The arrogance of the YES side to say we are "ruining" it for the other 500 million

turgon

I was reading the letters in the Irish Times this morning about the Lisbon Treaty. One writer mirrored exactly what a LOT of posters here have been saying, that Ireland is halting the EU for everyone else. In effect, giving out that Ireland had a referenda and saying that other Europeans have right to give out about this.

YET are these not the same people who shout down and give out whenever a NO-sider says all states should have referenda? All the time saying "Ireland has no right to interfere with other countries ratification methods".

SO its all right for the YES side to give out about Ireland's ratification method, and its all right for them to support similar calls from other foreign Europeans. But once the Irish NO side make opposite likewise calls - for referenda in other states - its wrong.

The YES side should take note that it is exactly this "I'm right no matter what" arrogance which lost the Government the referendum in the first place.

ShooterSF

Well said OP. Blue in the face myself saying this.

ixtlan

There is merit in this argument, but the reality is that the EU is not black and white. It is a very flexible organisation with a lot of leeway in how it operates. That's one of the criticisms of the treaties. They allow states to do what they want in many cases and so the critics take the worst possible interpretation. "Progessively improve military capabilities" may mean new radios for the Irish and 6% GDP expenditure for the French. It doesn't insist on either.

Likewise it has never really come up with a solution for states that decide to put the brakes on progression/expansion. It is based on consensus and unanimity. Up until now that has worked, and to be honest it will likely work here too.

However if we come to a point where a state says no, we will not ratify this treaty, ever, then the EU will have to consider how to proceed in future.

Consensus/unanimity don't work if one person says no all the time. Now that's not happening here, and there will be a resolution. However it's probably a good thing that this gets discussed and debated by the EU. Possibly the EU should have a plan B/C for failed ratification of every treaty by every state. Of course they don't want to do this because that would imply that they expected it.

So, are we ruining it for the other 500 million? Well yes we are, and we are entitled to based on the current rules. However it's also right for people to start thinking about whether the rules need to be changed. Remember the goal of our no is mostly to stop changes here. It's a side effect that we are stopping the others.

Ix.

ShooterSF

ixtlan wrote: »

There is merit in this argument, but the reality is that the EU is not black and white. It is a very flexible organisation with a lot of leeway in how it operates. That's one of the criticisms of the treaties. They allow states to do what they want in many cases and so the critics take the worst possible interpretation. "Progessively improve military capabilities" may mean new radios for the Irish and 6% GDP expenditure for the French. It doesn't insist on either.

Likewise it has never really come up with a solution for states that decide to put the brakes on progression/expansion. It is based on consensus and unanimity. Up until now that has worked, and to be honest it will likely work here too.

However if we come to a point where a state says no, we will not ratify this treaty, ever, then the EU will have to consider how to proceed in future.

Consensus/unanimity don't work if one person says no all the time. Now that's not happening here, and there will be a resolution. However it's probably a good thing that this gets discussed and debated by the EU. Possibly the EU should have a plan B/C for failed ratification of every treaty by every state. Of course they don't want to do this because that would imply that they expected it.

So, are we ruining it for the other 500 million? Well yes we are, and we are entitled to based on the current rules. However it's also right for people to start thinking about whether the rules need to be changed. Remember the goal of our no is mostly to stop changes here. It's a side effect that we are stopping the others.

Ix.

Well said. Though I think the unanimity rule which is why we're completely in out right to block a treaty on people who support it that happen to represent 500 million people won't change as a majority vote would risk break off Unions and even weaken the E.U's slow but solidarity stance.

snollup

Perhaps if all other eu countries voted on these treaties too there would not be the same pressure on ireland?

To accept a doc that will lead to the diluting of sovereignty on certain issues, and no I am not saying we will be ruled by the eu but they will certainly have more of a say on certain issues, without putting it directly to the people of the country in my view would be hard to take.

Many europeans are very happy that ireland voted down the treaty but i guess we will never know exactly what proportion of citizens that is because..... they dont vote on these issues!!!!


PS... well said OP.

ixtlan

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well said. Though I think the unanimity rule which is why we're completely in out right to block a treaty on people who support it that happen to represent 500 million people won't change as a majority vote would risk break off Unions and even weaken the E.U's slow but solidarity stance.

Yes, I think you're right. We will not be forced into anything. Other countries will support us, and the EU will limp along, maybe with some enhanced co-operation groups.

However... it is likely that in future we may not be as influential as we used to be. Also, we will have to cringe a little while the democratically elected representatives of the other states complain about us holding everyone up. Surely we can understand this? It's funny that some of the no side suggested voting no to support other EU citizens, and then are outraged when the representatives of those citizens express surprise/annoyance/shock/anger at our decision.

I think much of their annoyance is directed at the government. After all if the military clause was such a problem for Ireland, why did they not know and request an opt-out (which would almost certainly have been granted).

Ix.

snollup

I can see why those employed by the eu would be annoyed, however, i do think that it would be a tighter call if you polled other ec citizens.

Personally i feel that the eu is more concerned with business then people. I accept that ireland has done well off the eu (be it not for them God only knows if we would have any roads at all!) but you cannot live beholding to that. I personally feel that the eu is not all that an attractive proposition and by the looks of things I'm not the only one that feels that way.

And to those arrogant yes people i say - have you considered that it is possible that the majority of the people of this little nation do not care all that much for the eu?

ShooterSF

ixtlan wrote: »

Yes, I think you're right. We will not be forced into anything. Other countries will support us, and the EU will limp along, maybe with some enhanced co-operation groups.

However... it is likely that in future we may not be as influential as we used to be. Also, we will have to cringe a little while the democratically elected representatives of the other states complain about us holding everyone up. Surely we can understand this? It's funny that some of the no side suggested voting no to support other EU citizens, and then are outraged when the representatives of those citizens express surprise/annoyance/shock/anger at our decision.

I think much of their annoyance is directed at the government. After all if the military clause was such a problem for Ireland, why did they not know and request an opt-out (which would almost certainly have been granted).

Ix.

That's the core of the lisbon treaty debate Though I still don't like their complaint's. Like a good footballer knows you don't complain to change what just happened. You do so in the hope of influencing a decision later on. Up until now I had seen it as at least a regrettable emotional outburst on some of their behalves, that didn't sit well with me though. These people make a career out of knowing what to say and when to say it and I'm starting to think of it as passive bullying tactics (though again that's just my opinion).

ixtlan

snollup wrote: »

Perhaps if all other eu countries voted on these treaties too there would not be the same pressure on ireland?

To accept a doc that will lead to the diluting of sovereignty on certain issues, and no I am not saying we will be ruled by the eu but they will certainly have more of a say on certain issues, without putting it directly to the people of the country in my view would be hard to take.

Many europeans are very happy that ireland voted down the treaty but i guess we will never know exactly what proportion of citizens that is because..... they dont vote on these issues!!!!
.

Absolutely there would be less pressure,and I agree that the reason they don't is that they are afraid of rejection. However I really do believe the EU would never have got where it is if such referenda were required. Why on Earth would France Germany and the UK vote to give structural grants to Ireland throughout recessions in the 70s and 80s. You could never convince the public that it was the right long-term thing to do, and yet, we would agree it was?

Some highly politicised citizens in Europe are happy we voted no, but the vast majority didn't even know what Lisbon was before we voted no, and I'd say the majority still don't know. As I've said before where are the street protests (let's quietly ignore the Irish embassy groups with their handfuls)? If you take a survey and ask anyone whether they want to vote on something, most will say yes, after all if you don't know what it is you'd probably like the chance to find out, especially if someone finds it important enough to ask you.

Ix.

snollup

ixtlan wrote: »

Yes, I think you're right. We will not be forced into anything. Other countries will support us, and the EU will limp along, maybe with some enhanced co-operation groups.

However... it is likely that in future we may not be as influential as we used to be. Also, we will have to cringe a little while the democratically elected representatives of the other states complain about us holding everyone up. Surely we can understand this? It's funny that some of the no side suggested voting no to support other EU citizens, and then are outraged when the representatives of those citizens express surprise/annoyance/shock/anger at our decision.

I think much of their annoyance is directed at the government. After all if the military clause was such a problem for Ireland, why did they not know and request an opt-out (which would almost certainly have been granted).

Ix.

Sorry Ix - but by elected reps do you mean the likes of our own Charley Mc who joked about not even having read the treaty?

democrates

ixtlan wrote: »

However... it is likely that in future we may not be as influential as we used to be. Also, we will have to cringe a little while the democratically elected representatives of the other states complain about us holding everyone up. Surely we can understand this? It's funny that some of the no side suggested voting no to support other EU citizens, and then are outraged when the representatives of those citizens express surprise/annoyance/shock/anger at our decision.

I think much of their annoyance is directed at the government. After all if the military clause was such a problem for Ireland, why did they not know and request an opt-out (which would almost certainly have been granted).

I don't credit elected representatives as having an accurate representation of their citizens views.

Take the French and Dutch who voted against the constitution, it's clear that their 'representatives' were chosen in an election, but that can be because they were the least worst option, no vote can be assumed to mean blanket endorsement of the candidates platform, on certain issues, EG their position on Europe, it can be the case that the 'representatives' view is at odds with the electorate.

They cannot claim democratic legitimacy for Lisbon, particularly given the fact that any recent testing of representatives views have shown a clear and unambiguous No from citizens.

ixtlan

ShooterSF wrote: »

Up until now I had seen it as at least a regrettable emotional outburst on some of their behalves, that didn't sit well with me though. These people make a career out of knowing what to say and when to say it and I'm starting to think of it as passive bullying tactics (though again that's just my opinion).

There are a few ways of looking at it, but as to knowing what to say...

Cowen: "didn't read it cover to cover"
McCreevy: "only a lunatic would read it"
Ahern: "loo-lahs"

So, I doubt that this is really bullying tactics. It's too off-the-cuff and raw for that. It's just annoyance that after 7 years of painstaking negotiation, and a treaty that everyone could just about live with, the whole thing has been put on indefinite hold. And worse than that it was not blocked by a state that was barely happy like the British or the Czechs, but by the Irish who got everything they asked... or at least that's what they said at the time...

Ix.

snollup

ixtlan wrote: »

There are a few ways of looking at it, but as to knowing what to say...

Cowen: "didn't read it cover to cover"
McCreevy: "only a lunatic would read it"
Ahern: "loo-lahs"

So, I doubt that this is really bullying tactics. It's too off-the-cuff and raw for that. It's just annoyance that after 7 years of painstaking negotiation, and a treaty that everyone could just about live with, the whole thing has been put on indefinite hold. And worse than that it was not blocked by a state that was barely happy like the British or the Czechs, but by the Irish who got everything they asked... or at least that's what they said at the time...

Ix.

The British or any other EU countries citizens were not given a chance to block it - that's one of the points often given by the no camp.

ixtlan

democrates wrote: »

I don't credit elected representatives as having an accurate representation of their citizens views.

Take the French and Dutch who voted against the constitution, it's clear that their 'representatives' were chosen in an election, but that can be because they were the least worst option, no vote can be assumed to mean blanket endorsement of the candidates platform, on certain issues, EG their position on Europe, it can be the case that the 'representatives' view is at odds with the electorate.

They cannot claim democratic legitimacy for Lisbon, particularly given the fact that any recent testing of representatives views have shown a clear and unambiguous No from citizens.

You are right that no candidate gets blanket endorsement for all that they believe, and the public who voted for them may indeed not be willing to vote for the treaty if presented. However at the same time, it is surely a failure of the anti-Lisbon campaigners that they cannot stir up enough interest in the public for the public (rather than the campaigners) to demand a vote.

We have seen large public protests in Ireland about hospitals, in Europe about fuel prices, and farming prices, and the Iraq war, and lots of things, but never "give us a vote on EU treaties". The honest truth is that it is not important enough for most people. They elect their representatives. They sign the treaties and that seems to work OK. If asked people may agree a vote is a good thing, but would it affect your choice of parliamentary candidate? It seems not.

You may think this is bad. I don't necessarily. I feel treaties would be too difficult if every country had to go back to it's people for confirmation. I would be content with an EU-wide poll on a new treaty, but the anti-Lisbon people would not because that would confirm their worst fears about a EU super-state. 1.5m Irish votes being swamped by hundreds of millions on the mainland.

Ix

ixtlan

snollup wrote: »

The British or any other EU countries citizens were not given a chance to block it - that's one of the points often given by the no camp.

True, and it's a valid point, but politicians are often criticised for not leading. Here they lead and at the next election they can be ousted if the public feels they got a bad deal. Then the next government can demand a better deal at the next treaty negotiation.

I'll make the same point again in a different way. Has any party come to power in Europe with a platform of putting treaties to the people? Not that I know of. I suspect the Tories would not even do this. They might want Lisbon put to a vote when Labour is in power, but if they negotiate the next treaty I suspect they won't like a vote on that.

Ix.

snollup

ixtlan wrote: »

There are a few ways of looking at it, but as to knowing what to say...

Cowen: "didn't read it cover to cover"
McCreevy: "only a lunatic would read it"
Ahern: "loo-lahs"

So, I doubt that this is really bullying tactics. It's too off-the-cuff and raw for that. It's just annoyance that after 7 years of painstaking negotiation, and a treaty that everyone could just about live with, the whole thing has been put on indefinite hold. And worse than that it was not blocked by a state that was barely happy like the British or the Czechs, but by the Irish who got everything they asked... or at least that's what they said at the time...

Ix.

As a firm no voter I would be quite confident that if put to the whole of europe the result would be an even more resounding no.

ixtlan

snollup wrote: »

As a firm no voter I would be quite confident that if put to the whole of europe the result would be an even more resounding no.

It might be. It's very hard to know, and we may never know. As I said surveys don't really tell you how people would vote after a campaign.

Can I ask would you support an Eu-wide vote? Would you be concerned that issues that Ireland might be unhappy about would be irrelevant in say Germany. For example the military clause. So if the result was yes, would you accept it?

I would be delighted with such a vote. If it was yes, great. If it was no, then all of Europe would have to address whatever concerns were raised in the debate. Those concerns might just need clarification on what the treaty really meant, which is our Lisbon problem.

Ix.

democrates

ixtlan wrote: »

You may think this is bad. I don't necessarily. I feel treaties would be too difficult if every country had to go back to it's people for confirmation. I would be content with an EU-wide poll on a new treaty, but the anti-Lisbon people would not because that would confirm their worst fears about a EU super-state. 1.5m Irish votes being swamped by hundreds of millions on the mainland.

Sure enough, we can't fight the battle for democracy for the other 26, that's down to themselves.

The low ranking of the distant EU in general election priorities allows politicians to get away with surrendering sovereignty, back in the day that would have been called treason, but life is so busy now and what with modernity and globalisation, having control over your country is no longer a big deal to people.

An EU wide citizen poll would be madness alright, but I believe the EU would be better if it was a means for any grouping of members to agree co-operation on an opt-in basis only. Why should anything be imposed.

EDIT: When I say an EU-wide poll would be madness I'm referring to a simple majority of all EU citizens deciding the outcome, but if you meant each member state holds a national referendum to decide on ratification, then I'd see the latter is a step in the right direction.

turgon

snollup wrote: »

The British or any other EU countries citizens were not given a chance to block it - that's one of the points often given by the no camp.

Exactly - and the YES side continually criticize this - claiming that the way other states ratify is not our business. Yet now you see all the anti-Ireland stuff that has come out the past few days, especcially from EU politicians - people who clearly will not respect the way we ratify the treaty. I just think its hypocritical.

You see there is a huge divide here. On the one hand you send it to the electorate in a referendum - and get a load of people voting on issues unrelated to the treaty. Then if you dont have a referendum your accused of being a "know it all". Maybe one should have to do a brief test on the content of the Treaty before being allowed to vote!

snollup

ixtlan wrote: »

It might be. It's very hard to know, and we may never know. As I said surveys don't really tell you how people would vote after a campaign.

Can I ask would you support an Eu-wide vote? Would you be concerned that issues that Ireland might be unhappy about would be irrelevant in say Germany. For example the military clause. So if the result was yes, would you accept it?

I would be delighted with such a vote. If it was yes, great. If it was no, then all of Europe would have to address whatever concerns were raised in the debate.

Ix.

I genuinely would support such a vote. I really do believe that the result would be an overwhelming no. Every country would be voiceing different concerns but the result would be a no. I think that to reach agreement over 26 countries is impossible.

marco_polo

snollup wrote: »

I genuinely would support such a vote. I really do believe that the result would be an overwhelming no. Every country would be voiceing different concerns but the result would be a no. I think that to reach agreement over 26 countries is impossible.

Which ironically was one of the main factors for the Lisbon Treaty addressed.

biko

marco_polo wrote: »

Which ironically was one of the main factors for the Lisbon Treaty addressed.

By making EU more streamlined, ie taking decision making away from nations and putting it in Brussels.

I can understand why someone would want this done, I just don't agree with it.

ixtlan

democrates wrote: »

The low ranking of the distant EU in general election priorities allows politicians to get away with surrendering sovereignty, back in the day that would have been called treason, but life is so busy now and what with modernity and globalisation, having control over your country is no longer a big deal to people.

Which is why it's unthinkable that France would go to war with Germany any more! I know the no side dismisses this as just the way things are now, but the EU has done a lot to promote such....

I'd like to say such understanding and co-operation, and I think at a political level that's true but at a local level it's more like...

Acceptance and apathy because the Western European world is so stable. No starvation, no massive unemployment and poverty, no excessive nationalism, no police states (whatever people seem to think).

Ix.

democrates

ixtlan wrote: »

Which is why it's unthinkable that France would go to war with Germany any more! I know the no side dismisses this as just the way things are now, but the EU has done a lot to promote such....

I'd like to say such understanding and co-operation, and I think at a political level that's true but at a local level it's more like...

Acceptance and apathy because the Western European world is so stable. No starvation, no massive unemployment and poverty, no excessive nationalism, no police states (whatever people seem to think).

Ix.

But I think the peace is best kept when there is real co-operation, consent is implicit.

The EU project however with QMV etc is designed to impose measures which a nations citizens would never opt for, and when that happens it'll be other Europeans to blame. Look at some of the sulphurous posts in this forum on foot of the Lisbon issue. The brute-force approach will sow the seeds of division.

is_that_so

turgon wrote: »

Exactly - and the YES side continually criticize this - claiming that the way other states ratify is not our business. Yet now you see all the anti-Ireland stuff that has come out the past few days, especcially from EU politicians - people who clearly will not respect the way we ratify the treaty. I just think its hypocritical.

You see there is a huge divide here. On the one hand you send it to the electorate in a referendum - and get a load of people voting on issues unrelated to the treaty. Then if you dont have a referendum your accused of being a "know it all". Maybe one should have to do a brief test on the content of the Treaty before being allowed to vote!

Most of what I have seen or chosen to read here on this question, IMO is better described as commentary on this issue. MY own view is that we can't take umbrage at other countries criticising or appearing to criticise us and and then proceed to tell them what to do.

I have posted earlier on the question of an EU-wide referendum and I agree with you here. With Sarkozy at 35%, the Czechs in revolt, Brown unpopular, Spanish truck drivers and any number of issues we have picked up on here, the result would most likely be No. Like our own I honestly don't believe it proves anything beyond a level of unhappiness that targets anything than can be seen to be blamed.

As a a veteran of a dozen or so referenda I really do wonder what their value is beyond the acrimony and confrontations that some of them generate. Democracy has certainly not been at the heart of some of the campaigns down the years.

One could argue that it is democracy at work but as one wag commented earlier this week , if we had an election tomorrow, it'd be FF all the way.

ixtlan

democrates wrote: »

When I say an EU-wide poll would be madness I'm referring to a simple majority of all EU citizens deciding the outcome, but if you meant each member state holds a national referendum to decide on ratification, then I'd see the latter is a step in the right direction.

I mean a simple majority of all EU citizens. Do you really think that 27 referenda would pass? That they would have ever passed for any previous treaty? If you lived in France/Germany/UK would you have voted to send billions of francs/deuschmarks/pounds to Ireland/Portugal/Greece in structural funds.

I'm not sure about snollup. He says he's happy with a vote, but which kind?

Ix.

Tim Robbins

turgon wrote: »

I was reading the letters in the Irish Times this morning about the Lisbon Treaty. One writer mirrored exactly what a LOT of posters here have been saying, that Ireland is halting the EU for everyone else. In effect, giving out that Ireland had a referenda and saying that other Europeans have right to give out about this.

YET are these not the same people who shout down and give out whenever a NO-sider says all states should have referenda? All the time saying "Ireland has no right to interfere with other countries ratification methods".

SO its all right for the YES side to give out about Ireland's ratification method, and its all right for them to support similar calls from other foreign Europeans. But once the Irish NO side make opposite likewise calls - for referenda in other states - its wrong.

The YES side should take note that it is exactly this "I'm right no matter what" arrogance which lost the Government the referendum in the first place.

Yes, it would be nice to have referendum in every European state but the reality is nothing would ever get progressed if that happend.

When democratically elected politicians say no to other democratically elected politicians, they can negotiate and reach consensus.

You can't do this with referenda. People just say No. The process of referendum doesn't lend itself to 800,000 negotiating and reaching consensus. You have to use the parliamentary system.

So if you want referenda and nothing but referenda then you must give up negotiating and consensus. You can't have both.

It seems that the no people keep omitting this in their whinging about the lack of referenda, but the omission is irritating many of us yes folk.

democrates

ixtlan wrote: »

I mean a simple majority of all EU citizens. Do you really think that 27 referenda would pass? That they would have ever passed for any previous treaty? If you lived in France/Germany/UK would you have voted to send billions of francs/deuschmarks/pounds to Ireland/Portugal/Greece in structural funds.

I'm not sure about snollup. He says he's happy with a vote, but which kind?

Ix.

27 referenda on Lisbon would be unlikely to reach unanimity, and that's fine by me, I'm very pro democracy, because I'm pro the people.

As for the structural funds, I doubt they would have been readily forthcoming, but then it didn't all get spent efficiently when you consider our still piecemeal transport system. If we'd had to make our own way no doubt it would have been tougher, and while there's no guarantee representatives would have managed more wisely, Russian scientists have a saying - "When you're poor you have to think".

And take the CAP, how much good has it really done for agriculture, eurodole farmers leaving land fallow is hardly the best use of either land or people. Glanbia and Kerrygold took a better approach to productivity in my view.

In any event I think our politicians going to Europe with the position of "nation for sale" was a regrettable mistake in the first case, that the whole EU pooling of sovereignty was a mistake, I see no reason to rule all member states using the EU. Where will we go from here I wonder.

ShooterSF

Maybe if the treaty was broke up in to smaller issues and referendums were held some areas could pass. Honestly one of the biggest downfalls of the treaty is it's size. It's hard not to find one thing off putting or suspicious in a 260 page (I think) document and therefore vote to block the whole lot.

Tim Robbins

ShooterSF wrote: »

Maybe if the treaty was broke up in to smaller issues and referendums were held some areas could pass. Honestly one of the biggest downfalls of the treaty is it's size. It's hard not to find one thing off putting or suspicious in a 260 page (I think) document and therefore vote to block the whole lot.

But then there would be arguments about how it was broken up.
Basically if a group felt really strongly about something in that treaty, a constructive way forward would have been to organise themselves and articulate those grievances to the government to see if we could get an opt out clause. For example, suppose a group were really worried about energy policy stipulations, they organised into a coherent group and then met the government and we got an opt out clause for that part.

So let's see who the no groups were then:
Liberats - want a hardcore neolibe Europe
Sinn Fein - Marxist revolution
Richard Boyd Barret - Marxist revolution
Coir - Right Wing Catholic Empire

So how does the government get anything useful or constructive from any of those groups it can't because the reality is those groups only represent extremes and don't have a history of compromise and consensus.

This is what is so frustrating for the yes side, we want to move forward and resolve this mess but we're getting no progressive or constructive solutions from the no side. It's very indicative that no voters didn't really think about this. They sort of expect the government to magically come up with a solution when they don't even bother articulating the exact nature of their problems.

Voting "no" if you're not prepared to help find a solution is just downright selfish.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Personally, voting no unless you're prepared to help with a solution is just downright selfish.

That's not very fair to the people who voted 'No' because they dislike the EU and want to wreck it whenever possible.