nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What if we voted no to Lisbon again?

JackieChan

I know it's not till the backend of next year but what are the consequences if Ireland votes no to Lisbon again. Perhaps by an even larger percentage.

It's hard to see how the could make some small changes and request a 3rd referendum...even Robert Mugabe wouldn't have the neck to try that.

Would there be real questions about are place within Europe?

I have no real insight but interested to hear others views.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sam Vimes

Scofflaw wrote: »

He's quoted Article 116, and not then indicated that he's gone on to another article. Article 116 is being quoted to show the 'impetus' behind tax harmonisation, if you like, although states' taxation policies can't be considered as a distortion of the market as long as they apply equally to all companies operating within the state's territory whether foreign or domestic. The point of the common market is not to render every state identical, as appears to be commonly believed, but only to provide a common outline framework and prevent states from putting their thumb on the scales in favour of their domestic companies.

Exactly so.

So, coming back to the OP, neither his claim that Article 116 could be used to drive tax harmonisation nor his claim that the article above dispenses with unanimity where it would otherwise apply are correct.

cordially,
Scofflaw

great thanks Scofflaw. off to AH with me --->

PHB

No matter who tells you, or what they tell you, nobody has a ****ing clue what will happen if we vote no a second time.

That will not be spun in the EU as fears of various things, especially when you take into account the declarations/protocols etc that are going to be incorporated into it. It will be seen as a flat out rejection of the changes proposed. Since most of the states like those changes, that's going to be problematic for Ireland.

Lots of things could happen.

We could stick with Nice, and make minor changes in like the Croatia treaty. Stuff that isn't that controversial.

All 26 could just get pissed off with us and tell us to **** off. It's a possibility, but somewhat unlikely.

Lots of countries could get really pissed off with us, then lots of other countries could stand by our decision. If that happens, which is probably what will happen, the question is whether it will be finally enough to push the two-tiered Europe that lots of countries want. We could be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Whatever happens, realistically, nobody right now has a clue what will happen. The last time a country halted everything with no proposals for compromise, was France, during the Empty Chair Crisis in the 60s. That nearly destroyed the EU. The only reason it didnt force a split was because France was so big.

If we say no a second time, its gona get very very interesting, and worrying (from my point of view)

murphaph

Let's discuss the 'two tier Europe' hypothesis for a moment. How might that play out in practical terms?

Would we keep free trade and freedom of movement? I presume so given the EEA members have this already.

A two tier Europe doesn't sound all that bad to me and we wouldn't be alone. The UK would certainly be there too, as could Poland and some of the other eastern states who see a federal Europe as a similar entity to the Warsaw Pact!

sink

murphaph wrote: »

Let's discuss the 'two tier Europe' hypothesis for a moment. How might that play out in practical terms?

Would we keep free trade and freedom of movement? I presume so given the EEA members have this already.

A two tier Europe doesn't sound all that bad to me and we wouldn't be alone. The UK would certainly be there too, as could Poland and some of the other eastern states who see a federal Europe as a similar entity to the Warsaw Pact!

As has been mentioned many times leaving the EU and joining the EEA all we really will be doing is leaving our seat at the negotiating table but agreeing to implement all those common market laws made by that table. The Norwegians call it a fax democracy because the EU faxes them directives and they have no choice but to implement them or leave the common market. At no stage to they get a say in the making of directives. Added to that they have to pay for the privilege.

ionix5891

murphaph wrote: »

Let's discuss the 'two tier Europe' hypothesis for a moment. How might that play out in practical terms?

Would we keep free trade and freedom of movement? I presume so given the EEA members have this already.

A two tier Europe doesn't sound all that bad to me and we wouldn't be alone. The UK would certainly be there too, as could Poland and some of the other eastern states who see a federal Europe as a similar entity to the Warsaw Pact!

its discussed in quite a detail in link on the 3rd post in this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58352349&postcount=3

a 2 tier Europe would be bad for Ireland, very bad

anything that would damage our place in Europe is gonna scuttle our economy, and politically it be idiocy

we dont want to be in a position like Switzerland or Norway (paying money into EU to access markets but having no say in the laws we have to implement), now that would be "undemocratic", i can already see Sein Fein having an orgasm over this

PeakOutput

am i missing something? hasnt the treaty been altered since the referendum taking into consideration some of the no sides concerns?

assuming this is the case then the eu has comprimised to help us stay involved if we are unwilling to compromise we should withdraw from the eu

RedPlanet

PeakOutput wrote: »

am i missing something? hasnt the treaty been altered since the referendum taking into consideration some of the no sides concerns?

assuming this is the case then the eu has comprimised to help us stay involved if we are unwilling to compromise we should withdraw from the eu

Yes you are missing something. The Lisbon treaty has not been altered by a single word. What they are "offering", is the promise to tack-on some extra sentences to the Croatia ascension treaty, whenever that may come about.

K-9

RedPlanet wrote: »

Yes you are missing something. The Lisbon treaty has not been altered by a single word. What they are "offering", is the promise to tack-on some extra sentences to the Croatia ascension treaty, whenever that may come about.

You think backtracking on the promises would make sense for the EU?

PeakOutput

RedPlanet wrote: »

Yes you are missing something. The Lisbon treaty has not been altered by a single word. What they are "offering", is the promise to tack-on some extra sentences to the Croatia ascension treaty, whenever that may come about.

ok, so they have changed something that is related to lisbon treaty?

either way if we dont want to go in the direction the rest of the eu is going in we need to leave the eu and suffer the consequences good or bad

ShooterSF

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok, so they have changed something that is related to lisbon treaty?

either way if we dont want to go in the direction the rest of the eu is going in we need to leave the eu and suffer the consequences good or bad

So if there is another no vote and the government offer a referendum to leave Europe you'll vote Yes?

WooPeeA

RedPlanet wrote: »

Yes you are missing something. The Lisbon treaty has not been altered by a single word. What they are "offering", is the promise to tack-on some extra sentences to the Croatia ascension treaty, whenever that may come about.

But what they should change?? NO voters don't even know what the Treaty really is...

And first of all, why should they change something that less than 1% of population cannot accept?

PeakOutput

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if there is another no vote and the government offer a referendum to leave Europe you'll vote Yes?

no i wont because its not in the best interests of the country. but i dont think its fair to the rest of the eu that we should 'hold them back' but i dont live in the rest of the eu so im still going to vote in the best interests of ireland

ShooterSF

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok, so they have changed something that is related to lisbon treaty?

either way if we dont want to go in the direction the rest of the eu is going in we need to leave the eu and suffer the consequences good or bad

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if there is another no vote and the government offer a referendum to leave Europe you'll vote Yes?

PeakOutput wrote: »

no i wont because its not in the best interests of the country. but i dont think its fair to the rest of the eu that we should 'hold them back' but i dont live in the rest of the eu so im still going to vote in the best interests of ireland

So wait if we vote No to lisbon do "we need to leave the eu" or not?

K-9

ShooterSF wrote: »

So wait if we vote No to lisbon do "we need to leave the eu" or not?

I agree with your point. I don't see what the others quoted will happen, but it does leave the rest of the EU looking at us asking, "well what's the problem now"

Govt. "We don't really know!"

However if we vote No to a Croatian Treaty and another and another, well.........................time to look at ourselves, not the EU. 1 Voice disagreeing with you, 2 disagreeing is fine, 3/4/5 etc. WELL?

View

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if there is another no vote and the government offer a referendum to leave Europe you'll vote Yes?

There is no constitutional or other legal obligation requiring the Government to hold a referendum on Ireland withdrawing from the EU. All it takes is a simple majority vote of the Oireachtas.

Should there be another No vote, the Government could - should it so choose - announce it intends for us to withdraw. It could not unreasonably point out that as its hands are in effect tied by the repeated No votes, it is unable to negotiate for us measures intended to acheive the EU's objectives (Objectives which the electorate has already given approval to Ireland agreeing to in previous EU treaties).

After that, there would a very, very interesting public debate on what comes next...

RedPlanet

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok, so they have changed something that is related to lisbon treaty?

No, the EU have not changed anything about the Lisbon treaty.
Nor have the changed anything relating to a possible future treaty for the inclusion of Croatia.
What they are offering is that IF/WHEN they create a teaty for Croatia, they'll tack-on a few sentences for Ireland's sake.

either way if we dont want to go in the direction the rest of the eu is going in we need to leave the eu and suffer the consequences good or bad

No, we are part of the EU, the rules of that organ state that it requires unaminity; we don't agree with Lisbon therefore Lisbon should be dead. However the reality is now manifesting that the EU weren't actually serious about unaminity, otherwise they'd accept our no vote and not force us to the polls again until they get the results they want.

Scofflaw

RedPlanet wrote: »

No, the EU have not changed anything about the Lisbon treaty.
Nor have the changed anything relating to a possible future treaty for the inclusion of Croatia.
What they are offering is that IF/WHEN they create a teaty for Croatia, they'll tack-on a few sentences for Ireland's sake.

What they are offering is: first, to use the mechanisms in Lisbon to keep the Irish Commissioner; second, to write binding guarantees in respect of interpretation of the Treaty, precluding the interpretations that the No side raised as bogeymen; and third, to write those guarantees as Protocols into the next EU treaty, which is expected to be the Croatian accession treaty, but, if that doesn't happen soon enough, they will be written into a mini-treaty specifically for that purpose.

RedPlanet wrote: »

No, we are part of the EU, the rules of that organ state that it requires unaminity; we don't agree with Lisbon therefore Lisbon should be dead. However the reality is now manifesting that the EU weren't actually serious about unaminity, otherwise they'd accept our no vote and not force us to the polls again until they get the results they want.

There is no rule that says an EU treaty is dead the minute it hits difficulties in ratification. Most EU treaties hit a snag somewhere, and we and the Danes have both previously forced the rest of the EU to offer binding commitments before we would ratify a treaty - us at Nice, the Danes at Maastricht - and in both those cases a second referendum was held. The idea that the process of ratification is either totally smooth or totally dead is a gross distortion of history, and very recent history at that.

Referendums return an answer in a democratic manner. They don't mean the question can't be asked again. They don't mean the subject is now dead and can never be raised. They do mean the people's consent is being sought, and they are necessarily democratic.

The claim that there should be no second referendum is being made purely in the interests of the No campaigns, and if the No side were successful in preventing the holding of a second referendum, the only thing they would have succeeded in doing is preventing the Irish people holding a vote and expressing their decision on what is now on offer from the other EU members.

regards,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

View wrote: »

There is no constitutional or other legal obligation requiring the Government to hold a referendum on Ireland withdrawing from the EU. All it takes is a simple majority vote of the Oireachtas.

Should there be another No vote, the Government could - should it so choose - announce it intends for us to withdraw. It could not unreasonably point out that as its hands are in effect tied by the repeated No votes, it is unable to negotiate for us measures intended to acheive the EU's objectives (Objectives which the electorate has already given approval to Ireland agreeing to in previous EU treaties).

After that, there would a very, very interesting public debate on what comes next...

Well most Yes voters would tell you they are in their right as they are our elected representatives and are there not to do what the people want but rather what they feel is the best for the nation. So if they felt it was in the best interest of the nation to leave the E.U. that would be their right I guess. Though I doubt they'd get re-elected.
The part in bold is not true though as it's not Lisbon or bust.

PeakOutput

RedPlanet wrote: »

otherwise they'd accept our no vote and not force us to the polls again until they get the results they want.

no1 is forcing you to do anything. dont vote. i didnt last time because i didnt understand what it was all about i will inform myself this time and vote there is nothing wrong with having a second referendum especially when polls suggest popular opinion has changed. people cant change their minds no?

So wait if we vote No to lisbon do "we need to leave the eu" or not?

ok to put it another way if we vote no we deserve to be kicked out of the eu. who are we to decide what the rest of europe does?

someone said the eu is meant to be unanimous. fine. but if the majority of people now want it to change then they should be allowed to if they have to change the rules or change the organisation then they should as long as its the will of the majority. like everything institutions evolve over time and they should be allowed to imo

Thomas_S_Hunterson

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok to put it another way if we vote no we deserve to be kicked out of the eu. who are we to decide what the rest of europe does?

Who are the rest of Europe to tell us what to do with our veto.

ShooterSF

PeakOutput wrote: »

ok to put it another way if we vote no we deserve to be kicked out of the eu. who are we to decide what the rest of europe does?

someone said the eu is meant to be unanimous. fine. but if the majority of people now want it to change then they should be allowed to if they have to change the rules or change the organisation then they should as long as its the will of the majority. like everything institutions evolve over time and they should be allowed to imo

Ah see that's better. Now your not claiming we should leave but that the other nations should gang up and kick us out. Thankfully people with that opinion won't get their way as you can't kick a county out of the E.U. Nevermind a few conspiracy theorists who claim that the rest of the E.U will leave the E.U and set up a new "No homers" club. That's as likely as someone invading us and changing our constitution

Question, do you think France and Holland should have been kicked out when they rejected the Constitution? As the rest of Europe supported it (Other than us, who were undecided, as we would have had to vote obviously).

Scofflaw

Sean_K wrote: »

Who are the rest of Europe to tell us what to do with our veto.

Well, they're the rest of Europe.

obviously,
Scofflaw

RedPlanet

PeakOutput wrote: »

there is nothing wrong with having a second referendum especially when polls suggest popular opinion has changed.

Where are these opinion polls you cite?
The only ones i've seen show a strong No.

PeakOutput

RedPlanet wrote: »

Where are these opinion polls you cite?
The only ones i've seen show a strong No.

twas on either newstalk or rte.ie cant remember which one they said 55% would vote yes now

RedPlanet

No link huh?
Sure there's polls right here on boards that show a strong no.
See the "Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!" thread on AH.
Another one here:
http://www.teameurope.info/node/409

Scofflaw

RedPlanet wrote: »

No link huh?
Sure there's polls right here on boards that show a strong no.
See the "Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!" thread on AH.
Another one here:
http://www.teameurope.info/node/409

Irish Times TNS/MRBI poll November - article here.

I love the Team Europe one though:

The poll was carried out by former staff members of the Catholic Hibernian magazine, who have now set up their own non-profit social affairs research organization Gael Poll.

Good clear result, too:

Do you want another referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

A clear 57% said No as opposed to 23% who said Yes with 20% of people undecided.

You can count me into that 57% - the whole idea of going through that again is very depressing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RedPlanet

From your link:

In the poll, people were asked how they would vote if the treaty was modified.....

Of course, the reality is the treaty is not being modified by a single word!

Scofflaw

RedPlanet wrote: »

From your link:

Of course, the reality is the treaty is not being modified by a single word!

Actually, it seems to say:

In the poll, people were asked how they would vote if the treaty was modified to allow Ireland to retain an EU commissioner and other Irish concerns on neutrality, abortion and taxation were clarified in special declarations.

Those things are what is on offer. They don't involve modifying the text of the treaty, but so? Is it important somehow that they not only be offered but that they also change the text of the treaty?

That is, of course, apart from the obvious benefit to the No campaigns that modifying the Treaty text would involve re-ratification by everybody else, thereby allowing the Conservatives a stab at derailing the process in 2010...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

RedPlanet wrote: »

No link huh?
Sure there's polls right here on boards that show a strong no.
See the "Lisbon 2: prepare to bend over and recieve ur destiny!" thread on AH.
Another one here:
http://www.teameurope.info/node/409

The boards poll you refer to is practically meaningless. With all respect to the posters on AH, the theme of the forum is hardly one of critical thinking.

And the teameurope one... wow :eek:. Does that really look like it was a statistically- or scientifically-accurate poll?

As it stands, the only 'professional' poll carried out, to my knowledge, is that one linked by Scofflaw. And in fairness to TNS/MRBI, they do approach and publish their research in a statistically-sound manner, and are affiliated with AIMRO (Association of Irish Market Research Organisations).

doggone

Makes no odds what you know or think. We voted NO! years ago and through an electronic voting system the Yes vote appeared. My computer thinks it is something it is not to make things run better. Either way the fulfilment of post war European policy will come into being no matter how you vote. Be nice to get the machines out of storage again any ways. Read your history and forget about your future. It is not in your hands.