Lisbon Mk 2 Predictions

PopeBuckfastXVI · 19-06-2009 9:39pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Others will feel that they will have upset their political masters a bit much and back down on their previous 'No' vote and change it to a 'Yes', or just not vote at all.

I'd be surprised if even one person changes their vote based on this reasoning.

KINGVictor · 19-06-2009 9:53pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

you can have an opinion, but do you honestly believe there wont be an eu in 20 years?

3 countries leaving a 27 state union with a few more planned, not likely to collapse it......

should them 3 even leave, what are you basing that on?

thanks, high five?

I think the question would be ,which country leaves?...for e.g if Lithuania,latvia and Ireland( and in no way do I mean to undermine or understate the importance the afore-mentioned)..it would be a set back but the EU would have the capacity to exist within reason.

The truth is if any of the following countries namely...France,Germany or Uk decide to leave the Union then there can be a conclusion that the Union would be in jeopardy.

tolosenc · 19-06-2009 10:37pm

Poor turnout, but sense will prevail - with a bit of luck.

High 50s to low 60s for YES

murfie · 22-06-2009 2:04pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

bull**** - again on the whole if its no its not for the right reasons crap

Bullcrap yes, but didn't stop people voting for all those lovely reasons before and from what I have seen so far of the yes campaign and the main parties they will need to step up their game. Gilmore on the radio before the weekend was very poor, didn't sound like he had much confidence in what he was talking about.

Scofflaw · 22-06-2009 2:42pm

KINGVictor wrote: »

I think the question would be ,which country leaves?...for e.g if Lithuania,latvia and Ireland( and in no way do I mean to undermine or understate the importance the afore-mentioned)..it would be a set back but the EU would have the capacity to exist within reason.

The truth is if any of the following countries namely...France,Germany or Uk decide to leave the Union then there can be a conclusion that the Union would be in jeopardy.

If France or Germany left, the entire reason for the EU would be in jeopardy, since the main point of it is to stop Franco-German wars.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bill_ashmount · 22-06-2009 3:58pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

you can have an opinion, but do you honestly believe there wont be an eu in 20 years?

3 countries leaving a 27 state union with a few more planned, not likely to collapse it......

should them 3 even leave, what are you basing that on?

thanks, high five?

The best hope would be for the PVV to keep increasing their popularity in the Netherlands and gain power, Turkey to then gain entry into the European Union and then for the PVV to pull the Netherlands out of Europe because of this. I believe this would be a catalyst for the dis-integration of Europe.

Anyway, democracy will ultimately decide.

CoBurN · 22-06-2009 6:15pm

As a No voter, I'm sick of being belittled for apparently being confused, misinformed or just plain dumb (in so many words) by the press/media. Do they seek to explain away the Dutch and French votes on the SAME Constitution for the same reasons? Did a Monsieur Ganleille sway the opinions of the poor easily duped peoples of these countries just as ours?

I mean what could be wrong with a "United States of Europe", were we too may someday have a GW Bush of our very own.....

But don't worry folks, this is democracy......21st century stylee,

....where Yes means Yes, and No means, eh, try again.......once more......ok honestly this is the last time.......*provided*

oscarBravo · 22-06-2009 6:22pm

CoBurN wrote: »

I mean what could be wrong with a "United States of Europe", were we too may someday have a GW Bush of our very own.....

I take it you disagree with the idea of a directly-elected president?

Dinner · 22-06-2009 6:22pm

CoBurN wrote: »

Do they seek to explain away the Dutch and French votes on the SAME Constitution for the same reasons?

Wow, and you claim to not be misinformed. The French and Dutch voted no to the European Constitution, not the Lisbon Treaty. But you already knew that, didn't you. You just deliberately called it a constitution because it suits your argument more.

Let me ask you this, the Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution share most of the same reforms. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the parts that were removed from the constitution were the ones that caused most upset to the French and Dutch people?

Mr Ed · 22-06-2009 6:34pm

Dinner wrote: »

Let me ask you this, the Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution share most of the same reforms. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the parts that were removed from the constitution were the ones that caused most upset to the French and Dutch people?

We'll never know as the Lisbon Treaty was never and isn't being put to the people of those nations

Dinner · 22-06-2009 6:40pm

Mr Ed wrote: »

We'll never know as the Lisbon Treaty was never and isn't being put to the people of those nations

I'd assume that polls were conducted to find out where the problems were.

And 2 years after the constitution was rejected Sarkozy was elected in France and one of his policies was to ratify Lisbon without a referendum, so obviously it wasn't too big a sticking point for the French population.

Tony EH · 22-06-2009 6:42pm

Dinner wrote: »

Let me ask you this, the Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution share most of the same reforms. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the parts that were removed from the constitution were the ones that caused most upset to the French and Dutch people?

There's never been a clear indication of what was removed from the EU Constitution, when it was renamed the Lisbon Treaty and more importantly a vote by the people of Holland and France on the said Treaty was simply bypassed by their political betters, precisely to avoid a potential 'No' vote.

CoBurN · 22-06-2009 6:44pm

Dinner wrote: »

Wow, and you claim to not be misinformed. The French and Dutch voted no to the European Constitution, not the Lisbon Treaty. But you already knew that, didn't you. You just deliberately called it a constitution because it suits your argument more.

Let me ask you this, the Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution share most of the same reforms. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the parts that were removed from the constitution were the ones that caused most upset to the French and Dutch people?

Oh well, sorry. To get technical, are any of us truly informed?

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor and the former French President Giscard d'Estaing are among many European ministers who have confirmed that the `Treaty` is but the Constitution by another name. The only differentials being the dropping from the new document those articles relating to the EU Flag, Anthem and Motto".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469118/EU-treaty-simply-old-constitution-reborn-says-creator-Giscard-dEstaing.html

(yes it's the mail, but its quotes are just as accurate)

The Treaty was never put back to the French or Dutch, was it?

Dinner · 22-06-2009 6:56pm

Tony EH wrote: »

There's never been a clear indication of what was removed from the EU Constitution, when it was renamed the Lisbon Treaty and more importantly a vote by the people of Holland and France on the said Treaty was simply bypassed by their political betters, precisely to avoid a potential 'No' vote.

There's a list of some of the changes on the wikipedia article for the Treaty. (And sources are provided most of the entries)

CoBurN wrote: »

The Treaty was never put back to the French or Dutch, was it?

No, as I said earlier, the French knew full well that they would not have a referendum on Lisbon if Sarkozy was elected. In the case of the Dutch, I can't find any information on if it was the policy of the parties that make up the government to ratify without a referendum or not.

conchubhar1 · 22-06-2009 7:46pm

people do noy solely on one issue

sarcozy said he would ratify it yes - but if he was a great leader and had policies i liked i would vote him in...............

Scofflaw · 22-06-2009 9:45pm

Dinner wrote: »

There's a list of some of the changes on the wikipedia article for the Treaty. (And sources are provided most of the entries)

There's also the Annotated Version, which shows what was changed.

Dinner wrote: »

No, as I said earlier, the French knew full well that they would not have a referendum on Lisbon if Sarkozy was elected. In the case of the Dutch, I can't find any information on if it was the policy of the parties that make up the government to ratify without a referendum or not.

They made the decision not to use referendums in such cases again, because it was effectively unconstitutional. The Dutch Constitution states that the parliament is the supreme body - referendums are supposed to be only indicative, not legally binding. However, the parliament found that in practice it was bound by the referendum result, which contradicted the constitution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

netron · 23-06-2009 1:23am

ThePlough wrote: »

In my opinion this treaty has NO chance of getting passed.

I would estimate a 65% NO vote.

Anyone else care to hazard a prediction?

my guess is that is might be slightly higher - probably 70%
and with a high turnout as well.

i say this because of quite staggering local election results.

Have a look at the graphs in these results from Cork and Waterford:

http://www.rte.ie/news/elections/local/l0401.html
http://www.rte.ie/news/elections/local/l3002.html

I have been following Irish politics since the 70s, when i was a "wee lad" canvassing for the Workers Party. I am honestly gobsmacked at the sea change. ( as in the vote moving away from traditional FF/FG politics )

I honestly cannot see the Yes vote winning this one. There seems to be a very strong "anti establishment" vote out there - HOWEVER, and this is a big caveat - the Yes vote might do it, purely out of instilling fear.

in a kind of role reversal of the No campaign last time. Doubt and fear could win it for the Yes side.

But , for now, my money is on No winning again.

conchubhar1 · 23-06-2009 2:36am

it will pass i imagine - fear of the economy worsening will win it

on the move away from ff/fg - fin gael is still the largest party

and ff/fg are essentially the same (fianna gael if you will)

zuroph · 23-06-2009 2:40am

112% yes. claims of vote rigging. referendum will not be re-run a third time.

Max Power1 · 23-06-2009 2:42am

I Fear a win for the yes side. People will be scaremongered into voting yes by the downturn in the economy and co-erced by the "guarantees" which Mr Cowen has "secured" for us (in reality they are less secure than sellotaping a door shut)

For the good of democracy i hope we as a country see sense and vote NO

zuroph · 23-06-2009 2:44am

for the good of democracy i hope that we as a nation see snese and vote yes. The guarantees were never needed in the first place, its embarrassing to have our leader have to ask for them, its like an open admission by the Irish people that we didnt read the treaty.

oscarBravo · 23-06-2009 9:37am

Max Power1 wrote: »

...the "guarantees" which Mr Cowen has "secured" for us (in reality they are less secure than sellotaping a door shut)

...a door (to extend the metaphor) that was already firmly locked and bolted before people started demanding sellotape.

djpbarry · 23-06-2009 10:23am

CoBurN wrote: »

I mean what could be wrong with a "United States of Europe"…

The question is moot as we’re not being asked to vote on a USE.

Tony EH wrote: »

There's never been a clear indication of what was removed from the EU Constitution, when it was renamed the Lisbon Treaty…

Both documents are freely available in the public domain – is that not clear enough for you?

Tony EH · 23-06-2009 1:19pm

Personnally, I think the Irish people should vote 'No' and make it clear to the political classes that they want the people of Europe to hold referendums of their own on the matter.

The fact that such a treaty, having a direct effect on European people's lives, is not being put to the people of Europe for a 'Yes' or 'No' vote does not bode well.

oscarBravo · 23-06-2009 1:59pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Personnally, I think the Irish people should vote 'No' and make it clear to the political classes that they want the people of Europe to hold referendums of their own on the matter.

Personally, I think that trying to impose our version of democracy on other EU member states is the height of arrogance.

The fact that such a treaty, having a direct effect on European people's lives, is not being put to the people of Europe for a 'Yes' or 'No' vote does not bode well.

Every EU treaty has an affect on European people's lives; many more so than this one. Each treaty is ratified by each member state in accordance with their respective constitutional arrangements. Those arrangements are none of our business, any more than ours are any of theirs.

Tony EH · 23-06-2009 2:01pm

Nonsense.

oscarBravo · 23-06-2009 2:04pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Nonsense.

Why?

Tony EH · 23-06-2009 2:06pm

Because it's bullshit point and you know it.

The vast majority of people in Europe would be in favor of voting.

oscarBravo · 23-06-2009 2:29pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Because it's bullshit point and you know it.

No, I don't, and you're not doing a stellar job of convincing me that your point of view is better thought out than mine.

The vast majority of people in Europe would be in favor of voting.

Do you have evidence for that?

Tony EH · 23-06-2009 2:38pm

I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything, Oscarbravo.

You point, however, is still a bullshit one.

Do you really believe that given the choice, the people of Europe would rather not have a say on whether a treaty goes ahead or not?

Some people may "OK" with their governments ratifying items without their consent, but in no way would that trump an actual vote on the issue.

Lisbon Mk 2 Predictions

Comments