Did our politicians really want a yes?

democrates

When Charlie McCreevy first made his comments correlating sanity with not reading the treaty, I was flabbergasted. Of all the things he could say after deftly evading "did you read" as is a politicians spectacular talent, there was no great reason for voting yes given, and in a similar vein went the rest of the yes campaign. Can we really write this off as imcompetence?

I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat (maybe I should) but having read The Prince by Machiavelli, and it's offspring "O'Machiavelli" (a good read about Charlie Haughey's reliance on advice based on the original book), I'm not so inclined to take things at face value, heaven forefend one might be accused of living out Gullible's Travels.

It seems to me that despite the sulphurous outbursts from politicians of other states in the aftermath of the referendum, and the pantomime of being summoned to the headmasters office, the bottom line is they have to meet the Irish to work something out.

Surely we are in a uniquely strong position now versus if we had simply given the nod.

ShooterSF

democrates wrote: »

When Charlie McCreevy first made his comments correlating sanity with not reading the treaty, I was flabbergasted. Of all the things he could say after deftly evading "did you read" as is a politicians spectacular talent, there was no great reason for voting yes given, and in a similar vein went the rest of the yes campaign. Can we really write this off as imcompetence?

I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat (maybe I should) but having read The Prince by Machiavelli, and it's offspring "O'Machiavelli" (a good read about Charlie Haughey's reliance on advice based on the original book), I'm not so inclined to take things at face value, heaven forefend one might be accused of living out Gullible's Travels.

It seems to me that despite the sulphurous outbursts from politicians of other states in the aftermath of the referendum, and the pantomime of being summoned to the headmasters office, the bottom line is they have to meet the Irish to work something out.

Surely we are in a uniquely strong position now versus if we had simply given the nod.

I think you're giving him way too much credit man he is a Fianna Failler after all

hmmm

democrates wrote: »

Surely we are in a uniquely strong position now versus if we had simply given the nod.

A strong position for what? They're not going to scrap the treaty and walk away. We can't argue for exemptions from things that aren't even in the treaty in the first place. Whatever about the people who voted "no" because they didn't like aspects of the treaty, those who voted no because they wanted a bribe or didn't understand or were taken in by the lies have made us look pathetic.

Our position is now hugely weaker. Foreign investors will look at Ireland and worry that we may not remain in the EU so who's going to invest. Our allies in Europe will see us as unreliable and obstructionist. We have badly damaged our economy and our position in Europe for what - so that far right British MEPs can dance around in leprechaun hats?

democrates

hmmm wrote: »

A strong position for what? They're not going to scrap the treaty and walk away. We can't argue for exemptions from things that aren't even in the treaty in the first place. Whatever about the people who voted "no" because they didn't like aspects of the treaty, those who voted no because they wanted a bribe or didn't understand or were taken in by the lies have made us look pathetic.

Our position is now hugely weaker. Foreign investors will look at Ireland and worry that we may not remain in the EU so who's going to invest. Our allies in Europe will see us as unreliable and obstructionist. We have badly damaged our economy and our position in Europe for what - so that far right British MEPs can dance around in leprechaun hats?

Look at what came out of todays meeting. Speculation that one solution might be a revote on Lisbon as is but accompanied by an undertaking to use the flexibility in Lisbon to ensure every country retains a commissioner. Maybe some would see that as a bad thing for Ireland, sounds like an improvement to me.

democrates

ShooterSF wrote: »

I think you're giving him way too much credit man he is a Fianna Failler after all

Lol, so below the belt.
The Machiavellian thesis is pure speculation of course, in order for it to hold water one of the things one must believe is that politicians are possessed of fox-like wiliness and sport titanium necks. Meara!

is_that_so

In answer to the original question I find myself agreeing or in as far as they understood what was involved in getting people to vote Yes. The old "we can count on you on the 12th" was not what was required. They misjudged the mood and the perception of how to campaign on a multi-issue referendum. I also suspect that McCreevy was not alone in his comments but was the only one foolish enough to voice them. He's always been a plain spoken man. Seem to remember him regularly fixing his own quotes- "Ah now that's not what I meant at all".

The only minor benefit is that we are now talking and thinking about the EU. One can only hope that maybe some people will try and find out what the EU actually does and how much it does or does not affect our daily lives.

Otherwise I doubt if we are better off in any way, seeing as no-one really has a clear idea what the No side said, apart from rejecting the ratification. Nevertheless I think it is a collection of strange bedfellows that many of us would normally avoid and one that now has the support of Le Pen and rest of the nutty MEP fringe.

hmmm

democrates wrote: »

Look at what came out of todays meeting. Speculation that one solution might be a revote on Lisbon as is but accompanied by an undertaking to use the flexibility in Lisbon to ensure every country retains a commissioner. Maybe some would see that as a bad thing for Ireland, sounds like an improvement to me.

A commissioner for every country is not a big deal, the no side blew this out of all proportion. It means more jobs for bureaucrats and I'd rather not pay for it, but if it satisfies some voters well and good.

I'm sure they will give us all sorts of tidbits, but fundamentally there is nothing major the EU can change in this document other than scrapping the whole thing. There are a lot of important things we could as a country have voted "no" against in the past or even in the future as regards the EU, but to throw away our position as strong europeans and a good place to invest for this document is a waste.

bill_ashmount

hmmm wrote: »

We have badly damaged our economy and our position in Europe for what - so that far right British MEPs can dance around in leprechaun hats?

No we haven't. Care to give an example?

is_that_so

democrates wrote: »

Look at what came out of todays meeting. Speculation that one solution might be a revote on Lisbon as is but accompanied by an undertaking to use the flexibility in Lisbon to ensure every country retains a commissioner. Maybe some would see that as a bad thing for Ireland, sounds like an improvement to me.

What it does highlight is that renegotiation is not on the cards and as has been commented elsewhere the search is for a political solution to this.

hmmm

bill_ashmount wrote: »

No we haven't. Care to give an example?

Munchau (FT heavyweight) summed it up
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8dc810e6-3ada-11dd-b1a1-0000779fd2ac.html

So the treaty of Lisbon will be implemented one way or the other, but only if the other 26 countries continue to ratify. Otherwise, all bets are off. The biggest losers from this fiasco will be the Irish themselves. They brought the country to the brink in its relations with the EU at a time when the economy is facing the most severe crisis in living memory. I shudder to think how foreign investors are going to react, given how much Ireland relies on them for its prosperity.

Scofflaw

democrates wrote: »

When Charlie McCreevy first made his comments correlating sanity with not reading the treaty, I was flabbergasted. Of all the things he could say after deftly evading "did you read" as is a politicians spectacular talent, there was no great reason for voting yes given, and in a similar vein went the rest of the yes campaign. Can we really write this off as imcompetence?

I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat (maybe I should) but having read The Prince by Machiavelli, and it's offspring "O'Machiavelli" (a good read about Charlie Haughey's reliance on advice based on the original book), I'm not so inclined to take things at face value, heaven forefend one might be accused of living out Gullible's Travels.

It seems to me that despite the sulphurous outbursts from politicians of other states in the aftermath of the referendum, and the pantomime of being summoned to the headmasters office, the bottom line is they have to meet the Irish to work something out.

Surely we are in a uniquely strong position now versus if we had simply given the nod.

This is something that has occurred to me before, but, as pointed out, the Treaty will not be renegotiated, and there's virtually nothing we would want to opt out of that we haven't.

If ot were true, it would form (as I have put it elsewhere) the basis for the argument that Ireland negotiated and signed the Treaty of Lisbon in bad faith.

I think one just has to accept that FF in particular simply got it very wrong. Their campaign looks badly thought out and ineffectual not because they really wanted a No vote, but because their campaign was badly thought out and ineffectual.

cordially,
Scofflaw

democrates

I think you're right folks, bad timing, caught by surprise etc, and the EU strategy is going to be to keep trying with minimum changes.

Eamonn Gilmore was rapid in moving from "honest leadership" to "the people are afraid", he can't afford to be distanced from his working class "no" base, and he'll have lattitude from FF/FG in achieving this retrieval as the alternatives to Labour representing the working class would be seen as far less palatable.

Once enough of the No camp feel they've been heard, the carrot of a greater focus on protecting jobs is accompanied by the stick of fear of Dantes inferno following another no, we'll be set for the second referendum. Maybe the clincher would be "if we leave the EU we'll have to drop the minimum wage and bring in more immigrants".

Caoimhín

I think its possible that shrewd politicians from FF, Labour and FG maybe went easy on the canvassing for a yes vote in areas where they had a fair idea which way the wind was blowing.