What Happens if No Wins again?

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, what I'm saying is that the EU has been very good for Ireland and if we want to stop them doing something that they say is necessary, we better have a damn good reason, partly because of where they've brought us to today and partly because they don't have to continue in future.

As it stands, we don't have a damn good reason, all people are saying is "yeah I voted because I believed a pack of lies but how dare you ask me to reconsider now that I know they were lies!!!!!"

What with this us and them? Ireland is part of the EU, there should be no distinctions made as to what "the EU" will do to another member state. This sort of scaremongering is the worst face of the Yes campaign.

What do you think would be a 'damn good reason'? Who says we all voted on the basis of a pack of lies? Again I'm really disappointed with the level of respect shown for people who voted No, it might not be your position but its still a legitimate position.

brianthebard

Furious-Dave wrote: »

It's not that we're not allowed to differ in opinion, there will always be difference in opinion in the EU. That's why it takes years of negotiation to come up with the treaties instead of months. What will piss the EU off is not that we disagree with the treaty, one that the Irish government was influential in forming (was it not), but that the things the people disagree with are completely irrelevant to the treaty.

Unless you've asked everyone who voted what reason they have for voting no I think you're a bit premature to suggest that people's reasons are irrelevant, or that its less permitted to vote no than to vote for what 'The EU' wants. More scaremongering tbh.

Furious-Dave

brianthebard wrote: »

What do you think would be a 'damn good reason'? Who says we all voted on the basis of a pack of lies? Again I'm really disappointed with the level of respect shown for people who voted No, it might not be your position but its still a legitimate position.

A damn good reason would be the actual contents of the Treaty and not the lies. I don't think anyone here doesn't respect the votes of those who voted on the facts of the treaty, whether they were for Yes or No. As I said before I don't respect the votes of those who voted out of ignorance on issues that weren't covered by the treaty.

Jax Teller

the country will be in a even worse state if we vote no again

Dinner

brianthebard wrote: »

Unless you've asked everyone who voted what reason they have for voting no I think you're a bit premature to suggest that people's reasons are irrelevant

I take it you're not a fan of statistics then?

oncevotedff

The Lisbon Treaty cannot legally come into force until ratified by all member states.

So if Ireland rejects Lisbon again then either;

1. We are asked to run another referendum.

2. Lisbon is abandoned and everybody starts again from scratch.

3. The big states break away and form some other form of Union. A two tier Europe.

Option 1 is probably pointless since a third referendum even if anybody thought it worthwhile would not be held before the British general election. The Conservatives are likely to win and they have promised to hold their own referendum if the treaty hasn't been ratified by all member states when they come to power. It is highly unlikely that the British will vote for Lisbon.

Option 2 doesn't seem to generate much enthusiasm.

So it'll be option 3. In any event if we Vote No then Lisbon is dead.

sparklepants

KINGVictor wrote: »

I am going with the facts.
>Ireland votes NO...End of Lisbon treaty.

Probably

>Ireland still remains a member of the EU

Yes

>There would be disaffection from some member countries but Institutionally..pretty much the same...unless there is a change in the EU as we know it today.

It would be naive to assume that European politicians who have long identified the need for change would simply hang up their boots and accept the status quo. Abandoning the treaty would lead to an acceleration of enhanced cooperation, where some bigger countries proceed to work closer together and exclude others. Nothing in existing legislation prohibits this.

>We would still be able to access funds as usual within the existing framework.

No, the funds that you refer to are typically a matter of negotiation. As the destroyers of Lisbon our negotiating position would be considerably weakened.

>Investors would still come to Ireland (from their perspective nothing has changed...Lisbon is an internal matter within a bloc)...if there are enabling economic /social factors.
In summary...all those suggesting that it would restrict FDIs because of a No vote are quite wrong.Investors go where they would make a profit.

Multinationals are interested in making profit, sure. They will choose to invest in countries where they can do that to best effect. Clearly they believe that they can make profit more effectively in an Ireland that is "at the heart of the EU", to use Intel's words. Why else do you think they're calling for a yes vote? I note you responded to this question but avoided answering it.

China has a woeful record with human rights ...yet there are full of investors.India does not have an efficient Infrastructural base...yet investors go there....same with Mexico,Brazil,South Africa.As long we carve a nitche for ourselves and offer investors something they would hardly find elsewhere....they would come to us irrespective of a whether we vote NO or Yes.

What niche are you talking about? There's no longer anything that Ireland offers that isn't available elsewhere. We've got to do our best to retain what we have. Alienating existing investors isn't carving a niche- it's digging a grave.

Furious-Dave

keysersoze_88 wrote: »

the country will be in a even worse state if we vote no again

Things are going to get worse anyway. I believe we can't take the risk creating an uncertain future for the EU.

sink

brianthebard wrote: »

What do you think would be a 'damn good reason'?

The only 'damn good reason' for voting no to the Lisbon treaty is to vote against a political union of European states. If you are for a political union of European states there is virtually No overriding reason to vote against it. Any argument made against the treaty from the pro political integration point of view, is nit picking small niggles which are outweighed by the tremendous benefits the treaty has to offer.

Martin 2

KINGVictor wrote: »

I am going with the facts.
>Ireland votes NO...End of Lisbon treaty.
>Ireland still remains a member of the EU
>There would be disaffection from some member countries but Institutionally..pretty much the same...unless there is a change in the EU as we know it today.
>We would still be able to access funds as usual within the existing framework.
>Investors would still come to Ireland (from their perspective nothing has changed...Lisbon is an internal matter within a bloc)...if there are enabling economic /social factors.
In summary...all those suggesting that it would restrict FDIs because of a No vote are quite wrong.Investors go where they would make a profit.China has a woeful record with human rights ...yet there are full of investors.India does not have an efficient Infrastructural base...yet investors go there....same with Mexico,Brazil,South Africa.As long we carve a nitche for ourselves and offer investors something they would hardly find elsewhere....they would come to us irrespective of a whether we vote NO or Yes.

Some of what you state are facts some are speculation and wishful thinking.

Ireland votes NO...End of Lisbon treaty.
Fact, we will be responsible for the end of the Lisbon treaty.

Ireland still remains a member of the EU
Fact, the EU will not kick us out but we will have effectively put ourselves on the periphery of the EU (only country to reject Lisbon). How does that look to investors.

There would be disaffection from some member countries but Institutionally..pretty much the same...unless there is a change in the EU as we know it today.
Fact. But disaffection from other countries is not a good thing when you're trying to do business with those countries. If you had read the Paul Rellis (Microsoft) article would would see that the AMCHAM agree with "the rationale of the Lisbon Treaty to upgrade the processes of the EU to reflect the needs of a larger Union of 27 member states in a rapidly changing world".

Investors would still come to Ireland (from their perspective nothing has changed...Lisbon is an internal matter within a bloc)...if there are enabling economic /social factors.
Not a fact, as you do not know that for sure. To paraphrase what I said before, on the balance sheet of whether to invest in Ireland or not a Yes goes firmly on the invest side along with low corportate tax (CT) and market access and a No on the don't invest side along with excessive costs.

In summary...all those suggesting that it would restrict FDIs because of a No vote are quite wrong.Investors go where they would make a profit.China has a woeful record with human rights ...yet there are full of investors.India does not have an efficient Infrastructural base...yet investors go there....same with Mexico,Brazil,South Africa.As long we carve a nitche for ourselves and offer investors something they would hardly find elsewhere....they would come to us irrespective of a whether we vote NO or Yes.
Yes, we have already carved a niche for ourselves in the multinational sector selling into the EU and all the multinationals I know of (we provided you with sources earlier) operating in this niche want a Yes vote.

If a No is good or at the very least agnostic for the concerns of Irish business then why are the business organisations I mentioned previously supporting a Yes vote? Can you name one multinational or business organisation supporting a No?



Ps. In case anyone thinks I'm defending big business here I'm not I'm putting the case for the people who work in these companies and those of us who depend on them, which is nearly everyone.

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

What with this us and them? Ireland is part of the EU, there should be no distinctions made as to what "the EU" will do to another member state. This sort of scaremongering is the worst face of the Yes campaign.

Maybe there shouldn't be but then a boss should make no distinctions with his employees either. That doesn't mean it won't happen. Sticking two fingers up at the EU for no good reason can do nothing but harm us.

brianthebard wrote: »

What do you think would be a 'damn good reason'? Who says we all voted on the basis of a pack of lies? Again I'm really disappointed with the level of respect shown for people who voted No, it might not be your position but its still a legitimate position.

I have been listening very closely to the no campaign since I first heard of the Lisbon treaty. I really wanted to show them respect but despite all of my searching, the only valid reason I found was some people have a general objection to the way the EU is going and even that is not specifically against Lisbon.

What specific parts of the treaty did you object to?

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

Unless you've asked everyone who voted what reason they have for voting no I think you're a bit premature to suggest that people's reasons are irrelevant, or that its less permitted to vote no than to vote for what 'The EU' wants. More scaremongering tbh.

They've been asked. They gave their reasons. We got ridiculous "guarantees" because none of the objections were in the treaty. Their only purpose was to confirm this fact

ixtlan

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They've been asked. They gave their reasons. We got ridiculous "guarantees" because none of the objections were in the treaty. Their only purpose was to confirm this fact

But surely their reasons were issues that are now clarified in the guarantees? It's true they are clarifying things that the treaty will not do, but those were the reasons people gave in surveys for not voting yes.

The exceptions were...

Too many foreigners... which cannot be resolved without leaving the EU

Don't know enough... which surely can be taken as tell me more and maybe I'll vote yes...

Loss of sovereignty... which is rather vague and difficult to resolve without people being more specific.

Ix.

nesf

Hagar wrote: »

The truth was never hidden. I said I don't care about the outcome, and that is the simple truth. It will have no effect whatsoever on me or my life. I just don't agree with the Govt asking the electorate twice.

So we should never have rerun referendums on abortion, divorce etc? The Government of the day, can and will rerun referendums so long as they get the result they disagree with, it's how the system works. What matters is that the Government of the day cannot just change the constitution themselves and that they can only do this if the public decide to allow them.

Tony EH

Furious-Dave wrote: »

Scrapping the treaty will still effect all of them. Besides, it's the governments' job to ratify treaty, not the peoples'.

Even if it's against the will of the people?

Oh yeh, the people weren't asked.

Sam Vimes

ixtlan wrote: »

But surely their reasons were issues that are now clarified in the guarantees? It's true they are clarifying things that the treaty will not do, but those were the reasons people gave in surveys for not voting yes.

They were clarified, yes, but only to spell out precisely what was always the case. The guarantees meant that the no crowd could spout fewer lies next time.

Tony EH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We're punishing them. The EU did not spend 5 years and millions putting the treaty together for the craic. It's meant to make the EU run better and more efficiently and does a host of things that make the union better. The people of the EU are being denied these improvements because you don't like Brian Cowen

"We" aren't "punishing" the people of the EU in any way shape or form, because the people of the EU weren't asked their opinion on Lisbon.

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

"We" aren't "punishing" the people of the EU in any way shape or form, because the people of the EU weren't asked their opinion on Lisbon.

Whether some people in Europe want the treaty or not has no bearing on whether it would be good for them in reality. Even if everyone in Europe thinks the treaty is bad, that doesn't mean it is if their opinions is based on lies

ei.sdraob

Tony EH wrote: »

"We" aren't "punishing" the people of the EU in any way shape or form, because the people of the EU weren't asked their opinion on Lisbon.

no but their elected representatives were asked

that's how democracy works (even in this country)

typical No rubbish mixing up direct and representative democratic systems, sigh

:cool:

turgon

I just completely fail to see the issue here.

Yee all consider that "the will of the people" is being ignored. How do ye claim that? The government is having a second referendum, the result of which will be directly equal to the will of the people who vote. They cannot ignore the will of the people as placed through the ballot box.

If the will of the people is really a No vote, then the second referendum will be a No. Whats the problem?


Or "the government is forcing through a yes vote." How can the government force anything? Yes they can hold a referendum but they cant force you to vote, never mind to vote a particular way.


There is one thing thats clear - ye aren't voting No because ye think the second referendum is bad, ye think the second referendum is bad because yeer voting No.

brianthebard

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Maybe there shouldn't be but then a boss should make no distinctions with his employees either. That doesn't mean it won't happen. Sticking two fingers up at the EU for no good reason can do nothing but harm us.

'The EU' is not our boss. Tbh I'm shocked at your attitude, it really is complete scaremongering. Its not sticking the two fingers up any more than the parliament voting against a bill is sticking two fingers up at the guy who introduced it. Anyone in this country has the right to vote no without feeling as if they are going to be squashed like a bug by some mighty overlord. Is it any wonder that some people that voted no have such a poor image of the EU when people who canvass for a yes vote talk like the above?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They've been asked. They gave their reasons. We got ridiculous "guarantees" because none of the objections were in the treaty. Their only purpose was to confirm this fact

Who's they? why are the guarantees ridiculous? I think the least a government can do is try to address the concerns of the citizens of the country. If they only confirm what's in the treaty then what you're saying is either that the treaty is also ridiculous, or you have a poor attitude towards government making amends. Either is again pretty shocking.

ixtlan

The only negative thing that can be said about multiple referendums is that it's annoying to have to keep saying no... assuming that is your choice. It can also be annoying for us yes-voters to say yes again.

It is not un-democratic. In fact it's very very democratic. Possibly annoying, but certainly democratic. And to preempt the "we won't vote again following a yes", we absolutely do vote again after every yes. A new treaty will be negotiated and we will vote again, just as we are voting now following voting yes to Nice.

The law says the government can run another referendum and they are doing so. They probably legally could run a third, but for the reasons given above it won't happen. A no on this occasion will be the last opportunity the Irish will have to express a view on the EU for many years.


Ix

prinz

brianthebard wrote: »

'The EU' is not our boss. Tbh I'm shocked at your attitude, it really is complete scaremongering.

That was the stock answer for every anti-Treaty representative I have ever heard. 'If all else fails accuse them of scaremongering!'.

brianthebard wrote: »

Who's they? why are the guarantees ridiculous? I think the least a government can do is try to address the concerns of the citizens of the country.

They've done that, yet you're still against the Treaty.

Sam Vimes

brianthebard wrote: »

'The EU' is not our boss. Tbh I'm shocked at your attitude, it really is complete scaremongering. Its not sticking the two fingers up any more than the parliament voting against a bill is sticking two fingers up at the guy who introduced it. Anyone in this country has the right to vote no without feeling as if they are going to be squashed like a bug by some mighty overlord. Is it any wonder that some people that voted no have such a poor image of the EU when people who canvass for a yes vote talk like the above?

Yes anyone has the right to vote whatever way they want but if they can't give a good reason for doing it, they make themselves look like idiots. take for example all the people who voted no because of the misguided notion that it would get rid of Fianna Fail. Well it didn't and now in Europe Ireland looks like the country that will stall progress because of internal matters. whether we like FF or not should not figure in our decision making.

brianthebard wrote: »

Who's they? why are the guarantees ridiculous? I think the least a government can do is try to address the concerns of the citizens of the country. If they only confirm what's in the treaty then what you're saying is either that the treaty is also ridiculous, or you have a poor attitude towards government making amends. Either is again pretty shocking.

The guarantees are ridiculous because all they do is confirm what's already in the treaty. As for your either-or situation, it's the second one, I have a poor attitude towards the government making amends. I am embarrassed that they had to go to the EU and ask them to tell the Irish people what they had already told them, because the Irish people were too lazy to find out for themselves and instead believed a pack of lies.

Tony EH

ei.sdraob wrote: »

no but their elected representatives were asked

that's how democracy works (even in this country)

typical No rubbish mixing up direct and representative democratic systems, sigh

:cool:

Typical "representative democracy" rubbish. :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

Tony EH wrote: »

Typical "representative democracy" rubbish. :rolleyes:

Yes indeed. The democratic system of the 27 member states of the EU is rubbish......

nesf

brianthebard wrote: »

'The EU' is not our boss. Tbh I'm shocked at your attitude, it really is complete scaremongering.

He didn't say that. He merely said that sticking up two fingers to a group that we are constantly negotiating and working with isn't a good idea, which bluntly is pretty reasonable. The question isn't whether this is a bad idea, it is, the question is how much of a "sticking up two fingers" is a No vote. Personally, I don't think it is much of one but to argue it won't lose us any influence or traction in the EU in the short term is naive.

ixtlan

brianthebard wrote: »

Who's they?

The public, in surveys after the no vote. This was the only practical way to judge exactly why people voted in a particular way.

brianthebard wrote: »

why are the guarantees ridiculous?

Actually I believe it was another no debater who used this phrase first, saying they were ridiculous because they didn't address the people's concerns, even though they do. Correction, it was Sam, a yes debater, saying they were ridiculous because they were to paraphrase... stating the obvious... it gets a bit confusing in here at times...

brianthebard wrote: »

I think the least a government can do is try to address the concerns of the citizens of the country.

Which they have done in the guarantees.

brianthebard wrote: »

If they only confirm what's in the treaty then what you're saying is either that the treaty is also ridiculous, or you have a poor attitude towards government making amends. Either is again pretty shocking.

This is going around in circles. The concerns of many no-voters boiled done to needing clarification on what the treaty meant. The guarantees do merely confirm what's in the treaty, but it seems that was the concern. What is in the treaty...

As with all our referenda, we never have debated whether treaty clauses are good or bad. We always debate what the clauses mean. Therefore it's not unreasonable that concerns can be addressed by clarifying what clauses mean.

ix

marco_polo

ixtlan wrote: »

The only negative thing that can be said about multiple referendums is that it's annoying to have to keep saying no... assuming that is your choice. It can also be annoying for us yes-voters to say yes again.

It is not un-democratic. In fact it's very very democratic. Possibly annoying, but certainly democratic. And to preempt the "we won't vote again following a yes", we absolutely do vote again after every yes. A new treaty will be negotiated and we will vote again, just as we are voting now following voting yes to Nice.

The law says the government can run another referendum and they are doing so. They probably legally could run a third, but for the reasons given above it won't happen. A no on this occasion will be the last opportunity the Irish will have to express a view on the EU for many years.


Ix

You would think that people who are saying the Government should respect the 'will of the people' and do not trust Representate Democracy and the Government they elected to act in their best interest, would be glad to to have the opportunity to exercise Direct Democracy more often.

And yet they are upset about having another vote? :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

marco_polo wrote: »

You would think that people who are saying the Government should respect the 'will of the people' and do not trust Representate Democracy and the Government they elected to act in their best interest, would be glad to to have the opportunity to exercise Direct Democracy more often.

And yet they are upset about having another vote? :rolleyes:

I always wonder why these same people don't think the fact that we have a general election every 5 years is undemocratic. The people have spoken, why do they keep asking them!!!!