Implications of a 'No' Vote on Lisbon

Dannyboy83

What are the implications of a 'No' vote for Ireland?


I'm guessing short term benefits in that Fianna Fail will be ejected from government, but long term loss in that we will be suddenly become the lepers of Europe, not just economically but politically too.

ei.sdraob

FF will not fall from government

the only ones who have the power to get rid of them are the Greens

and they are doing everything to propup them clowns

if you think that voting NO will cause FF to fall then you should seriously get to know Irish politics a bit better

Euro_Kraut

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What are the implications of a 'No' vote for Ireland?


I'm guessing short term benefits in that Fianna Fail will be ejected from government

I don't agree. They didn't leave government when they lost Lisbon 1. They didn't leave when they lost Nice 1. They didn't leave when they lost the Abortion referendum. They didn't leave when the banking system collapsed on their watch. They didn't leave when unemployment doubled in a year. They didn't leave when the public finances deteriorated so much that we had to borrow €400 million a year. They didn't leave when it emerged that the State jobs agency had spent millions of taxpayers money on frivolous expensive. They didn't leave when we found out that they gave a chairman of that company a backhander to leave quietly. They didn't leave when opinions polls showed they had the confidence of just 15% of the nation.

There is nothing to suggest that a No vote on Lisbon will make them leave.

RedPlanet

I suspect there will be whispers from our EU masters to both the Greens and FF to remove themselves.

Biggins

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

What are the implications of a 'No' vote for Ireland?
I'm guessing short term benefits in that Fianna Fail will be ejected from government, but long term loss in that we will be suddenly become the lepers of Europe, not just economically but politically too.

First of all, we might be treated like "lepers" but that will be from the self- interested (in their own nations outcome) thickheaded politicians.
The average people themselves in the EU that didn't even get allowed a vote on the course their masters are taking them on, I suspect will NOT be treating us like lepers.
Some of them might actually admit - ok, we might be stupid (arguable, I would say not!) to vote "No" but at least we have found a set of balls again to be able to till say "NO" - again!

Will it bring down FF? Sadly no I guess.
They will brazen it out like everything else that has happened over the last few years, months, weeks and even days...

brianthebard

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

we will be suddenly become the lepers of Europe, not just economically but politically too.

Were France or the Netherlands treated like this after they voted no to the constitution? I don't think so.

The reality is that the EU will continue as normal, anything else is scaremongering from the Yes side.

OldJay

brianthebard wrote: »

Were France or the Netherlands treated like this after they voted no to the constitution? I don't think so.

The reality is that the EU will continue as normal, anything else is scaremongering from the Yes side.

France and the Netherlands have large economies, domestic industries and plenty of clout within the EU.
Ireland on the other hand . . .

ei.sdraob

Justind wrote: »

Ireland on the other hand . . .

is going cap in hand to ECB in order to finance 20+ billion a year budget deficit and 90billion developer bailout


not to mention the people of these countries were listened to and the bits they objected to removed

same as here in Ireland after Lisbon 1


voting NO again would be without precedent

OldJay

ei.sdraob wrote: »

is going cap in hand to ECB in order to finance 20+ billion a year budget deficit and 90billion developer bailout

not to mention the people of these countries were listened to and the bits they objected to removed

same as here in Ireland after Lisbon 1

voting NO again would be without precedent

Apparently that plain truth is "scaremongering". In fact, much more so than poster trying to dupe people with "Minimum Wage €1.84?"

Capt'n Midnight

FF didn't leave during the tribunals , didn't leave when a TD was imprisoned when TD's were expeled form the party, in the past there was the gun running.

Actually come to think of it what does it take to get rid of an FF government ?

Saint_Mel

Lisbon III

Hellrazer

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the people of these countries were listened to and the bits they objected to removed

same as here in Ireland after Lisbon 1

Right dont take me up wrong on this but see the bit Ive highlighted---Is it not 100% true that the Treaty we are voting on next week is the exact same as Lisbon 1??

So how can you(or anyone else for that matter) say that we were listened to and had the bits we objected to changed the way France and the Netherlands had?

You see this is why Ive decided not to vote(or am possibly a swing no voter)

On one hand you have the Yes backers saying we`re getting everything that we wanted changed after rejecting Lisbon 1 yet the treaty hasnt changed by one full stop.

Biggins

Hellrazer wrote: »

Right dont take me up wrong on this but see the bit Ive highlighted---Is it not 100% true that the Treaty we are voting on next week is the exact same as Lisbon 1??

So how can you(or anyone else for that matter) say that we were listened to and had the bits we objected to changed the way France and the Netherlands had?

You see this is why Ive decided not to vote(or am possibly a swing no voter)

On one hand you have the Yes backers saying we`re getting everything that we wanted changed after rejecting Lisbon 1 yet the treaty hasn't changed by one full stop.

Nothing has changed accept that we have a few political promises spoke about in the fancy name of "Future Protocols".
Which have no legal basis by the way!
To top things off, we all know how valuable are political promises from politicians.

Euro_Kraut

Biggins wrote: »

Nothing has changed accept that we have a few political promises spoke about in the fancy name of "Future Protocols".
Which have no legal basis by the way!

With respect Biggins, you are confusing two issues.

One is the protocols on areas like Neutrality, Abortion and Taxation. These are legally binding.

The other is a 'solemn declaration' on workers rights. This is not legal binding but a political promise.

This explains things nicely: http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_developments.html

There also is the Commissioner issue which has changed since the last vote.

brianthebard

Justind wrote: »

France and the Netherlands have large economies, domestic industries and plenty of clout within the EU.
Ireland on the other hand . . .

Is that the 'vote yes or we'll be crushed by our EU overlords' line again?

Hellrazer

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

One is the protocols on areas like Neutrality, Abortion and Taxation. These are legally binding.

If they are legally binding then why was the treaty not changed to include them?

The other is a 'solemn declaration' on workers rights. This is not legal binding but a political promise.

Political promise?As Biggins says We know how valuable promises from politicians are!!

These are genuine concerns by the way.I just dont get the whole "Not a single changed about the treaty" and yet we`re expected to vote Yes for the same thing we voted No to a year or so ago.

Tea-a-Maria

I'm guessing it's because it would have taken too long.My understanding is that the guarantees we've received will be incorporated into the next treaty(assuming Lisbon is passed)

Daftendirekt

Hellrazer wrote: »

If they are legally binding then why was the treaty not changed to include them?

Because the whole thing would have to be re-ratified by the other member states. And because there wasn't any need to do so, since the guarantees are assurances that what they say isn't in the Treaty, isn't in the Treaty. As legally binding as the Belfast Agreement, incidentally.

Political promise?As Biggins says We know how valuable promises from politicians are!!

This isn't Fianna Fáil, these are represenatatives from the other EU member states. And incidentally, when have they ever gone back on a solemn declaration or a guarantee?

These are genuine concerns by the way.I just dont get the whole "Not a single changed about the treaty" and yet we`re expected to vote Yes for the same thing we voted No to a year or so ago.

See above.

Daftendirekt

Tea-a-Maria wrote: »

I'm guessing it's because it would have taken too long.My understanding is that the guarantees we've received will be incorporated into the next treaty(assuming Lisbon is passed)

Exactly.

They'll be made into protocols at the next accession treaty.

Hellrazer

Tea-a-Maria wrote: »

My understanding is that the guarantees we've received will be incorporated into the next treaty(assuming Lisbon is passed)

So the so called guarantees wont be actual written guarantees unless we pass Lisbon 2?
Hmmm--Doesnt make too much sense IMO.Surely if a Yes vote was so important then these things would be written in stone before the referendum.

Sam Vimes

Hellrazer wrote: »

So the so called guarantees wont be actual written guarantees unless we pass Lisbon 2?
Hmmm--Doesnt make too much sense IMO.Surely if a Yes vote was so important then these things would be written in stone before the referendum.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/108622.pdf

(iii) the Decision is legally binding and will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

Don't believe the lies

ei.sdraob

Hellrazer wrote: »

So the so called guarantees wont be actual written guarantees unless we pass Lisbon 2?
Hmmm--Doesnt make too much sense IMO.Surely if a Yes vote was so important then these things would be written in stone before the referendum.

whats the point of setting them in stone if the treaty may not pass?

btw they carry the same legal weight as the Good Friday Agreement

please do tell us that you believe thats null and void too

Hellrazer

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Because the whole thing would have to be re-ratified by the other member states. And because there wasn't any need to do so, since the guarantees are assurances that what they say isn't in the Treaty, isn't in the Treaty. As legally binding as the Belfast Agreement, incidentally.

Would you have a link anywhere that says that theyre as binding as the Belfast agreement?

This isn't Fianna Fáil, these are represenatatives from the other EU member states. And incidentally, when have they ever gone back on a solemn declaration or a guarantee?

You`d still think assume that if Lisbon 2 was so important they`d have the agreements written in stone before the vote.

You see this is where Im still leaning towards a No.I honestly just dont believe a word out of any politicians anymore.
My main reason is still what I posted in my first post in this thread ie that we are still being asked to vote on a piece of paper that is exactly the same as it was over a year ago.

Sam Vimes

The treaty was not changed for the guarantees because the issues of abortion, taxation, neutrality and conscription were never related to the treaty in the first place, they were simply lies that unfortunately a lot of people were led to believe and the issue of the loss of a commissioner could be changed using existing rules

IF THE LISBON TREATY DOES NOT COME IN TO FORCE


The present rules provide that the number of Commissioners must be less than the number of member states once the number of member states reaches 27. There are currently 27 member states so, if the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified, then the next Commission must have less than 27 members. The current rules provide that the Council must decide, unanimously, how many Commission members there will be. The members must be chosen according to a rotation system based on the principle of equality and the Council must decide, unanimously, how exactly this is to be implemented.


IF THE LISBON TREATY DOES COME IN TO FORCE


If the Treaty comes into force then all member states will nominate a Commissioner for the period 2009 – 2014. The Lisbon Treaty provides a mechanism for the possible reduction of the size of the Commission from 2014. This mechanism, if used, would result in two-thirds of the member states, rather than all of them, nominating a Commissioner in 2014. There are 27 member states at present. So, if the number of member states remains the same, there would be 18 Commissioners in the period 2014 – 2019.


Under this mechanism the right to nominate a Commissioner would rotate among the member states on an equal basis. This means that each member state would nominate a member of the Commission for two out of every three Commissions (that is, for 10 years out of every 15 year cycle).


However, the European Council has decided that, if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, it will not implement this mechanism in 2014 and will instead continue the present arrangement whereby each member state nominates a Commissioner.

And it's a legally binding decision as the guarantees say.
http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_european_commission.html

marco_polo

Hellrazer wrote: »

So the so called guarantees wont be actual written guarantees unless we pass Lisbon 2?
Hmmm--Doesnt make too much sense IMO.Surely if a Yes vote was so important then these things would be written in stone before the referendum.

They are written down on in the proceedings of the June European Council meeting, and the text is in a sticky thread at the top of the forum.

Lisbon will not exist as a fully binding legal treaty under international law until it is ratified, the exact same timeframe applies to the guarantees which will come into force at exactly the same point in time as Lisbon does.

Sam Vimes

Hellrazer wrote: »

You`d still think assume that if Lisbon 2 was so important they`d have the agreements written in stone before the vote.

They are written in stone. They've been unanimously agreed by all 27 heads of state, they've been passed through all 27 parliaments and they've been registered with the UN, just like the Good Friday Agreement and the Edinburgh Agreement. The people saying they're not legally binding are the same liars who made the guarantees necessary in the first place by tricking the Irish people into thinking that the treaty effected taxation, abortion, neutrality and conscription

marco_polo

Hellrazer wrote: »

Would you have a link anywhere that says that theyre as binding as the Belfast agreement?





You`d still think assume that if Lisbon 2 was so important they`d have the agreements written in stone before the vote.

You see this is where Im still leaning towards a No.I honestly just dont believe a word out of any politicians anymore.
My main reason is still what I posted in my first post in this thread ie that we are still being asked to vote on a piece of paper that is exactly the same as it was over a year ago.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

Hellrazer

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They are written in stone. They've been unanimously agreed by all 27 heads of state, they've been passed through all 27 parliaments and they've been registered with the UN, just like the Good Friday Agreement and the Edinburgh Agreement. The people saying they're not legally binding are the same liars who made the guarantees necessary in the first place by tricking the Irish people into thinking that the treaty effected taxation, abortion, neutrality and conscription

Thanks for that.
So next question--Am I right to think that these lies are (possibly) still being made up(from either side) about Lisbon 2 because I honestly dont know what to believe about this treaty.

BTW my head hurts after reading the last few posts and links

ei.sdraob

Hellrazer wrote: »

Thanks for that.
So next question--Am I right to think that these lies are (possibly) still being made up(from either side) about Lisbon 2 because I honestly dont know what to believe about this treaty.

BTW my head hurts after reading the last few posts and links

yes quite alot of lies and exaggerations like the €200 (its gone to 400) billion one about fisheries

when if anything the fisheries figure is 8 billion since we joined the EU

Sam Vimes

Hellrazer wrote: »

Thanks for that.
So next question--Am I right to think that these lies are (possibly) still being made up(from either side) about Lisbon 2 because I honestly dont know what to believe about this treaty.

BTW my head hurts after reading the last few posts and links

Yes there are many many lies, eg €1.84 minimum wage, €200 billion taken in fisheries and farming is next, no future referenda, EU law becoming superior to Irish law (it already is), invalid comparisons of voting weights, that the Swedish Lavelle judgement could be made here and that Lisbon "copper-fastens it", that we'll have to increase military spending and help out militarily if another nation is attacked and so on and so on and so on.

There are too many to list them so tell me anything you've heard that would make you vote no and we'll attempt to tell you if it's true or not.

The no side's lies are compared to vague slogans such as "yes for jobs" and "yes for the economy" as if they're just as bad but in reality 91% of economists, 90% of businesses and the majority of trade unions agree that a yes vote will help the economy so it's not a lie

20goto10

Hellrazer wrote: »

Right dont take me up wrong on this but see the bit Ive highlighted---Is it not 100% true that the Treaty we are voting on next week is the exact same as Lisbon 1??

So how can you(or anyone else for that matter) say that we were listened to and had the bits we objected to changed the way France and the Netherlands had?

You see this is why Ive decided not to vote(or am possibly a swing no voter)

On one hand you have the Yes backers saying we`re getting everything that we wanted changed after rejecting Lisbon 1 yet the treaty hasnt changed by one full stop.

But the thing is the No side are not asking to have stuff taken out of the treaty, they're asking to have the guarantees put in. It's dirty tactics from the No campaigners because it's physically impossible to remove the problematic issues because they are simply not in the treaty. It's completely unreasonable to demand that the guarantees be put in to the treaty and that the ratification start over again.

You Have a guarantee that the stuff you're worried about is not in the treaty. The only possible reason to vote No again is to somehow sabotage the EU agenda, which is not going to happen just cause lil aul Ireland has had a bit too much to drink and is feeling brave against the big boys.

Look at the political parties who are campaigning against Lisbon. That alone should ring alarm bells.