What happens if the result is 'NO'?

Scofflaw

StealthRolex wrote: »

Quite clearly I don't understand this thing and until I do I'm sticking with my first rule and voting No until I can find some good reasons to vote Yes.

It seems to me that this whole Treaty thing is based on semantics and pedantry drawn up by €300,000 p.a politicians and civil servants who think that we the people are stupid enough to believe them when they tell us which way to vote. It also appears to be designed to obfuscate so we the people know less of what actually happens in the ivory towered gravy train.
I won't even get into the shifting of voting based on demographic and what that will mean for Irelands future in Europe

Maybe one day when we have a Taoiseach and TD's who think that €300,000 p.a. should be the minimum wage I might consider what they have to say.

Nobody asked the French and Danes why they voted No - they just changed the law and then presented Lisbon as a done deal. If this is the kind of "European thinking" that is current it does not bode well.

In fact, they did ask the French and the Dutch (not the Danes) why they voted No. The main objection that wasn't entirely unrelated (Mitterand, Turkey) was to the implied claim of EU statehood in the Constitution - which Lisbon has dropped.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dr gonzo

Excuse my stark political ignorance here guys but considering the almost vitriolic fury hurled at Ireland last time, do you think theres some means of...punishment i suppose for Ireland if a no vote comes up again. I.E i dont want to use the words GTFO Ireland but will there be a more tangible backlash then just a few nasty words this time round(Assuming of course for the sake of this discussion that a No vote is what comes through.)

PopeBuckfastXVI

dr gonzo wrote: »

Excuse my stark political ignorance here guys but considering the almost vitriolic fury hurled at Ireland last time, do you think theres some means of...punishment i suppose for Ireland if a no vote comes up again. I.E i dont want to use the words GTFO Ireland but will there be a more tangible backlash then just a few nasty words this time round(Assuming of course for the sake of this discussion that a No vote is what comes through.)

I'm not sure there was vitriolic fury hurled at Ireland. Maybe you could provide a few quotes?

Anyway, imho, any 'backlash' as such would take the form of being less open to Irish ideas in drafting of future legislation, perhaps a cold shoulder were we to look for favours, and we might find it hard to find willing partners when it comes to horse trading for things which will benefit Ireland.

Also I'm very worried about a possible future 2-tier Europe, because if we can't agree to sign up to treaties we help write, then I can't see how the rest of Europe wouldn't draft treaties in such a way that we could stay put, while they plough on.

Scofflaw

dr gonzo wrote: »

Excuse my stark political ignorance here guys but considering the almost vitriolic fury hurled at Ireland last time, do you think theres some means of...punishment i suppose for Ireland if a no vote comes up again. I.E i dont want to use the words GTFO Ireland but will there be a more tangible backlash then just a few nasty words this time round(Assuming of course for the sake of this discussion that a No vote is what comes through.)

There's no legal mechanism for punishing Ireland - we're entirely within our rights to vote No.

Will it impact on our goodwill with the other 26 countries involved? Obviously. Will that impact next year's negotiations on the CFP and WTO? Probably. Will that impact our long-term relations with the EU? Probably.

Does that mean you have to vote Yes? Not at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jimmyendless

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no legal mechanism for punishing Ireland - we're entirely within our rights to vote No.

Really??

Scofflaw

jimmyendless wrote: »

Really??

Sure. The member states are 'masters of the treaties', not their servants. Any issues would arise from the number of other governments we're annoying - the EU can do nothing.

cordially,
Scofflaw

jimmyendless

We voted No and now we have to vote again. Surely that means we are not allowed to vote NO.

I wonder why we even get asked to vote on anything. If they don't need a valid reason to make us vote again, you would think they could just find some way to bypass us all together.

Scofflaw

jimmyendless wrote: »

We voted No and now we have to vote again. Surely that means we are not allowed to vote NO.

Er, no - it just means they hope you'll vote Yes this time. There's nothing stopping you voting No.

jimmyendless wrote: »

I wonder why we even get asked to vote on anything. If they don't need a valid reason to make us vote again, you would think they could just find some way to bypass us all together.

Who could? The EU has nothing to do with how the member states ratify treaties - that's why we have a vote, because our Constitution dictates that we do (or has been interpreted as meaning that we must). The same Constitution places no constraint on running multiple referendums on the same issue - although, for a fact, the amendment we're voting on this time is different from last time.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

jimmyendless wrote: »

We voted No and now we have to vote again. Surely that means we are not allowed to vote NO.

We don't have to vote again. The government still wants to be allowed to ratify the Lisbon treaty, so they're asking us to vote again.

We're allowed to vote either "yes" or "no", just like last time.

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote:

Will it impact on our goodwill with the other 26 countries involved?

I don't think it will impact on the goodwill towards the Irish government. I think it will probably increase it in recognition of their efforts in trying to get the treaty passed. The other governments understand that the referendum wasn't the government's choice and that if they had their way the treaty would have already been ratified through our parliament. When our constitution gave them no choice but to hold a referendum our government did their best to persuade the people to support it. Our economy is falling apart around us, and while the government and the opposition could be spending it's time and money on more pressing concerns, they are instead devoting the best part of a month to trying to persuade people to vote yes to a treaty that they've already rejected.

Why then, even though our government has not only done everything that every other European government has done but has even gone further and fought, not only one, but two referendum campaigns to try to get this treaty passed, why would the other governments react angrily or spitefully towards them? As much as I can't stand Brian Cowen, if he and his colleagues aren't thanked publically by the other governments for his efforts in getting the treaty passed (regardless of the outcome) then I think we should question just how valuable the "goodwill" of these other countries really is to us.

If you honestly believe that the goodwill towards our representatives in Europe will be impacted by a no vote then you have a very low opinion of our neighbours.

Scofflaw wrote:

Will that impact next year's negotiations on the CFP and WTO? Probably.

I've seen "impact" thrown around a lot but I think it's a bit vague. Can you give a specific example of the kind of thing that might be impacted by our refusal to vote yes?

Scofflaw wrote:

Will that impact our long-term relations with the EU? Probably.

I've never heard any Irish person saying they wanted to see a change in our relationship with the EU but if that's what the Europeans want then they they'll need to make the first move. They should think carefully about the consequences of that move though. Any attempts by the EUers to isolate Ireland in the aftermath of a no vote will almost definitely fuel anti-EU sentiment in Ireland and that will increase the chances of an Irish Independence Party emerging.

Most decision-making in the EU still requires unanimity and so it might not be an altogether wise move for them to try to isolate the representatives of one of the least eurosceptic nations at the table.

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that's not an option, because in the absence of Lisbon, there is no such position. Renaming the Commissioner for External relations will not make them not a Commissioner.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Emm it isn't exactly rules out anywhere?

rumour

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's no legal mechanism for punishing Ireland - we're entirely within our rights to vote No.

Will it impact on our goodwill with the other 26 countries involved? Obviously. Will that impact next year's negotiations on the CFP and WTO? Probably. Will that impact our long-term relations with the EU? Probably.

Does that mean you have to vote Yes? Not at all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Please explain how are goodwill will be effected?

marco_polo

rumour wrote: »

Please explain how are goodwill will be effected?

Are you aware of how EU negotiations work? Indeed in all walks of life the same principal applies. Good working relationships with fellow member states is critical to successful negotiation.

In the future it may well affect our ability to get good results like this example:

http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/0311/farm.html

In critical future negotiations like these:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/snidojauql/rss2/
http://www.eumatters.ie/Ireland-and-the-EU/Fisheries.aspx

Or make it harder to get approval for breaking the eurozone deficit rules without penalties:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-admits-government-to-break-eu-rules-on-borrowing-1475511.html

ixtlan

O'Morris wrote: »

I don't think it will impact on the goodwill towards the Irish government. I think it will probably increase it in recognition of their efforts in trying to get the treaty passed. The other governments understand that the referendum wasn't the government's choice and that if they had their way the treaty would have already been ratified through our parliament. When our constitution gave them no choice but to hold a referendum our government did their best to persuade the people to support it.

I think you are sort of correct here. Goodwill is perhaps not exactly the right word. Maybe it might be better to call it standing... or respect... or power. From the point of view of the other EU states, the Irish government may be well-meaning, and may be nice guys, but they will also be seen to be unable to get approval for a treaty they negotiated. So it would be a valid question to ask why the others should go out of their way to assist the Irish government in any area, knowing that this government (or any future government) may be unable to get any treaty ratified.

O'Morris wrote: »

Our economy is falling apart around us, and while the government and the opposition could be spending it's time and money on more pressing concerns, they are instead devoting the best part of a month to trying to persuade people to vote yes to a treaty that they've already rejected.

True, and if there is a No vote then Ireland and the EU are going to spend the next few years trying to find a solution to the Lisbon impasse. Time that would be much better spent on all sides trying to improve the economy.

O'Morris wrote: »

Why then, even though our government has not only done everything that every other European government has done but has even gone further and fought, not only one, but two referendum campaigns to try to get this treaty passed, why would the other governments react angrily or spitefully towards them? As much as I can't stand Brian Cowen, if he and his colleagues aren't thanked publically by the other governments for his efforts in getting the treaty passed (regardless of the outcome) then I think we should question just how valuable the "goodwill" of these other countries really is to us.

I'm sure they will thank them for a yes. And I'm sure they will thank them for their efforts if it's a No. With a No though they will also start thinking in terms of how to proceed, and will start with the assumption that Ireland needs to be excluded where possible. That's not them being harsh to the Irish, that is what we have asked for if we vote no.

There really are only 2 choices in the event of a no. The EU moves forward in some capacity without us with our agreement (it can't do anything without that agreement). Or Ireland becomes the Ian Paisley of the EU, blocking every suggested change. We can certainly do this. Is that what we want?

No doubt in this future more fractured EU we would not be alone, and so the No side will claim that this is OK. Britain and the Czechs may join us in some sort of second tier. Again though is that what we want?

O'Morris wrote: »

If you honestly believe that the goodwill towards our representatives in Europe will be impacted by a no vote then you have a very low opinion of our neighbours.

Not so much goodwill, but usefulness. It's like your best friend visiting your house while you are working from home on an important project. He may be a nice guy, but he's not really useful to you at that point.

O'Morris wrote: »

I've never heard any Irish person saying they wanted to see a change in our relationship with the EU but if that's what the Europeans want then they they'll need to make the first move. They should think carefully about the consequences of that move though. Any attempts by the EUers to isolate Ireland in the aftermath of a no vote will almost definitely fuel anti-EU sentiment in Ireland and that will increase the chances of an Irish Independence Party emerging.

Most decision-making in the EU still requires unanimity and so it might not be an altogether wise move for them to try to isolate the representatives of one of the least eurosceptic nations at the table.

Hmmm, I've heard lots and lots of No campaigners saying they want a change in the Ireland's relationship with the EU. Many want EU law not to overrule Irish law, which defeats the purpose of having EU law.

Any changes to how the EU operates will require unanimity. However I say again, do we really want to be the Ian Paisley of the EU? Blocking everything? I mean if we want to block something, then surely it's not unreasonable for the other states to ask for permission to proceed.

I'll repeat again the energy competency issue. That could be placed into some kind of enhanced co-operation by the other 26 states, so that they could jointly negotiate energy policies and possibly reduce costs. If we cannot approve Lisbon and join are you really saying that we must block them doing so?

Ix.

Keewee6

ixtlan wrote: »

i've heard lots and lots of No campaigners saying they want a change in the Ireland's relationship with the EU. Many want EU law not to overrule Irish law, which defeats the purpose of having EU law.

exactly so get rid of EU law and just on national law or look at eu law but make sure national law overrides it

Scofflaw

Keewee6 wrote: »

exactly so get rid of EU law and just on national law or look at eu law but make sure national law overrides it

European laws are made by the member states agreeing a common position. There's no point at all to agreeing a common position if everyone can then override it either deliberately or by accident.

The better position is to put in as many checks as possible to ensure that European law is not made where individual national laws would be more appropriate - such as the subsidiarity checks introduced by Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

Keewee6 wrote: »

exactly so get rid of EU law and just on national law or look at eu law but make sure national law overrides it

This is an argument for no EU law at all, so really no EU at all. So really this is an argument for leaving the EU. Do you want to leave the EU?

Ix

marco_polo

Star Chamber wrote: »

So are you implying that if EU law is superior to national law, then it is an argument for no nation states at all? Do you want to abolish the nation state?

It already is superior to national law in all areas to which it applies. His point was that if someone is against this principal then the EU is the wrong club for them.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Star Chamber wrote: »

So are you implying that if EU law is superior to national law, then it is an argument for no nation states at all? Do you want to abolish the nation state?

EU law must be superior if there is to be EU law at all, because EU law is a subset of National law.

If you make EU law inferior, you remove the EU and leave national law behind.

If you remove National law, you remove the EU law, and the EU as well, due to EU law being a subset of National law.

Your logic is entirely flawed.

Scofflaw

Star Chamber wrote: »

So are you implying that if EU law is superior to national law, then it is an argument for no nation states at all? Do you want to abolish the nation state?

No, Freeborn John.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

"What happens if the result is 'NO'?"

several things, most importantly our government current and future would be considered "useless" when it comes to negotiating anything on our behalf

you know what they say about airing dirty laundry in public, FF are our problem the rest of the EU members dont care for their ****ups

it would be analogous to 27 people living in a large house, with the leanest youngest guy sitting around smoking dope, and eventually getting fat, when it comes to cleaning out the house everyone agrees to do so and paint a few walls, but our fat guy decides he doesnt want to join the party, ****ting up the house for the rest

there is U in union btw

on economic front, no common energy policy so we continue to pay high energy costs to corrupt countries like russia, this has direct knock on effect on ireland as we are quite literary the last in line

Keewee6

ixtlan wrote: »

This is an argument for no EU law at all, so really no EU at all. So really this is an argument for leaving the EU. Do you want to leave the EU?

Ix

no just get rid of EU law - or maybe we look into it

Keewee6

Scofflaw wrote: »

European laws are made by the member states agreeing a common position. There's no point at all to agreeing a common position if everyone can then override it either deliberately or by accident.

The better position is to put in as many checks as possible to ensure that European law is not made where individual national laws would be more appropriate - such as the subsidiarity checks introduced by Lisbon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

so dont bother havin a common position - each country have thier own

PopeBuckfastXVI

Keewee6 wrote: »

so dont bother havin a common position - each country have thier own

Yes yes, you don't want the EU to exist, well done, we get it.

Keewee6

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Yes yes, you don't want the EU to exist, well done, we get it.

gud stuff

marco_polo

Keewee6 wrote: »

no just get rid of EU law - or maybe we look into it

Keewee6 wrote: »

so dont bother havin a common position - each country have thier own

Wow. Just wow.

Back to the good old days of the 1950 then? Isolation and protectionism all the way.

Keewee6

marco_polo wrote: »

Wow. Just wow.

Back to the good old days of the 1950 then? Isolation and protectionism all the way.

fair enough you've just convinced me to vote no

oscarBravo

Keewee6 wrote: »

fair enough you've just convinced me to vote no

Call me cynical, but I don't think you took a whole lot of convincing.

Keewee6

oscarBravo wrote: »

Call me cynical, but I don't think you took a whole lot of convincing.

yeah your right to be honest - not much point in readin it either

StealthRolex

Here's an interesting article on what might happen if there is a No vote, as there currently is a No vote extant.

Likewise it is a pointer to what would happen if there is a Yes vote as is is based on the premise that the Treaty has already been ratified - bear in mind that currently Germany, Poland, Czech Republic and Ireland have yet to ratify.

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/swedes-to-split-foreign-agenda/65817.aspx