Will we be left behind if we vote No on Lisbon?

roosh

I'm just reading the spoofers guide to the Lisbon treaty, and a point is being made that has been repeatedly made by the Yes voters, and I just would like a bit of clarification.

There is this notion that if we vote No, that Ireland will somehow be left behind, that we will no longer be central to the decision making processes in Europe, etc. etc.

Can anyone give a breakdown of why this might be the case? Also, there is nothing in any EU legislation that Ireland cannot participate in any future negotiations if it doesn't ratify the Lisbon Treaty, is there? What other nations won't be allowed to take part in discussions?

It is for reasons like this, unsubstatiated scare mongering that I am still leaning towards a No vote. Can anyone clarify the above issues?

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw has already explained how politics within EU work and what a favorable position/leverage our elected representatives have (had?) based on goodwill

please check his past posts

oscarBravo

mangaroosh wrote: »

It is for reasons like this, unsubstatiated scare mongering that I am still leaning towards a No vote.

I'm curious. If unsubstantiated scaremongering pushes you away, how come Cóir's posters haven't plastered you against the opposite wall of the room?

ghost_ie

How could we be left behind? If we don't ratify the treaty this time then the treaty is dead - unless they keep making us vote until we give the right answer. If we reject the treaty then we stay as we are under the Nice treaty until they come up with a treaty which is ratified by all countries in the EU

Daftendirekt

I explained the reasoning behind this here.

I know it's not necessarily true that all No voters are opposed to Lisbon because they disagree with the EU project, but here's a couple of hypothetical scenarios to explain the situation as I see it.

If the Treaty is rejected again, and people come out and say 'We voted No to Lisbon because we disagree with X, Y and Z aspects of the text for A, B and C reasons' then nobody will be able to infer an anti-EU sentiment. The other member states will probably be little annoyed at having to go back to the drawing board, but armed with this increase in knowledge, we can all get to work on negotiating a deal that the Irish people will be happy with.


If, however, the Treaty is rejected and people come out and say 'We voted No to Lisbon for no particular reason' then the other member states will be left scratching their heads, wondering what exactly it was that was wrong with the Treaty. They can't just draft a new Treaty, since they won't know what was wrong with the last one. Since no suggestions have been put forth about how to address the Irish people's concerns, it's easy to see how a No to Lisbon might be interpreted in this scenario, as a No to the EU.

The other member states will have to draft a new reform treaty (since they actually want the changes proposed in Lisbon), but this time, they won't have addressed the concerns of the Irish (since they have no idea what those concerns are) and so won't be able to count on ratification by Ireland.


This would definitely call into question Ireland's stance on the EU, not necessarily because the Irish are anti-EU, but because we'd have rejected an important EU Treaty without having any clear reason to do so

Basically, if the member states realise that no matter how beneficial a treaty is to Ireland, it would always be rejected, which of the following is more likely:

1. The member states would give up on trying to reform the EU, and would continue on under Nice indefinitely? Even though nobody actually wants this (apart from Ireland, as far as anyone can tell).

2. The member states would look at drafting up a new agreement or set of agreements amongst themselves, possibly using the enhanced cooperation procedure, and work out a separate agreement with Ireland on how it would deal with the EU in future?

roosh

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious. If unsubstantiated scaremongering pushes you away, how come Cóir's posters haven't plastered you against the opposite wall of the room?

Because I am unconcerned about what Cóir have to say. I am no by default until I see good reason to vote yes. Those telling me to vote yes, namely all the major political parties in this country have tried to fob us off with nonsense. I would therefore be more willing to vote No to let them know this is not acceptible politics. Cóir won't be looking to run the country after the next election.

What scaremongering is that by the way?

moondogspot

ghost_ie wrote: »

How could we be left behind? If we don't ratify the treaty this time then the treaty is dead - unless they keep making us vote until we give the right answer. If we reject the treaty then we stay as we are under the Nice treaty until they come up with a treaty which is ratified by all countries in the EU

That's exactly it and that's all there is to it. The Pro Lisbon side will continue to say otherwise just to try and create fear to get people to vote Yes.

roosh

ghost_ie wrote: »

How could we be left behind? If we don't ratify the treaty this time then the treaty is dead - unless they keep making us vote until we give the right answer. If we reject the treaty then we stay as we are under the Nice treaty until they come up with a treaty which is ratified by all countries in the EU

so we get left behind with everyone else?

Bob_Harris

Ireland will absolutely not be "left behind" if we vote no.

PomBear

mangaroosh wrote: »

so we get left behind with everyone else?

France and Holland didn't get left behind and they rejected the EU constitution which makes up 95% of what we know as the Lisbon Treaty, the notion that we'll be the black sheep of Europe is a scare tactic

roosh

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I explained the reasoning behind this here.



Basically, if the member states realise that no matter how beneficial a treaty is to Ireland, it would always be rejected, which of the following is more likely:

1. The member states would give up on trying to reform the EU, and would continue on under Nice indefinitely? Even though nobody actually wants this (apart from Ireland, as far as anyone can tell).

2. The member states would look at drafting up a new agreement or set of agreements amongst themselves, possibly using the enhanced cooperation procedure, and work out a separate agreement with Ireland on how it would deal with the EU in future?

Hold on a second, this is all hypothetical. Equally relevant is to suggest that after we reject it and the British vote on it, if they reject it, and then the Czechs reject it, we quickly realise that this isn't actually what the people of Europe want at all.

It is also equally relevant to suggest that if it does not get ratified by us, then those in other countries may get a chance to have their say, either directly on Lisbon or in their general elections.

How about we reject it for the very reason that we have not been informed well enough about it, and let the EU this is the reason, and let them know we want open debate and discussion and more transparency, when it comes to the Treaty that promises transparency.


There are a number of very dangerous assumptions above, namely that the rest of the European people actually want this, when in fact they have not had a say on it.

Also, that those governments that are in power now, who make up the EU will be in power next time round. What happens if mroe Euro-pragmatic, or indeed Euro-sceptical parties get in, and look negatively at the fact that we voted Yes.

We don't actually get left behind if we vote No do we? This again is just part of the scaremongering from the political parties. Another reason to vote No.

roosh

Hypothetically it could give us a stronger voice in Europe, if we vote No because instead of getting left behind, which frankly would be an embarassment to the operation of the EU and somehting they would never allow happen, they may consult us even further to make sure we ratify it next time.

Who knows they may even give us some legally binding guarantees next time, as opposed to the promise of some legally binding guarantees.


We will not get left behind if we Vote No!

Rb

Yes but France and Holland had legitimate concerns with the text they were presented with. That's quite a bit of a difference between the two situations.

If we go "No" again and the EU ask us why, I can only cross my fingers and hope that those who have to answer them can come up with something less embarrassing than the absolute lunacy we're being confronted with from the No side.

roosh

Rb wrote: »

Yes but France and Holland had legitimate concerns with the text they were presented with. That's quite a bit of a difference between the two situations.

If we go "No" again and the EU ask us why, I can only cross my fingers and hope that those who have to answer them can come up with something less embarrassing than the lunancy we're being confronted with from the No side.

One of the many reasons I am tending towards No is because those trying to get me to vote Yes told a pack of lies and tried to scare us into voting yes, and these are the peopel who will be running the country and the EU.

Frankly, this is not acceptible

Bob_Harris

Rb wrote: »

If we go "No" again and the EU ask us why...

How about we tell them we voted no for the poops and giggles?

Or perhaps they could just get the message and stop trying to force this unwanted constitution on the people of Europe.

Rb

mangaroosh wrote: »

One of the many reasons I am tending towards No is because those trying to get me to vote Yes told a pack of lies and tried to scare us into voting yes, and these are the peopel who will be running the country and the EU.

Frankly, this is not acceptible

Yes, please refer to my points regarding embarrassing lunacy above. We'll need much better points to bring to the table if a No vote is returned than such nonsense.

Purple Gorilla

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious. If unsubstantiated scaremongering pushes you away, how come Cóir's posters haven't plastered you against the opposite wall of the room?

TBH, that's a stupid argument. The Yes side is using as much scaremongering as the No Side is.
"It's simple- We need Europe"
"Yes for jobs"
etc. etc.
What has any of that to do with the Lisbon Treaty? We aren't voting on EU Membership and the treaty won't do much for jobs so the Yes Side's argument is just as unsubstantiated.

Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if the No side wins simply because of this. The No side is full of scaremongering like "Privatisation of Healthcare & Education" but whether it's true or not, if an average joe see's that, they'll think it's coming from the treaty. "We need Europe" is vague and has nothing to do with the treaty so it just looks like the Yes Side is dodging all the facts.

Rb

Bob_Harris wrote: »

How about we tell them we voted no for the poops and giggles?

Well, if a No vote is returned then it may indeed be a whole lot better to tell them that than the actual truth of the situation.

Ok so I take it you can't find a legitimate reason to vote against the text?

Bob_Harris wrote:

Or perhaps they could just get the message and stop trying to force this unwanted constitution on the people of Europe.

Most countries have ratified and this has been done so by their democratically elected government representatives.

MarkK

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

"Yes for jobs"

So suggesting a benefit is a "scaremongering"?

Purple Gorilla

MarkK wrote: »

So suggesting a benefit is a "scaremongering"?

Where does it mention anything about more jobs for Irish in the treaty?

The more jobs argument is nothing but an opinion

Rb

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

TBH, that's a stupid argument. The Yes side is using as much scaremongering as the No Side is.
"It's simple- We need Europe"
"Yes for jobs"
etc. etc.
What has any of that to do with the Lisbon Treaty? We aren't voting on EU Membership and the treaty won't do much for jobs so the Yes Side's argument is just as unsubstantiated.

Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if the No side wins simply because of this. The No side is full of scaremongering like "Privatisation of Healthcare & Education" but whether it's true or not, if an average joe see's that, they'll think it's coming from the treaty. "We need Europe" is vague and has nothing to do with the treaty so it just looks like the Yes Side is dodging all the facts.

Really? The Yes side is dodging the facts? In debate, the only side capable of using facts seems to be the Yes side because every single reason the No side can bring up is either a lie or is wrong.

Equal scare mongering? Really? You equate a statement like "Vote Yes for Jobs" with "Not on their lives" with a picture of a foetus and an elderly person, implying that voting Yes will put their lives in danger?

Do you really believe those two posters are equal? If so, we have a much, much bigger problem than people not bothering to inform themselves of the actual thing we're voting on, but a massive problem of irrationality.

Nothing the No side has brought to the table thus far has factual grounding in the text. To propose the campaigns are equal, or that the Yes campaign is actually in some way worse is just hilarious. I thought so too at one time, I must admit, but then I opened my eyes and thought for more than 2 seconds about it.

PomBear

MarkK wrote: »

So suggesting a benefit is a "scaremongering"?

it gets results













in Nazi Germany

TerrorFirmer

I think we all accept both sides employ drastic exaggeration but as far as I'm concerned the 'No' side do it to completely unacceptable levels. 'Yes to jobs' is a generally positive phrase, 'Minimum Wage will be 1.84', 'Healthcare will be privatized', and my favorite, 'your sons will be shipped off to war zones' are utter fascist style drivel and are certainly not grounded in any sort of reality.

MarkK

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

Where does it mention anything about more jobs for Irish in the treaty?

The more jobs argument is nothing but an opinion

Yes, I agree it is opinion, but it is not scaremongering.

PomBear

Purple Gorilla wrote: »

TBH, that's a stupid argument. The Yes side is using as much scaremongering as the No Side is.
"It's simple- We need Europe"
"Yes for jobs"
etc. etc.
What has any of that to do with the Lisbon Treaty? We aren't voting on EU Membership and the treaty won't do much for jobs so the Yes Side's argument is just as unsubstantiated.

Infact, I wouldn't be surprised if the No side wins simply because of this. The No side is full of scaremongering like "Privatisation of Healthcare & Education" but whether it's true or not, if an average joe see's that, they'll think it's coming from the treaty. "We need Europe" is vague and has nothing to do with the treaty so it just looks like the Yes Side is dodging all the facts.

Except Cóir, what other party is scaremongering?

Rb

PomBear wrote: »

Except Cóir, what other party is scaremongering?

Sinn Fein and the UKIP are two of the more active ones that are also blatantly lying and scaremongering.

Purple Gorilla

PomBear wrote: »

Except Cóir, what other party is scaremongering?

As was mentioned, Sinn Féin, UKIP, Libertas, Socialist Party etc.

Daftendirekt

mangaroosh wrote: »

Hold on a second, this is all hypothetical. Equally relevant is to suggest that after we reject it and the British vote on it, if they reject it, and then the Czechs reject it, we quickly realise that this isn't actually what the people of Europe want at all.

It is also equally relevant to suggest that if it does not get ratified by us, then those in other countries may get a chance to have their say, either directly on Lisbon or in their general elections.

How about we reject it for the very reason that we have not been informed well enough about it, and let the EU this is the reason, and let them know we want open debate and discussion and more transparency, when it comes to the Treaty that promises transparency.


There are a number of very dangerous assumptions above, namely that the rest of the European people actually want this, when in fact they have not had a say on it.

Also, that those governments that are in power now, who make up the EU will be in power next time round. What happens if mroe Euro-pragmatic, or indeed Euro-sceptical parties get in, and look negatively at the fact that we voted Yes.

We don't actually get left behind if we vote No do we? This again is just part of the scaremongering from the political parties. Another reason to vote No.

First of all, parliaments are appointed to speak on behalf of the people and I'm not going to get into a debate on direct democracy vs representative democracy here. But since we haven't heard any amount of dissent from the people of the other EU members, we can safely assume that either the people are happy to go ahead with Lisbon or that they just don't care.

Secondly, the Czech parliament have already approved Lisbon. The president is however waiting until the Irish referendum is held before signing off on it. And by the way, the fact that he won't refuse outright to complete the ratification, should tell you something.

Thirdly, if the UK hold a referendum on Lisbon, then the same reasoning will apply to them. That is however, their issue to deal with as they see fit.

Fourthly, I don't know about my assumptions being 'dangerous', but I think they're far more reasonable than your assumptions that the other member states parliaments' are acting against the wishes of their own people. The other member states are functioning democracies, in which the power to govern resides in the people, and is exercised by their democratically elected representatives. They are not dictatorships.

Fifthly, it is, most emphatically, not scaremongering. I have never suggested that anyone should vote Yes simply out of fear. I have however, asked that if you do intend to vote No, please look at your reasons for doing so, and ensure they're good, solid ones. If you do that, then whatever happens after the referendum, you can be happy you did the right thing.

Sixthly, 'we have not been informed', 'we don't approve of our government', 'we don't like the Yes camp's slogans', 'our voting weight will be halved', 'our minimum wage will be reduced' - these are not good reasons to vote no. Some are just nonsense and some are outright lies. Also, I've seen so many posters responding to the points you specifically, have brought up, only for you to dismiss them with the assertion that a 'Yes to Lisbon=Yes to the way this country is run'. So I don't think it's really fair for you to assert you haven't been informed about Lisbon.

Seventhly, when the Dutch and French voted down the Constitution, they were able to explain their concerns to the other member states, and have them addressed. Hence, the Lisbon Treaty. If we vote No on Lisbon becasue of the above reasons, or similar reasons, we will not be in the same position as the French or Dutch after their rejection of the Constitution.

Rb

PomBear wrote: »

it gets results

in Nazi Germany

I believe that fits Godwin's Law. Congratulations.

PomBear

Rb wrote: »

Sinn Fein and the UKIP are two of the more active ones that are also blatantly lying and scaremongering.

Sinn Féin's main posters
More military spending- the treaty contains 22 pages on the extra militarisation of it's member states, many of the provisions enforce military spending. true.
Ireland 0.8%, Germany 18%, UK 12%(i think)- this is true, under the lisbon treaty, our say in Europe will be cut from 2% to 0.8%, this is due to population ratio. true.
Voting yes will decrease wages- the lisbon treaty has provisions that support more free trade of labour and citizens being paid their native minimum wage while in other countries. This drives the value of Irish labour down and will drive down the minimum wage and other wages...
Lisbon=Crushing Family Farms- Provisions in Lisbon make it ILLEGAL for a member state to invest in its own farming and fisherys. Norway, a non member state already has more right to fish in Irelands waters than Ireland do. Currently, Norway(not in EU) have more rights to fish in Irish Seas than Ireland do. true

roosh

Rb wrote: »

Yes, please refer to my points regarding embarrassing lunacy above. We'll need much better points to bring to the table if a No vote is returned than such nonsense.

So, telling the leaders of Europe that they are going to have to be open and honest with us from now on, that we are not just going to swallow their lies, and we won't just be bowled over because they asked us twice and gave us non-legally binding guarantees, is nonsense?

I don't know what kind of democracy you want but if what is on offer is it, then by all means vote yes.