Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Quick Q : "Uncharted waters"

Options
  • 21-06-2008 4:02pm
    #1
    Sandwich
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭


    Can anybody explain what is meant by the following (please keeping strictly on topic!)

    A line thrown around like confetti by politicos/commentators etc on all sides of the Lisbon issue following its resuly was that "we are now in uncharted waters".

    From my (admittedly only slightly informed) laymans understanding, are we not now in the same "waters" that we have been sailing in since Nice. With a full ratification of Lisbon, would we then not (potentially) be in the uncharted waters as the full workings of the content of Lisbon were implemeted, maybe even challenged? Surely a system that has been in force for some years is far more charted than a "new" scenario.

    What am I missing?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I think the term 'Uncharted waters' is identifying the fact that there is no real plan to navigate trough the political impasse thrown up by the no vote. It is a fact that it looks like at least 25 members wish to implement the treaty and Ireland and the Czech Rep are possibly not willing or able. This throws up the possibility that the other 25 could decide to act together with a new treaty excluding Ireland and the Czechs. Which needless to say would be disastrous for Ireland and is something the Government will do everything in it's powers to try to avoid. It is not clear what will come about as a result of the no vote hence 'Uncharted Waters'.


  • Options
    #3
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Sandwich wrote: »
    Can anybody explain what is meant by the following (please keeping strictly on topic!)

    A line thrown around like confetti by politicos/commentators etc on all sides of the Lisbon issue following its resuly was that "we are now in uncharted waters".

    From my (admittedly only slightly informed) laymans understanding, are we not now in the same "waters" that we have been sailing in since Nice. With a full ratification of Lisbon, would we then not (potentially) be in the uncharted waters as the full workings of the content of Lisbon were implemeted, maybe even challenged? Surely a system that has been in force for some years is far more charted than a "new" scenario.

    What am I missing?

    As sink says, that the EU is committed to reform. Therefore, the 'status quo' is not an option. The EU must move forward, but the Irish No has blocked the agreed path.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #4
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Sandwich wrote: »
    Can anybody explain what is meant by the following (please keeping strictly on topic!)

    A line thrown around like confetti by politicos/commentators etc on all sides of the Lisbon issue following its resuly was that "we are now in uncharted waters".

    From my (admittedly only slightly informed) laymans understanding, are we not now in the same "waters" that we have been sailing in since Nice. With a full ratification of Lisbon, would we then not (potentially) be in the uncharted waters as the full workings of the content of Lisbon were implemeted, maybe even challenged? Surely a system that has been in force for some years is far more charted than a "new" scenario.

    What am I missing?
    I think you have got it pretty much correct. Phrases like "uncharted waters" are really about political pressure than any reflection of reality.


  • Options
    #5
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Its supposed to make us feel guilty. Unchartered water would make you think somewhere you havent been, when the fact is saying YES would have been the place weve never been.


  • Options
    #6
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    turgon wrote: »
    Its supposed to make us feel guilty. Unchartered water would make you think somewhere you havent been, when the fact is saying YES would have been the place weve never been.

    It would indeed but much of it was mapped out as against the No vote which leaves us in the realms of wild speculation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I think you have got it pretty much correct. Phrases like "uncharted waters" are really about political pressure than any reflection of reality.
    turgon wrote: »
    Its supposed to make us feel guilty. Unchartered water would make you think somewhere you havent been, when the fact is saying YES would have been the place weve never been.

    It's not the fact that we haven't been here before it's the fact that we don't know where we are going. Right now the Nice treaty is in force but no one can say that it will be that way come 2010. So the term 'uncharted waters' seems apt to me.


  • Options
    #8
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    On top of this there is the matter of Croatia's accession in a couple of years and how the rejection Lisbon could affect that and any other further enlargement.


  • Options
    #9
    CtrlSource
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭CtrlSource


    turgon wrote: »
    Its supposed to make us feel guilty. Unchartered water would make you think somewhere you havent been, when the fact is saying YES would have been the place weve never been.

    Absolutely!

    is_that_so wrote: »
    On top of this there is the matter of Croatia's accession in a couple of years and how the rejection Lisbon could affect that and any other further enlargement.

    Which brings up another point. How far can we push enlargement? i for one would welcome Croatia. But Turkey? In a Global Economy, why are we so keen to form big blocs of countries?

    A discussion for another time and thread, i guess....


  • Options
    #10
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    sink wrote: »
    It's not the fact that we haven't been here before it's the fact that we don't know where we are going. Right now the Nice treaty is in force but no one can say that it will be that way come 2010. So the term 'uncharted waters' seems apt to me.
    Unless there's full ratification of Lisbon or some other treaty, we will still be operating under Nice until 2010 or beyond.


  • Options
    #11
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    Unless there's full ratification of Lisbon or some other treaty, we will still be operating under Nice until 2010 or beyond.

    I wish I had your faith.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    whitser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭whitser


    Sandwich wrote: »
    Can anybody explain what is meant by the following (please keeping strictly on topic!)

    A line thrown around like confetti by politicos/commentators etc on all sides of the Lisbon issue following its resuly was that "we are now in uncharted waters".

    From my (admittedly only slightly informed) laymans understanding, are we not now in the same "waters" that we have been sailing in since Nice. With a full ratification of Lisbon, would we then not (potentially) be in the uncharted waters as the full workings of the content of Lisbon were implemeted, maybe even challenged? Surely a system that has been in force for some years is far more charted than a "new" scenario.

    What am I missing?
    its been thrown around to panick people into voting yes at the next referendum.


  • Options
    #13
    VoidStarNull
    Closed Accounts Posts: 148 ✭✭VoidStarNull


    Patrick Smyth has an article in today's Irish Times in which he talks about what happened after the Danish "No" to Maastricht in 1992. (Sorry I can't link to the online version - behind paywall). The Danish negotiated some opt-outs and then voted "Yes" in a second referendum, however Smyth claims that a parallel plan was drawn up to provide a fall-back option in the event of a second "No". This plan was that the 11 other members would simultaneously resign from the existing EU and ratify a new treaty incorporating Maastricht, effectively setting up a new EU not including Denmark (which would become the sole remaining member of the "old" EU).

    He does mention that there is not much appetite today as yet for a similar mechanism, as it would be harder to do with 26 members than with 11.


Advertisement