Beyond Lisbon: Where are we going with the EU?

CCCP^

Hello all,

I am a concerned voter, lately I have been thinking about the future of the EU. It seems pretty inevitable that despite my convictions and voting preference, the Lisbon treaty will be passed (which will apparently keep Ireland in the EU and speed up economic recovering and kickstart job creation...apparently) and will come into effect. I am prepared to face that scenario, well more like reality, but I cannot help but wonder where is the EU going?

The Lisbon treaty will give us a High Representative for Foreign Affairs and an empowered European Parliament aswell as an External Action Service. This will serve to provide a united front for the EU on an international level, so I assume that the EU will begin to flex it's muscle globally from this point onwards. This is a fairly advance step from what was originally proposed about 50 years back as a trading block.

My concerns are...where is the EU going? Economic union has probably achieved it's highest phase with the Eurozone and can go no further. Where is the political aspect going? When will it achieve a comfortable conclusion?

I have spoken to some people who advocate a Yes vote and what they proposed scared me. If I vote No, atleast it's the least of a possible worst scenario, and perhaps the treaty can be ditched and a new effort can begun to be thrashed out. But also what some No people want is a bit nuts altgoether. Where are the logical, moderate people gone?!

So, I guess I am talking mostly to Yes voters. Where do you think the EU is headed and how do you feel about that? I would really appreciate your views. I think that this issue has polarised views alot in Ireland but I think the only way to understand it is to talk openly about it. Thanks guys.

Scofflaw

Although I shouldn't have to say this - this is a political discussion. People replying - keep the NWO stuff under your tinfoil.

moderately,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Well bear in mind, before fretting about any future worst case scenario, the Lisbon exit clause would leave open the possibility leaving the EU. As our laws would be fully compatable with all Common Market laws, re-negotiating something like EEA/EFTA membership should be relatively straight forward.

Edit Actually I negleted to consider the Eurozone

ChocolateSauce

I think it is going towards closer political integration. I think this is a good thing. I think there there is a natural limit to this integration, and that it will never go further. I am also confident that any integration that does happen will be very slow and will give people time to adjust, make decisions about it, and so forth.

It is not irreversible, and much more solid unions have been broken before, so I see nothing to fear. The EU and the other states aren't big imperial machines bent on controlling us or anyone else, and if given the chance they wouldn't accept it. The ultimate purpose of the EU is to help its citizens to live happy lives, so to force a bad decision on a population goes against its own reason for existence.

CCCP^

Scofflaw wrote: »

Although I shouldn't have to say this - this is a political discussion. Keep the NWO stuff under your tinfoil.

moderately,
Scofflaw

I'm not into conspiracy theories myself and I don't think anything I said before hand would lead anyone to think that. I would describe my political orientation as a moderate or liberal I guess. I ****ing hate listening to people going on about Zeitgeist and that stuff

oscarBravo

CCCP^ wrote: »

My concerns are...where is the EU going? Economic union has probably achieved it's highest phase with the Eurozone and can go no further. Where is the political aspect going? When will it achieve a comfortable conclusion?

Someone (maybe djpbarry?) answered a similar question in a previous thread with the rhetorical question, where is Ireland going?

There seems to be a desire on some people's part to circumscribe the future direction of the EU; to say that it can integrate so far, but no further. This, to me, misses a crucial point: what if the future population of the EU want it to go further?

The answer to your question is that it will go where there is political will and appetite for it to go, and no further. Integration will happen to the extent that twenty-seven (and probably more, and maybe fewer) member states in the future are capable of agreeing among themselves that it should happen.

Europe is far from a homogenous place. It's quite the achievement that the member states are able to work together as well as they do. Personally, I like the direction the EU has taken to date, and the staid pace at which it has headed in that direction. I don't see a federal superstate in the near future, because I don't think there's any appetite among the member states for one - which is fine by me.

Scofflaw

CCCP^ wrote: »

I'm not into conspiracy theories myself and I don't think anything I said before hand would lead anyone to think that. I would describe my political orientation as a moderate or liberal I guess. I ****ing hate listening to people going on about Zeitgeist and that stuff

Aimed at those answering, not you! Have clarified.

apologies,
Scofflaw

meglome

As Scofflaw said it will only go as far as people want it to go. The EU have never made anyone do anything and there's no sign that this is going to change.

ChocolateSauce

oscarBravo wrote: »

There seems to be a desire on some people's part to circumscribe the future direction of the EU; to say that it can integrate so far, but no further. This, to me, misses a crucial point: what if the future population of the EU want it to go further?
.

I did that we could only go so far above, but I'd qualify that statement by adding that I was thinking it highly unlikely that it would ever go from say a federal state to a unitary state. I think a federal state is possible in maybe 100 years, but I can't ever see a unitary state. Even the US would be allergic to that level of political integration.

Martin 2

CCCP^ wrote: »

...I have spoken to some people who advocate a Yes vote and what they proposed scared me....

What did they propose and why did it scare you?

CCCP^

oscarBravo wrote: »

Someone (maybe djpbarry?) answered a similar question in a previous thread with the rhetorical question, where is Ireland going?

There seems to be a desire on some people's part to circumscribe the future direction of the EU; to say that it can integrate so far, but no further. This, to me, misses a crucial point: what if the future population of the EU want it to go further?

I feel uneasy about that to be honest. Populations can be coerced, if they feel threathened or afraid of some crisis, into situations that wouldn't be considered in times of peace and prosperity. Look at what happened to the United States after 9/11. I know that is an extreme case and I don't think it would be possible in the EU because the US has a strong federal government that takes direct control over its population, but if the EU had more power, as it would eventually (do we have an opt-out for unilateral support and/or action with regards to foreign affairs?) then, feasibly, it could happen.

CCCP^

Martin 2 wrote: »

What did they propose and why did it scare you?

I got in a debate with some guy on another forum on another website and asked him what he thought the future might be like. Now I don't think he's from Ireland but he seems very interested about Lison. He responded with a private message, being this:


this list has holes in it and id need hours to define how far i would go but them.

1: a common defence policy agsint DIRECT attack. (abandon NATO, its not needed europe can look after its self)
2: common space exploration, research policy, resource conservation etc
3: euro in ALL EU states.
4: special relationship with russia and turkey, almost membership but not quite.
5: a two tier system, were the inner 6 or whatever have a common army but not ireland, that would be the only op-out id want for ireland, a common defense clasue but still maintaining direct control of the army
6: EU parliament filled with MEPS from pan european party's not individual national party's

This sounds kind of out there.

Daftendirekt

CCCP^ wrote: »

I got in a debate with some guy on another forum on another website and asked him what he thought the future might be like. Now I don't think he's from Ireland but he seems very interested about Lison. He responded with a private message, being this:


this list has holes in it and id need hours to define how far i would go but them.

1: a common defence policy agsint DIRECT attack. (abandon NATO, its not needed europe can look after its self)
2: common space exploration, research policy, resource conservation etc
3: euro in ALL EU states.
4: special relationship with russia and turkey, almost membership but not quite.
5: a two tier system, were the inner 6 or whatever have a common army but not ireland, that would be the only op-out id want for ireland, a common defense clasue but still maintaining direct control of the army
6: EU parliament filled with MEPS from pan european party's not individual national party's

This sounds kind of out there.

Just for clarification: are these issues he believes are related to Lisbon, or the general future direction of the EU?

K-9

CCCP^ wrote: »

I got in a debate with some guy on another forum on another website and asked him what he thought the future might be like. Now I don't think he's from Ireland but he seems very interested about Lison. He responded with a private message, being this:


this list has holes in it and id need hours to define how far i would go but them.

1: a common defence policy agsint DIRECT attack. (abandon NATO, its not needed europe can look after its self)
2: common space exploration, research policy, resource conservation etc
3: euro in ALL EU states.
4: special relationship with russia and turkey, almost membership but not quite.
5: a two tier system, were the inner 6 or whatever have a common army but not ireland, that would be the only op-out id want for ireland, a common defense clasue but still maintaining direct control of the army
6: EU parliament filled with MEPS from pan european party's not individual national party's

This sounds kind of out there.

I would brand people like that like COIR Voters on the the No side.

Scofflaw

CCCP^ wrote: »

I feel uneasy about that to be honest. Populations can be coerced, if they feel threathened or afraid of some crisis, into situations that wouldn't be considered in times of peace and prosperity. Look at what happened to the United States after 9/11. I know that is an extreme case and I don't think it would be possible in the EU because the US has a strong federal government that takes direct control over its population, but if the EU had more power, as it would eventually (do we have an opt-out for unilateral support and/or action with regards to foreign affairs?) then, feasibly, it could happen.

Yes, we have a veto on foreign policy, and the option to not veto but 'constructively abstain'. Foreign policy is an intergovernmental area, not a 'community' one:

Article 22 Lisbon TEU

1. On the basis of the principles and objectives set out in Article 21, the European Council shall identify the strategic interests and objectives of the Union. Decisions of the European Council on the strategic interests and objectives of the Union shall relate to the common foreign and security policy and to other areas of the external action of the Union. Such decisions may concern the relations of the Union with a specific country or region or may be thematic in approach. They shall define their duration, and the means to be made available by the Union and the Member States. The European Council shall act unanimously on a recommendation from the Council, adopted by the latter under the arrangements laid down for each area. Decisions of the European Council shall be implemented in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Treaties.

2. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and security Policy, for the area of common foreign and security policy, and the Commission, for other areas of external action, may submit joint proposals to the Council.

In order for the EU to be given 'emergency' powers after something like a 9/11 event, the member states would have to call an Intergovernmental Conference, draw up a new Treaty, and get the Treaty ratified in all the member states in the usual way. Not really a process that lends itself to rushing stuff through in a panic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

CCCP^ wrote: »

I got in a debate with some guy on another forum on another website and asked him what he thought the future might be like. Now I don't think he's from Ireland but he seems very interested about Lison. He responded with a private message, being this:


this list has holes in it and id need hours to define how far i would go but them.

1: a common defence policy agsint DIRECT attack. (abandon NATO, its not needed europe can look after its self)
2: common space exploration, research policy, resource conservation etc
3: euro in ALL EU states.
4: special relationship with russia and turkey, almost membership but not quite.
5: a two tier system, were the inner 6 or whatever have a common army but not ireland, that would be the only op-out id want for ireland, a common defense clasue but still maintaining direct control of the army
6: EU parliament filled with MEPS from pan european party's not individual national party's

This sounds kind of out there.

I presume this is the guy's preferred future EU. It's not particularly bizarre, but there's certainly things in it that other people wouldn't want. I personally wouldn't be particularly interested in the military aspects - I'd rather the EU's "military" role limited itself to the current police-style support for civilian actions. I don't particularly care whether other EU members adopt the euro. I'd probably object to a 'special relationship' with Russia - "almost membership but not quite" sounds a lot like EEA/EFTA, and I can't see Russia happy with that. Not convinced on pan-European parties, either.

Er, right - that leaves 2, and that one would depend on whether he meant coordination and joint efforts or some kind of completely pan-European system. The former, sure - the latter, hm.

Interesting - if that were the direction of the EU, Lisbon would probably turn out to be the limits of my interest in integration.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Martin 2

CCCP^ wrote: »

I got in a debate with some guy on another forum on another website and asked him what he thought the future might be like. Now I don't think he's from Ireland but he seems very interested about Lison. He responded with a private message, being this:


this list has holes in it and id need hours to define how far i would go but them.

1: a common defence policy agsint DIRECT attack. (abandon NATO, its not needed europe can look after its self)
2: common space exploration, research policy, resource conservation etc
3: euro in ALL EU states.
4: special relationship with russia and turkey, almost membership but not quite.
5: a two tier system, were the inner 6 or whatever have a common army but not ireland, that would be the only op-out id want for ireland, a common defense clasue but still maintaining direct control of the army
6: EU parliament filled with MEPS from pan european party's not individual national party's

This sounds kind of out there.

A common policy on space is effectively in existence through the European Space Agency (ESA) and Ireland is a contributor (very small contribution unfortunately). Space exploration is so expensive and requires so much scientific and technical expertise that no one EU country can realistically afford it, so nearly every EU member is involved. ESA seems to be more involved in telecoms and positioning satellite launches than space exploration. You may be aware that they are developing a new European satellite positioning system (satnav system), Galileo, to rival the US GPS system, it will offer higher positioning accuracy and won’t be under the control of the US. This will be hugely beneficial for all types of positioning for cars, boats, airplanes, hikers, rescue services, farming etc etc. I only wish Ireland made a bigger contribution to ESA, because they tend to allocate jobs in proportion to a country’s contribution so you can imagine there are very few jobs for Irish engineers or scientists

Euro in all states, as long as joining is optional and it always will be then I have no major objection to this.

As for the rest of the points, don’t really care for them and I’d imagine neither do most EU citizens.

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

In order for the EU to be given 'emergency' powers after something like a 9/11 event, the member states would have to call an Intergovernmental Conference, draw up a new Treaty, and get the Treaty ratified in all the member states in the usual way. Not really a process that lends itself to rushing stuff through in a panic.

A word on NATO, its decision process and its expansion.

NATO works on concensus (sorry 'bout spelling) - a system designed to avoid rushed decisions. After 9/11 a conference was called, and in less than a month the 9/11 attack was declared an attack on NATO, this caused three long term results.

1) Accelerated expansion of NATO and PfP.
i.e 9 countries have joined NATO since 9/11

2) Expansion of operational area, beyond North Atlantic treaty areas.
e.g. Support of Turkey against attack from Iraq and the Afghan invasion

3) A renewed strategic position.
Since the colapse of the Soviet Union, NATO was becoming defunct, it lacked a clear purpose.
After the war on terror was declared, it had new, clear and expanded mission perameters.

As for EU states abandoning NATO, thats not going to happen. The UK for one will never give up its percieved influence in the US with NATO membership.

There is also the question of research costs, shared weapon procurement programs like the JSF and of course weapon production.
Many NATO states produce armaments under licence, or even parts - so it creates employment at home.

On the issue of militarism it does seem that when the Greens entered Government they left their principles and beliefs at the door.
The concerns expressed by the Greens in the No to Nice II campaign, in terms of assurances on neutrality were discounted but proved to be accurate.

One concern about Nice II was that we would become more closely aligned with NATO, or its subgroup PfP (Partnership for Peace)

In 1997 we were assured by FF and FG that voting Yes to Nice II would in no way compromise our traditional neutrality.

We were assured that any change to neutrality policy would have to be agreed by referendum.

And we told ourselves it would not happen anyway.

We were assured by the 1997 Fianna Fail manifesto that opposed PfP membership, that the traditional policy of neutrality would be respected.
This was a solemn declaration.

Mr. Ahern told us that it would be 'fundamentally undemocratic' to join PfP without a referendum.

Then in 1999 Bertie sent Foreign Minister David Andrews to NATO headquarters and signed us up to the PfP, without a referendum.

By 2002 the parameters of Irish participation within the PfP were further expanded.

The thing is, I dont like being lied to - regardless of our personal feelings on the matter of PfP membership, we were promised a choice.

But the choice was made for us and as soon as Nice II went through and FF came to power. FG and to a lesser extent Labour also went along with Nice II and PfP

Are we not going to learn from the past lies?
The promises and assurances given today, by the same Fianna Fail - are about as solid as those given in the past.

History is more than just something you read in a book.
It was invented as a tool, an engineered road down which society could advance.
The entire point of history to the Greeks was not an exhortation to live in the past, but to live with it, learn from it and live better.

The original Greek definition of the word (ιστορία – historia) is a combination of ‘inquiry, analysis, observation and myth ‘this at a time when myth meant information, not just fairy tales.

It certainly seems the Green Party has forgotten about the Nice fairy tale FF and FG told us in a land not so far away, and a time not long ago

Scofflaw

And the relevance of any of that to the thread is....?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

CCCP^ wrote: »

Hello all,

I am a concerned voter, lately I have been thinking about the future of the EU. It seems pretty inevitable that despite my convictions and voting preference, the Lisbon treaty will be passed (which will apparently keep Ireland in the EU and speed up economic recovering and kickstart job creation...apparently).

There's no evidence (that I have seen) to suggest that if the Lisbon Treaty is passed , then this will speed up (Ireland's) recovery . Equally if the Lisbon Treaty is rejected it will not slow down economic recovery. If you (or anyone else) have proof to the contrary I'd like to see it as anything else is just conjecture.

Ireland cannot be ejected from the European Union legally. This is an irrefutable fact and anyone trying to suggest otherwise is a liar. (there is however some kind of mechanism to suspend a member state but that doesn't equate to expelling and certainly doesn't apply to a member state not ratifying a treaty).


If the Lisbon Treaty is rejected by Ireland and not ratified by 2010 then the EU will continue on its course as per previous treaties.

Red Sleeping Beauty

CCCP^ wrote: »

I got in a debate with some guy on another forum on another website and asked him what he thought the future might be like. Now I don't think he's from Ireland but he seems very interested about Lison. He responded with a private message, being this:


this list has holes in it and id need hours to define how far i would go but them.

1: a common defence policy agsint DIRECT attack. (abandon NATO, its not needed europe can look after its self)
2: common space exploration, research policy, resource conservation etc
3: euro in ALL EU states.
4: special relationship with russia and turkey, almost membership but not quite.
5: a two tier system, were the inner 6 or whatever have a common army but not ireland, that would be the only op-out id want for ireland, a common defense clasue but still maintaining direct control of the army
6: EU parliament filled with MEPS from pan european party's not individual national party's

This sounds kind of out there.

I'd say the first on your list is most relative to the Lisbon Treaty.

"CHAPTER 2 - SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY" is well worth a read. Links to be found in one of the stickied threads .

Martin 2

Alan Rouge wrote: »

There's no evidence (that I have seen) to suggest that if the Lisbon Treaty is passed , then this will speed up (Ireland's) recovery . Equally if the Lisbon Treaty is rejected it will not slow down economic recovery. If you (or anyone else) have proof to the contrary I'd like to see it as anything else is just conjecture.

Alan, I'll try to give a detailed answer to your question on the economy later but somewhat ironically I have to work now.

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

And the relevance of any of that to the thread is....?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Well, it address' questions on NATO as were in the thread
" 1: a common defence policy agsint DIRECT attack. (abandon NATO, its not needed europe can look after its self) "
As I said, there is no way countries like the UK and NL would ever leave NATO.

Also, by taking a look at how NATO operates, we can have a fair idea of how a future defence policy may well work

Of course, there is also the chance to see how FF have lied about the implications of EU treaties in relation to defence in the past, as well as the greens U-turn in the cause of self preservation.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Of course, there is also the chance to see how FF have lied about the implications of EU treaties in relation to defence in the past, as well as the greens U-turn in the cause of self preservation.

2 questions:

1. In what year did Ireland sign up to PfP?
2. In what year did the Nice treaty enter into force?

ro09

Do any of us remember the people who gave their lives for this country so we could have independance, freedom to make our own laws and run our country the way we want?

Every EU Treaty we sign into law reduces our own decision making powers in relation to our people. The Lisbon Treaty certainly puts the nail in the coffin.

Also I mean we are at the heart of Europe now and we are still experiencing a recession.
We have no real home grown manufacturing Industry from which all economic prosperity and growth comes from, we are just relying on foreign investment all the time, there is no vision among our leaders.

I think our leaders have become too friendly with Europe, they have lost vision and have lost or forgotten any sense of nationalism.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ro09 wrote: »

The question I think people have to ask themselves is - are they willing to sell out the country so their pockets can be full of money??

What are you implying? That the Irish civil service, or government people who negotiated the Lisbon treaty, were bribed in order to agree to terms of the treaty that are actually secretly detrimental to Ireland? Grow some balls and spit it out, rather than using nasty innuendo.

ro09 wrote: »

Do any of us remember the people who gave their lives for this country so we could have independance, freedom to make our own laws and run our country the way we want?

As I remember it, they gave their lives so that Ireland could take it's place amongst the nations of the world, and negotiate it's own international treaties, outside of the United Kingdom. As I see it, that's exactly what we're doing.

ro09 wrote: »

Every EU Treaty we sign into law reduces our own decision making powers in relation to our people. The Lisbon Treaty certainly puts the nail in the coffin.

The nail? What exactly is the nail, as in that's it, we no longer have any decision making powers? Can you give me an article number from the Lisbon treaty that represents this nail? Just one please?

ro09 wrote: »

Do we want to be part of a united states of Europe, Do we want our Country flooded with immigrants? Of course i will now be called a racist for saying this but I can tell you I would sit down and have dinner and make friends with foreign people , but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Do we want to end up like England with no real sense of national identity?

What part of Lisbon creates a USE, or causes our country to be 'flooded' with immigrants?

Again, just an article number would do just fine.

ro09 wrote: »

Also I mean we are at the heart of Europe now and we are still experiencing a recession.

How would it be if we weren't in Europe? I suggest you look northwest.

ro09 wrote: »

We have no real home grown manufacturing Industry from which all economic prosperity and growth comes from, we are just relying on foreign investment all the time, there is no vision among our leaders.

And Lisbon exacerbates this problem how?

ro09 wrote: »

I think our leaders have become to friendly with Europe, they have lost vision and have lost or forgotten any sense of nationalism.

Outright nationalism isn't an outright virtue.

O'Morris

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote:

How would it be if we weren't in Europe? I suggest you look northwest.

Coir have an interesting interview with professor of Finance Ray Kinsella (here) on their website. They put the "We'd-be-Iceland-without-the-EU" point to him. This was his reply:

Cóir: Is there any truth to the claim that Ireland would be another Iceland without the EU?

No. There were scary parallels between the meltdown in Iceland’s economy and the implosion of Ireland’s economy. Both leveraged their economy to extraordinary levels: they both borrowed heavily using present assets and reserves as surety. Iceland borrowed at a ratio of ten to one. Iceland then lent out and invested abroad. Of course when the recession hit they found that all these investments could no longer be backed with any real money.

This spectacularly greedy speculation all sounds familiar to us. But the difference is that Iceland did it on a far greater scale to Ireland and was more dependant on it than we were.

Being members of the EU did not cushion us or save us from the fallout of this. The truth is that if intervention is called for it will probably be the IMF who will step in and not the European Central Bank. If the ECB or Germany stands in to bail Ireland and Spain, Greece, etc. out, it could spell disaster for the Euro and for the German economy (which is seen as a sort of barometer for the health of the European economy as a whole).

PopeBuckfastXVI

O'Morris wrote: »

Coir have an interesting interview with professor of Finance Ray Kinsella (here) on their website. They put the "We'd-be-Iceland-without-the-EU" point to him. This was his reply:

It's your opinion that our economy wouldn't be worse if we weren't in Europe?

What I see Professor Kinsella saying that our membership didn't cushion us from the fallout, fair enough, however our membership means that we have more to our economy than a property bubble, for instance all the MNC's that are here because we are part of Europe.

There's a subtle difference between the two ideas.

marco_polo

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's your opinion that our economy wouldn't be worse if we weren't in Europe?

What I see Professor Kinsella saying that our membership didn't cushion us from the fallout, fair enough, however our membership means that we have more to our economy than a property bubble, for instance all the MNC's that are here because we are part of Europe.

There's a subtle difference between the two ideas.

Not to mention the Eurozone membership saved us from the sort of currency speculation that the Krona was a target of as well.

meglome

O'Morris wrote: »

Coir have an interesting interview with professor of Finance Ray Kinsella (here) on their website. They put the "We'd-be-Iceland-without-the-EU" point to him. This was his reply:

So is he saying if we still had the punt our currency wouldn't have taken a nosedive. A nosedive which would have likely brought about an Iceland.

CCCP^

Alan Rouge wrote: »

There's no evidence (that I have seen) to suggest that if the Lisbon Treaty is passed , then this will speed up (Ireland's) recovery . Equally if the Lisbon Treaty is rejected it will not slow down economic recovery. If you (or anyone else) have proof to the contrary I'd like to see it as anything else is just conjecture.

Well that's the general vibe of the Yes campaign posters I see all over town - We Belong and the one for IBEC, Yes for Jobs. Not that I'm buying it, but "apparently" this is what is going to happen.

nesf

Alan Rouge wrote: »

There's no evidence (that I have seen) to suggest that if the Lisbon Treaty is passed , then this will speed up (Ireland's) recovery . Equally if the Lisbon Treaty is rejected it will not slow down economic recovery. If you (or anyone else) have proof to the contrary I'd like to see it as anything else is just conjecture.

Yes but you're taking one particular interpretation on this and confusing that with all possible interpretations. It's perfectly legitimate to propose that EU membership is good for our economy (free access to wealth EU markets and so on) and that this treaty improves the EU, therefore it is in Ireland's economic interest to vote Yes. What you're doing (intentionally or unintentionally) is creating a straw man here and not actually addressing the issues.

A better question to answer is, does a No vote definitely not negatively affect Ireland's economy? Does it?

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Ireland cannot be ejected from the European Union legally. This is an irrefutable fact and anyone trying to suggest otherwise is a liar. (there is however some kind of mechanism to suspend a member state but that doesn't equate to expelling and certainly doesn't apply to a member state not ratifying a treaty).

Eh, I don't for a second believe that Ireland will be ejected from the EU if a second No vote is passed, but do you honestly believe that it would be impossible for the EU to kick someone out if every other member State was for it?

Alan Rouge wrote: »

If the Lisbon Treaty is rejected by Ireland and not ratified by 2010 then the EU will continue on its course as per previous treaties.

It won't unless you live in some fanciful imaginary world where different treaties aren't written. The EU will evolve and change, if not through Lisbon then through the next treaty, a No vote does not secure the status quo.

Martin 2

Alan Rouge wrote: »

There's no evidence (that I have seen) to suggest that if the Lisbon Treaty is passed , then this will speed up (Ireland's) recovery . Equally if the Lisbon Treaty is rejected it will not slow down economic recovery. If you (or anyone else) have proof to the contrary I'd like to see it as anything else is just conjecture.

If you’re looking for proof that certain actions will have a definite outcome on the economy then you’re unlikely to find it, I think one needs to take a more probabilistic approach, so with that in mind I would say that a Yes is more likely to help the economy and a No more likely to damage it and I base this on the following:

-The multinational and business sectors support a Yes
-A no will likely reduce our sovereign credit rating and increase the cost of state borrowing
-After a yes, the Energy & Environmental provisions of the treaty can be enacted which should result in reduced energy costs and the support of green technology development (long term benefit).

I was going to add that a yes would also bring stability, confidence and restore our political goodwill within the EU institutions however although I believe this is true it is much fuzzier and more difficult to defend.