Possibility of a Lisbon #2

molloyjh

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

complete Tosh. Who's spouting misinformation now.

Not really. The Government are going to have to make a call one way or another about how we as a nation proceeds. It may well come down to another referendum on the Treaty.

Now to be fair most of the posters here, particularly Scofflaw, have retorted with the misinformation response and have included reason and logic (and quite often links) that back up why it is misinformation. All you've done is say it is. That means absolutely nothing.

Scofflaw

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

complete Tosh. Who's spouting misinformation now.

Well, I am undeniably speculating, but I am not speculating in a vacuum. Would you agree that if the EU puts it to us that we can ratify or leave, the Government has no realistic option but to ask us again?

Without wanting to rehash the arguments, the facts are that of the 4 electorates who were asked to vote for or against the constitution/treaty, 3 out of 4 have voted "no".

France (EUC No), Holland (EUC No), Spain (EUC Yes), Luxembourg (EUC Yes), Ireland (Lisbon No).

We can choose to ignore that, and we can come up with clever arguments that give more weight to what the governments of those countries want rather than what the people in those countries voted for. Facts are facts.

We can make the rather clever argument that the French and Dutch got two years to renegotiate the Constitution, and apparently did so. Their No votes, then, should be discounted, because their issues were addressed.

I wonder are they any precedents from history which show us what happens when the governing classes ignore to will of the people whom they are supposed to represent?

Traditionally, they get a kicking at the next election. In representative democracies, anyway, that's the standard recourse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

auerillo wrote: »

Without wanting to rehash the arguments, the facts are that of the 4 electorates who were asked to vote for or against the constitution/treaty, 3 out of 4 have voted "no".

No. Luxemburg and Spain voted yes.

We can choose to ignore that, and we can come up with clever arguments that give more weight to what the governments of those countries want rather than what the people in those countries voted for.

Now please stop and get yourself a cup of tea. Ok? Sure?
You said: "what the people in those countries voted for".
This is the problem. It is impossible to ascertain, a cohesive, coherent message what these people voted for. They just no. But no for Lisbon means yes to what????????????
That's the problem. Understand?

Some voted no, because they want a neo-liberal revolution, other's because they want a marxist revolution, others because they want the us out of shannon, others because they don't like FF, others because they don't like a superstate. Can't you see the problem?
There is nothing intelligble or constructive from the no camp. 70% thought there would be another treaty and it would be easy to negotiate? How do you deal with that level of ignorance?

Facts are facts.

An insightful piece of rhetoric.

I wonder are they any precedents from history which show us what happens when the governing classes ignore to will of the people whom they are supposed to represent?

Oh what absolute childless nonsense. IF the no camp had a constructive suggestion, then you could make a decision whether it was being ignored or not. All they have said is no and no-one has ignored that because the treaty has not being ratified in this state.

Fact is, something has to be done as this state is in Limbo. You are exceptionally naive if you think we can just rip up Lisbon, when we can't even articulate what it is we want or what we think is wrong with it.

The precendent you should be looking at from history is that no democracy is never perfect. There are always problems. Referendums cause a mess, because they facilitate ignorance subverting a consensual process. That is what is happened here. There is no magic answer. Sadly I am yet to meet a no voter who even realises that.

BigglesMcGee

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I am undeniably speculating, but I am not speculating in a vacuum. Would you agree that if the EU puts it to us that we can ratify or leave, the Government has no realistic option but to ask us again?



France (EUC No), Holland (EUC No), Spain (EUC Yes), Luxembourg (EUC Yes), Ireland (Lisbon No).



We can make the rather clever argument that the French and Dutch got two years to renegotiate the Constitution, and apparently did so. Their No votes, then, should be discounted, because their issues were addressed.



Traditionally, they get a kicking at the next election. In representative democracies, anyway, that's the standard recourse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Speculating is an understatement.

Do you honestly think that we will be asked do we want to leave Europe?

I predict that that question will NEVER be asked.

What I see is the Yes side now engageing in the stupid scare tactics that the No campaign engaged in the last time.
Its pathetic.

hmmm

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Do you honestly think that we will be asked do we want to leave Europe?

I predict that that question will NEVER be asked.

What I see is the Yes side now engageing in the stupid scare tactics that the No campaign engaged in the last time.
Its pathetic.

Asking people do they want to accept the Lisbon Treaty or not obviously wasn't clear enough to many. The next referendum needs to spell out the implications of a "yes" or "no" vote. If we make it clear to people what they are voting for, there's few on either side who can disagree with the result.

Scofflaw

hmmm wrote: »

The no side managed to convince voters that the question in the referendum was

"Would you like the status quo to remain or would you like to join Europe under Lisbon"

Unfortunately the status quo was not on offer from our fellow Europeans. The next referendum needs to make it clear that the choice is

"Would you like to join the second tier of Europe (or even leave the EU) or accept Lisbon"

It would be interesting to wonder what proportion of the No and Yes voters thought that the referendum result would have any impact on our future and/or position in Europe, and how many, indeed, thought that the Treaty was important to the EU.


cordially,
Scofflaw

BigglesMcGee

All thats going on here is that the Yes side have proven that they have ZERO respect for the result of the referendum and are prepared to now go the way of the No campaigners by throwing out scare messages about us getting kicked out of Europe.

ionix5891

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Its pathetic.

it worked

seamus

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Do you honestly think that we will be asked do we want to leave Europe?

It's a distinct possibility. If you're on a bus that's going to Rathmines, and everyone else on the bus wants to go to Rathmines, but you want to go to Donabate, what do you think your options are? Get off the bus or join everyone else in Rathmines.

molloyjh

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Speculating is an understatement.

Do you honestly think that we will be asked do we want to leave Europe?

I predict that that question will NEVER be asked.

What I see is the Yes side now engageing in the stupid scare tactics that the No campaign engaged in the last time.
Its pathetic.

So what do you think will happen? Will this all just die down and everyone will forget thw Lisbon ever existed? There are 26 other states in this union and its looking very likely that all of them will ratify this treaty. That means that the EU as a whole wants the measures in this Treaty. So they are hardly just going to give it up.

If it comes to another Treaty or amendments to this one, what will Cowen and co have as their "list of demands" given that we don't have a coherent list of objections to the Treaty.

Something will happen. We may not be asked to leave the EU (I think Scofflaw was just using that as an example) but we will probably be asked to put it back to the people in some way. Should the Government say no? What are the risks and consequences of them saying no at that point? Why should the Government, who we have elected to speak for us, say no to the EU then if they themselves aren't really sure what is so "wrong" with the Treaty, i.e. they don't know what we're saying.

A re-run will only make sense if the people of this country have an understanding of what the Treaty is and what it means. That includes the people who voted Yes as much as those who voted No. The result of last weeks referendum is pretty much meaningless when so many people were so utterly ignorant. You can't possibly say that the Irish people have spoken and thats that when in reality the Irish people grumbled a little bit and ended up shrugging their shoulders and saying "Ah sure I don't know, what would I know about that stuff anyway". If someone told you that they thought some new car was total rubbish and when you asked why they responded with "It just is, I don't really know anything about it, but it is bad", would you be inclined to take their word for it?

ionix5891

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

What I see is the Yes side now engageing in the stupid scare tactics that the No campaign engaged in the last time.
Its pathetic.

it worked didn't it?

anyways i have already listed the 4 possible outcomes of this, none of them are nice, thats what we voted for

no Ireland will probably never be asked to leave directly but indirectly any proposal from us could be vetoed to a point that it will make it unbearable to stay

marco_polo

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

All thats going on here is that the Yes side have proven that they have ZERO respect for the result of the referendum and are prepared to now go the way of the No campaigners by throwing out scare messages about us getting kicked out of Europe.

So are you now admitting that the No camp was dishonest throughout the campaign?

is_that_so

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Speculating is an understatement.

Do you honestly think that we will be asked do we want to leave Europe?

I predict that that question will NEVER be asked.

What I see is the Yes side now engageing in the stupid scare tactics that the No campaign engaged in the last time.
Its pathetic.

It is not clear to me whether you have just discovered the EU in the last week or whether you understand how they do business. From an EU perspective this has to be "fixed".

One of those options is the ultimate sanction -we're on our own. No scaremongering at all.

A second option, looking more likely is a second vote. It is not unreasonable to assume that while we will get every chance to identify and solve our own problems the EU goes on.

Remember if we were to hold a vote tomorrow on EU membership and withdrew, the EU would wish us well.

hmmm

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

All thats going on here is that the Yes side have proven that they have ZERO respect for the result of the referendum and are prepared to now go the way of the No campaigners by throwing out scare messages about us getting kicked out of Europe.

I don't see anyone here talking about us getting kicked out of Europe, but we do face the possibility of being sidelined with the consequent potential impacts on our economy and our ability to influence through the EU. I'm sure the farmers could explain why it's important to retain influence in Europe (soft power).

molloyjh

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

All thats going on here is that the Yes side have proven that they have ZERO respect for the result of the referendum and are prepared to now go the way of the No campaigners by throwing out scare messages about us getting kicked out of Europe.

I have very little respect for the result because roughly 50% of voters (both sides) didn't know what the thing was about (according to that poll in the Times and Indo during the week). And another good proportion voted based on BS or a TDs "Ah go on" poster. Thats not to mention the finger-up-to-FF brigade and general protest voters. In other words the majority of people who did vote didn't vote on the Lisbon Treaty at all, or at best based on things about Lisbon that were not true. How can anyone respect that vote? If its rejected when the majority of voters actually know what they are voting on then I'll respect that, but only a fool respects a decision reached out of ignorance.

Scofflaw

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Speculating is an understatement.

Do you honestly think that we will be asked do we want to leave Europe?

I predict that that question will NEVER be asked.

What I see is the Yes side now engageing in the stupid scare tactics that the No campaign engaged in the last time.
Its pathetic.

Yes, obviously I think that's possible - otherwise I wouldn't say it. There is no point in me "engaging in scaremongering" at this stage - the vote has been held.

I accept that you disagree with me, but I'm not sure why you are getting so worked up over it. I think it's an outside risk, but look at it this way:

1. the EU member state governments are agreed that the EU has certain problems which need addressing

2. for the last seven years they have been thrashing out the solutions they are prepared to accept to these problems, and trying to get those solutions ratified

3. non-ratification of the proposed solutions will not solve the problems, nor have the problems changed, or the general acceptability of solutions

4. at some point, the problems have to be solved.

If the choices are not solving the problems or having to find away around the Irish veto, I cannot see why you are so certain that asking Ireland to leave is impossible.

I think it is highly unlikely, but not impossible, and the enormous impact it would have on my life, my family, and my business gives me, in my view, the right to discuss it, whether or not you consider it scaremongering. There's more to life than referendum campaigns, after all.


cordially,
Scofflaw

D.S.

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

Speculating is an understatement.

Do you honestly think that we will be asked do we want to leave Europe?

I predict that that question will NEVER be asked.

What I see is the Yes side now engageing in the stupid scare tactics that the No campaign engaged in the last time.
Its pathetic.

I disagree. The government posed the the people a question which has been shot down. However, this referendum was a shambles given the fact that

1) the majority of both 'Yes' and 'No' voters were unaware of the actual contents of the treaty
2) the government made a mess of the 'Yes' campaign as Bertie stepped down to late and took the spotlight away from lisbon
3) there was widespread public discontent socio-economic climate on a range of issues from the credit crunch, to oil prices, to rail strikes etc etc etc
3) the 'No' campaign were able to play off 1), 2) and 3) rather than explain and argue the facts of the actual treaty.

The bottom line is that the referendum was v poorly handled and really someone should be held accountable.

It is right to hold a second referendum simply based on the above.

auerillo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Now please stop and get yourself a cup of tea. ... Understand?

... Can't you see the problem?
There is nothing intelligble or constructive from the no camp. ... How do you deal with that level of ignorance?


An insightful piece of rhetoric.


Oh what absolute childless nonsense. ... as this state is in Limbo. You are exceptionally naive .

Lets not try to just rubbish each other and be patronising. It is an interesting position and there is an interesting debate to be had, but just to name call and be patronising isn't really going to do your case much good.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is impossible to ascertain, a cohesive, coherent message what these people voted for.

Some voted no, because they want a neo-liberal revolution, other's because they want a marxist revolution, others because they want the us out of shannon, others because they don't like FF, others because they don't like a superstate. Can't you see the problem?




.

Perhaps the problem is that, as in any election, it is not necessary to speculate why people voted, or what was their motivation. What is necessary to understand is HOW people voted. And in this case how they voted was resoundingly "NO".

I don't remember a single thread here, or comment elsewhere, that called the last general election invalid afterwards. No one speculated that some people might have voted for FF because they thought Bertie was innocent, and that maybe we should have another general election two months later, or six months later, to be sure they hadn't changed their minds.

But there seems to be just such a suggestion here.

My point is, and was, that its not just the Irish electorate that are out of step with the rest of the EU, but it is more a case that the politicians of the EU that are out of step with the people of the EU.

We can all choose to ignore that and pretend otherwise and shout louder and louder and louder that the Irish people who voted "no" are out of step with everyone else, but it isn't true as the votes in France and Holland show.

nhughes100

I think it's entirely obvious that there's going to be a second referendum to be held next year either early along with the proposed Childrens referendum or they'll delay it until the local elections in the Summer. They'll give a few assurances about the same sacred cows of nuetrality and tax so the common people can understand it and it will be passed - not because Lisbon is such a great treaty but because we'll be afraid of getting turfed out of the EU.

I said it before that the protocols for the workings of the EU should have been made and put to the vote before the enlargement to 27 states. We now have a situation where states that have only been in the union for a few years are being used in a bums on seats capacity to make us feel like the odd man out. Let's face it, if one country out of 12 used it's veto it just didn't sound as bad as one little nation on the edge of the Europe holding up 27 states and 500 million people. I think this is the primary reason why enlargement took place before reform of the EU's institutions.

We're in this now and there's no getting out, our veto is now defunct and any claims that we are at the heart of Europe etc are a sham. We may as well stop the referendums, money is going to be tight over the next few years so no point wasting it on meaningless elections.

ionix5891

auerillo wrote: »

as the votes in France and Holland show.

what about the YES votes in Spain and Luxembourg referenda?

as promised i will bring them up every time i hear France and Holland mention in an argument

molloyjh

auerillo wrote: »

Lets not try to just rubbish each other and be patronising. It is an interesting position and there is an interesting debate to be had, but just to name call and be patronising isn't really going to do your case much good.




Perhaps the problem is that, as in any election, it is not necessary to speculate why people voted, or what was their motivation. What is necessary to understand is HOW people voted. And in this case how they voted was resoundingly "NO".

I don't remember a single thread here, or comment elsewhere, that called the last general election invalid afterwards. No one speculated that some people might have voted for FF because they thought Bertie was innocent, and that maybe we should have another general election two months later, or six months later, to be sure they hadn't changed their minds.

But there seems to be just such a suggestion here.

My point is, and was, that its not just the Irish electorate that are out of step with the rest of the EU, but it is more a case that the politicians of the EU that are out of step with the people of the EU.

We can all choose to ignore that and pretend otherwise and shout louder and louder and louder that the Irish people who voted "no" are out of step with everyone else, but it isn't true as the votes in France and Holland show.

There has been very little outrage (if any) in most EU member states re Lisbon, which would lead me to believe that most people in the EU want it. I think its incredibley self-absorbed to think that less than a third of our small population is somehow speaking for the citizens of every other EU state. Its not that the Irish people are out of step with the rest of the EU, it is simply that the Irish people voted from a position of ignorance, which in my view anyway makes the decision we reached a completely meaningless waste of time. Regardless of the result. I was mourning the state of the whole thing before last Thursday.

Now I do agree that the politicians (in this country at least) have lost all touch with the common punter. That was obvious before the vote even took place, in the campaign that they ran. It begs another question though, albeit slightly off topic. How did they get that way? Particularly given the fact that we're only 12 months or so since the last GE. Its fair to conclude that we've given them an easy time of it here and while the Yes campaign (and therefore IMO the faith we can put in the result last week) can be blamed on the political parties themselves, I think we need to shoulder some of the blame for allowing the parties to become so complacent and so aloof.

Tim Robbins

auerillo wrote: »

Perhaps the problem is that, as in any election, it is not necessary to speculate why people voted, or what was their motivation. What is necessary to understand is HOW people voted. And in this case how they voted was resoundingly "NO".

I don't remember a single thread here, or comment elsewhere, that called the last general election invalid afterwards. No one speculated that some people might have voted for FF because they thought Bertie was innocent, and that maybe we should have another general election two months later, or six months later, to be sure they hadn't changed their minds.

But there seems to be just such a suggestion here.

My point is, and was, that its not just the Irish electorate that are out of step with the rest of the EU, but it is more a case that the politicians of the EU that are out of step with the people of the EU.

We can all choose to ignore that and pretend otherwise and shout louder and louder and louder that the Irish people who voted "no" are out of step with everyone else, but it isn't true as the votes in France and Holland show.

With the general election we had an elected government we had a way to move forward. I was very disappointed about the result but I am far more worried about Lisbon.

Ireland is now limbo. You seem not get that point. We are out of Lisbon but not out of the EU. We have to get out of limbo. The no campaign seem not to even realised what they have done and somehow think everything will magically go on, because "no is what people said" or France and Holland also said "no". We have nothing constructive how we can move forward.

For example, Ireland had an opt out clause on security policy for Lisbon. If the No people coherently communicated they wanted an opt out for energy policy, we could negotiate that and move forward.

But the no side, haven't articulated anything intelligble on how we can move forward. They seem to blissfully happy we remain in limbo.

That is unsustainable. But instead of understanding that all we hear is stupid rhetoric such as "the people have spoken" and all this nonsense. We know you have spoken and now could please speak a bit more and suggest how the f*ck we get out of this mess?

auerillo

ionix5891 wrote: »

what about the YES votes in Spain and Luxembourg referenda?

as promised i will bring them up every time i hear France and Holland mention in an argument

It seems to be a rather rash sort of promise to have made. It's not a case that 2 yes votes and 2 no votes cancel each other out. I used that example to show that Ireland are not the only people who are not in favour of this constitution/treaty

molloyjh wrote: »

I think its incredibley self-absorbed to think that less than a third of our small population is somehow speaking for the citizens of every other EU state. Its not that the Irish people are out of step with the rest of the EU, it is simply that the Irish people voted from a position of ignorance, which in my view anyway makes the decision we reached a completely meaningless waste of time. Regardless of the result.

I have to say I think that its extraordinary the way posters keep trying to decide they know why others voted. It seems the exclusive preserve of those who want to speculate why others voted “no”, and I have seem no such speculation to know why others may have voted “yes”. Might they have voted yes because they felt threatened by the overwhelming weight of political pressure? We simply don't know, and speculating is merely that, speculation.

To suggest we are alone in voting “no” is clearly untrue, as has already been pointed out.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We are out of Lisbon but not out of the EU. The no campaign seem not to even realised what they have done and somehow think everything will magically go on, because "no is what people said" or France and Holland also said "no". We have nothing constructive how we can move forward.

The language we use is instructive. I don’t think of “we” as Ireland, and “they” as everyone else. I think of “we” as all of us, as in all of us in the EU together.

Likewise, whatever happens, we will “move forward”. It’s not a case that we can only “movr forward” if we agree with one point of view. Whichever point of view we take, we will still “move forward”.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

We know you have spoken and now could please speak a bit more and suggest how the f*ck we get out of this mess?

My own view is that the best way to get out of this mess is for the EU to become democratic. Its no good the politicians deciding they will not listen to the people of Europe, and no good the politicians riding roughshod over the wishes of the electorate.

We are not at this stage because three out of five countries have had the temerity to vote "no" to the constitution/treaty. It was, and is, our right to vote no, or yes, as we each individually please. It simply is a ridiculous argument that we should not be allowed to vote no because it might upset some politicians egos, or because we ought to know what is good for us and do as we are told by our political masters. If we ( and by "we" I mean many people across europe) don't like what out politicians are proposing, then they, teh politicians, should recognise that and represent us, rather than threatening us and bullying us into doing what they want.

seamus

auerillo wrote: »

My own view is that the best way to get out of this mess is for the EU to become democratic.

As opposed to the dictatorship/kingdom/federation, what would you call it now, except a democracy?

auerillo

seamus wrote: »

As opposed to the dictatorship/kingdom/federation, what would you call it now, except a democracy?

That's an interesting question. I would define democracy as the rule of the majority, safeguarding the rights of the minority.

Certainly, an institution where a handful of politicians and others dismiss the wishes of the electorate, as expressed in the ballot box, and scold them back to vote again until they vote the "correct" way is not a lot more democratic than Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

seamus

If they were undemocratic, they would just fix the vote or even better, not even bother with a vote (where a vote is required). If they had "dismissed" the wishes of the electorate, they would have altered our constitution without our approval. As it is, our constitution hasn't been amended, democracy has been upheld.

Going back to the people for another vote is perfectly democratic.

ionix5891

auerillo wrote: »

That's an interesting question. I would define democracy as the rule of the majority, safeguarding the rights of the minority.

Certainly, an institution where a handful of politicians and others dismiss the wishes of the electorate, as expressed in the ballot box, and scold them back to vote again until they vote the "correct" way is not a lot more democratic than Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

are 800,000 people a majority in Europe of half a billion?

auerillo

ionix5891 wrote: »

are 800,000 people a majority in Europe of half a billion?

Quite obviously your question is rhetorical. How do you know its 800000 of us in Europe who are opposed to this constitution/treaty and, as you imply, 499200000 in favour?

seamus wrote: »

If they were undemocratic, they would just fix the vote or even better, not even bother with a vote (where a vote is required). If they had "dismissed" the wishes of the electorate, they would have altered our constitution without our approval. As it is, our constitution hasn't been amended, democracy has been upheld.

Going back to the people for another vote is perfectly democratic.

At least no one would stoop so low, in a democracy, even rename what might have been called a "constitution" something else ( a "treaty" perhaps), to get around some inconvenient "no" votes?

D.S.

ionix5891 wrote: »

are 800,000 people a majority in Europe of half a billion?

Thats irrevelant. It's a treaty which needs to be ratified by every country. If it's not ratified by every country, it doesnt get through.

nacho libre

seamus wrote: »

If they were undemocratic, they would just fix the vote or even better, not even bother with a vote (where a vote is required). If they had "dismissed" the wishes of the electorate, they would have altered our constitution without our approval. As it is, our constitution hasn't been amended, democracy has been upheld.

Going back to the people for another vote is perfectly democratic.

and if they vote no second time around.... do we go on till the 'correct' vote is cast?