[Article] Why the Irish Voted No - The Economist

CDfm

thehighground wrote: »

I must have missed this ... could you please supply link where it was decided that the value of thefish catch was over-exagerated. I recall Scafflaw was going to come back to us with a response and I can't find it.

He is right that the fish thing has been donr to death with all them foreigners stealing our salmon.

I like some nice Irish Smoked Salmon especially from the Blackwater and not of that farmed variety.

What about Tomato Sauce flavoured crisps. You cant get them any more.

So EU regulation does affect us in all kinds of ways and I voted yes.

The part of being a citizen is to have a vote and a voice so maybe people are suspicious of giving it away.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

Well then I wouldn't consider myself to be provincial as my perspective is not limited to my little corner of the world. My outlook on the world is as cosmopolitan and as your outlook is.

FYI, it's not.

I'm not objecting to being governed by foreigners. If Barack Obama had renounced his American citizenship a few years ago to become an Irish citizen and if he decided he wanted to be the first black man to head an Irish government then I would not hesitate to vote for him.

Even if I were to believe you, and I'm not certain I do, he would no longer be a foreigner then; so your argument does not make sense.

Are you still confusing xenophobia with racism?

I don't know what you mean by that. Are you assuming that I'm a Dubliner and that I would therefore want the Irish government to be made up just of Dublin people? How does that relate to my position on Europe? If you think I want the EU commission to be made up just of Irish people then you have seriously misunderstood my position.

I'll try to explain in terms that are more simple to understand. To suggest that we would lose our ability to govern ourselves would imply that we will no longer be represented in government. It would be like Ireland governed only by Dubliners, thus causing non-Dubliners to lose their ability to govern themselves.

No, it's not wrong. It's just the nature of democracy that political power is representative of population.

How would that differ in a united Europe - other than foreigners would be better represented due to higher populations?

A few might but most wouldn't. Most Irishmen would agree with me that northern nationalists are just as Irish as southerners.

I can imagine that a majority might still want to believe that the north and south are still the one country, but a 'few'? Back that up or stop fantasizing.

I think I have a very firm grasp of what nationhood means and which nation I belong to. My nation is Ireland.

You have a very limited grasp of what nationhood means. Indeed, I don't think you've figured out yet that nations were largely a public relations invention of the nineteenth century.

So any Irishman who sees his nation as Ireland is a little-islander in your opnion? Does that just apply to Irish people or does it apply to other countries as well? Is a Dane who sees his nation as Denmark a little-islander (or 'little-peninsular') as well?

Not at all. I can call myself a Dubliner, but that does not mean that I reject the label of Irish, and in turn European. The little islander is one who cannot see beyond a narrow definition which is out of step with the realities of the time he or she lives in. Simply being Irish might have made sense a century ago, just as simply being a Munster man may have in the tenth century, but things change and so does the scope of our community.

Really? My fear of foreigners has allowed me to believe that we will loose all self-government?

Now you accept that we won't lose all self-government? Certainly not what you implied earlier. You're backtracking.

Yes, and that's why it's not a good thing for our society not to evolve. I want Ireland to be open to new technology and be prepared to reform in order for us to remain competitive and part of the modern world. I think we're better able to do that as an independent nation state than we would be if we were part of a United States of Europe.

We've already established in other discussions that you have a limited understanding of economics. Given this opinion of yours (because "I think" denotes nothing more than an opinion), would you be able to back this up with any cogent argument and/evidence?

That must why be they did what the Japanese did and abandoned nationalism.

Either you've not phrased that correctly or you have no understanding of history. What on Earth are you talking about?

If you want to compare the two I suggest you look at the period I put forward (turn of the 20th century). China decided it did not need to evolve or change - Confucianist ideology answered all the questions, after all. As a result, what was once the most advanced civilization in the World fell back and became easy prey to all around her. Conversely, following the Meiji Restoration Japan realized that they needed to change to survive and thus had modernized (both socially and technologially) so that they were able to wipe the floor with China in 1894-5.

Bottom line is that China was unwilling to open up and convinced that it did not need to evolve, unlike Japan who realized the folly of such a position. As a result, China stagnated with disastrous consequences.

I was expecting your reply to contain some specific examples of things that a federal mulinational state can achieve that a coalition of independent countries wouldn't be able to achieve? Can you give some examples of the things that a federal, multinational state could achieve that a coalition of independent states acting together wouldn't be able to achieve?

When do a coalition of independent states acting together become a federal, multinational state? Outside of the trappings of a nation, where is that dividing line where you stop being independent states and become something else?

The only thing I can think of is that they act with one voice when dealing with the outside - a common foreign, trade or diplomatic policy, for example. In this regard the advantage is obvious; Ireland does not pull a lot of weight on the World stage. We can cut a few deals here and there, but when the US turned up on our doorstep and said "we want to use your airspace to fly military flights or we'll have to rethink our policy towards you" we bent over and took it with a brave face - because we are independent and ultimately on our own. As an intregal part of a superstate, they would not be just threatening us, but someone who is in a position to tell them to piss off.

Of course the down side is that we may not always agree with what's decided in such common policies. But that's the downside of democracy - it is always tyranny by the majority - and you'll get that in any democracy as one region may outvote another by dint of population.

But this returns us to my principle point, which is when do a coalition of independent states acting together become a federal, multinational state? Personally I can't see this happening. I don't see the French voting France out of existence any more than I see Ireland doing so. The most we will ever see in our lifetime (barring the catalyst of a major event) is a gradual transition to a loose confederation, not unlike Switzerland. And I have doubts of even that happening.

My attitude to Irish unity is not all that different to your attitude to a European unity. Just as I want my country to be united with the consent of the people involved, I'm sure you would also like to see Europe united with the consent of the people involved.

No. My attitude towards Europe or European unity is based upon a healthy level of scepticism for nationalism, which I consider to be a pretty mailable concept. If you don't believe me consider the origins of most European nation states.

But principally it is based upon our self interests in the context of a World which is very different to that of my great-grandfather. Modern technology and commerce have meant that we are no longer safely in an out of the way place where no one will bother us. Conflict and competition between states is no longer limited to the regional, but has become global. This means we either have to change to deal with this or retire to some fantasy World where we tell everyone we're neutral and independent and hope they take it seriously. That's not a good strategy.

Can I take it that you agree that the driving force behind the road to a United States of Europe is at least partly emotional?

Not for a very long time. I'm far too old to get worked up about these things at this stage. Hell, I don't even live in the EU.

But you do think that people who want to be governed by a government based in their own capital city are xenophobic little-islanders?

As I said before, it comes down to why and if this justifies such a decision.

I've explained why a closer 'clubbing together' makes sense moving forward. The downside of this is that your absolute control becomes diluted. What you have to do then is decide which is worth more, or which would be more disastrous.

And if you choose to be governed by a government based in your region because it makes sense on the basis of the above analysis, then no - you're not xenophobic. If you do it because you don't trust foreigners, then yes, you're xenophobic and likely a fool.

I think if a poll was taken it would show that the majority of Irish people are not happy about the direction the EU is heading in and that they do not want to see any further sacrifice any more of our national independence. I'm as certain of that as I am about Irish people's views on immigration or on Irish unity.

Opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one. When you can give us something more than an opinion, let us know.

I'll point out what is irrational and emotional about your position when you can point out what it is about my euroscepticism that indicates a fear of foreigners.

Your principle argument is that foreigners would not have Ireland's best interests at heart. You forget that in every democracy each region competes with the others and will both horse trade and in many cases act in the common good. This is the case on the national or super-national level.

Ignoring this, it means that you differentiate foreigners only because they are foreigners. Somehow the rules that apply to all other forms of democratic collective decision making don't apply any more - because they can't be trusted, while someone from your region can.

That's called xenophobia.

I am clear about what xenophobia is, I'm just not clear on what you mean by the term. Can you answer the question whether you think that anyone who wants to preserve the independence of their country is a xenophobe.

I've answered this repeatedly. The question is not whether you want to preserve the 'independence' (whatever that really means any more) of our country, but your motivations behind that decisions.

molloyjh

It's truly mind boggling some of the points being raised on Lisbon even still. O'Morris for example and his "our voting weight would be reduced from 2% to 0.8%" crap, which has been proven to be totally untrue on countless occasions at this stage. Give it up already, please, it's enraging to think that regulars on this forum still hold these crazy beliefs! O'Morris that is just not true, it is completely false, and you're either lying or totally blind because it has been discussed to death, revived and discussed to death all over again on this forum.

Additionally, what is so wrong with the Lisbon proposal for the Presidential role? Currently it is rotated on a bi-yearly basis among the leaders of the member states. The change to a 5 year term would bring more consistancy to EU policy. Look at the US for the last while, Bush has been a lame duck President. The current set up in the EU means that evert President is little more than a lame duck President for their entire time in the position. And it also means that for 13 years we have no direct or indirect say in who the President is. The proposed method would mean that the President would be elected by the Parliament, whom we directly elect. Surely that is far more democratic overall?

And before anyone tries to say we should have a President of the Parliament elected directly by the people, just think of the realities that would bring given the population sizes of Germany, France and the UK. A move like that would completely marginalise most of the member states.

The fact remains that a huge proportion of No voters did not understand the Treaty, and we know this either through their own admission or by looking at some of the reasons for voting No. Ckal, you yourself are your own worst enemy:

From what I saw on a YES leaflet, the president of the EU will be appointed by each head of state and that president will choose their own commissioners. The people of Europe don't get a say. Therefore, it's not democratic for the people of Europe.

That is simply false. The President would have been elected by the Parliament (as above) and the Commissioners would have been appointed by each member state as they currently are. The Parliament then must approve these appointments (as is currently the case also). You're trying to make the point that ignorance is a lie made up by the Yes campaign, yet you're displaying total ignorance yourself.

Anyone see that eejit Vincent Browne last night and that one Caroline Simmons (I think was her name) from Libertas? I didn't see much of it, but I saw her raise two points that were clearly misleading in nature:

1 - The Commission makes the laws: While it proposes them, all laws must be passed by the Parliament and Council, where they can in fact be altered, and regularly are. When challeneged she did concede the point yet continued saying that the Commission makes the law and is the ultimate power, obviously failing to mention completely that the elected Parliament and member states elected Governments have control over who sits on the Commission. The reason the Commissioners are not elected by the people within the member states is because they are not meant to represent member states, but the EU as a whole. Directly electing Commissioners would lead to a conflict of interest.

2 - That the EU wrapped us over the knuckles for bailing out our banks and then proceeded to do the same themselves showing hypocrasy: A neatly packaged statement that while not strictly unture leaves out one major detail. The EU did not wrap us over the knuckles for bailing out our banks, they did so because it raised concerns re EU competition laws and undermined the EU as a result. Had we checked with them how the plan sat within EU law then we would have been ok, instead we went ahead and did our own thing and left the EU twisting in the wind having to respond to the concerns of the other member states from a point of almost complete ignorance regarding what we were doing. When asked if what we were doing was anti-competitive or not the EU answer was "I dunno, I never even knew they were doing this" which obviously makes the EU look bad.

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

....... The EU did not wrap us over the knuckles for bailing out our banks, they did so because it raised concerns re EU competition laws and undermined the EU as a result. Had we checked with them how the plan sat within EU law then we would have been ok, instead we went ahead and did our own thing and left the EU twisting in the wind having to respond to the concerns of the other member states from a point of almost complete ignorance regarding what we were doing. When asked if what we were doing was anti-competitive or not the EU answer was "I dunno, I never even knew they were doing this" which obviously makes the EU look bad.

Thought Cowen or Lenihan said he contacted the EU prior to bailing out the banks - to be told we "were on our own". I

Strange how the Northern Rock takeover was not viewed as being anti-competitive!

Just goes to prove. One rule for the big countries like UK, Germany & France, another rule for the little countries like Ireland.

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

Just goes to prove. One rule for the big countries like UK, Germany & France, another rule for the little countries like Ireland.

How's that? What action was taken against the UK? What action was taken against Ireland? I believe the answer in both cases is "none".

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

How's that? What action was taken against the UK? What action was taken against Ireland? I believe the answer in both cases is "none".

Competitiveness wasn't mentioned when Northern Rock was bailed out (which took place a few months ago).

The EU didn't say a word about competiveness until the Irish Gov. intervened. At least our banks are paying for their guarantee!

Though we were in line for a few fines? So they are not going to fine us now - probably because we pointed out if they are going to fine us, they better fine the British Gov. as well.

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

Though were in line for a few fines? So they are not going to fine us now - probably because we pointed out if they are going to fine us, they better fine the British Gov. as well.

No action was taken because nobody has breached the competition laws. In fact, as far as I am aware, nobody even raised the issue with the commission. It was all just a bit of ****-stirring by the media.

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote: »

Competitiveness wasn't mentioned when Northern Rock was bailed out (which took place a few months ago).

The EU didn't say a word about competiveness until the Irish Gov. intervened. At least our banks are paying for their guarantee!

Though we were in line for a few fines? So they are not going to fine us now - probably because we pointed out if they are going to fine us, they better fine the British Gov. as well.

It was the British who complained about the bank guarantee.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

No action was taken because nobody has breached the competition laws. In fact, as far as I am aware, nobody even raised the issue with the commission. It was all just a bit of ****-stirring by the media.

You are spinning porkies here.

I remember seeing the EU Competitions Commissioner (a woman) on TV about what Ireland did being anti-competitive.

She did not appear on TV when Northern Rock were taken over to voice any concern. So, no it wasn't the media stirring up trouble.

Thanks for confirming my point. As soon as someone pointed out to the EU Commission that the UK had done something actually worse (and that France, Germany etc. were all going to have to do something similar, so they would all get fined ), it was dropped. :rolleyes:

CDfm

Yup - and you have state ownership opf banks throughout the EU.

Different level of stateownership ,private banks,mutual societies, overseas banks,all with different regulation and licencing regimes and compensation arrangements.

I dont see how the EU commision could endeavour to do anything as it is not generic.

Hitman Actual

thehighground wrote: »

You are spinning porkies here.

I remember seeing the EU Competitions Commissioner (a woman) on TV about what Ireland did being anti-competitive.

She did not appear on TV when Northern Rock were taken over to voice any concern. So, no it wasn't the media stirring up trouble.

Thanks for confirming my point. As soon as someone pointed out to the EU Commission that the UK had done something actually worse (and that France, Germany etc. were all going to have to do something similar, so they would all get fined ), it was dropped. :rolleyes:

I posted about this in response to you before, but you chose to ignore it: The EU's response to both the NR rescue plan and the Irish bank guarantee was relatively consistent.

CDfm

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I posted about this in response to you before, but you chose to ignore it: The EU's response to both the NR rescue plan and the Irish bank guarantee was relatively consistent.

well theyve climbed down now and by the time they would have addressed the issue the crisis would have passed:D

Hitman Actual

CDfm wrote: »

well theyve climbed down now and by the time they would have addressed the issue the crisis would have passed

Link, source, or anything else of substance to your claim?

thehighground

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I posted about this in response to you before, but you chose to ignore it: The EU's response to both the NR rescue plan and the Irish bank guarantee was relatively consistent.

You keep avoiding the point I'm making - it looks like the EU bureaucrats (and their lapdog politicians) are looking for opportunities to bully Ireland. Sometimes they get a bit over-excited and are a bit too quick on the draw. All good crack, I suppose. Hope our Civil Servants can stay two steps ahead - they will need to be on their toes!

Just to be clear about this - the EU showed their real colours because the very same day that the Irish Gov. announced the Irish bank guarantee, the EU anti-competitive commissioner was investigating whether it was anti-competitive. The Northern Rock rescue did not trigger an-anti competitive query from the EU.

Kershaw.D

:eek:1st of all thats 2 much to read so i didnt
2nd it doesnt matter why people said no they did its not going to change by finding out why

Mr Ed

I voted No to Lisbon, I understood the content of the treaty and still voted no to it and I will now be voting no again if a revised treaty is put before us.

The EU has become nothing more than a big bully, this treaty was only voted upon by the citizens of the Irish Republic, why was that? Nice was rejected by several countries (France & Netherlands). They knew if Lisbon went before the citizens of Europe it would be rejected.

My main reason for rejecting the treaty was it would have allowed our government the ratify future treaties without bringing them to the people.

The Lisbon treaty was supposed to be finished if any country rejected it. Well guess what, it was, but its now apparent that our vote doesn't count - the bully tactics are out. This notion that the EU will go ahead anyway with out Ireland is s****, what sort of a democracy is that. If they do ahead without Ireland, is this the actions of a truly democratic organisation? I think not.

The EU has been good to Ireland but Ireland has also been good to the EU. We received billions in the past and continue to be a net beneficiary (I think) but Ireland has also pumped billions back into Europe through our natural resource (fishing) to the detriment of our own industry here.

I for one, irrespective of the yes voters castigating the no voters as sinn feiners or morans, will be utilising my no vote again in a future Lisbon vote purely on the basis that, they didn't give me or the majority which rejected the treaty, the courtesy to respect my initial vote.

Perhaps if they dropped the bully boy tactics and allowed other countries to vote, i will reconsider how i will utilise my vote on this democratic island.

heyjude

Kershaw.D wrote: »

:eek:1st of all thats 2 much to read so i didnt
2nd it doesnt matter why people said no they did its not going to change by finding out why

The purpose of the research is to find a reason to justify another vote and it achieved this, as it claims to have found that a large number of NO voters were either uninformed or confused into believing that the Treaty would bring about changes(concerning such issues as abortion or conscription into a European army), that pro-treaty groups have claimed, would not be brought about by adoption of the Treaty. Of course, we were also told by the same pro treaty groups before the referendum, that the Treaty must be passed in all 27 countries or it was dead, we voted NO and its still very much alive !

Mind you with Fianna Fail support currently at 27% and virtually every other political party either opposed to the treaty or opposed to another referendum, its hard to see the government wanting to proceed with what is sure to be a very unpopular referendum.

Hitman Actual

thehighground wrote: »

You keep avoiding the point I'm making - it looks like the EU bureaucrats (and their lapdog politicians) are looking for opportunities to bully Ireland. Sometimes they get a bit over-excited and are a bit too quick on the draw. All good crack, I suppose. Hope our Civil Servants can stay two steps ahead - they will need to be on their toes!

The problem is that your posts are generally so vague (and very often misinformed) that responding to them is damn near impossible. In order to try to claim that the EU is bullying Ireland, you've made several false comments about the EU not responding to the NR bailout, when it's clear that they responded very similarly to the Irish guarantee. How can anyone respond to you when you don't even have anything to base your arguments on?

thehighground wrote: »

Just to be clear about this - the EU showed their real colours because the very same day that the Irish Gov. announced the Irish bank guarantee, the EU anti-competitive commissioner was investigating whether it was anti-competitive. The Northern Rock rescue did not trigger an-anti competitive query from the EU.

Back-tracking in the extreme. Do you now accept that the EU did get involved in the NR bailout, despite half a dozen posts in this and the linked thread trying to claim otherwise? Are you now trying to say that because there was a different time-scale in the reactions of the EU to the NR and Irish issues, the EU are bullying Ireland? Or is that your point at all? As you can see, it's not a case of ignoring your point, it's just that it's difficult to know what it is.

djpbarry

Mr Ed wrote: »

I voted No to Lisbon, I understood the content of the treaty and still voted no to it and I will now be voting no again if a revised treaty is put before us.

The latter part of that statement casts doubt on the former, in my opinion.

Mr Ed wrote: »

Nice was rejected by several countries (France & Netherlands).

No it was not.

Mr Ed wrote: »

My main reason for rejecting the treaty was it would have allowed our government the ratify future treaties without bringing them to the people.

No it would not. You're seriously undermining the opening sentence of your post.

Mr Ed wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty was supposed to be finished if any country rejected it.

From the Referendum Commission:

"If a majority of the voters vote “no” then the Constitution will not be changed and Ireland may not ratify the Treaty. The Treaty will come into effect only if it is ratified by all Member States."

Nothing about anything being "finished" in there.

Mr Ed wrote: »

This notion that the EU will go ahead anyway with out Ireland is s****, what sort of a democracy is that.

You think one nation of approx. 4.3 million people should be able to prevent another 26 nations from progressing? That doesn't sound very democratic.

Mr Ed wrote: »

...they didn't give me or the majority which rejected the treaty, the courtesy to respect my initial vote.

Didn't they? Has Ireland ratified the treaty?

Mr Ed wrote: »

Perhaps if they dropped the bully boy tactics and allowed other countries to vote, i will reconsider how i will utilise my vote on this democratic island.

"Allow" other countries to vote? Other countries can ratify the treaty whatever way they want. Do you you want to force them all to ratify the treaty as Ireland would? That's not very democratic, is it?

molloyjh

thehighground wrote: »

Strange how the Northern Rock takeover was not viewed as being anti-competitive!

First off I'd like to refer to lennys posts that show that the reaction of the EU to NR was much the same as the reaction to our bail out lpan. Secondly I'd like to add to that by saying that either way there are huge differences between the two situations anyway. The first being the economic climate at the time, NR was saved from collapse at a time when the other banks were not at great risk, whereas our bail out occured when every bank was in the sh**ter giving our banks a clear advantage over the others. The other being that our bailout covered mulitple banks not just one, some of whom operate large scale outside of Ireland.

thehighground wrote: »

Just goes to prove. One rule for the big countries like UK, Germany & France, another rule for the little countries like Ireland.

Sadly highground it proves nothing of the sort if you stand back and take a balanced view of things.

thehighground wrote: »

You keep avoiding the point I'm making - it looks like the EU bureaucrats (and their lapdog politicians) are looking for opportunities to bully Ireland.

Given thatlenny has shown that the reactions to NR and the Irish bank bail-outs were pretty much the same, how can the EU be bullying us?

thehighground wrote: »

Just to be clear about this - the EU showed their real colours because the very same day that the Irish Gov. announced the Irish bank guarantee, the EU anti-competitive commissioner was investigating whether it was anti-competitive. The Northern Rock rescue did not trigger an-anti competitive query from the EU.

That last line should read "The Northern Rock rescue did not trigger an anti-competitive query from another member state". As lenny has already pointed out the query regarding the Irish bail-out did not come from this monstrous EU you keep harping on about, but from an individual member state within it, who have every right to raise these kinds of queries, just as we had every right to query the NR move. We just didn't. So how about you stop falsly accusing the "big-bad" EU of bullying and unfair behaviour at least until you have some proof that it took place.

Kershaw.D wrote: »

:eek:1st of all thats 2 much to read so i didnt
2nd it doesnt matter why people said no they did its not going to change by finding out why

Quite the contrary actually. If, as it seems, such a huge percentage of people (both Yes and No voters) were ultimately ignorant of the facts of the Treaty then there's every chance a referendum put forward after a period of ensuring the public are informed could actually result in a totally different result. The sad thing at the moment is that all this BS, all the hassle we're causnig, seems to be stemming from ignorance. And the only ones to blame there are the Government. They did not do a good enough job putting this Treaty forward. They reckoned if they stuck their ugly mugs on a few posters saying "Ah go on ya will!" that we'd all do what they said. They made no attempt to counter the obvious lies and mis-truths coming from the No camp and made it impossible for a Yes result to be returned. It is yet another example that the politicians in this country are completely out of touch with the rest of us. And now that has affected the direction of the EU, a bloody huge knock on effect by anyones standards!

Mr Ed wrote: »

I voted No to Lisbon, I understood the content of the treaty and still voted no to it and I will now be voting no again if a revised treaty is put before us.

So you're saying that regardless of what is revised, i.e. regardless of the facts of the what is put before you, you will still vote No? I'm sorry that makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? Surely you should be voting on the merits of whats in front of you, and nothing else?

Mr Ed wrote: »

The EU has become nothing more than a big bully, this treaty was only voted upon by the citizens of the Irish Republic, why was that? Nice was rejected by several countries (France & Netherlands). They knew if Lisbon went before the citizens of Europe it would be rejected.

Listen Mr Ed, I mean no offence, but this has been done ad naseum on other threads (I'm assuming you meant the Constitution and not Nice). I suggest you go take a look. First you need to be aware of why the French and Dutch said no, and then you need to see if their issues were addressed. The Netherlands is a mess politically, and has been for years. I've found it impossible to find out why they said No to the Constitution.

The French said No for a couple of reasons. The first was the sovereignty issue. The whole idea of an EU Constitution, regardless of what was in it, along with the formalised EU flag and anthem, scared the hell out of the nationalistic French. The second reason was the political and social landscape of France at the time. The country was in a heap and the people were decidedly anti-Government in that they didn't trust their Government and were deeply resentful of them due to the economic problems they had presided over. The No vote was partially a protest vote against that Government. And the final factor was that anti-Constitutional groups in France seized upon the mood of the people to peddle lies about the Constitution saying that it would dramatically reduce their voting weight (sound familiar?) etc.

That was one of the main reasons the Constitution was dropped in favour of a Treaty. The Constitution was never going to pass regardless of its content because the French and the English are so nationalistic that they would never have voted in favour of it. The formalised flag and anthem were removed to prevent any appearance of this EU state idea. You also need to remember that France subsequently voted in Sarkozy who openly admitted in his campaign that he was pro-Lisbon and would ratify the Treaty when it came to it. So obviously the French were okay with that given that they elected him.

Mr Ed wrote: »

My main reason for rejecting the treaty was it would have allowed our government the ratify future treaties without bringing them to the people.

That is simply not true Mr Ed. The reality is that there would be no change in how this all works really. Our Government can only ratify Treaties in accordance with our Constitutional laws. That would not have changed in Lisbon. If a Treaty required Constitutional change then the people would have to vote on it, if not then we wouldn't. Again, done ad naseum elsewhere. Read www.lisbontreaty2008.ie to get a good overall view.

Mr Ed wrote: »

The Lisbon treaty was supposed to be finished if any country rejected it. Well guess what, it was, but its now apparent that our vote doesn't count - the bully tactics are out. This notion that the EU will go ahead anyway with out Ireland is s****, what sort of a democracy is that. If they do ahead without Ireland, is this the actions of a truly democratic organisation? I think not.

That is a dangerous question to ask. After all true democracy is the will of the majority and we only constitute 1% (less in fact) of the population of the EU. However what you need to be aware of is that the EU cannot continue on as it is, as if it tries to take on any new members in the current set-up it will grind to a halt. We have a Commissioner at the moment for Multi-Linguism. What a joke of a position right!? But the current set-up of the EU requires that each member state provide a Commissioner. So they have already started making up BS posts to suit this rule. Imagine how many more of those there would be if the EU starts to expand further. And this would slow down the various actions on the Commission, drain money and resources for nothing etc. There are issues like this through-out the EU. It needs to reform because it has outgrown its current set-up and needs to be able to adapt.

Mr Ed wrote: »

The EU has been good to Ireland but Ireland has also been good to the EU. We received billions in the past and continue to be a net beneficiary (I think) but Ireland has also pumped billions back into Europe through our natural resource (fishing) to the detriment of our own industry here.

I'll dig up a few posts and PM you the links Mr Ed. Suffice it to say we have gained far more from the EU than we have given back in terms of our fishing quotas. Either way we could never have made it this far on our own so the point is rather moot.

Mr Ed wrote: »

I for one, irrespective of the yes voters castigating the no voters as sinn feiners or morans, will be utilising my no vote again in a future Lisbon vote purely on the basis that, they didn't give me or the majority which rejected the treaty, the courtesy to respect my initial vote.

The only way they could have not respected your vote was by goingahead regardless. They haven't, they won't and they can't. Do yourself and everyone else a favour and vote on the merits of anything as it is put before you. If you have a genuine grievance or issue with it, as many No voters did/do then fine, that's your democratic right and I would gladly defend that right regardless of your view. But you also have a moral obligation to cast that vote in an informed manner. Sadly some No voters are me feiners (as some Yes voters are undoubtedly) and some were truly ignorant of the facts of the Treaty (as some Yes voters are/were undoubtedly).

Mr Ed wrote: »

Perhaps if they dropped the bully boy tactics and allowed other countries to vote, i will reconsider how i will utilise my vote on this democratic island.

The EU has no control over how other countries vote. The EU put forward the Treaty to other countries and told them to decide, which they can only do in accordance with their own laws. For example in Germany referenda are illegal (this was due to how they were used and abused by the Nazis) and in Italy referenda are illegal regarding the ratification of international treaties. Who are we to tell the Italians or the Germans that this is wrong? If they have a problem with it it is up to them to make it change. After all the only reason we have the vote on the matter is that someone here (Crotty) made that happen 21 years ago. As for the French they democratically elected Sarkozy who was pro-Lisbon and made no secret of the fact he intended to ratify it. The manner in which the Treaty is or is not ratified has nothing what-so-ever to do with the EU. Again this has been done to death elsewhere.

heyjude wrote: »

The purpose of the research is to find a reason to justify another vote and it achieved this, as it claims to have found that a large number of NO voters were either uninformed or confused into believing that the Treaty would bring about changes(concerning such issues as abortion or conscription into a European army), that pro-treaty groups have claimed, would not be brought about by adoption of the Treaty. Of course, we were also told by the same pro treaty groups before the referendum, that the Treaty must be passed in all 27 countries or it was dead, we voted NO and its still very much alive !

I think the reason it is considered very much alive is down to a number of reasons. The apparent levels of ignorance regarding the facts in the only country whose people voted on it - which was not made up, these results came directly from voters mouths. The fact that change and reform of the EU is badly needed and there is no appetite for renegotiation among any of the Governments, ours included, given that it took 8 years to get to Lisbon. It's the best the EU could come up with. The fact that there has been no sign of any popular resistance to the Treaty outside of this country, leading many to believe that the people of Europe either want this Treaty or at least have no real problem with it, which when combined with the first two reasons could mean that our No vote is being very much anti-democratic.

Again I use this word, but sadly the No voters that have appeared on this thread over the last number of days have raised issues that we can prove, and have proven time and again on this forum, to be either totally untrue or at least mis-representative of the facts of the treaty. In the last 7 or 8 months debating this Treaty I can honestly say I have met 3 people on this site with concerns/issues that are true and informed. I've met a very small handful of No voters in "real-life" that are the same, but the vast majority of No voters that I have personally come across are ill-informed. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is. And many, like O'Morris here, have been presented with evidence to prove their case incorrect and refused point blank to acknowledge it. It's almost like the US at this stage. It's like an "I'm right regardless of the facts" stance that makes no sense.

heyjude wrote: »

Mind you with Fianna Fail support currently at 27% and virtually every other political party either opposed to the treaty or opposed to another referendum, its hard to see the government wanting to proceed with what is sure to be a very unpopular referendum.

Most parties are pro-Lisbon, with the exception of SF and the Socialists. I would wager that most may say they are against another referendum, but these are politicians we're talking about here. Who here can say they honestly belief what comes out of their mouths!? :pac:

djpbarry

molloyjh wrote: »

The sad thing at the moment is that all this BS, all the hassle we're causnig, seems to be stemming from ignorance. And the only ones to blame there are the Government.

I can't accept this argument. How much information has to be made available to the public before they're prepared to get off their arses and inform themselves? You can bring a horse to water...

molloyjh

djpbarry wrote: »

I can't accept this argument. How much information has to be made available to the public before they're prepared to get off their arses and inform themselves? You can bring a horse to water...

The fact of the matter is djpbarry that most people never read those things. While I agree the info was made available to them it is often easier for people to just listen to what they hear on the radio and TV. Most people don't want to take the time out to go through documentation, they want a small handful of bullet points saying why they should go one way or the other. Right or wrong this is just the way it is. Libertas and co got that, our Government didn't.

Why else do you think their reasons to vote No leaflet and capaign were so effective? Rather than explain what was happening they just gave people a small number of lines/rhetoric to read rather than a few pages. It was short, to the point and relevant. That will always beat long-winded and boring, regardless of the accuracy of the content.

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

I can't accept this argument. How much information has to be made available to the public before they're prepared to get off their arses and inform themselves? You can bring a horse to water...

The fact of the matter is djpbarry that most people never read those things. While I agree the info was made available to them it is often easier for people to just listen to what they hear on the radio and TV. Most people don't want to take the time out to go through documentation, they want a small handful of bullet points saying why they should go one way or the other. Right or wrong this is just the way it is. Libertas and co got that, our Government didn't.

Why else do you think their reasons to vote No leaflet and capaign were so effective? Rather than explain what was happening they just gave people a small number of lines/rhetoric to read rather than a few pages. It was short, to the point and relevant. That will always beat long-winded and boring, regardless of the accuracy of the content.

I have to go with molloyjh on this one. It seems reasonable to say "well, look, the information is available, so you can get it" and that that should be enough - but it isn't, and it was never going to be.

It isn't just about the information, it's about the effort - the 'respect' if you like. The government, if it wants something either itself or through the EU, has to be seen to be respectful of the citizenry - to make an effort, to pitch, to woo. That effort was not made by the Yes side. It was made by the No side, and while people are, I think, quite suspicious of the No side in general, they made the effort and the Yes side didn't.

You could say the Yes side was the natural choice to take the voter to the ball, but didn't call, didn't bother - just assumed the voters would come trotting along. So while the Yes side was busy preening in front of the mirror and rehearsing what it would say afterwards, the No side, slightly greasy, slightly unshaven, slightly wild-eyed, was calling at the voter's door with a bunch of dodgy roses wrapped in Libertas pamphlets - making the effort. So the No side took the voter to the polls.

There's an obvious corollary to that, which is that hectoring the voters about their choice of company simply puts them on the defensive. A bit of humility from the Yes side is both tactically the right choice - and also well-deserved.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

molloyjh wrote:

O'Morris for example and his "our voting weight would be reduced from 2% to 0.8%" crap, which has been proven to be totally untrue on countless occasions at this stage. Give it up already, please, it's enraging to think that regulars on this forum still hold these crazy beliefs! O'Morris that is just not true, it is completely false, and you're either lying or totally blind because it has been discussed to death, revived and discussed to death all over again on this forum.

molloyjh, old chum, I know you went to alot of trouble before to PM me about the loss of vetos and I feel bad that I didn't reply to you at the time. I've read your PM again but I'm just still not persuaded. I don't think it's the simple matter of fact that you make it seem but I would appreciate it if you point in the direction of a source for your claim that the lose less than 1% of our voting power.

The source for my claim that our voting weight in the European Council is the 8 reasons given by Libertas on their site for voting no:

"The Lisbon Treaty would implement a new system of voting by the European Council which is primarily based on population size. This means that Ireland’s voting weight would be reduced from 2% at present to 0.8%"

Can you confirm that that statement is incorrect.

molloyjh wrote:

Additionally, what is so wrong with the Lisbon proposal for the Presidential role?

It's one giant leap in the direction of a United States of Europe. I don't want Ireland to be part of a United States of Europe. I want Ireland to be an independent country that is capable of interacting with the rest of the world on its own terms. The more I think about it the more I begin to see the president and the foreign minister as the most worrying part of the Lisbon Treaty.

The Corinthian wrote:

If you want to compare the two I suggest you look at the period I put forward (turn of the 20th century). China decided it did not need to evolve or change - Confucianist ideology answered all the questions, after all. As a result, what was once the most advanced civilization in the World fell back and became easy prey to all around her.

Conversely, following the Meiji Restoration Japan realized that they needed to change to survive and thus had modernized (both socially and technologially) so that they were able to wipe the floor with China in 1894-5.

Bottom line is that China was unwilling to open up and convinced that it did not need to evolve, unlike Japan who realized the folly of such a position. As a result, China stagnated with disastrous consequences.

I agree. I think we should be more like the nationalistic and modernising Japanese and less like the stagnant and isolationist Chinese. I've always had a great admiration for Japan. It's a successful ethnic nationalist country and I'd like to see Ireland modelled on it.

The Corinthian wrote:

Even if I were to believe you, and I'm not certain I do, he would no longer be a foreigner then;

He'd have to lose that accent before I'd stop looking on him as a foreigner. Even with the accent though I would still be prepared to vote for him.

The Corinthian wrote:

When do a coalition of independent states acting together become a federal, multinational state?

A coalition of independent states acting together becomes a federal multinational state at the point when each member of that coalition loses it's power to either veto or to withdraw its support for the actions of the coalition. For example, Britain is part is part of the coalition of the willing in it's support for the war in Iraq. California is not part of the same coalition of the willing because it can neither veto the actions of it's federal government and nor can it withdraw its support for those actions.

The Corinthian wrote:

Outside of the trappings of a nation, where is that dividing line where you stop being independent states and become something else?

The dividing line is the point at which each member state loses it's power of veto or its power to withhold its support for the actions of the coalition. Britain and the USA are in a coalition of willing nations in the war against Iraq. Wales and California aren't in that coalition.

The Corinthian wrote:

The only thing I can think of is that they act with one voice when dealing with the outside - a common foreign, trade or diplomatic policy, for example.

We could have a common foreign, trade or diplomatic policy without becoming one country with Europe. There's nothing stopping independent nations aligning with each other to defend common interests and achieve common goals.

The Corinthian wrote:

In this regard the advantage is obvious; Ireland does not pull a lot of weight on the World stage. We can cut a few deals here and there, but

But that would change once we become a province of Europe?

djpbarry wrote:

Could you list some of the areas in which we have these crucially important vetoes that we need to hang on to?

According to Libertas these are some of the areas over which we will lose our veto power:

* Election of European Council President
* Powers of Europol and Eurojust
* Employment Policy
* ECB powers over financial regulation
* Various aspects of Foreign and Security Policy including proposals from the new (unelected) Foreign Minister; terrorism and mutual support; consular issues; and the budget for the EU foreign policy fund
* Comitology – the composition and procedure of committees
* Social Security
* Customs Cooperation between member states and the Commission
* Amendments to certain parts of the Statutes of the European Central Bank
* Measures relating to the broad economic guidelines and excessive deficit procedure
* Transport
* European Research Area
* Space Policy
* Energy Policy
* Border checks
* Common Immigration Policy
* Integration of Migrants
* Culture
* Tourism
* Sport
* EU Budget oversight
* Principles of European Administration

djpbarry wrote:

So why vote ‘No’?

Because of the institutional changes proposed in the Lisbon Treaty and for what they will mean for our ability to govern ourselves as an independent nation.

djpbarry wrote:

I'd hate to hear the outcry from the ‘No’ side if Ireland had voted ‘Yes’!

To get an idea of how the no side would react you would only need to look back at the reaction to the result of the second nice referendum a few years ago. To no side had far more reason to be dismissive of the result of that referendum but it turned out they behaved with a lot more maturatity than yes voters behaved after the Lisbon referendum.

djpbarry wrote:

Isn’t that pretty much the same thing?

No, it isn't because it's possible to be both a foreigner and an Irish citizen at the same time. If Barack Obama became an Irish citizen he would still be a foreigner but he would still get Old Mac's vote. And not just because he's a black man either, although that would go strongly in his favour.

djpbarry wrote:

We are independent and Lisbon would not have changed that.

If we are an independent country then I want us to remain an independent country while we still have power.

djpbarry wrote:

The whole USE thing is a straw man; it’s not what we were voting on.

I'm sure most of the Germans who voted for the nazis in the 1930s didn't believe they were voting for a dictatorship but that was what they ended up getting. The Lisbon Treaty wouldn't have directly created a USE but if passed it would have been a big step in that direction. It's a slippery slope and the Lisbon Treaty would have made that slope a lot more slippery.

djpbarry wrote:

Which of the following best describes the EU?

1. Federal multinational state
2. Coalition of independent countries

I would say it's somewhere in the middle, around 1.4. I can see it moving closer to 1 though. If we had voted yes to Lisbon it would have gone down to around 1.28.

thebman

In fairness the EU can never become a country with states like the US is because there is way too much opposition from the people in a lot of EU countries for that to happen. You would see rioting in some countries if they actually tried this and if voted on in countries it would be rejected.

I think it can have much of the same affect as the USA though without becoming like it. It does require more joint up thinking on policies in certain areas though which is basically what they are trying to achieve at the moment IMO.

There are certain areas like defense for example where I would be against acting as one when we have so little say in the EU. It is a big ask to request that we go to war because the big countries said so although we aren't at that point yet, they will probably push for it in the future. I want our government to be in charge of when our young people are sent off to potentially die for their country and I'd rather it was for something we actually thought was worth going to war over.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

I agree. I think we should be more like the nationalistic and modernising Japanese and less like the stagnant and isolationist Chinese. I've always had a great admiration for Japan. It's a successful ethnic nationalist country and I'd like to see Ireland modelled on it.

Actually Japan was not a single ethnic nation, but an empire built up of various ethnic groups we now collectively call Japanese. It became ethnically (more) homogeneous over time.

Additionally, and ironically, Japan now has become stagnant, largely because while open to trade with the World, it is unwilling or unable to change.

He'd have to lose that accent before I'd stop looking on him as a foreigner.

This superficial and puerile definition of 'sameness' is why you're a xenophobe.

We could have a common foreign, trade or diplomatic policy without becoming one country with Europe. There's nothing stopping independent nations aligning with each other to defend common interests and achieve common goals.

Actually there is - consensus. Vetos are all very well, but they invariably kill any hope for consensus. You should read up on the Liberum veto and it's part in making Poland stagnate and eventually swallowed up by its neighbours.

But that would change once we become a province of Europe?

Presently we have a middle ground situation. EU states will help each other out but when push comes to shove we're still on our own. When the US tells us we want to use our island as a staging ground for their wars or they pull the plug on investment, we're on our own and have to bend over. And we did.

This simply could not happen if we were a member state of a confederation.

According to Libertas these are some of the areas over which we will lose our veto power

With respects, Libertas has repeatedly been found to be telling half-truths and outright lies, so I'd hardly accept them as a reliable source.

brim4brim wrote: »

In fairness the EU can never become a country with states like the US is because there is way too much opposition from the people in a lot of EU countries for that to happen. You would see rioting in some countries if they actually tried this and if voted on in countries it would be rejected.

I don't think the EU could ever become a country with states like the US either, mainly because it is not as ethnically homogeneous as the US. I can see the EU becoming something akin to Switzerland (where each state or Canton has an incredibly high level of independence), but even then, it would take a long time for this to happen.

molloyjh

O'Morris wrote: »

I would appreciate it if you point in the direction of a source for your claim that the lose less than 1% of our voting power......Can you confirm that that statement is incorrect.

Have a look at these for starters:

http://www.irri-kiib.be/SD/Joint_Study_complet.pdf - page 70 gives the exact figures (from 2.18% currently to a proposed 2.04%) but the whole section regarding QMV starts on page 58. Have a read. It's pretty comprehensive.

http://www.village.ie/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=4870 - Point 9 specifically

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055311438 - this thread was one that was refered to in a post you were very much active in before aswell (http://www-srv-3.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310420&page=31). It comes to almost the very same conclusion as the first link here.

O'Morris wrote: »

It's one giant leap in the direction of a United States of Europe. I don't want Ireland to be part of a United States of Europe. I want Ireland to be an independent country that is capable of interacting with the rest of the world on its own terms. The more I think about it the more I begin to see the president and the foreign minister as the most worrying part of the Lisbon Treaty.

I take it you are fully aware that these posts already exist and that the Treaty was just changing certain elements about them to make them more effective? Why is it these points are repeatedly peddled out despite having being dealt with over and over again!?

And what makes you think anyone would pay a blind bit of attention to us, a tiny island with less than 5 million people on it anyway? I think you overestimate our importance in this world!

O'Morris wrote: »

We could have a common foreign, trade or diplomatic policy without becoming one country with Europe

So basically you're entire fear comes down to us being absorbed into an EU nation. Got anything to back up the fact that this is ever a possibility? I mean ever, not just under Lisbon. What you are claiming is an extremely far fetched notion which would never happen in the EU for the very simple reason that 2 of the biggest member states would never let it happen. Do you really think the French or the English would ever give up their sovereignty? The English can't even give up their currency for Christs sake. That whole "EU super state" or single EU country crap will not happen because it is not what the member states want. But don't let me stop you from believing it, after all people presenting facts to contradict your ideas over the last few months hasn't stopped you, why should it now?

thehighground

lenny_leonard wrote: »

The problem is that your posts are generally so vague (and very often misinformed) that responding to them is damn near impossible. In order to try to claim that the EU is bullying Ireland, you've made several false comments about the EU not responding to the NR bailout, when it's clear that they responded very similarly to the Irish guarantee. How can anyone respond to you when you don't even have anything to base your arguments on?

Apologies Leonard about the vagueness of my posts. Perhaps it will help you understand why some people are a bit concerned about the vagueness of the Lisbon Treaty and why some assurances might be the difference in changing the vote.

As for the bullying claim - apologies again, I didn't notice your post at the end of the other thread and that is why I didn't respond (I do have to do some work every now and again!).

The sequence of events that I recall (and I don't have time to look up newspaper references are).

1. On the morning that the Irish Gov. bailout of Irish banks - Brian Lenihan said on 'Morning Ireland' that he had contacted the EU for advice to be told by the EU that we were on our own. (I think they have now set up a hotline for Finance Ministers! )

2. Later that day the Commissioner responsible for competition announced that this could be uncompetitive.

3. It was after this that the British Gov. complained.

Key thing to remember here is that according to Brian Lenihan, he did contact the EU. How come someone didn't mention uncompetitiveness then?

Back-tracking in the extreme. Do you now accept that the EU did get involved in the NR bailout, despite half a dozen posts in this and the linked thread trying to claim otherwise? Are you now trying to say that because there was a different time-scale in the reactions of the EU to the NR and Irish issues, the EU are bullying Ireland? Or is that your point at all? As you can see, it's not a case of ignoring your point, it's just that it's difficult to know what it is.

Its the results of their involvement that is the important thing. The EU didn't find the NR bailout uncompetitive some months before the Irish banks situation. Yet, a couple of months later, after being requested for help and being told that 'we were on our own' an investigation is launched and we are threatened with fines.

All this is dropped when it is discovered that the rest of Europe is in exactly the same mess as we are!

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

First off I'd like to refer to lennys posts that show that the reaction of the EU to NR was much the same as the reaction to our bail out lpan. ....

No, it wasn't. See my post above to Lenny. You are reading too many EU Press releases/Irish Times biased coverage. RTE seem to be the only reporter who actually report the news.

That last line should read "The Northern Rock rescue did not trigger an anti-competitive query from another member state".

According to RTE news Programmes, it did. I choose to believe what RTE reports.

Quite the contrary actually. If, as it seems, such a huge percentage of people (both Yes and No voters) were ultimately ignorant of the facts of the Treaty then there's every chance a referendum put forward after a period of ensuring the public are informed could actually result in a totally different result. The sad thing at the moment is that all this BS, all the hassle we're causnig, seems to be stemming from ignorance.

So you're saying that regardless of what is revised, i.e. regardless of the facts of the what is put before you, you will still vote No? I'm sorry that makes no sense to me. Why would you do that? Surely you should be voting on the merits of whats in front of you, and nothing else?

Well, it would seem from the latest polls, that it is written assurances on corporate taxation, neutrality, a commissioner are what is required for a Yes vote.

Are you going to stop this nonsense of ignorant 'no voters' etc now? And stop making clueless judgements as to how I vote. I'm beginning to think you work for Libertas, because your posts are enough to turn anyone away with having anything to do with the EU.

thehighground

molloyjh wrote: »

Have a look at these for starters:

Indeed - Pro-European organisation - disclaimer on inside cover even from them that they don't stand over this report.

Oh, and Peter Sutherland is Chairman of the organisation.

More EU propaganda!