"Second 'No' will deeply damage our reputation" - Micheal Martin TD, Minister for FA

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Yes - referenda results should be binding - I agree.

So you accept that it's not possible to hold a binding referendum in the Netherlands on this subject without constitutional change? In other words, what you said earlier was wrong?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you accept that it's not possible to hold a binding referendum in the Netherlands on this subject without constitutional change? In other words, what you said earlier was wrong?

What I mean is that the politicians should choose to be bound by them where they are not already constitutionally required to be. This is a moral issue. Do nations have the right to self-determination or not?

Mario007

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Yes - referenda results should be binding - I agree. Which is one reason for opposing the slippery attempts of the Dutch govt to get around the democratically-expressed will of the people with respect to 95% of the provisions of Lisbon that were contained in the EU Constitution. I am aware that the PM Balkanende publicly threatened that if the parliament passed a referendum over his head (as last time), he would order the Queen to veto it. So much for the concerns of the Dutch people being addressed. In fact, over 60% of the Dutch say they would reject Lisbon in the latest polls. That - rather than 'constitutional difficulties' is the real reason there wasn't a referendum.

and the queen could tell him to go away. queen is a sovereign figure in the Netherlands as well. by the way i love how you swayed the argument from France to Netherlands to support your points...

Mario007

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

What I mean is that the politicians should choose to be bound by them where they are not already constitutionally required to be. This is a moral issue. Do nations have the right to self-determination or not?

thats up to each individual nation to decide for itself, it's not something you can just decide upon. if you truly believe you can order nations to have whatever laws that you want them to have then YOU could be classified as the stereotypical 'eu elite'...

FutureTaoiseach

Mario007 wrote: »

thats up to each individual nation to decide for itself, it's not something you can just decide upon. if you truly believe you can order nations to have whatever laws that you want them to have then YOU could be classified as the stereotypical 'eu elite'...

Well that depends on what you define the "nation" as - the people or the politicians? At least the people don't have a whip-system to keep them in line with their masters.

Mario007

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Well that depends on what you define the "nation" as - the people or the politicians? At least the people don't have a whip-system to keep them in line with their masters.

Nation is a mass of people that share a common history, tongue, culture and land. This includes politicians too as they are also people(believe it or not). The people of the nation elect some of the members of the society to represent them and thus the voice of the those people is reflected by the given deputy(particulary in the PR voting system).
The whip system is flawed,true, but just because Ireland has it that doesn't mean every mean every nation has it. In fact I've lived in three different states and only Ireland had a whip system, so you are misleading by the suggesting that all politicians fall under the whip system.

K-9

Michael Martin wrote:

In his article, Mr Arnold ignores the fact that the new system gives each country one vote, which means that Ireland has one vote, just the same as Germany.

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Such nonsense. Ireland will have a 0.9% population weight, compared to a 2.1% weighted-vote at present. The numerical weighted-vote is being abolished in favour of a double-majority of population and member state, requiring the approval of 55% of th emember states including 65% of the EU's population.

He is correct in what he says.

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

Effectively, that will allow 4 Big States to block all legislation, while 11 small countries couldn't because of an inability to breach the 35% population threshold needed to form a blocking-minority.

How often has that happened before?

ixtlan

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Ireland will have a 0.9% population weight, compared to a 2.1% weighted-vote at present. The numerical weighted-vote is being abolished in favour of a double-majority of population and member state, requiring the approval of 55% of th emember states including 65% of the EU's population. Effectively, that will allow 4 Big States to block all legislation, while 11 small countries couldn't because of an inability to breach the 35% population threshold needed to form a blocking-minority. Another disturbing element of this is the fact that QMV will be used to choose the President of the European Council, which will no longer rotate every 6 months between the member states, further entrench the power of the Big States in the EU at the expense of the Small.

We can argue this. I believe someone did a statistical analysis of the likely effect of the voting changes and concluded that the result was marginal and possibly weighted in Ireland's favour. I'm sure someone else can provide a link. Anyhow, in the real world the large states don't always agree, just as neither do the small states.

My main point is that while we can argue the effect I would hope that all the no-side would acknowledge that simply saying our voting weight is 0.8% period, is highly mis-leading and dishonest. If you are promoting a no-vote to less knowledgeable voters I hope you would give them the full picture. I certainly will not say to people, "it's not 0.8%, it's 3.8% for all states equally", even though that statement is as true as the 0.8% one.

Ix.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote:

Effectively, that will allow 4 Big States to block all legislation, while 11 small countries couldn't because of an inability to breach the 35% population threshold needed to form a blocking-minority.

The 11 smallest countries can't currently block legislation under Nice (except under the 67% of countries rule), and the four biggest can block under either system.

Ireland's ability to block or pass legislation by itself is - as should be immediately obvious - non-existent. Our ability to block or pass legislation is therefore dependent on the ability of our government to form voting alliances with other member states. Therefore I would suggest that instead of working yourself up into a lather over the slight change in voting mechanics, you concern yourself instead with the massive loss of goodwill accruing in the event of a second No.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

We can argue this. I believe someone did a statistical analysis of the likely effect of the voting changes and concluded that the result was marginal and possibly weighted in Ireland's favour. I'm sure someone else can provide a link. Anyhow, in the real world the large states don't always agree, just as neither do the small states.

My main point is that while we can argue the effect I would hope that all the no-side would acknowledge that simply saying our voting weight is 0.8% period, is highly mis-leading and dishonest. If you are promoting a no-vote to less knowledgeable voters I hope you would give them the full picture. I certainly will not say to people, "it's not 0.8%, it's 3.8% for all states equally", even though that statement is as true as the 0.8% one.

Ix.

This is IRLConor's analysis:

For the 6 voting methods above:

1. Appears to replace a voting method I'll call "Nice 50%".
2. Is new.
3. Appears to replace a voting method I'll call "Nice 67%".
4. Is the same as 1 except is used in the case of "enhanced cooperation" votes.
5. Is the same as 3 except is used in the case of "enhanced cooperation" votes.
6. Is a transitional method and is the same as the Nice methods except that the percentage of countries requirement is gone.

"Nice 50%" requires 50% of countries, 74% of the weighted votes and 62% of the population.
"Nice 67%" requires 2/3s of countries, 74% of the weighted votes and 62% of the population.

So, to compare old with new (and, where possible like with like) I have compared some of the voting methods by writing a program to brute force all 134.2 million potential voting scenarios. I have not done the enhanced cooperation ones, since the number of permutations is higher and I hadn't taken that into account when first writing the program. If people want, I can do those as well, but it may not get done before the vote happens.

The method I have used is to define a notion of a "win". A country "wins" if their vote is the same as the final outcome. If they vote yes, they only win if the proposal passes; if they vote no, they only win if the proposal fails.

Here are 1 vs "Nice 50%" and 3 vs "Nice 67%" (the two most likely voting scenarios as I see them):

Country|Wins with Nice 50%|Wins with TEU 16(4)|% Change
Austria|67935350|67111454|-1.21
Belgium|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Bulgaria|67935350|67111454|-1.21
Cyprus|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Czech Republic|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Denmark|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Estonia|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Finland|67692480|67111454|-0.86
France|69177624|67111464|-2.99
Germany|69177624|67111472|-2.99
Greece|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Hungary|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Ireland|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Italy|69177624|67111464|-2.99
Latvia|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Lithuania|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Luxembourg|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Malta |67360308|67111454|-0.37
Netherlands|68170648|67111454|-1.55
Poland|69083206|67111460|-2.85
Portugal|68091934|67111454|-1.44
Romania|68247372|67111454|-1.66
Slovakia|67692480|67111454|-0.86
Slovenia|67444384|67111454|-0.49
Spain|69083206|67111460 |-2.85
Sweden|67935350|67111454|-1.21
UK|69177624|67111464|-2.99


Country|Wins with Nice 67%|Wins with TFEU 238 (2)|% Change
Austria|67867657|67634816|-0.34
Belgium|67965305|67640436|-0.48
Bulgaria|67867657|67633544|-0.34
Cyprus|67565761|67620020|0.08
Czech Republic|67965305|67638332|-0.48
Denmark|67719853|67628780|-0.13
Estonia|67565761|67620976|0.08
Finland|67719853|67628658|-0.13
France|68669973|67768654|-1.31
Germany|68669973|67839364|-1.21
Greece|67965305|67640436|-0.48
Hungary|67965305|67638332|-0.48
Ireland|67719853|67626524|-0.14
Italy|68669973|67755348|-1.33
Latvia|67565761|67622890|0.08
Lithuania|67719853|67624900|-0.14
Luxembourg|67565761|67619358|0.08
Malta |67509981|67619216|0.16
Netherlands|68013311|67656000|-0.53
Poland|68592905|67703908|-1.3
Portugal|67965305|67640436|-0.48
Romania|68065305|67664486|-0.59
Slovakia|67719853|67628780|-0.13
Slovenia|67565761|67622350|0.08
Spain|68592905|67712100 |-1.28
Sweden|67867657|67636194|-0.34
UK|68669973|67758640|-1.33


I welcome comments on the method of assessing the voting methods. I know it's not a particularly sophisticated analysis, but I think it's a fair way of measuring the old vs new voting results.

cordially,
scofflaw

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

We can argue this. I believe someone did a statistical analysis of the likely effect of the voting changes and concluded that the result was marginal and possibly weighted in Ireland's favour. I'm sure someone else can provide a link. Anyhow, in the real world the large states don't always agree, just as neither do the small states.

My main point is that while we can argue the effect I would hope that all the no-side would acknowledge that simply saying our voting weight is 0.8% period, is highly mis-leading and dishonest. If you are promoting a no-vote to less knowledgeable voters I hope you would give them the full picture. I certainly will not say to people, "it's not 0.8%, it's 3.8% for all states equally", even though that statement is as true as the 0.8% one.

Ix.

This is my own post based on an analysis which was done on politics.ie (by a No voter, afair):

Scofflaw
05-06-2008, 00:21
This is from a long mathematical analysis of the change in influence in voting for all countries (by a No voter on politics.ie (http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=35034&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=168)) - it's a measure of the loss of 'decisiveness', where your weight on the Council is the decisive factor in the vote:

Lose none
Germany: 1.0 -> 1.0

Lose around 20%
France: 1.0 -> 0.79

Lose around 25%
United Kingdom: 1.0 -> 0.75
Italy: 1.0 -> 0.74

Lose around 40%
Spain: 0.95 -> 0.57
Poland: 0.95 -> 0.49

Lose around 40%
Romania: 0.55 -> 0.36
Netherlands: 0.51 -> 0.30

Lose around 50%
Greece: 0.48 -> 0.24
Portugal: 0.48 -> 0.24
Belgium: 0.48 -> 0.24
Czech Republic: 0.48 -> 0.23
Hungary: 0.48 -> 0.23

Lose around 50%
Sweden: 0.40 -> 0.22
Austria: 0.40 -> 0.21
Bulgaria: 0.40 -> 0.20

Lose around 40%
Denmark: 0.28 -> 0.18
Slovakia: 0.28 -> 0.18
Finland: 0.28 -> 0.18
Ireland: 0.28 -> 0.17
Lithuania: 0.28 -> 0.16

Lose 0-20%
Latvia: 0.16 -> 0.15
Slovenia: 0.16 -> 0.15
Estonia: 0.16 -> 0.14
Cyprus 0.16 -> 0.13
Luxembourg: 0.16->0.13
Malta: 0.12 -> 0.13

That's relative to Germany, so, for Ireland compared to all other countries:

We lose influence (relative) compared to:

Germany (61% of former relative influence)
France (77% of former relative influence)
UK (81% of former relative influence)
Italy (82% of former relative influence)
Romania (93% of former relative influence)
Denmark, Slovakia, Finland (94% of former relative influence)
Latvia, Slovenia (65% of former relative influence)
Estonia (69% of former relative influence)
Cyprus, Luxembourg (75% of former relative influence)
Malta (56% of former relative influence)

And gain influence compared to:

Spain (101% of former relative influence)
Poland (118% of former relative influence)
Netherlands (103% of former relative influence)
Greece, Portugal, Belgium (121% of former relative influence)
Czech Republic, Hungary (127% of former relative influence)
Sweden (110% of former relative influence)
Austria (116% of former relative influence)
Bulgaria (121% of former relative influence)
Lithuania (106% of former relative influence)

That's based on a comparison of our influence compared to Germany to theirs compared to Germany under old and new systems.

And in summary:

We lose ability to pass policies we want (-6%)
We gain blocking power (+6%)
We are less decisive (-36%)

I'll add that QMV voting is only actually used about a quarter of the time where QMV actually applies - and usually it's just to mark someone's opposition rather than being a real vote. The Council usually operates by consensus.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red Sleeping Beauty

taconnol wrote: »

I personally believe s/he's right in saying that voting No will have negative consequences for our country.

How ? What negative consequences await Ireland should the treaty be rejected ?

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you want to impose your personal vision of morality on the other member states?

FT never mentioned his/her own personal vision but you seem to want to misinterpret what he/she is saying.


--
Back on topic :

In that article, Minister Martin doesn't explain exactly how a "no" vote wil "deeply damage our reputation" or exactly how the Lisbon Treaty " will aid our economic recovery and help secure jobs and prosperity in the years ahead. "

He goes on to say though that "I look forward to an open and factual debate in the weeks ahead." Yes minister, open debate would be nice. The BCI 50/50 decision may have hampered that slightly.

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

How ? What negative consequences await Ireland should the treaty be rejected ?

FT never mentioned his/her own personal vision but you seem to want to misinterpret what he/she is saying.

--
Back on topic :

In that article, Minister Martin doesn't explain exactly how a "no" vote wil "deeply damage our reputation" or exactly how the Lisbon Treaty " will aid our economic recovery and help secure jobs and prosperity in the years ahead. "

Well, to quote myself (a terrible habit):

Ireland's ability to block or pass legislation by itself is - as should be immediately obvious - non-existent. Our ability to block or pass legislation is therefore dependent on the ability of our government to form voting alliances with other member states. Therefore I would suggest that instead of working yourself up into a lather over the slight change in voting mechanics, you concern yourself instead with the massive loss of goodwill accruing in the event of a second No.

The talk of how the "ordinary people" of Europe will undyingly love us for our No has always missed the point that the main decision-making body of the EU is the Council of Ministers, where our government sits with other governments, and that the highest political body of the EU is the European Council, where our head of government sits with other heads of government. Those are the governments who, along with our government, negotiated and want the EU reforms in the Treaty of Lisbon. If you think that Ireland's torpedoing of the Treaty will have no negative effects in those bodies, you are inhabiting a far less causal world than I.

cordially,
scofflaw

fashionista911

Is it the way that they are unable to give a proper explanation to the treaty and as was said already scare mongering us because of the CURRENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE thats a new debate not yet gone into

Red Sleeping Beauty

What negative effects will there be then ?

Were there any negative effects on France or the Netherlands following the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe by their referendums ?

P. Breathnach

Alan Rouge wrote: »

What negative effects will there be then ?

Were there any negative effects on France or the Netherlands following the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe by their referendums ?

I can't believe that you do not understand what it is like to be friendless.

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

What negative effects will there be then ?

Were there any negative effects on France or the Netherlands following the rejection of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe by their referendums ?

No, because they are at the heart of Europe by right, whereas we are at it by invitation. That central part of Western Europe is the point of the EU - we are not. And, of course, they are both contributing nations, whereas we are a beneficiary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SkepticOne

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, because they are at the heart of Europe by right, whereas we are at it by invitation. That central part of Western Europe is the point of the EU - we are not. And, of course, they are both contributing nations, whereas we are a beneficiary.

Can anyone give an example of a country that part of the EU and as been in the EU for a reasonable time that is not at the heart of the EU?

Red Sleeping Beauty

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, because they are at the heart of Europe by right, whereas we are at it by invitation. That central part of Western Europe is the point of the EU - we are not. And, of course, they are both contributing nations, whereas we are a beneficiary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ireland doesn't contribute to the EU's budget at all no ?

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, because they are at the heart of Europe by right, whereas we are at it by invitation. That central part of Western Europe is the point of the EU - we are not. And, of course, they are both contributing nations, whereas we are a beneficiary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The "heart of Europe" is just a slogan.

SkepticOne

I was thinking that perhaps Britain might not be "at the heart of Europe" but politicians there also talk about "remaining at the heart of Europe".

Red Sleeping Beauty

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, because they are at the heart of Europe by right, whereas we are at it by invitation. That central part of Western Europe is the point of the EU - we are not. And, of course, they are both contributing nations, whereas we are a beneficiary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Is the "heart of Europe" thing political or geographical or is it an economic phrase ?

Scofflaw

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Ireland doesn't contribute to the EU's budget at all no ?

We pay in, we get money out. The balance was about half a billion net benefit to us last year. Since the amount we pay in depends on how well our economy is doing (being, as it is, a proportion of our VAT and a payment related to GNI), while the amount we get depends on how much assistance we need, that balance, which has been declining since 1997, may well go up again.

Is the "heart of Europe" thing political or geographical or is it an economic phrase ?

Depends how you look at it, I suppose. The essential point of the EU was originally to prevent war in Europe, after the devastation of WWII (and WWI and the Franco-Prussian War before that). Since we were never likely to either start or even contribute to a European war, we're not really relevant to the essential purpose of Europe. France and Germany, and to a lesser extent the countries in between them - Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg - are the heart of Europe, or the heart of the original conception of the EU. The UK, Italy, Austria, all have a good claim to be pretty close after that, but from that point of view we're a peripheral region.

Looked at another way, though, as a people the Irish have been important in the EU, and have a good claim to have been at the heart of the EU as it exists on a day to day basis. We've been probably its best negotiators (there's a reason the Secretary of the Commission is an Irishwoman, who succeeded an Irishman), and the most pro-European country in the EU. Both of those remain the case - the Constitution was finally negotiated under Cowen and Ahern during the Irish Presidency, it's largely thanks to the Irish negotiators that much of the deals struck in the Constitution survived into Lisbon, and getting the Lisbon guarantees agreed as Protocols was widely regarded as extremely hard to pull off - and we remain far more pro-European than the majority of countries. We've also been the largest beneficiaries per head year in year out for a couple of decades, and then the poster-child for the benefits that being in the EU can produce, and the extent to which a small country can get its way by really getting on board. Sure, if we want to sit in the corner with our backs to everyone playing with our sovereignty we can do that, but it didn't bring us any joy last time, and it won't this time either.

We aren't essential to the party, we didn't even bring any beer - we're liggers getting by on charm and enthusiasm, and while we won't be shown the door if we don't want to party, we won't be getting our favourites played either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote:

Depends how you look at it, I suppose. The essential point of the EU was originally to prevent war in Europe, after the devastation of WWII (and WWI and the Franco-Prussian War before that). Since we were never likely to either start or even contribute to a European war, we're not really relevant to the essential purpose of Europe. France and Germany, and to a lesser extent the countries in between them - Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg - are the heart of Europe, or the heart of the original conception of the EU. The UK, Italy, Austria, all have a good claim to be pretty close after that, but from that point of view we're a peripheral region.

I'm tired of hearing an argument about something that happened 64 years ago that is irrelevant to the EU being trotted out every time we have a referendum on an EU treaty. It has no relevance to Lisbon, and indeed it arguably makes Lisbon a worse proposition, since millions died fighting for their freedom, which is being given away to the bureaucrats in Brussels. I also think the narrative is wrong. Nuclear deterrents and the massive American military presence in Europe kept the peace. To start world war 3 would have meant M.A.D. (mutually-assured destruction).

sdanseo

I like the OP's abbrevation of "Minister for FA".

He missed out the word "sweet" though.

c_o_ck p_i_ss chillage

Are we borrowing money to have this referendum? If so, I'm voting "No".

Imposter

Scofflaw wrote: »

The talk of how the "ordinary people" of Europe will undyingly love us for our No has always missed the point that the main decision-making body of the EU is the Council of Ministers, where our government sits with other governments, and that the highest political body of the EU is the European Council, where our head of government sits with other heads of government. Those are the governments who, along with our government, negotiated and want the EU reforms in the Treaty of Lisbon. If you think that Ireland's torpedoing of the Treaty will have no negative effects in those bodies, you are inhabiting a far less causal world than I.

cordially,
scofflaw

There are also enough ordinary people who were annoyed about the no votes so that's a non-argument. Similarly Ireland voting no shouldn't have a hugely negative affect on how other european politicians see us. After all they know we've already voted no a few times on the latest treaties and they should as politicians accept that we must have had the referendum on the issue. If a lot of badwill should develop then imo it just shows how undemocratic the politicians views are! Voting no should mean that a new treaty would need renegotiating and hopefully a discussion on where the people want europe to be can be started during this process and not one of where the politicians want europe to be.

Macha

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Nuclear deterrents and the massive American military presence in Europe kept the peace. To start world war 3 would have meant M.A.D. (mutually-assured destruction).

What? You entirely reject the concept that economic integration has been fundamental in tying Europe's needs together and thus diminishing the prospect of another large-scale war? How convenient :rolleyes:

It must be nice to be able to put on whichever glasses suits your argument at any given time. I'm starting to believe that not even the No's can't believe some of the stuff they're coming out with.

Have you even read the Schuman Declaration?

ei.sdraob

sdonn wrote: »

I like the OP's abbrevation of "Minister for FA".

He missed out the word "sweet" though.

thats a good one

(un)fortunately the boards title length restrictions stopped me from adding more characters and words

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I'm tired of hearing an argument about something that happened 64 years ago that is irrelevant to the EU being trotted out every time we have a referendum on an EU treaty.

This, from somebody who uses our own patriot dead to bolster his arguments!

It has no relevance to Lisbon, and indeed it arguably makes Lisbon a worse proposition, since millions died fighting for their freedom, which is being given away to the bureaucrats in Brussels. I also think the narrative is wrong. Nuclear deterrents and the massive American military presence in Europe kept the peace. To start world war 3 would have meant M.A.D. (mutually-assured destruction).

You have no sense of history. That paragraph is so crass that you should be ashamed.