What Happens if No Wins again?

tlev · 21-07-2009 9:43pm

KINGVictor wrote: »

But I don't see any justifiable reason why the EU would want to turn its back on Ireland...because we disagree with a Treaty?...It is a Union akin to a family where disagreements are inevitable and they could not deal with that,then the whole set up/project would have been a futile experiment.

Well yes, exactly because we disagree with them on a treaty. It is an extreme situation but the EU could take the view that they have given Ireland quite a lot but when something is asked of them to make the EU a better place (from the EU's perspective) Ireland says no thank you twice. It seems like taking all that the EU has given Ireland and pulling the finger at them because a lot of people are misinformed/want to stick it to the system/are unhappy with the domestic government. It wouldnt necessarily have to drop Ireland from the EU but could for example start becoming even stricter with lending to Ireland, agressively push forward higher tax rates and say sorry you dont like it, then leave. (Just some examples). And yes the EU is supposed to be democratic etc. but the interests of many will be greater than the interests of the 4million people here in Ireland, and if they feel that this is something that will benefit Europe as a whole they will eventually tell Ireland to get with the programme. It could be similiar for the criteria of joining the EMU. Certain things must be accepted or no membership.

KINGVictor · 21-07-2009 9:50pm

prinz wrote: »

I never pretended to represent the country as a whole... like I said in my first post I would not be able to hold my head high. I never insinuated it was national policy, just my personal knowledge from years of trips to Germany and a period living there. Whatever light someone wishes to take that is up to them. It's a simple test really which can be supported by anyone. Drive around continental Europe ( Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland for example ) and keep note of how many times you see the blue sign with the stars and "This project was funded by the European....". Or ask anyone from these countries how many of these signs they know of around their town/city.

Germany is a massive nation and as such there would a dichotomous opinion of their take on the Irish No vote..(not that it does matter..as the only way you could have a near accurate statistical idea would be through a referendum...which they did not have).

I lived in Antwerpen Belgium for sometime and still visit occasionally,I have friends that are not happy with the Irish No vote ..just like I have more that support them..( would that remind you of anecdotes)...Essentially, all the Germans you have spoken to, do not necessarily indicate the mood of the German populace.

The fact that we might have more blue signs indicating EU funded projects is irrelevant in my opinion...different situation/history/circumstances.
Most of those countries you mentioned were able to develop after the devastation of the world wars ....considerably due to the Marshall Plan funding from America.....
In 15 years time there would be less of those signs in Ireland and more in Poland....that would not make the latter less entitiled to disagree with any EU policy/treaty/constitution tbh.

KINGVictor · 21-07-2009 10:13pm

tlev wrote: »

Well yes, exactly because we disagree with them on a treaty. It is an extreme situation but the EU could take the view that they have given Ireland quite a lot but when something is asked of them to make the EU a better place (from the EU's perspective) Ireland says no thank you twice. It seems like taking all that the EU has given Ireland and pulling the finger at them because a lot of people are misinformed/want to stick it to the system/are unhappy with the domestic government. It wouldnt necessarily have to drop Ireland from the EU but could for example start becoming even stricter with lending to Ireland, agressively push forward higher tax rates and say sorry you dont like it, then leave. (Just some examples). And yes the EU is supposed to be democratic etc. but the interests of many will be greater than the interests of the 4million people here in Ireland, and if they feel that this is something that will benefit Europe as a whole they will eventually tell Ireland to get with the programme. It could be similiar for the criteria of joining the EMU. Certain things must be accepted or no membership.

I really understand you have geniune concerns about a NO vote...but the EU were fully aware of this before it was decided that all countries must ratify the treaty before it came into force.

I am not naive to suggest that there could be a backlash from some EU nations but it would be an ultimate test of character for Brussels...you have to remember that the EU consists of 27 nations and different political alignments...If Ireland is treated the way you are assuming then it would defeat the whole notion of a viable union.

If I use your analogy of the Population of Ireland which is 4.5 million deciding the fate of 498,500,000 Europeans...that is democracy .If you recall that Florida decided the US presidential elections of 2000...much to the chagrin of the rest of the country...they lived with it...they overcame it...and IMO...they were stronger for it as a nation.The EU could copy from that considering that is a country they are trying to be like.

Rej · 21-07-2009 10:40pm

I'm an Irish citizen married to a french man, living in ireland - how european is that

I'm not anti-europe, as a country we have benifited enormously from being a part of the EU.

I voted No to the first lisbon treaty, not because of all the nonsense to do with abortion, etc... There are some things in the treaty that are good, but I dont like the idea of becoming a federal europe..

In light of the recent economic changes, I am unsure how I will vote in the next referendum.. My concerns have not been addressed.. But there is definitly safety in numbers

tlev · 21-07-2009 10:47pm

Europe cannot expect to remain competitive in the future if it is so fragmented. In order to compete with the likes of China and the US, the Europe does need to stand together. Now I know that does sound v ideological and it a one size fits all policy for different cultures, economies doesnt work but something needs to be done.

marco_polo · 21-07-2009 11:02pm

Rej wrote: »

I'm an Irish citizen married to a french man, living in ireland - how european is that I'm not anti-europe, as a country we have benifited enormously from being a part of the EU.

I voted No to the first lisbon treaty, not because of all the nonsense to do with abortion, etc... There are some things in the treaty that are good, but I dont like the idea of becoming a federal europe..

In light of the recent economic changes, I am unsure how I will vote in the next referendum.. My concerns have not been addressed.. But there is definitly safety in numbers

So were there any reasons that were actually contained in the treaty that influenced your decision to vote no?

Dr. Baltar · 21-07-2009 11:14pm

If the no wins again then by right, the EU should continue to function like it does now with no change whatsoever.

Scofflaw · 21-07-2009 11:32pm

KINGVictor wrote: »

I don't really think it is really an issue.If Ireland rejects the Treaty...a second time.Brussels has to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that would be generally acceptable to the citizenry of the EU.

People alluding that Ireland would suffer consequences for voting NO...really surprise me.If that happens then the EU would not be as just and democratic as suggested....It would be like the case of the Polish MP's who suggested that the election of an African American (Obama) as the President of the most powerful nation on earth indicates the end of the civilisation of the White race.If we vote No ...they thank us for exercising our democratic obligations and go about doing their duties.

I'm somewhat in two minds about this one. Yes, we're entitled to vote how we like - that's our democracy - and yes, the rules of the EU are "all in or none in". At the same time, though, it's a club of cooperating countries, those countries see their interests as best served through the EU, they feel that the EU needs the reforms in Lisbon, and Ireland is the country currently holding those reforms up - with various sectoral interests holding the treaty to ransom, and the government failing to pull their finger out.

So I genuinely can't see the regard of other countries for Ireland being quite the same after a final Irish derailment of the proposed reforms. Again, that may not be fair, but it's not simply scaremongering, nor does it imply any conspiracy to bully us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rej · 21-07-2009 11:44pm

marco_polo wrote: »

So were there any reasons that were actually contained in the treaty that influenced your decision to vote no?

Thats a fair point I suppose.. The things that influenced my decision to vote no were:
The creation of the EU as a legal entitiy, complete with a european supreme court.
The creation of the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Along with a general mistrust of european treaties seen as some elements of the NICE treaty only came apparent afterwards. - the "sting in the tail" or so to speak

KINGVictor · 21-07-2009 11:51pm

tlev wrote: »

Europe cannot expect to remain competitive in the future if it is so fragmented. In order to compete with the likes of China and the US, the Europe does need to stand together. Now I know that does sound v ideological and it a one size fits all policy for different cultures, economies doesnt work but something needs to be done.

You make it sound like a competition with China or US.It would be very difficult for Europe to compete with even India or Brazil in the 21st century not to talk of the aforementioned nations.

When the recession became evident...there was a massive disagreement between the Uk and France/Germany regarding the bail-out of banks as they felt it would lead to protectionism...Sarkozy later bailed out Peougot and generally and was accused of protectionism...( no need for sermons) but we are all aware that most nations are now trying to to do what they feel is best for their countries....

Tlev...at the end of the day...every country stands on its own and dont be disillusioned about this talk of Europe competing with China /Usa or India.France has a very different system to Britain ,Germany,Ireland etc and they would always look after NO 1.Economically,every EU nation gains from the common market...but it is the prerogative of every individual nation to formulate and execute policies that would be in the their best interest...

for eg
-Ireland should be concentrating on attracting FDIs from the
US ,China and Russia..
Educating its citizens to compete with the level of India and the US.

Until such a time as we all decide to be One Europe (which I doubt)...the effort should be focused on Developing Ireland to compete with the rest of the world on the basis of comaparative advantage.

marco_polo · 21-07-2009 11:53pm

Rej wrote: »

Thats a fair point I suppose.. The things that influenced my decision to vote no were:
The creation of the EU as a legal entitiy, complete with a european supreme court.
The creation of the post of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Along with a general mistrust of european treaties seen as some elements of the NICE treaty only came apparent afterwards. - the "sting in the tail" or so to speak

You don't even sound too thrilled about the current status quo, perhaps you are a mild euroskeptic who hasn't realised it yet?

marco_polo · 21-07-2009 11:59pm

Sir Baralot wrote: »

If the no wins again then by right, the EU should continue to function like it does now with no change whatsoever.

That it should continue just your opinion on the matter, there is no obgligation on the other member states to stand still if they choose not to. Lest I be accused of scaremongering all I will say it that we have absolutely no idea what will be on the cards should a second no vote be delivered. Sure it is possible that the status quo will remain, is it likely? Personally I think not.

But worst case scenario I'm sure the Tories would have no problem with letting us back into the commonwealth.

KINGVictor · 22-07-2009 12:09am

marco_polo wrote: »

That it should continue just your opinion on the matter, there is no obgligation on the other member states to stand still if they choose not to. Lest I be accused of scaremongering all I will say it that we have absolutely no idea what will be on the cards should a second no vote be delivered. Sure it is possible that the status quo will remain, is it likely? Personally I think not.

But worst case scenario I'm sure the Tories would have no problem with letting us back into the commonwealth.

Well ...you can be accused of fearmongering if you are suggesting Ireland joining the Commonwealth as a matter of last resort.

The Irish people have absolutely nothing to fear in the event of a no vote .Either way,our destiny is in our hands and not in Brussels.

Scofflaw · 22-07-2009 12:15am

KINGVictor wrote: »

Well ...you can be accused of fearmongering if you are suggesting Ireland joining the Commonwealth as a matter of last resort.

The Irish people have absolutely nothing to fear in the event of a no vote .Either way,our destiny is in our hands and not in Brussels.

It's not quite true that there are simply no consequences, but being asked to leave the EU will not be one of them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo · 22-07-2009 12:19am

KINGVictor wrote: »

Well ...you can be accused of fearmongering if you are suggesting Ireland joining the Commonwealth as a matter of last resort.

But think of how much easier it would be to win some medals in Athletics

The Irish people have absolutely nothing to fear in the event of a no vote .Either way,our destiny is in our hands and not in Brussels.

I completely agree that our destiny is in our own hands, but unlike benchmarking for example destiny is not nescessarly positive.

I am reminded of a few special people I encountered during the last Lisbon debate who would gladly have Engineers, Accountants etc all back on fishing boats pulling out that 240,000,000,000,000 Billion worth of fish that are taken from our waters every year. The kind of people who were going "Look at Iceland aren't they doing just great" barely over a year ago.

KINGVictor · 22-07-2009 12:21am

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not quite true that there are simply no consequences, but being asked to leave the EU will not be one of them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scoff...can you enumerate what those consequences would be?

KINGVictor · 22-07-2009 12:27am

marco_polo wrote: »

But think of how much easier it would be to win some medals in Athletics

I completely agree that our destiny is in our own hands, but unlike benchmarking for example destiny is not nescessarly positive.

LOL

I am reminded of a few special people I encountered during the last Lisbon debate who would gladly have Engineers, Accountants etc all back on fishing boats pulling out that 240,000,000,000,000 Billion worth of fish that are taken from our waters every year. The kind of people who were going "Look at Iceland aren't they doing just great" barely over a year ago.

But there is also the example of Switzerland that is independent and not in dire straights like Iceland.

prinz · 22-07-2009 12:30am

KINGVictor wrote: »

...Essentially, all the Germans you have spoken to, do not necessarily indicate the mood of the German populace.

As I made perfectly clear....

KINGVictor wrote: »

The fact that we might have more blue signs indicating EU funded projects is irrelevant in my opinion...different situation/history/circumstances.
Most of those countries you mentioned were able to develop after the devastation of the world wars ....considerably due to the Marshall Plan funding from America.....
In 15 years time there would be less of those signs in Ireland and more in Poland....that would not make the latter less entitiled to disagree with any EU policy/treaty/constitution tbh.

Actually it's very relevant. Some countries in the EU are fully committed to the European project and all that entails, if we were to show them that we, as a country are not, there is nothing to stop a number of countries moving on with further integration without us. Just as you yourself pointed out there are plenty of countries willing to accept those EU monies and to return the favour and work towards improving the EU and assuring its continuation. Do you think we'll still be invited to the party?

marco_polo · 22-07-2009 12:32am

KINGVictor wrote: »

Scoff...can you enumerate what those consequences would be?

Sure we would still be in the EU in body, with no options for our removal per say, but not in spirit. But it would be a lonely place with our reputation amongst our european neighbours probably damaged beyond repair and zero influence. And who knows yet in what creative ways enhanced co-operation may be employed.

And suppose we spent a number of years breaking the rules of the Eurozone, which looks not beyond the bounds of possiblity. Which version of Ireland do you think would have a better chance of getting cut some slack?

prinz · 22-07-2009 12:32am

KINGVictor wrote: »

But there is also the example of Switzerland that is independent and not in dire straights like Iceland.

Are you making that comparison with a straight face? Ireland is no Switzerland.

nesf · 22-07-2009 12:32am

KINGVictor wrote: »

But there is also the example of Switzerland that is independent and not in dire straights like Iceland.

It's not Iceland but it's most certainly not without its own problems at the moment: http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14070441&fsrc=nwl

Scofflaw · 22-07-2009 12:33am

KINGVictor wrote: »

Scoff...can you enumerate what those consequences would be?

The main and most obvious one is a huge loss of goodwill and bargaining power in Europe. We, the people of Ireland, do not negotiate at the international level - our government (both executive and civil service) negotiate on our behalf, and we will essentially be saying that their word in negotiations is pretty much worthless. That is something that is not our fault, but the government's, but we elected them, we bear the responsibility for them, and we will have to accept the consequences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo · 22-07-2009 12:37am

KINGVictor wrote: »

LOL

But there is also the example of Switzerland that is independent and not in dire straights like Iceland.

Yes with our powerful banking system and vast oil reserves (you forgot Norway) we would be practically unstoppable.

But which of the three do you think most closely resembles us?

Anyway this is perhaps going a little off topic lest I be accused of seriously suggesting our expulsion is a real prospect

Martin 2 · 22-07-2009 10:14am

I noticed earlier in the thread some people were sharing their experiences of conversations with other Europeans (Germans) regarding Lisbon, so here's my experience with Nice and I mention it because there are many similarities between the ratification processes of both treaties.

I was working in France during the result of the first Nice referendum (a NO) and I got quite a bit of good natured ribbing from my French colleagues about getting loads of money from the EU and now not wanting to share it with Eastern European countries etc from one side and some support from the other side, because of a believe that Nice gave greater power to Germany (believe it or not). Had we voted Yes, we’d have been just another Yes country like everybody else and the conversation from both sides would have been about wine or Guinness or places to visit. Hopefully the latter will be the case with Lisbon.

As an epilogue to the Nice story, I was back in Ireland for the Nice II vote and after the Yes result I was able to share a bottle of champagne with some Lithuanians and effectively welcome them into the EU… it was a good feeling.

Tony EH · 22-07-2009 10:33am

Scofflaw wrote: »

The main and most obvious one is a huge loss of goodwill and bargaining power in Europe. We, the people of Ireland, do not negotiate at the international level - our government (both executive and civil service) negotiate on our behalf, and we will essentially be saying that their word in negotiations is pretty much worthless. That is something that is not our fault, but the government's, but we elected them, we bear the responsibility for them, and we will have to accept the consequences.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Did France suffer a "huge loss of goodwill and bargaining power in Europe" when they rejected the EU Constitution?

Did Holland suffer a "huge loss of goodwill and bargaining power in Europe" when they rejected the EU Constitution?

That argument holds no water.

andy1249 · 22-07-2009 10:59am

On a personal level , take a look at this ,

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/13451/business/intel-warns-ireland-needs-to-lower-costs-to-win-investment

The spokesman also said that crucial factors such as a ‘yes’ vote in the forthcoming Lisbon Treaty referendum will be closely watched by Intel management in Santa Clara, California: “This is not just Intel; every multinational in Ireland will be watching the Lisbon vote. It will affect how Ireland continues to be perceived internationally.

“Intel will want Ireland to be at the heart of the EU. A ‘yes’ vote would send out clear signals to decision-makers in Santa Clara, Boston and Seattle that Ireland is still at the heart of Europe.”

For me this is not just Rhetoric anymore , its a very real issue.

300 compulsory redundancies announced today , the real figure is more as the Vendor support involved with this section has been axed as well meaning at least a couple of hundred more ...

The results of the Lisbon vote could well affect whether or not Intel bring the new 1270 tech to Ireland , if they dont , its a given that the place will wind down , losing Ireland a huge chunk of its GDP and turning North Kildare into an unemployment blackspot Ghetto.

ixtlan · 22-07-2009 11:01am

Tony EH wrote: »

Did France suffer a "huge loss of goodwill and bargaining power in Europe" when they rejected the EU Constitution?

Did Holland suffer a "huge loss of goodwill and bargaining power in Europe" when they rejected the EU Constitution?

That argument holds no water.

That's not entirely a fair comparison though. You may complain that they didn't have referendums on Lisbon after their vote on the constitution but nonetheless that meant that the leaders went to the negotiating table afterwards saying...

France... I've just been elected with a mandate to ratify without referendum. Let's work this out and change what we need to to make this acceptable...
Netherlands... our courts have just ruled that we cannot have a new referendum. Let's work this out and change what we need to to make this acceptable ...

Ireland will return to the table after a second vote saying...
We don't want Lisbon...
We cannot really express clearly why that is, since we the negotiators thought it was a good deal...
Any new treaty will have to start from scratch with nothing of Lisbon in it...
We will have to have a referendum on any new treaty... and that will have to be many years away.
We of course cannot say what the outcome of that vote will be...

The other states representatives will not be impressed. And if we get a completely new government in power, they will be in exactly the same situation.

I would assume that in order to make the best of a real mess, we will feel that we must allow the other states in proceed together in some way, perhaps with enhanced co-operation in many areas. We won't be alone I suppose, but I don't relish the scenario of being in the new Euro-skeptic axis with Britain, the Czechs maybe... and maybe some others. I expect after a few years we will be desperately trying to resolve this. At least any referendum at that point may have some clearer options.

Ix.

ixtlan · 22-07-2009 11:03am

JoCavendish wrote: »

What bargaining power?????

If the treaty goes through Ireland will have a say of 0.8%.

That is highly misleading. JoCavendish, can I humbly ask whether you understand how a double majority works in a qualified majority vote?

I could explain but it would be interesting for you to post it, to make up for posting this comment.

Ix

PopeBuckfastXVI · 22-07-2009 11:10am

andy1249 wrote: »

On a personal level , take a look at this ,

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/13451/business/intel-warns-ireland-needs-to-lower-costs-to-win-investment

For me this is not just Rhetoric anymore , its a very real issue.

300 compulsory redundancies announced today , the real figure is more as the Vendor support involved with this section has been axed as well meaning at least a couple of hundred more ...

The results of the Lisbon vote could well affect whether or not Intel bring the new 1270 tech to Ireland , if they dont , its a given that the place will wind down , losing Ireland a huge chunk of its GDP and turning North Kildare into an unemployment blackspot Ghetto.

That's terrifying Andy, I'm in the industry too, and it's also very much a concern of mine.

ixtlan wrote: »

I would assume that in order to make the best of a real mess, we will feel that we must allow the other states in proceed together in some way, perhaps with enhanced co-operation in many areas. We won't be alone I suppose, but I don't relish the scenario of being in the new Euro-skeptic axis with Britain, the Czechs maybe... and maybe some others. I expect after a few years we will be desperately trying to resolve this. At least any referendum at that point may have some clearer options.

Ix.

I'm quite worried the traditional 'vote against any EU treaty' percentage has gone up from the historically accepted 20% to somewhere around the 40% mark. I'm not sure what's caused this, but I think we've become engaged in some sort of one sided brinksmanship with our EU partners, we need to step back and think about what we really want.

I fear that no matter what Treaty might come along in 5 or 6 years to replace Lisbon, which is actually a good deal, we will reject it anyway. The same people who push for a 'No' to Lisbon will push for a 'No' to every EU treaty, no matter the contents, with the possible exception of a treaty to dissolve the Union. Their history shows this.

We are not the UK, we don't have their natural resources. We cannot afford to go it alone.

PopeBuckfastXVI · 22-07-2009 11:15am

JoCavendish wrote: »

Can I humbly ask you what happened to the "law" that a rejection by one country caused any given treaty to be withdrawn???

We haven't 'rejected' Lisbon, we just haven't ratified it. A treaty cannot be implemented until it is ratified by all countries, that's it. There's no formal rejection, just a recognition that it won't pass.

I'm also interested to see your analysis of voting weights.

What Happens if No Wins again?

Comments