Lisbon II - The A&A Thread

robindch

No

Obni wrote: »

I would ask you the following rambling question. If the exit polls following a Yes in the upcoming vote contain a significant proportion of voters voting Yes because it may help us exit this recession sooner and we need all the help we can get, or because it might safeguard their job, or because it will ensure further EU funded development of infrastructure [...] then if you estimate that portion of Yes people made the critical difference in passing the referendum, would you call for a further vote?

It's a fair question, but I suspect that the (possibly faulty) reasons for a yes vote are more likely to be shown to be true, than any of the no-side's highly questionable ad-lines. I've also yet to see any convincing evidence that the no-side isn't either run by, or is designed to appeal to, people who are motivated in large part by either fear or spite. The yes-side appears to derive theirs, as much as anything else I can put my finger on just now, from a knowledge of history together with a sense of co-operation and knowledge. The latter, I think, are more useful traits to encourage in society, so, to answer your question, if the treaty's passed, I don't expect to be storming the Dail in christmas 2010, calling for a new referendum.

BTW, I think the entire debate shows up why this kind of thing should probably be left to professional politicians. As a group, while I'm no friend of them, I'll bet they're more familiar than most of us with the EU and Treaty, and how to leverage our position within the two of them to our national benefit which is really what this debate should all be about.

robindch

No

sink wrote: »

I find it interesting that A&A leans so staggeringly towards Yes side camp. Maybe Atheist & Agnostics have a better bull**** filter then the general population.

It'd be interesting to find out

BTW, as I post, the poll's at 67 (76%) yes, 15 (17%) no, 6 (7%) won't vote.

With the names of unfamiliar posters removed, leaving only people who've posted here occasionally over the last few years, I get 36 (86%) yes, 3 (7%) no and 3 (7%) won't vote.

Make of that what you will.

Obni

Not going to vote

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

If the Lisbon treaty actually did legalise abortion, remove power from our politicians and forcibly remove catholic church influenced laws from Ireland I would have still voted yes.

Hell, if it did that I'd be running around the streets passing out "Vote Yes" pamphlets from now 'til polling day.

Zillah

No

So, out of curiosity, just how pro-Europe are people here? I honestly would like to see a European super state. A grand pan-European federation. As much as I like being Irish, I find myself frequently agreeing more and more with the slightly left, largely secular, reasonable opinions of our mainland counter parts more than I do Paddy Catholic these days.

China is only going to get stronger, the US is declining in power and frequently did horrible things with that power. Australasia and Japan are pretty cool but fairly light weight when it comes to international politics. I would really like to see a more unified and effective EU making it's mark in the world. The more power to Brussels the better in my opinion. Europe might have a turbulent history, but they really got their shit together after WW2 in a "never again" sort of way.

Dinner

No

Zillah wrote: »

So, out of curiosity, just how pro-Europe are people here? I honestly would like to see a European super state. A grand pan-European federation.

I wouldn't object to it. From reading the EU forum I don't think it's a particularly popular opinion though.

I think it is inevitable (in a good way). We've moved from tribes to settlements to clans all the way up to nation states. And with each step we've become slightly more peaceful as a race.

The next step would be a united Europe and maybe someday, a united world.

It won't happen any day soon though. We still have this silly hurdle of Nationalism to get over first.


And just for the record, I don't believe Lisbon brings us closer to what I described.

Húrin

No

robindch wrote: »

Well, I've read the Treaty (has anybody else?) and I'm happy that it's a respectable and decent document. The No-side, in contrast, has descended immediately into a campaign consisting entirely of false-muck-raking and creationist-level shite.

So I'm voting Yes.

So is it untrue that the treaty gives the European Defence Agency greater opportunities to help the military industries prosper by mandating that all member states buy more military gear?

Zillah wrote: »

I think it is very telling that the Yes campaign is based on facts and good arguments, and that the No campaign is based on lies, exaggeration and fear mongering -- and we see that the majority are being duped by the No campaign and here we are, once again in the reasonable minority.

Being supported by atheists doesn't mean that "the Yes campaign is based on facts and good arguments", but using arguments like "yes to jobs, yes to Europe" and "it's simple, etc...." certainly means that it is based on no such thing.

Zillah wrote: »

Hence, your objection to re-submitting the treaty is massively undemocratic: You want to prevent a potential "Yes" majority from having their democratic will done.

You should work for Fianna Fail! They have given us another poll simply because they don't like the answer they got last time. You know it, we all know it. Irish people said No. Why is the new poll any more democratic than the old one?

robindch wrote: »

If the Irish electorate, through the Treaty as negotiated by the Irish government, doesn't agree with the future direction that all the other member countries have agreed, then -- other than a third referendum or the government implementing the Treaty regardless of the result -- I don't see any realistic alternative to Ireland withdrawing from the EU and leaving the other countries get on with it without us.

If we say no again, perhaps the government will be obliged to seek legally binding changes to the Treaty, which could be duly ratified by all the other parliaments. I doubt that most Europeans want to see a more militarised, more neoliberal Europe that the governments are pressing for.

If the government does implement the Treaty regardless of the result, then it will be the last nail in the coffin for Fianna Fail. They get thrown out of power, and thus Ireland wins!

Húrin

No

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Making the EU more efficient might help the economy, as might the increased focus on renewable energy.

Q: So where in the Lisbon Treaty is renewable energy mentioned?

A: It's not.

Zillah wrote: »

So, out of curiosity, just how pro-Europe are people here? I honestly would like to see a European super state.

Location: Canada

A grand pan-European federation. As much as I like being Irish, I find myself frequently agreeing more and more with the slightly left, largely secular, reasonable opinions of our mainland counter parts more than I do Paddy Catholic these days.

What mainland counterparts, exactly? The political views on offer on the mainland go all the way from the far right to the far left so you'll have to be more specific. Thus far the EU leadership has proven to be not at all left-wing but neoliberal.

Nick_oliveri

I don't know, I think its shameful that theres a second vote. I'll echo pH's post above: "Keep voting 'til you get the right answer is not a basis for a democracy". This would NOT be happening with a yes vote. I do believe that it is unfair bias towards a particular result. Yes we weren't informed properly , but we "weren't informed properly" with NICE1 either. Either learn from your mistakes, or be doomed to repeat them, this isn't progress, this isn't Sparta, and since Leonidas isn't around to overthrow this Government with me, I'll be abstaining from voting!!!

I am not saying in any way that whats in the treaty isn't good for everyone, I just cannot vote in this sham.

After that I don't really care either way, although I do think that campaigning should be banned, whether it be ignorance, lies or just plain truth. Let the people decide this sham by themselves, not by a ****ty capcha on a sign on an olwd filthy wooden pole. FO!

Zillah

No

Húrin wrote: »

Location: Canada

Location: Temporary

I think I'll just get rid of it. This is the third time someone has pointed it out as though it were some sort of ace in the hole. I post on boards for seven years, the last few months of which have been from Canada and suddenly I don't count as Irish any more or something.

What mainland counterparts, exactly? The political views on offer on the mainland go all the way from the far right to the far left so you'll have to be more specific. Thus far the EU leadership has proven to be not at all left-wing but neoliberal.

Benelux and Scandinavia mostly. I of course would do more research if I ever had to make a decision on such an enterprise, and exactly how it would be implemented would be crucial.

Why is the new poll any more democratic than the old one?

Because we base our policies on current democratic opinion rather than previous opinion. Hence why Catholics are allowed to attend Trinity college these days.

ChocolateSauce

No

Zillah wrote: »

So, out of curiosity, just how pro-Europe are people here? I honestly would like to see a European super state. A grand pan-European federation. As much as I like being Irish, I find myself frequently agreeing more and more with the slightly left, largely secular, reasonable opinions of our mainland counter parts more than I do Paddy Catholic these days.

I've always identified more with the EU (and many of the other states) than I have with the Irish political system. Although I'm not intrinsically opposed to a federation, I wouldn't support one now. I support a gradual and slow crawl towards "ever closer union", for the time being.

CerebralCortex

No

Zillah wrote: »

So, out of curiosity, just how pro-Europe are people here? I honestly would like to see a European super state. A grand pan-European federation. As much as I like being Irish, I find myself frequently agreeing more and more with the slightly left, largely secular, reasonable opinions of our mainland counter parts more than I do Paddy Catholic these days....

I wouldn't be against some kind of European federation but I think Ireland needs to work on having a far larger population than it has now before that happens or our roll in such a union would be useless.

Dades

No

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

I am not saying in any way that whats in the treaty isn't good for everyone, I just cannot vote in this sham.

How did you vote in the first one?

marco_polo

No

Húrin wrote: »

So is it untrue that the treaty gives the European Defence Agency greater opportunities to help the military industries prosper by mandating that all member states buy more military gear?

Incorrect. Membership of the EDA is completely optional for all member states. And nowhere does it mandate increased spending.

Being supported by atheists doesn't mean that "the Yes campaign is based on facts and good arguments", but using arguments like "yes to jobs, yes to Europe" and "it's simple, etc...." certainly means that it is based on no such thing.

Yes the poster are crap. At least they are not blatent lies. Personally I tend to prefer sources other than lamposts for my information.

You should work for Fianna Fail! They have given us another poll simply because they don't like the answer they got last time. You know it, we all know it. Irish people said No. Why is the new poll any more democratic than the old one?

Interesting twist, I thought the standard line was that this referendum was less democratic. Based on the flawed premise that democracy is some sort of 'for one night only' event?

If we say no again, perhaps the government will be obliged to seek legally binding changes to the Treaty, which could be duly ratified by all the other parliaments. I doubt that most Europeans want to see a more militarised, more neoliberal Europe that the governments are pressing for.

As if they would even know where to start changing the treaty with our rag bag of mostly imagined reasons for saying no to this one. And why is the European Trade Union Conference so keen on this neo-liberalist treaty?

If the government does implement the Treaty regardless of the result, then it will be the last nail in the coffin for Fianna Fail. They get thrown out of power, and thus Ireland wins!

Like the General Elections that occured after the last Lisbon defeats and the Local Election routs? With the popularity of both Fianna Fail and the Greens at an all time low, the last thing they will be doing is throwing themselves out of power.

Flamed Diving

No

Obni wrote: »

The government and administration of this country are in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. They were obliged to put it to a public vote. The people rejected the treaty.
Rather than respecting the will of the people, the government have re-submitted what is largely the same treaty for approval, motivated not by a desire to deliver democratic choice, but because they are simply determined to have their way. The fact that you agree with their objectives seems to have rendered you incapable of recognising their complete disregard for the democratically expressed desires of the electorate.

When I read this post, keeping Zillah's previous post in mind I imagined this:

LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!



LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!

Dades

No

Flamed Diving wrote: »

When I read this post, keeping Zillah's previous post in mind I imagined this...

You'd do well to keep in mind that that type of post is only going to get this thread locked. And that decision won't be put to a vote.

Húrin

No

Zillah wrote: »

Location: Temporary

I think I'll just get rid of it. This is the third time someone has pointed it out as though it were some sort of ace in the hole. I post on boards for seven years, the last few months of which have been from Canada and suddenly I don't count as Irish any more or something.

Fair enough. It just seemed hypocritical to want a European superstate but not want to live in it.

To the issue itself, in principle a European superstate sounds alright, but I can't see it working for ages. Look at other superstates: the USSR and USA mainly. They're totally dysfunctional and the USSR was fatally so. I don't think a European state would fare any better given the history of conflict and the huge variety in cultures throughout the continent. I certainly wouldn't imagine that it would be under the leadership of the enlightened Danes for the most part.

Benelux and Scandinavia mostly. I of course would do more research if I ever had to make a decision on such an enterprise, and exactly how it would be implemented would be crucial.

Those countries are minorities, nor are they exactly glaring exceptions to the dominant neoliberalism of the Union's political class.

Because we base our policies on current democratic opinion rather than previous opinion. Hence why Catholics are allowed to attend Trinity college these days.

If the Lisbon treaty goes your way should it be put to vote again next year?
So we should vote on everything every year?

Is suspect not. Your argument only makes sense when a significant democratic, cultural or temporal shift has taken place in the time between two polls.

Húrin

No

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wouldn't be against some kind of European federation but I think Ireland needs to work on having a far larger population than it has now before that happens or our roll in such a union would be useless.

Better to wait for the rest of the union's population to fall than try to increase ours.

marco_polo wrote: »

Incorrect. Membership of the EDA is completely optional for all member states. And nowhere does it mandate increased spending.

Thanks. However I think that the EDA should not be put on this pedestal at all.

Yes the poster are crap. At least they are not blatent lies. Personally I tend to prefer sources other than lamposts for my information.

Nor do I, but all Yes posters try to paint the vote as a referendum on membership of this Union, when it is not.

Interesting twist, I thought the standard line was that this referendum was less democratic. Based on the flawed premise that democracy is some sort of 'for one night only' event?

It is. We vote on things on the basis that they will be in force for the forseeable future unless otherwise stated.

As if they would even know where to start changing the treaty with our rag bag of mostly imagined reasons for saying no to this one.

For all the reasons you and other yes-men favour the treaty there are people who oppose it for the same reasons.

And why is the European Trade Union Conference so keen on this neo-liberalist treaty?

The leadership of trade unions like SIPTU, in cahoots with the political class, are often not representative of the views of their membership. None more so than on this issue.

Like the General Elections that occured after the last Lisbon defeats and the Local Election routs? With the popularity of both Fianna Fail and the Greens at an all time low, the last thing they will be doing is throwing themselves out of power.

After the last Lisbon defeat the government didn't try to ratify it anyway. I don't think you understood what I meant.

fitz0

No

Húrin wrote: »

If the Lisbon treaty goes your way should it be put to vote again next year?
So we should vote on everything every year?

Is suspect not. Your argument only makes sense when a significant democratic, cultural or temporal shift has taken place in the time between two polls.

If the treaty passes, i'd actually like to see it voted on again just out of plain curiosity. But i have little doubt that, should it pass this time, it would pass again, the NO campaign are a lot sloppier this time around.

And I say this as a NO voter last time around. (Its a yes this time)

Zillah

No

Húrin wrote: »

To the issue itself, in principle a European superstate sounds alright, but I can't see it working for ages. Look at other superstates: the USSR and USA mainly. They're totally dysfunctional and the USSR was fatally so. I don't think a European state would fare any better given the history of conflict and the huge variety in cultures throughout the continent. I certainly wouldn't imagine that it would be under the leadership of the enlightened Danes for the most part.

I think our history of conflict is one of our greatest strengths to be honest. After the horrors of two world wars we've learned our lesson. European leaders can never let that happen again, it is so powerfully ingrained in the mentality. Perhaps I'm being a little idealistic but I've certainly gotten that impression.

As for the USSR, well, that was an experiment with an untried system on an immense scale. Not to mention that if they had not been opposed by the US they may well have had a functioning society. As for the US, I hardly think it is fair to call them totally dysfunctional. Sure they have their problems, but they've been a political, cultural and economic power house of a federation for over two hundred years now.

Those countries are minorities, nor are they exactly glaring exceptions to the dominant neoliberalism of the Union's political class.

Well, like I said, I'd need to do some more research if I was ever voting on this in a real world scenario.

If the Lisbon treaty goes your way should it be put to vote again next year?
So we should vote on everything every year?

In an ideal world we could magically poll the opinion of all (informed :pac:) citizens on every matter of state and come to a decision, but that is of course entirely impractical. Most matters are not important enough to go to such efforts, but considering that Lisbon is so important to the operation of the EU and our role within it, I think it is fair to go to the expense and effort again.

Quite frankly I think such a matter is far too complex to be put to a popular vote anyway. I'd rather if, like most European states, our elected representatives made this decision in the first place. We've already seen in this thread that people are petty enough to vote no purely to spite the government. I think such important and complex matters should not boil down to the opinion of Jonny "Don't conscript me into the EU super army" Dubliner.

Is suspect not. Your argument only makes sense when a significant democratic, cultural or temporal shift has taken place in the time between two polls.

I completely see where you are coming from, and agree that this is the case for most matters, such as a referendum on abortion. However, I think a treaty that effects the whole EU, which has already been approved by the majority of the EU, is a special case. It, or some variety of it, needs to go through eventually. We can't just keep sitting here off Western Europe, soaking up titanic amounts of EU funding, while sullenly refusing to toe the line.

marco_polo

No

Húrin wrote: »

Thanks. However I think that the EDA should not be put on this pedestal at all.

Well it does exist already so it is not a crucial departure from the current situation. Something I don't think we Irish appreciate because of our stand on neutrality, is that the majority of European countries, especially those that share borders or are on the Eastern edge of the EU are very much in favour of increased co-operation in matters of policing, justice, defence and security.

Despite how it is painted by anti-war campaigners this seems primarily due to genuine security concerns rather than for any sinister reasons. It is not a issue that is going to go away, or stop because we demand it, and I think that we will to become comfortable with the facet of the EU. The unmentionable issue has alway been how anyone can ever be truely neutral in a such a political union.

Nor do I, but all Yes posters try to paint the vote as a referendum on membership of this Union, when it is not.

I hate this aspect of the posters as well. But I would genuinely hold the view that a second no vote would do a fair degree of damage our standing, negotiating ability in Europe for a number of years on future treatios CCAP agreement etc.

It is. We vote on things on the basis that they will be in force for the forseeable future unless otherwise stated.

I phrased that badly. What I mean to convey was the attitude of "We voted once on this issue never again''.

For all the reasons you and other yes-men favour the treaty there are people who oppose it for the same reasons.

That much is true, there are certainly those who are oppose the fact that the treaty is including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, albeit for reasons that I will never agree with.

The leadership of trade unions like SIPTU, in cahoots with the political class, are often not representative of the views of their membership. None more so than on this issue.

I really could not speculate on how many member of SIPTU, ICTU that are opposed to the treaty, although I would agree that is is likely to be quite a signifigant numbers. The argument that the leadership would make I am sure is that they are taking a decisive position of what they believe is in the best interests of their workers rather than just reflecting their opinion.

The trade union movement are in general well aware of what side their bread is buttered on when it comes to progressive working rights legislation and it is certainly not successive Irish Governments. Some like Joe Higgins have focused almost soley on the ommission of a Social Progress PProtocol, and issues not related to the treaty like the ECJ Laval judgement, and are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in my opinion.

I am not sure if you have read it but even the SIPTU statement was not a ringing endorement by any means, but read like a considered opinion of the pros and cons of the treaty.

After the last Lisbon defeat the government didn't try to ratify it anyway. I don't think you understood what I meant.

Apologies I misread the first part, I thought you were suggesting a no vote would hasten their fall from power. I don't think any Government would dare attempt to ratify a twice reject treaty directly.

Sam Vimes

No

Húrin wrote: »

Q: So where in the Lisbon Treaty is renewable energy mentioned?

A: It's not.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61327732&postcount=1

10. Energy and the Environment become greater EU competencies [Article 4 & 194, TFEU]

Ireland has a minuscule amount of power and influence in these areas. The EU can provide better legislation and act more effectively for our benefit than we can on our own. Russia, Europe’s main gas supplier consistently takes advantage of the divided energy market, playing one country against another, cutting off supplies and effectively bullying individual states. Russia will have a much more difficult time if it faces a united EU energy policy, the EU will be the one dictating the terms. The treaty also affirms that combating climate change is a major objective of the Union, which was actually negotiated for by the Irish delegation.

MackDeToaster

marco_polo wrote: »

I hate this aspect of the posters as well. But I would genuinely hold the view that a second no vote would do a fair degree of damage our standing, negotiating ability in Europe for a number of years on future treatios CCAP agreement etc.

This is what really tee's me off and is for me personally the crux of how I will vote. If we are to be punished/sidelined or whatever because of our vote, then the EU is not an organisation I would wish to be part of and I will be voting no for Lisbon, and I say that whilst recognising all that it has done to modernise and help our backward little country.

Now if on the other hand I was of the belief that the EU would fully respect a No vote and there would be no such petulant reprecussions, then I would wholeheartedly endorse it as I am actually in favour of Lisbon's content.

Coir and the like are full of crap, but the more the Yes side talk about how we need to be at the heart of Europe and all that, the more my hackles rise and I start to think that their bull may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy - the point being that I would expect and demand that we be treated as equal partners regardless of the outcome, as I neither expect nor want the EU to act as a petty political entity, but as a neutral balanced body.

So, if I was to vote on Lison merely on it's merits alone, it would be a yes, but I'm afraid I can't do that without taking into account the rest of the picture, and the expectation (which the Yes side is promulgating) that we would be sidelined in future etc, is actually turning me the other way. This is weird and twisted, and leaves me stuck not knowing what to do really

CerebralCortex

No

MackDeToaster wrote: »

So, if I was to vote on Lison merely on it's merits alone, it would be a yes, but I'm afraid I can't do that without taking into account the rest of the picture, and the expectation (which the Yes side is promulgating) that we would be sidelined in future etc, is actually turning me the other way. This is weird and twisted, and leaves me stuck not knowing what to do really

Very good point actually.

Sam Vimes

No

MackDeToaster wrote: »

So, if I was to vote on Lison merely on it's merits alone, it would be a yes, but I'm afraid I can't do that without taking into account the rest of the picture, and the expectation (which the Yes side is promulgating) that we would be sidelined in future etc, is actually turning me the other way. This is weird and twisted, and leaves me stuck not knowing what to do really

It's not a petty punishment, it's that the other 26 countries of the union are pulling in one direction and a few hundred thousand people on the peripheries are pulling in another direction for no apparent reason. The rest of the countries in Europe want these changes and a lot of the changes could be implemented without us. They can just rewrite the treaty with the parts that don't work unless everyone does it taken out and hey presto, a two tier Europe where the other 26 countries get what they want and the Irish people get what they've been tricked into thinking they want by anti-EU groups.

Not to mention that if I'm looking to set up my corporation in Europe, a deciding factor might well be that I want to be in a country that has expressed a desire to be a fully signed up member of the European project now and into the future. As the EU makes further changes and we fight against them and possibly get opt outs it might get more and more difficult and expensive to get access to the common European market, which, along with our corporation tax, is one of the main reasons all those foreign companies located here (~140,000 jobs).

And so on...

MackDeToaster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's not a petty punishment, it's that the other 26 countries of the union are pulling in one direction and a few hundred thousand people on the peripheries are pulling in another direction for no apparent reason. The rest of the countries in Europe want these changes and a lot of the changes could be implemented without us. They can just rewrite the treaty with the parts that don't work unless everyone does it taken out and hey presto, a two tier Europe where the other 26 countries get what they want and the Irish people get what they've been tricked into thinking they want by anti-EU groups.

Not to mention that if I'm looking to set up my corporation in Europe, a deciding factor might well be that I want to be in a country that has expressed a desire to be a fully signed up member of the European project now and into the future. As the EU makes further changes and we fight against them and possibly get opt outs it might get more and more difficult and expensive to get access to the common European market, which, along with our corporation tax, is one of the main reasons all those foreign companies located here (~140,000 jobs).

And so on...

Yes, but this doesn't address my point. If I vote no, I'm not expressing a desire not to be a fully signed up member. I've already said I want to be in the EU, and I support it almost 100% (I'm undecided on stuff like special exemptions for things like abortion, I'm worried about corruption etc).

My point is that if the EU wants to make changes then that's fair enough, but if the EU wants to make changes and we say no, for whatever reason, whether dubious or not, they should not be saying you're a very naughty boy, go and sit in the corner for a while.

This implies that we are not equal or on the same level, and to repeat myself, I do not want to be associated with such a judgemental entity, I expect the EU to be above that.

Nobody has addressed this concern, and in fact it's only being emphasized by the Yes side in what to me is a completely counterproductive manner. If the EU wants to split then so be it.
I could use the (probably poor) analogy of the god who wants to be worshipped and recognised, never mind that you've done good, so long as you haven't bowed down and recognised it as god you're condemned to hell. But I'd rather burn in hell than bow down before such a god, no matter that if I did I'd be in 'heaven'. I don't consider it worthy of worship, and the same goes for the EU if it treats us as unworthy, regardless of the benefits.

Sam Vimes

No

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Yes, but this doesn't address my point. If I vote no, I'm not expressing a desire not to be a fully signed up member. I've already said I want to be in the EU, and I support it almost 100% (I'm undecided on stuff like special exemptions for things like abortion, I'm worried about corruption etc).

My point is that if the EU wants to make changes then that's fair enough, but if the EU wants to make changes and we say no, for whatever reason, whether dubious or not, they should not be saying you're a very naughty boy, go and sit in the corner for a while.

This implies that we are not equal or on the same level, and to repeat myself, I do not want to be associated with such a judgemental entity, I expect the EU to be above that.

Nobody has addressed this concern, and in fact it's only being emphasized by the Yes side in what to me is a completely counterproductive manner. If the EU wants to split then so be it.
I could use the (probably poor) analogy of the god who wants to be worshipped and recognised, never mind that you've done good, so long as you haven't bowed down and recognised it as god you're condemned to hell. But I'd rather burn in hell than bow down before such a god, no matter that if I did I'd be in 'heaven'. I don't consider it worthy of worship, and the same goes for the EU if it treats us as unworthy, regardless of the benefits.

What I said actually does address your point. you said the EU should not be saying "you're a very naughty boy, go and sit in the corner for a while" and I was making the point that they aren't doing that

Having said that, remember that organistaions, be it the EU or all those companies whose money we want, are made up of flawed people who don't always keep their personal biases out of their business lives. Technically we shouldn't lose the goodwill of these people because of a no vote but it can happen

Also I think your analogy is flawed because it assumes that any voice of dissent is punished and the EU should be worshipped like a God. The main part I would object to is "whether dubious or not". Imo a better analogy would be a group of 27 friends are all trying to make a plan and one of them keeps acting the bollox, throwing tantrums over nothing. If we had good reasons for rejecting the treaty and there was a negative backlash I would be of the same opinion as yourself but we don't. It's mostly the lies of extremists and Fianna Fail hatred. Our European neighbours were more than willing to listen to our objections but it turned out that they were almost all red herrings. The only real one was the commissioner issue and we got that changed.

Ireland has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the EU and we keep throwing out their treaties, this time without even bothering to read it. We just said tl;dr to an organisation that has been crucial in us changing from a backwards sh!thole to one of the richest countries in the world (until we messed it up for ourselves) and if that loses us goodwill among our colleagues, it's justified imo

MackDeToaster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What I said actually does address your point. you said the EU should not be saying "you're a very naughty boy, go and sit in the corner for a while" and I was making the point that they aren't doing that

I realise that, but I'm not talking about now, the Yes side's campaign is suggesting very strongly they are going to spit the dummy if we say no again, companies are going to think twice about investing etc. I don't know if the EU will in fact do this, but either way I don't respond very well to threats, and the implication is that they will. So, are the Yes side correct in what they say, or not ? If they're liars I vote yes (paradoxically), if they're not, I'll vote no.

Having said that, remember that organistaions, be it the EU or all those companies whose money we want, are made up of flawed people who don't always keep their personal biases out of their business lives. Technically we shouldn't lose the goodwill of these people because of a no vote but it can happen

I would want assurances that it won't happen, I have no interest in a politicised, biased, judgmental organisation where there are enough personal ego's that this can happen.

Also I think your analogy is flawed because it assumes that any voice of dissent is punished and the EU should be worshipped like a God. The main part I would object to is "whether dubious or not". Imo a better analogy would be a group of 27 friends are all trying to make a plan and one of them keeps acting the bollox, throwing tantrums over nothing. If we had good reasons for rejecting the treaty and there was a negative backlash I would be of the same opinion as yourself but we don't. It's mostly the lies of extremists and Fianna Fail hatred. Our European neighbours were more than willing to listen to our objections but it turned out that they were almost all red herrings. The only real one was the commissioner issue and we got that changed.

I know that anology was poor, analogies ultimately always are However, you seem to be saying that if we have bad reasons for rejecting the treaty we should expect a backlash ? This is what I'm getting at, the EU is not simply a group of friends with one freaky one, it should be above and beyond such pettiness.

Ireland has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the EU and we keep throwing out their treaties, this time without even bothering to read it. We just said tl;dr to an organisation that has been crucial in us changing from a backwards sh!thole to one of the richest countries in the world (until we messed it up for ourselves) and if that loses us goodwill among our colleagues, it's justified imo

I'll have to disagree in that I still don't think it's justified. The EU knows what it's getting when someone signs up, i.e. it's a two-way partnership - they get something, we get something, so despite the fact that we may get more than we return, we shouldn't have to be grateful as these were the terms. It's a business contract if you will, something that should be fully executed without any personal bias. If the Eu does take a no as a personal slight, then it's not something I want to do business with as it's not trustworthy.

marco_polo

No

MackDeToaster wrote: »

This is what really tee's me off and is for me personally the crux of how I will vote. If we are to be punished/sidelined or whatever because of our vote, then the EU is not an organisation I would wish to be part of and I will be voting no for Lisbon, and I say that whilst recognising all that it has done to modernise and help our backward little country.

Now if on the other hand I was of the belief that the EU would fully respect a No vote and there would be no such petulant reprecussions, then I would wholeheartedly endorse it as I am actually in favour of Lisbon's content.

Coir and the like are full of crap, but the more the Yes side talk about how we need to be at the heart of Europe and all that, the more my hackles rise and I start to think that their bull may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy - the point being that I would expect and demand that we be treated as equal partners regardless of the outcome, as I neither expect nor want the EU to act as a petty political entity, but as a neutral balanced body.

So, if I was to vote on Lison merely on it's merits alone, it would be a yes, but I'm afraid I can't do that without taking into account the rest of the picture, and the expectation (which the Yes side is promulgating) that we would be sidelined in future etc, is actually turning me the other way. This is weird and twisted, and leaves me stuck not knowing what to do really

It is not my intention to paint a picture of Ireland as some sort of parriah in Europe as a consequence of an no vote. However I have a very strong objection to the view of a no vote as a completely consequence free endorsement for the current status quo, which is a seriously misleading one in my opinion. My main point is that to get good results in negotiations it is important to have a good standing and rapport with your peers, and to have their complete trust. I think people seriously underestimate the amount of horsetrading that goes on amongst the various voting blocs that exist at a European Level. ie. We will give you a concession on point x in proposal one, if you support us in changing point y in proposal 2. This is not painting a picture of bullying, but is a reflection on how negotiations proceed in all walks of life. If somebody asks me for a tenner and I have a good relationship with them, I am likely to give it to them, if not I am less likely to. But that does not mean I am going to punch them in the face.

In the best case No vote scenario, with no immediate apparent consequences for Ireland and and agreement by the other 26 member states to begin a completely new treaty. It does not appear to me that the Irish negotiators would have a very strong position, one because I don't think we have a clear vision of what we want from Europe going forward, and secondly there will surely be doubts from the other member states on our ability to deliver a ratification on any new treaty.

On thing is certain is that that a great number of elements in the Lisbon Treaty will be a given in any future treaty given that they are good and progressive ideas, the institutional reforms etc. Any future treaty will surely also include some QMV changes etc. Another point to note is that with the exception of Ireland and the UK every other EU country has opted into both the Schengen Aquis and the Judical/Policing co-operation, for fully signed up members the additional few competencies added (Common Energy policy etc) under Lisbon look positively trivial when looked at in this context.

Leaving aside the fake issues floating about, it seems our main objectives are that we want to deny the other member states the opportunity to engage any form of co-operation in matters of defence, something we will never have and never will be able to fully block (see NATO etc). And Workers Rights, which are actually enhanced under Lisbon, despite what Joe Higgins is claiming. The Lisbon Treaty does not copperfasten anything with regard to the recent controvercial ECJ decisions. Existing ECJ judgements will stand with or without Lisbon, until the defective law is changed, not because of a false claim that the COFR sets them in stone. Getting reform does not require a Social Protocol in the treaty, a new Directive would do the exact same thing.

There is a strong agenda of amongst most other member states to reform the EU institutions, and scant evidence to suggest that the citizens are profoundly unhappy with the proposals in the Lisbon treaty.

I don't have any answers about the future but I certainly see few positives in a NO vote?

Sam Vimes

No

MackDeToaster wrote: »

I'll have to disagree in that I still don't think it's justified. The EU knows what it's getting when someone signs up, i.e. it's a two-way partnership - they get something, we get something, so despite the fact that we may get more than we return, we shouldn't have to be grateful as these were the terms. It's a business contract if you will, something that should be fully executed without any personal bias. If the Eu does take a no as a personal slight, then it's not something I want to do business with as it's not trustworthy.

The point though is that by continued rejection of benign and beneficial treaties for no good reason, Ireland has shown itself not to be trustworthy. Again, it's not that the EU is taking a no as a personal slight, it's the bullsh!t reasons we're why voting no that might create bad feeling. If we went to Europe and said "the people voted no because of x, y and z, could we please get these renegotiated" everything would be fine but "NO MEANS NO!!!!!!!!!!", "EUROPE'S STEALING OUR FISH AND OUR BABIES!!!" or "WE HATE BRIAN COWEN!!!!" is not conducive to renegotiation

In a business relationship both partners have to behave maturely, responsibly and reasonably. Ireland is not behaving that way. The perception is that we want a relationship of "we get something, we throw a tantrum when they try to get something", or in this case it's not even that they want something, we've just been tricked into thinking they do. Do you not think it's in any way reasonable for a relationship to sour because one partner is fighting the rest every step of the way for no good reason?

MackDeToaster

Great replies, I only wish our sorry excuse for a government would deign to try and explain things as well instead of mere scaremongering.

sink

No

Húrin wrote: »

Q: So where in the Lisbon Treaty is renewable energy mentioned?

A: It's not.

Since Sam Vimes quoted me, I will quote the treaty

Article 194, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union wrote:

1. In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to:
(a) ensure the functioning of the energy market;
(b) ensure security of energy supply in the Union;*
(c) promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and
(d) promote the interconnection of energy networks.

I've highlighted the most pertinent to your question.

MackDeToaster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point though is that by continued rejection of benign and beneficial treaties for no good reason, Ireland has shown itself not to be trustworthy. Again, it's not that the EU is taking a no as a personal slight, it's the bullsh!t reasons we're why voting no that might create bad feeling. If we went to Europe and said "the people voted no because of x, y and z, could we please get these renegotiated" everything would be fine but "NO MEANS NO!!!!!!!!!!", "EUROPE'S STEALING OUR FISH AND OUR BABIES!!!" or "WE HATE BRIAN COWEN!!!!" is not conducive to renegotiation

In a business relationship both partners have to behave maturely, responsibly and reasonably. Ireland is not behaving that way. The perception is that we want a relationship of "we get something, we throw a tantrum when they try to get something", or in this case it's not even that they want something, we've just been tricked into thinking they do. Do you not think it's in any way reasonable for a relationship to sour because one partner is fighting the rest every step of the way for no good reason?

I agree with you on one level, but not on another I also think that those reasons are utterly stupid and facile, but is that reason to count us as untrustworthy?

I'll throw in the democracy card - we've already voted no, the reasons have been addressed, we vote no again for whatever reason.

Now, given that the terms say there must be full consensus before things proceed, and the means of gaining that consensus is by vote, why should we be considered as untrustworthy for voting no (regardless of the reasons) when the choice of voting was freely given, i.e. we are behaving within the terms of the contract ?

By being given a vote in the first place, we don't have to justify a no, it's inherent. The failure of democracy I know, you and I may disagree with the reasons, the EU may think they're ****e, but we're still bound to abide by them as they're the rules. So, why should the relationship sour when we're playing by the rules ?

Sam Vimes

No

MackDeToaster wrote:

I agree with you on one level, but not on another I also think that those reasons are utterly stupid and facile, but is that reason to count us as untrustworthy?

I'll throw in the democracy card - we've already voted no, the reasons have been addressed, we vote no again for whatever reason.

Now, given that the terms say there must be full consensus before things proceed, and the means of gaining that consensus is by vote, why should we be considered as untrustworthy for voting no (regardless of the reasons) when the choice of voting was freely given, i.e. we are behaving within the terms of the contract ?

By being given a vote in the first place, we don't have to justify a no, it's inherent. The failure of democracy I know, you and I may disagree with the reasons, the EU may think they're ****e, but we're still bound to abide by them as they're the rules. So, why should the relationship sour when we're playing by the rules ?

When I say untrustworthy I don't mean dishonest, I mean unpredictable and unreliable. There is now pretty much no point in having any future treaties because the Irish people didn't even read this one, they rejected it for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. They can't address our problems because they're imaginary and/or irrelevant. We're not technically breaking the rules but we're making life extremely difficult for our neighbours because we're too lazy to read the treaty and would rather get our opinion from a lie on a poster. Honestly I think the EU would be a hell of a lot better off without us

Flamed Diving

No

Hurín, like most of the NO side, seems to be fabricating reasons to vote NO.

MackDeToaster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When I say untrustworthy I don't mean dishonest, I mean unpredictable and unreliable. There is now pretty much no point in having any future treaties because the Irish people didn't even read this one, they rejected it for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the treaty. They can't address our problems because they're imaginary and/or irrelevant. We're not technically breaking the rules but we're making life extremely difficult for our neighbours because we're too lazy to read the treaty and would rather get our opinion from a lie on a poster. Honestly I think the EU would be a hell of a lot better off without us

Hmm, that's a bit depressing. But don't forget there's two sides to every card, some of the top clowns in gov didn't read it either ! Anyways, we could say similar about religion, but I still respect the right of the religious to practise their religion (concerns about secularism notwithstanding). I'll argue with them all day long, but I won't punitively punish them because they disagree with me. I would say dissenting voices are a positive thing, regardless of right or wrong they stir things up and help prevent things settling into a rigid monobloc(?). We are arseholes, but perhaps that could encourage new ways of thinking and approaches ?

I'm only repeating myself, and it's possibly something that can't be answered, but while we are making things difficult, we are (as you and I say) not breaking the rules, so why should the EU react negatively? As an institution, not a personality, it shouldn't. I still think there's a very fine line between bullying and horsetrading (as Marco_Polo puts it) and right now I'm of the belief that what the Yes side are intimating is the former.

robindch

No

MackDeToaster wrote: »

By being given a vote in the first place, we don't have to justify a no, it's inherent.

In a dynamic organization that's trying to address systemic problems, one does have to justify a "no".

Last year's refusal was arguably the result of votes cast by people who were voting against the treaty for reasons which were unconnected with the treaty (taxis, farmers, people who don't like FF etc, etc). In these circumstances, it's impossible to know what to do to accommodate the concerns of people who didn't so much say "no", as "blghghrrrhgh".

MackDeToaster wrote: »

So, why should the relationship sour when we're playing by the rules ?

Here's the shtick:

1. Irish government spends years negotiating a Treaty with 26 other governments
2. ~20 governments approve it, then Irish electorate reject for no clear reason.
3. Irish government negotiates what's effectively an addendum to the Treaty, based upon some of the "concerns" heavily marketed by the leading no-campaigners
4. Irish electorate votes "no", again probably for no very clear reason.

At point 4, which will hopefully never arise, I think the EU and the member governments can legitimately claim that the Irish aren't playing by the rules -- negotiate, approve or reject and renegotiate -- that's what you do in the democracy we have.

Putting ones fingers in one's ears and saying no when you've been offered the ice-cream you demanded earlier isn't playing by the rules.

ShooterSF

Not going to vote

Stupid Posters (the lampost ones that is) are wrecking my head. I just want a bunch of stickers with "What has this got to do with Lisbon?" so I can stick them on them all from 1916 to cows to people's travel habits to a vote on our very membership

Sam Vimes

No

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Hmm, that's a bit depressing. But don't forget there's two sides to every card, some of the top clowns in gov didn't read it either !

Oh I know, and that's make Ireland look worse again. And the fact that we keep voting in the same clowns makes us look worse again. And the face that we vote them in and then reject the treaty because we don't trust them makes us worse again.

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Anyways, we could say similar about religion, but I still respect the right of the religious to practise their religion (concerns about secularism notwithstanding). I'll argue with them all day long, but I won't punitively punish them because they disagree with me. I would say dissenting voices are a positive thing, regardless of right or wrong they stir things up and help prevent things settling into a rigid monobloc(?). We are arseholes, but perhaps that could encourage new ways of thinking and approaches ?

Ah but there are no religious people preventing me from implementing my much needed and beneficial plans

MackDeToaster wrote: »

I would say dissenting voices are a positive thing, regardless of right or wrong they stir things up and help prevent things settling into a rigid monobloc(?). We are arseholes, but perhaps that could encourage new ways of thinking and approaches ?

Yeah dissenting voices are great but stupid voices that are demanding that things that aren't in the treaty be removed from the treaty and then still vote it down when they get guarantees that those things aren't in the treaty don't help anyone.

MackDeToaster wrote: »

I'm only repeating myself, and it's possibly something that can't be answered, but while we are making things difficult, we are (as you and I say) not breaking the rules, so why should the EU react negatively? As an institution, not a personality, it shouldn't. I still think there's a very fine line between bullying and horsetrading (as Marco_Polo puts it) and right now I'm of the belief that what the Yes side are intimating is the former.

As an institution it shouldn't and as an institution I don't think it will. It's goodwill that will be lost due to pointless rejection of beneficial treaties and that's is very hard to gauge. Technically things will move on as they always did but the EU has very much gone out of its way to help Ireland and it doesn't have to do that. It could be something as simple as our MEP's opinions don't carry as much weight with their colleagues as it used to so their negotiating position isn't as strong. Well within the rules but it makes life more difficult for the Irish

robindch

No

Two interesting developments on Lisbon as it relates to the catholic church.

Firstly, Alive has scaled its hysterical coverage right back and its headline complaint is now the potential impact of the accession of Turkey, a concern it shares with, and in the same order as, UKIP, who are apparently leafleting every house in the country with yet another piece of tendentious junk.

Elsewhere, the Irish Bishops have been up in front of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs and have come out relatively strongly against organizations like Coir. The IT have a brief summary here while the full text of Traenor's four-page address is here (and it's worth a quick read).

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

In a dynamic organization that's trying to address systemic problems, one does have to justify a "no".

Last year's refusal was arguably the result of votes cast by people who were voting against the treaty for reasons which were unconnected with the treaty (taxis, farmers, people who don't like FF etc, etc). In these circumstances, it's impossible to know what to do to accommodate the concerns of people who didn't so much say "no", as "blghghrrrhgh".Here's the shtick:

Can't say I fully agree there now mister. I remember the last boards beers and Dades decided to have a little round the table summary of how people where voting and I went with the highly original:) 'no vote at all' claim. It's hard to defend such a brazen response in a crowded Pub but my view has always been that if the people aren't aware of the general issues (i.e if they haven't read and properly understood them) then what is it we trying to achieve exactly? I mean there's an added irony in that Government that is voted in in the first place is done so with the exact same criteria (as you put it a general 'bbbblllrrrgghhh' is uttered in favor of one side over the other depending on the generally percieved zeitgeist of a particular time).

I think it's pretty hilarious that our Government is trying to suggest that voters need to 'educate themselves' on the issues at hand because if they did that originally then this Government, most likely, would not be in power, in fact none would be. If people truly had the ability to understand the issues, think for themselves and were not afraid of real change then new forms of Government would be investigated constantly because democracy by 51% is so imperfect that it hurts and re-votes on issues that the general public clearly does not understand undermines it even further. The only way a system can improve is through the errors of it's users. A re-vote is like using a time machine, it ultimately has knock on effects.

MackDeToaster

robindch wrote: »

In a dynamic organization that's trying to address systemic problems, one does have to justify a "no".

Sorry, can't agree with this. In a democracy I don't have to justify my vote to anybody. I may vote the way the fairies told me to if I so like, and I don't have to come out of the booth and tell anybody whether I voted yes or no, let alone give reasons as to why I did so, let alone go on to try to prove the fairies existence. That may annoy some but that's the way the system is.

robindch wrote: »

1. Irish government spends years negotiating a Treaty with 26 other governments
2. ~20 governments approve it, then Irish electorate reject for no clear reason.
3. Irish government negotiates what's effectively an addendum to the Treaty, based upon some of the "concerns" heavily marketed by the leading no-campaigners
4. Irish electorate votes "no", again probably for no very clear reason.

At point 4, which will hopefully never arise, I think the EU and the member governments can legitimately claim that the Irish aren't playing by the rules -- negotiate, approve or reject and renegotiate -- that's what you do in the democracy we have.

In a democracy I can vote no for all eternity, for any fluffy reason, and I don't have to justify that reason to anybody. The Irish aren't playing by the rules ? The Irish government might have negotiated, but so what, in a democracy it's the electorate who are the boss. In a democracy there is a right to say no, and that's fully playing by the rules, whether it's liked or not is irrelevant.

robindch wrote: »

Putting ones fingers in one's ears and saying no when you've been offered the ice-cream you demanded earlier isn't playing by the rules.

I don't recall the electorate asking for the ice-cream in the first place. I also voted No first time around, and none of the supposed ice-cream which I supposedly demanded (speaking for myself) which has been brought back has any relevance whatsover to my reasons then or now. Changing the brand and adding a flake on top doesn't make any difference when you're not hungry. So, are we being treated like children, are we going to get sent to our room ?

Sam Vimes

No

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Sorry, can't agree with this. In a democracy I don't have to justify my vote to anybody. I may vote the way the fairies told me to if I so like, and I don't have to come out of the booth and tell anybody whether I voted yes or no, let alone give reasons as to why I did so, let alone go on to try to prove the fairies existence. That may annoy some but that's the way the system is.

You're thinking of a general election, this is a referendum on a treaty. If you vote no to a 300 page document and won't tell anyone why, what do you expect them to do? Should they keep randomly changing articles in the hopes that you'll like it this time?

Or should they just stop making any changes because there's no point putting any time or effort into writing something when you have no idea if it's going to be acceptable to the guy that can stop it in its tracks but won't tell you why he's stopping it?

robindch

No

MackDeToaster wrote: »

In a democracy I can vote no for all eternity, for any fluffy reason, and I don't have to justify that reason to anybody.

Do you reckon that's a good way of clearly signalling to your elected representatives exactly what you want?

Sam Vimes

No

robindch wrote: »

Do you reckon that's a good way of clearly signalling to your elected representatives exactly what you want?

Clearly it is. You show up at the Dail with a load of blank placards and chant

What do we want?

Not telling you!

When do we want it?

Not telling you!

MackDeToaster

Lol ! Yup I was gone waaay down the wrong path there, muddy thinking, thanks for clearing that up (goes and kicks himself!).

Ickle Magoo

I'm not eligible to vote but as an interested spectator I'm leaning towards the yes side - as lame as their campaign has been, I don't believe much of what the no campaign is throwing out.

MetalDawg

No

Well, isnt this great. Arent they wonderful, presuming to tell us how to vote. The phrase "last sting of a dying wasp" comes to mind...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0922/eulisbon.html:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Dades

No

MetalDawg wrote: »

Well, isnt this great. Arent they wonderful, presuming to tell us how to vote. The phrase "last sting of a dying wasp" comes to mind...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0922/eulisbon.html:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'm confused. Every big organisation in the country (farmers, SIPTU etc.) are putting out an official line. What's the problem here?

robindch

No

MetalDawg wrote: »

Arent they wonderful, presuming to tell us how to vote.

The Irish bishops aren't telling anybody how to vote. You can read their full, and quite reasonable, statement here:

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1373:16-september-2009&catid=17:news

In summary, they're telling people that they should avoid the propagandists (read "Alive" and its fellow travellers), and instead read and understand the Lisbon Treaty before voting to approve or reject it.

It's hardly controversial advice in the context of a Constitutional referendum on an international treaty, but apparently beyond the interest of most voters all the same.

The Mad Hatter

No

Saw a good video this morning by a group called Generation Yes, who are campaigning for a yes vote (duh, sorry) among 18-35 year-olds, given that that group most overwhelmingly rejected the treaty last time around. I have to say, their video is the most fact-based and level-headed I've seen so far from
either side of the campaign. I mean, it actually uses actual text from the actual treaty! Looking at the posters from Cóir, FF, FG, Libertas and the rest of them, you'd have thought that was against the rules.

I'm on my phone atm so can't get the URL, but I'll put up a link later if no-one else beats me to it.