For those of you who voted yes...

Mr.Nice Guy

ixtlan wrote: »

If there are changes that address the concerns of enough no voters then it should be acceptable to put this new revised treaty (of Paris perhaps) to a new vote. This is not undemocratic. I made a list of items previously, but for example the military clause can specifically exclude Ireland. I'm pretty sure that no other state cares about this.

So, I understand the annoyance of the considered (meaning they considered the treaty carefully) no voters at suggestions that they didn't understand. However I am annoyed at the tone many of them are taking now that a new vote under any circumstances is totally unacceptable and undemocratic.

Ix.

Thanks for being more considerate about the matter than others. You say "If there are changes that address the concerns of enough no voters then it should be acceptable to put this new revised treaty (of Paris perhaps) to a new vote", what 'changes' will be involved?

What I am annoyed about is people saying a new vote is acceptable and democratic when if the result had gone the other way, they would not countenance a second vote.

ixtlan

IRLConor wrote: »

If we do end up voting again on the treaty (or some variant thereof) are there any boardsies that are willing to help me put together a guide to the issue at hand? I'd be particularly interested in getting no campaigners to help make it as impartial as possible. I'm thinking of a combination of explanatory document and an FAQ-like section addressing the claims of all the political parties/lobby groups in an impartial manner.

I'm interested for whenever/if ever this happens. Surely it will be at least 6 months, and quite possibly a year (unless Lisbon collapses entirely, which it might). And read my other post before lashing out at the undemocratic nature of a second vote. If there are changes I believe it's reasonable to ask the public again.

It would be interesting to see whether the yes and no sides on boards could actually agree a common document. I'd like to think we could, but we would have to see.

Maybe something like, 10 reasons to vote yes or no, and then 10 responses to the yes/no sides from each side. Maybe we could agree on some scenarios to show the best/worst events. ie... Russia invades Estonia, does Ireland have to send troops?

Ix.

ixtlan

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Thanks for being more considerate about the matter than others. You say "If there are changes that address the concerns of enough no voters then it should be acceptable to put this new revised treaty (of Paris perhaps) to a new vote", what 'changes' will be involved?

What I am annoyed about is people saying a new vote is acceptable and democratic when if the result had gone the other way, they would not countenance a second vote.

Well my list from some other thread was...

1/ Remove military clause entirely, or specifically exclude Ireland.
2/ Remove Ireland from Battlegroups pending a referendum (not in the treaty but seems to be a concern.
3/ Remove CCTB (common corp tax rate) as a possible QMV, or leave as is, but have the treaty say that Ireland will have a referendum before joining.
4/ Specifically state that any ammendment to treaty cannot be accepted by Ireland without a referendum.
5/ Retain one commissioner for each country.

These probably can be done.

The following I don't know may be legally difficult.
6/ Possibly insert some clause that overrules the Laval case (where Latvian workers were paid Latvian rates while working in Sweden.

And this may be unacceptable to the other states.
Remove the council president and foreign affairs representative.

Most states would go along with 1-4 with no discussion. I think it's bad to do these but if the public does not trust the government to use a veto what can one do.

5 is more difficult but there are suggestions that some countries want it.

In all honesty 1-4 should be enough to get enough over to the yes side, though they should not be because we had vetos and guarantees in these areas anyhow.

In fact, I wonder if some or all of these changes could actually be put into our constitution rather than into Lisbon. The military clause says it's subject to states' constituions, so if we said we will never militarily come to anyone's aid, surely that's enough?

Actually I am embarassed that changes such as those which really come down to "we do not trust our government" would have to be made, but so be it.

Regarding going the other way, there is always a new treaty. We always see the treaties as a threat for what they will change rather than an opportunity to change existing policies. What horrors arose from Nice despite all the scaremongering then? Maybe the Laval case. That the only thing I can think of, and honestly if we were outside the EU would circumstances be any different?

Ix

ionix5891

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

What I am annoyed about is people saying a new vote is acceptable and democratic when if the result had gone the other way, they would not countenance a second vote.

so you are saying we are not allowed to ever have another referendum about the EU? ever??

how very democratic of you

it is unacceptable to have the exact same treaty comeback,
but if it comes back with parts changed to address the concerns of the Irish people how is that undemocratic?

btw your doing alot of ranting Mr. Nice Guy any suggestions on what should be addressed and how? the no people are strangely quiet on what to do now

Mr.Nice Guy

You have made some good and thoughtful suggestions there ionix so fair play to you however if there was to be no changes to the system of voting then I don't see how it could be supported.

"As from 1 November 2014, a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union.

"A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained."

- Article 16.4

To me that is totally flawed and unacceptable.

IRLConor

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

What I am annoyed about is people saying a new vote is acceptable and democratic when if the result had gone the other way, they would not countenance a second vote.

Here's my opinion on it:

Since the vote was No:

• We should fix some of the problems that the no side raised as legitimate concerns. (How we do this is anyone's guess.)
• We should clearly explain why the ridiculous claims of some on the no side were lies.
• We should then vote on this new, modified proposal.

If the vote had been a yes, I would have no problem with voting again and again and again on it if asked provided the government weren't wasting my time by asking exactly the same question. If they change it at least slightly each time you have to respect the fact that those changes, however small, might be the one crucial change which make a difference for some people. I wouldn't cry foul and call it undemocratic because it's not. Pushing it through without a vote is undemocratic but I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

Mr.Nice Guy

ionix5891 wrote: »

so you are saying we are not allowed to ever have another referendum about the EU? ever??

how very democratic of you

it is unacceptable to have the exact same treaty comeback,
but if it comes back with parts changed to address the concerns of the Irish people how is that undemocratic?

btw your doing alot of ranting Mr. Nice Guy any suggestions on what should be addressed and how? the no people are strangely quiet on what to do now

There I was thinking we were getting somewhere and being civil and you throw it back in my face and resort to typical patronising behaviour. Cheers man.

What I am saying is that the result has to be respected and that no repeat referendum ON THIS MATTER should go ahead. That is exactly what Eamon Gilmore has said. Maybe you think he's undemocratic, do you?

I said what to do on the other thread. Go to Brussels and tell Sarkozy et al. that the Treaty is dead in the water and that it's time to renegotiate a better deal. Make sure the deal negotiated safeguards our sovereignty and request that in future countries do what was happening in 2005 and put the proposals to the people via referendums.

Basically I'm arguing for democracy. Call me old fashioned but I kind of think it's something to hold on to and cherish.

VoidStarNull

Speaking as a YES voter,

Roxanne wrote: »

....would you vote no if the referendum was put to us a second time after hearing the reaction of European politicians in the aftermath of our decision?

I would vote YES again.

Reactions from pro-treaty pols in Europe have been mixed, and in many cases quite measured. Some have made very negative comments, but I don't think these can be represented as the "voice" of pro-Treaty Europe.

Do these quotes not clearly show that these people have no respect for democracy. The clear disregard for the "minority" , which is what Ireland and many other smaller countries represent in the EU is worrying to say the least.
Would you reconsider your yes vote after hearing this? I know I would.

I don't agree that they show no respect for democracy, I think scofflaw's posts near the beginning of the thread capture the situation accurately. Politicians in e.g. Italy are free to say whatever they want about Ireland's stance on any issue. The fact that our stance may have been determined by a referendum doesn't make any difference. If we voted to give them a kick in the teeth, I doubt they would accept that on the grounds that it's democratic.

ixtlan

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You have made some good and thoughtful suggestions there ionix so fair play to you however if there was to be no changes to the system of voting then I don't see how it could be supported.

"As from 1 November 2014, a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union.

"A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained."

- Article 16.4

To me that is totally flawed and unacceptable.

I think you may be mixing me up with ionix5891 :rolleyes:

Anyhow, I didn't include the voting weights as a change because this would be one of the most difficult things to re-negotiate.

As I have said before... we can debate whether the new system is good or bad, but I am certain that most people do not understand either the Nice system or the Lisbon system.

IRLConor has a good analysis. Perhaps he will provide the link. In the end the change from Nice as regards our influence is minimal, and in some cases favours us.

I cannot accept that it is "totally flawed and unacceptable", since it is not that different (in influence) from what we have been operating under since Nice. Also, if it was re-negotiated the larger countries would understandably want more power. If there were Frence/German votes why on Earth would they accept the Lisbon system... see next paragraph.

I hope you understand that while our voting weight has gone down from 2% to 0.8% on the population criteria, the number of states criteria is newly introduced and gives us the same power (3.75%) as every other country.

Ix

IRLConor

ixtlan wrote: »

1/ Remove military clause entirely, or specifically exclude Ireland.

We could probably do this by altering our constitutional amendment to not only opt us out of the common defence (as the proposed amendment did) but make it stronger. Perhaps encode the notion of our "triple lock" in the constitution to make sure that any action we take with the EU has a UN mandate.

ixtlan wrote: »

2/ Remove Ireland from Battlegroups pending a referendum (not in the treaty but seems to be a concern.

I don't know if we're obliged to put those troops in or not. I think it's by choice, I can't remember off the top of my head.

ixtlan wrote: »

3/ Remove CCTB (common corp tax rate) as a possible QMV, or leave as is, but have the treaty say that Ireland will have a referendum before joining.

It isn't a QMV area since corporation tax is a direct tax and strictly speaking the CCCTB doesn't necessarily harmonise tax rates. It harmonises what is considered taxable and creates a set of rules for determining how tax is paid by companies who do business in multiple EU countries. That's a pretty rough description of it, at some stage I'll get a proper explanation from my girlfriend on this. She knows way more about it than I do.

Maybe a clear statement and some education of the voting public is what's needed.

ixtlan wrote: »

4/ Specifically state that any ammendment to treaty cannot be accepted by Ireland without a referendum.

That's already the case. Any amendment that needs a referendum here now would need one after Lisbon. Any amendment that doesn't need a referendum here now (this can happen now) wouldn't need one after Lisbon.

We could encode the Crotty judgement into the constitution explicitly is that made people feel better about it though.

ixtlan wrote: »

5/ Retain one commissioner for each country.

I can't see that happening TBH.

ixtlan wrote: »

6/ Possibly insert some clause that overrules the Laval case (where Latvian workers were paid Latvian rates while working in Sweden.

I don't think that was quite the ruling in the Laval case. Admittedly I've only skimmed through the judgement but it doesn't appear to be as clear cut as that.

Mr.Nice Guy

ixtlan wrote: »

I think you may be mixing me up with ionix5891 :rolleyes:

Anyhow, I didn't include the voting weights as a change because this would be one of the most difficult things to re-negotiate.

As I have said before... we can debate whether the new system is good or bad, but I am certain that most people do not understand either the Nice system or the Lisbon system.

IRLConor has a good analysis. Perhaps he will provide the link. In the end the change from Nice as regards our influence is minimal, and in some cases favours us.

I cannot accept that it is "totally flawed and unacceptable", since it is not that different (in influence) from what we have been operating under since Nice. Also, if it was re-negotiated the larger countries would understandably want more power. If there were Frence/German votes why on Earth would they accept the Lisbon system... see next paragraph.

I hope you understand that while our voting weight has gone down from 2% to 0.8% on the population criteria, the number of states criteria is newly introduced and gives us the same power (3.75%) as every other country.

Ix

Apologies for mixing you up with the other chap. I agree that re-negotiating sovereignty would not be easy but it matters and as someone who opposes Nice as well, I cannot agree with your view on the situation.

IRLConor

ixtlan wrote: »

IRLConor has a good analysis. Perhaps he will provide the link. In the end the change from Nice as regards our influence is minimal, and in some cases favours us.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56205158&postcount=3
and
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56205158&postcount=4

ixtlan wrote: »

I hope you understand that while our voting weight has gone down from 2% to 0.8% on the population criteria, the number of states criteria is newly introduced and gives us the same power (3.75%) as every other country.

If you look at it carefullly, the population rule can only be used to block legislation not force it through. Out of 134.2 million potential voting permutations, 10 use the population rule and all of them end in a no vote.

So talking about the population rule in terms of Ireland's influence is largely moot. It doesn't come into play except when a large number of countries want to pass something but multiple big countries don't want it. For Ireland, the blocking minority of four countries is a much more powerful tool.

Talking about it in terms of "voting weight" doesn't really tell the whole story and in fact complicates the matter by implicitly comparing it to the old Nice system where there were actual weights as well as a population rule (62%, not much different from Lisbon).

ryanmatty

I tought we had already accepted the reduction of the Eu commissioners in the Nice treaty.

The question of a reduction in the size of the European Commission after enlargement was resolved to a degree — the Treaty providing that once the number of Member States reached 27, the number of Commissioners appointed in the subsequent Commission would be reduced by the Council to below 27.

IRLConor

ryanmatty wrote: »

I tought we had already accepted the reduction of the Eu commissioners in the Nice treaty.

We did, although in theory we could all negotiate to roll that back. Highly unlikely IMO, but stranger things have happened.

Scofflaw

I don't know if we're obliged to put those troops in or not. I think it's by choice, I can't remember off the top of my head.

It's entirely voluntary. There's a reasonably instructive Forum on Europe debate on the issue here.

They remain under the triple lock - although, in any case, we only contribute about 80 soldiers - bomb disposal and communication specialists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

j1smithy

In response to the OP, I voted yes, but tomorrow if I were asked to vote again I would vote no, and I would vote against it until significant changes are presented to us. I would have always considered myself to be pro EU. However If there is Lisbon 2, from listening to the noises that are coming from the continent, it would confirm what Ganley has being saying about the democratic deficit at the heart of it. If this is the real EU we're seeing now, perhaps its time to put the breaks on "Ever closer union"

Scofflaw

j1smithy wrote: »

In response to the OP, I voted yes, but tomorrow if I were asked to vote again I would vote no, and I would vote against it until significant changes are presented to us. I would have always considered myself to be pro EU. However If there is Lisbon 2, from listening to the noises that are coming from the continent, it would confirm what Ganley has being saying about the democratic deficit at the heart of it. If this is the real EU we're seeing now, perhaps its time to put the breaks on "Ever closer union"

Let it settle down a while. Quite a lot of people are genuinely in a state of shock and dismay, but it's only been a couple of days.

It is absolutely necessary at this point, though, that ratification continues - otherwise, our vote doesn't simply reject Lisbon, but precipitates a potentially unrecoverable crisis. I appreciate, of course, that that is what some people voted No in the hopes of, but I think they are in a minority - I am not, of course, certain of it, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

j1smithy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let it settle down a while. Quite a lot of people are genuinely in a state of shock and dismay, but it's only been a couple of days.

It is absolutely necessary at this point, though, that ratification continues - otherwise, our vote doesn't simply reject Lisbon, but precipitates a potentially unrecoverable crisis. I appreciate, of course, that that is what some people voted No in the hopes of, but I think they are in a minority - I am not, of course, certain of it, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But the only point of further ratification is to put pressure on Ireland. It is important that the continent don't start lambasting the Irish. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of David Millibands book and say its an Irish matter to resolve. More interference from the EU leaders on this won't help our government solve this problem. If their berating continues, i genuinely fear it will be a long long time before another european referendum passes here. No one likes being backed into a corner.

Scofflaw

j1smithy wrote: »

But the only point of further ratification is to put pressure on Ireland. It is important that the continent don't start lambasting the Irish. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of David Millibands book and say its an Irish matter to resolve. More interference from the EU leaders on this won't help our government solve this problem. If their berating continues, i genuinely fear it will be a long long time before another european referendum passes here. No one likes being backed into a corner.

That is an unfortunate side-effect, not the point.

The EU is a project, not a state. States keep going whether or not the majority of their citizens give a toss, because the only other option is becoming part of another state, or anarchy.

Projects, as anyone who has worked on one knows, only keep going as long as there is a sense that they are working, and that there is somewhere to go. A major crisis can kill a project - sure, the project team keep meeting for a while, but everyone can smell dead projects. If it is a voluntary project, then it simply dies the death, like a million open-source projects.

This is exactly such a potential crisis. The point of the continued ratifications is to keep the project alive - to get through the crisis with a show of solidarity and commitment, and to work out how to actually deal with it later.

A lot gets said about how the EU is some kind of super-state, which will act to further itself. If one views the EU that way, I can see that the continued ratification looks like a steamroller operation designed to make us come running back into the fold - and I'm sure there are those in positions of power who also see it that way.

However, that is not the only view. The EU doesn't actually operate that way - as has been interminably pointed out, the French and Dutch weren't "punished" for their No vote, which they would have been if the "fascist superstate" view were anywhere near reality. Nor do I expect us to be - but what I do see is that a display of solidarity and commitment is absolutely crucial to the EU project at this point. Without it, the EU project, which is totally voluntary, runs a very serious risk of collapse. I hope that those who voted No from a pro-EU position can see that, although I'm sure many won't - indeed, I'm sure there are plenty who will feel that the possibility of collapse is ridiculous, and mention of it further scaremongering. That's unfortunate, but unavoidable.

In brief, the point of continued ratification is not to "put pressure on Ireland". In a very real sense, it has nothing to do with Ireland at all.

unfortunately,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

j1smithy wrote: »

But the only point of further ratification is to put pressure on Ireland. It is important that the continent don't start lambasting the Irish. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of David Millibands book and say its an Irish matter to resolve. More interference from the EU leaders on this won't help our government solve this problem. If their berating continues, i genuinely fear it will be a long long time before another european referendum passes here. No one likes being backed into a corner.

While the intial reaction was one of shock (I admit I thought the country was was f**ked on Friday myself for a time) and a few EU leader made comments I think were a very ill judged. I hope the tone coming from Europe next week will be more concillatory and positive and I believe it will be.

I firmly believe that the ratification should continue so that we know where everybody stands. Once that is finished we can re evaluate where to go from there.

** EDIT I would very much share Scofflaws view above, but am not capable of putting it across as eloquently

j1smithy

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is an unfortunate side-effect, not the point.

The EU is a project, not a state. States keep going whether or not the majority of their citizens give a toss, because the only other option is becoming part of another state, or anarchy.

Projects, as anyone who has worked on one knows, only keep going as long as there is a sense that they are working, and that there is somewhere to go. A major crisis can kill a project - sure, the project team keep meeting for a while, but everyone can smell dead projects. If it is a voluntary project, then it simply dies the death, like a million open-source projects.

This is exactly such a potential crisis. The point of the continued ratifications is to keep the project alive - to get through the crisis with a show of solidarity and commitment, and to work out how to actually deal with it later.

A lot gets said about how the EU is some kind of super-state, which will act to further itself. If one views the EU that way, I can see that the continued ratification looks like a steamroller operation designed to make us come running back into the fold - and I'm sure there are those in positions of power who also see it that way.

However, that is not the only view. The EU doesn't actually operate that way - as has been interminably pointed out, the French and Dutch weren't "punished" for their No vote, which they would have been if the "fascist superstate" view were anywhere near reality. Nor do I expect us to be - but what I do see is that a display of solidarity and commitment is absolutely crucial to the EU project at this point. Without it, the EU project, which is totally voluntary, runs a very serious risk of collapse. I hope that those who voted No from a pro-EU position can see that, although I'm sure many won't - indeed, I'm sure there are plenty who will feel that the possibility of collapse is ridiculous, and mention of it further scaremongering. That's unfortunate, but unavoidable.

In brief, the point of continued ratification is not to "put pressure on Ireland". In a very real sense, it has nothing to do with Ireland at all.

unfortunately,
Scofflaw

Some people might say the Dutch and French electorates weren't punished but ignored... but that debate is for another thread.

I do agree with you that the EU project is entirely voluntary and no country is forced to join. I don't believe it could fall apart over this issue though. Of course it is possible, but highly highly unlikely. I guess you do have a point on it being used to keep the project alive [I would also guess at preventing other nations from reopening negotiations, one "rogue" country is enough to deal with] An unintended consequence of keeping the project alive, but it will be used to bully Ireland.

Scofflaw

j1smithy wrote: »

Some people might say the Dutch and French electorates weren't punished but ignored... but that debate is for another thread.

It would be interesting, since the Dutch certainly did get certain specifics renegotiated to their liking, as it also appears the French did.

j1smithy wrote: »

I do agree with you that the EU project is entirely voluntary and no country is forced to join. I don't believe it could fall apart over this issue though. Of course it is possible, but highly highly unlikely. I guess you do have a point on it being used to keep the project alive [I would also guess at preventing other nations from reopening negotiations, one "rogue" country is enough to deal with] An unintended consequence of keeping the project alive, but it will be used to bully Ireland.

That is unfortunately unpreventable. In particular, I expect the French to say some very stupid and hectoring things - and that despite the fact that they kept the EC paralysed through the early 80's under de Gaulle, and are the reason for the daft system of alternating venues for the Parliament.

I also completely agree with your point about trying to keep the lid on - preventing any other country from trying to reopen negotiations by having them ratify the existing deal makes a lot of sense. Oddly, that's a very good thing for Ireland - we are far less likely to lose out if Lisbon is only renegotiated for us!

I will worry if, after a couple of weeks, the Germans are still annoyed, or countries start to pull out of the ratification process.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ionix5891

Scofflaw wrote: »

It would be interesting, since the Dutch certainly did get certain specifics renegotiated to their liking, as it also appears the French did.

to renegotiate for Ireland would meant that the No crowd has to highlight what exactly needs renegotiation first


Its been 4 days now, and still no one has a list of reason why people voted No (that had anything to do with the treaty), and which of the things on this list have higher importance


Sein Fein and Libertas have disappeared of the face of the Earth (i wish), theres no suggestions at all coming from them on what to do now, if anything they just said its up to the government to decide and washed their hands clean of the dirt they dug up



our representatives will have to go next week to Europe, and they are in a very very weak position, the fact that we haven't identified the cause(s) yet is scary and will not help them or us, without knowing what,where,who and how the government doesn't know what to negotiate for


this is one mess we are in and im disgusted that the No side is staying very quiet now, but i suppose its easier to be destructive than constructive, just look at their campaign

Morgans

I voted Yes, but the hounding Declan Ganley is getting is miles over the top. I read posts with interest, and I have to say that although I would be dubious about funding etc, Libertas didnt appear to put out any of the outlandish scaremongering claims that groups like Coir decided to work with. That Ganley has confessed to funding FF in the past appears to be of no interest to anyone. Libertas obviously have an agenda. Whether that would be palatable to the common man if they were to declare it openly is another thing, but they appear to me to have worked within the rules.

Since the referendum on Thursday and the count on Friday, I have seen Ganley be interviewed on Vincent Browne Friday night, he was on Today FMs Sunday Supplement with Sam Smyth yesterday before leaving after 45 minutes to go "get Ursula'd" as Smyth called it on The Political Party for TV3.

Disappeared into thin air hardly. It is not Libertas, or Sinn Fein who represent the Irish people, just as its wasnt any other interest group that represented any other country. The people have voted, the government who are the soverign elected representatives of the people must act on their behalf. Whether they do so or not, or what they do now are separate questions.

ixtlan

ionix5891 wrote: »

Its been 4 days now, and still no one has a list of reason why people voted No (that had anything to do with the treaty), and which of the things on this list have higher importance

Well, I tend to agree that they were safeguarded by the treaty but everyone surely knows why many people voted no.

Commissioner. I approved of the reduction, but people appear unwilling to give up the idea that they are "our man/woman in Brussels". Sad but there you go.
Neutrality - people just did not trust the text. It's sad but we probably need a change or declaration actually banning us from sending troops on EU missions rather than giving us a veto.
Tax - again people did not trust the text. It's sad but we probably need a change or declaration actually banning us from implementing a common tax rate.

These were the big ones. There were many others, including the "democratic deficit" but it would be less clear how to proceed there.

Ix.

ixtlan

j1smithy wrote: »

But the only point of further ratification is to put pressure on Ireland. It is important that the continent don't start lambasting the Irish. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of David Millibands book and say its an Irish matter to resolve. More interference from the EU leaders on this won't help our government solve this problem. If their berating continues, i genuinely fear it will be a long long time before another european referendum passes here. No one likes being backed into a corner.

If you look here, you will see that several countries actually attempted ratification of the previous constitution after the failed France vote. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3954327.stm

Several ratified before France and then...

29 May 2005 France - failed
1 June 2005 Netherlands failed
2 June 2005 Latvia passed
30 June 2005 Cyprus passed
6 July 2005 Malta passed
10 July 2005 Luxembourg referendum passed
25 October 2005 Luxembourg parliament ratified
5 December 2006 Finland passed.

Also, I've been reviewing that video someone referred to on youtube with Bertie talking about the constitution in 06/07. In his nice Bertie way he's saying things similar in content, though different in tone to what the other European leaders are saying now...paraphrasing... "it is a problem... but 18 countries have ratified... we need to move forward... Ireland is ready to ratify when we resolve these problems... maybe we can make some small changes..."

So, this has happened before...

Edit: Another comment on the BBC web-site... about leaving Dublin...
A group of young men, pints in hand, tattoos on their necks, having a quick fag outside a Chinese restaurant wanted to shout "No, to Lisbon!" into our camera. Too late, the day was done.

One of them asked, "Is it really true they would have re-introduced the death penalty if we'd voted 'Yes'?"

What is sadder? That they would think this? Or that they would ask a BBC camera crew whether it was true?

Ix

IRLConor

Morgans wrote: »

Libertas didnt appear to put out any of the outlandish scaremongering claims that groups like Coir decided to work with.

Exhibit A

Outlandish? Well, it's really obviously untrue to anyone who knows what they're talking about.
Scaremongering? Debatable, I'll grant you that.

Not as bad as CÓIR, but they still deserve a hammering.

axer

IRLConor wrote: »

Exhibit A

Outlandish? Well, it's really obviously untrue to anyone who knows what they're talking about.
Scaremongering? Debatable, I'll grant you that.

Not as bad as CÓIR, but they still deserve a hammering.

I thought under nice we hadn't actually lost our commissioner for 5 years every 10 years. Was it not just an agreement in principal that there has to be less than 27 commissioners thus that poster is still technically correct? i.e we have not agreed to lose our commissioner but ratifying lisbon does commit to us specifically losing our commissioner for a period of time. From my understanding technically everyone losing a comissioner for 1 year rotating would fulfil the nice agreement and would mean that countries only lose a commissioner for 1 year every 27 years.

ixtlan

axer wrote: »

From my understanding technically everyone losing a comissioner for 1 year rotating would fulfil the nice agreement and would mean that countries only lose a commissioner for 1 year every 27 years.

Bad maths... A term is 5 years, so if we reduce by one next year, someone will have to go without for 5 years, although each country would only have to suffer this once every 135 years.

Ix

axer

ixtlan wrote: »

Bad maths... A term is 5 years, so if we reduce by one next year, someone will have to go without for 5 years, although each country would only have to suffer this once every 135 years.

Ix

Is a term set in stone as being 5 years or is that only for president of the commission?

Either way it technically justifies the poster as a possibility of specifically not losing a commissioner.