Lisbon II - The A&A Thread

pH

No

Galvasean wrote: »

I work with some Czech, Lithuanian and French people. They were very surprised that the No vote went through and couldn't see why.

The French and the Dutch rejected the original constitution and they're hardly the pariahs of Europe now are they? Does anyone really care that they did? have hundreds of companies pulled out of those countries because they did? Does anyone even remember?

I think the correct vote should be yes, however the process now is so unfair that I think I'll vote no. If the yes vote had won there wouldn't now be a second chance for the NO campaign. Keep voting 'til you get the right answer is not a basis for a democracy, we wouldn't accept it for general elections (keep running an election until FF 'won') and it's just as pathetic for a referendum.

Coupled with all of that the my general hatred and contempt for the lot running things at present, even though I know that a vote for Lisbon is probably in my interest, it just hurts to much to acquiesce to them on this.

And the Yes side is getting as bad as the No side with their lies and spin, a NO vote isn't necessarily a vote against Europe, merely a vote for the ONE WE CURRENT HAVE.

Dinner

No

pH wrote: »

The French and the Dutch rejected the original constitution and they're hardly the pariahs of Europe now are they?

That's because they had issues with the actual contents of the Constitution. So they were able to go right back to the negotiating table to remove the parts they took exception to and add some additional parts. The was a big gap between the French vote on the Constitution and their Parliament's ratification of Lisbon because it needed to be renegotiated and ratified by every country again.

We had such a quick turn-around on referenda because the issues that the public had didn't require the treaty to be changed, they just needed to be clarified.

pH wrote: »

I think the correct vote should be yes, however the process now is so unfair that I think I'll vote no. If the yes vote had won there wouldn't now be a second chance for the NO campaign. Keep voting 'til you get the right answer is not a basis for a democracy, we wouldn't accept it for general elections (keep running an election until FF 'won') and it's just as pathetic for a referendum.

You're right to say that if it was a yes first time there wouldn't have been another referendum. Because if we did ratify it, then it probably would have entered into force very quickly. But if anything awful happened as a result of the ratification (still haven't seen any possibilities though) then Lisbon makes it easier to amend treaties and to remove the bit that is somehow catastrophic.

The situation is not 'keep voting 'til you get the right answer'. The situation is 'vote -> reject -> find out why -> solve issues -> vote again'.

Not quite as catchy as 'NO means NO' though.

pH wrote: »

Coupled with all of that the my general hatred and contempt for the lot running things at present, even though I know that a vote for Lisbon is probably in my interest, it just hurts to much to acquiesce to them on this.

This referendum is not about FF. FF cannot claim a yes vote as an endorsement on them because every party in the Dail, bar the shinners, is in favour of it. You think Kenny will allow Cowen to claim victory for something he played a part in?

Same way if it is a no vote, there is not a chance Cowen will take responsibility and call a General Election. For anybody to claim that a no vote will bring down the government is just a cheap way to try win votes.

Zillah

No

pH wrote: »

Coupled with all of that the my general hatred and contempt for the lot running things at present, even though I know that a vote for Lisbon is probably in my interest, it just hurts to much to acquiesce to them on this.

This is unbelievably childish. You're like a five year old who won't eat his vegetables because his parents wouldn't let him have a new toy.

Stercus Accidit

No

If the Lisbon treaty actually did legalise abortion, remove power from our politicians and forcibly remove catholic church influenced laws from Ireland I would have still voted yes.

In fact, its a pity it doesn't do those things, given the state of this country, and its possibly even more of a pity, that things such as legalised abortion and secularism are ways to scare Irish people to vote against something.

Love live the stereotype.


Gotta lol though at the latest scare tactics, 1.84 minimum wage! I honestly believe that its the yes campaign behind that particular nugget of wisdom, you couldn't make the no side look more ridiculous!

Dades

No

Zillah - less of the ad hominem, if you would.

Zillah

No

Er, yes, quite right.

pH

No

Dinner wrote: »

The situation is not 'keep voting 'til you get the right answer'. The situation is 'vote -> reject -> find out why -> solve issues -> vote again'.

Not quite as catchy as 'NO means NO' though.

I fail to see the difference, how about let's all vote for a general election, what? Fianna Fail wasn't elected let's:
-> find out why,
-> change our policies
- >and vote again.

You honestly saying you'd be happy with that as a form of democracy?

Dinner

No

pH wrote: »

I fail to see the difference, how about let's all vote for a general election, what? Fianna Fail wasn't elected let's:
-> find out why,
-> change our policies
- >and vote again.

You honestly saying you'd be happy with that as a form of democracy?

Thats quite similar to the situation we have in place. Except that General Elections have a more fixed gap.


Should a referendum never be run again after it has been rejected?

robindch

No

pH wrote: »

Keep voting 'til you get the right answer is not a basis for a democracy, we wouldn't accept it for general elections

Ireland is not a pure democracy in which any member of the electorate can vote on any issue of state, but a representative democracy which periodically elects representatives who can vote on any issue of state. We're having a referendum not because our elected representatives want one, but because the unelected Supreme Court said we should.

pH wrote: »

Coupled with all of that the my general hatred and contempt for the lot running things at present, even though I know that a vote for Lisbon is probably in my interest, it just hurts to much to acquiesce to them on this.

That's an irrational reason to vote one way or another. Cowen has said that he won't be resigning if the vote goes against. If you detest FF, then join another political party or set up one yourself -- that's how representative democracy is supposed to work.

pH wrote: »

a NO vote isn't necessarily a vote against Europe, merely a vote for the ONE WE CURRENT HAVE.

Given that the elected representatives of around 495 million people in twenty-six countries have approved this Treaty, it's hard to see a no-vote by one small state containing less than 1% of the overall population, as anything other than a vote "against" Europe.

mewso

No

Well I'm a yes man but I do find it somewhat ridiculous personally that we continually have these Chris Tarrant "Is that your final answer" approaches to European referendums (referenda?). We are only having this because it was no vote.

If it had been a yes vote last time we would never have looked back and worried about voters' lack of understanding, confusion etc.

Having said that I am very pro-Europe for similar reasons to what has been said already. I trust them far more than the bland politicians in this country that these days seem to differ only by party name their policies swinging from left to right depending on how the plebs (voters) are feeling according to market research. Self-Interest politics is the name of the game here.

robindch

No

Obni wrote: »

I would ask you the following rambling question. If the exit polls following a Yes in the upcoming vote contain a significant proportion of voters voting Yes because it may help us exit this recession sooner and we need all the help we can get, or because it might safeguard their job, or because it will ensure further EU funded development of infrastructure [...] then if you estimate that portion of Yes people made the critical difference in passing the referendum, would you call for a further vote?

It's a fair question, but I suspect that the (possibly faulty) reasons for a yes vote are more likely to be shown to be true, than any of the no-side's highly questionable ad-lines. I've also yet to see any convincing evidence that the no-side isn't either run by, or is designed to appeal to, people who are motivated in large part by either fear or spite. The yes-side appears to derive theirs, as much as anything else I can put my finger on just now, from a knowledge of history together with a sense of co-operation and knowledge. The latter, I think, are more useful traits to encourage in society, so, to answer your question, if the treaty's passed, I don't expect to be storming the Dail in christmas 2010, calling for a new referendum.

BTW, I think the entire debate shows up why this kind of thing should probably be left to professional politicians. As a group, while I'm no friend of them, I'll bet they're more familiar than most of us with the EU and Treaty, and how to leverage our position within the two of them to our national benefit which is really what this debate should all be about.

robindch

No

sink wrote: »

I find it interesting that A&A leans so staggeringly towards Yes side camp. Maybe Atheist & Agnostics have a better bull**** filter then the general population.

It'd be interesting to find out

BTW, as I post, the poll's at 67 (76%) yes, 15 (17%) no, 6 (7%) won't vote.

With the names of unfamiliar posters removed, leaving only people who've posted here occasionally over the last few years, I get 36 (86%) yes, 3 (7%) no and 3 (7%) won't vote.

Make of that what you will.

Obni

Not going to vote

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If the Lisbon treaty actually did legalise abortion, remove power from our politicians and forcibly remove catholic church influenced laws from Ireland I would have still voted yes.

Hell, if it did that I'd be running around the streets passing out "Vote Yes" pamphlets from now 'til polling day.

Zillah

No

So, out of curiosity, just how pro-Europe are people here? I honestly would like to see a European super state. A grand pan-European federation. As much as I like being Irish, I find myself frequently agreeing more and more with the slightly left, largely secular, reasonable opinions of our mainland counter parts more than I do Paddy Catholic these days.

China is only going to get stronger, the US is declining in power and frequently did horrible things with that power. Australasia and Japan are pretty cool but fairly light weight when it comes to international politics. I would really like to see a more unified and effective EU making it's mark in the world. The more power to Brussels the better in my opinion. Europe might have a turbulent history, but they really got their shit together after WW2 in a "never again" sort of way.

Dinner

No

Zillah wrote: »

So, out of curiosity, just how pro-Europe are people here? I honestly would like to see a European super state. A grand pan-European federation.

I wouldn't object to it. From reading the EU forum I don't think it's a particularly popular opinion though.

I think it is inevitable (in a good way). We've moved from tribes to settlements to clans all the way up to nation states. And with each step we've become slightly more peaceful as a race.

The next step would be a united Europe and maybe someday, a united world.

It won't happen any day soon though. We still have this silly hurdle of Nationalism to get over first.


And just for the record, I don't believe Lisbon brings us closer to what I described.

Húrin

No

robindch wrote: »

Well, I've read the Treaty (has anybody else?) and I'm happy that it's a respectable and decent document. The No-side, in contrast, has descended immediately into a campaign consisting entirely of false-muck-raking and creationist-level shite.

So I'm voting Yes.

So is it untrue that the treaty gives the European Defence Agency greater opportunities to help the military industries prosper by mandating that all member states buy more military gear?

Zillah wrote: »

I think it is very telling that the Yes campaign is based on facts and good arguments, and that the No campaign is based on lies, exaggeration and fear mongering -- and we see that the majority are being duped by the No campaign and here we are, once again in the reasonable minority.

Being supported by atheists doesn't mean that "the Yes campaign is based on facts and good arguments", but using arguments like "yes to jobs, yes to Europe" and "it's simple, etc...." certainly means that it is based on no such thing.

Zillah wrote: »

Hence, your objection to re-submitting the treaty is massively undemocratic: You want to prevent a potential "Yes" majority from having their democratic will done.

You should work for Fianna Fail! They have given us another poll simply because they don't like the answer they got last time. You know it, we all know it. Irish people said No. Why is the new poll any more democratic than the old one?

robindch wrote: »

If the Irish electorate, through the Treaty as negotiated by the Irish government, doesn't agree with the future direction that all the other member countries have agreed, then -- other than a third referendum or the government implementing the Treaty regardless of the result -- I don't see any realistic alternative to Ireland withdrawing from the EU and leaving the other countries get on with it without us.

If we say no again, perhaps the government will be obliged to seek legally binding changes to the Treaty, which could be duly ratified by all the other parliaments. I doubt that most Europeans want to see a more militarised, more neoliberal Europe that the governments are pressing for.

If the government does implement the Treaty regardless of the result, then it will be the last nail in the coffin for Fianna Fail. They get thrown out of power, and thus Ireland wins!

Húrin

No

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Making the EU more efficient might help the economy, as might the increased focus on renewable energy.

Q: So where in the Lisbon Treaty is renewable energy mentioned?

A: It's not.

Zillah wrote: »

So, out of curiosity, just how pro-Europe are people here? I honestly would like to see a European super state.

Location: Canada

A grand pan-European federation. As much as I like being Irish, I find myself frequently agreeing more and more with the slightly left, largely secular, reasonable opinions of our mainland counter parts more than I do Paddy Catholic these days.

What mainland counterparts, exactly? The political views on offer on the mainland go all the way from the far right to the far left so you'll have to be more specific. Thus far the EU leadership has proven to be not at all left-wing but neoliberal.

Nick_oliveri

I don't know, I think its shameful that theres a second vote. I'll echo pH's post above: "Keep voting 'til you get the right answer is not a basis for a democracy". This would NOT be happening with a yes vote. I do believe that it is unfair bias towards a particular result. Yes we weren't informed properly , but we "weren't informed properly" with NICE1 either. Either learn from your mistakes, or be doomed to repeat them, this isn't progress, this isn't Sparta, and since Leonidas isn't around to overthrow this Government with me, I'll be abstaining from voting!!!

I am not saying in any way that whats in the treaty isn't good for everyone, I just cannot vote in this sham.

After that I don't really care either way, although I do think that campaigning should be banned, whether it be ignorance, lies or just plain truth. Let the people decide this sham by themselves, not by a ****ty capcha on a sign on an olwd filthy wooden pole. FO!

Zillah

No

Húrin wrote: »

Location: Canada

Location: Temporary

I think I'll just get rid of it. This is the third time someone has pointed it out as though it were some sort of ace in the hole. I post on boards for seven years, the last few months of which have been from Canada and suddenly I don't count as Irish any more or something.

What mainland counterparts, exactly? The political views on offer on the mainland go all the way from the far right to the far left so you'll have to be more specific. Thus far the EU leadership has proven to be not at all left-wing but neoliberal.

Benelux and Scandinavia mostly. I of course would do more research if I ever had to make a decision on such an enterprise, and exactly how it would be implemented would be crucial.

Why is the new poll any more democratic than the old one?

Because we base our policies on current democratic opinion rather than previous opinion. Hence why Catholics are allowed to attend Trinity college these days.

ChocolateSauce

No

Zillah wrote: »

So, out of curiosity, just how pro-Europe are people here? I honestly would like to see a European super state. A grand pan-European federation. As much as I like being Irish, I find myself frequently agreeing more and more with the slightly left, largely secular, reasonable opinions of our mainland counter parts more than I do Paddy Catholic these days.

I've always identified more with the EU (and many of the other states) than I have with the Irish political system. Although I'm not intrinsically opposed to a federation, I wouldn't support one now. I support a gradual and slow crawl towards "ever closer union", for the time being.

CerebralCortex

No

Zillah wrote: »

So, out of curiosity, just how pro-Europe are people here? I honestly would like to see a European super state. A grand pan-European federation. As much as I like being Irish, I find myself frequently agreeing more and more with the slightly left, largely secular, reasonable opinions of our mainland counter parts more than I do Paddy Catholic these days....

I wouldn't be against some kind of European federation but I think Ireland needs to work on having a far larger population than it has now before that happens or our roll in such a union would be useless.

Dades

No

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I am not saying in any way that whats in the treaty isn't good for everyone, I just cannot vote in this sham.

How did you vote in the first one?

marco_polo

No

Húrin wrote: »

So is it untrue that the treaty gives the European Defence Agency greater opportunities to help the military industries prosper by mandating that all member states buy more military gear?

Incorrect. Membership of the EDA is completely optional for all member states. And nowhere does it mandate increased spending.

Being supported by atheists doesn't mean that "the Yes campaign is based on facts and good arguments", but using arguments like "yes to jobs, yes to Europe" and "it's simple, etc...." certainly means that it is based on no such thing.

Yes the poster are crap. At least they are not blatent lies. Personally I tend to prefer sources other than lamposts for my information.

You should work for Fianna Fail! They have given us another poll simply because they don't like the answer they got last time. You know it, we all know it. Irish people said No. Why is the new poll any more democratic than the old one?

Interesting twist, I thought the standard line was that this referendum was less democratic. Based on the flawed premise that democracy is some sort of 'for one night only' event?

If we say no again, perhaps the government will be obliged to seek legally binding changes to the Treaty, which could be duly ratified by all the other parliaments. I doubt that most Europeans want to see a more militarised, more neoliberal Europe that the governments are pressing for.

As if they would even know where to start changing the treaty with our rag bag of mostly imagined reasons for saying no to this one. And why is the European Trade Union Conference so keen on this neo-liberalist treaty?

If the government does implement the Treaty regardless of the result, then it will be the last nail in the coffin for Fianna Fail. They get thrown out of power, and thus Ireland wins!

Like the General Elections that occured after the last Lisbon defeats and the Local Election routs? With the popularity of both Fianna Fail and the Greens at an all time low, the last thing they will be doing is throwing themselves out of power.

Flamed Diving

No

Obni wrote: »

The government and administration of this country are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. They were obliged to put it to a public vote. The people rejected the treaty.
Rather than respecting the will of the people, the government have re-submitted what is largely the same treaty for approval, motivated not by a desire to deliver democratic choice, but because they are simply determined to have their way. The fact that you agree with their objectives seems to have rendered you incapable of recognising their complete disregard for the democratically expressed desires of the electorate.

When I read this post, keeping Zillah's previous post in mind I imagined this:

LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!



LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!

Dades

No

Flamed Diving wrote: »

When I read this post, keeping Zillah's previous post in mind I imagined this...

You'd do well to keep in mind that that type of post is only going to get this thread locked. And that decision won't be put to a vote.

Húrin

No

Zillah wrote: »

Location: Temporary

I think I'll just get rid of it. This is the third time someone has pointed it out as though it were some sort of ace in the hole. I post on boards for seven years, the last few months of which have been from Canada and suddenly I don't count as Irish any more or something.

Fair enough. It just seemed hypocritical to want a European superstate but not want to live in it.

To the issue itself, in principle a European superstate sounds alright, but I can't see it working for ages. Look at other superstates: the USSR and USA mainly. They're totally dysfunctional and the USSR was fatally so. I don't think a European state would fare any better given the history of conflict and the huge variety in cultures throughout the continent. I certainly wouldn't imagine that it would be under the leadership of the enlightened Danes for the most part.

Benelux and Scandinavia mostly. I of course would do more research if I ever had to make a decision on such an enterprise, and exactly how it would be implemented would be crucial.

Those countries are minorities, nor are they exactly glaring exceptions to the dominant neoliberalism of the Union's political class.

Because we base our policies on current democratic opinion rather than previous opinion. Hence why Catholics are allowed to attend Trinity college these days.

If the Lisbon treaty goes your way should it be put to vote again next year?
So we should vote on everything every year?

Is suspect not. Your argument only makes sense when a significant democratic, cultural or temporal shift has taken place in the time between two polls.

Húrin

No

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wouldn't be against some kind of European federation but I think Ireland needs to work on having a far larger population than it has now before that happens or our roll in such a union would be useless.

Better to wait for the rest of the union's population to fall than try to increase ours.

marco_polo wrote: »

Incorrect. Membership of the EDA is completely optional for all member states. And nowhere does it mandate increased spending.

Thanks. However I think that the EDA should not be put on this pedestal at all.

Yes the poster are crap. At least they are not blatent lies. Personally I tend to prefer sources other than lamposts for my information.

Nor do I, but all Yes posters try to paint the vote as a referendum on membership of this Union, when it is not.

Interesting twist, I thought the standard line was that this referendum was less democratic. Based on the flawed premise that democracy is some sort of 'for one night only' event?

It is. We vote on things on the basis that they will be in force for the forseeable future unless otherwise stated.

As if they would even know where to start changing the treaty with our rag bag of mostly imagined reasons for saying no to this one.

For all the reasons you and other yes-men favour the treaty there are people who oppose it for the same reasons.

And why is the European Trade Union Conference so keen on this neo-liberalist treaty?

The leadership of trade unions like SIPTU, in cahoots with the political class, are often not representative of the views of their membership. None more so than on this issue.

Like the General Elections that occured after the last Lisbon defeats and the Local Election routs? With the popularity of both Fianna Fail and the Greens at an all time low, the last thing they will be doing is throwing themselves out of power.

After the last Lisbon defeat the government didn't try to ratify it anyway. I don't think you understood what I meant.

fitz0

No

Húrin wrote: »

If the Lisbon treaty goes your way should it be put to vote again next year?
So we should vote on everything every year?

Is suspect not. Your argument only makes sense when a significant democratic, cultural or temporal shift has taken place in the time between two polls.

If the treaty passes, i'd actually like to see it voted on again just out of plain curiosity. But i have little doubt that, should it pass this time, it would pass again, the NO campaign are a lot sloppier this time around.

And I say this as a NO voter last time around. (Its a yes this time)

Zillah

No

Húrin wrote: »

To the issue itself, in principle a European superstate sounds alright, but I can't see it working for ages. Look at other superstates: the USSR and USA mainly. They're totally dysfunctional and the USSR was fatally so. I don't think a European state would fare any better given the history of conflict and the huge variety in cultures throughout the continent. I certainly wouldn't imagine that it would be under the leadership of the enlightened Danes for the most part.

I think our history of conflict is one of our greatest strengths to be honest. After the horrors of two world wars we've learned our lesson. European leaders can never let that happen again, it is so powerfully ingrained in the mentality. Perhaps I'm being a little idealistic but I've certainly gotten that impression.

As for the USSR, well, that was an experiment with an untried system on an immense scale. Not to mention that if they had not been opposed by the US they may well have had a functioning society. As for the US, I hardly think it is fair to call them totally dysfunctional. Sure they have their problems, but they've been a political, cultural and economic power house of a federation for over two hundred years now.

Those countries are minorities, nor are they exactly glaring exceptions to the dominant neoliberalism of the Union's political class.

Well, like I said, I'd need to do some more research if I was ever voting on this in a real world scenario.

If the Lisbon treaty goes your way should it be put to vote again next year?
So we should vote on everything every year?

In an ideal world we could magically poll the opinion of all (informed :pac:) citizens on every matter of state and come to a decision, but that is of course entirely impractical. Most matters are not important enough to go to such efforts, but considering that Lisbon is so important to the operation of the EU and our role within it, I think it is fair to go to the expense and effort again.

Quite frankly I think such a matter is far too complex to be put to a popular vote anyway. I'd rather if, like most European states, our elected representatives made this decision in the first place. We've already seen in this thread that people are petty enough to vote no purely to spite the government. I think such important and complex matters should not boil down to the opinion of Jonny "Don't conscript me into the EU super army" Dubliner.

Is suspect not. Your argument only makes sense when a significant democratic, cultural or temporal shift has taken place in the time between two polls.

I completely see where you are coming from, and agree that this is the case for most matters, such as a referendum on abortion. However, I think a treaty that effects the whole EU, which has already been approved by the majority of the EU, is a special case. It, or some variety of it, needs to go through eventually. We can't just keep sitting here off Western Europe, soaking up titanic amounts of EU funding, while sullenly refusing to toe the line.

marco_polo

No

Húrin wrote: »

Thanks. However I think that the EDA should not be put on this pedestal at all.

Well it does exist already so it is not a crucial departure from the current situation. Something I don't think we Irish appreciate because of our stand on neutrality, is that the majority of European countries, especially those that share borders or are on the Eastern edge of the EU are very much in favour of increased co-operation in matters of policing, justice, defence and security.

Despite how it is painted by anti-war campaigners this seems primarily due to genuine security concerns rather than for any sinister reasons. It is not a issue that is going to go away, or stop because we demand it, and I think that we will to become comfortable with the facet of the EU. The unmentionable issue has alway been how anyone can ever be truely neutral in a such a political union.

Nor do I, but all Yes posters try to paint the vote as a referendum on membership of this Union, when it is not.

I hate this aspect of the posters as well. But I would genuinely hold the view that a second no vote would do a fair degree of damage our standing, negotiating ability in Europe for a number of years on future treatios CCAP agreement etc.

It is. We vote on things on the basis that they will be in force for the forseeable future unless otherwise stated.

I phrased that badly. What I mean to convey was the attitude of "We voted once on this issue never again''.

For all the reasons you and other yes-men favour the treaty there are people who oppose it for the same reasons.

That much is true, there are certainly those who are oppose the fact that the treaty is including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, albeit for reasons that I will never agree with.

The leadership of trade unions like SIPTU, in cahoots with the political class, are often not representative of the views of their membership. None more so than on this issue.

I really could not speculate on how many member of SIPTU, ICTU that are opposed to the treaty, although I would agree that is is likely to be quite a signifigant numbers. The argument that the leadership would make I am sure is that they are taking a decisive position of what they believe is in the best interests of their workers rather than just reflecting their opinion.

The trade union movement are in general well aware of what side their bread is buttered on when it comes to progressive working rights legislation and it is certainly not successive Irish Governments. Some like Joe Higgins have focused almost soley on the ommission of a Social Progress PProtocol, and issues not related to the treaty like the ECJ Laval judgement, and are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in my opinion.

I am not sure if you have read it but even the SIPTU statement was not a ringing endorement by any means, but read like a considered opinion of the pros and cons of the treaty.

After the last Lisbon defeat the government didn't try to ratify it anyway. I don't think you understood what I meant.

Apologies I misread the first part, I thought you were suggesting a no vote would hasten their fall from power. I don't think any Government would dare attempt to ratify a twice reject treaty directly.