Why I'm thinking of voting yes this time to Lisbon

democrates

I voted no in the first Lisbon treaty. I still think this treaty is on balance, a step in the wrong direction for the quality of democracy afforded to citizens of EU member states, but now I'm considering a yes for Lisbon 2.

Clearly circumstances have changed, we now have the gun of economic crisis to our heads, as Obama said "the world has changed". Since the markets are based on confidence, it seems reasonable to assume that their reaction to a second no vote would cause deeper and longer economic adversity for citizens, especially since our EU elite have no plan B except the promise of chaos and uncertainty.

Personally I'd be quite willing to deal with temporarily tougher times in order to avoid worsening democracy and to keep the institutional reform agenda alive, but our young people with no say as well as citizens accross the EU would also pay the price. It's likely that Ireland would pay the highest price.

Even if the majority of citizens in EU member states do not see Lisbon as the right direction, not enough are taking to the streets to insist on having their own referenda. If they can't be bothered to influence their own politicians, why would we expect that they would save us from politicial retribution? The fact is the elite have the power, and if we vote no again we can easily (and to a degree justifiably) be blamed for the extent of recessions in member states, having caused a political crisis and market uncertainty at the worst possible time. We alone would pay the price for disobediance and could count on little popular support for our position.

"Pick your battles" springs to mind, and now is no longer the time for this one. If we vote yes it takes us out of the firing line for blame and gives the EU elite enough rope to hang themselves. Let them run amok with their new powers and maybe then, when our fellow citizens accross the EU are finally ready to stand up and fight for their rights, we can gladly join in.

turgon

I swallowed my pride yesterday, so that makes two of us. Although in fairness you still seem to think that Lisbon is actually completely undesirable??

And remember this...

johnnyq wrote: »

Most Passionate No Campaigner - Turgon (and Rb on After Hours)
Most Reasoned No Campaigner - Democrates

Looks like the No side will have to find new debaters for the next round

cozmik

I don't subscribe to your personal view democrates. I intend to vote No again.

Scofflaw

This leaves me pretty torn. On the one hand, I'm glad to see people voting Yes (since I think Lisbon is a step in the right direction, although not a long enough one) - on the other, unless some more rational No advocates step forward, the next debate here will be like playing Space Invaders with muppets. It's also a little depressing that the most powerful argument turns out to be fear - although I can also see what democrates is saying about being pointlessly (and unfairly, perhaps) in the firing line.

Eh, well, we'll see. I wish I could be more gleeful about it.

resignedly,
Scofflaw

democrates

turgon wrote: »

I swallowed my pride yesterday, so that makes two of us. Although in fairness you still seem to think that Lisbon is actually completely undesirable??

And remember this...



Looks like the No side will have to find new debaters for the next round

That's gas! I only found that thread the other month when I googled for another Lisbon thread and didn't recall seeing it before, must say I was very heartened to read the kind words there.

It just shows, people can debate diametrically opposite positions and let alone not fall out over it but gain a level of trust that comes from dealing with someone who expresses themselves honestly, just knowing where you stand with someone if that makes sense.

On Lisbon itself my view is of a mixed set of measures, some things good others not so. On aggregate, the increased centralisation of power without an appropriate level of transparency and accountability is what marks it out for me as a step in the wrong direction. We haven't got our national democracies right and the EU is just doing it on a bigger scale, but it's worse because even though we can topple our own government over some red-line imposition that qmv decision will still stand.

But just as you say in your post yesterday, the wider implications beyond the treaty itself have to be considered. We knew a first no would mean choppy waters politically and that seemed worth the potential gain, but with recession biting the consequences of another no weigh a hell of a lot more. We're stuck with this bitter pill precisely because of the whole "no plan B" brinkmanship, so for me the arcitects of this situation are down more points on that score.

I'm glad of a second chance to vote, in fact I think the government would do well to bring the referendum forward and drive home the message that bringing stability is of critical importance and sooner is better.

There are interesting changes afoot. There's evident tension as a result of the economic turmoil, with governments asking their people to pull together we're hearing responses from the middle classes regarding the well off that one might expect from socialists. I don't think it's a massive lurch over to the left but in a leftward direction, faith in the invisible hand of the unregulated market seems to be generally evaporating. It may pave the way for more change than we've seen for decades so Lisbon may not mark the holiday from institutional reform for as long as it's architects had anticipated.

Interesting times .

democrates

cozmik wrote: »

I don't subscribe to your personal view democrates. I intend to vote No again.

Well there's not a lot there for me to engage on, but I'm glad you're voting. Aside from Lisbon not being the option we'd ideally like, at least we also have in common that we give enough of a damn about the future to exercise our democratic right.

Which reminds me, a git in the local pub got thick with me before the first referendum. I asked if he had a leaning yet on Lisbon, he said "I never vote. Do you know why?" I said "No, and if your opinion isn't going to be counted at the ballot box it doesn't count with me either, conversation over". Amazing the effect of copious alcohol on judgement, he was with his usual bunch of ill whingers and it was only by asking a question to set them at each other that I melted away, it could have turned ugly.

anladmór

can i ask what would have prevented just having a eu wide vote on the treaty with results being based not on the country but the eu as a whole? then if lisbon(which i support) gets the majority vote or vice versa it either goes through or does not which is how a democracy works.

democrates

Scofflaw wrote: »

This leaves me pretty torn. On the one hand, I'm glad to see people voting Yes (since I think Lisbon is a step in the right direction, although not a long enough one) - on the other, unless some more rational No advocates step forward, the next debate here will be like playing Space Invaders with muppets. It's also a little depressing that the most powerful argument turns out to be fear - although I can also see what democrates is saying about being pointlessly (and unfairly, perhaps) in the firing line.

Eh, well, we'll see. I wish I could be more gleeful about it.

resignedly,
Scofflaw

Looks like I'm in with strange bedfellows whichever way I vote

I'd let the glee flow and optimism too, whatever way the cards fall keep the can do 'tude dude!

sink

anladmór wrote: »

can i ask what would have prevented just having a eu wide vote on the treaty with results being based not on the country but the eu as a whole? then if lisbon(which i support) gets the majority vote or vice versa it either goes through or does not which is how a democracy works.

Because the is an intergovernmental body. Unlike a country which derives it's power directly from the people the EU derives it's power from the national governments of it's member states. The EU has no power to hold referenda and if it were to obtain this power it would in effect become a country in it's own right, with a constitution that completely bypasses the member states constitutions and goes directly to the people.

sceptre

anladmór wrote: »

can i ask what would have prevented just having a eu wide vote on the treaty with results being based not on the country but the eu as a whole? then if lisbon(which i support) gets the majority vote or vice versa it either goes through or does not which is how a democracy works.

All treaties have to be approved by the individual governments. The governments make the call on whether they want to approve the treaty via a parliamentary vote or via a referendum (or in our case, it has to be by referendum).

Despite what some people say, we're nowhere near the stage where a single Euro-wide vote is even possible, let alone legally binding. Even if an EU-wide poll was taken, each individual country would still have to ratify it.

Even in the US, a constitutional amendment has to be approved by three-quarters of the States before it gets passed (as well as both federal houses of congress). There, each State makes the call on whether they want that approval or disapproval decided by state congress or state plebiscite.

Of course that's just the procedural/legal (simplified) answer on why it isn't done. In real practical terms, it may well remain the same in the future (with some modifications like requiring a majority of constituent countries in the EU to approve it rather than being approved by them all) for the same reason as the rule exists in the US - the smaller states see themselves as just as important as the bigger states and don't want to get overruled or overridden by them. The current total EU population is about 500 million people spread across 27 countries. In a Europe-wide popular vote on anything, the decision could be made solely by the largest four countries by population - the populations of Germany, France, the UK and Italy make 266 million, just over half of the total.

Obviously I'm only listing by population, not population with votes but the ratio is still roughly the same

brianthebard

So just to clarify op, all the problems you had with Lisbon remain but because you think for some unknown reason that the current failure of neo liberalism is in some way related to the future vote on Lisbon, you've turned coat? What happened to having some convictions in one's politics? Personally I find your attitude abhorrant.

Scofflaw

brianthebard wrote: »

So just to clarify op, all the problems you had with Lisbon remain but because you think for some unknown reason that the current failure of neo liberalism is in some way related to the future vote on Lisbon, you've turned coat?

I think that's somewhat inaccurate - what democrates is saying is that the wider consequences of voting No weigh more heavily at the moment than they did last year - and, indeed, are more likely, as anger with the current crisis seeks scapegoats. At least, that's my interpretation of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

democrates

brianthebard wrote: »

So just to clarify op, all the problems you had with Lisbon remain but because you think for some unknown reason that the current failure of neo liberalism is in some way related to the future vote on Lisbon, you've turned coat? What happened to having some convictions in one's politics? Personally I find your attitude abhorrant.

Ok I was expecting some acerbic reaction and I don't even mind if you mean to be personal as that wouldn't be an issue for me to deal with.

I accept the view that I've turned coat on Lisbon, however my loyalty to the people of Ireland is greater than my political convictions, so I haven't turned the big coat.

While the global financial meltdown is indeed a failure of neo liberalism, the markets have not disappeared and are still actively inflicting hardship on targets that are not perceived as sound investments.

That's the reality, no doubt you dislike it as much as I do, I recall when traders attacked the Punt and the mortgage I'd just taken out tripled with the interest rate rise. But that reality means the likely consequences of another no vote in the absence of any plan B are that the EU becomes classified as having an uncertain future, is therefore not as safe a place to invest, and therefore a target for trader attacks.

Much worse would be the reaction against Ireland, the possibillity of our being compelled to leave the EU arises, however realistic that prospect it's the perception that counts, we'd be seen as a far less safe place to invest and get mauled by the markets. Expecting help from the ruling EU elite having just lumped them with an uncertainty attack might be a tad over optimistic.

I'd love to remain defiant and let the EU elite and global profiteers do their worst, the prospect of Ireland being beaten down like Iceland but over time emerging like Switzerland has it's appeal, but I can't in good conscience risk condemning my fellow citizens to pay the interim price with no guarantee of the hoped for society.

That can all be deftly labelled as alarmist fear mongering and dismissed without further consideration, or the responsible approach might be to try for an objective cost/risk/benefit comparison between the outcomes for a yes versus a no, after that, it's down to your value system.

cozmik

democrates wrote: »

Well there's not a lot there for me to engage on,

Well that's because you offered very little other than fear mongering to engage with.

we now have the gun of economic crisis to our heads,

our EU elite have no plan B except the promise of chaos and uncertainty.

we can easily (and to a degree justifiably) be blamed for the extent of recessions in member states

We alone would pay the price for disobediance

TheParrot

Obama is right, the world has changed. The people are getting shafted more than ever before. But one thing will never change, the lack of a backbone in most people.

Such as yourself for example. So you are going to bend over and take it? As everyone should know, the people are going to be given crisis after crisis until this treaty is passed. The dogs on the street know this.

Be a man.

oscarBravo

TheParrot wrote: »

Obama is right, the world has changed. The people are getting shafted more than ever before. But one thing will never change, the lack of a backbone in most people.

Such as yourself for example. So you are going to bend over and take it? As everyone should know, the people are going to be given crisis after crisis until this treaty is passed. The dogs on the street know this.

Be a man.

If you have nothing to contribute to the debate other than a personal attack on another poster (along with some thinly-veiled conspiracy theory), then don't bother contributing.

O'Morris

I'm with democtrates and turgon on this. I'm very much opposed to the Lisbon Treaty but I'm afraid of what will happen to the economy if we vote no a second time. The only option is to vote yes in the second referendum. The economy is the most important thing.

RedPlanet

What's this?
A person voting YES for reasons that are not in the treaty?

It's ok for the YES side, but not ok for the NO side.
How quaint.

Kama

Perhaps the 'Yes' side learnt it's lesson on the correct application of the Black Arts of Propaganda in Round 1, and we can expect both campaigns to be fear-based in motivating the electorate. Nothing says healthy democracy like a forced choice . Doesn't feed into the 'diktat' fears at all at all...

That being said, I went to Susan George (who I generally respect) and found a definite lack of reasoned counters to pro-Lisbon criticism.

turgon

RedPlanet wrote: »

What's this?
A person voting YES for reasons that are not in the treaty?

But these reasons are affected by the Treaty.

Some of the No-side blabber about on other referendums were irrelevant, voting because Irelands standing in Europe will be decreased is not as this will actually be a consequence.

Hitman Actual

RedPlanet wrote: »

What's this?
A person voting YES for reasons that are not in the treaty?

It's ok for the YES side, but not ok for the NO side.
How quaint.

*Sigh* Not this poor argument again. Do you really think voting Yes in the hope of political/economic stability in a time of recession is comparable to voting No due to misinformation on abortion, neutrality, corporation tax, etc? The former argument requires some rational analysis to get to, while the latter requires complete irrationality.

Also, targeting democrates with your point is unfair. He was one of the best No debaters in the run-up to the original referendum, which you would have seen if you had taken part in any of those arguments. Instead, your contribution here has been purely in reaction to the proposed running of a second referendum- I have yet to see you making one cogent argument on Lisbon or indeed any other relevant aspect of EU affairs.

cozmik

O'Morris wrote: »

I'm with democtrates and turgon on this. I'm very much opposed to the Lisbon Treaty but I'm afraid of what will happen to the economy if we vote no a second time.

Don't let the fear-mongers steal your vote.

lostexpectation

worst reason ever

turgon

cozmik wrote: »

Don't let the fear-mongers steal your vote.

Its different when the fears you "monger" are actually genuine.

Im with Scofflaw here, judging by the "second No voters" on this thread, its going to be a long tedious debate.

brianthebard

I don't intend to make personal attacks, unless you see criticism of your logic as personal.

Do you believe that Lisbon is related to the economic climate now? If so why did you vote no the last time?
Did you think at the last referendum that the treaty would have an impact on the economy? If so why did you vote no?
What do you think will be gained from voting yes, economically speaking?
What do you think will happen if you vote no, that was different to the last time you voted?

eta: The possibility of leaving the EU has been covered so many times on these boards already, I'm sure you know by now that its not possible under current EU legislation. So that reason, if nothing else is a non starter here.

democrates wrote: »

Ok I was expecting some acerbic reaction and I don't even mind if you mean to be personal as that wouldn't be an issue for me to deal with.

I accept the view that I've turned coat on Lisbon, however my loyalty to the people of Ireland is greater than my political convictions, so I haven't turned the big coat.

While the global financial meltdown is indeed a failure of neo liberalism, the markets have not disappeared and are still actively inflicting hardship on targets that are not perceived as sound investments.

That's the reality, no doubt you dislike it as much as I do, I recall when traders attacked the Punt and the mortgage I'd just taken out tripled with the interest rate rise. But that reality means the likely consequences of another no vote in the absence of any plan B are that the EU becomes classified as having an uncertain future, is therefore not as safe a place to invest, and therefore a target for trader attacks.

Much worse would be the reaction against Ireland, the possibillity of our being compelled to leave the EU arises, however realistic that prospect it's the perception that counts, we'd be seen as a far less safe place to invest and get mauled by the markets. Expecting help from the ruling EU elite having just lumped them with an uncertainty attack might be a tad over optimistic.

I'd love to remain defiant and let the EU elite and global profiteers do their worst, the prospect of Ireland being beaten down like Iceland but over time emerging like Switzerland has it's appeal, but I can't in good conscience risk condemning my fellow citizens to pay the interim price with no guarantee of the hoped for society.

That can all be deftly labelled as alarmist fear mongering and dismissed without further consideration, or the responsible approach might be to try for an objective cost/risk/benefit comparison between the outcomes for a yes versus a no, after that, it's down to your value system.

BlitzKrieg

Cant say much on the topic, but I will say that it will be a sad debate this time around if all the good debaters are on the same side

Kama

Well, if we are looking at it as a debate in that sense, and given that near-absolute dominance of the pro side in terms of boardsie intellectual heavyweights, and I believe all of the Mods, several of whom have complained that the debate would be 'dull' and wack-a-mole, perhaps some of them could in the interests of objectivity and fairness assume a side that's against their personal interest?

You know, for the good of the discussion

BlitzKrieg

i'd find that actually very hard to do. I could try but I wouldnt know where to begin, what do I use as my sources? I guess that would depend on what points I oppose the treaty with, obviously it would be pointless to take any of the *heard em a million times* points that came up, so its sort of the more classical harder to debate ones such as freedom and democracy, any hardbook source I could use to argue that a 2nd referendum is undemocratic (rather then it being a matter of opinion)


What side of the debate was Sand on again? he's usually good for devils advocate.

Scofflaw

Kama wrote: »

Well, if we are looking at it as a debate in that sense, and given that near-absolute dominance of the pro side in terms of boardsie intellectual heavyweights, and I believe all of the Mods, several of whom have complained that the debate would be 'dull' and wack-a-mole, perhaps some of them could in the interests of objectivity and fairness assume a side that's against their personal interest?

You know, for the good of the discussion

I have been tempted, I admit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have been tempted, I admit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ditto.

Scofflaw

Kama wrote:

Well, if we are looking at it as a debate in that sense, and given that near-absolute dominance of the pro side in terms of boardsie intellectual heavyweights, and I believe all of the Mods, several of whom have complained that the debate would be 'dull' and wack-a-mole, perhaps some of them could in the interests of objectivity and fairness assume a side that's against their personal interest?

You know, for the good of the discussion

Scofflaw wrote:

I have been tempted, I admit.

nesf wrote: »

Ditto.

It would only be fair if they were new and alarming features of Lisbon, though...

thoughtfully,
Scofflaw