Will the EU now sideline us?

Tabnabs

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier described the result as "a severe setback" but said Berlin would stick to its aim of putting the treaty into effect.

"The ratification process must continue," Steinmeier said in a statement released during a visit to China.

"I am still convinced that we need this treaty — a treaty that makes Europe more democratic, more capable of acting and more transparent," he said.

The European Commission's president said Friday the ratification process for the bloc's reform treaty should continue despite a decision by Irish voters to reject it.

'We hope therefore that other member states will continue this process of ratification,' they said in a joint statement. France and Germany

Barroso said the result had to be respected even though it represented the votes of a tiny fraction of the bloc's population of nearly half a billion.

johnnyq

Dyflin wrote: »

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier described the result as "a severe setback" but said Berlin would stick to its aim of putting the treaty into effect.

"The ratification process must continue," Steinmeier said in a statement released during a visit to China.

"I am still convinced that we need this treaty — a treaty that makes Europe more democratic, more capable of acting and more transparent," he said.

The European Commission's president said Friday the ratification process for the bloc's reform treaty should continue despite a decision by Irish voters to reject it.

'We hope therefore that other member states will continue this process of ratification,' they said in a joint statement. France and Germany

Barroso said the result had to be respected even though it represented the votes of a tiny fraction of the bloc's population of nearly half a billion.

If the european institutions decide that sidelining is the best course of action then they only go to prove that the concerns about a democratic deficit were right all along.

Some may ask why should IReland hold the other member states back? Well, Ireland didn't set the rules -which stated that all countries must ratify it. To push on regardless only highlights how the goal posts have been changed when the results don't suit.

Rb

johnnyq wrote: »

If the european institutions decide that sidelining is the best course of action then they only go to prove that the concerns about a democratic deficit were right all along.

Fully agree.

However, the Czech President and Senate have said the treaty is dead and it looks like they won't be ratifying (Link) so with a second country looking at rejecting this, it'd be very dishonest and undemocratic of the EU to press on ahead with it.

johnnyq wrote:

Some may ask why should IReland hold the other member states back? Well, Ireland didn't set the rules -which stated that all countries must ratify it. To push on regardless only highlights how the goal posts have been changed when the results don't suit.

Again, fully agree. They set the rules and Barrosso seemed to be back peddling yesterday. It honestly says a lot about himself and the EU as is, given that it seems they had no contingency plan should a country vote against it. It should say a lot that the one country to get the popular vote on it said No.

There's an awful lot of pressure on Gordon Brown today/yesterday by David Cameron and seemingly every single paper in the UK to stop the ratification process and give the country a referendum.

If he gives them one, they'll vote no and this will definitely kill the treaty. It'll kill his political career if he doesn't.

There's still quite a few countries to ratify this, our No may have set the precedent for other countries to reject it without guilt, particularly given that so many have seemed to wait until after our vote to make a decision.

I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up as 3/4 countries having rejected it, what Barrosso would do in such a case is unforseeable but as the Globe and Mail (Canada) put it "But then the drive to transform Europe from an economic union to a federal superstate has really very little to do with democracy. It is a juggernaut set in motion by professional Europeans and, no matter how many voters throw themselves in its path, it rumbles forward. Nothing will deter EU leaders. Least of all the voice of the people." (Link)

ixtlan

johnnyq you have a point, however the existing system is based on consensus, and on the idea that all parties can eventually come to an agreement. If this continues to fail for years in a row with one or even 2 countries refusing to agree to changes, then some other arrangement will have to be created.

I think though we are a long way from this. I would hope that minor changes/opt-outs can be made to Lisbon which could satisfy the Irish public. Unfortunately I am very very concerned about the hardening of public opinion here, where people who voted no seem to be saying that Europe has no right to be disappointed and that they need to drop all ratification now. In fact the tone that's coming across is a rather contrary pride in voting no. IMHO the no side should be focusing on what changes/opt-outs they need to agree to a future treaty.

Ix

aliqueenb

you know i have noticed something with all the no people.
you still haven't said what you do want?

mary lou mcdonald went on and on about how it wasn't the best deal for ireland but when asked what would she just repeated it isn't the best deal for ireland, then even more disgustingly she was on the radio yesterday saying that is was brian cowens RESPONSIBILITY to go now to brussels and say what the irish want. WELL the irish people that wern't stupidly fooled by sinn fein propaganda wanted the treaty. why dont sinn fein tell us what they want? oh yeah thats right they DON'T KNOW. or simply maybe they want us back into the 1980's...
i find it quite ironic that the people of ireland that the eu probably helped the most voted no. people that would be quite poor but are living perfectly now have no common sense.

leninbenjamin

johnnyq wrote: »

If the european institutions decide that sidelining is the best course of action then they only go to prove that the concerns about a democratic deficit were right all along.

\o/

anyone else see the irony of that statement? a single nation rejecting a treaty where 26 will accept and ratify, thereby putting the whole item off the agenda... how is that democratic?

frankly if the 26 want to plough on without us they should be let. not matter what notions we have about being at the 'heart of europe' we are a peripheral country and always will be.

marco_polo

One of the biggest problems for Ireland going into the future is that most of the other nations are very much in favour of much closer co-operation on matters of defense.

ixtlan

marco_polo wrote: »

One of the biggest problems for Ireland going into the future is that most of the other nations are very much in favour of much closer co-operation on matters of defense.

It's not really a problem in the sense that the other countries don't care whether we participate or not.

The problem is that the government and people like me believed that it was in our interest to have an involvement as long as we had a veto. Now it seems we will have to remove ourselves completely from all EU military activity, to our detriment.

Ix.

marco_polo

aliqueenb wrote: »

you know i have noticed something with all the no people.
you still haven't said what you do want?

mary lou mcdonald went on and on about how it wasn't the best deal for ireland but when asked what would she just repeated it isn't the best deal for ireland, then even more disgustingly she was on the radio yesterday saying that is was brian cowens RESPONSIBILITY to go now to brussels and say what the irish want. WELL the irish people that wern't stupidly fooled by sinn fein propaganda wanted the treaty. why dont sinn fein tell us what they want? oh yeah thats right they DON'T KNOW. or simply maybe they want us back into the 1980's...
i find it quite ironic that the people of ireland that the eu probably helped the most voted no. people that would be quite poor but are living perfectly now have no common sense.

I haven't heard any constructive proposals as of yet.

Rb

ixtlan wrote: »

Now it seems we will have to remove ourselves completely from all EU military activity, to our detriment.

How so? I don't think any other country would care tbh, we've maintained that we're a neutral country and all our military do is go on peace keeping missions, so I doubt if we pulled out of all military activity it would make much of a difference.

marco_polo

Rb wrote: »

How so? I don't think any other country would care tbh, we've maintained that we're a neutral country and all our military do is go on peace keeping missions, so I doubt if we pulled out of all military activity it would make much of a difference.

Do you think a clearly stated and unambiguous opt-out clause for Ireland would go some way toward satisfying people who voted no on this matter?

the_syco

aliqueenb wrote: »

you know i have noticed something with all the no people.
you still haven't said what you do want?

They don't know, BUT they expect Cowan to get them a better deal... :rolleyes:

DenMan

I should certainly hope we are not sidelined. Ireland, as a nation and European Member has campaigned for a more integrated and democratic Europe which it is the people who build a better society.

Europe as a bloc has to address many issues that the Irish people feel has not been discussed. What Nations leader advises the people to vote NO if they are unsure about the Treaty.

The co-operation and friendship between members of the European Union needs to be addressed. Ireland for one has been at the forefront of promoting these changes. Now it is time to go about implementing those policies in a fair and unified way. Not forcing them upon people in a manner in which they do not understand or comprehend the decisions being made on their behalf. One Europe, one voice. The people, all 500 million of us not a select few on an international council not elected by the public but rather their parliaments.

You should read The Lisbon Treaty and think of all of the possible scenarios that could arise as a result of it. Words can have many meanings and could also be implemented in so many different ways and interpreted differently by those who have the power to make those changes. Think before you blink or look before you leap. Very appropriate words.

SkepticOne

leninbenjamin wrote: »

anyone else see the irony of that statement? a single nation rejecting a treaty where 26 will accept and ratify, thereby putting the whole item off the agenda... how is that democratic?

This issue is the distinction between a union of sovereign states and a federal superstate. If the EU is primarily a union of sovereign states things can only be be done by unanimity with each country having a veto.

irish_bob

aliqueenb wrote: »

you know i have noticed something with all the no people.
you still haven't said what you do want?

mary lou mcdonald went on and on about how it wasn't the best deal for ireland but when asked what would she just repeated it isn't the best deal for ireland, then even more disgustingly she was on the radio yesterday saying that is was brian cowens RESPONSIBILITY to go now to brussels and say what the irish want. WELL the irish people that wern't stupidly fooled by sinn fein propaganda wanted the treaty. why dont sinn fein tell us what they want? oh yeah thats right they DON'T KNOW. or simply maybe they want us back into the 1980's...
i find it quite ironic that the people of ireland that the eu probably helped the most voted no. people that would be quite poor but are living perfectly now have no common sense.

you have to realise that sinn fein didnt give a **** one way or another about the treaty although if the treaty having failed is bad for our economy then that will suit sinn fein as parties like that tend to thrive in tough times

no , sinn fein were on a 3 month canvass for next yrs local and european elections , they wouldnt have gotten near the publicity had they been just another party in favour of the treaty

is_that_so

Again this was a question I posed a number of times before the vote. Do you actually know what No means? The existence of this thread suggests that while people were clear and forthright in their rejection they really weren't all that sure what it meant.
We'll have to wait and see what comes out of next week's summit meeting. The message is that Europe wants to "fix" it. With the French Presidency just around the corner , they will want to get it sorted. The Sarkozy attitude is vote again, the EU are more likely to look at ways of helping. That depends on what Cowen tells them he needs to do. However I very much doubt that will involve a renegotiation of any kind.

leninbenjamin

SkepticOne wrote: »

This issue is the distinction between a union of sovereign states and a federal superstate. If the EU is primarily a union of sovereign states things can only be be done by unanimity with each country having a veto.

that isn't actually democratic though. I'm just referring to the cringe worthy overuse of the term we're seeing every where.

Rb

marco_polo wrote: »

Do you think a clearly stated and unambiguous opt-out clause for Ireland would go some way toward satisfying people who voted no on this matter?

Well, having talked to people, a lot of women/mothers felt that the Lisbon Treaty had the potential to cause problems for us in the future with regards to military action i.e being tied to the EU in a time of war and as a consequence, be expected or forced into providing military power/citizens to participate in military action (enscription) to defend the EU or fight along side France/Germany/etc.

As we are a "neutral" country, noone wants to see enscription happening and our children sent out to war by force. The thing about UN mandates doesn't seem to be commonly known.

I think if the EU could provide an absolutely clear opt-out, or better something in the treaty excluding Ireland of such any military responsibility, that we don't have to increase/decrease any military capability etc etc. it would set peoples minds at ease.

Darragh29

aliqueenb wrote: »

you know i have noticed something with all the no people.
you still haven't said what you do want?

Sick of listening to this mantra after the point has been made like a zillion times at this stage. A democratic and accountable EU, is that too much to ask??? It is obvious now, with this treaty being as dead as a duck and the EU juggernaut still arrogantly ploughing on with ratifying it, without a concern in the world for the fact that now Ireland, France and The Netherlands have rejected this treaty in one form or another, with twice as many countries now screaming at this stage for a referendum as opposed to a parlimentary ratification process, that the concerns of those that voted no were indeed entirely correct.

Darragh29

Just as an aside while also staying on topic...! I think this country is now on a collision course with the EU, not because we are anti-EU but this approach that they EU keep adopting, of pushing a country to keep voting on something until the right answer comes back, if we are asked to vote on this again, I believe it will just be another reason to vote no on the next occasion.

leninbenjamin

Darragh29 wrote: »

A democratic and accountable EU, is that too much to ask???

and how pray tell do you plan to implement this? because that funnily enough was what Lisbon was aiming for as well...

Rb

Darragh29 wrote: »

Just as an aside while also staying on topic...! I think this country is now on a collision course with the EU, not because we are anti-EU but this approach that they EU keep adopting, of pushing a country to keep voting on something until the right answer comes back, if we are asked to vote on this again, I believe it will just be another reason to vote no on the next occasion.

I think they'll be shooting themselves in the feet if they ask us to vote again on the same document. It would certainly taint peoples view of FF even further, and confirm peoples worries in the EU.

JimiTime

aliqueenb wrote: »

i find it quite ironic that the people of ireland that the eu probably helped the most voted no. people that would be quite poor but are living perfectly now have no common sense.

This again, is an example of what I've seen coming from the yes side. Its like, 'you owe us, vote yes' etc etc. Whether you believe this or not, the impression it sends out is extremely negative IMO. the yes camp need to get off their high horse. (I don't vote btw, and am ignorant to alot of this treaty, but this is the impression I got from various debates i heard and seen)

is_that_so

The Yes campaign was ineffectual and mistake-ridden from Bertie's inituial dithering to the extremely poor public information and the party political posters. There was really not a lot to vote on for the many undecideds or "confused" voters who were not prepared to take on the treaty.

Darragh29

leninbenjamin wrote: »

and how pray tell do you plan to implement this? because that funnily enough was what Lisbon was aiming for as well...

It could be implemented for a start by:

(1) Telling the EU citizenship in all member states that it will be allowed the opportunity to vote directly, not through a parlimentary ratification process, on what way it wishes to be governed.

(2) Accepting that the EU as an organisation is completely out of touch with the citizens of the EU and possibly taking some serious steps to improve its credibility with the people in the EU. This would remove the need to keep avoiding referendums and then when one cannot be avoided, refusing in all but word, to accept the outcome.

(3) Cease immediately, this nonsense of telling us we will be left behind and treating us like we are in a creche, threatening us and belittling us as if we were in nappies. We are full EU members, under the current arrangements we have as much of a say as anyone else and we'll enjoy whatever benefits we have.

I had no problem with what was in the treaty, if I thought the acceptance of this treaty was underpinned by a proper democratic process, I'd have had no issue voting for it. I just thought the whole thing lacked an endorsement by the people of Europe, and should be thrown out on that basis alone.

Think of it like this. You see a Cartier designer watch in the window of Weir's Jewellers in Grafton Street, price: 3000 Euro. A man walks up to you in Henry Street with a Cartier designer watch for sale, price: 3000 Euro. At the end of the day, any reasonable person will buy the watch from whoever they trust more. Sometimes the product must come second to however is trying to sell it to you. If I don't trust the seller, I won't buy the product, no matter how glossy the product it.

Darragh29

is_that_so wrote: »

The Yes campaign was ineffectual and mistake-ridden from Bertie's inituial dithering to the extremely poor public information and the party political posters. There was really not a lot to vote on for the many undecideds or "confused" voters who were not prepared to take on the treaty.

I don't really agree with this. If this argument grows any legs, then we're going to be listening to a lot more of, "Ah sure Jasus, they didn't really understand the thing in the first place, sure lets run a 6 month campaign next year and have another referendum".

I don't think people were "confused" or "undecided". I think there are a lot of people who voted no because they simply don't trust the EU and the likes of Barosso, Sarkosy, et al who are driving this juggernaut at us.

is_that_so

Darragh29 wrote: »

I don't really agree with this. If this argument grows any legs, then we're going to be listening to a lot more of, "Ah sure Jasus, they didn't really understand the thing in the first place, sure lets run a 6 month campaign next year and have another referendum".

I don't think people were "confused" or "undecided". I think there are a lot of people who voted no because they simply don't trust the EU and the likes of Barosso, Sarkosy, et al who are driving this juggernaut at us.

Over 30% of them were in the weeks leading up to it. In any case I am talking about the campaign and not the result. In any campaign you'd expect both sides to present clear arguments for discussion. The Yes side presented nothing. It was not the length of it , more the substance or lack of it and the gaffes that went with it. The No campaign was far more effective and clear in its messages.

the_syco

Will they sideline us? Sure. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said today that "Today, 18 European states have ratified. The others must continue to ratify -- that is also the intention of (British Prime Minister) Gordon Brown, who told me so on the telephone yesterday -- so that this Irish incident does not become a crisis".

Which means to me that, yes, they've said no, but lets ignore it, ignore the fact that we said everyone needed to say yes...

DishonestPikey

Darragh29 wrote: »

It could be implemented for a start by:

(1) Telling the EU citizenship in all member states that it will be allowed the opportunity to vote directly, not through a parlimentary ratification process, on what way it wishes to be governed.

I totally disagree. It was up to us to lobby our leaders and get our views across while it was at the negotiation stage. People harp on about democracy but not 1 person who voted no actually takes part in the democratic process, nor do many of them even understand the process. Did any of you ever think of writing to your TD to voice your concerns? If you take the results into consideration, half the voters of the country shared the same concerns. How come nobody knew about these concerns (until it was too late)?

Please don't lecture people on "democracy" if you don't know the meaning of the word.

DishonestPikey

the_syco wrote: »

Will they sideline us? Sure. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said today that "Today, 18 European states have ratified. The others must continue to ratify -- that is also the intention of (British Prime Minister) Gordon Brown, who told me so on the telephone yesterday -- so that this Irish incident does not become a crisis".

Which means to me that, yes, they've said no, but lets ignore it, ignore the fact that we said everyone needed to say yes...

I don't think that is his point. His point is lets continue, if we get 26 versus 1 then they will need to see about what they can do to accomodate Ireland, which right now means how can we be left out so that our democratic rights are respected.

is_that_so

Denmark after their first Maastricht attempt may be a way that they will look at it - with opt-opts. I believe that they had also worked out a legal way round it, if the Danes had rejected it again.