Disreputable sentiments in Europe

Dirk Gently · 15-06-2008 11:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

They are perfectly entitled to believe lies and vote accordingly I suppose but it's sad.

That's religion for you.

I'd disagree with yourself and nesf on the scale of misleading in the GE but that's another days work. Credit crunch and oil prices were certainly not "unpredictable" but a far more obvious (and known) indicator was the construction bubble and it's imminent collapse. The parties just chose to base their forecast on past and current figures rather than what we knew was going to be the economic reality over the lifetime of this government. FF started it and then FG / LAB followed their lead as they didn't want to promise less than FF. They knew they couldn't pull it off without using the same magic figures FF were using.

For me what Libertas done was deliberate misleading to gain the public vote, as was what the government and opposition said in the last GE. We live in an age where spin and marketing buy votes (maybe it was always that way). I'm not taking anything away from your position regarding libertas, just pointing out that that's how public votes are won and lost all the time.

apologies for taking the thread off topic.

nesf · 16-06-2008 2:10am

clown bag wrote: »

I'd disagree with yourself and nesf on the scale of misleading in the GE but that's another days work. Credit crunch and oil prices were certainly not "unpredictable" but a far more obvious (and known) indicator was the construction bubble and it's imminent collapse. The parties just chose to base their forecast on past and current figures rather than what we knew was going to be the economic reality over the lifetime of this government. FF started it and then FG / LAB followed their lead as they didn't want to promise less than FF. They knew they couldn't pull it off without using the same magic figures FF were using.

The scale of the credit crunch was very much unexpected, you can see as much from the devastation that it caused or if you're interested you can peruse the financial press from the past year about it. The oil price problem is more complex. We've had high oil prices for quite some time now but it wasn't having a serious macroeconomic impact until recently. The same can be said for other commodity prices. I'm not going to derail this thread into an economics discussion on forecasting but seriously, the timing of the bubble was an unknown. The present downturn owes as much to exogenous global macroeconomic conditions, which were not obvious, as it does to our housing market. You make it sound like they were fools for not seeing it but it's very easy to say this in retrospect. No offence but you don't seem to appreciate what exactly the "economic reality" was before the GE or how forecasts are measured. The parties took the optimistic forecast to be sure but they weren't using one vastly different from what could have been expected given the information available at the time.

is_that_so · 16-06-2008 8:28am

Many of the comments here reinforce my own belief that an EU-wide referendum, a good idea in principle, on this complex issue is really not at all wise.

After all

Some did not read it
Some read it and misunderstood it
Some read it and misrepresented it
Some let someone else tell them how to vote
Some let their own representative bodies decide for them
Some used it to to try to extract deals from the government
Some used it to settle any number of political scores

As commented elsewhere by various posters referenda can be a good democratic tool on single issues and can provide a clear answer. However like our own No, this might not really provide any.

murphaph · 16-06-2008 11:25am

is_that_so wrote: »

Many of the comments here reinforce my own belief that an EU-wide referendum, a good idea in principle, on this complex issue is really not at all wise.

After all

Some did not read it
Some read it and misunderstood it
Some read it and misrepresented it
Some let someone else tell them how to vote
Some let their own representative bodies decide for them
Some used it to to try to extract deals from the government
Some used it to settle any number of political scores

As commented elsewhere by various posters referenda can be a good democratic tool on single issues and can provide a clear answer. However like our own No, this might not really provide any.

Then place a simple question to the peoples of Europe. Every country holds a plebiscite with the same wording: "Are you in favour of further political & social integration in Europe? yes or no". If the majority vote yes then we can truly accept what the YES side keep telling us...that the majority want this.

limklad · 16-06-2008 11:26am

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah come on now.
They did "read" the treaty not in the telephone book way..but in the same way that they read the finance bill every year.They formulate it so they know it's purpose and what it doesn't do.

Both Brian Cowen and Charlie McCreavy Both admit to the media, on TV, Radio, and Newspapers interviews and I saw it on both RTE and TV3 that they did not read the Treaty in their own words.
These are the two most prominent Politicians that Failed to do their Job,
They did not fully understand the Document because they did not read it.

Our Leader of our Government a reperesentive to the EU Council: Brian Cowen
And Ireland EU commissioner: Charlie McCreavy

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

murphaph · 16-06-2008 1:24pm

Just watched the news there as they questioned EU foreign ministers going into their Luxembourg meeting. One said "we note the irish vote but Europe does not stop for this of course" or words very similar to this. Your vote as an irish person in this EU is worthless. Imagine handing even further powers to this organisation. You will never have your voice heard again!

SkepticOne · 16-06-2008 1:44pm

murphaph wrote: »

Just watched the news there as they questioned EU foreign ministers going into their Luxembourg meeting. One said "we note the irish vote but Europe does not stop for this of course" or words very similar to this. Your vote as an irish person in this EU is worthless. Imagine handing even further powers to this organisation. You will never have your voice heard again!

Also makes you wonder about the various vetoes supposedly won for the Irish people. If unanimity is not respected on this issue will it be respected on others?

Cowan needs to tell these people:

1. Lisbon treaty is dead.
2. There will be no further referenda. The Irish people have spoken.
3. Ireland is not leaving the EU.

It looks to me that the No voters have been vindicated.

RedPlanet · 16-06-2008 1:53pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

Also makes you wonder about the various vetoes supposedly won for the Irish people. If unanimity is not respected on this issue will it be respected on others?

Cowan needs to tell these people:

1. Lisbon treaty is dead.
2. There will be no further referenda. The Irish people have spoken.
3. Ireland is not leaving the EU.

It looks to me that the No voters have been vindicated.

I agree!

16-06-2008 2:00pm

limklad wrote: »

Both Brian Cowen and Charlie McCreavy Both admit to the media, on TV, Radio, and Newspapers interviews and I saw it on both RTE and TV3 that they did not read the Treaty in their own words.
These are the two most prominent Politicians that Failed to do their Job,
They did not fully understand the Document because they did not read it.

Our Leader of our Government a reperesentive to the EU Council: Brian Cowen
And Ireland EU commissioner: Charlie McCreavy

You miss the point.
They drew it up.
They drafted it.
They delegated the civil servants to word it for X,Y and Z.

This "not read the treaty" is the type of goebbels propaganda nonsense that I was on about.
You don't have to read a treaty that you drew up yourself to know it better than people with various agenda's claiming to have read it.

16-06-2008 2:04pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

Also makes you wonder about the various vetoes supposedly won for the Irish people. If unanimity is not respected on this issue will it be respected on others?

Cowan needs to tell these people:

1. Lisbon treaty is dead.
2. There will be no further referenda. The Irish people have spoken.
3. Ireland is not leaving the EU.

It looks to me that the No voters have been vindicated.

1.Cowen can't tell another country what to do in the "order them to do it" sense that I presume you mean there.
2.There can be 500 million more referenda as the constitution gives the elected government the right to hold as many as they want.
The Irish people can say no as often as they want.
3.We aren't leaving the EU.It's unknown what the "club" may decide in terms of proceeding though.

jmayo · 16-06-2008 2:53pm

Just a few observations from this last weekend.
I drove down to Mayo on Saturday and what did I see in almost very village and town ?
Lot of posters with "No to Lisbon", "Keep our Commissioner", "No to Lisbon, Keep our Hospital" (in Roscommon).
There were very few pro Lisbon posters and those that were had the ugly smug mug of some politican or other.
Just shows who ran the better campaign and the buck stops primarily with Cowen over that one.

All that was on radio were recriminations, with some pro Lisbon commentators (political jounralists) and pro Lisbon politicans affectively labelling anyone that voted No a halfwit in league with crack pot ideas of SF, Libertas or some pro Catholic group or other.
With rethoric like that a Lisbon II referendum has f***all chances.
Talking down to people, especially Irish, will not work.

I believe some people did vote No because they were afraid of an EU army drafting their love ones, they believed we would lose our commisionner (although it it's already fait complet after Nice), whilst others may beleive the EU courts would beleive that having no abortion was indeed a lack of human rights, they were afraid of the Laval case, they believed our tax regime would be threatened.

But, and this is what the Yes side seem to be conveniently forgetting, a lot of people are peed off with our own politicans (who are seen as self serving and condescending), are peed off with the affect Brussels now has on the likes of farming, fishing and rural life.
You may state that this was just a vote for Lisbon but a vote for Lisbon is indeed a vote for giving more power to the entity that you already may have an issue with it.
Once Brussels was seen as a positive force, but now it is seen as a big brother forcing regulations that stifle production all the while allowing external cheap imports.

Add to this the attitude that was displayed by Baroso and the French pre-referendum and it helped some No voters decide that loss of voting rights would hurt.
The comments from Europe post referendum only now go to reinforce this point.

If the EU do decide to punish Ireland then it is the end of the EU.
All the small member states will be shown that the EU is now dictated to by the big players (who want integration) and woe be tide you if you stepout of line.

SkepticOne · 16-06-2008 2:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

1.Cowen can't tell another country what to do in the "order them to do it" sense that I presume you mean there.
2.There can be 500 million more referenda as the constitution gives the elected government the right to hold as many as they want.
The Irish people can say no as often as they want.

It is dead in the sense that the proposed treaty of EU members called the Treaty of Lisbon or the EU Reform Treaty is no longer viable since it requires ratification of all member states. This time, no means no.

3.We aren't leaving the EU.It's unknown what the "club" may decide in terms of proceeding though.

That's true. Individual nations are free to set up EU institutions as they wish that don't necessarily include all member states. Some countries are outside the Schengen free travel zone, others are outside the Euro zone for example. Hard to know what this means with regard to the Lisbon treaty though. Is there going to be a parallel commission with 18 members?

VoidStarNull · 16-06-2008 3:02pm

murphaph wrote: »

Just watched the news there as they questioned EU foreign ministers going into their Luxembourg meeting. One said "we note the irish vote but Europe does not stop for this of course" or words very similar to this. Your vote as an irish person in this EU is worthless. Imagine handing even further powers to this organisation. You will never have your voice heard again!

The ratification process for the Lisbon Treaty is a matter for the national governments, not the EU. The EU has no particular powers or responsibilities with regard to the ratification of this Treaty. The previous treaties state that they cannot be amended without unanimous consent, that's pretty much all the EU has to say about it.

16-06-2008 3:10pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is dead in the sense that the proposed treaty of EU members called the Treaty of Lisbon or the EU Reform Treaty is no longer viable since it requires ratification of all member states. This time, no means no.

I'd actually add the waiver to that of "we don't really know whats going to happen yet" aswell.It's dead only to the extent that it technically cannot be ratified unless a line is inserted requiring just the 25 to ratify it.

Is there going to be a parallel commission with 18 members?

Now theres the imponderable.
My feeling is thats unlikely.

Cowen needs his arse kicking for not agree'ing soon enough to simple things like the Veto will be used for the farmers and for not agree'ing legislation on collective bargaining.

He could have promised another referendum on abortion too in paralell with this one-that would have been simple to set up once a bit of work was done on it and a law on prostitution and hard drugs [though those fears were so silly,it pains me to say they were needed to quieten the silly people].

Though Cowen had reasons for not doing those things..the mess that having them creates would have been a lot less of a pickle than what he has now.
Cowens whole approach to selling the treaty [he acted as if it didn't need much selling untill the last week] and that of Ahern before him was a disaster waiting to happen and really showed up a lack of political courage and I have to say acumen.

The whole Ahern and the tribunal business fogged up all their thinking I think and they lost touch with what could potentially happen.

Theres a fair bit of salvage to be done now.

SkepticOne · 16-06-2008 3:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd actually add the waiver to that of "we don't really know whats going to happen yet" aswell.It's dead only to the extent that it technically cannot be ratified unless a line is inserted requiring just the 25 to ratify it.

Now theres the imponderable.
My feeling is thats unlikely.

Cowen needs his arse kicking for not agree'ing soon enough to simple things like the Veto will be used for the farmers and for not agree'ing legislation on collective bargaining.

He could have promised another referendum on abortion too in paralell with this one-that would have been simple to set up once a bit of work was done on it and a law on prostitution and hard drugs [though those fears were so silly,it pains me to say they were needed to quieten the silly people].

I agree with you that an 18 member commission seems unlikely and for this reason a club implementing the essence of the treaty without Ireland is unlikely also. The Lisbon treaty is constitutional in nature and refers to the operation of existing EU institutions rather than the setting up of a new one.

Of course there will be political consequences, but we need to stand together on these. We voted no on the Treaty. No needs to mean no if Ireland is to be a respected member of the EU. Equivocation will lead to our destruction.

16-06-2008 4:13pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

No needs to mean no if Ireland is to be a respected member of the EU. Equivocation will lead to our destruction.

For 2 obvious reasons,I'd disagree with that bit though.
The no vote when scrutinised contains too much non lisbon related stuff to be unequivocal.
Secondly theres no route to our distruction whatever you meant by that.
We do need to be listened to though to get the best for ourselves.
I fear we may not be though or at least not as much as we used if what we want conflicts too much with the other 26.

Tim Robbins · 16-06-2008 4:18pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

Also makes you wonder about the various vetoes supposedly won for the Irish people. If unanimity is not respected on this issue will it be respected on others?

Cowan needs to tell these people:

1. Lisbon treaty is dead.
2. There will be no further referenda. The Irish people have spoken.
3. Ireland is not leaving the EU.

It looks to me that the No voters have been vindicated.

And logical consequence of that is the EU can't move forward. So the EU can't move forward and Ireland can block it without even articulating an intelligent reason or resolution. How naieve?

If the EU stops because of protest voters who can't articulate solutions, the EU falls apart.

The EU will move with or without Ireland. If Ireland wants in, we'll have some serious thinking to do. a Little bit more deeper than the average no voter, or else we're out.

SkepticOne · 16-06-2008 4:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

For 2 obvious reasons,I'd disagree with that bit though.
The no vote when scrutinised contains too much non lisbon related stuff to be unequivocal.

You see this is the equivocation. Did no really mean no? If we don't respect our own decisions, how can we expect other countries to?

marco_polo · 16-06-2008 4:29pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

You see this is the equivocation. Did no really mean no? If we don't respect our own decisions, how can we expect other countries to?

Problem right there is that nobody knows how unequivocal our No vote actually was. I made the point a few days ago that because so many 'red herrings' that had nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty were thrown into the debate, that it took too much time away from debating the real and important issues.

If a No vote still had been reached after a thorough debate soley on the core issues we would have a much better idea of where we now stand on the EU project.

Understandably some yes campaigners are a bit frustrated as a result. What do we do now? Do we want to get some of the treaty change and revoted? Ripped up and start from scratch? Bury our head in the sand and hope the status quo remains?

Tim Robbins · 16-06-2008 4:39pm

marco_polo wrote: »

Understandably some yes campaigners are a bit frustrated as a result. What do we do know> Do we want to get some of the treaty change and revoted? Ripped up and start from scratch? Bury our head in the sand and hope the status quo remains?

Completly agree. The problem with No is that they offered us no way forward just nonsensical idealism and rhetoric. This means that it is up to the yes side to find a way forward or we are out of europe.

If the No camp had clearly stated they wanted an opt out clause on enegery policy for example, then Cowen would have something to negotiate with. Now, we have nothing to work with.

Unless we come up with a way forward, we're out of the EU. I wouldn't be half as annoyed if it was the responsibility of the No voters to do this. As then they would have to take some responsibility for their vote.

But they'll just sit back continue being cynical and not offer anything constructive and moan no matter what the pro - europe lobby come up with.

It really is a sad time.

AngryHippie · 16-06-2008 4:43pm

One of the stumbling blocks with Lisbon was the complexity of the document, and the broad range of issues covered within it, FF and FG did not do enough groundwork, instead relying on public addresses at sporting and social events to broadcast a load of rhetoric. What was needed was clear statements refuting the Libertas and SF misinformation campaign. I was originally a no skeptic, But after reading up on it, it became increasingly obvious (to me) that the small EU nations were not really under threat, and would probably not get a better deal, even if it was to be renegotiated.
One thing the Government really fell down on was outlining the consequences of the no vote, and what the likely reaction in Brussels would be, It has of course weakened the Irish standing in the EU, and will make life much more difficult for anyone trying to negotiate on our behalf. If they had pointed this out in their broadcasts instead of telling us how great it was going to be when we voted yes, then more people may have considered it.
It does indicate that there is a communication problem between the electorate and the politicians, The politicians clearly overestimate the public opinion of them, And they consider it acceptable to talk down to us without giving us any pertinent information.

The Libertas/SF campaign was an excellently crafted work of disinformation, conflicting arguements, contrdictory stances and outright lies, FF's main aim should have been to blow them out of the water at every opportunity, while they should have delegated the Yes arguements to FG and the rest, A structured plan like that may have increased understanding of the real issues that may have arisen out of a yes vote, but they didn't seem too bothered. The FF and FG Media depts should be sacked out of hand for what was a careless failure and an indicator of gross apathy/incompetence, But then again they were pretty busy trying to preserve Berties "good name" and put some distance between the party and him.

I really do hope that it gets put before the Irish people again, with a referendum on a wide base of issues, including what veto powers the govt. gaurantees to use, breaking the treaty down into the component arguements that Ganly and SF used to confuse the electorate into thinking they were going to be drafted into some sort of Army, or the Farmers getting sucked into Mandelsons WTO deal. I think the Treaty was not that bad a deal for Ireland, But it was represented as being a sell-out by the No movement, and the Yes campaign never really dealt with those sentiments, allowing them to fester into resentment of those in power, and a resultant precautios No vote.

Nobody can be "blamed" for voting no, Even if they did it for reasons that were based on fiction or inaccurate rhumor, But the government has questions to answer about how it conducted its campaign, why it didn't do more and what happens next.

Its a bloody mess, and its going to get worse before it gets better, But the voices of reason in the media will filter across to Brussels, and they will figure out exactly how the treaty flopped in Ireland. But there are going to be a lot of tough decisions between now and then and the politicians are the ones going to make them.....lets hope they have their A-game for this one!

Scofflaw · 16-06-2008 5:29pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

I agree with you that an 18 member commission seems unlikely and for this reason a club implementing the essence of the treaty without Ireland is unlikely also. The Lisbon treaty is constitutional in nature and refers to the operation of existing EU institutions rather than the setting up of a new one.

An 18-member Commission will almost certainly kick in next year in any case.

SkepticOne wrote: »

Of course there will be political consequences, but we need to stand together on these. We voted no on the Treaty. No needs to mean no if Ireland is to be a respected member of the EU. Equivocation will lead to our destruction.

But do we actually have some clarity on which bits people were saying No to? Each No voter one asks has a slightly different view.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Crash · 16-06-2008 5:51pm

Aye, 18 member commission will happen next year - I would agree with someone who stated that lowering it to a 2/3 year rotation period would be much much better.

Boggle · 16-06-2008 5:58pm

A quick question for all those who would lambast the no voters for not understanding the treaty; how many of the yes voters do you think actually voted on the basis of the treaty's contents? (My guess would be in the 1% region)
How many of those voted yes because they thought understood all possible ramifications, when really they didn't?

How many voted no because they had a bad feeling about the treaty, the way it was presented and the way it was being ratified throughout europe?

Given that this treaty basically gave itself primacy (albeit probably only in a limited number of areas) over our own constitution I would want to be 100% sure of what I'm voting for before before I vote yes.
Secondly, to those who say if you don't know vote no: Never give up your right to vote, not even to your so called "better's". If you have a bad feeling about something you are entitled to express it for fear that those who promote it have vested interests and those you accept it may be duped.

The cowardly and abusive reaction from the govt makes me all the more grateful that we voted no. How could you trust those lemmings to be firm in the face of european pressure?

As an aside, the reason the treaty was voted down is quite simple. It was designed in such a convoluted fashion that you could say almost anything about it and it is nigh on impossible to properly dispute it. Couple that with the underhanded noises coming from europe and it gives one a very bad feeling towards it...
Whinging about ganleys group does no favours at all. Its about the first time we had an effective (non-political) lobby group and our govt does not like answering to the public - pity we don't have them on more issues...

SkepticOne · 16-06-2008 6:56pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

But do we actually have some clarity on which bits people were saying No to? Each No voter one asks has a slightly different view.

I can understand that some on the Yes side are a bit baffled at present. No, there is not full clarity after the referendum as to why people voted the way they did. For the moment all that is necessary to understand is that the Lisbon treaty has been rejected by Ireland.

nesf · 16-06-2008 7:04pm

Boggle wrote: »

Its about the first time we had an effective (non-political) lobby group and our govt does not like answering to the public - pity we don't have them on more issues...

Eh, what exactly do you mean by "non-political"?

Scofflaw · 16-06-2008 7:16pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

I can understand that some on the Yes side are a bit baffled at present. No, there is not full clarity after the referendum as to why people voted the way they did. For the moment all that is necessary to understand is that the Lisbon treaty has been rejected by Ireland.

Hmm...but all that means is that we don't want Lisbon to apply to us...or perhaps not until we understand it better (given the 30% "don't know - vote No" vote)...or possibly that perhaps that it shouldn't apply to anyone.

Clearly, we haven't derailed the ratification process, which is probably a good thing, since it means no-one else will be in a position to get the treaty renegotiated. Presumably, however, we have prevented implementation.

So, I'm really not sure one can claim any simplicity in the light of the vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne · 16-06-2008 7:37pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Clearly, we haven't derailed the ratification process, which is probably a good thing, since it means no-one else will be in a position to get the treaty renegotiated. Presumably, however, we have prevented implementation.

So, I'm really not sure one can claim any simplicity in the light of the vote.

The latter part of your response which I have quoted above sums up the situation very concisely I think. We can't stop the ratification process but the final implementation is impossible.

My interpretation of this is: the treaty is effectively dead. My position is: let us accept this and move on. This is what I think Cowen should be communicating to the rest of the members.

I think it is perfectly acceptable for Cowen to say that at this point in time he does not know the various reasons for the no vote. That will take time. The important thing is that the result was No, not 60% No, 40% yes or whatever.

Then we can go back and analyse the reasons behind the overall No result.

16-06-2008 7:43pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

You see this is the equivocation. Did no really mean no? If we don't respect our own decisions, how can we expect other countries to?

So we should respect our 1986 divorce referendum? The one that said no ?

Like I said people are entitled to change their minds or mores the point make up their minds in this case-oh and be informed properly.
They can vote yes or no on that basis as often as they like as far as I'm concerned.

This no means no wouldn't get much done if no really means yes if you sell it to us.

SkepticOne wrote: »

The latter part of your response which I have quoted above sums up the situation very concisely I think. We can't stop the ratification process but the final implementation is impossible.

Now thats the silliest thing to be honest.
A simple bill passed excluding Ireland in each countries parliament if they really want it , solves that so it's not correct to state what you state.

SkepticOne · 16-06-2008 7:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This no means no wouldn't get much done if no really means yes if you sell it to us.Now thats the silliest thing to be honest.
A simple bill passed excluding Ireland in each countries parliament if they really want it , solves that so it's not correct to state what you state.

As I have said, the Lisbon treaty contains institutional changes.

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/lisbon_treaty_changes_gov.html

What they would have to do is set up parallel institutions with those changes that would have been agreed to under the Lisbon treaty. They can't force these changes on the existing EU institutions which would continue to operate under existing treaties.

Disreputable sentiments in Europe

Comments