If Lisbon fails...

View · 01-10-2009 4:01pm #1

Personal Opinion

If Lisbon fails, it will probably usher in at the very minimum a formal 2-speed EU using the enhanced cooperation provisions of the EU Treaties. Whichever member state causes Lisbon to fail will, needless to say, not be in the first tier. Thus, even if it is to the advantage of that member state to participate in some future development, the other member states will naturally not want it involved as they will - with justification - feel that member state cannot be relied on to ratify an agreement after it has negotiated it.

Possibly a failure of Lisbon will even mark the end of the process where all member states must ratify Treaties for them to come into force. Federalists have pointed out that this process is overly cumbersome and unrealistic. Instead, they have urged that the EU move to a process where the the Treaties could be changed or their competences extended when a majority (or super-majority) of the member states have approved the changes.

And, let's face it, if Lisbon fails as a result of worries about issues that aren't in the Treaty, such as "We hate the Government" or fears that it will usher in mass-abduction by aliens (probably the only card COIR didn't play), or, alternatively, as a result of Klaus doing a "One man against Europe" routine, the "No to Lisbon" people will have proven the Federalists' case beyond a shadow of a doubt.

jhegarty · 01-10-2009 4:03pm

View wrote: »

If Lisbon fails, it will probably usher in at the very minimum a formal 2-speed EU using the enhanced cooperation provisions of the EU Treaties.

Don't we already have a 2 speed Europe , becuase of the euro ?

PopeBuckfastXVI · 01-10-2009 4:06pm

I sincerely hope it will.

If Ireland doesn't want to be involved in a common green energy policy, I hope it doesn't stop the rest of the EU from creating one. Obviously they will be the winners financially, but we will still reap a benefit from a cleaner planet.

jhegarty · 01-10-2009 4:09pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I sincerely hope it will.

If Ireland doesn't want to be involved in a common green energy policy, I hope it doesn't stop the rest of the EU from creating one. Obviously they will be the winners financially, but we will still reap a benefit from a cleaner planet.

Nothing stopping Ireland joining the green policy outside of the treaty.

I presume there is nothing incompatible with the constitution in there.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 01-10-2009 4:11pm

jhegarty wrote: »

Nothing stopping Ireland joining the green policy outside of the treaty.

I presume there is nothing incompatible with the constitution in there.

We can't join in without a referendum, it's an extension of EU competence.

We'll have had two referenda where we said 'no'.

I'm assuming they'll think we mean it when we say 'no' this time.

View · 01-10-2009 4:12pm

jhegarty wrote: »

Don't we already have a 2 speed Europe , becuase of the euro ?

I believe (but am not 100% certain) that the member states which have not adopted the Euro officially have a temporary derogation on adopting it (Denmark may have a more permanent arrangement). As such all member states remain part of a One-tier EU.

More importantly though, I do not believe that the "Enhanced Cooperation" mechanism has every been formally used. Obviously, should it be used, then that clearly would mark the formal creation of a Two-tier EU.

Ireland has always opposed the development of a Two-tier EU. Presumably, the Government probably wants to ensure that it doesn't end up in the second-tier by accident as that could effect inward-investment (i.e. "You are not really in the EU, are you?").

jhegarty · 01-10-2009 4:13pm

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

We can't join in without a referendum, it's an extension of EU competence.

We'll have had two referenda where we said 'no'.

I'm assuming they'll think we mean it when we say 'no' this time.

I was just refereeing to just the green energy policy. It could be passed by all states without passing Lisbon.

View · 01-10-2009 4:20pm

jhegarty wrote: »

Nothing stopping Ireland joining the green policy outside of the treaty.

I presume there is nothing incompatible with the constitution in there.

It would be undemocratic and probably unconstitutional of the Government to join a green policy outside of the Treaty. After all, the people are sovereign and if the people vote No to joining such a policy when it is included in the Treaty, it is hard to see how the Government could claim to have the legal authority to do so. We'd probably need another referendum to authorise them to do so - and all the No campaigners would immediately claim it was an "undemocratic" referendum designed to circumvent the No to Lisbon votes.

jhegarty · 01-10-2009 4:25pm

View wrote: »

It would be undemocratic and probably unconstitutional of the Government to join a green policy outside of the Treaty. After all, the people are sovereign and if the people vote No to joining such a policy when it is included in the Treaty, it is hard to see how the Government could claim to have the legal authority to do so. We'd probably need another referendum to authorise them to do so - and all the No campaigners would immediately claim it was an "undemocratic" referendum designed to circumvent the No to Lisbon votes.

I don't think you are correct there (legally speaking).

Once it isn't in conflict with the constitution there is nothing stopping the governmental signing outside of the treaty.

marco_polo · 01-10-2009 4:27pm

View wrote: »

I believe (but am not 100% certain) that the member states which have not adopted the Euro officially have a temporary derogation on adopting it (Denmark may have a more permanent arrangement). As such all member states remain part of a One-tier EU.

More importantly though, I do not believe that the "Enhanced Cooperation" mechanism has every been formally used. Obviously, should it be used, then that clearly would mark the formal creation of a Two-tier EU.

Ireland has always opposed the development of a Two-tier EU. Presumably, the Government probably wants to ensure that it doesn't end up in the second-tier by accident as that could effect inward-investment (i.e. "You are not really in the EU, are you?").

As far as I am aware strictly speaking all derrogotations are supposed to be temporary (Like the British metric system one AFAIK). But of course this is not how it works in reality.

prinz · 01-10-2009 4:30pm

jhegarty wrote: »

I don't think you are correct there (legally speaking).

Once it isn't in conflict with the constitution there is nothing stopping the governmental signing outside of the treaty.

See post #5. The EU has no competence in establishing a unified energy policy. We would need a referendum to join in any such policy.

ei.sdraob · 01-10-2009 4:30pm

Europe is already fragmented along several lines:
* Eurozone subset
* NATO subset overlapping with other countries
* Shengen subset

Failing Lisbon would ensure further fragmentation (anyone have link to that tcd.ie paper from last year?)

* Subset of countries opting into Common energy policy
* Subset of countries opting into Charter of Rights
and so on and so on

what that will bring is more bureaucracy, more tiers, more subdivisions

essentially the word Union becomes meaningless

and that would probably mean alot of Single Issue referendums here, where all the states are not required to opt in

thats my 2 cents....

View · 01-10-2009 4:44pm

jhegarty wrote: »

I don't think you are correct there (legally speaking).

Once it isn't in conflict with the constitution there is nothing stopping the governmental signing outside of the treaty.

Obviously, it is a matter that the Supreme Court would have the final call on but I can't see how - if the people are sovereign - that the Supreme Court would authorise the Government to in effect ignore the No from the electorate on this. I believe, that they would insist that the Government gets authorisation from the people to do so.

P. Breathnach · 01-10-2009 4:45pm

prinz wrote: »

See post #5. The EU has no competence in establishing a unified energy policy. We would need a referendum to join in any such policy.

I don't think so. What we cannot do is surrender our ultimate control over energy policy, but we can align our policy with that of a group of other states; we just cannot do so irrevocably.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 01-10-2009 4:47pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think so. What we cannot do is surrender our ultimate control over energy policy, but we can align our policy with that of a group of other states; we just cannot do so irrevocably.

We cannot hand over competence to the EU to act on our behalf in the field of energy without a referendum.

We are having a referendum tomorrow which will grant the EU that very competence if we say 'yes', and won't if we say 'no'.

ixtlan · 01-10-2009 4:52pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think so. What we cannot do is surrender our ultimate control over energy policy, but we can align our policy with that of a group of other states; we just cannot do so irrevocably.

I think this is indicative of the problem with the public's understanding of EU operation, with all due respect.

In any such policy there will be some minor things that we are unhappy about and most things that we want. You want the other states to give us what we want... maybe access to renewable research projects or to be used as a location for Wind or tidal experiments... while not knowing whether we will sign up to the bits that we might not like, like perhaps contributing some money...

If I was one of those other states I'd say let's focus the benefits on those states that are committed.

Ix.

ixtlan · 01-10-2009 4:55pm

To clarify my previous post, even if some kind of bi-lateral agreement could be done between the EU and Ireland, why should they bother? If we are not committed so be it.

You want an agreement without pooling of sovereignty... "we just cannot do so irrevocably" which basically means that should we have an issue we say no... which is not going to very conducive to making progress.

Ix.

free-man · 01-10-2009 5:02pm

View wrote: »

Personal Opinion
Possibly a failure of Lisbon will even mark the end of the process where all member states must ratify Treaties for them to come into force. Federalists have pointed out that this process is overly cumbersome and unrealistic. Instead, they have urged that the EU move to a process where the the Treaties could be changed or their competences extended when a majority (or super-majority) of the member states have approved the changes.

And they want to do this if there's a No vote.

Wow, i wonder what they'll want to do if they get a yes.

It really is a shame about our pesky constitution.

caseyann · 01-10-2009 7:35pm

If No wins what will the situation be then?

Is it Ireland just will become second for EU Funding?
What else will happen?

moondogspot · 01-10-2009 7:37pm

If Ireland votes no we remain under the terms of the Nice Treaty. I suspect the Czech

Republic will also refuse to sign it as there would be no point.

Kev_ps3 · 01-10-2009 7:40pm

We Party:D

moogester · 01-10-2009 7:42pm

I'll tell you what'll happen.......there'll be huge parties all over Europe

& maybe even some posies delivered to Irish embassies

I read somewhere that we cant go back to the Nice treaty as that was based on fewer countries.........dunno if thats true or not.

amacachi · 01-10-2009 7:43pm

I win a TV.

Scofflaw · 01-10-2009 7:43pm

Please check for existing threads before creating new ones.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Rb · 01-10-2009 7:44pm

They'll ask No voters why did they so, and when said people can't actually provide a valid, text based reason, we'll be fucked. How humilating that could be.

Yet the morons advocating a No can't even realise that.

jaffa20 · 01-10-2009 7:47pm

Nothing.

Nothing will change if the result is Yes either.

Such fuss over a small thing. I'm sick of hearing about it.

Rb · 01-10-2009 7:59pm

jaffa20 wrote: »

Nothing.

Nothing will change if the result is Yes either.

Such fuss over a small thing. I'm sick of hearing about it.

Actually, things will change if there is a Yes vote and the treaty is universally ratified. For the better too.

oldandintheway · 01-10-2009 9:24pm

Anyone who goes to the trouble of reading at least the verdicts handed down during the Nurenberg Trials cannot help but realise that most of those involved with the foundation of the EU were , quite literally , Mass Murderers. A no vote would in some small way help stop the rewriting of history and remind a new generation that the Holocaust did indeed happen and that those responsible were for the most part within a few years of the Nurenberg trails back at the seat of power ....

Before you dismiss this as some mad conspiracy theory read the nurnenburg trials or check with the reputable Holocaust sites .....and then check the early history of the EU ...it's all there in black and white in the archives of quite literally every newspaper in Ireland and the rest of the world.. If on the other hand you chose to just dismiss all this then you might just as well go the whole hog and deny the Holocaust.

marco_polo · 01-10-2009 9:30pm

oldandintheway wrote: »

Anyone who goes to the trouble of reading at least the verdicts handed down during the Nurenberg Trials cannot help but realise that most of those involved with the foundation of the EU were , quite literally , Mass Murderers. A no vote would in some small way help stop the rewriting of history and remind a new generation that the Holocaust did indeed happen and that those responsible were for the most part within a few years of the Nurenberg trails back at the seat of power ....

Before you dismiss this as some mad conspiracy theory read the nurnenburg trials or check with the reputable Holocaust sites .....and then check the early history of the EU ...it's all there in black and white in the archives of quite literally every newspaper in Ireland and the rest of the world.. If on the other hand you chose to just dismiss all this then you might just as well go the whole hog and deny the Holocaust.

Not dismissing it and I have no idea if it is even partially true or not, but it is highly irrelevant .

Either way congratulations you are the new leader in the red herring competition.

namloc1980 · 01-10-2009 9:33pm

oldandintheway wrote: »

Anyone who goes to the trouble of reading at least the verdicts handed down during the Nurenberg Trials cannot help but realise that most of those involved with the foundation of the EU were , quite literally , Mass Murderers. A no vote would in some small way help stop the rewriting of history and remind a new generation that the Holocaust did indeed happen and that those responsible were for the most part within a few years of the Nurenberg trails back at the seat of power ....

Before you dismiss this as some mad conspiracy theory read the nurnenburg trials or check with the reputable Holocaust sites .....and then check the early history of the EU ...it's all there in black and white in the archives of quite literally every newspaper in Ireland and the rest of the world.. If on the other hand you chose to just dismiss all this then you might just as well go the whole hog and deny the Holocaust.

:eek: Who are these "mass murderers" you speak of?

Linus67 · 01-10-2009 9:39pm

Lisbon will not fail. The Irish people are going to vote Yes. For some reason they think that the EU is going to save this country.

If Lisbon fails...

Comments