Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Barroso seeks speedy Lisbon vote

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And how do you decide whether the referendum has been ‘rushed through’ or not?
    I think the point is it’s rather ambitious for certain people to think that we can hold the EU to ransom indefinitely. If we again refuse to ratify Lisbon, then it is quite likely (in my opinion) that the rest of the EU will press ahead without us (and the UK, perhaps). What exactly that will entail with regard to our future relationship with the EU, I really can’t say, as Ireland doesn’t even seem to be able to agree on the downsides of Lisbon, let alone the downsides of the EU.

    Having said that, at this point in time, I would be somewhat surprised if we were to return a second ‘No’ vote, especially with Libertas (seemingly) out of the picture (who will fill the void?).

    If Ireland votes no again though it gives fuel to the fires of all the campaigns in Europe who were against ratifying the constitution. It might force a EU wide referendum or at least a rethink on the treaty. But regardless I don't think voting yes just because of what might possibly but by no means is certain to happen is a sound tactic.

    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    That's a false dichotomy.

    Of course we are a sovereign state, but we cannot exercise that sovereignty as if we had no connection with the rest of the world. What we need to do is work out how we relate to other countries, and we cannot make such decisions unilaterally.

    Its not a false anything. Yes voters derided no voters for claiming that voting no because the rest of the EU didn't get a referendum is undemocratic, and now we are told that Ireland is imposing a minority view on the majority and this is undemocratic.


  • Options
    #33
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    djpbarry wrote: »
    And how do you decide whether the referendum has been ‘rushed through’ or not?

    Isn't the urgency of the President of the European Commission a little bit of a giveaway?

    I note none of the supporters of the treaty in this thread challenge the assumption that the main reason Barroso is in a hurry is to head off the possibility of the UK voting on it.


  • Options
    #34
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Isn't the urgency of the President of the European Commission a little bit of a giveaway?

    I note none of the supporters of the treaty in this thread challenge the assumption that the main reason Barroso is in a hurry is to head off the possibility of the UK voting on it.

    Personally I can't read his mind or speak for him.

    As regards rushing the vote, my understanding was that we were looking at an October time frame for the vote.

    I can understand having anything before (and maybe even into) August might be considered 'rushed'. However if the UK Government looks stable, and likely to hold into next year then 'rushing' doesn't really come into it.


  • Options
    #35
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Isn't the urgency of the President of the European Commission a little bit of a giveaway?

    I note none of the supporters of the treaty in this thread challenge the assumption that the main reason Barroso is in a hurry is to head off the possibility of the UK voting on it.

    The thing is, you're assuming a lot from the wording of the Irish Times piece, but the actual statement is here. The relevant part is a fairly innocuous two paragraphs out of what is a two page statement:
    Barroso wrote:
    At the same time, I hope we can resolve the institutional issues on the table, in line with our agreement at the European Council last December.

    I want us to give the Irish Government what it needs to call a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and to give it the best chance to win. I therefore hope we can quickly agree on the assurances that we accepted in December.

    You seem to be using the words "quickly agree" to assume that all Barroso wants is to avoid a possible UK referendum. But there's nothing new in those two paragraphs, for anyone who's been following the process- The Council meeting in December laid the framework for the Irish assurances, the June meeting coming up is when it's hoped to finalise the legal details, and the referendum is expected to be late September/early October.

    Does Barroso want full ratification of Lisbon before a conservative government comes to power? Of course he does, just like every Treaty supporter. But there's nothing in that particular statement to indicate that.


  • Options
    #36
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    Another thing, that Times article title is extremely misleading (and I'm surprised at them for that)- It should read "Barroso seeks speedy assurances". There's nothing about rushing in a referendum in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Hitman Actual wrote: »
    Another thing, that Times article title is extremely misleading (and I'm surprised at them for that)- It should read "Barroso seeks speedy assurances". There's nothing about rushing in a referendum in Ireland.

    So you might say he's urging the other members of the EU to quickly agree to Ireland's demands, instead of fighting us?


  • Options
    #38
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    brianthebard wrote: »
    ...Its not a false anything. Yes voters derided no voters for claiming that voting no because the rest of the EU didn't get a referendum is undemocratic, and now we are told that Ireland is imposing a minority view on the majority and this is undemocratic.

    It would be helpful to debate if you stayed in one place rather than shifting your ground. You set up a false dichotomy and, when challenged on it, shifted to a different argument (one which I find unclear, but that's another matter).


  • Options
    #39
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    So you might say he's urging the other members of the EU to quickly agree to Ireland's demands, instead of fighting us?

    Absolutely, and this is quite important, because the technical details of our (pointless) assurances may cause problems in other member state e.g. the wording of the social rights clause will be important for the UK and Poland; there may be some debate over keeping the Commissioner for every state, etc. This is far from done and dusted.

    Also, Barroso is not that stupid to make a demand on when we hold our referendum- talk about adding fuel to fire of the No campaign! They'll be very careful about what they say coming up to the referendum.


  • Options
    #40
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    Yes that article title is shockingly inaccurate.


  • Options
    #41
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    So you might say he's urging the other members of the EU to quickly agree to Ireland's demands, instead of fighting us?

    In that case why not up the demands? ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    In that case why not up the demands? ;)

    Well if they were to offer us a billion quid, directly to the people mind you, not through Fianna Fáil, I wouldn't say no!


  • Options
    #43
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    brianthebard wrote: »
    If Ireland votes no again though it gives fuel to the fires of all the campaigns in Europe who were against ratifying the constitution. It might force a EU wide referendum or at least a rethink on the treaty.
    I have seen little evidence of any “campaigns” around Europe pressing for popular referenda on Lisbon. It’s an oft-used argument by the ‘No’ side, but alas, evidence of the dissatisfaction of the masses is conspicuous by it’s absence. Based on my own experience in the UK, most people have no idea what Lisbon is about, let alone have an opinion on it.

    And why should the whole EU be forced to have a referendum? Why is it so difficult to accept that referenda are not the norm in most EU countries? If they want a referendum, let them demand one of their respective governments. Let’s not assume that everyone is silently demanding a referendum, just because that’s how we do things.
    brianthebard wrote: »
    But regardless I don't think voting yes just because of what might possibly but by no means is certain to happen is a sound tactic.
    Neither do I, but nevertheless, the potential consequences of a second ‘No’ vote should be discussed. Although, anyone who dares suggest that Ireland’s standing within the EU will be damaged by a second ‘No’ will no doubt be dismissed as scaremongering.
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Isn't the urgency of the President of the European Commission a little bit of a giveaway?

    I note none of the supporters of the treaty in this thread challenge the assumption that the main reason Barroso is in a hurry is to head off the possibility of the UK voting on it.
    Let me turn that question around; how many changes of government need to occur in each of the EU’s member states before Ireland is allowed to hold a second referendum on Lisbon without it being perceived as “rushed”?


  • Options
    #44
    spank_inferno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,892 ✭✭✭spank_inferno


    With regard to the original post.
    I would hope for a speedy referendum also.

    I dont know the background but I dont think there is anything really stopping it from being held within weeks surely?

    anyway again I hope it gets done and dusted asap because I'm sure we will all tire of the hundreds of inevitable sh*t Lisbon II threads that will litter here.


  • Options
    #45
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Let me turn that question around; how many changes of government need to occur in each of the EU’s member states before Ireland is allowed to hold a second referendum on Lisbon without it being perceived as “rushed”?

    As I said in an earlier post, my suspicions about Mr Barroso's motivation in calling for haste in the matter are necessarily speculative - but by not clarifying what the rush is, he invites such speculation. Wouldn't it be better to take whatever time is reasonably needed for our situation? A referendum is widely expected within four or five months anyway - that should be soon enough for anyone, if they want to settle the matter properly and not just quickly.

    And my comments are made not in the context of changes of government generally but in the specific context of a severely weakened UK governement, where the opposition has promised a referendum and where it's widely accepted such a referendum would be unlikely to pass.


  • Options
    #46
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    As I said in an earlier post, my suspicions about Mr Barroso's motivation in calling for haste in the matter are necessarily speculative - but by not clarifying what the rush is, he invites such speculation. Wouldn't it be better to take whatever time is reasonably needed for our situation? A referendum is widely expected within four or five months anyway - that should be soon enough for anyone, if they want to settle the matter properly and not just quickly.

    It seems it's all based on a false premise though Gizmo, that he actually called for haste in the referendum, which he did not.


  • Options
    #47
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    It seems it's all based on a false premise though Gizmo, that he actually called for haste in the referendum, which he did not.

    It's not a false premise that he's calling for a "speedy acceptance of measures" which will permit our referendum to proceed, which amounts to the same thing.

    What do you think he wants the rush for? There must be some reason beyond speed for its own sake. If it's not what I suspect then he should explain what the real reason is - with friends like Barosso, the Yes campaign doesn't need enemies . . .


  • Options
    #48
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    What do you think he wants the rush for?

    Potentially to give us more time to consider the final package before our referendum?

    I for one don't want the whole thing only finalised in September/October, leaving only a few weeks for consideration.


  • Options
    #49
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It's not a false premise that he's calling for a "speedy acceptance of measures" which will permit our referendum to proceed, which amounts to the same thing.

    What do you think he wants the rush for? There must be some reason beyond speed for its own sake. If it's not what I suspect then he should explain what the real reason is - with friends like Barosso, the Yes campaign doesn't need enemies . . .

    I can't believe the spin you're trying to put on this. It was a perfectly normal statement from the Commission president on his hopes that the Irish will ratify Lisbon. Again, here are his exact comments:
    Barroso wrote:
    At the same time, I hope we can resolve the institutional issues on the table, in line with our agreement at the European Council last December.

    I want us to give the Irish Government what it needs to call a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and to give it the best chance to win. I therefore hope we can quickly agree on the assurances that we accepted in December.

    What's so wrong with that? Are there any hidden threats to the Irish? Is he suggesting we bring the referendum forward?

    In fact, the tone is much more of appeasement towards the Irish than any of your fantastical opinions.


  • Options
    #50
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »
    Potentially to give us more time to consider the final package before our referendum?

    I for one don't want the whole thing only finalised in September/October, leaving only a few weeks for consideration.

    Yes...I would like...a lengthy debate...on Lisbon...thanks.

    groaning,
    Scofflaw

    Seriously, though, the sooner the package is finalised, the longer the debate, which is the right thing to have.


  • Options
    #51
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Hitman Actual wrote: »
    I can't believe the spin you're trying to put on this.

    Listen, I said from the outset that these are my opinions, not fact. You can take them or leave them as you see fit. The opinion that Barroso's comments amount to a call for an earlier referendum here are apparently shared by the Irish Times, going on the headline they put on the piece - and there is no more pro-Lisbon organisation in Ireland than the IT.

    The part about wanting to avoid the possibility of a UK referendum is my own view, but I believe a reasonable one, given the timing of Barroso's comments in the immediate wake of the Labour meltdown and the far-right success in the EP elections there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Listen, I said from the outset that these are my opinions, not fact. You can take them or leave them as you see fit. The opinion that Barroso's comments amount to a call for an earlier referendum here are apparently shared by the Irish Times, going on the headline they put on the piece - and there is no more pro-Lisbon organisation in Ireland than the IT.

    The part about wanting to avoid the possibility of a UK referendum is my own view, but I believe a reasonable one, given the timing of Barroso's comments in the immediate wake of the Labour meltdown and the far-right success in the EP elections there.

    As has been pointed out this has always been his position.

    His position hasn't changed, the political situation in the UK has.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #53
    Hitman Actual
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,362 ✭✭✭Hitman Actual


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Listen, I said from the outset that these are my opinions, not fact. You can take them or leave them as you see fit. The opinion that Barroso's comments amount to a call for an earlier referendum here are apparently shared by the Irish Times, going on the headline they put on the piece - and there is no more pro-Lisbon organisation in Ireland than the IT.

    His comments clearly don't amount to a call for an earlier referendum, so both you and the IT are wrong. I can understand the IT wanting to have a nice attention-grabbing headline (even though this particular one is unusual for them), but that's all it is.

    Anyway, this will just turn into a meaningless, circular thread, so I'm done with it.


  • Options
    #54
    gizmo555
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    K-9 wrote: »
    As has been pointed out this has always been his position.

    His position hasn't changed, the political situation in the UK has.

    It has not always been Barroso's position that we should have our referendum quickly - it seems to me that this is more than likely in reaction to the political situation in the UK.


  • Options
    #55
    freyners
    Registered Users Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭freyners


    humanji wrote: »
    Is it not more of an insult to democracy for the minority to decide the fate of the majority?
    don't agree with that
    Ireland was the only country to ask the people what they think
    england don't want it

    the czechs dont' want it

    in france their fairly p*ssed off for having this forced on them
    i aren't anti eu and i haven't made up my mind which way to vote but im leaning towards yes still don't understand much about it though


  • Options
    #56
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭PopeBuckfastXVI


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It has not always been Barroso's position that we should have our referendum quickly - it seems to me that this is more than likely in reaction to the political situation in the UK.

    Also with HA on this, final word from me...

    It is plainly not his position that we should have our referendum quickly. Certainly not from anything the article quotes.

    He states he wants the package agreed quickly, which is not the same thing.

    The only way you could interpret it that way is if you wanted to.

    I'm done, peace out.


  • Options
    #57
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    “I therefore hope we can quickly agree on the assurances that we accepted in December,” he added.
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It has not always been Barroso's position that we should have our referendum quickly - it seems to me that this is more than likely in reaction to the political situation in the UK.

    OK, lets look at it a different way. To me the most important part of the statement you put in bold in your OP is December. It's now June, 6 months later. The Referendum will be in September/October. Maybe he wants our Govt. to get its ass in gear, seeing as that was part of the problem in the last Referendum?

    I'd say Barroso has been regularly kept up to date on a time frame for a Referendum since December, Yes?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #58
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    gizmo555 wrote: »
    It has not always been Barroso's position that we should have our referendum quickly - it seems to me that this is more than likely in reaction to the political situation in the UK.

    Short of reading Barroso's mind (or diary) this really is entirely a matter of opinion. That being the case, I move for adjournment sine die, and everyone exiting with their opinions intact.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #59
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    It would be helpful to debate if you stayed in one place rather than shifting your ground. You set up a false dichotomy and, when challenged on it, shifted to a different argument (one which I find unclear, but that's another matter).

    I haven't shifted argument, I tried to illustrate how Yes voters have said that both voting with Ireland in mind, in isolation of all else, and voting with the EU in mind, are both undemocratic.


  • Options
    #60
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I have seen little evidence of any “campaigns” around Europe pressing for popular referenda on Lisbon. It’s an oft-used argument by the ‘No’ side, but alas, evidence of the dissatisfaction of the masses is conspicuous by it’s absence. Based on my own experience in the UK, most people have no idea what Lisbon is about, let alone have an opinion on it.

    Well the voters who chose no in France and the Netherlands on the constitution would make up a strong no vote again. There are more than a few parties across Europe that would campaign against Lisbon given the chance. Whether they would win or not is beside the point. Tbh I hardly think your experiences in the UK would be seen as a thorough and full investigation of the UK electorate on the topic of the Treaty.
    And why should the whole EU be forced to have a referendum? Why is it so difficult to accept that referenda are not the norm in most EU countries? If they want a referendum, let them demand one of their respective governments. Let’s not assume that everyone is silently demanding a referendum, just because that’s how we do things.


    Its not difficult at all for me to accept this is not the norm, and I'd thank you to be less condescending. But when no voters are derided for saying we should vote no because the rest of Europe has no say, and are then told we acted undemocratically because we are a minority imposing our opinion on the majority, it gets a bit confusing which excuse the yes side is going with on any given day to justify a second referendum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    brianthebard wrote: »
    Well the voters who chose no in France and the Netherlands on the constitution would make up a strong no vote again. There are more than a few parties across Europe that would campaign against Lisbon given the chance. Whether they would win or not is beside the point. Tbh I hardly think your experiences in the UK would be seen as a thorough and full investigation of the UK electorate on the topic of the Treaty.

    Its not difficult at all for me to accept this is not the norm, and I'd thank you to be less condescending. But when no voters are derided for saying we should vote no because the rest of Europe has no say, and are then told we acted undemocratically because we are a minority imposing our opinion on the majority, it gets a bit confusing which excuse the yes side is going with on any given day to justify a second referendum.

    The problem there is that voting either No or Yes is an imposition of Ireland's will on the rest of Europe. If you truly believe that the rest of Europe should vote in a referendum or referendums (delete as preferred) because it is undemocratic that only Ireland votes, then the correct choice is surely to abstain, rather than imposing our decision on everyone else?

    I appreciate one might argue that voting No retains the status quo, but if, say, 99% of European citizens want to change the status quo, then by voting No you are preventing them doing so, and taking the decision out of their hands. After all, if the treaty is rejected a second time, it will not be going anywhere.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement