"Second 'No' will deeply damage our reputation" - Micheal Martin TD, Minister for FA

ei.sdraob

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lisbon-treaty/second-no-will--deeply-damage-our-reputation-1863136.html

A second 'No' vote would be deeply damaging to our standing within the EU and to our international reputation as an attractive European investment location.

Minister goes on to clearly explain some of the pros of the treaty and and debunks some more misconceptions


i wonder how some members here would have to say about this letter :pac:


/

BlitzKrieg

they will call it fearmongering...

Macha

Is anyone actually arguing that everything will stay the same if we vote No?

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

Is anyone actually arguing that everything will stay the same if we vote No?

that has been claimed a few times in the rather long parallel threads

Dinner

taconnol wrote: »

Is anyone actually arguing that everything will stay the same if we vote No?

"Vote No for the Status Quo"...

Macha

Dinner wrote: »

"Vote No for the Status Quo"...

Is that what you think?

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

Is that what you think?

i think that was a joke

Dinner

taconnol wrote: »

Is that what you think?

Jesus, no! It, or similar slogans, have been knocking around for a while now.

ixtlan

I do think a no would indeed deeply damage our reputation, and I'll explain why, as it's a slightly different angle from what you might expect.

Let's put aside Lisbon itself... good or bad...
and
let's put aside any expectations other EU states might have about how the EU should move forward.

If we vote no to Lisbon, and yet continue to vote for pro-Lisbon parties in EU and national elections, Europe will rightly wonder what the point of speaking to Irish politicans is.

No-people will delight in the government being humiliated... in the sense that they will return to Europe to explain why they have lost the confidence of the electorate, and indeed their reputation will be damaged.

At the same time though, the Irish electorate will be viewed as unpredictable and irrational, and since all the other major parties support Lisbon it makes no differrence whether there is a general election or not.

Just to be clear... I am not putting down no-voters for voting no. I am explaining that voting no to Lisbon, while all major parties support it would make us look very very strange and impossible to negotiate with. Joe Higgins would be our only MEP on the no-side and it seems unlikely his party is going to figure prominently in any general election.

No-voters bemoan the fact that there are no centre parties which match their view of the EU, but this is because they are centre parties. If we choose to swing to the left and vote Sinn Fein into power, or to the right and Libertas (RIP) that would at least be consistent. However to plod along voting presumeably a FG-led government into power, which is more pro-EU than FF, is just crazy, from an EU perspective.

Maybe it would mean that the centre parties are out of touch with the public as regards the EU, or maybe it would mean that people don't care enough to get involved (53% is NOT a good turnout), or maybe that people don't have enough time to study, but it will look very very bad.

And to repeat again. I'm not putting down no-voters for voting no to Lisbon though I disagree with that. I'm pointing out that in our 2007 election there was pretty much no policy discussions on the EU. None. Even Sinn Fein didn't campaign on EU policies. If it's not discussed and brought up by the public how can it possibly change? If you think it needs to change.

To use an analogy, if a union leadership was tasked with negotiating a deal, brought it back to the members with a strong recommendation, and lost the vote, that would be embarrassing... Then consider the union had an election... and voted back the same leadership(MEPs)... who clarifed the deal... recommended it again and lost the vote again... and the members elected the same leadership again(future election)... Would anyone want to deal with that union? The EU is not our employer and we are not a union, but the way we ratify treaties is similiar to that kind of system.

A bit of a rant, but I think you get my point.

Ix

freyners

voting no will damage our reputation????? aside from this obviously scaremongering i think our reputation is already in the tube, with an iar-taoiseach who was obviously corrupt, and iar-iar taoiseach who was proven to be corrupt. Brian cowen, not corrupt, just ineffective.
Ireland was the only country to hold a referendum on lisbon, but i would bet if this wasnt the case lisbon would be well dead a long long time ago. Btw i dont no which way ill vote, was on the no side but after reading it im unsure, i just hate how the government is trying to bully us into voting yes rather than explaining why we should vote yes.

P. Breathnach

freyners wrote: »

... i just hate how the government is trying to bully us into voting yes rather than explaining why we should vote yes.

In what way is the government trying to bully us? It looks to me as if they (and the pro-Lisbon parties in opposition) are doing very little about trying to influence our voting decisions. Disgracefully little.

Macha

freyners wrote: »

voting no will damage our reputation????? aside from this obviously scaremongering i think our reputation is already in the tube, with an iar-taoiseach who was obviously corrupt, and iar-iar taoiseach who was proven to be corrupt. Brian cowen, not corrupt, just ineffective.
Ireland was the only country to hold a referendum on lisbon, but i would bet if this wasnt the case lisbon would be well dead a long long time ago. Btw i dont no which way ill vote, was on the no side but after reading it im unsure, i just hate how the government is trying to bully us into voting yes rather than explaining why we should vote yes.

Hang on - you can only call it scaremongering if you can prove that ixtlan doesn't truly believe that this will happen if we vote No. Can you?

I personally believe s/he's right in saying that voting No will have negative consequences for our country.

SkepticOne

Not necessarily agreeing with Mr Martin's take on things, but I think it is acceptable to consider wider implications such as the reaction from other parts of Europe to the vote.

FutureTaoiseach

Comes across as a repeat of Lisbon I, where the yes camp fought a "why you shouldn't vote no" campaign rather than a "why you should vote yes" one. They are effectively letting us on the no side set the agenda by forcing them to reply to our concerns about Lisbon. Also, the Irish electorate isn't that concerned what bureaucrats in other countries think, not least because those same bureaucrats won't let their own peoples have referenda on this issue, which is telling in the minds of the Irish voter as to the likelihood of Lisbon passing through referenda in their respective countries. There is no economic evidence that voting yes, by improving so-called 'reputation' benefits an EU member state. And don't forget that this is the same Micheal Martin who sat in front of the cameras in 2002 promising to 'end waiting lists in two years'. Hardly the most credible of proponents for a policy-position.

Micheal Martin wrote:

In his article, Mr Arnold ignores the fact that the new system gives each country one vote, which means that Ireland has one vote, just the same as Germany.

Such nonsense. Ireland will have a 0.9% population weight, compared to a 2.1% weighted-vote at present. The numerical weighted-vote is being abolished in favour of a double-majority of population and member state, requiring the approval of 55% of th emember states including 65% of the EU's population. Effectively, that will allow 4 Big States to block all legislation, while 11 small countries couldn't because of an inability to breach the 35% population threshold needed to form a blocking-minority. Another disturbing element of this is the fact that QMV will be used to choose the President of the European Council, which will no longer rotate every 6 months between the member states, further entrench the power of the Big States in the EU at the expense of the Small.

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

because those same bureaucrats won't let their own peoples have referenda on this issue.

tell me something

do those people in those countries have a clause in their Constitutions to hold a referenda on issues like this?

:cool:

FutureTaoiseach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

tell me something

do those people in those countries have a clause in their Constitutions to hold a referenda on issues like this?

:cool:

No but at least before Nice we weren't the only ones getting a vote on the issue. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean its morally correct. Politics should be guided not just by what is legal, but also by a moral perspective. Lisbon is also morally tainted by its near identical contents compared to the EU Constitution, rejected in France and Holland, after which a string of member state govts reneged on promises to put it to a vote. Lisbon has "stitch-up" written all over it.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Politics should be guided not just by what is legal, but also by a moral perspective.

So you want to impose your personal vision of morality on the other member states?

ei.sdraob

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No but at least before Nice we weren't the only ones getting a vote on the issue. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean its morally correct. Politics should be guided not just by what is legal, but also by a moral perspective. Lisbon is also morally tainted by its near identical contents compared to the EU Constitution, rejected in France and Holland, after which a string of member state govts reneged on promises to put it to a vote. Lisbon has "stitch-up" written all over it.

so not only do they legally dont have to hold a referendum

theres also no will from the people of these countries to do so

if anything wasnt Sarcosy elected by the people on a pro Europe and pro Lisbon mandate? for that matter didnt the people of Ireland voted all Pro EU and Lisbon MEPs few months ago!

your argument holds no water


and whats worse you are showing disrespect

who are you to tell people in other countries what to do

ei.sdraob

on further taught

isnt it ironic that the No camp wants to force its beliefs and vision on people in other countries while screaming murder when anyone from other EU states says anything about Lisbon that doesnt agree with their line of thinking

hmm hypocritical could be another word :rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... hypocritical could be another word ...

Perhaps too gentle a word.

Learn the steps. FT tosses in an argument. It is addressed. If it is flawed (as many of his arguments are) then he stops arguing that line. Instead, he tosses in another, quite different argument. When he thinks people have forgotten the flaws in the original argument he tosses it in again. And round and round we go.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Perhaps too gentle a word.

Learn the steps. FT tosses in an argument. It is addressed. If it is flawed (as many of his arguments are) then he stops arguing that line. Instead, he tosses in another, quite different argument. When he thinks people have forgotten the flaws in the original argument he tosses it in again. And round and round we go.

after reading 101 pages, one would have to agree

worldrepublic

ei.sdraob wrote: »

on further taught

isnt it ironic that the No camp wants to force its beliefs and vision on people in other countries while screaming murder when anyone from other EU states says anything about Lisbon that doesnt agree with their line of thinking

hmm hypocritical could be another word :rolleyes:

Thank's for this empty statement!

FutureTaoiseach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so not only do they legally dont have to hold a referendum

theres also no will from the people of these countries to do so

if anything wasnt Sarcosy elected by the people on a pro Europe and pro Lisbon mandate? for that matter didnt the people of Ireland voted all Pro EU and Lisbon MEPs few months ago!

your argument holds no water


and whats worse you are showing disrespect

who are you to tell people in other countries what to do

Actually, polls show over 60% of the Dutch would reject the Lisbon Treaty. The British people would also vote no. I stand over the principle on which this Republic was founded - self-determination. No nation should have its sovereignty torn from it without its consent by popular vote.

oscarBravo wrote:

So you want to impose your personal vision of morality on the other member states?

I have no power to impose anything on other member states other than the status-quo through rejection of Lisbon. I look at it differently: we are being asked to help those govts get one over on their own peoples who voted no in the case of Holland and France. You can't credibly argue that when you are asked to cooperate with others in a project, that what that project involves is none of your business. Of course it is our business.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No nation should have its sovereignty torn from it without its consent by popular vote.

So it's your view that there should be no further EU treaties until such member states as the Netherlands and Germany have altered their constitutional structures so as to allow for binding referenda?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

So it's your view that there should be no further EU treaties until such member states as the Netherlands and Germany have altered their constitutional structures so as to allow for binding referenda?

The Dutch referendum was consultative and had no status in the constitution. Nonetheless, the genie of popular-sovereignty was out of the bottle, and they are asking us to help them put it back in. I've always considered the "Hitler" argument against German referenda to be just plain daft considering back then referenda were rigged and only held after the subject-matter had already come to pass e.g. Hitler merging the presidency and the Chancellorship into the office of Fuhrer, Annexation of Austria etc. It's a nonsense for German politicians to use that excuse not to hold a referenda.

And yes. It is my view that any new EU treaty entailing loss of sovereignty to the EU institutions should first be subject to referenda in all member states. I think European integration has gone far enough. From now on, let "ever closer union" only be a goal in terms of social-interaction between the peoples of Europe, rather than in constitutional terms.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And yes. It is my view that any new EU treaty entailing loss of sovereignty to the EU institutions should first be subject to referenda in all member states.

So basically it's your view that, unless every member state adopts Ireland's particular approach to ratifying EU treaties, that there can never again be another EU treaty?

In other words, the rest of the EU member states are not as democratic as Ireland, and until they fix their broken democracies, the EU as a whole must stagnate.

How unbelievably arrogant.

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

So basically it's your view that, unless every member state adopts Ireland's particular approach to ratifying EU treaties, that there can never again be another EU treaty?

In other words, the rest of the EU member states are not as democratic as Ireland, and until they fix their broken democracies, the EU as a whole must stagnate.

How unbelievably arrogant.

I have made clear that this is only my position with respect to EU treaties that involve a loss of sovereignty. If an EU treaty were to come along that didn't, then that wouldn't be my position. The true arrogance is that which ignores public opinion in favour of a stitch-up by elites. And in response to your accusation that I am trying to impose a constitutional model on other member states, I reject that thesis. Rather, I am making my cooperation with Treaty ratification conditional.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And in response to your accusation that I am trying to impose a constitutional model on other member states, I reject that thesis. Rather, I am making my cooperation with Treaty ratification conditional.

Yes, conditional upon the imposition of our constitutional model on the other member states.

You have no right whatsoever to dictate to other member states how or whether they should ratify treaties, any more than they have to dictate to us.

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, conditional upon the imposition of our constitutional model on the other member states.

You have no right whatsoever to dictate to other member states how or whether they should ratify treaties, any more than they have to dictate to us.

True - I don't have a right to force them to do anything. For them to hold a referendum on Lisbon would not - in all cases - involve constitutional change. The Dutch and French referenda were consultative for example, rather than constitutional. So there you go - they wouldn't have to change their constitutions to do as I ask. There is a need for realisation that when something is supranational in its implications for national sovereignty, that it becomes everyones business to some degree how it comes into force.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Dutch and French referenda were consultative for example, rather than constitutional. So there you go - they wouldn't have to change their constitutions to do as I ask.

Are you going to pretend that you're unaware of the constitutional difficulties faced by the Dutch government in putting a treaty to a referendum?

What is the point of a consultative referendum unless the government agrees to be bound by its result? - in which case it's no longer consultative; it's binding, and therefore unconstitutional.

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you going to pretend that you're unaware of the constitutional difficulties faced by the Dutch government in putting a treaty to a referendum?

What is the point of a consultative referendum unless the government agrees to be bound by its result? - in which case it's no longer consultative; it's binding, and therefore unconstitutional.

Yes - referenda results should be binding - I agree. Which is one reason for opposing the slippery attempts of the Dutch govt to get around the democratically-expressed will of the people with respect to 95% of the provisions of Lisbon that were contained in the EU Constitution. I am aware that the PM Balkanende publicly threatened that if the parliament passed a referendum over his head (as last time), he would order the Queen to veto it. So much for the concerns of the Dutch people being addressed. In fact, over 60% of the Dutch say they would reject Lisbon in the latest polls. That - rather than 'constitutional difficulties' is the real reason there wasn't a referendum.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Yes - referenda results should be binding - I agree.

So you accept that it's not possible to hold a binding referendum in the Netherlands on this subject without constitutional change? In other words, what you said earlier was wrong?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you accept that it's not possible to hold a binding referendum in the Netherlands on this subject without constitutional change? In other words, what you said earlier was wrong?

What I mean is that the politicians should choose to be bound by them where they are not already constitutionally required to be. This is a moral issue. Do nations have the right to self-determination or not?

Mario007

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Yes - referenda results should be binding - I agree. Which is one reason for opposing the slippery attempts of the Dutch govt to get around the democratically-expressed will of the people with respect to 95% of the provisions of Lisbon that were contained in the EU Constitution. I am aware that the PM Balkanende publicly threatened that if the parliament passed a referendum over his head (as last time), he would order the Queen to veto it. So much for the concerns of the Dutch people being addressed. In fact, over 60% of the Dutch say they would reject Lisbon in the latest polls. That - rather than 'constitutional difficulties' is the real reason there wasn't a referendum.

and the queen could tell him to go away. queen is a sovereign figure in the Netherlands as well. by the way i love how you swayed the argument from France to Netherlands to support your points...

Mario007

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

What I mean is that the politicians should choose to be bound by them where they are not already constitutionally required to be. This is a moral issue. Do nations have the right to self-determination or not?

thats up to each individual nation to decide for itself, it's not something you can just decide upon. if you truly believe you can order nations to have whatever laws that you want them to have then YOU could be classified as the stereotypical 'eu elite'...

FutureTaoiseach

Mario007 wrote: »

thats up to each individual nation to decide for itself, it's not something you can just decide upon. if you truly believe you can order nations to have whatever laws that you want them to have then YOU could be classified as the stereotypical 'eu elite'...

Well that depends on what you define the "nation" as - the people or the politicians? At least the people don't have a whip-system to keep them in line with their masters.

Mario007

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Well that depends on what you define the "nation" as - the people or the politicians? At least the people don't have a whip-system to keep them in line with their masters.

Nation is a mass of people that share a common history, tongue, culture and land. This includes politicians too as they are also people(believe it or not). The people of the nation elect some of the members of the society to represent them and thus the voice of the those people is reflected by the given deputy(particulary in the PR voting system).
The whip system is flawed,true, but just because Ireland has it that doesn't mean every mean every nation has it. In fact I've lived in three different states and only Ireland had a whip system, so you are misleading by the suggesting that all politicians fall under the whip system.

K-9

Michael Martin wrote:

In his article, Mr Arnold ignores the fact that the new system gives each country one vote, which means that Ireland has one vote, just the same as Germany.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Such nonsense. Ireland will have a 0.9% population weight, compared to a 2.1% weighted-vote at present. The numerical weighted-vote is being abolished in favour of a double-majority of population and member state, requiring the approval of 55% of th emember states including 65% of the EU's population.

He is correct in what he says.

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

Effectively, that will allow 4 Big States to block all legislation, while 11 small countries couldn't because of an inability to breach the 35% population threshold needed to form a blocking-minority.

How often has that happened before?

ixtlan

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Ireland will have a 0.9% population weight, compared to a 2.1% weighted-vote at present. The numerical weighted-vote is being abolished in favour of a double-majority of population and member state, requiring the approval of 55% of th emember states including 65% of the EU's population. Effectively, that will allow 4 Big States to block all legislation, while 11 small countries couldn't because of an inability to breach the 35% population threshold needed to form a blocking-minority. Another disturbing element of this is the fact that QMV will be used to choose the President of the European Council, which will no longer rotate every 6 months between the member states, further entrench the power of the Big States in the EU at the expense of the Small.

We can argue this. I believe someone did a statistical analysis of the likely effect of the voting changes and concluded that the result was marginal and possibly weighted in Ireland's favour. I'm sure someone else can provide a link. Anyhow, in the real world the large states don't always agree, just as neither do the small states.

My main point is that while we can argue the effect I would hope that all the no-side would acknowledge that simply saying our voting weight is 0.8% period, is highly mis-leading and dishonest. If you are promoting a no-vote to less knowledgeable voters I hope you would give them the full picture. I certainly will not say to people, "it's not 0.8%, it's 3.8% for all states equally", even though that statement is as true as the 0.8% one.

Ix.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

Effectively, that will allow 4 Big States to block all legislation, while 11 small countries couldn't because of an inability to breach the 35% population threshold needed to form a blocking-minority.

The 11 smallest countries can't currently block legislation under Nice (except under the 67% of countries rule), and the four biggest can block under either system.

Ireland's ability to block or pass legislation by itself is - as should be immediately obvious - non-existent. Our ability to block or pass legislation is therefore dependent on the ability of our government to form voting alliances with other member states. Therefore I would suggest that instead of working yourself up into a lather over the slight change in voting mechanics, you concern yourself instead with the massive loss of goodwill accruing in the event of a second No.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

We can argue this. I believe someone did a statistical analysis of the likely effect of the voting changes and concluded that the result was marginal and possibly weighted in Ireland's favour. I'm sure someone else can provide a link. Anyhow, in the real world the large states don't always agree, just as neither do the small states.

My main point is that while we can argue the effect I would hope that all the no-side would acknowledge that simply saying our voting weight is 0.8% period, is highly mis-leading and dishonest. If you are promoting a no-vote to less knowledgeable voters I hope you would give them the full picture. I certainly will not say to people, "it's not 0.8%, it's 3.8% for all states equally", even though that statement is as true as the 0.8% one.

Ix.

This is IRLConor's analysis:

For the 6 voting methods above:

1. Appears to replace a voting method I'll call "Nice 50%".
2. Is new.
3. Appears to replace a voting method I'll call "Nice 67%".
4. Is the same as 1 except is used in the case of "enhanced cooperation" votes.
5. Is the same as 3 except is used in the case of "enhanced cooperation" votes.
6. Is a transitional method and is the same as the Nice methods except that the percentage of countries requirement is gone.

"Nice 50%" requires 50% of countries, 74% of the weighted votes and 62% of the population.
"Nice 67%" requires 2/3s of countries, 74% of the weighted votes and 62% of the population.

So, to compare old with new (and, where possible like with like) I have compared some of the voting methods by writing a program to brute force all 134.2 million potential voting scenarios. I have not done the enhanced cooperation ones, since the number of permutations is higher and I hadn't taken that into account when first writing the program. If people want, I can do those as well, but it may not get done before the vote happens.

The method I have used is to define a notion of a "win". A country "wins" if their vote is the same as the final outcome. If they vote yes, they only win if the proposal passes; if they vote no, they only win if the proposal fails.

Here are 1 vs "Nice 50%" and 3 vs "Nice 67%" (the two most likely voting scenarios as I see them):

Country|Wins with Nice 50%|Wins with TEU 16(4)|% Change
Austria|67935350|67111454|-1.21
Belgium|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Bulgaria|67935350|67111454|-1.21
Cyprus|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Czech Republic|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Denmark|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Estonia|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Finland|67692480|67111454|-0.86
France|69177624|67111464|-2.99
Germany|69177624|67111472|-2.99
Greece|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Hungary|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Ireland|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Italy|69177624|67111464|-2.99
Latvia|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Lithuania|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Luxembourg|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Malta |67360308|67111454|-0.37
Netherlands|68170648|67111454|-1.55
Poland|69083206|67111460|-2.85
Portugal|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Romania|68247372|67111454|-1.66
Slovakia|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Slovenia|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Spain|69083206|67111460 |-2.85
Sweden|67935350|67111454|-1.21
UK|69177624|67111464|-2.99


Country|Wins with Nice 67%|Wins with TFEU 238 (2)|% Change
Austria|67867657|67634816|-0.34
Belgium|67965305|67640436|-0.48
Bulgaria|67867657|67633544|-0.34
Cyprus|67565761|67620020|0.08
Czech Republic|67965305|67638332|-0.48
Denmark|67719853|67628780|-0.13
Estonia|67565761|67620976|0.08
Finland|67719853|67628658|-0.13
France|68669973|67768654|-1.31
Germany|68669973|67839364|-1.21
Greece|67965305|67640436|-0.48
Hungary|67965305|67638332|-0.48
Ireland|67719853|67626524|-0.14
Italy|68669973|67755348|-1.33
Latvia|67565761|67622890|0.08
Lithuania|67719853|67624900|-0.14
Luxembourg|67565761|67619358|0.08
Malta |67509981|67619216|0.16
Netherlands|68013311|67656000|-0.53
Poland|68592905|67703908|-1.3
Portugal|67965305|67640436|-0.48
Romania|68065305|67664486|-0.59
Slovakia|67719853|67628780|-0.13
Slovenia|67565761|67622350|0.08
Spain|68592905|67712100 |-1.28
Sweden|67867657|67636194|-0.34
UK|68669973|67758640|-1.33


I welcome comments on the method of assessing the voting methods. I know it's not a particularly sophisticated analysis, but I think it's a fair way of measuring the old vs new voting results.

cordially,
scofflaw

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

We can argue this. I believe someone did a statistical analysis of the likely effect of the voting changes and concluded that the result was marginal and possibly weighted in Ireland's favour. I'm sure someone else can provide a link. Anyhow, in the real world the large states don't always agree, just as neither do the small states.

My main point is that while we can argue the effect I would hope that all the no-side would acknowledge that simply saying our voting weight is 0.8% period, is highly mis-leading and dishonest. If you are promoting a no-vote to less knowledgeable voters I hope you would give them the full picture. I certainly will not say to people, "it's not 0.8%, it's 3.8% for all states equally", even though that statement is as true as the 0.8% one.

Ix.

This is my own post based on an analysis which was done on politics.ie (by a No voter, afair):

Scofflaw
05-06-2008, 00:21
This is from a long mathematical analysis of the change in influence in voting for all countries (by a No voter on politics.ie (http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35034&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=168)) - it's a measure of the loss of 'decisiveness', where your weight on the Council is the decisive factor in the vote:

Lose none
Germany: 1.0 -> 1.0

Lose around 20%
France: 1.0 -> 0.79

Lose around 25%
United Kingdom: 1.0 -> 0.75
Italy: 1.0 -> 0.74

Lose around 40%
Spain: 0.95 -> 0.57
Poland: 0.95 -> 0.49

Lose around 40%
Romania: 0.55 -> 0.36
Netherlands: 0.51 -> 0.30

Lose around 50%
Greece: 0.48 -> 0.24
Portugal: 0.48 -> 0.24
Belgium: 0.48 -> 0.24
Czech Republic: 0.48 -> 0.23
Hungary: 0.48 -> 0.23

Lose around 50%
Sweden: 0.40 -> 0.22
Austria: 0.40 -> 0.21
Bulgaria: 0.40 -> 0.20

Lose around 40%
Denmark: 0.28 -> 0.18
Slovakia: 0.28 -> 0.18
Finland: 0.28 -> 0.18
Ireland: 0.28 -> 0.17
Lithuania: 0.28 -> 0.16

Lose 0-20%
Latvia: 0.16 -> 0.15
Slovenia: 0.16 -> 0.15
Estonia: 0.16 -> 0.14
Cyprus 0.16 -> 0.13
Luxembourg: 0.16->0.13
Malta: 0.12 -> 0.13

That's relative to Germany, so, for Ireland compared to all other countries:

We lose influence (relative) compared to:

Germany (61% of former relative influence)
France (77% of former relative influence)
UK (81% of former relative influence)
Italy (82% of former relative influence)
Romania (93% of former relative influence)
Denmark, Slovakia, Finland (94% of former relative influence)
Latvia, Slovenia (65% of former relative influence)
Estonia (69% of former relative influence)
Cyprus, Luxembourg (75% of former relative influence)
Malta (56% of former relative influence)

And gain influence compared to:

Spain (101% of former relative influence)
Poland (118% of former relative influence)
Netherlands (103% of former relative influence)
Greece, Portugal, Belgium (121% of former relative influence)
Czech Republic, Hungary (127% of former relative influence)
Sweden (110% of former relative influence)
Austria (116% of former relative influence)
Bulgaria (121% of former relative influence)
Lithuania (106% of former relative influence)

That's based on a comparison of our influence compared to Germany to theirs compared to Germany under old and new systems.

And in summary:

We lose ability to pass policies we want (-6%)
We gain blocking power (+6%)
We are less decisive (-36%)

I'll add that QMV voting is only actually used about a quarter of the time where QMV actually applies - and usually it's just to mark someone's opposition rather than being a real vote. The Council usually operates by consensus.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

taconnol wrote: »

I personally believe s/he's right in saying that voting No will have negative consequences for our country.

How ? What negative consequences await Ireland should the treaty be rejected ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you want to impose your personal vision of morality on the other member states?

FT never mentioned his/her own personal vision but you seem to want to misinterpret what he/she is saying.


--
Back on topic :

In that article, Minister Martin doesn't explain exactly how a "no" vote wil "deeply damage our reputation" or exactly how the Lisbon Treaty " will aid our economic recovery and help secure jobs and prosperity in the years ahead. "

He goes on to say though that "I look forward to an open and factual debate in the weeks ahead." Yes minister, open debate would be nice. The BCI 50/50 decision may have hampered that slightly.

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

How ? What negative consequences await Ireland should the treaty be rejected ?

FT never mentioned his/her own personal vision but you seem to want to misinterpret what he/she is saying.

--
Back on topic :

In that article, Minister Martin doesn't explain exactly how a "no" vote wil "deeply damage our reputation" or exactly how the Lisbon Treaty " will aid our economic recovery and help secure jobs and prosperity in the years ahead. "

Well, to quote myself (a terrible habit):

Ireland's ability to block or pass legislation by itself is - as should be immediately obvious - non-existent. Our ability to block or pass legislation is therefore dependent on the ability of our government to form voting alliances with other member states. Therefore I would suggest that instead of working yourself up into a lather over the slight change in voting mechanics, you concern yourself instead with the massive loss of goodwill accruing in the event of a second No.

The talk of how the "ordinary people" of Europe will undyingly love us for our No has always missed the point that the main decision-making body of the EU is the Council of Ministers, where our government sits with other governments, and that the highest political body of the EU is the European Council, where our head of government sits with other heads of government. Those are the governments who, along with our government, negotiated and want the EU reforms in the Treaty of Lisbon. If you think that Ireland's torpedoing of the Treaty will have no negative effects in those bodies, you are inhabiting a far less causal world than I.

cordially,
scofflaw

fashionista911

Is it the way that they are unable to give a proper explanation to the treaty and as was said already scare mongering us because of the CURRENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE thats a new debate not yet gone into

Red Sleeping Beauty

What negative effects will there be then ?

Were there any negative effects on France or the Netherlands following the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe by their referendums ?

P. Breathnach

Alan Rouge wrote: »

What negative effects will there be then ?

Were there any negative effects on France or the Netherlands following the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe by their referendums ?

I can't believe that you do not understand what it is like to be friendless.

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

What negative effects will there be then ?

Were there any negative effects on France or the Netherlands following the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe by their referendums ?

No, because they are at the heart of Europe by right, whereas we are at it by invitation. That central part of Western Europe is the point of the EU - we are not. And, of course, they are both contributing nations, whereas we are a beneficiary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, because they are at the heart of Europe by right, whereas we are at it by invitation. That central part of Western Europe is the point of the EU - we are not. And, of course, they are both contributing nations, whereas we are a beneficiary.

Can anyone give an example of a country that part of the EU and as been in the EU for a reasonable time that is not at the heart of the EU?

Red Sleeping Beauty

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, because they are at the heart of Europe by right, whereas we are at it by invitation. That central part of Western Europe is the point of the EU - we are not. And, of course, they are both contributing nations, whereas we are a beneficiary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ireland doesn't contribute to the EU's budget at all no ?

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, because they are at the heart of Europe by right, whereas we are at it by invitation. That central part of Western Europe is the point of the EU - we are not. And, of course, they are both contributing nations, whereas we are a beneficiary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The "heart of Europe" is just a slogan.