What Happens if No Wins again?

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

What? Are you seriously claiming that EU Treaties are protected by 29.4.10?

amazed (again!),
Scofflaw

What is clear is that in Ireland, any attempt to challenge a ratified EU Treaty that had passed via referendum where so required by Crotty would fail. See the wording of Article 29.4.10 (now) and the proposed wording of Article 29.4.6:

Article 29.4.10 wrote:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State which are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union or of the Communities, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the European Union or by the Communities or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the force of law in the State.

Article 29.4.6(proposed) wrote:

No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State, before, on or after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, that are necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 5° of this section or of the European Atomic Energy Community, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures
adopted by—i the said European Union or the European Atomic Energy
Community, or institutions thereof, ii the European Communities or European Union existing immediately before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, or institutions thereof, or iii bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this
section, from having the force of law in the State.

K-9 wrote:

You can take a legal challenge NOW, to see if that is unconstitutional.

If the Oireachtas were attempting to ratify Lisbon without a referendum - then yes - that process of ratification could be challenged. I am making the point that a ratified Treaty passed by referendum in this country could not be successfully challenged because of the aforementioned articles in the Irish Constitution now and as proposed.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

What is clear is that in Ireland, any attempt to challenge a ratified EU Treaty that had passed via referendum where so required by Crotty would fail. See the wording of Article 29.4.10 (now) and the proposed wording of Article 29.4.6:If the Oireachtas were attempting to ratify Lisbon without a referendum - then yes - that process of ratification could be challenged. I am making the point that a ratified Treaty passed by referendum in this country could not be successfully challenged because of the aforementioned articles in the Irish Constitution now and as proposed.

One of the maddest claims I've seen, which is pretty impressive given your claims about Spanish unemployment.

Ratification couldn't be challenged as unconstitutional because it would be part of the Constitution, duly inserted as an amendment at referendum. No further fantasy is required.

amused,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

They are 95% the same ...

That is a fatuous piece of sloganeering. First, I suspect that nobody has devised a good way of counting degrees of similarity and difference between documents (except, perhaps, word-matching, which is about as silly a method as you can get).

Anyway, a 5% difference can be very significant. The genetic difference between homo sapiens and a chimpanzee is less than 5%.

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That is a fatuous piece of sloganeering. First, I suspect that nobody has devised a good way of counting degrees of similarity and difference between documents (except, perhaps, word-matching, which is about as silly a method as you can get).

Anyway, a 5% difference can be very significant. The genetic difference between homo sapiens and a chimpanzee is less than 5%.

I suggest you read this comprehensive comparison of Lisbon with the rejected EU Constitution before deluding yourself as to the degree of difference between them. :rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I suggest you read this comprehensive comparison of Lisbon with the rejected EU Constitution before deluding yourself as to the degree of difference between them. :rolleyes:

No surprises in it. It's still true that 95% is not equal to 100%.

I'm not deluding myself, nor am I trying to delude others. For many of the French and the Dutch who opposed the constitution, it was the symbolic stuff of flags and anthems that got up their noses, and that was removed PDQ in the development of the Lisbon treaty.

Anyway, this is all a red herring. We are not voting on the constitution; we are not voting for France or the Netherlands; we are not voting on conscription or abortion or tax independence.

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No surprises in it. It's still true that 95% is not equal to 100%.

I'm not deluding myself, nor am I trying to delude others. For many of the French and the Dutch who opposed the constitution, it was the symbolic stuff of flags and anthems that got up their noses, and that was removed PDQ in the development of the Lisbon treaty.

Anyway, this is all a red herring. We are not voting on the constitution; we are not voting for France or the Netherlands; we are not voting on conscription or abortion or tax independence.

If that was all it was, the French and Dutch govts would ask their people via referendum had their concerns been sufficiently addressed to persuade them to now support these provisions. They weren't asked for reasons admitted by Sarkozy:

Nicolas Sarkozy wrote:

A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK.

As for the Dutch PM, he threatened to tell the Queen to veto a referendum if it was passed over his heads by the Dutch parliament. Does this sound like the actions of a man who believes the Dutch people now support the Lisbon/EU Constitution provisions? Because it sure doesn't to me. Dutch polls show a majority would vote no.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Dutch polls show a majority would vote no.

I wonder have they read the Treaty!

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

If that was all it was, the French and Dutch govts would ask their people via referendum had their concerns been sufficiently addressed to persuade them to now support these provisions. They weren't asked for reasons admitted by Sarkozy:As for the Dutch PM, he threatened to tell the Queen to veto a referendum if it was passed over his heads by the Dutch parliament. Does this sound like the actions of a man who believes the Dutch people now support the Lisbon/EU Constitution provisions? Because it sure doesn't to me. Dutch polls show a majority would vote no.

I repeat: we are not voting for France or the Netherlands.

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I repeat: we are not voting for France or the Netherlands.

It is a reality that this issue weighed on the minds of a lot of no voters last time, and I believe will this time. The long and the short of it is that we are being asked, for the first time in the history of the EU, to foist provisions on 2 countries whose peoples rejected them via referenda. This is the Rubicon we, and the EU, are being asked to cross. If it succeeds, it will encourage the Brussels elites and national governments in the belief that they don't need to listen to public opinion on the European project. That is not something we ought to encourage. The Franco-Dutch question is a moral issue. Either nations have the right to self-determination or they don't.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

If that was all it was, the French and Dutch govts would ask their people via referendum had their concerns been sufficiently addressed to persuade them to now support these provisions. They weren't asked for reasons admitted by Sarkozy:As for the Dutch PM, he threatened to tell the Queen to veto a referendum if it was passed over his heads by the Dutch parliament. Does this sound like the actions of a man who believes the Dutch people now support the Lisbon/EU Constitution provisions? Because it sure doesn't to me. Dutch polls show a majority would vote no.

And Irish polls showed that we would pass it...

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It is a reality that this issue weighed on the minds of a lot of no voters last time, and I believe will this time. The long and the short of it is that we are being asked, for the first time in the history of the EU, to foist provisions on 2 countries whose peoples rejected them via referenda.

Again: the Lisbon treaty differs from the proposed constitution, a fact that you consistently ignore, and ignore it to the point that I think you are being intentionally dishonest in your argument.

This is the Rubicon we, and the EU, are being asked to cross. If it succeeds, it will encourage the Brussels elites and national governments in the belief that they don't need to listen to public opinion on the European project. That is not something we ought to encourage. The Franco-Dutch question is a moral issue. Either nations have the right to self-determination or they don't.

The French and the Dutch have the right to self-determination. That is exactly why it is wrong for us to vote on the basis of what you say is best for them.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It is a reality that this issue weighed on the minds of a lot of no voters last time, and I believe will this time. The long and the short of it is that we are being asked, for the first time in the history of the EU, to foist provisions on 2 countries whose peoples rejected them via referenda. This is the Rubicon we, and the EU, are being asked to cross. If it succeeds, it will encourage the Brussels elites and national governments in the belief that they don't need to listen to public opinion on the European project. That is not something we ought to encourage. The Franco-Dutch question is a moral issue. Either nations have the right to self-determination or they don't.

When France and Holland voted No, they bound us to their decision, with the result that we never even had a vote. Should they have voted Yes in case we might have done? Or does the right to self-determination only apply to saying No?

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The Franco-Dutch question is a moral issue. Either nations have the right to self-determination or they don't.

France and the Netherlands might or might not pass Lisbon if they were granted a vote - it is impossible to tell the exact result; although their previous rejection of the Constitution Treaty would seriously auger badly for Lisbon's prospects.

Indeed, it is impossible to say how many countries in the EU would reject Lisbon given an opportunity. One thing is pretty certain, and that is that it would not be zero.

There is an existing law and binding rule wherein every single member state has to ratify any treaty which redefines the EU's constitution in order for it to pass (along with the EU Parliament). This is what we signed up to. It is intrinsic to the entire concept of the EU.

You can argue against this rule all you like, but it is the way in which things are currently run - and it is with good reason that there is protection against any single state getting overwhelmed within the legislative process of the suprastate.

Yet, by isolating the authority of the state in this regard solely to that of political representatives a corruption has occured. No longer can we say, for instance, that the United Kingdom has ratified; but must instead accept that the British Labour Party has instead ratified the Lisbon Treaty. In the same way that FF, FG, and Labour are itching to blow it through the Dail before it has time to land on its floor (and the three or so nay-sayers in the back can give the appearance of a democratic representation).

Big deal - sure they people were elected, weren't they? Elected to rule and decide the fate of our countries? (Well apart from Mandelson, Kinnock, and Brown as PM in the UK). Suppose Obama decides to drop several hydrogen bombs on Azerbaijan (hey, I can do what I like: I was e-l-e-c-t-e-d people! Should have thought about that before you put pen to paper in the voting booth; p.s. sorry if I didn't happen to mention on my manifesto that this was my on my to-do list) Hmmm... on that note Blair promised a referendum on Lisbon for the UK... but sure all's fair when a 'no' vote is expected.

So back to Europe.

If there is a majority of people in any single EU state that do not wish Lisbon to pass then it should not pass.

There may be a marjority of people ACROSS THE WHOLE OF THE EU who do not want Lisbon to pass - who knows?

Instead we have this crazy bull**** where one of Europe's smallest nations is given the capacity to decide upon Lisbon (not the authority just the legal capacity ). Hence the sycophantic protestations by our representatives concerning our appearance in the eu: for in this instance Ireland is the sole member of the 27 where the powers of the state are not divorced from the electorate. Ireland as a whole can decide its fate - and because of this there is a predictable attack upon Ireland's capacity to decide her fate.

Rousseau would be turning in his grave if he thought that the state was no longer considered to be a conglomerate of her citizens, but instead directed at the whim of elected members of the public...

Okay, there has been a precedent set by previous EC treaties. Fine. That does not actually confer any moral authority onto the process whereby the public is sidestepped. As soon as you declare that it is not within the public's capacity or remit to decide something on behalf of the state, democracy goes out the window. Plain and simple.

So, if there happened to be a majority of people in a European state who would have voted no and were denied this capacity, every single yes vote is a dagger into the heart of the founding principles of the eu. And if these principles have indeed been rejected; where on earth is it that we are going?

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

France and the Netherlands might or might not pass Lisbon if they were granted a vote - it is impossible to tell the exact result; although their previous rejection of the Constitution Treaty would seriously auger badly for Lisbon's prospects.

Indeed, it is impossible to say how many countries in the EU would reject Lisbon given an opportunity. One thing is pretty certain, and that is that it would not be zero.

There is an existing law and binding rule wherein every single member state has to ratify any treaty which redefines the EU's constitution in order for it to pass (along with the EU Parliament). This is what we signed up to. It is intrinsic to the entire concept of the EU.

You can argue against this rule all you like, but it is the way in which things are currently run - and it is with good reason that there is protection against any single state getting overwhelmed within the legislative process of the suprastate.

Yet, by isolating the authority of the state in this regard solely to that of political representatives a corruption has occured. No longer can we say, for instance, that the United Kingdom has ratified; but must instead accept that the British Labour Party has instead ratified the Lisbon Treaty. In the same way that FF, FG, and Labour are itching to blow it through the Dail before it has time to land on its floor (and the three or so nay-sayers in the back can give the appearance of a democratic representation).

Big deal - sure they people were elected, weren't they? Elected to rule and decide the fate of our countries? (Well apart from Mandelson, Kinnock, and Brown as PM in the UK). Suppose Obama decides to drop several hydrogen bombs on Azerbaijan (hey, I can do what I like: I was e-l-e-c-t-e-d people! Should have thought about that before you put pen to paper in the voting booth; p.s. sorry if I didn't happen to mention on my manifesto that this was my on my to-do list) Hmmm... on that note Blair promised a referendum on Lisbon for the UK... but sure all's fair when a 'no' vote is expected.

So back to Europe.

If there is a majority of people in any single EU state that do not wish Lisbon to pass then it should not pass.

There may be a marjority of people ACROSS THE WHOLE OF THE EU who do not want Lisbon to pass - who knows?

Instead we have this crazy bull**** where one of Europe's smallest nations is given the capacity to decide upon Lisbon (not the authority just the legal capacity ). Hence the sycophantic protestations by our representatives concerning our appearance in the eu: for in this instance Ireland is the sole member of the 27 where the powers of the state are not divorced from the electorate. Ireland as a whole can decide its fate - and because of this there is a predictable attack upon Ireland's capacity to decide her fate.

Rousseau would be turning in his grave if he thought that the state was no longer considered to be a conglomerate of her citizens, but instead directed at the whim of elected members of the public...

Okay, there has been a precedent set by previous EC treaties. Fine. That does not actually confer any moral authority onto the process whereby the public is sidestepped. As soon as you declare that it is not within the public's capacity or remit to decide something on behalf of the state, democracy goes out the window. Plain and simple.

So, if there happened to be a majority of people in a European state who would have voted no and were denied this capacity, every single yes vote is a dagger into the heart of the founding principles of the eu. And if these principles have indeed been rejected; where on earth is it that we are going?

Which all sounds great, until you realise that it has begged a vital question - why does representative democracy exist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

RandomName2 wrote: »

...........................

Ireland is the sole member of the 27 where the powers of the state are not divorced from the electorate.

..............

Presumably democracy is broken in the other 26 countries?

You are suggesting with a straight face that we are some sort of role model that the rest of Europe should be following? :eek:

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote:

Which all sounds great, until you realise that it has begged a vital question - why does representative democracy exist?

Representative-democracy should exist to allow elected representatives to govern countries within the limits set by national constitutions. Imho, if they want to do anything beyond that, they should have to get the permission of the people via referenda. Imho, matters of sovereignty ideally ought to be always put to their respective peoples via referendum, but I acknowledge as an Irish citizen, I cannot dictate to other nations on this matter. But I can defend the Crotty Judgement and the principle that where sovereignty is being ceded, referenda are held in this country. I think we know from parallels in our own history where things can lead if politicians are given too much power to change the rules to suit themselves. Remember 1800?

tlev

marco_polo wrote: »

Presumably democracy is broken in the other 26 countries?

You are suggesting with a straight face that we are some sort of role model that the rest of Europe should be following? :eek:

That made me laugh. We used to be, when the Celtic Tiger was in full swing we the story of the little engine that could. Now we are the story of the lotto winner who spent all their money on ummm...houses.

In the future when people look back on this, they story will not be a success story rather what NOT to do if you get your hands on money.

tlev

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Representative-democracy should exist to allow elected representatives to govern countries within the limits set by national constitutions. Imho, if they want to do anything beyond that, they should have to get the permission of the people via referenda. Imho, matters of sovereignty ideally ought to be always put to their respective peoples via referendum, but I acknowledge as an Irish citizen, I cannot dictate to other nations on this matter. But I can defend the Crotty Judgement and the principle that where sovereignty is being ceded, referenda are held in this country. I think we know from parallels in our own history where things can lead if politicians are given too much power to change the rules to suit themselves. Remember 1800?

You really have that much faith in Irish politicians to get us out of this mess by themselves? :rolleyes:

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which all sounds great, until you realise that it has begged a vital question - why does representative democracy exist?

cordially,
Scofflaw

We are back to Plato's idea of specialisation. In the same way that it is preferable to have someone specialised in plumbing to carry out plumbing work in your home, it is preferable to have someone dedicated to administration to have an administrative role.

I would not be happy if I hired a plumber to fit a bath and he instead decided to fit a washing machine and then charge me five times his original quote.

You must remember that politicians are hired in a similar fashion, even if their contracts are longer than that found in most professions.

RandomName2

marco_polo wrote: »

Presumably democracy is broken in the other 26 countries?

You are suggesting with a straight face that we are some sort of role model that the rest of Europe should be following? :eek:

In this narrow capacity, yes.

There must have been some bright spark in the Netherlands who made referenda illegal there when they were drawing up the constitution (presumably after the war). Anyway, I'm only really concerned due to the fact that the onus of decision has been placed on Ireland's shoulders, that this decision has direct implications for Ireland, and that ratification isolation implicitly undermines Ireland's system of referendum. The fact that a majority of countries are behaving in a particular way in Europe shouldn't actually have much bearing on your view of whether their methodology is right or wrong. Remember: in 1938 a majority of Europe was fascist (or under similar sort of junta) and that in 1980 a majority of Europe was under Communist rule.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

We are back to Plato's idea of specialisation. In the same way that it is preferable to have someone specialised in plumbing to carry out plumbing work in your home, it is preferable to have someone dedicated to administration to have an administrative role.

I would not be happy if I hired a plumber to fit a bath and he instead decided to fit a washing machine and then charge me five times his original quote.

You must remember that politicians are hired in a similar fashion, even if their contracts are longer than that found in most professions.

The comparison is extremely inept! When you hire a tradesman or craftsman, you expect work done to your exact specification - which is why in most historical cultures, they were looked down on as one step up from a manual labourer.

If you hire a labourer, you tell him what to do - "dig a drainage channel from here to here", and you don't take no for an answer. If you hire a drainage engineer, you say "I want to drain this field", and you accept his recommendations. If you hire a agricultural consultant, you say "I want to make the best of this farm", and, again, you accept his recommendations.

Similarly, there appears to be some kind of myth doing the rounds that elected politicians are there to do exactly what we tell them - that they are some form of labourer. They aren't, and they would be utterly unfit for purpose if they were. People know this, which is why the guy who stood on a platform of doing exactly what he was told to do over the internet was regarded as pointless. When people say "we lack leadership", and "the government only cares about opinion polls", they are alluding to the fact that politicians aren't simply supposed to do whatever we want, and aren't simply to tell us what we want to hear - they're supposed to lead, and leading means going somewhere that we, the electorate, have not yet thought of, because we're busy doing other things.

Politicians have to be free to do things that are unpopular. If not, they can't make hard decisions when necessary. The last decade should have proved that, if nothing else, politicians who make decisions purely in order to be popular are extremely dangerous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

The comparison is extremely inept! When you hire a tradesman or craftsman, you expect work done to your exact specification - which is why in most historical cultures, they were looked down on as one step up from a manual labourer.

If you hire a labourer, you tell him what to do - "dig a drainage channel from here to here", and you don't take no for an answer. If you hire a drainage engineer, you say "I want to drain this field", and you accept his recommendations. If you hire a agricultural consultant, you say "I want to make the best of this farm", and, again, you accept his recommendations.

Similarly, there appears to be some kind of myth doing the rounds that elected politicians are there to do exactly what we tell them - that they are some form of labourer. They aren't, and they would be utterly unfit for purpose if they were. People know this, which is why the guy who stood on a platform of doing exactly what he was told to do over the internet was regarded as pointless. When people say "we lack leadership", and "the government only cares about opinion polls", they are alluding to the fact that politicians aren't simply supposed to do whatever we want, and aren't simply to tell us what we want to hear - they're supposed to lead, and leading means going somewhere that we, the electorate, have not yet thought of, because we're busy doing other things.

Politicians have to be free to do things that are unpopular. If not, they can't make hard decisions when necessary. The last decade should have proved that, if nothing else, politicians who make decisions purely in order to be popular are extremely dangerous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think doctor, engineer or solicitor would have been analogies that would have suited you better.

Edit: Oh you do use engineer as an example! Well I want an engineer with leadership. If I tell him to build a house with walls three inches thick I would like him to say: I can do this, but it would result in the house collapsing; here, look at this alternative of six inch walls. Do you want me to build this instead?

I would not expect him to change the specification I gave him without telling me or asking my consent - even if he felt it was the right thing to do. I might baulk at the increased cost incurred by the new specifications, but I should not be landed with the bill with no warning or option.

And politicians are really not up to mark of Nietzche's ubermench. They are people who have switched professions from being teachers or accountants or lawyers who have the knack of gaining both community recognition and party support. That isn't much specialisation of expertise.

The electorate have not yet thought much about... euthanasia. So let's just legalise it tomorrow. Swift leadership quality.

P. Breathnach

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think doctor, engineer or solicitor would have been analogies that would have suited you better.

Edit: Oh you do use engineer as an example! Well I want an engineer with leadership. If I tell him to build a house with walls three inches thick I would like him to say: I can do this, but it would result in the house collapsing; here, look at this alternative of six inch walls. Do you want me to build this instead?

I would not expect him to change the specification I gave him without telling me or asking my consent - even if he felt it was the right thing to do. I might baulk at the increased cost incurred by the new specifications, but I should not be landed with the bill with no warning or option.

And politicians are really not up to mark of Nietzche's ubermench. They are people who have switched professions from being teachers or accountants or lawyers who have the knack of gaining both community recognition and party support. That isn't much specialisation of expertise.

The electorate have not yet thought much about... euthanasia. So let's just legalise it tomorrow. Swift leadership quality.

This is an example of pursuing the analogy rather than the thing it is supposed to illustrate, and getting to an absurd place.

Sadly, Irish politics has also got to an absurd place because we tend to vote for populists rather than representatives who are guided by principles that they declare when they stand for office.

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think doctor, engineer or solicitor would have been analogies that would have suited you better.

Edit: Oh you do use engineer as an example! Well I want an engineer with leadership. If I tell him to build a house with walls three inches thick I would like him to say: I can do this, but it would result in the house collapsing; here, look at this alternative of six inch walls. Do you want me to build this instead?

I would not expect him to change the specification I gave him without telling me or asking my consent - even if he felt it was the right thing to do. I might baulk at the increased cost incurred by the new specifications, but I should not be landed with the bill with no warning or option.

And politicians are really not up to mark of Nietzche's ubermench. They are people who have switched professions from being teachers or accountants or lawyers who have the knack of gaining both community recognition and party support. That isn't much specialisation of expertise.

The electorate have not yet thought much about... euthanasia. So let's just legalise it tomorrow. Swift leadership quality.

Up to the sudden eruption of euthanasia, that analogy was going quite well...yes, you would expect the engineer to come back to you on any major decision.

Some obvious points flow from that:

1. if you say "no, I don't like the six inch walls, because I need to be able to do x and y", then you don't expect the engineer to go ahead and build them anyway.

2. however, if the engineer doesn't go ahead, but instead comes back to you and says "well, how about we have six inch walls here and here and here, and the bits in between can be three inches?", then only a fool says "look, pal, we've already discussed this".

3. further, different people will have a different interpretation on what constitutes a decision that the engineer must come to you for permission to implement. You don't want him coming to you for every tiny decision, but you don't want him to act as if you're not there.

4. finally, it makes sense to refuse if your engineer won't explain why he wants to do something, unless of course you know and trust him.

Not sure where euthanasia comes in, unless you're suggesting that the only alternative to overseeing every single decision no matter how small is to give the engineer permission to make every decision no matter how large. That's what's called a "false dichotomy", as I'm sure you know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tlev

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This is an example of pursuing the analogy rather than the thing it is supposed to illustrate, and getting to an absurd place.

Sadly, Irish politics has also got to an absurd place because we tend to vote for populists rather than representatives who are guided by principles that they declare when they stand for office.

Maybe the fact that Ireland is a small country will limited pool of capable politicians doesnt help.

P. Breathnach

tlev wrote: »

Maybe the fact that Ireland is a small country will limited pool of capable politicians doesnt help.

Agreed. I could suggest further reasons, but we would be going further off topic.

Messing up our relationship with the EU (which would be a consequence of voting no again) could entrench us deeper in our bad political tradition.

tlev

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Agreed. I could suggest further reasons, but we would be going further off topic.

Messing up our relationship with the EU (which would be a consequence of voting no again) could entrench us deeper in our bad political tradition.

I agree! Then again there are those who believe that there will be no serious reprecussions to the Irish reputation within the EU if there is a 2nd no vote. Unfortunately we will have to wait until October 2nd to find out.

I think the least that will happen is the EU will put pressure on Cowen to resign as he couldn't adeptly convince the people that Lisbon is the best deal for them.

worded

prinz wrote: »

I won't be able to hold my head up in Germany again. I spend a good bit of time there and there are already rumblings of discontent that German monies have gone to build our roundabouts, while parts of the infrastructure in Germany is suffering from lack of funding for improvements and maintenance.

thats funny, build our roundabouts, we love roundabouts .

limklad

Imposter wrote: »

Some EU countries aren't part of the euro.
Some (most) EU countries don't allow people from the newer countries freedom to work in their countries (yet).
...

Does that affect any of their standings in Europe much?

Poland is not part of the Euro yet Dell moved there. So the Euro is not saving us, neither the SEA as Poland is already part of.

It is High Operating costs here is the main reason companies are leaving our shores and moving Jobs from here to the Eastern Europe.

limklad

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'd say us voting against the treaty would send a pretty bad signal to investors.

High Operating costs is a bigger threat to Investors and to our current Jobs. They be asking questions why are companies leaving our shores over the last 5 years and why are we so expensive?
Low Corporation Tax is not keeping Jobs here.