Are they purposely trying to scare Ireland for Cowen?

axer

Im thinking it is possible that Brian Cowen wants noise from the EU about the Irish "no" vote to attempt to scare the Irish people into voting yes. He is a very shrewd politician and likes to keep expectations down before coming in to save the day so it seems likely that he has asked the EU to make some noise about the situation so he can push for the second referendum.

Your thoughts?

marco_polo

Is there not a seperate forum for conspiracy theories?

Honestly I wonder do the people who come up with some of this stuff even believe it themselves.

hmmm

I'm sure Cowen's head is still spinning since last week and it's hardly likely he has come with a Machiavellian plan in the meantime. No the simpler reason is that quite a number of Europeans are annoyed and frustrated at 7 years of effort coming to a halt.

cornbb

Maybe, just maybe, its possible that the Yes side were never "scaremongering" about the rest of the EU being a little bit pissed off, and now those fairly reasonable forecasts are coming to pass? I think the EU have reacted with a predictable mix of diplomacy, confusion, frustration and annoyance.

Also, why are people still assuming there'll be a second referendum?

Caoimhín

axer wrote: »

Your thoughts?

Seven years work to produce a complex treaty between 27 states and its ruined by less than half of one percent of the population voting it down because;

• Don't understand it.
• Too many Polish taking me job.
• Will lead to little johnny being conscripted.
• Will lead to abortion.
• Will lead to micro-chipping and jailing of three year olds (that has to be the best)

Of course they are mad as hell. And some people are now validating their no vote after seeing how pis*ed off the rest of Europe is.

sink

The no campaigners said there would be no consequences and the status quo would continue. That is the first thing they have been proven wrong on. They were also wrong about pretty much everything else but the treaty would have to pass before they would admit it.

Ri na hEireann

Im thinking it is possible that Brian Cowen wants noise from the EU about the Irish "no" vote to attempt to scare the Irish people into voting yes. He is a very shrewd politician and likes to keep expectations down before coming in to save the day so it seems likely that he has asked the EU to make some noise about the situation so he can push for the second referendum.

Your thoughts?

Oh please....No and no....Europe is rightfully pissed off

jimmycrackcorm

If the result had been yes you can bet there'd be none of these debates on Boards.

murphaph

hmmm wrote: »

I'm sure Cowen's head is still spinning since last week and it's hardly likely he has come with a Machiavellian plan in the meantime. No the simpler reason is that quite a number of Europeans are annoyed and frustrated at 7 years of effort coming to a halt.

How is it 7 years? The Constitution was killed in 2005. The Lisbon Treaty, we are told, is NOT the Constitution. That's jut 3 years of work then.

sink

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If the result had been yes you can bet there'd be none of these debates on Boards.

We would probably be debating how the EU should deal with the strikes in Europe and the world food shortage. Instead much like the EU we are still debating about the structures of the EU and wasting even more time.

marco_polo

murphaph wrote: »

How is it 7 years? The Constitution was killed in 2005. The Lisbon Treaty, we are told, is NOT the Constitution. That's jut 3 years of work then.

I don't think anyone was under the impression that it created from a blank document.

Rb

Ri na hEireann wrote: »

Oh please....No and no....Europe is rightfully pissed off

Rightfully?

They obviously weren't prepared for a No from any country, they very clearly had no plan for what to do should it happen and when it did, they cried like children who'd had their toys taken off them, then resorted to threats and bully tactics. They had no right to do that tbh.

murphaph

marco_polo wrote: »

I don't think anyone was under the impression that it created from a blank document.

a lot of the yes camp were prior to the referendum

hmmm

murphaph wrote: »

a lot of the yes camp were prior to the referendum

Are you going to back up this statement? Or is this another statement from the "no" camp with no grounding in reality?

Denis Irwin

Rb wrote: »

Rightfully?

They obviously weren't prepared for a No from any country, they very clearly had no plan for what to do should it happen and when it did, they cried like children who'd had their toys taken off them, then resorted to threats and bully tactics. They had no right to do that tbh.

Of course the No side never did anything like that did they. :rolleyes:

marco_polo

murphaph wrote: »

a lot of the yes camp were prior to the referendum

Perhaps some of them made a mistake. Kind of like you did a few days ago when you stated that ratification of the constitution stopped after France and Holland rejected it?

cornbb

Denis Irwin wrote: »

Of course the No side never did anything like that did they. :rolleyes:

+1

Whats an example of threats and bully tactics from Europe now? All the responses I've heard have been very diplomatic, all things considered.

ShooterSF

cornbb wrote: »

+1

Whats an example of threats and bully tactics from Europe now? All the responses I've heard have been very diplomatic, all things considered.

Hmm I dunno like creating a treaty and saying it has to be a unanimous decision to be passed. Then (according to the yes theorists) ignoring the rejection and trying to continue with it with the other countries unless we change our minds and leaving us on the outskirts. Therefore changing the previous agreement cause they don't like the result of it. I didn't make this situation up, some of the more intelligent yes supporters suggested it was looking possible.

cornbb

ShooterSF wrote: »

Hmm I dunno like creating a treaty and saying it has to be a unanimous decision to be passed. Then (according to the yes theorists) ignoring the rejection and trying to continue with it with the other countries unless we change our minds and leaving us on the outskirts. Therefore changing the previous agreement cause they don't like the result of it. I didn't make this situation up, some of the more intelligent yes supporters suggested it was looking possible.

The Lisbon treaty won't come into force unless we ratify it. The EU can't "continue with it" without us. That is written in stone. If the other EU nations choose to go on without us using some other means, well that'll be our fault and not theirs. Why would they let a single tiny nation hold up their ambitions? I don't see how any of these actions constitute threats or bully tactics.

murphaph

marco_polo wrote: »

Perhaps some of them made a mistake. Kind of like you did a few days ago when you stated that ratification of the constitution stopped after France and Holland rejected it?

If I make a mistake I'll generally hold my hands up. I also avoid making cross references to other threads in a poor attempt to deflect from the question.

ShooterSF

ShooterSF wrote: »

Hmm I dunno like creating a treaty and saying it has to be a unanimous decision to be passed. Then (according to the yes theorists) ignoring the rejection and trying to continue with it with the other countries unless we change our minds and leaving us on the outskirts. Therefore changing the previous agreement cause they don't like the result of it. I didn't make this situation up, some of the more intelligent yes supporters suggested it was looking possible.

cornbb wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty won't come into force unless we ratify it. The EU can't "continue with it" without us. That is written in stone. If the other EU nations choose to go on without us using some other means, well that'll be our fault and not theirs. Why would they let a single tiny nation hold up their ambitions? I don't see how any of these actions constitute threats or bully tactics.

Seriously? Hang on so let's put out a hypothetical. Myself yourself and 25 other people are running a business and decide that there's a better way to decide things and agree to negotiate a new system but only to implement it if all 27 of us agree. After negotiation however you decide you don't prefer this method now and reject it. However even though we agreed all 27 had to accept it we decide to continue seeing who else accepts it in the hope of forcing you into rethinking your decision. As further pressure we drop hints that we might just rename the agreement and carry on with it leaving you on the outskirts if you don't happen to reconsider.

So think you're decision got the respect it was due when the original rules were set out for making the changes?

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

Seriously? Hang on so let's put out a hypothetical. Myself yourself and 25 other people are running a business and decide that there's a better way to decide things and agree to negotiate a new system but only to implement it if all 27 of us agree. After negotiation however you decide you don't prefer this method now and reject it. However even though we agreed all 27 had to accept it we decide to continue seeing who else accepts it in the hope of forcing you into rethinking your decision. As further pressure we drop hints that we might just rename the agreement and carry on with it leaving you on the outskirts if you don't happen to reconsider.

So think you're decision got the respect it was due when the original rules were set out for making the changes?

I see it more like... Here's a new set of rules on ethical behaviours. 26 agree to abide by them and one doesn't. The other 26 agree to abide by them anyway, and not force the 1 to.

ShooterSF

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I see it more like... Here's a new set of rules on ethical behaviours. 26 agree to abide by them and one doesn't. The other 26 agree to abide by them anyway, and not force the 1 to.

Possibly, but still not in the spirit of the original unanimity agreement. Though if they choose to head down that route fair enough but if a re-vote on the treaty is put to us with that situation even mentioned as a reason to vote yes then would you see it as bullying? i.e they'd be threatening to head down that route to get us to come aboard.

heyjude

axer wrote: »

Im thinking it is possible that Brian Cowen wants noise from the EU about the Irish "no" vote to attempt to scare the Irish people into voting yes. He is a very shrewd politician and likes to keep expectations down before coming in to save the day so it seems likely that he has asked the EU to make some noise about the situation so he can push for the second referendum.

Your thoughts?

I agree entirely, the only question is the timing. They'd probably like it ASAP but Cowen might find it hard to sell that, so I'd expect some stalling, followed by Cowen claiming he's managed to get some concessions(probably added as an addendum to the Treaty but not actually part of it as that might require other countries to go through ratification again), followed by the news that there is to be another referendum.

cornbb wrote: »

Also, why are people still assuming there'll be a second referendum?

Maybe because thats what happened when the Nice Treaty was rejected.

PopeBuckfastXVI

ShooterSF wrote: »

Possibly, but still not in the spirit of the original unanimity agreement. Though if they choose to head down that route fair enough but if a re-vote on the treaty is put to us with that situation even mentioned as a reason to vote yes then would you see it as bullying? i.e they'd be threatening to head down that route to get us to come aboard.

It's not really bullying as they've nothing to gain by us voting yes in that scenario. It becomes our problem then, and it's up to us to cut off our nose to spite our face or not.

EDIT: Just want to add that I don't consider it a threat, I'm positing it as a likely outcome of an ultimate 'No' by the Irish (post renegotiations of course).

marco_polo

murphaph wrote: »

If I make a mistake I'll generally hold my hands up. I also avoid making cross references to other threads in a poor attempt to deflect from the question.

Fair enough I'll play the ball not the man. I should have counted to 10 before hitting the Post button.

The point is that Lisbon is the result of a process that began 7 years ago. It is no secret that for example that most of the major structural changes to the EU institutions were proposed in the EU constitution already. Perhaps those new arrangements were kept because they were fair and equitable to all nations.

Did anyone seriously suggest that everybody started from scratch two years ago?

FrankGrimes

ShooterSF wrote: »

Seriously? Hang on so let's put out a hypothetical. Myself yourself and 25 other people are running a business and decide that there's a better way to decide things and agree to negotiate a new system but only to implement it if all 27 of us agree. After negotiation however you decide you don't prefer this method now and reject it. However even though we agreed all 27 had to accept it we decide to continue seeing who else accepts it in the hope of forcing you into rethinking your decision. As further pressure we drop hints that we might just rename the agreement and carry on with it leaving you on the outskirts if you don't happen to reconsider.

So think you're decision got the respect it was due when the original rules were set out for making the changes?

I agree that I'd feel my decision wasn't respected if they just fired ahead with the original plan.

However, if the other 26 turned to me and said 'why did you vote no?' I might be able to tell them that it was due in large part to not understanding what I was voting on, or that I heard lots of bad things would happen if I voted yes. Well, if they then said 'ah, we hear your concern. Let's find a way to re-communicate the material to make it more digestible to the average punter and highlight what it does do, and most importanly, what it does not do. Actually, let's specifically add in some clauses to explicitly address your concerns on neutrality, abortion, tax, and consciption'. Well, if they did that I'd have a pretty good understanding that they both respected and understood my situation and I would regard myself as being involved in a highly collaborative and democratic institution.

Now, I'm not saying our government are fully capable of pulling that off, but I just can't understand how it can be undemocratic to try to identify the issues voters had and address them so that we can continue to have the positive engagement with the EU that has served us so well and will continue to do so., so I really can't understand how anyone can be against a second referendum in principle cos in my mind Nice II was a classic example of government listening to the concerns of the public.

murphaph

m;-arco_polo wrote: »

Fair enough I'll play the ball not the man. I should have counted to 10 before hitting the Post button.

No probs. :-)

marco_polo wrote: »

The point is that Lisbon is the result of a process that began 7 years ago. It is no secret that for example that most of the major structural changes to the EU institutions were proposed in the EU constitution already. Perhaps those new arrangements were kept because they were fair and equitable to all nations.

Did anyone seriously suggest that everybody started from scratch two years ago?

To be honest, I'd have prefered if they'd amended the constitution rejected by France/Netherlands/Britain until it was palatable, rather than go the amendment route. However, I believe there should have been (and now's our chance again) for a Europe wide process of engagement with all (or as many as will listen) 487 million of us. From schools to old folks homes, across the continent. People must be able to influence the direction the EU is to take. This is such monumental stuff (a lot of which I disagree with) which fundamentally changes the notion of the nation state in Europe. We need to ascertain what people on the ground want and if it takes many years of failed referenda until it is accepted, it is the right way to go. Otherwise forget about further integration completely IMO.