Lisbon I is over, roll on Lisbon II...

PH01 · 13-06-2008 11:14am #1

Now that this treaty has been defeated (based on early tallies), it's only a matter of time before we'll be asked to vote again on it again, and again, until there is a Yes vote.

So roll on 'Lisbon II'!?

biko · 13-06-2008 11:15am

I hope not. Wouldn't surprise me though, the powers that be never listens to the people.

justfortherecor · 13-06-2008 11:17am

Roll on Europe without us is more like it.

cornbb · 13-06-2008 11:18am

biko wrote: »

I hope not. Wouldn't surprise me though, the powers that be never listens to the people.

There will be no "Lisbon II". The government only got away with that once because of massive voter apathy during Nice I. There was no such apathy this time, if there was a "Lisbon II" it would never be passed. We live with whatever result comes out of this one folks.

ShooterSF · 13-06-2008 11:18am

PH01 wrote: »

Now that this treaty has been defeated (based on early tallies), it's only a matter of time before we'll be asked to vote again on it again, and again, until there is a Yes vote.

So roll on 'Lisbon II'!?

Be careful man it's not over yet even if it looks promising. I doubt they'll pull the same shaft twice as it would look a disgrace especially as most people will say the french and dutch weren't forced to revote when they said no to the constitution.

It would look to the world like the big powerhouse that is Europe is bullying lil old Ireland again.

Ponster · 13-06-2008 11:19am

There won't be a Lisbon II as this *was* the II version. What Ireland voted on yesterday was the reformed European Constitution that was rejected by Holland/France in 2005.

Dinner · 13-06-2008 11:20am

PH01 wrote: »

Now that this treaty has been defeated (based on early tallies), it's only a matter of time before we'll be asked to vote again on it again, and again, until there is a Yes vote.

What's that I see, is it a no voter not quite understanding why a second vote happens? Yes I think it is.

As with Nice we may get another chance to vote on Lisbon. The Irish negotiating team could go back to Europe and address the issues that the Irish people had with it. This is what happened with Nice, they did not just keep trying the same treaty until we said yes. Can't say I'm suprised that the no camp will peddle this type of sh!te if there is a second vote.

Ponster · 13-06-2008 11:21am

ShooterSF wrote: »

..the french and dutch weren't forced to revote when they said no to the constitution.

The French and Dutch (I think) both had the original Constitution rewritten and renamed as the Lisbon Treaty so that there wouldn't have to be a referendum.

seamus · 13-06-2008 11:22am

Three possible scenarios as I see it:

1. They make some token change to the proposed amendment to the constitution, such as safeguarding our neutrality, then put it up for vote again. This worked great for Nice.

2. We go back to the table, renegotiate some tiny areas, lose out a hell of a lot more than we would have, and put it back for vote.

3. Europe decides to press on ahead and leave us to decide what we want to do.

1 & 3 would very quickly result in a "Yes" vote. 2 would leave us up **** creek.

100gSoma · 13-06-2008 11:23am

whats interesting is there are NO NEGATIVE comments on SKY news or UK based news websites where the readers can leave a comment. It seems the UK and FRENCH public resented not having a say on this and are quite happy with Irelands NO vote. I at least expected someone to say we had "ruined the EU" or such drivel.

PH01 · 13-06-2008 11:25am

Oh reckon we'll be voting on this again that's for sure.
Maybe a watered down version, or split in two. But we'll be voting on it again alright.

The only way we won't be voting on a treaty for an enlarged Europe is for Ireland to leave the EU (and we all know that this ain't going to happen).

oscarBravo · 13-06-2008 11:26am

Arabel wrote: »

As with Nice we may get another chance to vote on Lisbon. The Irish negotiating team could go back to Europe and address the issues that the Irish people had with it.

There's the rub: what do they go back with? Abortion? Neutrality? Corporation tax? I-voted-no-because-I-don't-like-being-bullied-by-those-nasty-posters?

The treaty was about the best deal we could have hoped for. What on earth makes people think we'll get better?

BENDYBINN · 13-06-2008 11:27am

I say europe pull the plug on us---after 6 months we would go back on our knees-cap in hand!

cornbb · 13-06-2008 11:28am

All the No campaigners have said "we'll send a clear message that we want a better deal". The notion of a "clear message" from the No side is laughable, seeing as most No votes were based on protest votes, votes out of lack of understanding of the issues and votes based on lies and misinformation.

Then of course the No campaigners don't have to deal with the fallout, the government and the people have to do that.

djpbarry · 13-06-2008 11:31am

oscarBravo wrote: »

The treaty was about the best deal we could have hoped for. What on earth makes people think we'll get better?

Something that also has me baffled; I've yet to hear a single 'No' voter explain how we could (realistically) get a better deal. The usual response is a Libertas-style "we have to keep our commissioner!"

Seeing as a rejection now looks likely, I'm looking forward to Libertas (in particular) having to retract many of their claims.

Dinner · 13-06-2008 11:31am

oscarBravo wrote: »

What on earth makes people think we'll get better?

Well, Good aul Mary Lou's poster had something along the lines of "get a better deal" giving people the false hope of negotiating more.

djpbarry · 13-06-2008 11:32am

cornbb wrote: »

The notion of a "clear message" from the No side is laughable, seeing as most No votes were based on protest votes, votes out of lack of understanding of the issues and votes based on lies and misinformation.

Ain't democracy grand?

biko · 13-06-2008 11:33am

I find it funny how everyone think "Europe" is going to disown us now.
We are still in the Union, nothing can change that.

Was France and Holland disowned when they turned v1 down in 2005? No.
Did yous even know it was on then? I suspect not.

Europe will/can not do anything other than have another look at the treaty and hopefully make it better/not use it.

cornbb · 13-06-2008 11:34am

biko wrote: »

Europe will/can not do anything other than have another look at the treaty and hopefully make it better/not use it.

Well, what would you like to see changed?

gurramok · 13-06-2008 11:34am

Unbelievable here the attitude of some posters.

It looks like its a No vote, how about respecting the wishes of the people for once?

nhughes100 · 13-06-2008 11:38am

Here's what I'd like to see changed for starters:

All member states to increase spending on their military capabilities - How about all member states to increase spending on improving their litreacy rates? That way more people in Europe could actually read and write and then maybe have a chance of reading the next treaty put to us.

If only this treaty was about re-organising the way Europe makes laws.

Dinner · 13-06-2008 11:38am

gurramok wrote: »

It looks like its a No vote, how about respecting the wishes of the people for once?

That would be ideal if people actually voted for legitimate reasons. Too many people voted No because of the tripe peddled by Libertas and the like.

molloyjh · 13-06-2008 11:41am

gurramok wrote: »

Unbelievable here the attitude of some posters.

It looks like its a No vote, how about respecting the wishes of the people for once?

If the outcome is No we will respect that in the sense that we won't try and overturn ot or sabotage it. That doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on it. And thats all people here are expressing.

Stabshauptmann · 13-06-2008 11:42am

seamus wrote: »

Three possible scenarios as I see it:

1. They make some token change to the proposed amendment to the constitution, such as safeguarding our neutrality, then put it up for vote again. This worked great for Nice.

If I were in charge...

Probably we'll be the first to lose a commissioner so people see that they were lied to then a "concession" on our tax system made with big pomp and ceremony so people think we've won a victory then a vote which coincides with our getting a commissioner back.

seamus · 13-06-2008 11:43am

gurramok wrote: »

It looks like its a No vote, how about respecting the wishes of the people for once?

What wishes would they be?
The ones who don't want an EU Army? No, wait that's done.
The ones who are unhappy with the government? Well, there'll be an election in a few years where they can sort that.
How about the ones who don't want abortion? Oh, wait...no.
Emm....how about the people who don't want taxes increased? Well, we don't really have much choice if we have no money.
How about the people who just said no because they didn't understand the treaty? Well, it'd be pointless to explain it further now, the votes have been cast.

My point being that there was no one reason that anyone provided for voting "No". So how do they expect their "wishes" to be granted?

If you simply didn't want the constitution changed, then your wish will be granted.

cornbb · 13-06-2008 11:45am

nhughes100 wrote: »

All member states to increase spending on their military capabilities - How about all member states to increase spending on improving their litreacy rates? That way more people in Europe could actually read and write and then maybe have a chance of reading the next treaty put to us.

Well, that would be wonderful, only you're not going to Santa Claus with a list. Do you expect the 26 other states in the EU to just amend the treaty with a hodge-podge list of changes that the No campaigners haven't even proposed?

Stabshauptmann · 13-06-2008 11:45am

gurramok wrote: »

Unbelievable here the attitude of some posters.

It looks like its a No vote, how about respecting the wishes of the people for once?

I care too much about the sovern rights of Irish citizens. That there were lied and mislead is as bad as taking their vote away.

One of the reaons I feel this way is that I had believed the no camps lies right uop until the tuesday before the election.

If I felt people had all the information and made an informed decision then so be it. The majority of ppl are saying they didnt understand the treaty, so lets educate them

gurramok · 13-06-2008 11:47am

Arabel wrote: »

That would be ideal if people actually voted for legitimate reasons. Too many people voted No because of the tripe peddled by Libertas and the like.

Tripe or not, do you not realise what your saying?

In other words, your saying the electorate who are over 18 are of very low intelligence to vote no, thats deeply insulting to hundreds of thousands of adults.
If it turns out to be a Yes vote, will your respect that unlike the No vote?

biko · 13-06-2008 11:51am

Yes voters, how about you sit down and let us grown ups handle this?

gurramok · 13-06-2008 11:54am

seamus wrote: »

What wishes would they be?
The ones who don't want an EU Army? No, wait that's done.
The ones who are unhappy with the government? Well, there'll be an election in a few years where they can sort that.
How about the ones who don't want abortion? Oh, wait...no.
Emm....how about the people who don't want taxes increased? Well, we don't really have much choice if we have no money.
How about the people who just said no because they didn't understand the treaty? Well, it'd be pointless to explain it further now, the votes have been cast.

My point being that there was no one reason that anyone provided for voting "No". So how do they expect their "wishes" to be granted?

If you simply didn't want the constitution changed, then your wish will be granted.

Of course they had hundreds of reasons whether valid or not. The yes side didn't convince and intelligent people voted either way based on this, its time to accept the way people voted.

100gSoma · 13-06-2008 11:55am

Arabel wrote: »

That would be ideal if people actually voted for legitimate reasons. Too many people voted No because of the tripe peddled by Libertas and the like.

Have to agree with Gurramok. I find your comment insulting. I did not vote because I was convinced of tripe by either the YES camp or the NO camp. I accept that quite a few people may have voted NO because they were unhappy with the bully tactics and the arrogance of the YES camps to assume we would all vote yes because BIFFOs head is up on a poster smiling down at us.

Lisbon I is over, roll on Lisbon II...

Comments