Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lisbon II - The A&A Thread
Options
Comments
-
-
marco_polo wrote: »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.
This is what really tee's me off and is for me personally the crux of how I will vote. If we are to be punished/sidelined or whatever because of our vote, then the EU is not an organisation I would wish to be part of and I will be voting no for Lisbon, and I say that whilst recognising all that it has done to modernise and help our backward little country.
Now if on the other hand I was of the belief that the EU would fully respect a No vote and there would be no such petulant reprecussions, then I would wholeheartedly endorse it as I am actually in favour of Lisbon's content.
Coir and the like are full of crap, but the more the Yes side talk about how we need to be at the heart of Europe and all that, the more my hackles rise and I start to think that their bull may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy - the point being that I would expect and demand that we be treated as equal partners regardless of the outcome, as I neither expect nor want the EU to act as a petty political entity, but as a neutral balanced body.
So, if I was to vote on Lison merely on it's merits alone, it would be a yes, but I'm afraid I can't do that without taking into account the rest of the picture, and the expectation (which the Yes side is promulgating) that we would be sidelined in future etc, is actually turning me the other way. This is weird and twisted, and leaves me stuck not knowing what to do really
0 -
NoMackDeToaster wrote: »So, if I was to vote on Lison merely on it's merits alone, it would be a yes, but I'm afraid I can't do that without taking into account the rest of the picture, and the expectation (which the Yes side is promulgating) that we would be sidelined in future etc, is actually turning me the other way. This is weird and twisted, and leaves me stuck not knowing what to do really
Very good point actually.0 -
NoMackDeToaster wrote: »So, if I was to vote on Lison merely on it's merits alone, it would be a yes, but I'm afraid I can't do that without taking into account the rest of the picture, and the expectation (which the Yes side is promulgating) that we would be sidelined in future etc, is actually turning me the other way. This is weird and twisted, and leaves me stuck not knowing what to do really
It's not a petty punishment, it's that the other 26 countries of the union are pulling in one direction and a few hundred thousand people on the peripheries are pulling in another direction for no apparent reason. The rest of the countries in Europe want these changes and a lot of the changes could be implemented without us. They can just rewrite the treaty with the parts that don't work unless everyone does it taken out and hey presto, a two tier Europe where the other 26 countries get what they want and the Irish people get what they've been tricked into thinking they want by anti-EU groups.
Not to mention that if I'm looking to set up my corporation in Europe, a deciding factor might well be that I want to be in a country that has expressed a desire to be a fully signed up member of the European project now and into the future. As the EU makes further changes and we fight against them and possibly get opt outs it might get more and more difficult and expensive to get access to the common European market, which, along with our corporation tax, is one of the main reasons all those foreign companies located here (~140,000 jobs).
And so on...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
What I said actually does address your point. you said the EU should not be saying "you're a very naughty boy, go and sit in the corner for a while" and I was making the point that they aren't doing that
I realise that, but I'm not talking about now, the Yes side's campaign is suggesting very strongly they are going to spit the dummy if we say no again, companies are going to think twice about investing etc. I don't know if the EU will in fact do this, but either way I don't respond very well to threats, and the implication is that they will. So, are the Yes side correct in what they say, or not ? If they're liars I vote yes (paradoxically), if they're not, I'll vote no.
I would want assurances that it won't happen, I have no interest in a politicised, biased, judgmental organisation where there are enough personal ego's that this can happen.Having said that, remember that organistaions, be it the EU or all those companies whose money we want, are made up of flawed people who don't always keep their personal biases out of their business lives. Technically we shouldn't lose the goodwill of these people because of a no vote but it can happen
I know that anology was poor, analogies ultimately always areAlso I think your analogy is flawed because it assumes that any voice of dissent is punished and the EU should be worshipped like a God. The main part I would object to is "whether dubious or not". Imo a better analogy would be a group of 27 friends are all trying to make a plan and one of them keeps acting the bollox, throwing tantrums over nothing. If we had good reasons for rejecting the treaty and there was a negative backlash I would be of the same opinion as yourself but we don't. It's mostly the lies of extremists and Fianna Fail hatred. Our European neighbours were more than willing to listen to our objections but it turned out that they were almost all red herrings. The only real one was the commissioner issue and we got that changed.
However, you seem to be saying that if we have bad reasons for rejecting the treaty we should expect a backlash ? This is what I'm getting at, the EU is not simply a group of friends with one freaky one, it should be above and beyond such pettiness.
I'll have to disagree in that I still don't think it's justified. The EU knows what it's getting when someone signs up, i.e. it's a two-way partnership - they get something, we get something, so despite the fact that we may get more than we return, we shouldn't have to be grateful as these were the terms. It's a business contract if you will, something that should be fully executed without any personal bias. If the Eu does take a no as a personal slight, then it's not something I want to do business with as it's not trustworthy.Ireland has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the EU and we keep throwing out their treaties, this time without even bothering to read it. We just said tl;dr to an organisation that has been crucial in us changing from a backwards sh!thole to one of the richest countries in the world (until we messed it up for ourselves) and if that loses us goodwill among our colleagues, it's justified imo0 -
NoMackDeToaster wrote: »This is what really tee's me off and is for me personally the crux of how I will vote. If we are to be punished/sidelined or whatever because of our vote, then the EU is not an organisation I would wish to be part of and I will be voting no for Lisbon, and I say that whilst recognising all that it has done to modernise and help our backward little country.
Now if on the other hand I was of the belief that the EU would fully respect a No vote and there would be no such petulant reprecussions, then I would wholeheartedly endorse it as I am actually in favour of Lisbon's content.
Coir and the like are full of crap, but the more the Yes side talk about how we need to be at the heart of Europe and all that, the more my hackles rise and I start to think that their bull may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy - the point being that I would expect and demand that we be treated as equal partners regardless of the outcome, as I neither expect nor want the EU to act as a petty political entity, but as a neutral balanced body.
So, if I was to vote on Lison merely on it's merits alone, it would be a yes, but I'm afraid I can't do that without taking into account the rest of the picture, and the expectation (which the Yes side is promulgating) that we would be sidelined in future etc, is actually turning me the other way. This is weird and twisted, and leaves me stuck not knowing what to do really
It is not my intention to paint a picture of Ireland as some sort of parriah in Europe as a consequence of an no vote. However I have a very strong objection to the view of a no vote as a completely consequence free endorsement for the current status quo, which is a seriously misleading one in my opinion. My main point is that to get good results in negotiations it is important to have a good standing and rapport with your peers, and to have their complete trust. I think people seriously underestimate the amount of horsetrading that goes on amongst the various voting blocs that exist at a European Level. ie. We will give you a concession on point x in proposal one, if you support us in changing point y in proposal 2. This is not painting a picture of bullying, but is a reflection on how negotiations proceed in all walks of life. If somebody asks me for a tenner and I have a good relationship with them, I am likely to give it to them, if not I am less likely to. But that does not mean I am going to punch them in the face.
In the best case No vote scenario, with no immediate apparent consequences for Ireland and and agreement by the other 26 member states to begin a completely new treaty. It does not appear to me that the Irish negotiators would have a very strong position, one because I don't think we have a clear vision of what we want from Europe going forward, and secondly there will surely be doubts from the other member states on our ability to deliver a ratification on any new treaty.
On thing is certain is that that a great number of elements in the Lisbon Treaty will be a given in any future treaty given that they are good and progressive ideas, the institutional reforms etc. Any future treaty will surely also include some QMV changes etc. Another point to note is that with the exception of Ireland and the UK every other EU country has opted into both the Schengen Aquis and the Judical/Policing co-operation, for fully signed up members the additional few competencies added (Common Energy policy etc) under Lisbon look positively trivial when looked at in this context.
Leaving aside the fake issues floating about, it seems our main objectives are that we want to deny the other member states the opportunity to engage any form of co-operation in matters of defence, something we will never have and never will be able to fully block (see NATO etc). And Workers Rights, which are actually enhanced under Lisbon, despite what Joe Higgins is claiming. The Lisbon Treaty does not copperfasten anything with regard to the recent controvercial ECJ decisions. Existing ECJ judgements will stand with or without Lisbon, until the defective law is changed, not because of a false claim that the COFR sets them in stone. Getting reform does not require a Social Protocol in the treaty, a new Directive would do the exact same thing.
There is a strong agenda of amongst most other member states to reform the EU institutions, and scant evidence to suggest that the citizens are profoundly unhappy with the proposals in the Lisbon treaty.
I don't have any answers about the future but I certainly see few positives in a NO vote?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
The point though is that by continued rejection of benign and beneficial treaties for no good reason, Ireland has shown itself not to be trustworthy. Again, it's not that the EU is taking a no as a personal slight, it's the bullsh!t reasons we're why voting no that might create bad feeling. If we went to Europe and said "the people voted no because of x, y and z, could we please get these renegotiated" everything would be fine but "NO MEANS NO!!!!!!!!!!", "EUROPE'S STEALING OUR FISH AND OUR BABIES!!!" or "WE HATE BRIAN COWEN!!!!" is not conducive to renegotiation
In a business relationship both partners have to behave maturely, responsibly and reasonably. Ireland is not behaving that way. The perception is that we want a relationship of "we get something, we throw a tantrum when they try to get something", or in this case it's not even that they want something, we've just been tricked into thinking they do. Do you not think it's in any way reasonable for a relationship to sour because one partner is fighting the rest every step of the way for no good reason?
I agree with you on one level, but not on another
I also think that those reasons are utterly stupid and facile, but is that reason to count us as untrustworthy?
I'll throw in the democracy card - we've already voted no, the reasons have been addressed, we vote no again for whatever reason.
Now, given that the terms say there must be full consensus before things proceed, and the means of gaining that consensus is by vote, why should we be considered as untrustworthy for voting no (regardless of the reasons) when the choice of voting was freely given, i.e. we are behaving within the terms of the contract ?
By being given a vote in the first place, we don't have to justify a no, it's inherent. The failure of democracy I know, you and I may disagree with the reasons, the EU may think they're ****e, but we're still bound to abide by them as they're the rules. So, why should the relationship sour when we're playing by the rules ?0 -
-
-
-
-
Not going to voteStupid Posters (the lampost ones that is) are wrecking my head. I just want a bunch of stickers with "What has this got to do with Lisbon?" so I can stick them on them all from 1916 to cows to people's travel habits to a vote on our very membership
0 -
No
Oh I know, and that's make Ireland look worse again. And the fact that we keep voting in the same clowns makes us look worse again. And the face that we vote them in and then reject the treaty because we don't trust them makes us worse again.MackDeToaster wrote: »Hmm, that's a bit depressing. But don't forget there's two sides to every card, some of the top clowns in gov didn't read it either !
Ah but there are no religious people preventing me from implementing my much needed and beneficial plansMackDeToaster wrote: »Anyways, we could say similar about religion, but I still respect the right of the religious to practise their religion (concerns about secularism notwithstanding). I'll argue with them all day long, but I won't punitively punish them because they disagree with me. I would say dissenting voices are a positive thing, regardless of right or wrong they stir things up and help prevent things settling into a rigid monobloc(?). We are arseholes, but perhaps that could encourage new ways of thinking and approaches ?
Yeah dissenting voices are great but stupid voices that are demanding that things that aren't in the treaty be removed from the treaty and then still vote it down when they get guarantees that those things aren't in the treaty don't help anyone.MackDeToaster wrote: »I would say dissenting voices are a positive thing, regardless of right or wrong they stir things up and help prevent things settling into a rigid monobloc(?). We are arseholes, but perhaps that could encourage new ways of thinking and approaches ?
As an institution it shouldn't and as an institution I don't think it will. It's goodwill that will be lost due to pointless rejection of beneficial treaties and that's is very hard to gauge. Technically things will move on as they always did but the EU has very much gone out of its way to help Ireland and it doesn't have to do that. It could be something as simple as our MEP's opinions don't carry as much weight with their colleagues as it used to so their negotiating position isn't as strong. Well within the rules but it makes life more difficult for the IrishMackDeToaster wrote: »I'm only repeating myself, and it's possibly something that can't be answered, but while we are making things difficult, we are (as you and I say) not breaking the rules, so why should the EU react negatively? As an institution, not a personality, it shouldn't. I still think there's a very fine line between bullying and horsetrading (as Marco_Polo puts it) and right now I'm of the belief that what the Yes side are intimating is the former.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
In a dynamic organization that's trying to address systemic problems, one does have to justify a "no".
Sorry, can't agree with this. In a democracy I don't have to justify my vote to anybody. I may vote the way the fairies told me to if I so like, and I don't have to come out of the booth and tell anybody whether I voted yes or no, let alone give reasons as to why I did so, let alone go on to try to prove the fairies existence. That may annoy some but that's the way the system is.1. Irish government spends years negotiating a Treaty with 26 other governments
2. ~20 governments approve it, then Irish electorate reject for no clear reason.
3. Irish government negotiates what's effectively an addendum to the Treaty, based upon some of the "concerns" heavily marketed by the leading no-campaigners
4. Irish electorate votes "no", again probably for no very clear reason.
At point 4, which will hopefully never arise, I think the EU and the member governments can legitimately claim that the Irish aren't playing by the rules -- negotiate, approve or reject and renegotiate -- that's what you do in the democracy we have.
In a democracy I can vote no for all eternity, for any fluffy reason, and I don't have to justify that reason to anybody. The Irish aren't playing by the rules ? The Irish government might have negotiated, but so what, in a democracy it's the electorate who are the boss. In a democracy there is a right to say no, and that's fully playing by the rules, whether it's liked or not is irrelevant.Putting ones fingers in one's ears and saying no when you've been offered the ice-cream you demanded earlier isn't playing by the rules.
I don't recall the electorate asking for the ice-cream in the first place. I also voted No first time around, and none of the supposed ice-cream which I supposedly demanded (speaking for myself) which has been brought back has any relevance whatsover to my reasons then or now. Changing the brand and adding a flake on top doesn't make any difference when you're not hungry. So, are we being treated like children, are we going to get sent to our room ?
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement