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 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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.