Lisbon 2: Declaration for No voters?

thehighground

oscarBravo wrote: »

nhughes100, please learn to use the quote function properly. As I understand it, Ireland was one of the countries that dominated the drafting process.

The same people who are in charge of our economy!;)

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

I hope you're sitting down DJP but I actually agree with you, the yes campaign was rubbish, they shot themselves in the foot several times, they thought the party machine would be enough to carry it, it was presumptous in the extreme and totally out of touch with the people.

Actually, that's not the point I was making at all.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Tell me it isn't true when they go ahead without us.

Ok, I will.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

What you are proposing would split the EU since even lip-service would no longer be paid to the principle of unanimity. Any small country would then know that if they wanted to participate they would have to sign-up and ratify whatever treaties happened to be on the table. Sign up, ratify or get out. It would no longer be the EU, even in name and would no longer be recognised as such.

That's the idea, though. Small countries, like everyone else, get their objections and intentions into the negotiating process. That process is only finished when every member state is willing to sign the negotiated deal.

Let me just repeat that a slightly different way: the Treaty could not have been signed if any country felt that it had been 'bullied'. The Treaty they signed was acceptable to all 27 countries' governments.

Ratification is supposed to be largely a formality, assuming there's been any halfway decent communication between the national Parliament (who usually ratify) and the government negotiators. It's a formal step from previous eras of diplomacy, where it was not possible for the plenipotentiaries to communicate directly with their monarch, and the monarch needed to retain a veto over the agreed deal.

In Ireland, ratification is not a formality, because the electorate has to be won over in a referendum (admittedly, Ireland has something of a track record in refusing to ratify Treaties, even without referendums). This anomaly is the result of the Crotty judgement and the nature of our particular Constitution - we think of it, naturally, as the 'proper' method, and anyone else's method as inadequately democratic.

It is true that there is an advantage to Ireland's democracy in that system, because it means that the government has to communicate what it has done directly to the people for their appraisal - something they have signally failed to do once again.

However, other countries do not use this method. For the other EU governments (and the EU not being a federal state despite all the guff, it's the governments that count), what has happened is that the Irish government, which was sitting at the negotiating table in equality with them, and who, like them, signed off on the agreed deal, has failed to get the agreed deal ratified - and is now back asking for some more concessions to help it sell that deal to the Irish people.

That's why the idea that other small countries will "see that they can be bullied" doesn't stand up. They got their spoke in at the negotiating table, as did we. All the governments signed the deal, and went away to ratify it. The Irish government failed to do so.

We, the Irish electorate, have effectively broken a deal between all 27 member state governments. The other small countries are never going to be in the position Ireland is in, because for them ratification is a formality. Their wishes, like ours, are taken into account at the negotiation stage. Malta agreed this deal. Estonia agreed this deal. All the other small countries agreed this deal - it's their deal too. They all had a veto at the negotiating stage.

I appreciate that the cry will go up that this is "undemocratic", but whether that is true or not is entirely irrelevant. We have broken a deal everyone agreed. We're not 'standing up for the rights of small nations', we're standing in the way of small nations.

cordially,
Scofflaw

david_the_great

what is this new treaty all about

yes to lisbon or no to EU??

do this mean we leave eu if we vote no again??

karen3212

djpbarry wrote: »

Am I the only person who thinks that, while the 'Yes' campaign was poor, people have to take some responsibility and inform themselves? There was no shortage of notices from the Referendum Commission; TV ads, billboards, leaflets posted to homes. All that was required for people to do was read the leaflet, visit the website, etc. Plenty of other sources out there too if further information was required, e.g. newspaper columns and supplements, discussion forums (boards.ie), TV programmes (Prime Time, Questions & Answers).

I don't agree with you at all, the tv shows mostly consisted of soundbites, the posters were pointless(imo). I received three leaflets:
A) page thing from the Referendum commission, which didn't contain relevant statements from the Treaty(or consolidated version thereof to back up their assertions
a leaflet from Sinn Fein, again no relevant back up from the Treaty
C) a leaflet from Coir, a few statements from the treaty that seemed to back what they said.

So I got twice as much from the No side than I did from the unbiased side, nothing from the Yes side at all.

I have broadband so I was able to do plenty of comfortable searching for myself, also print some for other people.

My Aunt who only has dial-up that is ****e, went to the llbrary, but couldn't get a copy of consolidated version, so, I gave it to her.

Sorry imo the yes campaign was not great on provision of information, they were alright at putting out summaries, without relevant statements from the Treaty or even consolidated version.

Having said that apparently more people changed their minds to a Yes vote as a result of the campaign, I would love to know whether all of them had broadband.

djpbarry

karen3212 wrote: »

I don't agree with you at all, the tv shows mostly consisted of soundbites...

Define "sound bites"? There were at least two Prime Time shows that explained the changes proposed by the treaty in plain language. There was also an excellent debate between MEP's past and present.

karen3212 wrote: »

...the posters were pointless(imo).

I never said otherwise.

karen3212 wrote: »

page thing from the Referendum commission, which didn't contain relevant statements from the Treaty

What do you mean by "relevant statements"? If the literature from the Referendum Commission had contained reams of text transcribed directly from the treaty, people would have complained it was unreadable.

Besides, the full text of the treaty is available from the Commission's website.

karen3212 wrote: »

a leaflet from Sinn Fein, again no relevant back up from the Treaty
C) a leaflet from Coir, a few statements from the treaty that seemed to back what they said.

Your statement about Coir is laughable; their claims about the treaty were completely unfounded. Besides, I was talking about impartial, reliable information.

karen3212 wrote: »

Sorry imo the yes campaign was not great on provision of information...

I never said they were.

karen3212 wrote: »

...they were alright at putting out summaries, without relevant statements from the Treaty or even consolidated version.

I seem to recall Fianna Fáil publishing a leaflet that stated the benefits of the treaty, clearly referencing the relevant articles of the treaty.

karen3212

djpbarry wrote: »

Define "sound bites"? There were at least two Prime Time shows that explained the changes proposed by the treaty in plain language. There was also an excellent debate between MEP's past and present.

For me it was the NO side shouting one thing and the YES side shouting your wrong. But, im my case I had to read the thing for myself, but really it was the consolidated version that I understood, and read the most. But as I have access to the internet and broadband that was no great hassel for me at all.

djpbarry wrote: »

What do you mean by "relevant statements"? If the literature from the Referendum Commission had contained reams of text transcribed directly from the treaty, people would have complained it was unreadable.

I mean text from the consolidated version, and I think a few pages on the ''core'' issues for Irish voters might have helped people who didn't have easy access to the Treaty or the consolidated version online.

djpbarry wrote: »

Besides, the full text of the treaty is available from the Commission's website.

Yes, I thought the information online was fantastic too.

djpbarry wrote: »

Your statement about Coir is laughable; their claims about the treaty were completely unfounded.

OK, I did say 'seemed', as in it looked like their statements were backed by the little bits of text they printed on their leaflet. Seemed.

djpbarry wrote: »

I seem to recall Fianna Fáil publishing a leaflet that stated the benefits of the treaty, clearly referencing the relevant articles of the treaty.

OK well I didn't receive a single leaflet from the Yes side.

djpbarry

karen3212 wrote: »

For me it was the NO side shouting one thing and the YES side shouting your wrong.

In some cases, yes (particularly on Questions & Answers). But Prime Time had some excellent coverage, in which they had snippets clearly explaining the changes proposed by the treaty. The debate I mentioned in my last post featured MEP's past and present answering questions from the public; this is available here.

karen3212 wrote: »

But, im my case I had to read the thing for myself, but really it was the consolidated version that I understood, and read the most.

A lot of people read the treaty for themselves, but that isn't necessarily a reflection on the amount of information available in the public domain; some people just wanted to read it. But the vast majority of people had no interest in reading the treaty cover-to-cover. Declan Ganley's insistence that every home in the country be sent a copy of the treaty was absolutely laughable and would have amounted to the greatest waste of paper in the history of the state.

karen3212 wrote: »

But as I have access to the internet and broadband that was no great hassel for me at all.

Most people have internet access these days and, if they don't, chances are they'll know somebody who does or they'll have an internet cafe nearby. Besides, there have been plenty of people posting on here (indicating that they have access to the internet) that there is not enough information available and/or they don't understand the treaty.

karen3212 wrote: »

I mean text from the consolidated version, and I think a few pages on the ''core'' issues for Irish voters might have helped people who didn't have easy access to the Treaty or the consolidated version online.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Considering the number of people who complained that the treaty was too complex (a key reason for voting 'No'), I think it was important to keep the literature for the Referendum Commission as simple as possible. Personally, I think they did a pretty good job. Had they referenced everything they said with respect to the treaty, I imagine the complaint from the 'No' side (and Ganley in particular) would have been "sure what good are the references - we haven't been sent the treaty itself!"

On a side note, I have encountered people who voted 'No' (because they didn't have access to enough information) who claimed they had never heard of the Referendum Commission or the Commission's website, lisbontreaty2008.ie. That, quite frankly, beggars belief.

karen3212 wrote: »

Yes, I thought the information online was fantastic too.

So you agree that anyone with internet access had little excuse for not informing themselves?

karen3212 wrote: »

OK, I did say 'seemed', as in it looked like their statements were backed by the little bits of text they printed on their leaflet. Seemed.

So you did; my apologies.

karen3212 wrote: »

OK well I didn't receive a single leaflet from the Yes side.

Again, I'm referring to impartial information, particularly that from the Referendum Commission. Information received or not received from either side of the debate should not influence voters to such an extent.

molloyjh

SkepticOne wrote: »

This depends on the extent to which the treaties are drafted by all countries equally or whether some countries dominate in the drafting and other countries go along and later negotiate concessions. I'm not sure Cowen is up to the job, but I would be encouraging other countries (mainly small peripheral ones) to stand with Ireland because, should what you suggest happen, the nature of their relationship with what I will call the Core EU will change unfavourably.

To be honest Skeptic I don't think this has anything to do with the size of our country. Its just a coincidence that we are a small nation. The fact of the matter is, as sink has pointed out, we got a very good deal in Lisbon and there was precious little else available to get. The rest of the EU can't understand why we voted No to it other than as a f-you statement, which is then contradicted by polls stating we're the most pro-EU country in the Union. When it came to the French and Dutch No vote to the Constitution they were able to sit down with the 2 Governments and work out the issues, but there doesn't seem to be the same possibility here because it would seem that a large portion of No voters (according to the EU Commissions survey) didn't understand the Treaty or voted for reasons unrelated to the Treaty. So how are they to proceed based on that? Its a confusing mess and people are getting frustrated by that.