What happens if the result is 'NO'?

rumour

There are many threads debating the Lisbon treaty and it appeasr to me there are quite polarised views from many different angles. A poll on another thread indicates a result similar to the last time.

Given that there are quite a few implied warnings of the consequences of a 'no' result, what do we do if it happens?

Has our government got a plan?

If it is so serious surely there must be a plan?

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Scofflaw

rumour wrote: »

There are many threads debating the Lisbon treaty and it appeasr to me there are quite polarised views from many different angles. A poll on another thread indicates a result similar to the last time.

Given that there are quite a few implied warnings of the consequences of a 'no' result, what do we do if it happens?

Has our government got a plan?

If it is so serious surely there must be a plan?

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

There's no formal planning that would be required - the government will just have to play it by ear, take the goodwill hit, and do their best.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rexelac

The ECB starts to require cuts to public services before buying up Irish bond issues (Gonna happen anyway but will be 6-12 months sooner than if we vote yes)

Cowen will not resign.
No general election will be called.
NAMA will continue on course
FF's actions will rape the country for decades to come.

sub-x

rumour wrote: »

There are many threads debating the Lisbon treaty and it appeasr to me there are quite polarised views from many different angles. A poll on another thread indicates a result similar to the last time.

Given that there are quite a few implied warnings of the consequences of a 'no' result, what do we do if it happens?

Has our government got a plan?

If it is so serious surely there must be a plan?

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Apparently they don't have a plan Cowen not contemplating defeat.

Somehow if the result is no I don't think our present government will be the ones to deal with the outcome,although no government has ever been brought down by the result of a referendum,this gives the opposition another opportunity to question the direction the country is going under the present leadership.

Its not going to matter anyway Vote Yes and Coir are coming to get you and Vote No and Mary Harney is going to eat you and everyone you love including your pets.

StealthRolex

rumour wrote: »

There are many threads debating the Lisbon treaty and it appeasr to me there are quite polarised views from many different angles. A poll on another thread indicates a result similar to the last time.

Given that there are quite a few implied warnings of the consequences of a 'no' result, what do we do if it happens?

Has our government got a plan?

If it is so serious surely there must be a plan?

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

Plan B? Probably not. They're hoping for a Yes vote, as happened with Nice.

I agree there must be a plan but to voice it's existence would be an admission by the government that a No vote is valid and they are ready for the possibility. Just as in Lisbon 1 we can be fairly certain that they are not.

If there is a plan then it will a "democratic" one. Hold Lisbon 3, then 4 and so on until we vote yes just to stop having to vote in it.

Don't believe me? Vote No to find out.

rumour

Rexelac wrote: »

The ECB starts to require cuts to public services before buying up Irish bond issues (Gonna happen anyway but will be 6-12 months sooner than if we vote yes)

Cowen will not resign.
No general election will be called.
NAMA will continue on course
FF's actions will rape the country for decades to come.

Succintly put, I could have done with that elsewhere. It is strange that with opinion polls giving no clear indication of the outcome our government is sitting back and not preparing for the future. FG and Lab are also no better as they are sitting back and don't want the helm until somebody sorts out who we can borrow from in the future. Another example in action of mismanagement and gambling.

It is perhaps a lesson why governments should not in theory take sides in referendums.

I would also have thought that analysis of any choice merits the analysis of both possible outcomes. By disproving or otherwise the scenarios you can come to an informed decision. Having already lost one referendum on this treaty it is quite simply bizarre when on the balance of probability the outcome will be similar we have no plans for the outcome.

Further still why has no element of the Irish media entertained this topic, surely it is of vital interest to the nation. Otherwise despite all the rhetoric there must simply be no consequence to voting no.

twostroke

StealthRolex wrote: »

Plan B? Probably not. They're hoping for a Yes vote, as happened with Nice.

I agree there must be a plan but to voice it's existence would be an admission by the government that a No vote is valid and they are ready for the possibility. Just as in Lisbon 1 we can be fairly certain that they are not.

If there is a plan then it will a "democratic" one. Hold Lisbon 3, then 4 and so on until we vote yes just to stop having to vote in it.

Don't believe me? Vote No to find out.

I agree 100% with StealthRolex. The Irish "democratic" solution will be applied and the government will waste further millions in canvassing, advertising and general "sweet-talking in order to get a "democratic" YES vote.

"twostroke"

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no formal planning that would be required - the government will just have to play it by ear, take the goodwill hit, and do their best.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, despressingly frank. They have obviously found something better to gamble on than horses at the Galway races.

molloyjh

StealthRolex wrote: »

Plan B? Probably not. They're hoping for a Yes vote, as happened with Nice.

I agree there must be a plan but to voice it's existence would be an admission by the government that a No vote is valid and they are ready for the possibility. Just as in Lisbon 1 we can be fairly certain that they are not.

If there is a plan then it will a "democratic" one. Hold Lisbon 3, then 4 and so on until we vote yes just to stop having to vote in it.

Don't believe me? Vote No to find out.

There won't be another referenda. There is no way it could be politically viable and the EU would likely just tell us not to bother. If the Irish Government couldn't convince us the first 2 times why would the EU believe the third would be any different. They'd rather just get on with the what they have to do next.

My thoughts on what will happen are:

1 - The Commission will be reduced on November 01st (this has to happen due to the Nice rules).
2 - Our Government will not fall. Their fate rests on the Greens and not on Lisbon.
3 - NAMA will go ahead.
4 - The other Member States will be somewhat wary of us. After addressing our concerns from the first vote we voted No again, which is bound to be downright confusing.
5 - There will be speculation (justified or not) on our position within and committment to the EU. This can only be a bad thing in the current climate IMO.
6 - The EU will spend the next few years trying to figure out how to reform the EU to deal with modern challenges and additional succession states, which will almost certainly lead to more Treaties, the level of reform contained within being the only unknown for now. Given that the Lisbon Treaty is the result of 10+ years of negotiation it's very difficult to tell what kind of reforms will happen and how they will happen, let alone when.

StealthRolex

molloyjh wrote: »

There won't be another referenda. There is no way it could be politically viable and the EU would likely just tell us not to bother. If the Irish Government couldn't convince us the first 2 times why would the EU believe the third would be any different. They'd rather just get on with the what they have to do next.

My thoughts on what will happen are:

1 - The Commission will be reduced on November 01st (this has to happen due to the Nice rules).
2 - Our Government will not fall. Their fate rests on the Greens and not on Lisbon.
3 - NAMA will go ahead.
4 - The other Member States will be somewhat wary of us. After addressing our concerns from the first vote we voted No again, which is bound to be downright confusing.
5 - There will be speculation (justified or not) on our position within and committment to the EU. This can only be a bad thing in the current climate IMO.
6 - The EU will spend the next few years trying to figure out how to reform the EU to deal with modern challenges and additional succession states, which will almost certainly lead to more Treaties, the level of reform contained within being the only unknown for now. Given that the Lisbon Treaty is the result of 10+ years of negotiation it's very difficult to tell what kind of reforms will happen and how they will happen, let alone when.

A couple of things here. Firstly you need to understand what Lisbon is about. While it has been presented as "reform" the nature of the reform is to set up a European super-state, a legal entity with rights on the world stage. A No vote will prevent it having legal rights.
While it does contain certain reforms it goes beyond just dealing with the succession states and future members.

Secondly, the Lisbon treaty amendments to the existing treaties on the EU and its functions are to all intents and purposes the framework (and more) of the failed EU Constitution which was rejected by France and Denmark, and if the polls were right it would have been rejected by Ireland had we the chance.

Thirdly - the powers that be at the center of Europe want the EU Constitution enacted one way or another. This is a power grab - make no mistake - and in all likelyhood the Governement will pass Lisbon by a legislative route as was done in France and Denmark.

I'm no expert at second guessing politicians, Irish or European, but when it comes to the Irish guessing what a headless chicken will do has served well in the past.

Het-Field

Remians the way it was post Nice.

The Treaty is likely to be killed, as a thrid referendum before the UK General Election would be impossible to be run. Once Cameron and co are in power, a referendum is likely to be held (subject to all legal requirements etc), and the British people WILL reject it.

It needs full ratification, and this is not going to be achieved if the No Campaign wins out

hatrickpatrick

What happens if we vote no?

"Hell freezes over, our economy tanks, Europe goes on without us, we are forced to leave the EU, everyone in Europe hates us and refuses to listen to or engage with us, aliens arrive to destroy our planet, and of course the Loch Ness Monster, after years of lying dormant, will rise up in rage and devour the entire human race." -- Propaganda from certain elements in the Yes campaign, including our most vocal politicians in the media, who are really starting to resemble Y2K doomsday prophesiers...

Really though? No one is entirely sure. Europe continues as Nice sets out, which means that the number of commissioners must be reduced by (I think) 2012. Apparently one option is to change it from 27 to 26, and give the 27th the "High Representative for foreign affairs" or some such title instead.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

A couple of things here. Firstly you need to understand what Lisbon is about. While it has been presented as "reform" the nature of the reform is to set up a European super-state, a legal entity with rights on the world stage. A No vote will prevent it having legal rights.
While it does contain certain reforms it goes beyond just dealing with the succession states and future members.

Secondly, the Lisbon treaty amendments to the existing treaties on the EU and its functions are to all intents and purposes the framework (and more) of the failed EU Constitution which was rejected by France and Denmark, and if the polls were right it would have been rejected by Ireland had we the chance.

Thirdly - the powers that be at the center of Europe want the EU Constitution enacted one way or another. This is a power grab - make no mistake - and in all likelyhood the Governement will pass Lisbon by a legislative route as was done in France and Denmark.

I'm no expert at second guessing politicians, Irish or European, but when it comes to the Irish guessing what a headless chicken will do has served well in the past.

Let's be clear - Lisbon has been legally examined by the German Constitutional Court, and it does not contain a European super-state.

If you wish to argue against a Yes, do it on the basis of fact, not fantasy.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What happens if we vote no?

"Hell freezes over, our economy tanks, Europe goes on without us, we are forced to leave the EU, everyone in Europe hates us and refuses to listen to or engage with us, aliens arrive to destroy our planet, and of course the Loch Ness Monster, after years of lying dormant, will rise up in rage and devour the entire human race." -- Propaganda from certain elements in the Yes campaign, including our most vocal politicians in the media, who are really starting to resemble Y2K doomsday prophesiers...

Really though? No one is entirely sure. Europe continues as Nice sets out, which means that the number of commissioners must be reduced by (I think) 2012. Apparently one option is to change it from 27 to 26, and give the 27th the "High Representative for foreign affairs" or some such title instead.

No, that's not an option, because in the absence of Lisbon, there is no such position. Renaming the Commissioner for External relations will not make them not a Commissioner.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Really though? No one is entirely sure. Europe continues as Nice sets out, which means that the number of commissioners must be reduced by (I think) 2012. Apparently one option is to change it from 27 to 26, and give the 27th the "High Representative for foreign affairs" or some such title instead.

I've seen some articles suggesting this... that some kind of non-commissioner role will be offered to a citizen of whatever state does not get a commissioner, in the event of Nice remaining in place.

Can anyone actually find this reference? I think it was put forward by some anti-Lisbon group in the context of "don't worry about the commissioner, it won't be us first".

When it neglects to explain is that over the next few years Croatia will join, and possibly Iceland, in which case there will be a shortage of 3 seats at the table. So even if we don't lose our place at the next commission, it's pretty likely we will the time after that.

Of course I don't think the commissioner is too important, but apparently a lot of people did.

Ix.

hatrickpatrick

^ Yes that was one issue pushed by no campaigners which was (in my view) a huge mistake and a fairly unimportant issue. As I understand it, not only are commissioners not supposed to act as a representative of their own country, but they actually get into trouble if they are found to have done so. So really the "One from every country" thing was just an easy way of appointing members to it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Yes that was one issue pushed by no campaigners which was (in my view) a huge mistake and a fairly unimportant issue. As I understand it, not only are commissioners not supposed to act as a representative of their own country, but they actually get into trouble if they are found to have done so. So really the "One from every country" thing was just an easy way of appointing members to it.

Quite correct, except to say it wasn't a mistake by the 'no' campaigners at all, as they wanted to let on that Ireland would 'lose out', or 'lose our place at the table' under Lisbon. Which they did quite successfully, despite it having little relation to the truth.

Kind of makes you want to examine their current claims a little closer, no...

Keewee6

i heard if we vote no - the country blows up

Scofflaw

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Quite correct, except to say it wasn't a mistake by the 'no' campaigners at all, as they wanted to let on that Ireland would 'lose out', or 'lose our place at the table' under Lisbon. Which they did quite successfully, despite it having little relation to the truth.

And now that the boot is on the other foot, they've suddenly decided that the Commissioner isn't important, and that a full Commission is an unnecessary expense.

cordially,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's be clear - Lisbon has been legally examined by the German Constitutional Court, and it does not contain a European super-state.

If you wish to argue against a Yes, do it on the basis of fact, not fantasy.

Scofflaw

Ok so currently the European Union does not exist in law and will not until Lisbon is passed.

If Lisbon is passed the term European Union becomes law and the EU itself becomes a legal entity.

Article 1 and Article 47 describe this.

Fact

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

Ok so currently the European Union does not exist in law and will not until Lisbon is passed.

If Lisbon is passed the term European Union becomes law and the EU itself becomes a legal entity.

Article 1 and Article 47 describe this.

Fact

Is it also a fact that it does not become a 'super-state' under Lisbon?

marco_polo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Ok so currently the European Union does not exist in law and will not until Lisbon is passed.

If Lisbon is passed the term European Union becomes law and the EU itself becomes a legal entity.

Article 1 and Article 47 describe this.

Fact

The current legal entity is the European Community, so using that logic we are already in a superstate?

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Ok so currently the European Union does not exist in law and will not until Lisbon is passed.

If Lisbon is passed the term European Union becomes law and the EU itself becomes a legal entity.

Article 1 and Article 47 describe this.

Fact

The European Union was established by the Treaty of Maastricht. Fact. This is Article 1 of the Treaty on the European Union as it stands now:

Article 1 By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called "the Union". This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen. The Union shall be founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of cooperation established by this Treaty. Its task shall be to organise, in a manner demonstrating consistency and solidarity, relations between the Member States and between their peoples.

The current EC is part of the current EU. Fact. The current EC has legal personality. Fact. As part of the reforms in Lisbon the EC and the rest of the 'pillar' structure is being dissolved. Fact. The EU thereby gains the legal personality that the EC had. Fact.

At no point in that does anything become a superstate. Legal personality is a legal fiction that allows the EC to sign up to international treaties, and otherwise gives it necessary standing under law. The transfer of that legal personality to the EU does nothing new, because the EU already signs up to international treaties by using the EC, which is a constituent part of the EU.

regards,
Scofflaw

StealthRolex

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Is it also a fact that it does not become a 'super-state' under Lisbon?

Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't a number of individual states working under the umbrella of a bigger legal Union of states a Super-State.

Or what is your definition of a super state?

At the moment we are members of the European Community. After Lisbon we become members of the European Union, and this EU has legal status on the world stage.

We would then be a state who is a member of what?

Super State may not be the most pedantic description but if it looks like one, smells like one and quacks like one....

PopeBuckfastXVI

StealthRolex wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't a number of individual states working under the umbrella of a bigger legal Union of states a Super-State.

Or what is your definition of a super state?

At the moment we are members of the European Community. After Lisbon we become members of the European Union, and this EU has legal status on the world stage.

We would then be a state who is a member of what?

Super State may not be the most pedantic description but if it looks like one, smells like one and quacks like one....

So the EU in it's current form is already a Super-State?

Edit: Actually... just read Scofflaws post above...

rumour

StealthRolex wrote: »

.

I'm no expert at second guessing politicians, Irish or European, but when it comes to the Irish guessing what a headless chicken will do has served well in the past.

:pac::pac::pac: lol

Yellowsubmarine

I'm definetely voting no

rumour

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

So the EU in it's current form is already a Super-State?

Edit: Actually... just read Scofflaws post above...

I was going to tackle you on playing with words!!! dooh stolen my thunder.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't a number of individual states working under the umbrella of a bigger legal Union of states a Super-State.

Or what is your definition of a super state?

That would be a state that we were a constituent part of. The phrase "league of countries" would be perfectly appropriate to describe the EU, because every single country involved remains an independent sovereign country which can leave at any time.

StealthRolex wrote: »

At the moment we are members of the European Community. After Lisbon we become members of the European Union, and this EU has legal status on the world stage.

We are, and it does - it just uses its EC hat to do it. The EC's Commissioners are the EU's Commissioners, and the EC's Council of Ministers are the EU's Council of Ministers, etc etc.

StealthRolex wrote: »

We would then be a state who is a member of what?

Of the EU, just as we are now.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Super State may not be the most pedantic description but if it looks like one, smells like one and quacks like one....

Perhaps you should name another super-state? Otherwise, we've only got the EU to compare to itself.

regards,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps you should name another super-state? Otherwise, we've only got the EU to compare to itself.

regards,
Scofflaw

Seems to me like the UN would probably qualify under those loose terms.

StealthRolex

Quite clearly I don't understand this thing and until I do I'm sticking with my first rule and voting No until I can find some good reasons to vote Yes.

It seems to me that this whole Treaty thing is based on semantics and pedantry drawn up by €300,000 p.a politicians and civil servants who think that we the people are stupid enough to believe them when they tell us which way to vote. It also appears to be designed to obfuscate so we the people know less of what actually happens in the ivory towered gravy train.
I won't even get into the shifting of voting based on demographic and what that will mean for Irelands future in Europe

Maybe one day when we have a Taoiseach and TD's who think that €300,000 p.a. should be the minimum wage I might consider what they have to say.

Nobody asked the French and Dutch why they voted No - they just changed the law and then presented Lisbon as a done deal. If this is the kind of "European thinking" that is current it does not bode well.

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Quite clearly I don't understand this thing and until I do I'm sticking with my first rule and voting No until I can find some good reasons to vote Yes.

It seems to me that this whole Treaty thing is based on semantics and pedantry drawn up by €300,000 p.a politicians and civil servants who think that we the people are stupid enough to believe them when they tell us which way to vote. It also appears to be designed to obfuscate so we the people know less of what actually happens in the ivory towered gravy train.
I won't even get into the shifting of voting based on demographic and what that will mean for Irelands future in Europe

Maybe one day when we have a Taoiseach and TD's who think that €300,000 p.a. should be the minimum wage I might consider what they have to say.

Nobody asked the French and Danes why they voted No - they just changed the law and then presented Lisbon as a done deal. If this is the kind of "European thinking" that is current it does not bode well.

In fact, they did ask the French and the Dutch (not the Danes) why they voted No. The main objection that wasn't entirely unrelated (Mitterand, Turkey) was to the implied claim of EU statehood in the Constitution - which Lisbon has dropped.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dr gonzo

Excuse my stark political ignorance here guys but considering the almost vitriolic fury hurled at Ireland last time, do you think theres some means of...punishment i suppose for Ireland if a no vote comes up again. I.E i dont want to use the words GTFO Ireland but will there be a more tangible backlash then just a few nasty words this time round(Assuming of course for the sake of this discussion that a No vote is what comes through.)

PopeBuckfastXVI

dr gonzo wrote: »

Excuse my stark political ignorance here guys but considering the almost vitriolic fury hurled at Ireland last time, do you think theres some means of...punishment i suppose for Ireland if a no vote comes up again. I.E i dont want to use the words GTFO Ireland but will there be a more tangible backlash then just a few nasty words this time round(Assuming of course for the sake of this discussion that a No vote is what comes through.)

I'm not sure there was vitriolic fury hurled at Ireland. Maybe you could provide a few quotes?

Anyway, imho, any 'backlash' as such would take the form of being less open to Irish ideas in drafting of future legislation, perhaps a cold shoulder were we to look for favours, and we might find it hard to find willing partners when it comes to horse trading for things which will benefit Ireland.

Also I'm very worried about a possible future 2-tier Europe, because if we can't agree to sign up to treaties we help write, then I can't see how the rest of Europe wouldn't draft treaties in such a way that we could stay put, while they plough on.

Scofflaw

dr gonzo wrote: »

Excuse my stark political ignorance here guys but considering the almost vitriolic fury hurled at Ireland last time, do you think theres some means of...punishment i suppose for Ireland if a no vote comes up again. I.E i dont want to use the words GTFO Ireland but will there be a more tangible backlash then just a few nasty words this time round(Assuming of course for the sake of this discussion that a No vote is what comes through.)

There's no legal mechanism for punishing Ireland - we're entirely within our rights to vote No.

Will it impact on our goodwill with the other 26 countries involved? Obviously. Will that impact next year's negotiations on the CFP and WTO? Probably. Will that impact our long-term relations with the EU? Probably.

Does that mean you have to vote Yes? Not at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jimmyendless

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no legal mechanism for punishing Ireland - we're entirely within our rights to vote No.

Really??

Scofflaw

jimmyendless wrote: »

Really??

Sure. The member states are 'masters of the treaties', not their servants. Any issues would arise from the number of other governments we're annoying - the EU can do nothing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jimmyendless

We voted No and now we have to vote again. Surely that means we are not allowed to vote NO.

I wonder why we even get asked to vote on anything. If they don't need a valid reason to make us vote again, you would think they could just find some way to bypass us all together.

Scofflaw

jimmyendless wrote: »

We voted No and now we have to vote again. Surely that means we are not allowed to vote NO.

Er, no - it just means they hope you'll vote Yes this time. There's nothing stopping you voting No.

jimmyendless wrote: »

I wonder why we even get asked to vote on anything. If they don't need a valid reason to make us vote again, you would think they could just find some way to bypass us all together.

Who could? The EU has nothing to do with how the member states ratify treaties - that's why we have a vote, because our Constitution dictates that we do (or has been interpreted as meaning that we must). The same Constitution places no constraint on running multiple referendums on the same issue - although, for a fact, the amendment we're voting on this time is different from last time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

jimmyendless wrote: »

We voted No and now we have to vote again. Surely that means we are not allowed to vote NO.

We don't have to vote again. The government still wants to be allowed to ratify the Lisbon treaty, so they're asking us to vote again.

We're allowed to vote either "yes" or "no", just like last time.

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

Will it impact on our goodwill with the other 26 countries involved?

I don't think it will impact on the goodwill towards the Irish government. I think it will probably increase it in recognition of their efforts in trying to get the treaty passed. The other governments understand that the referendum wasn't the government's choice and that if they had their way the treaty would have already been ratified through our parliament. When our constitution gave them no choice but to hold a referendum our government did their best to persuade the people to support it. Our economy is falling apart around us, and while the government and the opposition could be spending it's time and money on more pressing concerns, they are instead devoting the best part of a month to trying to persuade people to vote yes to a treaty that they've already rejected.

Why then, even though our government has not only done everything that every other European government has done but has even gone further and fought, not only one, but two referendum campaigns to try to get this treaty passed, why would the other governments react angrily or spitefully towards them? As much as I can't stand Brian Cowen, if he and his colleagues aren't thanked publically by the other governments for his efforts in getting the treaty passed (regardless of the outcome) then I think we should question just how valuable the "goodwill" of these other countries really is to us.

If you honestly believe that the goodwill towards our representatives in Europe will be impacted by a no vote then you have a very low opinion of our neighbours.

Scofflaw wrote:

Will that impact next year's negotiations on the CFP and WTO? Probably.

I've seen "impact" thrown around a lot but I think it's a bit vague. Can you give a specific example of the kind of thing that might be impacted by our refusal to vote yes?

Scofflaw wrote:

Will that impact our long-term relations with the EU? Probably.

I've never heard any Irish person saying they wanted to see a change in our relationship with the EU but if that's what the Europeans want then they they'll need to make the first move. They should think carefully about the consequences of that move though. Any attempts by the EUers to isolate Ireland in the aftermath of a no vote will almost definitely fuel anti-EU sentiment in Ireland and that will increase the chances of an Irish Independence Party emerging.

Most decision-making in the EU still requires unanimity and so it might not be an altogether wise move for them to try to isolate the representatives of one of the least eurosceptic nations at the table.

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that's not an option, because in the absence of Lisbon, there is no such position. Renaming the Commissioner for External relations will not make them not a Commissioner.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Emm it isn't exactly rules out anywhere?

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no legal mechanism for punishing Ireland - we're entirely within our rights to vote No.

Will it impact on our goodwill with the other 26 countries involved? Obviously. Will that impact next year's negotiations on the CFP and WTO? Probably. Will that impact our long-term relations with the EU? Probably.

Does that mean you have to vote Yes? Not at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Please explain how are goodwill will be effected?

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

Please explain how are goodwill will be effected?

Are you aware of how EU negotiations work? Indeed in all walks of life the same principal applies. Good working relationships with fellow member states is critical to successful negotiation.

In the future it may well affect our ability to get good results like this example:

http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0311/farm.html

In critical future negotiations like these:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/snidojauql/rss2/
http://www.eumatters.ie/Ireland-and-the-EU/Fisheries.aspx

Or make it harder to get approval for breaking the eurozone deficit rules without penalties:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-admits-government-to-break-eu-rules-on-borrowing-1475511.html

ixtlan

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think it will impact on the goodwill towards the Irish government. I think it will probably increase it in recognition of their efforts in trying to get the treaty passed. The other governments understand that the referendum wasn't the government's choice and that if they had their way the treaty would have already been ratified through our parliament. When our constitution gave them no choice but to hold a referendum our government did their best to persuade the people to support it.

I think you are sort of correct here. Goodwill is perhaps not exactly the right word. Maybe it might be better to call it standing... or respect... or power. From the point of view of the other EU states, the Irish government may be well-meaning, and may be nice guys, but they will also be seen to be unable to get approval for a treaty they negotiated. So it would be a valid question to ask why the others should go out of their way to assist the Irish government in any area, knowing that this government (or any future government) may be unable to get any treaty ratified.

O'Morris wrote: »

Our economy is falling apart around us, and while the government and the opposition could be spending it's time and money on more pressing concerns, they are instead devoting the best part of a month to trying to persuade people to vote yes to a treaty that they've already rejected.

True, and if there is a No vote then Ireland and the EU are going to spend the next few years trying to find a solution to the Lisbon impasse. Time that would be much better spent on all sides trying to improve the economy.

O'Morris wrote: »

Why then, even though our government has not only done everything that every other European government has done but has even gone further and fought, not only one, but two referendum campaigns to try to get this treaty passed, why would the other governments react angrily or spitefully towards them? As much as I can't stand Brian Cowen, if he and his colleagues aren't thanked publically by the other governments for his efforts in getting the treaty passed (regardless of the outcome) then I think we should question just how valuable the "goodwill" of these other countries really is to us.

I'm sure they will thank them for a yes. And I'm sure they will thank them for their efforts if it's a No. With a No though they will also start thinking in terms of how to proceed, and will start with the assumption that Ireland needs to be excluded where possible. That's not them being harsh to the Irish, that is what we have asked for if we vote no.

There really are only 2 choices in the event of a no. The EU moves forward in some capacity without us with our agreement (it can't do anything without that agreement). Or Ireland becomes the Ian Paisley of the EU, blocking every suggested change. We can certainly do this. Is that what we want?

No doubt in this future more fractured EU we would not be alone, and so the No side will claim that this is OK. Britain and the Czechs may join us in some sort of second tier. Again though is that what we want?

O'Morris wrote: »

If you honestly believe that the goodwill towards our representatives in Europe will be impacted by a no vote then you have a very low opinion of our neighbours.

Not so much goodwill, but usefulness. It's like your best friend visiting your house while you are working from home on an important project. He may be a nice guy, but he's not really useful to you at that point.

O'Morris wrote: »

I've never heard any Irish person saying they wanted to see a change in our relationship with the EU but if that's what the Europeans want then they they'll need to make the first move. They should think carefully about the consequences of that move though. Any attempts by the EUers to isolate Ireland in the aftermath of a no vote will almost definitely fuel anti-EU sentiment in Ireland and that will increase the chances of an Irish Independence Party emerging.

Most decision-making in the EU still requires unanimity and so it might not be an altogether wise move for them to try to isolate the representatives of one of the least eurosceptic nations at the table.

Hmmm, I've heard lots and lots of No campaigners saying they want a change in the Ireland's relationship with the EU. Many want EU law not to overrule Irish law, which defeats the purpose of having EU law.

Any changes to how the EU operates will require unanimity. However I say again, do we really want to be the Ian Paisley of the EU? Blocking everything? I mean if we want to block something, then surely it's not unreasonable for the other states to ask for permission to proceed.

I'll repeat again the energy competency issue. That could be placed into some kind of enhanced co-operation by the other 26 states, so that they could jointly negotiate energy policies and possibly reduce costs. If we cannot approve Lisbon and join are you really saying that we must block them doing so?

Ix.

Keewee6

ixtlan wrote: »

i've heard lots and lots of No campaigners saying they want a change in the Ireland's relationship with the EU. Many want EU law not to overrule Irish law, which defeats the purpose of having EU law.

exactly so get rid of EU law and just on national law or look at eu law but make sure national law overrides it

Scofflaw

Keewee6 wrote: »

exactly so get rid of EU law and just on national law or look at eu law but make sure national law overrides it

European laws are made by the member states agreeing a common position. There's no point at all to agreeing a common position if everyone can then override it either deliberately or by accident.

The better position is to put in as many checks as possible to ensure that European law is not made where individual national laws would be more appropriate - such as the subsidiarity checks introduced by Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Keewee6 wrote: »

exactly so get rid of EU law and just on national law or look at eu law but make sure national law overrides it

This is an argument for no EU law at all, so really no EU at all. So really this is an argument for leaving the EU. Do you want to leave the EU?

Ix

marco_polo

Star Chamber wrote: »

So are you implying that if EU law is superior to national law, then it is an argument for no nation states at all? Do you want to abolish the nation state?

It already is superior to national law in all areas to which it applies. His point was that if someone is against this principal then the EU is the wrong club for them.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Star Chamber wrote: »

So are you implying that if EU law is superior to national law, then it is an argument for no nation states at all? Do you want to abolish the nation state?

EU law must be superior if there is to be EU law at all, because EU law is a subset of National law.

If you make EU law inferior, you remove the EU and leave national law behind.

If you remove National law, you remove the EU law, and the EU as well, due to EU law being a subset of National law.

Your logic is entirely flawed.

Scofflaw

Star Chamber wrote: »

So are you implying that if EU law is superior to national law, then it is an argument for no nation states at all? Do you want to abolish the nation state?

No, Freeborn John.

moderately,
Scofflaw