What Happens if No Wins again?

Martin 2

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

limklad wrote: »

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.

You’re both correct!

Kickoutthejams is correct to say “I'd say us voting against the treaty would send a pretty bad signal to investors.” A No would leave us isolated in Europe, it would create a perception in the minds of investors that we’re anti-EU and it would create uncertainty as to our future place in the Europe. Remember also that other countries competing for investment from multinational corporations are likely to use our No vote against us. Here are some quotes from major multinationals in Ireland which back up some of my points:

“One of the things that multinationals look for when investing anywhere is stability and certainty. When multinationals start asking questions such as ‘why is Ireland voting no to Europe at a time when our whole strategy and reason for being here is because Ireland is a part of Europe?’ we should take note. Ireland has always punched above its weight in Europe, so why is it putting itself in a situation where it is cutting itself adrift from Europe? Luckily, we have one more chance to get it right.” - Jim O’Hara, General Manager Intel Ireland.


"Continued foreign direct investment could be impacted if Ireland’s non-ratification of the Lisbon Treaty results in us standing alone in Europe.
It has to be accepted that our influence has been weakened as a result of a “no” vote. We need to consider how this can be rectified as the outcome will be detrimental to our continued growth and prosperity.” - Mr. Paul Rellis, Managing Director of Microsoft Ireland

You, Limklad, are correct to say that “High Operating costs is a bigger threat to Investors and to our current Jobs…...”
As regards “Low Corporation Tax is not keeping Jobs here.” correct me if I’m wrong but I think what you mean to say here is that low Corporation Tax is not enough to keep Jobs here; again correct.


When MNC’s are deciding where to invest/stay or where to leave they obviously need to consider all the factors, think of it as a balance scales, on one side you have the reasons to stay/invest and on the other side the reasons to leave/not-invest and the outcome depends on which side is heavier. Which side do you think a No goes on?

FutureTaoiseach

Martin 2 wrote:

A No would leave us isolated in Europe, it would create a perception in the minds of investors that we’re anti-EU and it would create uncertainty as to our future place in the Europe. Remember also that other countries competing for investment from multinational corporations are likely to use our No vote against us. Here are some quotes from major multinationals in Ireland which back up some of my points:

If we're so "isolated" why did the French and Dutch vote no to the almost identical EU Constitution, and why do polls show the British would also vote no? It's the political-elites and their lackeys in academia, big-business/farming/union orgs that are isolated. By refusing referenda they are isolating themselves from public opinion by denying their respective peoples a choice as to whether to take European integration to a new level that many European citizens like myself are very uncomfortable with.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

If we're so "isolated" why did the French and Dutch vote no to the almost identical EU Constitution, and why do polls show the British would also vote no? It's the political-elites and their lackeys in academia, big-business/farming/union orgs that are isolated. By refusing referenda they are isolating themselves from public opinion by denying their respective peoples a choice as to whether to take European integration to a new level that many European citizens like myself are very uncomfortable with.

The French and the Dutch did not vote no to the Lisbon Treaty. They voted no to a constitutional document that was different.

The British did not vote no. Yes, there is a considerable degree of Euroscepticism in the UK, much of it Little Englander sentiment, nurtured by the Murdoch media. I would feel bad about myself if I needed to draw moral support from such a well.

So big business, farming, and the union organisations are isolated? It is really impressive that you are managing to isolate so many: you have already encircled a majority in Ireland.

Yet again you seem to demand that there should be referenda throughout Europe. Is there any limit to your arrogance?

FutureTaoiseach

P.Breathnach wrote:

The British did not vote no. Yes, there is a considerable degree of Euroscepticism in the UK, much of it Little Englander sentiment, nurtured by the Murdoch media. I would feel bad about myself if I needed to draw moral support from such a well.

Up until Nice II (the last time I voted yes to an EU referendum), I would have shared your analysis of the reasons for British Euroscepticism, but now, while not sharing anything like the same degree of criticism of the European project, I can see where they're coming from. We have had referenda every couple of years since 1987, whereas the British haven't had an EU referendum for 36 years. If we were in their position in that respect, chances are we would be just as disenchanted with the perceived remoteness of Europe as they are.

So big business, farming, and the union organisations are isolated? It is really impressive that you are managing to isolate so many: you have already encircled a majority in Ireland.

Yet again you seem to demand that there should be referenda throughout Europe. Is there any limit to your arrogance?

I'd like to know why most of those organisations don't ballot their members on the Lisbon question. We have enough experience of politics in this country to know that the views of the elites that control the political, media, intellectual, business and farming orgs can be woefully out of touch with their supporters. For example, exit polls showed most Labour voters rejected Lisbon last year, and that 45-55% of FG voters did. I think when you're going down the road of transferring the sovereignty of ancient nations to supranational institutions in a way that will make the process hard to reverse, that you owe it to your respective nation to ensure that they are on board first. And those orgs were pretty isolated last year, when the Irish people rejected virtually the entire political, media, intellectural, academic and farming Establishment of the country.

Part of it is an economic divide. For the first time in the history of EU referenda, polls showed the working class were 2-1 against Lisbon while the middle-classes were 60-40 in favour. We can draw our own conclusions on the reasons for that. You may argue (though I would disagree) that it relates to the bourgeoisie being better educated (that's what my pro-Lisbon aunt thinks), or (my view) that it relates to the perception of a race to the bottom with Irish Ferries-style practices being used to displace the Irish working classes with exploited migrant labour (which is the fault of the politicians and business cronies - not the immigrants). But its existence confirms that the bourgeoisie that lead representative orgs in this country are not on the same wavelength as the rest of us on European integration, and that if there is isolation, it is in part, their own self-imposed isolation from public opinion in this area.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Up until Nice II (the last time I voted yes to an EU referendum), I would have shared your analysis of the reasons for British Euroscepticism, but now, while not sharing anything like the same degree of criticism of the European project, I can see where they're coming from. We have had referenda every couple of years since 1987, whereas the British haven't had an EU referendum for 36 years. If we were in their position in that respect, chances are we would be just as disenchanted with the perceived remoteness of Europe as they are.

I've spent a large number of years in the UK both working and studying, starting over 30 years ago, and have extensive family there - referendums were never an issue in European matters. The Little Englander mentality that views the EU as a French or German plot is the most common reason for euroscepticism, which even a cursory review of English political satire will show.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Martin 2

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

If we're so "isolated" why did the French and Dutch vote no to the almost identical EU Constitution, and why do polls show the British would also vote no? It's the political-elites and their lackeys in academia, big-business/farming/union orgs that are isolated. By refusing referenda they are isolating themselves from public opinion by denying their respective peoples a choice as to whether to take European integration to a new level that many European citizens like myself are very uncomfortable with.

an almost identical EU Constitution is not an identical constitution, you obviously never heard of the horse racing expression, "almost never won the race"
The EU constitution may be 90% the same as the treaty in terms of the less contentious issues but 100% different in terms of the very contentious issues. If you want to do a more meaningful comparison maybe you need to do a weighted comparison, that is assign a weight (importance) to each article in each treaty and sum all the weights to arrive at figure for each treaty that you can compare... very subjective though.

If we vote no we will be isolated (self-imposed) by the fact that we will be the only country to reject Lisbon, that's not scaremongering that's a cold hard fact, the French and Dutch have ratified it and the British will complete ratification if we vote Yes, what the UK (and others) will do if we vote no is speculation (possibly nothing)... anyway the prospect of standing alone with the UK doesn't make me feel any better.... that's a Union I'm not really interested in:)

As for the "political elites and their lackeys", the referendum might be in October, but the year is not 1917.

RandomName2

Martin 2 wrote: »

an almost identical EU Constitution is not an identical constitution,
The EU constitution may be 90% the same as the treaty in terms of the less contentious issues but 100% different in terms of the very contentious issues.

Oh no! Not the EU flag! :eek: No flag. I is so happy now

The contentious issue was the impression of autonomous statehood (or superstatehood) generated by the EU for the EU.

Whether or not this is true, removing the anthem and flag does not actually have much bearing on this contentious issue (according to UKIP, if they are to be believed, some of the 'contentious' statehood aspects are already adopted within the vacinity of the EU Parliament - although that is probably seperate from constitution/Lisbon/Lisbon II treaty)

Martin 2

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh no! Not the EU flag! :eek: No flag. I is so happy now

The contentious issue was the impression of autonomous statehood (or superstatehood) generated by the EU for the EU.

Whether or not this is true, removing the anthem and flag does not actually have much bearing on this contentious issue (according to UKIP, if they are to be believed, some of the 'contentious' statehood aspects are already adopted within the vacinity of the EU Parliament - although that is probably seperate from constitution/Lisbon/Lisbon II treaty)

You missed my main point, which is that saying that the treaty is 90% the same as the constitution is a meaningless comparison unless you have some basis for comparison, why not 91.32% the same. So rather than making reference to a constitution that was rejected and thrown in the bin why not assess the current treaty purely on its own merits or lack thereof.

RandomName2

Martin 2 wrote: »

You missed my main point, which is that saying that the treaty is 90% the same as the constitution is a meaningless comparison unless you have some basis for comparison, why not 91.32% the same. So rather than making reference to a constitution that was rejected and thrown in the bin why not assess the current treaty purely on its own merits or lack thereof.

1. Because nobody but Ireland got to vote on Lisbon and the nearest way to calculate the popularity of Lisbon in other countries is to look at the voting results of a very very very similar treaty

2. Because if there was a vote in other EU countries, like with constitution treaty, and if it was rejected by any, Ireland would not be left in the mess it is at the moment.

3. Because it looks a bit unfair that the method of ratification was changed by the establishment in the fear of lisbon treaty being rejected.

4. Because it is very annoying when the 'yes' side say that constitution/lisbon are totally different, and that therefore the dutch/french 'no's set no precedent for a possible rejection of lisbon. In particular the implication that 1 million Irish 'no' voters are being opposed by the whole of Europe is a major sticking point.

5. Lisbon/II is assessed on its own merits. This is just a side issue (which the 'no' side ultimately can't win because of the precedent of no referenda being granted in previous EU treaties across Europe ). As some have said, getting a vote was just a bonus which could be, and was, rescinded. (Vote yes, or you won't get a vote, or in the case of Ireland {because of Crotty}, vote again)

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Oh no! Not the EU flag! :eek: No flag. I is so happy now

The contentious issue was the impression of autonomous statehood (or superstatehood) generated by the EU for the EU.

Whether or not this is true, removing the anthem and flag does not actually have much bearing on this contentious issue (according to UKIP, if they are to be believed, some of the 'contentious' statehood aspects are already adopted within the vacinity of the EU Parliament - although that is probably seperate from constitution/Lisbon/Lisbon II treaty)

Also the subsidiarity orange and yellow card mechanism, which isn't part of the Constitution, but was part of the Dutch renegotiations. The Dutch wanted a "red card" system, but while that wasn't agreed, the orange and yellow card system was.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Martin 2 wrote:

If we vote no we will be isolated (self-imposed) by the fact that we will be the only country to reject Lisbon, that's not scaremongering that's a cold hard fact, the French and Dutch have ratified it and the British will complete ratification if we vote Yes, what the UK (and others) will do if we vote no is speculation (possibly nothing)... anyway the prospect of standing alone with the UK doesn't make me feel any better.... that's a Union I'm not really interested in

FYI, Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany have yet to complete ratification. The Polish and Czech presidents are waiting for us to make a decision, but it is becoming clear the much vaunted 26-1 scenario with respect to Lisbon ratification will not transpire come October 2nd. I don't think the Irish people feel isolated on this matter. I certainly don't. I feel I am defending the rights of the French and Dutch peoples to have their respective rights to self-determination vindicated. And I also feel that the Irish people are providing a voice for the voiceless i.e. the 500 million denied referenda in their own countries. By not putting the issue to referenda, the political-classes give an impression of not trusting their people, which obviously breeds a feeling that is mutual.

As for the "political elites and their lackeys", the referendum might be in October, but the year is not 1917.

Someone should tell the Eurocrats that. It seems to me that we are headed back to an oligarchic form of government if Lisbon goes through, characterised by weak parliamentary institutions and powerful unelected bureaucrats. The Bourbon Restoration (1815-1830) in France springs to mind. Like their forebears, the Eurocrats, by not changing the Lisbon Treaty, give the impression they have learned nothing. To borrow a phrase from the French at the time (about Louis XVIII), the Treaty has come back to us "in the baggage train of the foreigners".

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

FYI, Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany have yet to complete ratification. The Polish and Czech presidents are waiting for us to make a decision, but it is becoming clear the much vaunted 26-1 scenario with respect to Lisbon ratification will not transpire come October 2nd. I don't think the Irish people feel isolated on this matter. I certainly don't. I feel I am defending the rights of the French and Dutch peoples to have their respective rights to self-determination vindicated. And I also feel that the Irish people are providing a voice for the voiceless i.e. the 500 million denied referenda in their own countries. By not putting the issue to referenda, the political-classes give an impression of not trusting their people, which obviously breeds a feeling that is mutual.

It speaks volumes that some wharped vision of being the saviours of European Democracy seems to be the new number one reason to vote no.

Most pompous statement of the week.

Someone should tell the Eurocrats that. It seems to me that we are headed back to an oligarchic form of government if Lisbon goes through, characterised by weak parliamentary institutions and powerful unelected bureaucrats. The Bourbon Restoration (1815-1830) in France springs to mind. Like their forebears, the Eurocrats, by not changing the Lisbon Treaty, give the impression they have learned nothing. To borrow a phrase from the French at the time (about Louis XVIII), the Treaty has come back to us "in the baggage train of the foreigners".

Any chance of a brief outline as to how the changes in the Lisbon treaty will lead to an oligarchic form of government? Highlighted the important bit to keep you focused.

FutureTaoiseach

marco polo wrote:

Any chance of a brief outline as to how the changes in the Lisbon treaty will lead to an oligarchic form of government? Highlighted the important bit to keep you focused.

It exacerbates the trend of centralisation of power, including in some sensitive areas, in the hands of EU institutions consisting of people the Irish people don't elect. The fact that other nations elect most of the ministers on the Council of Ministers is neither here nor there as far as Irish democracy is concerned, because Irish democracy, as distinct from some nebulous concept of a 'European democracy' (which presumes the existence of a 'European demos' - which I reject), is about those making the decisions being accountable to Irish voters. The European Parliament, like that of the Bourbon Restoration, cannot initiate legislation. It can only vote for or against it or amend legislation during its passage (which even then can be removed later in the legislative passage).

The expansion of Qualified Majority voting in 60 more areas, including asylum and immigration, policing, border-controls, the powers of Europol and Eurojust (and in future those of the European Public Prosecutor whose creation is allowed for by unanimity in Lisbon), as well as energy policy etc. have to be viewed as the tail end of a process of federalisation. The problem with your question is that it assumes this Treaty is suddenly creating something new out of the blue, or is not. In fact, its implications can only be seen when examining Lisbon as part of an incremental process of centralisation - the pieces of the federalist jigsaw - all of which are necessary for the federalist project to reach fruition. And before someone points out we have an optout on Justice and Home Affairs, I would remind you that Paragraph 7 of the referendum legislation allows the govt to surrender it (the Protocol on the Position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the Area of Justice and Freedom).

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

It exacerbates the trend of centralisation of power, including in some sensitive areas, in the hands of EU institutions consisting of people the Irish people don't elect. The fact that other nations elect most of the ministers on the Council of Ministers is neither here nor there as far as Irish democracy is concerned, because Irish democracy, as distinct from some nebulous concept of a 'European democracy' (which presumes the existence of a 'European demos' - which I reject), is about those making the decisions being accountable to Irish voters. The European Parliament, like that of the Bourbon Restoration, cannot initiate legislation. It can only vote for or against it or amend legislation during its passage (which even then can be removed later in the legislative passage).

The expansion of Qualified Majority voting in 60 more areas, including asylum and immigration, policing, border-controls, the powers of Europol and Eurojust (and in future those of the European Public Prosecutor whose creation is allowed for by unanimity in Lisbon), as well as energy policy etc. have to be viewed as the tail end of a process of federalisation. The problem with your question is that it assumes this Treaty is suddenly creating something new out of the blue, or is not. In fact, its implications can only be seen when examining Lisbon as part of an incremental process of centralisation - the pieces of the federalist jigsaw - all of which are necessary for the federalist project to reach fruition. And before someone points out we have an optout on Justice and Home Affairs, I would remind you that Paragraph 7 of the referendum legislation allows the govt to surrender it (the Protocol on the Position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the Area of Justice and Freedom).

I guess if you hold a wharped view of the EU as a collection of 26 countries that are out to get us at any available opportunity then that view would make sense. If that is the tail end of a Federalist project I politely suggest that you have a poor idea of what a federalist state actually is like.

And yes the whole point of an opt out means that a country may or may not opt in again at a later date, point being? There are examples of countries that have done so on certain issues, and examples of countries which have upheld their opt outs indefinately. Considering our negotiators went went out of their way to secure the opt outs in the firest place, I see no reason why we would choose to relinquish them lightly. Since you keep telling us that Irish Democracy is so great, and "is about those making the decisions, being accountable to Irish voters" surely there is zero problem here?

FutureTaoiseach

marco_polo wrote: »

I guess if you hold a wharped view of the EU as a collection of 26 countries that are out to get us at any available opportunity then that view would make sense. If that is the tail end of a Federalist project I politely suggest that you have a poor idea of what a federalist state actually is like.

And yes the whole point of an opt out means that a country may or may not opt in again at a later date, point being? There are examples of countries that have done so on certain issues, and examples of countries which have upheld their opt outs indefinately. Considering our negotiators went went out of their way to secure the opt outs in the firest place, I see no reason why we would choose to relinquish them lightly. Since you keep telling us that Irish Democracy is so great, and "is about those making the decisions, being accountable to Irish voters" surely there is zero problem here?

You obviously have more faith in Irish politicians than I do. :rolleyes:

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

You obviously have more faith in Irish politicians than I do. :rolleyes:

Despite the fact that you have deployed both rollie-eyes and a flippant comment, and I am clearly vanquished ...

Not holding the opinion that that the Goverment will turn around on the 3rd of October post Lisbon and opt in to everything in the event of a Yes, is hardly a ringing endorsement of them. Despite making a mess of the economy, our other opt ins are still in still place last time I checked? As are Denmarks, the UK etc, etc.

FutureTaoiseach

marco_polo wrote: »

Despite the fact that you have deployed both rollie-eyes and a flippant comment, and I am clearly vanquished ...

Not holding the opinion that that the Goverment will turn around on the 3rd of October post Lisbon and opt in to everything in the event of a Yes, is hardly a ringing endorsement of them. Our other opt ins are still in still place last time I checked? As are Denmarks, the UK etc, etc.

So 11 years of Tribunals have not shaken your trust in our politicians?

marco_polo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

So 11 years of Tribunals have not shaken your trust in our politicians?

Firstly I would suggest that European opt outs on Justice and Home Affairs are not particularly amenable to corruption, when contrasted to say zoning legislation for example.

Secondly, by and large, the tribunals relate to dark a very dark period of our history in the 80's and early 90's. I don't think that anyone would claim that corruption is anywher near as endemic in Irish political life nowadays, and nor am I so naieve as to think there is no corruption at all. Or current woes are not so much down to corruptions as they are to weak populist Governance and an aversion to making tough decisions, which clearly are the root cause of our current difficulties.

In essence I have little respect for those who re-elected what was even at the time clearly a piss poor Government back into power and are now going to use the Lisbon referendum in a completely inappropriate manner have a dig at the government instead, when it is a few years too late.

Martin 2

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

FYI, Poland, the Czech Republic and Germany have yet to complete ratification. The Polish and Czech presidents are waiting for us to make a decision, but it is becoming clear the much vaunted 26-1 scenario with respect to Lisbon ratification will not transpire come October 2nd. I don't think the Irish people feel isolated on this matter. I certainly don't.

FT, you confused me initially by saying "polls show the British would also vote no" (post #513), but in fact the UK has ratified the treaty (16/07/2008), see http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/countries/index_en.htm. I was aware Germany, Poland and the Czech republic hadn't ratified but you failed to mention that their parliaments have all approved ratification. In the case of Germany the constitutional court has suspended ratification but have ruled that the Treaty is compatible with the German constitution but required a modification of domestic legislation on parliamentary rights of participation before the deposit of the instrument of ratification. Vote on the legislation has been scheduled for autumn. (before our referendum)
In the cases of the Czech rep and Poland their presidents are withholding final sign off until the result of our referendum, if we vote yes they will almost certainly complete ratification, if we vote no they could ratify or do nothing but it wouldn't matter as we'd have already rejected the Lisbon treaty.
If that doesn't seem like some form of isolation to you, then what does. Look at the map of countries that have approved ratification on the link I supplied, why are we the only country not in green. You may say "I don't think the Irish people feel isolated on this matter", but here's one Irishman that does and I'm not alone.

Brian

I think the keyword was "would", as in the conditional tense. Were the British public to be given the opportunity, they would vote No*. However, they weren't given that option as the government ratified the treaty without a referendum.

*The validity of this claim is questionable.

FutureTaoiseach

Martin 2 wrote:

If that doesn't seem like some form of isolation to you, then what does. Look at the map of countries that have approved ratification on the link I supplied, why are we the only country not in green. You may say "I don't think the Irish people feel isolated on this matter", but here's one Irishman that does and I'm not alone.

We're not isolated because we're just doing what much of Europe would do if given the chance. The "isolation" you speak of is therefore a mirage.

Martin 2

Baza210 wrote: »

I think the keyword was "would", as in the conditional tense. Were the British public to be given the opportunity, they would vote No*. However, they weren't given that option as the government ratified the treaty without a referendum.

*The validity of this claim is questionable.

I know what the conditional tense is but it could also be used in reference to a future referendum in which, polls show the British would vote no in.. as in the referendum that David Cameron has talked about if the conservatives form the next UK government... however I hadn't realised on my earlier post that the UK had completed the ratification process not just approved ratification.

FutureTaoiseach

Martin 2 wrote: »

I know what the conditional tense is but it could also be used in reference to a future referendum in which, polls show the British would vote no in.. as in the referendum that David Cameron has talked about if the conservatives form the next UK government... however I hadn't realised on my earlier post that the UK had completed the ratification process not just approved ratification.

The UK govt can withdraw the articles of ratification from the UN. I know it has been ratified by the UK govt, but so were the treaties with Napoleon, and we know what happened to them. :rolleyes: Cameron says that if Lisbon hasn't come into force (i.e. in all member states), he will put it to a referendum in the UK and call for a no vote. It would make sense for him to do so. It would unite the party and put Labour in the embarrassing position of having to argue for more European integration in the face of a bitterly Eurosceptic public-opinion.

PopeBuckfastXVI

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The UK govt can withdraw the articles of ratification from the UN. I know it has been ratified by the UK govt, but so were the treaties with Napoleon, and we know what happened to them. :rolleyes: Cameron says that if Lisbon hasn't come into force (i.e. in all member states), he will put it to a referendum in the UK and call for a no vote. It would make sense for him to do so. It would unite the party and put Labour in the embarrassing position of having to argue for more European integration in the face of a bitterly Eurosceptic public-opinion.

There won't be a referendum in the UK, it's a lovely game of politics he's playing but it's got approximately no substance.

One of 2 things will happen:
1. Ireland ratifies, Lisbon enters into force, no referendum in UK.
2. Ireland doesn't ratify, Lisbon is dead, no referendum in UK.

K-9

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The UK govt can withdraw the articles of ratification from the UN. I know it has been ratified by the UK govt, but so were the treaties with Napoleon, and we know what happened to them. :rolleyes: Cameron says that if Lisbon hasn't come into force (i.e. in all member states), he will put it to a referendum in the UK and call for a no vote. It would make sense for him to do so. It would unite the party and put Labour in the embarrassing position of having to argue for more European integration in the face of a bitterly Eurosceptic public-opinion.

Yep Napoleon is a fair and relevant comparison alright! :rolleyes:

As has been pointed out, Cameron is just playing politics with it. He knows barring a serious scandal, there will be no election until next year and by then Lisbon is a non issue, whatever way the vote goes here.

Lisbon will just fade away like other EU Treaties in the heat of a GE.

Red Sleeping Beauty

kickoutthejams wrote: »

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

And this is ultimately both relevant and important ? That Ireland needs to vote yes to keep up a good image with the investors ?

Appeasing or pleasing investors is one thing and voting on a treaty should be something completely different. Unfortunately here politics, economics and business investments have been welded into the one issue.

I think this kind of reaction adds credence to the arguement that the Treaty of Lisbon furthers a neo-liberal agenda within the EU (privatisation, free markets etc. ).

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Messing up our relationship with the EU (which would be a consequence of voting no again)

What does this mean ? "messing up our relationship with the EU". Messing up the whole of Ireland's relationship with the whole European Union? As in the every country or just a few key pro-lisbon players ?

Fianna Fail have already been mixing with the worst of the worst when it comes to very far right parties in Europe. I doubt they'd immediately be struck off of Xmas card lists should a second "No" vote be returned.

tlev wrote: »

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.

Can you outline some represcussions awaiting Ireland if the result is a rejection ?

Martin 2 wrote: »

an almost identical EU Constitution is not an identical constitution, you obviously never heard of the horse racing expression, "almost never won the race"
The EU constitution may be 90% the same as the treaty in terms of the less contentious issues but 100% different in terms of the very contentious issues. If you want to do a more meaningful comparison maybe you need to do a weighted comparison, that is assign a weight (importance) to each article in each treaty and sum all the weights to arrive at figure for each treaty that you can compare... very subjective though.

If we vote no we will be isolated (self-imposed) by the fact that we will be the only country to reject Lisbon, that's not scaremongering that's a cold hard fact, the French and Dutch have ratified it and the British will complete ratification if we vote Yes, what the UK (and others) will do if we vote no is speculation (possibly nothing)... anyway the prospect of standing alone with the UK doesn't make me feel any better.... that's a Union I'm not really interested in:)

You've leave out the bit where Ireland is the only country to get a referendum on this Treaty. And Ireland only got a referendum by way of a default. This is a very important point. It's not a case of "the rest of the EU countries are all in agreement (on the Treaty) and Ireland's the bastard stepchild refusing to play ball".

As for the "political elites and their lackeys", the referendum might be in October, but the year is not 1917.

How wity. :eek:;-)

LongLiveQ&A

I hate this assertion that Ireland is a constant drain on the EU's coffers. We have completely sacrificed our fishing industry and we were one of only a small number of countries to allow new member state citizens to work from the start and most of those who came to work here sent the majority of their wages home. We have put back a lot of the money we received.
EU membership has benefitted Ireland immensely, but this long and painful march toward the United States of Europe is intolerable and wholly undemocratic. How many no votes does this union need before it accepts it. The EU is meant to move all at once or not at all, bugger this two-tier Europe malarky. Whose interests is this "constitution" serving? Now the government will batter us with the stick of say yes or the economy will go deeper down the plughole. This is not an episode of South Park, and if we fall for that bull crap we deserve another full term of Fianna Fáil.

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote:

You've leave out the bit where Ireland is the only country to get a referendum on this Treaty. And Ireland only got a referendum by way of a default. This is a very important point. It's not a case of "the rest of the EU countries are all in agreement (on the Treaty) and Ireland's the bastard stepchild refusing to play ball".

That's rather inaccurate. First, we have a referendum because the Irish Supreme Court determined that's what our Constitution required - it's not "by default". Other countries don't have referendums because that's what their constitutions require - and if our constitutional requirement for a referendum is legitimate, so are their constitutional arrangements.

Second, we are the ones refusing to play ball. Whether you believe the rest of the member states would or wouldn't pass Lisbon at referendum is entirely irrelevant to the reality, because in reality, we are the only country that is holding up ratification - and countries is what the EU is made of.

So, yes, the rest of the EU countries are in agreement, and from a practical perspective, it's what their governments think of our government that determines Ireland's relations with the EU, not the vox pops that No proponents are so fond of. It doesn't matter a tinker's cuss whether the European in the street has a slightly warmer feeling about Ireland because of our vote - they will expect their governments to do the best by them in the EU, and their governments will be in a good deal less of a humour to take Ireland's whims on board if the vote is a No.

Be realistic. Jacques and Hilda Public aren't asking their governments to reject this Treaty, and we won't get anything out of voting No on what we are being told is their behalf. Damaging Ireland's national interests just to get patted on the back when you're on holiday is extremely short-sighted.

realistically,
Scofflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's rather inaccurate. First, we have a referendum because the Irish Supreme Court determined that's what our Constitution required - it's not "by default". Other countries don't have referendums because that's what their constitutions require - and if our constitutional requirement for a referendum is legitimate, so are their constitutional arrangements.

Second, we are the ones refusing to play ball. Whether you believe the rest of the member states would or wouldn't pass Lisbon at referendum is entirely irrelevant to the reality, because in reality, we are the only country that is holding up ratification - and countries is what the EU is made of.

So, yes, the rest of the EU countries are in agreement, and from a practical perspective, it's what their governments think of our government that determines Ireland's relations with the EU, not the vox pops that No proponents are so fond of. It doesn't matter a tinker's cuss whether the European in the street has a slightly warmer feeling about Ireland because of our vote - they will expect their governments to do the best by them in the EU, and their governments will be in a good deal less of a humour to take Ireland's whims on board if the vote is a No.

Be realistic. Jacques and Hilda Public aren't asking their governments to reject this Treaty, and we won't get anything out of voting No on what we are being told is their behalf.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why are you referencing the Irish Supreme Court's decision from Crotty v. An Taoiseach 1987 ? I know why we are getting a referendum. Do you think I left that information out for some deceptive reason ? Just to get a "no side vox pop" in do you think ?

Yes it is only by default that we're getting to vote. If there wasn't legal precedent then we sure wouldn't have gotten a referendum and looking at the bipartisan support for the Lisbon Treaty it is of course obvious that had Lisbon been presented to the Dail in the same fashion that it was in other countries then it'd be whisked through with barely a whisper.

To accept that the Lisbon Treaty should only need to be ratified via parliaments and not via the electorate would first require one to accept that the Lisbon Treaty and the process by which it is being passed is not a subterfuge to push through the previously rejected Eu constitution (minus the bells and whistles and flags and anthems of course).

There are governments that are in agreement with the treaty but does it matter what the people think ? Do you think there are 26 other governments all elected on the basis that they will pass the Lisbon Treaty rather than offer their citizens a referendum ? This Treaty is bigger than just a few lines in a party manifesto.

And

Scofflaw wrote: »

Damaging Ireland's national interests just to get patted on the back when you're on holiday is extremely short-sighted.

realistically,
Scofflaw

Could you please elaborate on this quip.

marco_polo

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Why are you referencing the Irish Supreme Court's decision from Crotty v. An Taoiseach 1987 ? I know why we are getting a referendum. Do you think I left that information out for some deceptive reason ? Just to get a "no side vox pop" in do you think ?

Yes it is only by default that we're getting to vote. If there wasn't legal precedent then we sure wouldn't have gotten a referendum and looking at the bipartisan support for the Lisbon Treaty it is of course obvious that had Lisbon been presented to the Dail in the same fashion that it was in other countries then it'd be whisked through with barely a whisper.

To accept that the Lisbon Treaty should only need to be ratified via parliaments and not via the electorate would first require one to accept that the Lisbon Treaty and the process by which it is being passed is not a subterfuge to push through the previously rejected Eu constitution (minus the bells and whistles and flags and anthems of course).

There are governments that are in agreement with the treaty but does it matter what the people think ? Do you think there are 26 other governments all elected on the basis that they will pass the Lisbon Treaty rather than offer their citizens a referendum ? This Treaty is bigger than just a few lines in a party manifesto.

And just whom do you propose should force a Europe wide referendum?

Since the vast majority of EU countries have never held a referendum on any european treaty, and do not seem to be actively campaigning for change, I think it can be taken as read that they are satisfied that their current democratic structures are serving them rather well in general.