The Next Referendum Vote Clock Is Ticking Down...

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

There were notable differences between Nice 1 + 2.

Really? What were they?

oscarBravo

nhughes100, is there a reason you're avoiding my question?

petergfiffin

I'm sick of people saying that we need to vote again because "people didn't understand the issues". The fact is we were asked to vote, we did, end of. If we don't like the answer we got or have to suffer the consequences well "boo hoo" this is what democracy is about, choices and consequences. If Europe is going to make life difficult for use because we voted no then surely that begs some very serious questions about what democracy means in the EU.

oscarBravo

petergfiffin wrote: »

I'm sick of people saying that we need to vote again because "people didn't understand the issues". The fact is we were asked to vote, we did, end of.

There was a general election in 1922. People were asked to vote, they voted, end of.

Would you accept that we should live with the consequences of that vote? That the only elections since should be bye-elections, to fill seats vacated through death or retirement?

If we don't like the answer we got or have to suffer the consequences well "boo hoo" this is what democracy is about, choices and consequences.

Is democracy also about never, ever being able to do anything about those consequences? Democracy is a one-shot deal; you get one chance to vote, and if that vote has negative consequences, tough: you don't get to vote again?

If Europe is going to make life difficult for use because we voted no then surely that begs some very serious questions about what democracy means in the EU.

Back up. You're saying that one small country with 1% of the EU's population holding up the ratification of a treaty is democratic? And that for 26 members to "make life difficult" for one member is undemocratic?

nesf

petergfiffin wrote: »

I'm sick of people saying that we need to vote again because "people didn't understand the issues". The fact is we were asked to vote, we did, end of.

And I'm sick of people taking the responsibilities of voting so lightly but what are you going to do, eh?

djpbarry

petergfiffin wrote: »

...this is what democracy is about, choices and consequences.

Indeed, but how many of the voters understood the choices or the potential consequences?

Villain

djpbarry wrote: »

Indeed, but how many of the voters understood the choices or the potential consequences?

The same could be said about voting FF in for a 3rd term but I don't think we're going to get a re-run of the general election

oscarBravo

Villain wrote: »

The same could be said about voting FF in for a 3rd term but I don't think we're going to get a re-run of the general election

If the Greens pulled out of coalition in the morning, how many of the people who are telling us it's undemocratic to run another referendum would equally claim it's undemocratic to run another election?

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

There was a general election in 1922. People were asked to vote, they voted, end of.

Would you accept that we should live with the consequences of that vote?

We did, we had the Civil War, partitioning the island and later, the resultant IRA and Loyalist violence. Nice one.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Back up. You're saying that one small country with 1% of the EU's population holding up the ratification of a treaty is democratic? And that for 26 members to "make life difficult" for one member is undemocratic?

That's the way this treaty was formed, either all 27 say yes, or it's not on.
The reality is that Europe actually didn't mean it.

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote: »

We did, we had the Civil War, partitioning the island and later, the resultant IRA and Loyalist violence. Nice one.

I'm not clear what your point is here. Are you saying that the results of the election should have been ignored? That there shouldn't have been any more elections? In the context of this discussion, do you even have a point?

That's the way this treaty was formed, either all 27 say yes, or it's not on.
The reality is that Europe actually didn't mean it.

Unless it happened while I wasn't looking, the treaty hasn't come into force, so yes: they meant it.

What you and others seem to believe is that the principle of unanimity means that one small country can permanently and irrevocably prevent 26 other countries from co-operating among themselves in a manner that they see fit. That belief strikes me as naive, at best.

djpbarry

Villain wrote: »

The same could be said about voting FF in for a 3rd term but I don't think we're going to get a re-run of the general election

You sure about that?

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

What you and others seem to believe is that the principle of unanimity means that one small country can permanently and irrevocably prevent 26 other countries from co-operating among themselves in a manner that they see fit. That belief strikes me as naive, at best.

Are you arguing Pro-Lisbon?
It sounds to me you're more likely agreeing with Lisbon accept that annoying part about unanimity.

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote: »

Are you arguing Pro-Lisbon?
It sounds to me you're more likely agreeing with Lisbon accept that annoying part about unanimity.

I think Lisbon is a good deal for Ireland and for Europe. I voted in favour last time, and I would again.

But I'm also pointing out that Ireland negotiated the treaty in good faith, then turned around and refused to ratify it. In any club, if a member plays silly buggers - even if the club's rules require unanimity - a way will be found to work around that member.

You can call it bullying. You can throw your toys out of the pram. You can scream and scream until you're sick. You can whine about lack of democracy, whatever that means in the context of an arrangement between sovereign nations.

But ultimately, if you want to be in the club, you find consensus and go along with it.

I've cited the example before about the group water scheme I used to be a member of, and the tiny handful of members who persistently caused trouble at AGMs, using every obstructionist technique they could think of to disrupt the smooth running of the organisation. Eventually, at a particularly memorable meeting, after a number of disruptive interruptions they were shouted down by the majority of the members, effectively being told to STFU or leave.

Now, there was nothing in the rules that would permit such an approach. But the bulk of the members wanted to get on with the business of running the scheme, and eventually ran out of patience with the irrelevant nonsense the minority kept coming out with.

Back to your question: I have no issue with the unanimity aspect of Lisbon; that's how the EU works. But it also works on consensus, and if we're determined to break that consensus with obstructionist tactics, I don't think we should act all shocked if the rest of them find a way to move on without us.

nhughes100

djpbarry wrote: »

Really? What were they?

Please spare us derision.

oscarBravo wrote: »

nhughes100, is there a reason you're avoiding my question?

I'm not, I didn't notice a timer on the question or do we all have to jump when you say so. Your bully boy tactics don't wash with me, save it for the Pro Euro lapdogs.

oscarBravo wrote: »

a way will be found to work around that member.

You can call it bullying. You can throw your toys out of the pram. You can scream and scream until you're sick. You can whine about lack of democracy, whatever that means in the context of an arrangement between sovereign nations.

But ultimately, if you want to be in the club, you find consensus and go along with it.

.

Now it's obvious that you have misunderstood my post, the point is that we have had several posts from Pro-Lisbon posters that voting no again will have knock on effects no favourable to Ireland that aren't written in the treaty, I don't believe I said that there were posters who said this was explicitly written in the treaty but if that's what you gathered from it then maybe I should have put it differently. No I don't believe anyone has posted this but there have been posts about the consequences on voting no in this very thread and indeed by yourself.

Lenny_leonard page 6 "Like it or not, rejecting Lisbon (twice, if it happens), makes a statement of where we (Ireland) are going in the EU, and all the polls indicate that Irish people still want to be a big part of Europe, despite what you think the No vote indicates"

DJPBarry page 7 "I’d be rather worried about our future in the EU if we vote ‘No’ again. What do you think should happen (realistically) if we don’t ratify Lisbon and all other 26 member states do? Do you really think the whole EU is going to grind to a halt because we keep shouting "No means no!" ?"

OscarBrave page 8 "If we vote "no" again, and especially if we vote "no" for reasons that are irrelevant to the treaty (as some "no" campaigners seem to be advocating), I think we need to consider our position in the EU."

DJPBarry Page 9 "While I'm not sure those exact words have been used, if we do not ratify the treaty, then we will end up on the outside of those who do, i.e. the union according to Lisbon. So there is an element of truth in that statement. We want one union, everyone else wants a different union; there's only going to be one winner in that tug-of-war."

These are the posts and the likes I was and am referring to. Consider our position, EU tug of war with only one winner, what will happen if we don't ratify Lisbon aside from the EU not being able to enact the treaty as law.

djpbarry

nhughes100 wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

Really? What were they?

Please spare us derision.

Side-stepping another question are we?

nhughes100 wrote: »

I'm not, I didn't notice a timer on the question or do we all have to jump when you say so. Your bully boy tactics don't wash with me, save it for the Pro Euro lapdogs.

Someone inform the Oxford University Press that "to bully" has been redefined to mean "to ask a question of someone".

nhughes100 wrote: »

DJPBarry page 7 "I’d be rather worried about our future in the EU if we vote ‘No’ again. What do you think should happen (realistically) if we don’t ratify Lisbon and all other 26 member states do? Do you really think the whole EU is going to grind to a halt because we keep shouting "No means no!" ?"

I notice you avoided those questions too.

oscarBravo

nhughes100 wrote: »

I'm not, I didn't notice a timer on the question or do we all have to jump when you say so. Your bully boy tactics don't wash with me, save it for the Pro Euro lapdogs.

I was just curious why you were avoiding the question. I suspected it was because you knew you'd said something that was patently false, and your defensiveness now reinforces that belief.

Now it's obvious that you have misunderstood my post, the point is that we have had several posts from Pro-Lisbon posters that voting no again will have knock on effects no favourable to Ireland that aren't written in the treaty, I don't believe I said that there were posters who said this was explicitly written in the treaty but if that's what you gathered from it then maybe I should have put it differently.

Let's review. You said:

nhughes100 wrote: »

...please show us the part of the treaty where it says that if you vote no to this treaty you will then have to make a decision about leaving the EU.

To which I replied:

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's an absurd argument. How can a treaty contain a provision about what happens if it's not ratified? Think about it.

You followed up with:

nhughes100 wrote: »

Of course it's an absurd argument, it's one that's made regularly by Pro-Lisbon posters on this forum.

Now you're claiming you didn't mean that.

Fair enough - I suppose at least you've acknowledged that you made an absurd argument, and - despite what you claimed - no pro-Lisbon poster has made any such absurd argument.

molloyjh

nhughes100 wrote: »

...there are a lot more posts in my opinion that attack the no side exclusively for telling lies and not being informed, implying again in my opinion that the Yes side did all their research and held the moral upper ground...

If you read my post again you will see that "your opinion" is simply the result of either ignoring certain posts or missing them entirely. Very few people (other than the utterly unreasonable who we'll never be rid of) have ever claimed anything about all No voters, beyond the fact that they all voted No. You saw criticism of a number of individuals and made it into something it wasn't. And nowhere have I seen anyone even imply that the Yes side as a whole were any "better" than the No crowd. It's quite a leap to read the posts here and get that. Which is why I called it BS rhetoric.

nhughes100 wrote: »

...although I've been called Xenophobic for simply opposing Lisbon.

I can't say with any great confidence that I saw that, although I did see someone being called a xenophobe at one stage. My recollection was that this was based not on their choice of vote, but on the reasons given for that choice. Whoever it was (and it may or may not have been you) was nationalistic in the extreme and did display a potential for xenaphobia at the very least.

nhughes100 wrote: »

People who voted no are accused of being racist, ignorant, uneducated, duped by Coir who in my opinion couldn't outsmart a goldfish but we were all tarred with the same brush.

Yes exactly, individuals are being labelled thus, based on what they do and say, not on their vote. But we have not tarred all No voters with the same brush and had you paid close enough attention over the months you would have seen that. I've seen plenty of people say that there are rational reasonable No voters out there who voted so for valid reasons. Even OB, who tends to be a bit more forward than some, has said that on a number of occassions.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Now I don't pretend to have read every post on the treaty but I read a lot of them and debated them and found precious little to sway my vote from no. I'm not saying their wasn't good and interesting viewpoints but none that changed my mind.

And that's fine, and your democratic right. I've no interest in going into another detailed debate on that particular end of it, as I'm sure you don't either.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Consider this, if the vote had been yes thanks to the party machines etc then we would not have been afforded a second vote. There would have been no investigation or polls as to why the yes vote was carried. This is the source of a lot of people's discontent regarding the democratic defecit.

There is one huge hole in this point. That is that a Yes vote carried with it a set of known consequences, i.e. that the changes to the EU in the Lisbon Treaty would be made. A No vote carries with it uncertainty. The Treaty is a complex document covering multiple areas. Saynig No to it does not mean saying No to it all, at least not in every case. Therefore we can't be sure from a No vote what people had a problem with or what the people DID want. A survey to find out was always going to be needed after a No, far more so than would have been after a Yes.

If I told you I wanted to do 10 things on your behalf and you said ok, then it is fair to assume that I can fire ahead and do those 10 things. If on the other hand you say no it only makes sense that I ask why not and find out if there is one or more of those things you have a problem with. If after all there is only one for example we could deal with it and move forward.

nhughes100 wrote: »

I would put it to you that the groups you mentioned and TD's that supported Lisbon are out of touch with the Irish people and not for the first time - They all supported Nice1 as well. To support this argument, lets assume there was no referendum and there was a Dail vote, less then 10 TD's would have voted against Lisbon as opposed to almost 54% of the population voting it down. That is quite frankly a disturbing statistic.

So the only groups in touch with the people of this country are Sinn Fein, the Socialist party, Coir and Libertas? Of the two "sides" there it is the possibility of the latter being more in touch with us that I find more disturbing. While I agree that the politicians in this country are out of touch (as displayed in there "Ah go on, ya will" campaign) it would be a sad day if our workers unions were too. Employer groups are a vested interest in themselves, but if things like the corporate tax (non-)issue were a real possibility there is no way they would support the Treaty. These groups, you must also remember, have far greater resources than the average punter in terms of legal representation that can interpret the Treaty properly.

petergfiffin wrote: »

I'm sick of people saying that we need to vote again because "people didn't understand the issues". The fact is we were asked to vote, we did, end of. If we don't like the answer we got or have to suffer the consequences well "boo hoo" this is what democracy is about, choices and consequences. If Europe is going to make life difficult for use because we voted no then surely that begs some very serious questions about what democracy means in the EU.

Democracy means that the will of the people is all-powerful. Giving the people a chance to vote again, and ensuring that they understand it as much as possible next time, gives us a greater chance of ensuring their will on the matter is done.

Villain wrote: »

The same could be said about voting FF in for a 3rd term but I don't think we're going to get a re-run of the general election

Other than the fact that the Treaty is a black and white document and a general election is a vague mish-mash of idealogy and potential policy should circumstances allow, which is anything but black and white.

nhughes100 wrote: »

Please spare us derision....I'm not, I didn't notice a timer on the question or do we all have to jump when you say so. Your bully boy tactics don't wash with me, save it for the Pro Euro lapdogs.

You posted a number of times since the original question yet you still haven't answered it. That's not bullying, it's just a fact.

nhughes100 wrote: »

...These are the posts and the likes I was and am referring to. Consider our position, EU tug of war with only one winner, what will happen if we don't ratify Lisbon aside from the EU not being able to enact the treaty as law.

And so what do you think will happen if we refuse to ratify the Treaty? The rest of Europe wants it, noone else in Europe wants to renegotiate. That is the current position. Do you think they'll all just forget about it and keeping stumbling forward as we are now? And even if we do are you realistically expected zero fall out for Ireland? Believe me I wish it wasn't the case, but in the real world things aren't so rosey.

RedPlanet

molloyjh wrote: »

And so what do you think will happen if we refuse to ratify the Treaty? The rest of Europe wants it, noone else in Europe wants to renegotiate. That is the current position. Do you think they'll all just forget about it and keeping stumbling forward as we are now?

Yes, they'll have to. But are we "stumbling" foward?
That's a mis-characterisation.

molloyjh wrote: »

And even if we do are you realistically expected zero fall out for Ireland? Believe me I wish it wasn't the case, but in the real world things aren't so rosey.

So, you think it's ratify or else?
I doubt that's a sentiment you'll find in the hearts of our European neighbours.
In fact, if that's true than what does that tell you about Europe?
Who wants to be part of a club whereby the other members will put a gun to our head when we disagree?

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote: »

Who wants to be part of a club whereby the other members will put a gun to our head when we disagree?

Who wants to be a part of a club where the other members sit you down and say "dude, you can't keep playing silly buggers" when you keep playing silly buggers?

The metaphor of a gun to the head is an interesting one: it suggests that the alternative to going along with the rest of the club is total annihilation. If the metaphor was recast as "who wants to be part of a club whereby the other members will find a way to work around you when you refuse to go along with the consensus?" it doesn't sound quite as harsh, does it?

djpbarry

RedPlanet wrote: »

But are we "stumbling" foward?

I remember prior to the EU's expansion in 2004 there were calls from eurosceptics that the institutions of the EU were not designed to encompass such a large number of countries and that an overhaul was required. Now, the revamp is here in the form of Lisbon, suddenly everything is hunky-dory and we don't need to change anything?

RedPlanet wrote: »

So, you think it's ratify or else...

...the rest of the EU moves on without us, yes. I fail to see what is so tyrannical about this? We want to do one thing, the rest of the EU wants to do something else. What's the logical conclusion?

DeVore

djpbarry wrote: »

So what happens if we uphold our 'No' vote?
While I'm not sure those exact words have been used, if we do not ratify the treaty, then we will end up on the outside of those who do, i.e. the union according to Lisbon. So there is an element of truth in that statement. We want one union, everyone else wants a different union; there's only going to be one winner in that tug-of-war.

This is the part that annoys me. If we dont ratify then there is no treaty. 25 out of 26 is not unanimous and the treaty HAS to be scrapped. They can go and have an accord between them all but the EU laws wont be changed because it wasnt unanimous. Its the idea that they can just proceed without us that makes me mad and also makes me determined to make them respect our vote.

DeV.

nesf

DeVore wrote: »

This is the part that annoys me. If we dont ratify then there is no treaty. 25 out of 26 is not unanimous and the treaty HAS to be scrapped. They can go and have an accord between them all but the EU laws wont be changed because it wasnt unanimous. Its the idea that they can just proceed without us that makes me mad and also makes me determined to make them respect our vote.

DeV.

Why should the EU stop progressing down a path favoured by the vast majority of members because one very small country which makes up an insignificant part of its economy doesn't want to follow? The breach of unanimity would be if they forced Ireland to abide by the treaty, not if they themselves formed a sub group that followed the new rules. They did it already with the Eurozone and the countries who opted out of the common currency remember. The choice for Ireland could very well be the new EU or no EU and that reality reflects the relative unimportance of this country on the international stage. We're not major players with loads of EU pull no matter how much we'd like to think we are.

oscarBravo

DeVore wrote: »

This is the part that annoys me. If we dont ratify then there is no treaty. 25 out of 26 is not unanimous and the treaty HAS to be scrapped.

Absolutely. But there's nothing to stop them entering into another treaty, to which we are not a party.

Its the idea that they can just proceed without us that makes me mad and also makes me determined to make them respect our vote.

Make them, how?

If I thought there were genuine issues at stake, I might be more inclined toward your view on this. But there aren't. We're hurtling towards a confrontation with our fellow member states over issues that are either utterly irrelevant to the treaty (abortion, conscription), or not an especially big deal (commissioner rotation).

The EU is built on consensus. We're throwing that away - for what? It's like a group of friends who get on well, until one of them throws a strop over some imagined slight, and then - too embarrassed to back down - continues to stay stroppy until everyone else stops talking to him, because he's being an unreasonable prat.

Scofflaw

RedPlanet wrote: »

Yes, they'll have to. But are we "stumbling" foward?
That's a mis-characterisation.


So, you think it's ratify or else?
I doubt that's a sentiment you'll find in the hearts of our European neighbours.
In fact, if that's true than what does that tell you about Europe?
Who wants to be part of a club whereby the other members will put a gun to our head when we disagree?

I invite you to reverse that logic - who wants someone in their club who holds a gun to everyone's head?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Just curious has anything come from the early calls to renegotiate the treaty for a better deal?

dresden8

Scofflaw wrote: »

I invite you to reverse that logic - who wants someone in their club who holds a gun to everyone's head?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Exactly!

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote: »

Absolutely. But there's nothing to stop them entering into another treaty, to which we are not a party.

At this point, that is a threat that has zero substance.
Can you cite a single european source, that has articulated anything of the sort?

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote: »

At this point, that is a threat that has zero substance.
Can you cite a single european source, that has articulated anything of the sort?

It's not a threat, it's a statement of fact, unless you can demonstrate that it's untrue.

Can you cite a single European source that has suggested that the EU's members will be perfectly content to let Ireland dictate their future direction?

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not a threat, it's a statement of fact, unless you can demonstrate that it's untrue.

Can you cite a single European source that has suggested that the EU's members will be perfectly content to let Ireland dictate their future direction?

He asked first Oscar. What threats or facts are there?

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

He asked first Oscar. What threats or facts are there?

I didn't say there was a threat. I made a simple statement of fact. If you don't think it's true, demonstrate why not.