The Muck of the Irish

runswithascript

No no, not 'No Irish' signs on building sites in Poland, instead a New York Times columnist's take on the Irish rejection of Europe.

Europeans have spent a lot of time in recent years asking Americans how they could be dumb enough to make the same mistake twice in electing George W. Bush. But when it comes to sheer electoral crassness, it’s hard to beat what the Irish have just done.
I can’t think of a country that’s benefited from European Union membership more than Ireland. It has catapulted itself in a few decades from beer-soaked backwater to the Celtic Tiger whose growth rates, foreign investment and rags-to-riches story were the envy of every languishing small nation with a thirst for a makeover.
Enormous E.U. farm subsidies, access for foreign investors to the E.U. market, and the liberation from a Britain complex afforded by new European horizons all contributed to the rebranding of Ireland. Dublin was suddenly hip; the peat bogs were passé. No wonder the Irish adopted the euro with élan while the British shrunk from “the Continent” and stuck with sterling.
Yet here we have the Irish, in a fit of Euro-bashing pique worthy of the worst of little-Englandism, rejecting the renegotiated Lisbon treaty essential for the functioning of an expanded 27-member E.U. Biting the hand that feeds you does not begin to describe this act of bloody-mindedness.
The Lisbon Treaty is essential. It alone can create a streamlined decision-making mechanism for a 27-member union. It alone can forge the meaningful presidency and foreign-affairs posts that will give the E.U. the increased political clout that its economic weight demands. At a time of flux in global power, with the United States overextended and China and India emergent, Europe needs coherence to count.
I know, the Irish, like the rest of us, were looking for someone to blame for soaring gas prices and food inflation and unresponsive politicians and new economic pressures, and what better opportunity than a referendum on a still impenetrable E.U. treaty that was once billed as a “constitution” and is now the downsized nightmare of every Brussels bureaucrat?
Still, what the Irish did was unconscionable. It makes me despair of a Europe that should be proud of what it’s achieved in absorbing the freed former vassal-nations of the Soviet Union in Central Europe. But instead of rejoicing at a Europe “whole and free,” Europeans have been in a funk of which the Irish “No” is the latest expression.
Yes, it’s more complicated running a 27-member E.U. than a cozy 12-member club. Yes, Polish plumbers might show up in Western Europe and take a job or two. Yes, European institutions can seem remote. But measured on any sensible historical scale, the pettiness of Europeans confronted by the need to reform a post-Berlin-Wall E.U. has been mind-boggling.
Who cares about Yalta or the Gulag when you can rail at some Brussels functionary trying to regulate the contents of beer or the permissible curve in a banana?
It’s been interesting watching this European drama from Turkey, a country that has been on the European Union membership waiting list for close to a half-century, and has become disillusioned with the whole process. Enthusiasm has given way to almost universal mistrust of European intentions.
The fact that the French agriculture minister, Michel Barnier, said the Irish referendum showed that Europeans were afraid of an E.U. “without borders and limits” was immediately noted. Nobody here has any illusions about what a planned French referendum on Turkish membership would mean. The French Euro-funk is just as acute as the Irish.
Of course, there have been reassuring noises from some E.U. officials about the so-called enlargement process, but Hans-Gert Pöttering, the president of the European Parliament, was probably the most honest in declaring that the Irish “No” meant further expansion was impossible, with the possible exception of Croatia.
All this is wrongheaded. Turkish membership of the E.U. is important — Bush is right about that — for historical reasons as overarching as Europe’s debt to the nations Yalta imprisoned. No more important bridge could be forged at this moment between the Christian and Muslim worlds. A commitment was made back in the 1960s. It should be honored.
Europe needs to get over its funk. To come into force, the treaty requires ratification by all member states. Others must now proceed with the ratification process. E.U. history is full of acts of ingenuity that have kept the Euro bicycle from toppling. The months ahead should be used to find one to deal with the ungrateful Irish.
Failing that, the Turks could hardly be blamed for turning away from a Europe beset by institutional paralysis and a Lilliputian view of history. I suspect other nations would do the same because it would be clear that the idea of a political Europe is dead, replaced by the narrow insularity the Irish just demonstrated.

Rejecting Lisbon again could turn off potential US investors - Neil O'Dowd

The Muck of the Irish - Roger Cohen

RedPlanet

I love this bit:

Several American companies have allegedly been told by IDA competitors that Ireland is no longer fully part of the EU, that the economy is collapsing and that its future role in Europe is uncertain at the very least.

Another Irish refusal would certainly upset the chattering classes.

Aww the poor ol chattering classes.
I can't wait to vote NO again.

sink

RedPlanet wrote: »

Aww the poor ol chattering classes.
I can't wait to vote NO again.

What makes you so confident that American executive and high level managers aka 'the chattering classes' are any better at telling fact from fiction than the rest of us. As Libertas has shown us something doesn't have to be true for people to base important decisions upon it.

murphaph

Some article that. You'd swear as soon as we joined the European Economic Community in '73 we became a land of milk and honey when in reality we endured (so far) possibly the worst recession this country has ever seen after a decade of industrial unrest and only began to prosper after we devalued the punt in the early 90's. Of course, we can't now devalue our currency.

As far as US multinational CEO's not knowing if we are members of the EU or not....do you really want such firms led by such individuals locating here if they don't know such basic things? Any CEO worth his salt has advisors to tell him or her the facts on the ground. Money isn't clouded by wooly things-it will go where it can make the most return.

The ungrateful irish...sheesh. How many Mercedes/BMW/Vokswagens/Renaults/Fiats have we imported into this country in the last 10 years? We owe nobody anything.

O'Morris

Several American companies have allegedly been told by IDA competitors that Ireland is no longer fully part of the EU, that the economy is collapsing and that its future role in Europe is uncertain at the very least.

I'm sure if the Lisbon treaty was ratified those same IDA competitors would be telling those same American companies about the future uncertainty of Ireland maintaining its low corporation tax rate. If potential investors are ignorant enough to believe that Ireland's access to the EU's markets is threatened by voting no to the Lisbon Treaty then they're not likely to be any better informed about the possible future threats to our tax competitiviness as a result of a yes vote.

Sink wrote:

What makes you so confident that American executive and high level managers aka 'the chattering classes' are any better at telling fact from fiction than the rest of us.

Executives and high level managers tend to be better educated than the average man on the street and so you would expect them to be better informed about these kinds of things.

turgon

From my experience, especcially reading Time Magazine, American authors are clueless about the EU to the point of embarrassment. I wouldnt take any heed to this piece myself, it just exhibits the usual narrow minded view of the Americans toward the EU.

sink

O'Morris wrote: »

Executives and high level managers tend to be better educated than the average man on the street and so you would expect them to be better informed about these kinds of things.

Education is no indication of intelligence and independent thought. While some no doubt will not be fooled the majority are like greedy sheep who scare easily and can turn on a dime. Positive and negative sentiment have as much play upon their minds as hard facts and verifiable data and this sentiment will be reinforced by reading articles from clueless NYT journalists.

RedPlanet

sink wrote: »

While some no doubt will not be fooled the majority are like greedy sheep who scare easily and can turn on a dime. Positive and negative sentiment have as much play upon their minds as hard facts and verifiable data and this sentiment will be reinforced by reading articles from clueless NYT journalists.

One of the prevailing attitudes we used to hear so much about that supposedly hurt ireland's ability to attract investment was the pesky IRA, whom were constantly blowin stuff up.
But in reality that didn't stop multinationals from setting up shop here.

Later, during the Iraq War and susequent Shannon Airport protests, we all read letters-to-the-editor and opinion pieces all warning us that by protesting the US's actions in Iraq we are "biting the hand that feeds us" blah blah blah.

Now it's the same talking heads, spewing the same ol rubbish.
And tomorrow, it'll be some other issue that causes the "chattering classes" to shake their finger at us.

dresden8

Several American companies have allegedly been told by IDA competitors that Ireland is no longer fully part of the EU, that the economy is collapsing and that its future role in Europe is uncertain at the very least.

So, this guy Dowd is claiming the IDA is out there telling Americans we're not fully part of the EU anymore.

Dresden smells a porky.

Is this the same guy who was worried about his outraged tennis partner and was considering tearing up his passport?

Drama queen.

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

Several American companies have allegedly been told by IDA competitors that Ireland is no longer fully part of the EU, that the economy is collapsing and that its future role in Europe is uncertain at the very least.

So, this guy Dowd is claiming the IDA is out there telling Americans we're not fully part of the EU anymore.

Dresden smells a porky.

Is this the same guy who was worried about his outraged tennis partner and was considering tearing up his passport?

Drama queen.

I suggest rereading the piece you quoted. "IDA competitors".

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

Indeed. Thanks for the correction.

Unleash the IDA so.

sink

RedPlanet wrote: »

One of the prevailing attitudes we used to hear so much about that supposedly hurt ireland's ability to attract investment was the pesky IRA, whom were constantly blowin stuff up.
But in reality that didn't stop multinationals from setting up shop here.

Later, during the Iraq War and susequent Shannon Airport protests, we all read letters-to-the-editor and opinion pieces all warning us that by protesting the US's actions in Iraq we are "biting the hand that feeds us" blah blah blah.

Now it's the same talking heads, spewing the same ol rubbish.
And tomorrow, it'll be some other issue that causes the "chattering classes" to shake their finger at us.

If the chattering classes weren't influenced by hearsay and sentiment we would have left the boom/bust cycle of capitalism in the dust long ago.

ionix5891

sink wrote: »

If the chattering classes weren't influenced by hearsay and sentiment we would have left the boom/bust cycle of capitalism in the dust long ago.

and the alternative to capitalism you are proposing would be?


as I mentioned in another thread the whole Lisbon treaty No vote thing is making people in the business community uneasy

"So what?" say you sitting at home on the dole, Say I "think of who be paying taxes to support your fattening behind when the **** hits the fan"

The ungrateful irish...sheesh. How many Mercedes/BMW/Vokswagens/Renaults/Fiats have we imported into this country in the last 10 years? We owe nobody anything.

you prefer we still rode to the market on de olde donkey bhoy? paid of course by our fishing and potato industries not microchips and software

Some article that. You'd swear as soon as we joined the European Economic Community in '73 we became a land of milk and honey when in reality we endured (so far) possibly the worst recession this country has ever seen after a decade of industrial unrest and only began to prosper after we devalued the punt in the early 90's. Of course, we can't now devalue our currency.

and prosper we did in the last 15 years

evercloserunion

turgon wrote: »

From my experience, especcially reading Time Magazine, American authors are clueless about the EU to the point of embarrassment. I wouldnt take any heed to this piece myself, it just exhibits the usual narrow minded view of the Americans toward the EU.

I agree with this, but it works both ways. Obbviously Lisbon didn't dominate US headlines but when it did make it onto the news, the ridiculous things they were saying over there about the Treaty would have put Cóir to shame.

The Economist and WSJ are also the worst kind of Eurosceptic. The Economist loves to criticize the Europeans for not holding a referendum on the Treaty, which is ironic considering that the US don't hold referendums for constitutional amendments either.

The cover of Time magazine a couple of months ago advertised an article about the future of the EU and how it needs to "come out of its shell". This seemed very interesting and prompted me to buy the magazine. To my disappointment, the whole article was about how Europe is supposedly obsessed with the US and Barack Obama.

Americans are little more than self-absorbed idiots, I wouldn't pay much attention to thm when it comes to European matters.

sink

ionix5891 wrote: »

and the alternative to capitalism you are proposing would be?

I think you misunderstood me. I still think capitalism is the best way to allocate resource and build the economy however I am not blind to it's shortcomings. The irrationality of greed and fear that dominates the market place is far from ideal and the shortcoming is not the of capitalist system but rather a human one. The same can in fact be said for democracy.

Scofflaw

sink wrote: »

I think you misunderstood me. I still think capitalism is the best way to allocate resource and build the economy however I am not blind to it's shortcomings. The irrationality of greed and fear that dominates the market place is far from ideal and the shortcoming is not the of capitalist system but rather a human one. The same can in fact be said for democracy.

It's something of a case of two cheers for capitalism and two cheers for democracy. Neither are perfect, but two out of three isn't bad, as they say.

Indeed. Thanks for the correction.

Unleash the IDA so.

This would have been why the IDA and other Irish representatives abroad kept saying that Ireland's rejection of Lisbon would make no difference. Of course, that was then used as evidence by the No campaigns that it actually wouldn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

turgon wrote: »

From my experience, especcially reading Time Magazine, American authors are clueless about the EU to the point of embarrassment. I wouldnt take any heed to this piece myself, it just exhibits the usual narrow minded view of the Americans toward the EU.

On the one hand this particular American is reasonably well informed, but the problem is that a lot of his ideas spring from the mainstream political campaigns which were run on the basis of pro-lisbon = pro-europe / anti-lisbon = anti-europe. This is not true and IMO the anti-EU sentiment in Ireland is probably lower than anywhere in Europe. The reasons why we voted no had as much to do with not understanding the treaty, thinking it is too complicated and/or thinking that Lisbon was simply not the best way for Europe to proceed.

I don't like the spin that makes it a case of a vote for lisbon is a vote for europe; many people who are pro-EU voted no.

In any event, articles like this are interesting in that they show how Ireland is perceived abroad because of the no to Lisbon. It's curious - there wasn't nearly as much of a backlash after the 1st Nice, but in terms of the effect of a no vote it's the exact same. The problem as I see it now for the yes campaign is that international pressure is going to increase the NO support rather than decrease it or ally NO voters fears.

johnnyskeleton

murphaph wrote: »

The ungrateful irish...sheesh. How many Mercedes/BMW/Vokswagens/Renaults/Fiats have we imported into this country in the last 10 years? We owe nobody anything.

Well, a lot of those Mercs and BMWs have been imported using borrowed money which often came from outside Ireland. So, with one of the highest per capital public debts in the EU, we not only owe them for the benefits of membership of the FTA, but we also owe them very literally for all the money we borrowed off them and now have to pay back.

turgon

evercloserunion wrote: »

The cover of Time magazine a couple of months ago advertised an article about the future of the EU and how it needs to "come out of its shell". This seemed very interesting and prompted me to buy the magazine. To my disappointment, the whole article was about how Europe is supposedly obsessed with the US and Barack Obama.

You took the words out of my mouth. Brutal article. Was bitching about it for days.

ionix5891

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

On the one hand this particular American is reasonably well informed, but the problem is that a lot of his ideas spring from the mainstream political campaigns which were run on the basis of pro-lisbon = pro-europe / anti-lisbon = anti-europe. This is not true and IMO the anti-EU sentiment in Ireland is probably lower than anywhere in Europe. The reasons why we voted no had as much to do with not understanding the treaty, thinking it is too complicated and/or thinking that Lisbon was simply not the best way for Europe to proceed.

I don't like the spin that makes it a case of a vote for lisbon is a vote for europe; many people who are pro-EU voted no.

In any event, articles like this are interesting in that they show how Ireland is perceived abroad because of the no to Lisbon. It's curious - there wasn't nearly as much of a backlash after the 1st Nice, but in terms of the effect of a no vote it's the exact same. The problem as I see it now for the yes campaign is that international pressure is going to increase the NO support rather than decrease it or ally NO voters fears.

ok so how is not signing a document that all the other members have signed over issues that had nothing to do with treaty (due to a clever fud campaign)
pro europe? all the other countries want to move on with the EU project and we are throwing a wrench in the works, pro europe my ass

johnnyskeleton

ionix5891 wrote: »

ok so how is not signing a document that all the other members have signed over issues that had nothing to do with treaty (due to a clever fud campaign)
pro europe? all the other countries want to move on with the EU project and we are throwing a wrench in the works, pro europe my ass

It's wrong to assume that anti-lisbon is anti-europe. People can be quite pro-eu and still vote no because they don't like Lisbon.

It does no credit to the pro-Lisbon campaign to suggest that the no campaign is bourne of anti-eu sentiment or that Ireland's no vote is us merely throwing a wrench in the works. It's very patronising of the yes side to suggest it. If that is the official line coming into the next referendum, I wouldn't be surprized if people voted no again.

sink

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's wrong to assume that anti-lisbon is anti-europe. People can be quite pro-eu and still vote no because they don't like Lisbon.

It does no credit to the pro-Lisbon campaign to suggest that the no campaign is bourne of anti-eu sentiment or that Ireland's no vote is us merely throwing a wrench in the works. It's very patronising of the yes side to suggest it. If that is the official line coming into the next referendum, I wouldn't be surprized if people voted no again.

That only makes sense if you are a federalist who wants a directly elected executive branch. Is that what you want?

Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's wrong to assume that anti-lisbon is anti-europe. People can be quite pro-eu and still vote no because they don't like Lisbon.

It does no credit to the pro-Lisbon campaign to suggest that the no campaign is bourne of anti-eu sentiment or that Ireland's no vote is us merely throwing a wrench in the works. It's very patronising of the yes side to suggest it. If that is the official line coming into the next referendum, I wouldn't be surprized if people voted no again.

I agree that that's quite likely. I also agree that it's perfectly possible to be pro-EU and opposed to Lisbon because you specifically don't like Lisbon.

The problem is that, as far as I can see, that's actually relatively rare, while being what virtually everyone who opposed Lisbon claims. If we take some of the usual suspects - Anthony Coughlan, COIR, SF, SWP etc - we really can't take their claim to be "pro-EU but anti-Lisbon" at face value, because they've opposed every other EU treaty as well. What they object to in Lisbon is what makes the EU - sovereignty pooling, majority voting, the existence of common legislation.

So what they "specifically object to in Lisbon" is nothing specific to Lisbon, but specific to the EU. They're not objecting to the specific reweighting formula for QMV, or the particular areas that are to be brought under QMV, they're objecting to QMV. What they say is that they're objecting to the reweighting, or the new areas, but they've objected to QMV all along - to its introduction, and to every reweighting and extension since. The principle behind their objection is that a sovereign state should not be subjected to majority voting, but should in all circumstances retain a veto.

The same seems largely true of nearly every No proponent we've seen on this board. When they say they are "pro-EU but anti-Lisbon", what they're objecting to in Lisbon are almost invariably fundamental characteristics of the EU, and in principle rather than particular. At best, they are pro-EEC, but they are not pro-EU.

The EU has a characteristic form, the result of half a century of adaptation and compromise. To say that one is pro-EU is only meaningful if one means one is happy with that form - or at least accepts it as the probable best available compromise (my position). Otherwise, what one is actually saying is that one supports some form of cooperation in Europe - but not the EU.

None of this should be taken as detracting from the position of those who object, inter alia, to any progress towards thinking about a common defence, or the lack of a definitive commitment to abolishing privatisation, or who oppose the expansion of Parliament's role at the expense of the Commission/Council - but those people really are rare.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DeVore

well, fnck him.

We didnt get given everything by the EU and we arent voting no simply to close the door behind us.


What angers me is that idea that we had nothing to do with our own success. My generation stayed behind in Ireland while previous years emigrated. We stayed and set up businesses, offices, internet sites etc. Indigenous companies like Baltimore and Iona and Trintech to name the big ones but much more importantly small companies which took people off the dole.

Gah, i'm too angry about that piece to write coherently but I swear the more the other countries bollock us for voting no, the more I am tending to the no side just for sheer spite and to stick the middle finger up at them. And thats a dangerous way to decide something like this....


DeV.

ionix5891

DeVore wrote: »

well, fnck him.

We didnt get given everything by the EU and we arent voting no simply to close the door behind us.


What angers me is that idea that we had nothing to do with our own success. My generation stayed behind in Ireland while previous years emigrated. We stayed and set up businesses, offices, internet sites etc. Indigenous companies like Baltimore and Iona and Trintech to name the big ones but much more importantly small companies which took people off the dole.

Gah, i'm too angry about that piece to write coherently but I swear the more the other countries bollock us for voting no, the more I am tending to the no side just for sheer spite and to stick the middle finger up at them. And thats a dangerous way to decide something like this....


DeV.

Of course we were an important part of the equation, but if you take EU out of the equation all that talent would have been wasted on peeling potatoes

I stayed at "home", educated myself and started business

But I'll be voting YES because I dont want the business environment to disintegrate if we are no longer at the core of Europe, I dont need anymore uncertainty the economic forecast is cloudy as is!
and if that happens this time I will leave, I dont want to be paying taxes (a lot of them )for the people who want to drag this country backwards, bad enough we have enough lazy bastards suckling of the Social Welfare tit who didnt bother getting a job when the going was good, or getting themselves educated

.

Scofflaw

DeVore wrote: »

well, fnck him.

We didnt get given everything by the EU and we arent voting no simply to close the door behind us.


What angers me is that idea that we had nothing to do with our own success. My generation stayed behind in Ireland while previous years emigrated. We stayed and set up businesses, offices, internet sites etc. Indigenous companies like Baltimore and Iona and Trintech to name the big ones but much more importantly small companies which took people off the dole.

Gah, i'm too angry about that piece to write coherently but I swear the more the other countries bollock us for voting no, the more I am tending to the no side just for sheer spite and to stick the middle finger up at them. And thats a dangerous way to decide something like this....

Whatever about other countries bollocking us, to decide it on the basis of the opinion of a New York Times columnist would be very weird. We did the work, the EU certainly helped, but the EU can only help those who help themselves. So this guy doesn't know that - why should he?

Possibly I shouldn't ask - why does it make you so angry? Personally, I emigrated, because when I graduated in 89 there was no work. I came back in 93, emigrated again, came back in 96, built a business, lost it in the dot-com crash in 01, and built another. I've never drawn the dole in Ireland, or received any grants. I've paid plenty of taxes, I always vote, I do pro-bono work where I can. Other people's opinions of how Ireland pulled itself up out of the muck don't bother me a jot - I've done my bit, and they can say what they like. I really can't see how any such opinions, be they Sarkozy's or those of a US journalist, can make anyone angry.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

DeVore wrote: »

Gah, i'm too angry about that piece to write coherently but I swear the more the other countries bollock us for voting no, the more I am tending to the no side just for sheer spite and to stick the middle finger up at them. And thats a dangerous way to decide something like this....

Yes, it is. Thing is, there's a fair-to-middling chance that you'll take a deep breath come the next referendum, and vote on the actual issue at hand: the treaty, and whether or not it's a good idea to ratify it - on its own merits.

Or maybe you won't. One thing's for certain: thousands upon thousands of people will, once again, vote one way or the other for reasons that are either tangentially related to the treaty, or based on misunderstandings about the treaty (many of which are deliberately planted FUD by parties with agendas of their own), or completely unrelated to the treaty (such as voting to "punish" the government for their total and utter incompetence).

Which leaves me wondering: exactly why is it we think that allowing people to vote on something this important is a good idea?

DeVore

I'm angry because I'm quite nationalist (in the good manner, the IRA/SF can go fnck themselves but lets not go there) and because I stuck it out here to build something in my own home country. Funnily enough, lately I've been fairly sick of the "new irish" and am considering getting the fnck out.

Anyway, Oscar, I will be voting based on the treaty and almost certainly voting yes because I agree with the treaty. I'm disciplined enough in my logic to try and not allow emotional response to inform my decision but..... I'm betting a lot of people out there will be p*ssed off by dumb crap like this know-nothing joker (not to mention Sarcozy) to simply give them the fingers again.

DeV.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

I agree that that's quite likely. I also agree that it's perfectly possible to be pro-EU and opposed to Lisbon because you specifically don't like Lisbon.

The problem is that, as far as I can see, that's actually relatively rare, while being what virtually everyone who opposed Lisbon claims. If we take some of the usual suspects - Anthony Coughlan, COIR, SF, SWP etc - we really can't take their claim to be "pro-EU but anti-Lisbon" at face value, because they've opposed every other EU treaty as well. What they object to in Lisbon is what makes the EU - sovereignty pooling, majority voting, the existence of common legislation.

So what they "specifically object to in Lisbon" is nothing specific to Lisbon, but specific to the EU. They're not objecting to the specific reweighting formula for QMV, or the particular areas that are to be brought under QMV, they're objecting to QMV. What they say is that they're objecting to the reweighting, or the new areas, but they've objected to QMV all along - to its introduction, and to every reweighting and extension since. The principle behind their objection is that a sovereign state should not be subjected to majority voting, but should in all circumstances retain a veto.

The same seems largely true of nearly every No proponent we've seen on this board. When they say they are "pro-EU but anti-Lisbon", what they're objecting to in Lisbon are almost invariably fundamental characteristics of the EU, and in principle rather than particular. At best, they are pro-EEC, but they are not pro-EU.

The EU has a characteristic form, the result of half a century of adaptation and compromise. To say that one is pro-EU is only meaningful if one means one is happy with that form - or at least accepts it as the probable best available compromise (my position). Otherwise, what one is actually saying is that one supports some form of cooperation in Europe - but not the EU.

None of this should be taken as detracting from the position of those who object, inter alia, to any progress towards thinking about a common defence, or the lack of a definitive commitment to abolishing privatisation, or who oppose the expansion of Parliament's role at the expense of the Commission/Council - but those people really are rare.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Come on Scoflaw, You know that not true saying that every "No Lisbon voter" is a anti-EU voter. You are making bold assumptions about No voters.

The EU commission Poll on the Day of the Lisbon Referendum said that Irish voters were still very much Pro-EU and that we are still rated Highly in the Pro-EU country Polls in Europe.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlfBx-OxZc Barrasso (1m:28s) even said that the No vote was not against Europe.

Barosso (EU Commission President comments is the best proof and a great witness for Irish No voters are not anti-EU
Short version: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=sqRgBBaN_n8
Repeated Polls put Ireland on the top of the Pro-EU Polls

By the way I voted Yes to Maastricht Treaty (which created the EU) and voted No to Lisbon Treaty and still very much Pro-EU. By your logic the Danes are anti EU for rejecting the Maastricht Treaty, They only voted yes a Different Version (with opt-outs of the Maastricht Treaty) and the French and Dutch must be very much ANTI-EU for Rejecting the EU Constitution which is virtually identical to The Lisbon Treaty. It funny that the French and Dutch Governments bypass the people and still called the ratification of the Treaty as democratic!

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

Come on Scoflaw, You know that not true saying that every "No Lisbon voter" is a anti-EU voter. You are making bold assumptions about No voters.

The EU commission Poll on the Day of the Lisbon Referendum said that Irish voters were still very much Pro-EU and that we are still rated Highly in the Pro-EU country Polls in Europe.
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlfBx-OxZc Barrasso (1m:28s) even said that the No vote was not against Europe.

Barosso (EU Commission President comments is the best proof and a great witness for Irish No voters are not anti-EU
Short version: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=sqRgBBaN_n8
Repeated Polls put Ireland on the top of the Pro-EU Polls

By the way I voted Yes to Maastricht Treaty (which created the EU) and voted No to Lisbon Treaty and still very much Pro-EU. By your logic the Danes are anti EU for rejecting the Maastricht Treaty, They only voted yes a Different Version (with opt-outs of the Maastricht Treaty) and the French and Dutch must be very much ANTI-EU for Rejecting the EU Constitution which is virtually identical to The Lisbon Treaty. It funny that the French and Dutch Governments bypass the people and still called the ratification of the Treaty as democratic!

I do indeed know that it's not true every No voter is anti-EU, which is why I didn't say it. I strongly doubt that even a majority of No voters are anti-EU (although judging by the vote in every EU referendum, about half of them are).

That isn't the case for No campaigners, who are almost all anti-EU. Anthony Coughlan has opposed every EU treaty. Sinn Fein have opposed every EU treaty. COIR have opposed every EU treaty. The SWP have opposed every EU treaty. PANA have opposed every EU treaty. Patricia McKenna has opposed every EU treaty. Etc etc.

Now, if one opposes every EU treaty, one cannot realistically claim to be pro-EU - to do so leaves no meaning in the term. Yet all of the above do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Offalycool

For people that are interested as to why the Irish voted no, there is a Post-referendum survey of the Lisbon referendum in Ireland.

For me, it boils down to the fears of a responsible people, who don't know what to make of it.