Possibility of a Lisbon #2

ionix5891

auerillo wrote: »

A re run of the vote will be great fun, with the "no" side having all that extra ammunition in their armoury that the EU has now proved it is undemocratic (by refusing to accept the democratic will as expressed by the Irish Electorate this time), and also by pointing out that any assurances from th eyes side are worthless since David Byrne and others gave reassuarances that Ireland would retain its commissioner for 130 years to try to sway the no voters over to the yes side in Nice II.

On the domestic front , Fianna Fail run's the risk of alienating large sections of the electorate which could negatively affect their own domestic electoral success for a generation.

On this issue, the French electorate have been ignored, as have the Dutch , by the EU, and now it looks as if they will also ignore the Irish electorate.

Personally, this lack of respect for democracy in the EU is the most worrying aspect of all. It makes the EU seem arrogant, and highlights the fact that the EU leaders, both elected and non elected, do not see themselves as our servants, but see themselves as our masters.

yet another person bringing up the Dutch and French NO vote in their referenda

what about the Spanish and the Luxembourgian YES vote in their referendums?

Kev_ps3

towel401 wrote: »

It would only have been a few minutes ago that this was actually brought up as a possibility on the Beeb. I couldnt fcking believe it, there are people out there who are actually seriously considering re-running the referendum just after the last one.

They could change a few bits, try to focus on non-issues such as irish neutrality while the rest of the treaty stays the same and strives towards a European superstate. but that's hardly good enough is it?

if Biffo actually sees this as an option I think it would be time to just kick the muppet out, what I don't understand is why people actually put up with this "Wrong answer, bitch" style of ruling a country. They don't do re-runs in other countries because they know that if they tried it the streets will be filled with protesters in the morning but in Ireland it is an acceptable practice?

If they do decide to re-run it, everyone should vote No in protest. I would lose alot of respect for the Irish people if they voted Yes.

ionix5891

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

If they do decide to re-run it, everyone should vote No in protest. I would lose alot of respect for the Irish people if they voted Yes.

i would loose respect in Irish people who vote on issues other than what in the Referendum :rolleyes:

timbel

obl wrote: »

It already does this, just in a far more convoluted way. Allowing this to be done more efficiently is the essence of the treaty. It is not trying to be come a state, merely a representative body of many states.


But such a vote would have to be unanimous - thus we have a veto.

I'm a new poster here so be gentle!

I voted Yes in the referendum. main reasons were that we retained our veto in vital areas eg.tax. I didn't like the way populations of other countries didn't get to vote but, hey, thats their system.
However, having seen the reaction to our vote, I'm a little worried.
Ratification goes ahead, wait until 26 for, 1 against.
What will happen then??

The rules state that for Lisbon to be passed unanimity is required, ie. each country has a veto.
But now we see what this veto is worth.

Would our govt even use the veto in a situation where all other countries supported it?

force eleven

If we are asked to vote again on a treaty which is unaltered, then the EU is no better than Zimbabwe/Mugabe. Keep voting until they get the answer they want. Anyone who thinks this is the right way, does not respect democracy.

ionix5891

timbel wrote: »

I'm a new poster here so be gentle!

I voted Yes in the referendum. main reasons were that we retained our veto in vital areas eg.tax. I didn't like the way populations of other countries didn't get to vote but, hey, thats their system.
However, having seen the reaction to our vote, I'm a little worried.
Ratification goes ahead, wait until 26 for, 1 against.
What will happen then??

The rules state that for Lisbon to be passed unanimity is required, ie. each country has a veto.
But now we see what this veto is worth.

Would our govt even use the veto in a situation where all other countries supported it?

they are going ahead as its putting political pressure on us, but no they cant ratify it without all 27

but as mentioned before a few years down the road theres nothing stopping them making a new treaty and removing several clauses creating a 2-tier europe

the above is on of the plausible outcomes of this, other scenarios are:
*eu falls apart
*the concernts of the Irish are addressed and put up for another referendum
*the bits that require a referendum are removed and its passed by the government


none of the above options are nice but hey we dug this hole so


this NO vote has put ireland in a weak political position despite the many lies coming from Sein Fein that this will "keep ireland strong in europe"

force eleven wrote: »

If we are asked to vote again on a treaty which is unaltered, then the EU is no better than Zimbabwe/Mugabe. Keep voting until they get the answer they want. Anyone who thinks this is the right way, does not respect democracy.

how exactly is it undemocratic can you explain to us please? somebody else brought up zimbabwe before, are we starving? are there deathsquads? are people being intimidated at gunpoint? is the whole world condemning ireland

please stop posting rubbish like that its digusting

force eleven

ionix5891 wrote: »

they are going ahead as its putting political pressure on us, but no they cant ratify it without all 27

but as mentioned before a few years down the road theres nothing stopping them making a new treaty and removing several clause creating 2-tier europe

the above is on of the plausible outcomes of this, other scenarios are:
*eu falls apart
*the concernts of the Irish are addressed and put up for another referendum
*the bits that require a referendum are removed and its passed by the government



this NO vote has put ireland in a weak political position despite the many lies coming from Sein Fein that this will "keep ireland strong in europe"




how exactly is it undemocratic can you explain to us please? somebody else brought up zimbabwe before, are we starving? are there deathsquads? are people being intimidated at gunpoint? is the whole world condemning ireland

please stop posting rubbish like that its digusting

We voted No to Lisbon. Therefore Lisbon is dead in its current form. It needs to be renegotiated to address Irish concerns. Be that opt outs/amendments etc, whatever. But to put it back to the people unaltered, which of course we do not know if it will be for sure, so I am being hypothetical, would be akin to how Zimababwe respects the peoples voice. I didn't bring in the question of starvation, death squads etc etc, simply when it comes to voting, the EU acts like Mugabe.

ionix5891

force eleven wrote: »

We voted No to Lisbon. Therefore Lisbon is dead in its current form. It needs to be renegotiated to address Irish concerns. Be that opt outs/amendments etc, whatever. But to put it back to the people unaltered, which of course we do not know if it will be for sure, so I am being hypothetical, would be akin to how Zimababwe respects the peoples voice. I didn't bring in the question of starvation, death squads etc etc, simply when it comes to voting, the EU acts like Mugabe.

who exactly here is calling for the treaty to be returned unaltered?

we are all more or less in agreement, please do read the thread and other parallel threads

i am quite happy myself if the treaty returns with as many of the concerns addressed as possible and that would be quite democratic too

the above is the best outcome I believe out of the 4 possible outcomes i listed above


the problem is no matter how many concerns are addressed Sein Fein will still scream murder as they would rather we all go back to a Zimbabwe like good old poor days we had a few decades back

marco_polo

force eleven wrote: »

We voted No to Lisbon. Therefore Lisbon is dead in its current form. It needs to be renegotiated to address Irish concerns. Be that opt outs/amendments etc, whatever. But to put it back to the people unaltered, which of course we do not know if it will be for sure, so I am being hypothetical, would be akin to how Zimababwe respects the peoples voice. I didn't bring in the question of starvation, death squads etc etc, simply when it comes to voting, the EU acts like Mugabe.

I have not hear a single person suggest that the vote would be run again without at least adressing some of issues raised by the no vote.

BTW I don't remember the EU coming around to houses taking polling cards off people before the referendum using violent means.

Rented Mule

marco_polo wrote: »

I have not hear a single person suggest that the vote would be run again without at least adressing some of issues raised by the no vote.

TAOISEACH Brian Cowen has been given a year by his European counterparts to push through a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the Irish Independent has learned.




European parties say treaty can't be changed for Ireland



I am curious if there would have beena 'snowballs chance in hell' of a second vote if the Treaty had passed.

This is extortion at the highest level of the democratic process.

marco_polo

Rented Mule wrote: »

TAOISEACH Brian Cowen has been given a year by his European counterparts to push through a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the Irish Independent has learned.




European parties say treaty can't be changed for Ireland



I am curious if there would have beena 'snowballs chance in hell' of a second vote if the Treaty had passed.

This is extortion at the highest level of the democratic process.

"The main options available will be to get written assurances on key issues such as tax, abortion and neutrality, and a deal may also be struck on the contentious allocation of commisioners to each country":.

Did you actually read it or are you just posting random links?

Or do you have a problem with us voting on any European issue ever again because of the no vote?

Scofflaw

Voters will most likely be presented with the stark choice of approving Ireland's future in the EU with the new Lisbon rules, or being left behind.

Well, that's not unexpected.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Rented Mule wrote: »

This is extortion at the highest level of the democratic process.

Hmm. That cuts both ways - we are trying to extort renegotiation out of the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

timbel

ionix5891 wrote: »

they are going ahead as its putting political pressure on us, but no they cant ratify it without all 27

but as mentioned before a few years down the road theres nothing stopping them making a new treaty and removing several clauses creating a 2-tier europe

We respect to the above, what is the stop EU doing the same thing everytime some uses their veto?
I mean what is the value of the veto if they just find a way to circumvent it.

ionix5891 wrote: »

none of the above options are nice but hey we dug this hole so

I dont agree that we dug this hole - we exercised our democratic right - and although it wasn't what I voted for, I will respect it.
By the EUs own rules, they must respect it too.
I haven't seen to much respect so far.

is_that_so

It still puzzles me why some on the No side refuse to recognise that there are consequences to the No vote.

There are also some who regrettably indulge in the toys out of the pram tantrums that they decry in the EU attitude. As they say you can't have it every way. More importantly it appears there is a refusal to countenance understanding either why it is that renegotiation is probably not an option or how the EU works.

It disturbs me that there is such a level of ignorance of what the EU is and how it works.

Cool heads and time will determine what will happen and when. Anything else is just speculation. While we have that time I respectfully suggest people do some real reading on what the EU is actually all about.

This is a decent start

http://europa.eu/index_en.htm

Maybe we should have a sticky with information links?

BigglesMcGee

marco_polo wrote: »

Seems that 10% of people voted no on the basis of what you now admit was a non-issue, so maybe a rerun would be for the best.

I voted Yes. If it comes back unaltered then I will vote No.

Why? Because thats what the people said the first time and it should count.

Scofflaw

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

I voted Yes. If it comes back unaltered then I will vote No.

Why? Because thats what the people said the first time and it should count.

Many of the issues that concerned people cannot be addressed by altering the Treaty, because they were never in the Treaty. Would you accept that those concerns were addressed if the EU gives binding guarantees in respect of them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Biro

ionix5891 wrote: »

none of the above options are nice but hey we dug this hole so

We did NOT dig this hole, we were put in it.

marco_polo

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

I voted Yes. If it comes back unaltered then I will vote No.

Why? Because thats what the people said the first time and it should count.

I agree it should not come without at least some assurances

BigglesMcGee

Scofflaw wrote: »

Many of the issues that concerned people cannot be addressed by altering the Treaty, because they were never in the Treaty. Would you accept that those concerns were addressed if the EU gives binding guarantees in respect of them?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well i have a little problem with the words "assurances", "Democratic" and "Binding" now too. Guess why?

Scofflaw

Biro wrote: »

We did NOT dig this hole, we were put in it.

Actually, we've always been in it, but prefer not to talk about it. There's never been a time when Ireland could afford to give the EU the finger.

I appreciate that to anyone under 30 that may come as a shock, but as it was rather eloquently put, not only are we peripheral to Europe, but we are peripheral to the idea of Europe. The EU, on the other hand, is absolutely vital to our acceptance as an equal player in Europe, and our acceptance beyond that as a player on the world stage.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ionix5891

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Well i have a little problem with the words "assurances", "Democratic" and "Binding" now too. Guess why?

because a few crackpots decided to put political pressure on Ireland? lets ignore all the people in Europe who supported us?? as i said i am surprised there isn't more of bad comments. all of these comments were to be expected so don't be so shocked, its politics


were a small country like it or not but swimming against the flow wont get as far


i still yet to hear what exactly in the treaty wasn't democratic? so far alot of the concerns of the NO voters have nothing to do with Lisbon and its sad

BigglesMcGee

ionix5891 wrote: »

i still yet to hear what exactly in the treaty wasn't democratic? so far alot of the concerns of the NO voters have nothing to do with Lisbon and its sad

For me its not the treaty thats not democratic. Its having another referendum. What is the point of people bothering to go out and vote if they just get ignored.

Would we have been ignored if yes had the majority

molloyjh

marco_polo wrote: »

By by what mechanism would they just "remove the clause". The EU has no authority to call any referendum anywhere. And who exactly is 'they'? I can never get a good answer to this one.

Is it the MEPs, commissioners, member state leaders, civil servents. There are some Irish people on each of those bodies. Wait a minute, that means 'they' are amongst us already :eek: its too late.

But wait, we put them there so are we 'they' or are 'they' us? My head is spinning, its like the end to a M Night Shyamalan (sp?) movie!

marco_polo

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

For me its not the treaty thats not democratic. Its having another referendum. What is the point of people bothering to go out and vote if they just get ignored.

Would we have been ignored if yes had the majority

All the people of Ireland would have to do is elect a Euroskeptic government if they wanted another referendum in the face of a yes vote.

BigglesMcGee

marco_polo wrote: »

All the people of Ireland would have to do is elect a Euroskeptic government if they wanted another referendum in the face of a yes vote.

If thats the case lets wait and see what kind of govt we get in the next election and then decide on having new referendum or not.

susanna

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

For me its not the treaty thats not democratic. Its having another referendum. What is the point of people bothering to go out and vote if they just get ignored.

Would we have been ignored if yes had the majority

The No vote is not being ignored, but we all know that a significant number of No voters did not base their decision on the actual contents of the treaty. I'm not calling the No voters stupid, they had genuine concerns about our tax rates, militarisation, etc. The government did very little to address these fears. But many people had the "don't know, vote no" attitude, and some voted as a protest against the government.

A huge range of issues were at play here, most of which could be addressed with further guarentees and clarification of our position. In this case, I do not see a problem with a second referendum.

If you're going to vote, please do so on the basis of the treaty itself, not as a protest.

molloyjh

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

If thats the case lets wait and see what kind of govt we get in the next election and then decide on having new referendum or not.

If the people of Ireland really don't want the Treaty they can just vote No again. What is the problem? Its not like you're being held at gunpoint and forced to vote a certain way, and its not like the Government are defrauding the system. The fact of the matter is that a huge number of people (regardless of how they voted) were incredibly ignorant with regards both the EU as a whole and the Treaty.

If it were re-run and the people were informed properly about it (or bothered their b-sides to look into it themselves) then you can be sure of an accurate picture of exactly what the Irsh people want. What we have now is a situation where there is no concrete message coming from Ireland as to how to go forward. I think a re-run, with an educated electorate, will garner a more representative view of the Irish peoples needs/wants, whether that means a Yes or No vote doesn't matter then as at least we'll have a sense of where we want to go. Right now we haven't a clue and the rest of the EU is looking at us thinking we're nothing but a bunch of feckin gobsheens because we voted No but don't really know why.

BigglesMcGee

susanna wrote: »

The No vote is not being ignored, but we all know that a significant number of No voters did not base their decision on the actual contents of the treaty. I'm not calling the No voters stupid, they had genuine concerns about our tax rates, militarisation, etc. The government did very little to address these fears. But many people had the "don't know, vote no" attitude, and some voted as a protest against the government.

A huge range of issues were at play here, most of which could be addressed with further guarentees and clarification of our position. In this case, I do not see a problem with a second referendum.

If you're going to vote, please do so on the basis of the treaty itself, not as a protest.

And most of the Yes voters voted because they were told to by politicians.

Whats the difference?

BigglesMcGee

molloyjh wrote: »

If the people of Ireland really don't want the Treaty they can just vote No again. What is the problem? Its not like you're being held at gunpoint and forced to vote a certain way, and its not like the Government are defrauding the system. The fact of the matter is that a huge number of people (regardless of how they voted) were incredibly ignorant with regards both the EU as a whole and the Treaty.

If it were re-run and the people were informed properly about it (or bothered their b-sides to look into it themselves) then you can be sure of an accurate picture of exactly what the Irsh people want. What we have now is a situation where there is no concrete message coming from Ireland as to how to go forward. I think a re-run, with an educated electorate, will garner a more representative view of the Irish peoples needs/wants, whether that means a Yes or No vote doesn't matter then as at least we'll have a sense of where we want to go. Right now we haven't a clue and the rest of the EU is looking at us thinking we're nothing but a bunch of feckin gobsheens because we voted No but don't really know why.

So how many No results does it take for a no vote to count?

It would be fair if we agreed on this before we had another referndum and also that the same number of Yes votes were required for a yes.

Anything else is skewed and unfair.