I don't think people realise the corner they have put Ireland in........

Mr.Nice Guy

Weathercheck wrote: »

If there was a popular vote across the EU on the treaty i would be near certain (99.9%) that it would be ratified.
Or do you not respect the opinions of all the European people, i find it likely that you just respect the views of the old block, that's not so democratic. Perhaps you would suggest we pull out of the EU?

Hold on, a popular vote across the EU on the treaty? How would that work when the EU is not a nation-state? And you are questioning my democratic values?

Let's put referendums to ALL member states and see where we are. Or do you feel that certain nation-states should be influenced by what goes on in other sovereign states?

dloob wrote:

Mr Nice Guy, you say No to another referendum, but would you support one if the treaty was amended to address some of the Irish concerns?
The renegotiation that some on the No side spoke about.
By support I don't mean voting yes to it, but just support the holding of another vote.
That would require re-ratification in the other 26 of course, so I'm not sure it could happen before Jan 1st deadline anyway.

Not on this Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty should be considered dead. Even those on the Yes side have said as much. Here is what Eamon Gilmore has stated:

The result means that the EU is now entering an uncertain period. The situation will clearly have to be reviewed by EU Leaders at their summit in Brussels next week. However, it is not clear what action, if any, the summit can take. There can certainly be no question of putting the same Treaty back to another referendum in Ireland.

Of course they are entitled to renegotiate another Treaty which would require the support of the Irish people but no more referendums on the Lisbon Treaty and no more referendums prior to January 1st.

Mr.Nice Guy

crash_000 wrote: »

Actually, I'd say it would pass. Of course, thats on the basis if you went and did it as a general majority vote.

Because to be honest, If you did it as a referenda per country and then each country getting a vote, it'd be equally as undemocratic as it is now. There's only black and white in democracy folks - either something is or isn't.

It would be completely unjustifiable and undemocratic to put it to a general majority vote. That would have been akin to putting the Good Friday Agreement to a general majority vote across the island, rather than in both jurisdictions as happened.

Referenda in every country would not be undemocratic. Far from it. If all countries need to support it, then put it to all countries. If one defeats it, back to the drawing board.

axer

eoin2nc wrote: »

What would be dictatorial was if less than 1 million NO voters held up the treaty for the 500 million other citizens in the EU.

Who's fault is that? Is it our fault that we are the only country to ask their people what they thought?

Instead of quoting 1 million blah blah how about quoting 53.4% of europeans asked in referenda voted no.

Some EU members' leaders should be ashamed of themselves. They have since justified the No vote.


p.s. Mr. Nice guy - the quote in your signature is miscredited to Voltaire. It should be credited to E. Beatrice Hall.

Crash

But essentially unanimaty isn't democratic. It places such restrictive constraints that it isn't. If you're going to argue the democracy card every single time, at least sit down and work out exactly what your views on what is democratic and what isn't are, and try to explain them. And if you do, please don't start your sentences with

My view of democracy doesn't leave a lot to be desired. I believe in respecting the will of the people.

I mean, do you believe in direct democracy for large sections of law? only EU law? where do you believe representative democracy stands? Because so far, from a large number of posters here, there is such a conflicting view of how representative democracy is ****, we can't trust our politicians, but at the same time barely 50% of us (from both sides now, i'm not just having a go at your views ) will turn out to vote, but we still can't trust these ****.

I don't get, at all, what half the people here seem to believe as democracy. Its bantered around as a buzz word, but no ones sat down and even tried to properly state it

Mr.Nice Guy

crash_000 wrote: »

But essentially unanimaty isn't democratic. It places such restrictive constraints that it isn't. If you're going to argue the democracy card every single time, at least sit down and work out exactly what your views on what is democratic and what isn't are, and try to explain them. And if you do, please don't start your sentences with...

Democracy means rule of the people. I voted for Labour last year in the election and hoped to see a change of government. It didn't happen but that's democracy. I accept the will of the people even though I didn't like it (and still don't).

crash_000 wrote:

I mean, do you believe in direct democracy for large sections of law? only EU law? where do you believe representative democracy stands? Because so far, from a large number of posters here, there is such a conflicting view of how representative democracy is ****, we can't trust our politicians, but at the same time barely 50% of us (from both sides now, i'm not just having a go at your views ) will turn out to vote, but we still can't trust these ****.

I believe in listening. That's the way it has to be. I wish all of the EU states would do so.

crash_000 wrote:

I don't get, at all, what half the people here seem to believe as democracy. Its bantered around as a buzz word, but no ones sat down and even tried to properly state it

Well to me it involves being answerable to the people and I hope Brian Cowen respects the mandate he has been given, even though he did not ask for it.

dloob

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Not on this Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty should be considered dead. Even those on the Yes side have said as much. Here is what Eamon Gilmore has stated:



Of course they are entitled to renegotiate another Treaty which would require the support of the Irish people but no more referendums on the Lisbon Treaty and no more referendums prior to January 1st.

I guess if they did change it, it would no longer be the Lisbon treaty.
You are right though that another vote on Lisbon as it is cannot be justified.
No excuses about the public didn't understand it. The Yes side (which I supported) knew that was a problem and should have addressed it.

ionix5891

i would like to point out certain inconsistencies in your logic Mr. Spock

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Democracy means rule of the people.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

... it involves being answerable to the people

but?!

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It would be completely unjustifiable and undemocratic to put it to a general majority vote. .

:rolleyes: enough said

limklad

dloob wrote: »

No excuses about the public didn't understand it. The Yes side (which I supported) knew that was a problem and should have addressed it.

You seem to be in the minority on the "Yes Camp" to realise this fact. Well done.

Good changes takes time if it worth doing then it will eventually come into force with the people will and blessing. Lisbon Treaty is the Governments pet project, Not the Peoples (The true boss of the Governments, a fact they fail to realise). Too much has been lost over the centuries on different types of bad governance.

Impatience Politicians cause more harm than good. People with good intention in a hurry cause more harm than good. Our government had plenty of time to explain the treaty and they blew it. The Irish people either did not trust them or believe their message. Trusting Europe Politicians from others countries and who we cannot elect takes time and their comments in the media only causes us to question their true motives.

sink

limklad wrote: »

You seem to be in the minority on the "Yes Camp" to realise this fact. Well done.

I voted yes but I don't belong to any camp, I am independent and make my own decisions. I agree that groups campaigning for a yes vote failed to inform the public why it was a good idea.

I however would say many yes voters like me refuse to get dragged into some sort of partisan head bashing contest. If there is a serious point to be debated I will get involved, but I am not going to get involved in arguments pointless name calling and broad sweeping generalisations.

Edit: This comment is not directly target at you.

limklad

sink wrote: »

I voted yes but I don't belong to any camp, I am independent and make my own decisions.

Independent people and who make their own decisions, I like, because they questioned things, if things are good or bad and democracy protect that.

sink wrote: »

I agree that groups campaigning for a yes vote failed to inform the public why it was a good idea.

Yes, they did and extremely bad explaination and it was one reason why I voted No, if Lisbon was good for us which they kept saying and then they kept explaining past benefits which was the result of Past treaties and was a very good reason to keep the status quo and another reason in why I voted no.

sink wrote: »

I however would say many yes voters like me refuse to get dragged into some sort of partisan head bashing contest. If there is a serious point to be debated I will get involved, but I am not going to get involved in arguments pointless name calling and broad sweeping generalisations.

Independent and emotional maturity, that is good to know, my kind of person.

sink wrote: »

Edit: This comment is not directly target at you.

Do not worry, I do not easily get offended, I just like to debate and discuss facts and events. This post is not all directly at you.

hmmm

limklad wrote: »

and was a very good reason to keep the status quo and another reason in why I voted no.

One thing that should have been explained in the campaign is that the status quo was not on offer. Sure the "no" camp would have you think it was, but it's not. We can either go with our other 26 EU members or we can leave. The other possibility is that we say "no" to everything and they are forced to work around us.

DarkJager

Just read this and personally I think this brainless dick should resign:

RTE.ie Article wrote:

The Dáil concluded its debate on the result of the Lisbon Treaty Referendum earlier this evening.

During the debate, Junior Minister Martin Mansergh suggested that the holding of a referendum on each EU Treaty needed to be looked at.

He said the system of holding referendums 'needs to be looked at carefully if we are not continually to be hampered in the future vis-a-vis all other member states'.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0618/eulisbon.html

Continually hampered??? The NO vote was the people of Irelands decision on the Lisbon treaty, so in essence, this guy is saying the public shouldn't be allowed to vote on such things?

PopeBuckfastXVI

DarkJager wrote: »

Just read this and personally I think this brainless dick should resign:



http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0618/eulisbon.html

Continually hampered??? The NO vote was the people of Irelands decision on the Lisbon treaty, so in essence, this guy is saying the public shouldn't be allowed to vote on such things?

Offside!

That 'brainless dick' basically wrote the good friday agreement and has done more for this country in his lifetime than you ever could in five of yours.

limklad

hmmm wrote: »

One thing that should have been explained in the campaign is that the status quo was not on offer. Sure the "no" camp would have you think it was, but it's not. We can either go with our other 26 EU members or we can leave. The other possibility is that we say "no" to everything and they are forced to work around us.

If you read Page three of the Referendum Commission that they posted to every electorate, you will see what they stated about what happens if we vote YES and Vote NO.

www.lisbontreaty2008.ie wrote:

http://www.lisbontreaty2008.ie/HandBookEng.pdf

What happens if you vote Yes?
If a majority of the voters vote “yes” then the
Constitution of Ireland will be changed and Ireland
will ratify the Treaty. If all the other EU Member
States also ratify the Treaty, then it will come
into effect. The Member States have stated their
intention to bring the Treaty into effect in January
2009 if possible.
What happens if you vote No?
If a majority of the voters vote “no” then the
Constitution will not be changed and Ireland may
not ratify the Treaty. The Treaty will come into
effect only if it is ratified by all Member States.
The EU would continue to operate under its
present rules.

Vote No Means Status Quo unless you still want to disagree with the Referendum Commission.

Why is there such a rush to get Lisbon treaty through? Croatia & Macedonia which is the next state to join is four years away according to commenter’s reports.
After that is the rest of the Balkan states, which is way off in the future for now and Turkey which is complying with the EU is been kept at bay by France who is the Major objector, Not Greece & Cyprus. Both Greece & Cyprus know the the Cyprus issue will be resolve before Turkey will join the EU. I have no problem with Turkey Joining the EU and I will welcome their entry as I did with all the previous countries that joined.

Sarkozy wrote:

French President Nicholas Sarkozy (then a candidate) has stated in January 2007 that "enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not accept...I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union.

A small but productive fraction of Turkish territory lies in the common geographical definition of Europe, but this is where the country's largest city and its economic and cultural capital, Istanbul, is located.

I think it’s a hypocritical comment from Sarkozy since Cyprus is part of the Anatolia's continental shelf, not European Continental shelf.

Turkey have been a Major Player and Infulence in Europe throughout our recent History (going back few centuries).

Read more at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union

So I firmly believe their is many red-herring and scaremongering by the Yes Campaign and by EU leaders.

FrankGrimes

limklad wrote: »

Turkey have been a Major Player and Infulence in Europe throughout our recent History (going back few centuries).

Hey limklad - that's some well made points there. The perceived rush with Lisbon is many of those involved have spent 7 years working on it and so are not likely to be too positive about delays to it.

Just on the Turkish comment, I don't want to take this thread off-topic so will just leave it at this - yes, Turkey had some interactions with Europe throughout history, but go back a few centuries and you'll see one of the fundamental reasons that Europe became the centre of world power at that time was due to its naval strength. And the main reason it developed that naval strength was to obtain an alternative means of accessing the spice trade in the far east as they couldn't get their easily by land as that would have meant going through the landblock controlled by the Ottoman empire, which wasn't something too many Europeans were willing to try.

limklad

FrankGrimes wrote: »

Hey limklad - that's some well made points there. The perceived rush with Lisbon is many of those involved have spent 7 years working on it and so are not likely to be too positive about delays to it.

Just on the Turkish comment, I don't want to take this thread off-topic so will just leave it at this - yes, Turkey had some interactions with Europe throughout history, but go back a few centuries and you'll see one of the fundamental reasons that Europe became the centre of world power at that time was due to its naval strength. And the main reason it developed that naval strength was to obtain an alternative means of accessing the spice trade in the far east as they couldn't get their easily by land as that would have meant going through the landblock controlled by the Ottoman empire, which wasn't something too many Europeans were willing to try.

There been many treaties or should I say many negotiations that been going on longer on and off that took ages before coming to an agreement. Treaties are result from negotiations.
Look at Northern Ireland, there was only two sides and took several decades with behind the scenes negotiations originally between the IRA and the British government!!. The EU took along time to form. There was a lot of talk between governments for years before EC was created for the creation of the EU. They needed to drop "Ecomonic" from the Title and have it "European Community" before proceeding.

Turkey would be a valuable member to the EU much more so than any other country that joined us n recent years, and it would enhance our standing in the Muslim world that we do not discriminate, currently we (The EU) are consider anti-Muslim because of our dealing with Turkey and seen as Pro-Christians only which is untrue.


Back to the Creation of the Lisbon Treaty. As We all know Lisbon Treaty was created after the Failure of the EU Constitution which was rejected by France and Holland. It was written to replace all existing Treaties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Constitution

The New treaty was created to bypass the people to Prevent Rejection which I believe is very undemocratic despite the EU countries governments stating, that the treaty is more democratic. It a very undemocratic way to get more “allegedly” democratic which is still been debated. Main order came from Sarkozy.

But Our Constitution under article 6 and the Crotty Judgement 1987 of the Supreme Court, allowed us to vote on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crotty_v._An_Taoiseach


I think the EU commissioner debate is Daft, as we already lost it in the future for periods in time under the NICE treaty. Their role is as quoted below.
“Member states nominate commissioners and while they pledge to serve the interests of the EU”
An EU leader can make a telephone call to the President under the Lisbon Treaty have more an effect than having an commissioner anyway, as the commissioner is the President “employee” who is to serve the EU commission and EU Citizens, not their country.
I also Firmly believe that the Military and Tax issues were secure before Voting NO. I had other reasons as stated in other posts withing the thread of the "European Union" section on boards.ie as well as some mentioned here.

Europe Politicians Quotes wrote:

"France was just ahead of all the other countries in voting No. It would happen in all Member States if they have a referendum. There is a cleavage between people and governments ... There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."
- French President Nicolas Sarkozy, at meeting of senior MEPs, EUobserver, 14 November 2007

"The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... The proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through the old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary ... But lift the lid and look in the toolbox: all the same innovative and effective tools are there, just as they were carefully crafted by the European Convention."
- V.Giscard D'Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, The Independent, London, 30 October 2007


"Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires. We have the dimension of Empire but there is a great difference. Empires were usually made with force with a centre imposing diktat, a will on the others. Now what we have is the first non-imperial empire."
- Commission President J-M Barroso, The Brussels Journal, 11 July 2007

"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly ... All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."
- V.Giscard D'Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007

"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact."
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speech in the European Parliament, 27 June 2007

"90 per cent of it is still there...These changes haven't made any dramatic change to the substance of what was agreed back in 2004."
- Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007

"The aim of the Constitutional Treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable ... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success."
- Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister, Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007

"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."
- Giuliano Amato, speech at London School of Economics, 21 February 2007

"If it's a Yes, we will say 'On we go', and if it's a No we will say 'We continue.'"
- Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister and holder of the EU Presidency, Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2005

How can anyone claim that the integrity of the “Lisbon Treaty” is not tarnish by their comments, it is anything else but democratic? These are the People who are the ones who put it together.


Merkel and Sarkozy is both blocking enlargement without Lisbon.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1412461.php/Merkel_backs_Sarkozy_No_enlargement_without_Lisbon__Extra_

Also the Solidarity Clause is very vague to me lots of may and could been mentioned, I did not see it before Voting NO, It is very vague and I hope that "If Lisbon Treaty is passed" that it will not undermine the Military opt out that we currently exists, that depends how the clause can be interpret in Law. It is a concern and I would like the government Lawyers (NOT politicians) & AG to confirm that this is not an issue.

Scofflaw

Also the Solidarity Clause is very vague to me lots of may and could been mentioned, I did not see it before Voting NO, It is very vague and I hope that "If Lisbon Treaty is passed" that it will not undermine the Military opt out that we currently exists, that depends how the clause can be interpret in Law. It is a concern and I would like the government Lawyers (NOT politicians) & AG to confirm that this is not an issue.

Hmm. First, it's actually unrelated to the "common defence" provisions, which exist, and which we have both currently opted out of and introduced a constitutional bar on joining in future, so that a referendum would be required to opt back in.

Second, it's not a military clause itself - it's "aid and assistance" by itself, with a proviso that interpretation of it cannot contradict the security/defence/foreign policies of member state governments - which in our case is military neutrality, so it cannot be interpreted as military aid in our case.

Third, within the proviso mentioned, it is possible for non-neutral states to choose to interpret in a way that allows them to render military aid (but not to require it of others).

That's why it's "vague" - it's up to the interpretation of the individual member state (and no-one else, since the ECJ has no right to rule on military/defence/foreign matters).

Curiously enough, that means we've essentially entered an unequal commitment - if another member state suffers armed aggression on their territory, we are neither obliged nor likely to give them military assistance under the clause (although other member states probably will) - but if we suffer armed aggression on our territory, other member states probably will offer us military aid under the same clause.


cordially,
Scofflaw

axer

Scofflaw wrote: »

but if we suffer armed aggression on our territory, other member states probably will offer us military aid under the same clause.

NATO and the UN already will so why do we need the EU to?

Scofflaw

axer wrote: »

NATO and the UN already will so why do we need the EU to?

Neither NATO nor the UN are obliged to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

axer

Scofflaw wrote: »

Neither NATO nor the UN are obliged to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO wrote:

the organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party.

Are you saying that this piece of text about NATO is incorrect?

is_that_so

axer wrote: »

Are you saying that this piece of text about NATO is incorrect?

Not if you are a NATO member and as for the UN it has no army and relies on its members to come together so not sure how it can do so. Take your pick out of Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur or even that paragon of democracy Zimbabwe to see how well the UN can respond to things. Incidentally here's a booklet on EU foreign policy which outlines how it works.

axer

is_that_so wrote: »

Not if you are a NATO member

What do you mean by this?

Daftendirekt

axer wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

I think (s/he?) means if you're NOT in NATO, which Ireland isn't.

Scofflaw

axer wrote: »

Are you saying that this piece of text about NATO is incorrect?

As people have pointed out, the text is fine, but it applies to NATO members, which Ireland isn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Neither NATO nor the UN are obliged to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agreed, but we do have Britain next to us, who will not like anyone on their backdoor who could strike then next.


Just to mentioned our previous experience Historically.
During World War 2, there were provisions to Invade Ireland by Britain and USA if The Nazi managed to Land here in large Numbers. Nazi's did land and even a "U boat" crew who scuttled it in the Shannon (Found out recently near Foynes), but we arrested them and held them in the Curragh POW along with British forces (Royal air force and Nazi fighter pilots) who landed here, usually crashed. So we do have an “unwanted” Big brother who does not want trouble near their territory. In reality as a population during World war two we were never truly neutral, as approx. 200,000 worked on the war effort in Britain and lots more entered the British Army and fought and many Irish abroad for USA, Australia and less extend New Zealand. Politically (hypnotically Neutral), we supplied a lot of military intelligence to Britain. Allowed RAF fly over Donegal, and ignored (usually by anti-nazi people) many RAF and other Allies pilots and let them go back over the border into the North (not all RAF pilots). By staying Neutral we managed to avoid much mass Bombing that Britain had. therfore protecting our country while fighting the Nazis. Yes, I know that Germany bomb Ireland one or two times for helping the North.


Been Neutral has many advantages over the years, it gives us more freedom to move around in the world as nobody saw us a threat nor have any suspicions of us, compare to brits and US. After all we invade and occupy other countries in other ways by stealth (immigration is great isn’t it). We have no ambitions for hostile takeover of other nations, therefore we are not a legitimate military target. We general help in time of crisis and not take sides without general UN approval with all of our Peace keeping missions over the years.



If some country would want to Invade Ireland, they are more highly likely using Ireland as a back door to Britain & Europe, So Britain & Europe will be watching very closely, and Britain will strike first (probably Air & Navel Strikes) and invade Ireland against the aggressors. They will want to fight here than in their own country. Then we will no longer be neutral and we will not have an issue with it. Up to then, we shall remain Neutral, and let those who want to fight, go and join other armies (who would love much needed manpower) while our country is safer.
I believe that If Ireland is attacked, then the Invader will in the end up regretting it, for we have many ways in responding besides the military option ( I keep those options secret - I cannot let our future enemies know of our plans). We are a very resourceful nation when we pressed.


We may be a small nation physically, but population wise we are just like the sleeping Giant that was the USA at the start of World War 2.


I would not worry about physically aggressors, just passive aggressors who pretend to be our allies to get us into their wars. That is why I will question anything that will affect our Neutrality status.

hmmm

limklad wrote: »

I believe that If Ireland is attacked, then the Invader will in the end up regretting it, for we have many ways in responding besides the military option ( I keep those options secret - I cannot let our future enemies know of our plans). We are a very resourceful nation when we pressed.

Yeah, last time we were invaded it only took us 800 years to kick them out. Go us!

We may be a small nation physically, but population wise we are just like the sleeping Giant that was the USA at the start of World War 2.

Eh what?

thehighground

hmmm wrote: »

Yeah, last time we were invaded it only took us 800 years to kick them out. Go us!

Eh what?

Did you not notice we managed to stay out of the last European war? Maybe we're not that stupid after all!

limklad

hmmm wrote: »

Eh what?

You have clearly forgotton where all of our peopes have gone over the centuries and still considered themselves Irish.

thehighground

limklad wrote: »

You have clearly forgotton where all of our peopes have gone over the centuries and still considered themselves Irish.

80m around the world who consider themselves Irish, isn't it?

limklad

thehighground wrote: »

80m around the world who consider themselves Irish, isn't it?

It 's hard to get an acurate figure. I do not thing anyone have done a worldwide census on the Irish..