 2-3 years ago. The problem is that we already have a lot of uncertainty associated with us over our ability to pay back loans and adding to this with the markets in such negative form will effect us.

O'Morris

nesf wrote:

A No vote breeds uncertainty simply because no one knows what will follow it.

Will that uncertainty effect all of the EU or will it just be Ireland?

nesf wrote:

We know the consequences of a Yes vote, we do not know the consequences of a No vote, which we should all be able to agree on.

From an economic point of view the best thing would be for the EU to scrap the Lisbon Treaty completely. That would send a clear message to the debt markets that it's business as usual in the EU.

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

Will that uncertainty effect all of the EU or will it just be Ireland?

Mostly Ireland but it will effect all of the EU. The extent to which this effects individual countries will vary depending on how much uncertainty is already in the market about them.

O'Morris wrote: »

From an economic point of view the best thing would be for the EU to scrap the Lisbon Treaty completely. That would send a clear message to the debt markets that it's business as usual in the EU.

Yes and no. There are two sides to this. The first is that the present system isn't perfect especially the need for a new treaty every time they want to change the system. The self-amending element of the Lisbon Treaty is something that will allow greater flexibility in the Union and this is viewed by most groups as necessary. Being able to bring in changes one by one would remove the present need for referendums in Ireland (and potentially other countries) on huge complex documents which is no way to run the EU. Far better if the Irish (and others) could vote on individual elements separately.

The other view is that the EU at present doesn't work terribly badly, yes there's room for improvement but it's still able to get some things done and the EU would be better off focussing its efforts on other matters rather than trying to get a treaty passed.


The two views are linked, essentially the argument about self-amendment is that it will free up more resources for dealing with problems rather than spending time negotiating entire new treaties every few years which is huge waste of time and resources.

O'Morris

nesf wrote:

Mostly Ireland but it will effect all of the EU. The extent to which this effects individual countries will vary.

So other EU countries could suffer if we don't pass this treaty? If that's the case then maybe the governments of the member states of the EU should get together and work out a joint statement on what they plan to do if Ireland votes no a second time. That would help reduce the uncertainty and it would be to the benefit of all of the EU, not just Ireland. It's not fair to those other EU countries that their economic recovery is partly linked to whether we vote yes to a treaty in this country. It's understandable that we should be punished if we don't vote yes but it's not acceptable that other countries should have to pay for our ignorance and selfishness.

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

It's understandable that we should be punished if we don't vote yes but it's not acceptable that other countries should have to pay for our ignorance and selfishness.

I wouldn't phrase it that way. We do have a choice in this and we are perfectly within our rights to vote No to this treaty. That this will negatively effect other countries is just how the world works and really is unavoidable and is the reality of treaties like these.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

So other EU countries could suffer if we don't pass this treaty? If that's the case then maybe the governments of the member states of the EU should get together and work out a joint statement on what they plan to do if Ireland votes no a second time.

Were the EU heads of state to prepare such a statement and unless it painted a rosy picture of the future without Lisbon, it would undoubtedly be seized upon by the 'No' side as evidence of "bullying" by the "EU elite".

O'Morris

nesf wrote:

I wouldn't phrase it that way. We do have a choice in this and we are perfectly within our rights to vote No to this treaty. That this will negatively effect other countries is just how the world works and really is unavoidable and is the reality of treaties like these.

I understand that but the EU should still have a backup plan in case the treaty doesn't get passed and they should communicate that plan to the public to help reduce the uncertainty. I think it's very irresponsible of them not to have that plan agreed upon and communicated already.

djpbarry wrote:

Where the EU heads of state to prepare such a statement and unless it painted a rosy picture of the future without Lisbon, it would undoubtedly be seized upon by the 'No' side as evidence of "bullying" by the "EU elite".

It wouldn't be bullying at all. It wouldn't be about imposing an alternative solution over the heads of the Irish electorate. It would just be a simple statement endorsed by the governments of the member states outlining the course of action they intend to follow if the Irish people reject the treaty in the second referendum. If they did that it would massively reduce the uncertainty and it would help restore confidence in the member states.

I can't see the no side having a problem with that or exploiting it in the referendum campaign. And if they do, so what? I think we can all agree that the future of our (the EU's) economies is far more important than whether the Lisbon Treaty gets passed. If the economic argument over Lisbon is put to rest with the joint statement then the debate can focus on the contents of the Lisbon Treaty itself.

nesf

O'Morris wrote: »

I understand that but the EU should still have a backup plan in case the treaty doesn't get passed and they should communicate that plan to the public to help reduce the uncertainty. I think it's very irresponsible of them not to have that plan agreed upon and communicated already.

I don't disagree, but in reality, no one really is sure what happens without Lisbon. Do we throw away three (or four?) years of painful negotiation or not? It's not as simple as "business as usual".

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

I understand that but the EU should still have a backup plan in case the treaty doesn't get passed and they should communicate that plan to the public to help reduce the uncertainty. I think it's very irresponsible of them not to have that plan agreed upon and communicated already.

While I agree with that point, the problem is that Plan A (Lisbon) took a total of nearly seven years to thrash out. If there were a viable 'plan B' that everyone else could agree to, it would have been sucked into plan A anyway. There are times when there simply isn't a plan B in advance, because no such plan can be agreed.

O'Morris wrote: »

It wouldn't be bullying at all. It wouldn't be about imposing an alternative solution over the heads of the Irish electorate. It would just be a simple statement endorsed by the governments of the member states outlining the course of action they intend to follow if the Irish people reject the treaty in the second referendum. If they did that it would massively reduce the uncertainty and it would help restore confidence in the member states.

I can't see the no side having a problem with that or exploiting it in the referendum campaign. And if they do, so what? I think we can all agree that the future of our (the EU's) economies is far more important than whether the Lisbon Treaty gets passed. If the economic argument over Lisbon is put to rest with the joint statement then the debate can focus on the contents of the Lisbon Treaty itself.

I admire your optimism, but from bitter experience of this side of the fence djpbarry is completely right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

nesf wrote:

I don't disagree, but in reality, no one really is sure what happens without Lisbon.

Of course we can be sure what happens without Lisbon. What happens politically is up to the governments and they have it within their power to clear up the uncertainty. I don't for a second believe that they haven't already discussed this privately among themselves. All they need to do is to make their plans public in order to reduce some of the uncertainty and to restore confidence in the markets, not for Ireland's benefit but for the benefit of the other member states and their economic recovery.

nesf wrote:

Do we throw away three (or four?) years of painful negotiation or not?

I don't know if it's accurate to talk about years of negotiation. It's not as if the people negotiating it were engaged full time in the negotiations. If you were to add the total number of hours spent on negotiating the treaty I'd be surprised if it added it up to more than two or three weeks.

It doesn't make any difference anyway how long was spent negotiating the treaty. Unless it can be proven that the status quo is so unbearable that we have no choice but to accept some kind of new treaty then it's irrelevant how much effort has gone into negotiating the previous one. Preserving the status quo will always be the preferred option for most of us.

nesf wrote:

It's not as simple as "business as usual".

Of course it is as simple as business as usual. It will be business as usual until there is unamimous support for an end to business as usual.

Scofflaw wrote:

While I agree with that point, the problem is that Plan A (Lisbon) took a total of nearly seven years to thrash out. If there were a viable 'plan B' that everyone else could agree to, it would have been sucked into plan A anyway. There are times when there simply isn't a plan B in advance, because no such plan can be agreed.

I'm not talking about a plan B in the sense of an alternative to the Lisbon Treaty. I'm just talking about a simple statement of intent laying out what they plan to do in the short-term in the event of a second no vote. What exactly are they going to do? Are they going to force us to hold a third referendum? Are they going to force the government to ratify the treaty over our heads? Are they planning on expelling Ireland from the EU? Are they going to try to impose sanctions or reduce the handouts? What exactly can they do and what do they intend to do to punish Ireland for voting no? These are all simple questions and a simple answer to each of them would really help us to decide whether it's in our national interest to vote yes in the next referendum.

Scofflaw

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't know if it's accurate to talk about years of negotiation. It's not as if the people negotiating it were engaged full time in the negotiations. If you were to add the total number of hours spent on negotiating the treaty I'd be surprised if it added it up to more than two or three weeks.

I would be absolutely amazed if that estimate were even anywhere near the case! Civil servants spend a couple of weeks on an interdepartmental internal report...Lisbon involved teams from 27 countries. The draft version took 16 months for a 105-member team, and that was the position in 2003, before the real negotiations started.

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm not talking about a plan B in the sense of an alternative to the Lisbon Treaty. I'm just talking about a simple statement of intent laying out what they plan to do in the short-term in the event of a second no vote. What exactly are they going to do? Are they going to force us to hold a third referendum? Are they going to force the government to ratify the treaty over our heads? Are they planning on expelling Ireland from the EU? Are they going to try to impose sanctions or reduce the handouts? What exactly can they do and what do they intend to do to punish Ireland for voting no? These are all simple questions and a simple answer to each of them would really help us to decide whether it's in our national interest to vote yes in the next referendum.

Even I can answer most of those, bar the first and last...respectively, they can't, they can't, they can't, and they can't.

cordially,
Scofflaw