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

K-9

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. 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).

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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

Damn, you got there before me.

I think Scofflaw's summary is quite good. We really aren't that important to Europe, no more than say Cyprus or Malta.

Ironically, what makes us box above our weight is that we do have Referenda!

hatrickpatrick

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

And therein lies why I disagree with your entire argument. Whose wishes are more important, the government's or the people's? In a democracy, the government works for the people. If we have to choose between making the political elite you have just outlined happy, or making the people happy, I'd choose the people. Otherwise the whole idea that we live in a democratic world is a farce.

So government, as you keep referring to it, is irrelevant. It's the people we should be seeking the approval of.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And therein lies why I disagree with your entire argument. Whose wishes are more important, the government's or the people's? In a democracy, the government works for the people. If we have to choose between making the political elite you have just outlined happy, or making the people happy, I'd choose the people. Otherwise the whole idea that we live in a democratic world is a farce.

So government, as you keep referring to it, is irrelevant. It's the people we should be seeking the approval of.

Well, the question was what the negative consequences would be. The answer is that we'll be pissing off the governments that our government deals with in the EU. That's a straight-forward practical consequence of our No vote, and I think it's inarguable.

Now, your argument is that we should ignore that practical consequence and vote No on the basis that it's what The People want. OK, except we don't know that it's what The People want. What we do know is that of those who voted on the Constitution and Lisbon, the majority said Yes, not No.

Cue argument about how we can only consider whether the "electoral college" of countries voted Yes or No. OK, but that's not an argument about the people at all. It's a huge shift of goalposts from people to countries.

Do you see? Try making the argument that we should vote No on behalf of the people of Europe without dragging in the division into countries, and let's see how far you get. Because otherwise, the fact is that insofar as we know, from referendums, what the people of Europe actually want, they want a Yes.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And therein lies why I disagree with your entire argument. Whose wishes are more important, the government's or the people's? In a democracy, the government works for the people. If we have to choose between making the political elite you have just outlined happy, or making the people happy, I'd choose the people. Otherwise the whole idea that we live in a democratic world is a farce.

So government, as you keep referring to it, is irrelevant. It's the people we should be seeking the approval of.

In a representative democracy, the government represent the people. What you're talking about is having a referendum on every law - impossible! (hence the creation of representative democracy)

ixtlan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And therein lies why I disagree with your entire argument. Whose wishes are more important, the government's or the people's? In a democracy, the government works for the people. If we have to choose between making the political elite you have just outlined happy, or making the people happy, I'd choose the people. Otherwise the whole idea that we live in a democratic world is a farce.

So government, as you keep referring to it, is irrelevant. It's the people we should be seeking the approval of.

Unfortunately it isn't really easy for us 4 million odd Irish to negotiate a treaty with the 400 million odd Europeans. Or indeed ask their opinion.

The sad reality, which I assume you would accept, is that most EU citizens have little or no knowledge of Lisbon, and when they next vote for their national governments it's unlikely to figure as an issue.

Therefore until such time as there are governments elected in Europe who oppose Lisbon, we must accept that the people of Europe want Lisbon to succeed, because they have chosen their governments to speak for them.

I think your argument is that all these other governments are actively working against the will of their people, and presumeably hiding from them the truth about Lisbon. I find that rather far-fetched, especially since most of the EU states are small like us, and many have much better track records as regards democracy and corruption. Can all these politicans across all these countries really be so evil/stupid?

Also, on the matter of the "elites", I find this term rather offensive. I'm not involved in politics in any way, but if I got elected it seems you would then consider me an evil elite. Would I really move from working guy to evil mastermind so quickly? By that measure Joe Higgins is an elite also. A different kind of elite but an elite nonetheless, who believes he knows best what will make the lives of the Irish better. I think he's wrong but I respect him for trying, and I don't consider him an elite.

Ix.

ixtlan

And I'll throw in my comment from earlier which directly referred to the thread title, and which I was disappointed to get no comments on!

In the event of a second no...

Our politicans will be damaged because they do not have the confidence of the people as regards the EU, cannot convince them that what they think is a good deal really is, cannot convince most of them to study the treaty, and cannot convince many to bother to vote at all.

Note I say politicans... not government. FG, Labour and the Greens are in exactly the same boat.

And the people's reputation will be damaged because if we vote no again, we will still (and have already in the MEP elections) elect the same pro-Lisbon groups to represent us in future EU negotiations.

So everyone looks like an idiot, and no one likes negotiating with idiots.

Ix.

Scofflaw

ixtlan wrote: »

And I'll throw in my comment from earlier which directly referred to the thread title, and which I was disappointed to get no comments on!

In the event of a second no...

Our politicans will be damaged because they do not have the confidence of the people as regards the EU, cannot convince them that what they think is a good deal really is, cannot convince most of them to study the treaty, and cannot convince many to bother to vote at all.

Note I say politicans... not government. FG, Labour and the Greens are in exactly the same boat.

And the people's reputation will be damaged because if we vote no again, we will still (and have already in the MEP elections) elect the same pro-Lisbon groups to represent us in future EU negotiations.

So everyone looks like an idiot, and no one likes negotiating with idiots.

Ix.

In short, when any future Irish government wants to negotiate something in the EU - say the WTO next year, or the reform of the CFP, also next year - the rest of the EU governments will ask why they should put themselves out for a government that can't then sell the agreed concessions to its own people, thus forcing everybody back to the negotiating table.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

spotted this in the indo in reply to the Ministers post ...

Tuesday August 25 2009
In his article addressing Bruce Arnold's concerns regarding the Lisbon Treaty, (Irish Independent, August 19) Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin professes to look forward to an open and factual debate in the weeks ahead.

However, apart from repeating his mantra that Lisbon is in the best interests of Ireland, Mr Martin imparts few facts to undecided voters.

His reassurances of the legal guarantees pertaining to taxation rates must be weighed against the opinion of leading constitutional barrister Gerard Hogan who has asserted that, post Lisbon, Ireland's Supreme Court will be eclipsed and the European Court of Justice will decide how the rights laid down in the Charter of Rights attached to the treaty will apply to Ireland.

Therefore it is naive to think that any protocols obtained would be immune from any future legal challenges.

Regarding his warning that a second 'No' would be damaging to our international reputation as an attractive European investment location, Mr Martin is surely aware that our rejection of the treaty has not affected foreign direct investment in Ireland which provided in excess of 6,500 jobs since last June. Contrast this with Spain which has approved the treaty, yet suffers an 18pc unemployment rate.

This contradicts his belief that Lisbon is necessary to aid economic recovery.

James Hogan
Thurles, Co Tipperary

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/minister-offers-few-lisbon-facts-1868259.html

BlitzKrieg

Oh gods if that is who we think it is...We could be neighbours!

*ahh*

marco_polo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Oh gods if that is who we think it is...We could be neighbours!

*ahh*

I visited the 'other site' today, himself and his buddies now seem to be framing the referendum as a vote on NAMA :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

marco_polo wrote: »

I visited the 'other site' today

oh now i know who it is, hmm

dragging NAMA into this is crazy altogether, im fairly anti-NAMA myself but i fail to see what it has anything to do with Lisbon

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

oh now i know who it is, hmm

dragging NAMA into this is crazy altogether, im fairly anti-NAMA myself but i fail to see what it has anything to do with Lisbon

Vote No because you don't like the government, vote No because of NAMA, vote No because you've been asked again, vote No because other people might have voted No in another country several years ago, vote No because of abortion even though it's specifically protected, vote No because of neutrality even though it's specifically protected, vote No because of the NWO, vote No because...well, anything but Lisbon, really.

wearily,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

cause when it comes down to lisbon itself its rather boring and more often then not the facts fall in favour of voting yes over voting no.

MrMicra

Ah Jaysus lads why would the No side want people to vote on the treaty at all? It is easier to lie about what it says and no one'll read it anyway.

lionela

All this waffle about The Lisbon Treaty is a pain in the butt.

The politicians are throwing speeches and shapes all over the place telling us about the problems facing us if there is a second ..No result.

We are already being thrown into such a deep hole as a result of the greed of the smart arses that ran this economy it won't make a monkey's difference whatever the result.

We are shagged one way or the other.

Look at the stealth taxes and levies that are coming your way soon .
Voting No will changes nothing. It will just empower the Irish electorate not to be taken for suckers.

Scofflaw

lionela wrote: »

All this waffle about The Lisbon Treaty is a pain in the butt.

The politicians are throwing speeches and shapes all over the place telling us about the problems facing us if there is a second ..No result.

We are already being thrown into such a deep hole as a result of the greed of the smart arses that ran this economy it won't make a monkey's difference whatever the result.

We are shagged one way or the other.

Look at the stealth taxes and levies that are coming your way soon .
Voting No will changes nothing. It will just empower the Irish electorate not to be taken for suckers.

Really? How exactly will it do that? Will it prevent us voting Fianna Fail in again? Will it result in Fianna Fail resigning in shame, followed by a general election that sees them reduced to nothing?

I don't believe either of those for a second - voting No to Lisbon as a protest against the government is a complete waste of a vote. The only people who'll be pleased are the No campaigns, who are voting No for entirely different reasonsm - but they'll be very happy to see a load of the electorate suckered into endorsing them. You'll still be a sucker, though - just for a different bunch.

regards,
Scofflaw

K-9

It is rare the opposition agree with FF, they do on Lisbon.

Simplicius

I voted no the last time, I have since read what I could...but I am not much clearer on the subject. So taking the worst case scenario that it devolves power to Brussels, I thought about this and decided they could not make a worse job than we do with our parochial political system that is propped up by proportional representation.

so this time I am voting YES.

granite man

Simplicius wrote: »

I voted no the last time, I have since read what I could...but I am not much clearer on the subject. So taking the worst case scenario that it devolves power to Brussels, I thought about this and decided they could not make a worse job than we do with our parochial political system that is propped up by proportional representation.

so this time I am voting YES.

We need to improve on our own political system, not give it away.