Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
EU plays hardball. complaints lodged
Options
Comments
-
oscarBravo wrote: »It reminds me of the build-up to the referendum when the No camps kept telling us that there would be no negative consequences of a rejection. Now that it looks possible that there could be negative consequences, we're being told that there shouldn't be negative consequences.
Damn, the Govt. told us the truth!
I think some No voters feel duped that the No side called this scaremongering by the Govt.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Under what mechanism would the EU throw us out?
How would that look internationally?
How would smaller countries within the EU take to that? .
FYI
Already approved(lots of smaller countries here):
Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, UK(pending judgement)
TBH you really should get a handle on how the EU works. It detracts very strongly from your ability to debate credibly on these issues beyond the use of tired slogans and sweeping generalisations.
From many of your posts it is quite obvious that you have only discovered the EU and what appears to be an "evil sinister part" at that, in the aftermath of Lisbon. From what I can see it seems equally clear that you have little interest in the EU beyond demonising it.
In answer to the question it can happen if needs be. A way will be found.
Edit: Be nice if people stopped misreading and misquoting me.:rolleyes:0 -
That's the theory alright but I don't accept that the EU has not already become more than the sum of its parts, and not in a good way.The EU has no separate existence from the member states. It is the member states that are likely to play hardball with us - the EU itself cannot do so.0 -
Bullied is not the same as being a victim of others moving on because of our decision.Isolated ?
From what exactly ? You are trying to say we are been bullied because we chose not to ratify a treaty we do not believe to comply with previous treaties ???
There is a difference between me not inviting you to play Tennis with me and me going over to you and bullying you.
I won't play Tennis with you because you have put restrictions on the type of game I want to play so I'm going to play with the rest and not you.
All this talk of Bullying is a crap misnomer.
There are consequences to every decision ever made.The rest of Europe do not depend on us.
Ergo they can if they see fit ignore us and move on without us to whatever new levels of co operation they want.
It just means we will have less and less say in it.
Thats not bullying.
Thats a fact of life.
It's 100% not a good position to find ourselves in though albeit of our own making.
You make your bed etc.0 -
is_that_so wrote: »FYI
From many of your posts it is quite obvious that you have only discovered the EU and the evil sinister part at that, in the aftermath of Lisbon. From what I can see it seems equally clear that you have little interest in the EU beyond demonising it.
In answer to the question it can happen if needs be. A way will be found.
You're the one mentioning evil sinister parts that will lead Ireland being thrown out. I contend they cannot do it. It's not me wearing the tinfoil hat here, it's you.
Once again, how do you see us being thrown out?0 -
Advertisement
-
is_that_so wrote: »FYI
Already approved(lots of smaller countries here):
Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, UK(pending judgement)
By the way those countries are on the way to ratifying Lisbon, not voting on throwing Ireland out.0 -
You're the one mentioning evil sinister parts that will lead Ireland being thrown out. I contend they cannot do it. It's not me wearing the tinfoil hat here, it's you.
Once again, how do you see us being thrown out?
I actually didn't say that at all. The "sinister evil parts" are in reference to what appears to be your own position. If we cannot provide a way forward for Ireland, then the question of our membership may come up. The EU view the treaty as necessary , explicitly for its reforms and is not likely to revisit the treaty. As commented elsewhere the EU is a project and we are members. If we cannot see a way to be members that includes where the majority of the members choose to go, then we could find ourselves on the outside.
At present there is no legal way out but one will be found if it felt that it is the best option for us. One way to do so would probably be a bilateral treaty, endorsed by surprise, surprise a referendum.
With Denmark a legal method to deal with their rejection of Maastricht was devised which was not needed in the end.By the way those countries are on the way to ratifying Lisbon, not voting on throwing Ireland out.
It will not be case of us being kicked out , more a case of "tell us if you want to be in or out because we are moving on". Denmark are a good example once again with their opt outs. There is some debate in Denmark about how many of these they still want to keep.0 -
Better stock up on tinned food and spare tin-foil for when our world collapses so.
And no, it is you who sees an inner cabal of Euro types who will destroy Ireland if we don't do what we're told.0 -
The cat among the pidgeons here .... no less than The Economist agrees with the Irish 'No' voters that 'no' should mean 'no' :eek:The future of the European Union
Just bury it
Jun 19th 2008
From The Economist print edition
It is time to accept that the Lisbon treaty is dead. The European Union can get along well enough without it
VOTERS have once again shot an arrow into the heart of a European Union treaty. This time it was the Irish, who voted no to the Lisbon treaty on June 12th by 53-47%, on a high turnout. They follow the French and Dutch, who rejected Lisbon's predecessor, the EU constitution, in 2005. In 2001 the Irish also turned down the Nice treaty, but the Danes started this game when they voted against the Maastricht treaty in 1992.
Europe's political leaders react to these unwelcome expressions of popular will in three depressingly familiar stages. First they declare portentously that the European club is in deep “crisis” and unable to function. Next, even though treaties have to be ratified by all members to take effect, they put the onus of finding a solution on the country that has said no. Last, they start to hint that the voters in question should think again, and threaten that a second rejection may force the recalcitrant country to leave the EU. The sole exception to this three-stage process was the Franco-Dutch no in 2005. Then, after two years of debate the politicians hit on the cynical wheeze of writing the constitution's main elements into the incomprehensible Lisbon treaty, with the deliberate aim of avoiding the need to consult Europe's voters directly again.
Now the Irish, the only people in the EU to be offered a referendum on Lisbon, have shot down even this wheeze. And as EU leaders gathered for a Brussels summit, after The Economist went to press, most had duly embarked on their usual three-stage reaction, all the while promising to “respect” the outcome of the Irish referendum—by which they mean to look for a way round it (see article). Some have had the gall to argue, with a straight face, that Lisbon must be brought into effect despite the Irish no because it will make the EU more democratic. This is Brussels's equivalent of a doctor saying that the operation was a success, but the patient died. In truth, it is the Lisbon treaty that should be allowed to die.
Democracy and efficiency don't always go together
Every part of EU leaders' three-stage response is wrong-headed. The Irish rejection of the treaty is a setback, certainly. But in the days after the vote, the Brussels machinery has acted normally, approving mergers, looking into state-aid cases, holding meetings and passing directives. The claim that an expanded EU of 27 countries cannot function without Lisbon is simply not true. Indeed, several academic studies have found that the enlarged EU has worked more efficiently than before. Besides, it is not always desirable to speed up decision-making: democracy usually operates by slowing it down. And many of the institutional reforms in the Lisbon treaty would not have taken effect until 2014 or 2017 in any case.
Nor is it right to treat the outcome as a problem for Ireland alone, still less to start talking of making the Irish vote again. As it happens, a case can be made that EU treaties are too complex to be readily susceptible to a simple yes/no vote. But 11 EU governments grandly promised such referendums on the constitution, and ten of them have been dishonest in pretending that Lisbon is a wholly different document. The Irish constitution requires a vote on any treaty that transfers any power at all to the European level. Even if one believes that referendums are not always desirable, it is both stupefyingly arrogant and anti-democratic to refuse to take no for an answer. Just what kind of democracy is being practised by the EU when the only outcome of a vote that is ever acceptable to Brussels is a yes (see article)?
A mess of pottage
It is not as if the Lisbon treaty is such a wonderful text. Besides being incomprehensible, it was—as so many EU treaties are—a messy compromise. And, like the constitution, it failed to meet the objectives laid down by an EU summit in Laeken almost seven years ago. The broad aims then were to clarify the EU's distribution of powers, with an eye to handing more of them back to national parliaments; and to simplify the rules so as to make the EU more transparent and bring it closer to its citizens. Nobody could pretend that Lisbon fulfils these goals.
This is not to say that everything in the treaty is bad. It would have improved the institutional machinery in Brussels, sorted out a muddle in foreign-policy making and brought in a fairer system of voting by EU members. But these are not the sorts of changes to set voters alight. And in truth, few EU governments or institutions are genuine enthusiasts for the treaty as such (Germany, which would gain voting weight, and the European Parliament, which would win extra powers, are two exceptions). Most simply wanted to get it out of the way and move on to issues more interesting than the institutional navel-gazing that has preoccupied the EU for too long.
After the Irish no, that is precisely what they should now do. The treaty should be buried so that the EU can focus on more urgent matters, such as energy, climate change, immigration, dealing with Russia and the EU's own expansion. It is disingenuous to claim, as some do, that without Lisbon no further enlargement is possible. Each applicant needs an accession treaty that can include the institutional changes, such as new voting weights or extra parliamentary seats.
Needless to say, many of Europe's leaders will instead look for ingenious ways to ignore or reverse the Irish decision. But to come up with a few declarations or protocols and ask the Irish to vote again would not just be contemptuous of democracy: the turnout and margin of defeat also suggest that it might fail. Nor can Ireland, legally or morally, be excluded from the EU. Attempts by diehards to forge a core group of countries that builds a United States of Europe would also founder because, outside Belgium and Luxembourg, there is no longer a serious appetite for a federal Europe.
Ireland is a small country, to be sure. But the EU is an inter-governmental organisation that needs a consensus to proceed. It is bogus to claim that 1m voters are thwarting the will of 495m Europeans by blocking this treaty. Referendums would have been lost in many other countries had their people been given a say. Voters have thrice said no to this mess of pottage. It is time their verdict was respected.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=115807320 -
is_that_so wrote: »:rolleyes: I have to say I am absolutely speechless and I'll leave it at that.
Might as well, you're embarressing yourself.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Sensationalism much.Better stock up on tinned food and spare tin-foil for when our world collapses so.
And no, it is you who sees an inner cabal of Euro types who will destroy Ireland if we don't do what we're told.
Fact little.
Logic none.
Lets be perfectly clear here whats at issue.
Does Ireland want to be part of whatever the majority of EU nations devise as a method to move on with or without us or does it not.
This will either be Lisbon with us..OR it will be the contents of Lisbon tweaked to proceed without us.
Thats without a doubt the soundings so far appearing from other EU countries.
If it is the latter we choose it will more than likely mean being on the outside of a lot of the talking and decision making in one way or another in some sort of quasi membership eventually.
That would be a wholy undesirable outcome.
Almost ironically it would mean we would be saying [to paraphrase the Yes side slogan] "lets not be at the heart of it"
That dilution of our influence would be the wholy undesirable outcome.
See it's not irrelevant to bring the point round to how good Europe has been for us.
It's been good for what we could negotiate out of it to date.
A dilution of that influence is bad.
Theres no getting round the latter choice amounting to exactly that.
Less moving and shaking in the decision rooms means less hearing of our points of view equals less input or tweaking of decisions in our favour.0 -
I'm the one asking for facts here.
How will we be thrown out of Europe?
Why would Cowan make Lisbon a condition of EU membership?0 -
That's not exactly looking for facts. You're demanding that someone show precedent and/or a legal mechanism for something to happen, and taking the lack of either to mean that there's absolutely no way in hell there's the faintest possibility of there being any negative consequences whatsoever to our rejection of Lisbon.I'm the one asking for facts here.
How will we be thrown out of Europe?
If that's what you want to believe, fine. Let us know when you're prepared to accept that the world doesn't always work the way you'd like it to.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
thehighground wrote: »The cat among the pidgeons here .... no less than The Economist agrees with the Irish 'No' voters that 'no' should mean 'no' :eek:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=11580732
No need to get so excited. Its is a piece under the opinion section hardly an offical position by any means. There were pro and anti Lisbon pieces in all the major newspapers today.0 -
Stating that there is only one path to reform is grossly irresponsible too. They are always many paths to take. It takes time to find them.
Yes, Brian is scaremongering, because most of the people knows that their Jobs is very depended on been within the EU for trade reasons. You right there is no legal mechanism for removing us, therefore Brian Cowen is scaremongering.
As oscarBravo says, no mechanism and no precedent means nothing really.Merkel ruled out two speed europe.
She also ruled out not adopting Lisbon.Neither do the EU. They can play hardball, but that will affect other small nations, if Ireland is kicked out, for not ticking their Boxes on a Referendum. Which is not protecting democracy from the EU stand point and do not say that the Citizens are for Lisbon Treaty, as there is no proof in either Polls or Referendum performed in other nations. They would have plastered that fact in our face. The Last four Referendums on the EU Constitution (which is identical to Lisbon Treaty in content) have 2 for and 2 against the treaty.
Small Nations within will see, if Ireland is Kicked out then what rights have they? It will come back to the same old argument, that Bigger Nations will overtake smaller nations and dictate their policy, their treatment of Ireland will reinforce their point!
No, it will simply be sending the message that you can't hold everybody else up.My concern is and expect if the EU continue to play Hardball, then the EU will fall as it goes against the principles in which the EU was born.
There isn't any 'principle of equality' built into the EU. That's why the bigger countries used to have 2 Commissioners, have more votes on the Council, and more MEPs. The vetoes were there for the benefit of the big countries who had recently been at war with each other.
Ireland does not have a god-given and unassailable right to be in the EU.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »That's not exactly looking for facts. You're demanding that someone show precedent and/or a legal mechanism for something to happen, and taking the lack of either to mean that there's absolutely no way in hell there's the faintest possibility of there being any negative consequences whatsoever to our rejection of Lisbon.
If that's what you want to believe, fine. Let us know when you're prepared to accept that the world doesn't always work the way you'd like it to.
Yes, I am looking for precedent and/or a legal mechanism. I never said there were no bad consequences.
I was responding to suggestions that the option for a second referendum is accept Lisbon or get out of the EU. There is no need to leave. I have yet to hear how they can force us out.
The suggestion was made that a way would be found. I made the point that I don't think the smaller countries in the EU would possibly vote for a mechanism whereby smaller countries who displeased the big boys could be forced out of the EU. That's a question way bigger than Lisbon that will have repurcussions for those countries in years to come. I was also accused of seeing sinister elements, but it is my contention that that is bluster by Eurocrats throwing their weight around and we will not be asked to leave. The sinister elements conspiring to make us leave the EU were in the mind of is_that_so.
If Cowan wants to gamble on scare-mongering and actually go to the country with "Accept Lisbon or get out", he may be in for a bit of a land, especially with all the bad economic news that has been in the papers lately. 40,000 extra unemployed on last year (which does not count EU nationals who have returned home rather than sign on) Yes, it is not related to Lisbon, but that's the way the world of politics work. National elections are won and lost on pot-holes, not complex issues of fiscal or foreign affairs policies.0 -
marco_polo wrote: »No need to get so excited. Its is a piece under the opinion section hardly an offical position by any means. There were pro and anti Lisbon pieces in all the major newspapers today.
Who is getting excited - a lot of the 'Yes' voters are concerned at the negative publicity that Ireland is getting. Well, here is a bit of negative publicity that the EU leaders are getting from a very highly regarded publication (its a cut or two above The Sunday Times/Irish Indo / Irish Times
Circulation (1m ?) to decision makers all over the world. 'Economist Country Reports' are highly regarded and I often see them quoted in official documents.
I was only trying to cheer you up with a bit of positive publicity
0 -
Yes, I am looking for precedent and/or a legal mechanism. I never said there were no bad consequences.
I was responding to suggestions that the option for a second referendum is accept Lisbon or get out of the EU. There is no need to leave. I have yet to hear how they can force us out.
The suggestion was made that a way would be found. I made the point that I don't think the smaller countries in the EU would possibly vote for a mechanism whereby smaller countries who displeased the big boys could be forced out of the EU. That's a question way bigger than Lisbon that will have repurcussions for those countries in years to come. I was also accused of seeing sinister elements, but it is my contention that that is bluster by Eurocrats throwing their weight around and we will not be asked to leave. The sinister elements conspiring to make us leave the EU were in the mind of is_that_so.
If Cowan wants to gamble on scare-mongering and actually go to the country with "Accept Lisbon or get out", he may be in for a bit of a land, especially with all the bad economic news that has been in the papers lately. 40,000 extra unemployed on last year (which does not count EU nationals who have returned home rather than sign on) Yes, it is not related to Lisbon, but that's the way the world of politics work. National elections are won and lost on pot-holes, not complex issues of fiscal or foreign affairs policies.
There's a good deal of truth in what you say. On the other hand, Lisbon clearly hasn't simply gone away.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
While refusing repeatedly to acknowledge the point that's been repeatedly made that the lack of a precedent or mechanism doesn't mean it can't happen.Yes, I am looking for precedent and/or a legal mechanism.
No, but you're implying that we can simply dig our heels in, and the 26 other countries in the club will have to simply put up with our intransigence. That's not how clubs work.I never said there were no bad consequences.
Once again, in a world where realpolitik exists - the world you seem determined to pretend we don't live in - if 26 members want to pursue a course of action, and one member is throwing a tantrum (because, let's not forget, we haven't given a single coherent reason to our fellow members for our petulant "no" vote), then the 26 will find a way to carry on without the one.I was responding to suggestions that the option for a second referendum is accept Lisbon or get out of the EU. There is no need to leave. I have yet to hear how they can force us out.
You don't have to like it, but at some point you're going to have to accept that that's how it works.
And international treaties are negotiated on the basis of finding a solution that's acceptable to all the parties to it, not on the basis of one stamping its little foot and saying "do not want!".If Cowan wants to gamble on scare-mongering and actually go to the country with "Accept Lisbon or get out", he may be in for a bit of a land, especially with all the bad economic news that has been in the papers lately. 40,000 extra unemployed on last year (which does not count EU nationals who have returned home rather than sign on) Yes, it is not related to Lisbon, but that's the way the world of politics work. National elections are won and lost on pot-holes, not complex issues of fiscal or foreign affairs policies.
If Lisbon is rejected by us again (especially if it's rejected on the basis of the equivalent of potholes), the other member states would be entirely within their rights to tell us to bugger off and to go ahead and do their own thing.0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »While refusing repeatedly to acknowledge the point that's been repeatedly made that the lack of a precedent or mechanism doesn't mean it can't happen. No, but you're implying that we can simply dig our heels in, and the 26 other countries in the club will have to simply put up with our intransigence. That's not how clubs work. Once again, in a world where realpolitik exists - the world you seem determined to pretend we don't live in - if 26 members want to pursue a course of action, and one member is throwing a tantrum (because, let's not forget, we haven't given a single coherent reason to our fellow members for our petulant "no" vote), then the 26 will find a way to carry on without the one.
You don't have to like it, but at some point you're going to have to accept that that's how it works. And international treaties are negotiated on the basis of finding a solution that's acceptable to all the parties to it, not on the basis of one stamping its little foot and saying "do not want!".
If Lisbon is rejected by us again (especially if it's rejected on the basis of the equivalent of potholes), the other member states would be entirely within their rights to tell us to bugger off and to go ahead and do their own thing.
We didn't stamp our feet and throw a tantrum. We had a vote.
Our sin appears to have been putting a No box on the voting form. Why did they let us say no if it wasn't going to be accepted? This democracy stuff is obviously too complicated for me.
Oh and I refer you to your "all the parties" phrase above.0 -
Maybe I missed the part where somebody said a mechanism would be found to throw us out of the EU.
What I was discussing was the inevitability that a mechanism would be found to impliment Lisbon for everybody else leaving us at the margins of many things if thats where we want to be.
That would be bad.
Mind you,I'd be hoping that the reflection results would be that people would realise the actual gravity of their decision given that it appears that a figure equating to well more than the majority that defested this referendum either just didn't understand it or didn't bother to.
That goes equally of course for the slipshod approach by the Yes politicians.
If it were up to me of course I'd outlaw blatant lies on referendum posters and literature too and have an independent body to police it with penal powers of redress.
It's badly needed.0 -
Isolated ?
From what exactly ? You are trying to say we are been bullied because we chose not to ratify a treaty we do not believe to comply with previous treaties ???
Wait i thought we were all scare-mongered by SF ? You mean some of our concerns were actually valid ?
Seriously , implying that is yet another of your feeble attempts to undermine any no voters.
The vote failed on many scales and to think that it was a government bashing exercise is typical of almsot all the Yes voters.Maybe , just maybe they might come to realise we were not happy with was in the treaty ??
I was going to respond to this simplistic tripe but to be honest, by taking such a skewed reading of what I'm sure the majority of readers would agree was my reasonably balanced post (regardless of whether they agree with the opinions or not), which was a whole 8 pages back by the time you posted, you have shown that you are unlikely to approach it with a reasonably balanced or objective mindset so I'll save myself the hassle.
What I will say though, is I'm glad the recently published survey showed that 89% of those polled support Ireland staying in the EU - anyone proposing that we leave the EU is now undoubtedly in the minority.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Maybe I missed the part where somebody said a mechanism would be found to throw us out of the EU.
What I was discussing was the inevitability that a mechanism would be found to impliment Lisbon for everybody else leaving us at the margins of many things if thats where we want to be.
That would be bad.
Mind you,I'd be hoping that the reflection results would be that people would realise the actual gravity of their decision given that it appears that a figure equating to well more than the majority that defested this referendum either just didn't understand it or didn't bother to.
That goes equally of course for the slipshod approach by the Yes politicians.
If it were up to me of course I'd outlaw blatant lies on referendum posters and literature too and have an independent body to police it with penal powers of redress.
It's badly needed.
How would you deal with this kind of behaviour?
Brace yourself for bullying and threats
Fact-massaging and guilt will be the tools employed to sort out the treaty crisis, writes Gene Kerrigan
By Gene Kerrigan
Sunday June 22 2008
It was rude and unseemly when Government Minister Dick Roche called Patricia McKenna a liar. Otherwise, the fallout from the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty has been a good thing.
Up to 10 days ago, there was a pretence that voting mattered. Now, the gloves are off, the teeth are bared. We didn't do as we were told -- and our betters are really pissed off at us.
It's so refreshing, this admission that democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be. Frankly, some of us think democracy is worth more than the hurt feelings of a bunch of inept politicians.
Here's Dick Roche on Morning Ireland on Thursday: "Not for the first time in this campaign, Ms McKenna has been completely and absolutely untruthful."
Wow, says I, he's calling her a liar. It was part of a constant drumbeat over the past 10 days -- that the Lisbon Treaty was defeated by lies.
Ms McKenna had stated that ratification of the proposed EU Constitution had stopped in 2005 after referendums in France and the Netherlands voted it down. In theory, if even one of the 27 EU nations fails to agree on such a major change, the matter has to be dropped.
Despite Ireland's vote, Ms McKenna pointed out, the big countries continue to urge ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
"It is simply not the truth for her to say that ratification stopped in other countries [in 2005]," said Dick. "She knows that. She knows, for example, that Luxembourg had a referendum after France and the Netherlands."
Ms McKenna, according to a Government minister, is a liar. What's the record?
About a dozen countries ratified the constitution before the French and Dutch referendums in June 2005. Luxembourg had scheduled a referendum for July -- that referendum went ahead. It was a "consultative referendum". About 200,000 people voted and the yes side won by 25,000.
Mr Roche, with his Luxembourg "for example", insinuated that this was but the first of a wave of referendums in favour. It was, in fact, the only one. A day after the Dutch vote, the Latvian politicians ratified the constitution, without a referendum. Later, pointlessly, so did the politicians of Estonia, Finland, Cyprus and Malta. None dared put it to the vote of the people.
Five days after the Dutch vote, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said there was now "no point" ratifying the constitution and the UK shelved the matter. As did the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, Portugal and Sweden. As did Ireland.
In short, Patricia McKenna is not a liar. The French and Dutch votes killed the proposed EU constitution.
A trickle of politicians pretended it wasn't dead, but it was universally conceded that the consensus rule applied -- one out, all out. Unlike now.
Mr Roche didn't lie. He merely massaged the facts in order to call Ms McKenna a liar.
Over the past 10 days, the anger of the political establishment has been undisguised. Minister Martin Mansergh mused that they should perhaps curtail this referendum nonsense, as the electorate clearly isn't capable of dealing with complex matters.
An Irish Times columnist scornfully denounced young voters as "the most pampered, narcissistic and vacuous generation ever to enter an Irish polling booth".
Boy, is the establishment pissed off or what?
The RTE lads are on board. Half jocularly, wholly in earnest, they told us that, thanks to the benevolence of Mr Sarkozy and friends, "we haven't been kicked out of the European Union". Thereby suggesting that that was a possible consequence of voting no.
Boy oh boy, they tell us, the EU bigwigs could have kicked our asses. Instead, they provided Brian with photos ops in which he and Micheal Martin stared sheepishly at their feet, while the EU mandarins offered rigid smiles, patted them on the back -- and gave them three months to come up with a plan to reverse the vote.
Or else.
Over those three months the propaganda will be relentless, from our embarrassed politicians, from the EU mandarins -- and from a media that is unashamedly on message. Public money will be used for secret polls and focus groups to figure out how to manipulate us.
The fact-massage will continue. The Lisbon Treaty, they tell us, was eight years in the making, and we selfish Irish killed it.
Not true. A declaration of intent was made only in March 2007 and the treaty text was finished on June 4, 2007. It was an effort to push through, in another form, the EU Constitution killed by French and Dutch voters in 2005.
"One ten-thousandth of the EU's population has applied the brakes to the will of the overwhelming majority," we're told, in tones that suggest we should be ashamed of ourselves.
It's not true. The Lisbon Treaty has been ratified by European politicians in 19 countries, who number perhaps 5,000, as against the 862,000 Irish voters who shot it down.
The treaty simply cannot be renegotiated, we're told. Simultaneously, it's conceded that it is indeed possible to retain the 27 commissioners -- something we were assured was irreversibly gone.
We're isolated in Europe, we're told -- a bunch of ungrateful wretches. Except for the Czech Republic, whose citizens just may get to vote on the treaty. And the UK, where a judge is to rule next week if a referendum is required. And most other countries in Europe, where the mandarins hunger for a treaty they believe would be shot down by their citizens.
The mandarins seek some kind of United States of Europe. It's a valid aim for many, perhaps even a desirable one. Democracy, however, isn't an optional extra. And democracy isn't just a fairer way of doing things. It's a mechanism without which you end up in trouble.
Under democracy, you state a position and seek to win people to it. If you win that commitment, the thing works. People understand what is happening and feel part of it. Without that democratic understanding and commitment, people vote according to all sorts of motives, some more laudable -- in my opinion -- than others.
Democracy is difficult. So, our politicians seek to sneak their way to some form of Greater Europe, using a pastiche of democracy.
In the arrogant, contemptuous and contemptible words of French politician Valery Giscard d'Estaing, "Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly".
This would be unacceptable, whoever ruled Europe. In the Europe of Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi and Brown, we're heading for a centralised, militarised entity, where workers rights and public services exist merely to be sneered at.
Having taken the undemocratic route, the EU mandarins have hit a democratic pothole in Ireland and the wheels have come off. Exposed, they lack the moral authority of even a gombeen county councillor. So, the bullying, threats and fact-massaging will be ratcheted up over the next few months.
Any doubts about the nature of the Europe these people envision was blown away last week. It's a Europe in which the citizens get to vote on things that don't matter much -- such as MEPs. And when a more significant vote is unavoidable, national leaders, such as Brian Cowen, are required to deliver the goods, whatever is in the treaty (which is why so many don't bother to read it).
Cowen's mistake was putting two boxes on the ballot paper. One for Yes and one for No. Apparently, there should have been just one box -- vote Yes. Any other result is, in some unexplained way, illegitimate.
The result must be scrubbed, the electorate must be made feel guilty, threatened and bullied.
Eventually, they may understand that in our Brave New Europe, the box that says No is merely for cosmetic purposes.
- Gene Kerrigan0 -
And now we're dealing with the consequences of the vote. Who knew decisions had consequences?We didn't stamp our feet and throw a tantrum. We had a vote.
We voted "no". The question becomes, "now what?" The "no" campaign seem to think that "no means no" slogans are a sufficient answer to that question, which goes to show that none of the "no" campaign actually have to deal with the consequences of the result they campaigned for.
If democracy was simply a question of marking a piece of paper every few years, it wouldn't be too complicated for anyone.Our sin appears to have been putting a No box on the voting form. Why did they let us say no if it wasn't going to be accepted? This democracy stuff is obviously too complicated for me.
Unfortunately - and this is a point that has been largely lost on the "no" brigade - democracy means much, much more than that. It means being aware of the consequences of your decisions, and therefore weighing those decisions carefully before making them.
It's an exercise in childishness to pretend that we can simply say "no" and expect that the EU will simply accede to our non-existent demands.
It's rarely necessary to refer me to something I've written myself. Ireland was one of the parties that negotiated the Lisbon treaty. We got a good deal, all things considered.Oh and I refer you to your "all the parties" phrase above.
"No means no" isn't a particularly useful negotiating position where international treaties are concerned.0 -
What kind of behaviour? Gene Kerrigan's writing?thehighground wrote: »How would you deal with this kind of behaviour?
Copying and pasting entire articles isn't an acceptable substitute for debate in this forum.
Sadly, Gene Kerrigan, like so many others before and since, is mistaking the simple act of marking a ballot paper for democracy.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9866
thehighground wrote: »How would you deal with this kind of behaviour?
So where in the treaty are workers rights and public services sneered at? Or the creation of a federal state for that matter?
Even though all ratification didn't actually stop, that makes McKenna not a liar how exactly?0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »What kind of behaviour? Gene Kerrigan's writing?
Copying and pasting entire articles isn't an acceptable substitute for debate in this forum.
Sadly, Gene Kerrigan, like so many others before and since, is mistaking the simple act of marking a ballot paper for democracy.
Sorry, I should have highlighted the bit that I wanted you to answer. You made the point that you think people who put up posters that lie should be penalised. I'd like to know how you would penalise a Government Minister for giving misleading information. (Claiming that she was telling lies).
I like to back up my comments with facts and acknowledge my original source (I've noticed a lot of people around here don't) as I find it most irritating when people make comments without any factual backup and I certainly don't want to claim it as my own intellectual property when it isn't!
Do you have a problem with this?0 -
thehighground wrote: »Well, here is a bit of negative publicity that the EU leaders are getting from a very highly regarded publication (its a cut or two above The Sunday Times/Irish Indo / Irish Times Circulation (1m ?) to decision makers all over the world. 'Economist Country Reports' are highly regarded and I often see them quoted in official documents.
I was only trying to cheer you up with a bit of positive publicity
Much appreciated however there are parts of the Economist that are not universally respected, its Op-Ed pieces. Some of them have often been less than well-thought out and take positions that make Rupert Murdoch organs look left-wing.
Oddly suitable word! What strikes me about some of the commentary this weekend and mostly on the No side is the way they have shoehorned everything into justifications of their position and by and large it is mostly that,opinions. I don't suggest that pieces in favour of Yes are necessarily any better but they are at least looking at the question at hand and asking Quo Vadis(whither are you going)?Deleted User wrote: »defested0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 9866
thehighground wrote: »Sorry, I should have highlighted the bit that I wanted you to answer. You made the point that you think people who put up posters that lie should be penalised. I'd like to know how you would penalise a Government Minister for giving misleading information. (Claiming that she was telling lies).
We he was right for a start there were ratifications afterwards, how is any of this misinformation. A referendum is a type of ratification last time I checked.
People have been complaining about any ratifications contining now even though this clearly this happened after the Constitution defeats. Sure eventually it died at death but it was a slow and painful one as a result of a lack of political will to continue with the process. Perhap this fate will befall the Lisbon treaty, but the difference is the will is still there to keep it alive.
I like to back up my comments with facts and acknowledge my original source (I've noticed a lot of people around here don't) as I find it most irritating when people make comments without any factual backup and I certainly don't want to claim it as my own intellectual property when it isn't!
Do you have a problem with this?
One line saying "How would you deal with this kind of behaviour?" That is not a fact its a question. An an ill defined question to boot.
One line does not an agument make.
And prior to that you posted this:
The cat among the pidgeons here .... no less than The Economist agrees with the Irish 'No' voters that 'no' should mean 'no'
Followed by the entire text of an economist article. Any opinions of your own today by any chance?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement