Lisbon Treaty

[OneRedArmy]

But people did vote no because politicians thought the people have the brains of a marshmallow. It's called likening one thing to another. Obviously jebus didn't sway my vote.


Again with the sweeping dismissive statements with no back up whatsoever. I think it's a default setting for some of yez!

And I'm not trying to argue whether or not the euro is good, but I am arguing that the EU and the government went way over the top when they stated the consequences of not joining. Different thing.See my reference to Iceland and New Zealand, which are probably the two closest economies to Ireland's outside the EU.

These are the best example of what not joining the Euro could've cost us.

The best you could do was a comparison to three countries 10-20 times our size that we economically have nothing in common with.

[pineapple stu]

Denmark and Sweden have 40m-80m people now?

And ironically, we've 10-20 times the population of Iceland.

[OneRedArmy]

Denmark and Sweden have 40m-80m people now?

And ironically, we've 10-20 times the population of Iceland.Thanks for misreading my post and the geography lesson.

I'll still take Iceland and New Zealand as the best comparisons when assessing the benefits of joining the Euro vs what could've happened.

If your views re the single currency are indicative of the wider population then the Government has a much wider and harder job on its hands.

[Student Mullet]

A further problem with your bullying, dismissive arrogance arises from the fact that it's a tact the EU have tried before. Take the Maastricht Treaty, for example. We were basically told that (and I paraphrase out of necessity) without the euro, Ireland would be nothing. We had to have this or we'd all end up back in the 60s.

The euro is quite popular, I don't think it took any bullying to get us to join.

[dahamsta]

Citing "popularity" as a reason is very odd. Popular with people or currency traders? I'm not sure how popular it would have been with either before we joined the eurozone, what with it not actually be a currency and all...

[Sheridan]

I see McCreevy is taking some of the flak for this in the European Parliament and facing calls for his resignation. Brilliant stuff, couldn't happen to a nicer ****.

[jebus]

I see McCreevy is taking some of the flak for this in the European Parliament and facing calls for his resignation. Brilliant stuff, couldn't happen to a nicer ****.

Not surprised given the balls the government made of promoting this. Still though, 5 more years come the next nationals eh lads

[OneRedArmy]

I see McCreevy is taking some of the flak for this in the European Parliament and facing calls for his resignation. Brilliant stuff, couldn't happen to a nicer ****.Thats McCreevy, the Commissioner who represents Ireland......oh wait now.....

[Student Mullet]

Citing "popularity" as a reason is very odd. Popular with people or currency traders? I'm not sure how popular it would have been with either before we joined the eurozone, what with it not actually be a currency and all...

I don't think citing popularity as a reason for something getting a lot of votes is odd, that's how the system works.

I don't know any currency traders. I've not seen any opinion polls on the topic so can only base the popularity of the currency on talking to the people I know and, of them, Pineapple Stu is the only one I'm aware of who doesn't like the euro.

[Sheridan]

Charlie McCreevy: Bad for Ireland, Bad for Europe.

[OneRedArmy]

Worth readling, maybe a different angle for some of the Little Irelanders...(note by Little Irelander, I am not referring to all of the No side, just a subset of them, before high horses are dusted off).

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b8b8cb6-3ba2-11dd-9cb2-0000779fd2ac.html

[pineapple stu]

The euro is quite popular, I don't think it took any bullying to get us to join.
Not the point. My point was that these doom and gloom scenarios were around before the Treaty, but we can now see that actually, they wouldn't have come about. Yet the Yes side continue with them ("Vote Yes for jobs!" as a quick off the top of my head example; it was the primary thrust of Martin's Irish Times article too), but with people now aware that they're nonsense, it's a completely ineffective tack. That's why Jebus' post was stupid, and that's a good part, I would say, of why the Treaty was rejected. Or, as I said in my original post -


people are looking for more of a reason to vote something in than "Shut up and vote for it, idiot."

[pete]

Worth readling, maybe a different angle for some of the Little Irelanders...(note by Little Irelander, I am not referring to all of the No side, just a subset of them, before high horses are dusted off).

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0b8b8cb6-3ba2-11dd-9cb2-0000779fd2ac.html

Good article but it will be discounted by some as some sort of neo liberal FT plot.

[jebus]

Yes the very real problem of climate change and not allowing other Balkan countries to enter are stupid problems Stu. Not giving up pretending that Ireland isn't linked completely with Europe is a very serious problem however, Vote No For Pretence

[pineapple stu]

I'm not taking issue with your point, I'm taking issue with your way of making it and pointing out that that's why the Treaty was rejected. Given that it was the first time anyone'd asked the Yes side what the whole thing was about, it was an arrogant, dismissive answer, a neat microcosm of the Yes campaign, which brings me back to me conclusions I made about that.

[jebus]

You asked has anyone from the Yes side in this thread even given a reason for voting Yes yet and I gave you two, how arrogant of me

[dahamsta]

Good article but it will be discounted by some as some sort of neo liberal FT plot.Or simply an opinion piece with the same value as every other opinion piece, pro and con.

[John83]

Out of curiosity, I asked a Dutch friend there what the reaction was like in the Netherlands to our no vote. For context, he studied politics in university and now works for a Dutch political party. Here's his reply:

Well to the government it's mostly considered an inconvenience since our parliament approved the treaty 2 weeks ago. Our Prime Minister is respecting the outcome though, stating the treaty is as good as dead now
the European Commission seemed less inclined to respect democracy lol
the people are cheering but most of them don't really know what the treaty is about if I may be so arrogant.
The media are pretty much neutral on the treaty itself, but fiercely anti-EU on how Brussels is handling it lots of free promotion for Ireland
they mostly oppose what is perceived as Brussels' arrogant approach of the issue. Most seem to have concluded that's also one of the reasons the Irish rejected it: too much too soon and too little respect for voter concerns

[pineapple stu]

You asked has anyone from the Yes side in this thread even given a reason for voting Yes yet and I gave you two, how arrogant of me
And if you'd bothered to read my reply outlining my issues with your post, you wouldn't be dragging this thread into a circular discussion. It was easy to miss in fairness, huddled in there right next to yours. Suggest you go off and read it before random whining like the above again?

Thanks.

[OneRedArmy]

Or simply an opinion piece with the same value as every other opinion piece, pro and con.I would hazard the opinion that that article has slightly more value that someone's view that the Treaty will lead all our children to be conscipted into a European army.

[dahamsta]

I wouldn't. The only difference is the level of scaremongering. It's just as short on actual facts.

[Réiteoir]

House of Lords have just voted by quite a large majority for the UK Government to proceed with ratification

[Bald Student]

I wouldn't. The only difference is the level of scaremongering. It's just as short on actual facts.I think you're being unfair on the article's author.

It's an honest opinion piece written from the perspective of a european living in China. Like you said about anyone's opinion, we can agree or disagree with him but not all opinions are equal and this one is well written by someone who seems to know what he's talking about and nowhere is it does he try to scare Irish voters or anyone else.

[dahamsta]

I don't doubt it's honest and I'm sure he does know what he's talking about, but he's done nothing to prove either of those things, which makes the article bog standard op-ed with about as much value as our voting machines.

I'd hardly call that "unfair". Writing an article devoid of facts could be considered the same thing.

[Bald Student]

I don't doubt it's honest and I'm sure he does know what he's talking about, but he's done nothing to prove either of those things, which makes the article bog standard op-ed with about as much value as our voting machines.

I'd hardly call that "unfair". Writing an article devoid of facts could be considered the same thing.
Fair enough, there's no real argument between us.

It's a well written op-ed piece and doesn't claim to be anything else. I'll admit that I don't read the Financial Times as often as I could but I think that they do have a pretty heavy news section in the areas that they cover. Not every article needs to be a report on facts, there's room for interpretation and opinion as well and I quite like it when papers keep the two separate.

In any case, the reason I commented is because I think you're being unfair using the word 'scaremongering' to describe it. That aside, what either of us thought of the article isn't immediately relevant.

[BohsPartisan]

Presumably this vote refers to a previous millennium, so the contradiction doesn't arise.

Capital is still the dominant factor in our lives. Rather than dismiss ideas you don't really understand...
Understand! (http://davidharvey.org)

Back on topic, the campaign against a re-run should start right now and should collaborate with the hundreds of thousands who actively campaigned against the treaty across Europe and reach out to the Millions who opposes it in its various guises.

[Bald Student]

Back on topic, the campaign against a re-run should start right now and should collaborate with the hundreds of thousands who actively campaigned against the treaty across Europe and reach out to the Millions who opposes it in its various guises.Presumably a campaign against a re-run shouldn't begin until we've seen what is being put to us?

[BohsPartisan]

We effectively denied Croatia the chance for economic growth by voting no, how about that for a reason to vote yes


:rolleyes:

Thats a load of @rse. There is absolutely no reason Croatia can't join the EU if they're dumb enough to want to now. You know its never going to be the gravy train it once was again.

As for your point on the environment, there was six words on environmental matters on the Treaty. The EU has historically been bad for the environment and the likes of Merkel and Sarkozy are definitely no friends of environmentalists. Berlusconi is hardly concerned with that type of thing either. He's far too busy pushing Italy back to Fascism.

Its actually laughable that people really believe that these "leaders" have our best interests at the heart of this treaty.

[jebus]

And if you'd bothered to read my reply outlining my issues with your post, you wouldn't be dragging this thread into a circular discussion. It was easy to miss in fairness, huddled in there right next to yours. Suggest you go off and read it before random whining like the above again?

Would pretty much by my reply to your own post.

Anyway on page 42 you say my points are scaremongering 'Vote Yes or the sky will fall down and are rubbish reasons, on this page you say you don't have a problem with my points, just the way I say them. Are you a confused individual, or do you like scaremongering?

To move away from Stu, do people in the No camp not see the benefits of Europe having a common policy on climate change (for one point) as being a greater reason to vote than a percieved loss of power for this island? Personally I think climate change is going to be, and is, the biggest issue on the world table at the moment and I was sold on a Yes vote from the moment I heard the Treaty would bring Europe together on one common policy for carbon cutting, something which in turn would put pressure on the US, which in turn could have a positive effect on China. A lot of ifs in there I know, but better that than a world sitting back hoping things will get better.

Edited for your points BohsPartisan
As per Croatia and the Balkan countries. I haven't read the part of the Treaty where it states it will be more difficult for these countries to join (not Croatia, it's been clarified that they're okay), but I've read reports stating it will be in the Irish Times and BBC.co.uk and I tend to trust these news outlets. And if I were Croatia I'd still want on the EU gravytrain while it lasts

As for climate change. Those words were a positive step if it gets countries moving, even slowly, on climate change. Berlusconi and Sarkozy (especially Sarkozy) won't be around for much longer, and even if they are and have signed up to the Treaty than many environmental issues will be dealt with in Brussels. Don't understand your apparant attitude of 'the big boys won't let you' given your political leanings towards a minority party

[BohsPartisan]

Presumably a campaign against a re-run shouldn't begin until we've seen what is being put to us?

Depends where you stand. I can see how Libertas and SF would be waiting to see whats on the table but there will be nothing of interest to most people who voted no. It will probably be some sort of concession on corporate tax and more assurances on the military.

However, lets remember that any concessions will be Ireland specific, we should continue to stand behind the right of every member state's citizens to vote on the treaty and if it is rejected by them too it should be scrapped completely.

[BohsPartisan]

As for climate change. Those words were a positive step if it gets countries moving, even slowly, on climate change. Berlusconi and Sarkozy (especially Sarkozy) won't be around for much longer, and even if they are and have signed up to the Treaty than many environmental issues will be dealt with in Brussels. Don't understand your apparant attitude of 'the big boys won't let you' given your political leanings towards a minority party

The Irish Times was one of the most incredibly biased sources on the Lisbon Treaty and they've been digging up all sorts of non-reasons to whinge since the vote.

Those words on the environment are nothing but lip service. A desperate attempt to get the green vote. Like the Charter of Fundamental rights (only even more so) they are meaningless platitudes without any legal obligation for anyone to do anything.

[jebus]

The Irish Times was one of the most incredibly biased sources on the Lisbon Treaty and they've been digging up all sorts of non-reasons to whinge since the vote.

And the BBC? The Irish Times is in myopinion the finest media outlet we have in this country, they may show bias when the majority of the writers think something is right (there was a minority of rights who advocated No), but I don't think they play around with the facts to push their points


Those words on the environment are nothing but lip service. A desperate attempt to get the green vote. Like the Charter of Fundamental rights (only even more so) they are meaningless platitudes without any legal obligation for anyone to do anything.

We could sit hear and say democracy is lip service, that the general populace have never, and will never have any real say in anything that gets done in any country in this world. Politicians rarely sign up to legal promises, but at least having them talk about the environment, especially when climate change isn't the buzz word of the moment, is encouraging. Certainly more encouraging than pretending that the people will someday rise up and attempt to have a real say (that days been and past I'm afraid), and certainly more encouraging than a bunch of Little Irelanders pretending that we can somehow go it alone in the world economy

[BohsPartisan]

The Irish Times is in my opinion the finest media outlet we have in this country,


Not exactly saying much though. The BBC? Media today get their news from the same sources.

/Climate change. World leaders have been talking about it for years, nothing concrete has been achieved. There have been thousands of words poured forth from the mouths of people a lot more well meaning than the Lisbon architects. Do you think six more words puts the issue at tipping point? Scant reason to vote for the treaty.

[OneRedArmy]

Depends where you stand. I can see how Libertas and SF would be waiting to see whats on the table but there will be nothing of interest to most people who voted no. It will probably be some sort of concession on corporate tax and more assurances on the military. Bingo, we have a winner.....

There is no concession necessary on corporation tax as it is in the same category as conscription into the EU army, i.e. not currently within the remit of the EU to alter and not within the remit post Lisbon.

Yet another person who believed Coir and the loonies at the expense of reading the Treaty.


However, lets remember that any concessions will be Ireland specific, we should continue to stand behind the right of every member state's citizens to vote on the treaty and if it is rejected by them too it should be scrapped completely.What right?

Why should people be given a right to vote on the treaty when many of them will misinterpret it exactly as you and many other Irish people have?

[pete]

Even though I voted Yes at the moment I would not like to see a re-run. However as a country we need to assess how this affects us in the EU (can they proceed without us?) & where our interests lie.

The more I read this thread I find that some No voters would reject the Treaty in any shape & likely have rejected previous Treaties. I can't believe any one would even discuss leaving the EU as that would be insanity.

It has been a long time since the EU has only been involved in economic issues. We have had an EU Parliament & laws have been created at EU level as far as I can remember so no chance we are to wipe out the last 20+ years.

[BohsPartisan]

Why should people be given a right to vote on the treaty when many of them will misinterpret it exactly as you and many other Irish people have?

No I haven't misinterpreted it. Your arrogance that only "experts" (oh those ones who said you'd have to be insane to read the whole Treaty?) should have a say on this, portrays you as an authoritarian enemy of democracy. I don't know if thats how you see yourself but thats how you look.

What gives you the right to judge my interpretation? Sarkozy admitted that under the terms of Lisbon he would be pushing for a European Army. IBEC told their members to vote Yes on the basis that it facilitated Privatisation on a bigger scale than previously of public services. Several high European figures (quoted in previous texts) admitted to deliberately pulling the wool over people's eyes. Its all there in black and white. So who misinterpreted what? Did they pull the wool over your eyes too or do you think that sort of behavior has any place in a free society?

Anyone who looks at the Lisbon Treaty as a stand alone document has already misinterpreted it before starting to read it. Firstly it bust be read in the context of the original EU Constitution. It is an ammendment to this and sometimes it doesn't tell you what they are amending. You have to look for it. Secondly it has to be put in the context of all the treaties that have gone before it since Maastricht since it builds upon these. Thirdly you must look at the fact that interpretation of which articles have precedence in the case where they conflict is the property of the European Court of Justice which sees the "right" of "competition" (these are in exclamation marks for a reason) as above all others. Take the charter for example (which has been in place since 2000 - its not new, the LT just reaffirmed it). The Laval and Ruffert Judgments showed clearly that the view of the ECJ is that the charters "rights" are lesser than the right of "competition" and "free trade".

Regardless of any of this, if the Irish government, Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi or any of these people were so concerned with workers rights, the environment or anything else in this Treaty that is supposed to be progressive, they could walk into the Dail and their various national parliaments and pass legislation to that effect. These protocols were specifically put there to remove attention from the myriad negativities in the Treaty that they didn't want us see, and that to these "leaders" were the most important parts that took precedence over all else.


Yet another person who believed Coir and the loonies at the expense of reading the Treaty.

Hardly seeing as how I never looked at one piece of literature Cóir (or Libertas for that matter) produced :rolleyes: Your eagerness to jump on any little thing you misinterpret in one of my posts shows that you have no argument to make.


Just back on the Environment thing:

Environmental NGO welcomes No vote
Irish No vote represents progress for Europe
Ecologistas en Acción
June 13th, 2008
Ecologistas en Acción wish to express our satisfaction at the victory of the NO in the Irish referendum on the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. It is a victory which represents progress towards the realization of a more sustainable, democratic, social and peaceful Europe.
Ecologistas en Acción have already made public on many occasions that the Lisbon Treaty exemplifies a EU which is unsustainable, anti-democratic, anti-social, and militarist.
It is unsustainable as witnessed by its growing reliance on nuclear energy and its inability to fulfil the Kyoto Protocol without having recourse to market mechanisms…

Its is antidemocratic as witnessed by the fact that a treaty as wide-ranging as Lisbon was only submitted to referendum in a single country.

The whole shebang... (http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/335)

[SMorgan]

Why should people be given a right to vote on the treaty when many of them will misinterpret it exactly as you and many other Irish people have?

Absolute classic!!

Of course you had the whole thing figured out. So when the architect of the treaty said that issues that people would find distasteful would be hidden and concealed within the text, you knew what those issues were and still voted yes.

Just out of interest, why have elections at all? Won't people "misinterpret" the party's economic policies. You're wasted here in Ireland. There a number of dictatorships around the world that could use a man of your talents.

[mypost]

Even though I voted Yes at the moment I would not like to see a re-run. However as a country we need to assess how this affects us in the EU (can they proceed without us?) & where our interests lie.

The more I read this thread I find that some No voters would reject the Treaty in any shape & likely have rejected previous Treaties. I can't believe any one would even discuss leaving the EU as that would be insanity.

If the result had gone the other way, the No side would have been told to respect the democratic decision of the Irish electorate. Now the result didn't go the politicians way, they don't wish to respect it. All "respect the result" talk from them is hot air, unless they rule out another referendum. 860,000 people have sent their message to Brussels, and they represent the wishes of most voters across Europe, who were refused the opportunity to vote.

The failure to respect a democratic vote from here, would automatically mean a second No from mypost, should the gun be put to our head again at a later date. We will not be ordered how to vote, by insiders or outsiders. The UK surrendered their sovereignty and democratic rights to Brussels last night, it's important that we keep ours.

[Macy]

There is no concession necessary on corporation tax as it is in the same category as conscription into the EU army, i.e. not currently within the remit of the EU to alter and not within the remit post Lisbon.
One thing this has proved is the veto is effectively useless for small countries anyway (now whether that helps the Yes or No side I'm not sure). The other 26 decide to harmonise tax, and we don't like? Tough, take it or leave. However, the French seem to be rowing back on their position of harmonisation and consilidation in the wake of the No vote, and are now talking about on VAT rates.

[Macy]

The more I read this thread I find that some No voters would reject the Treaty in any shape & likely have rejected previous Treaties.
That's been obvious from the start - there's a hard No vote, which has been around the same for all referenda. This is why the higher turnout is taken as being good for the Yes side, as the numbers don't change. That's what changed with this vote - relatively high turnout, but a high no vote. How soft is the increase in the No vote is the thing they need time to find out, and they need idiots in Europe to shut the fook up to stop hardening that vote. Which they seem to have belated done.

btw Fair play to Avril Doyle yesterday in the European Parliament.

[pete]

One thing this has proved is the veto is effectively useless for small countries anyway (now whether that helps the Yes or No side I'm not sure). The other 26 decide to harmonise tax, and we don't like? Tough, take it or leave. However, the French seem to be rowing back on their position of harmonisation and consilidation in the wake of the No vote, and are now talking about on VAT rates.

Do you honestly believe tax harmonisation is possible? I am sure some politicians across Europe want it but it cannot work in practice. Every country decides to raise its taxes differently but ultimately they have find it somewhere. I suppose Germans would not be keen on us having low Corporation tax rate at the same time they are paying us subsidy in the form of grants but those days will be gone soon.

If France & Germany want to form a joint army who are we to stop them? The UK did not want to join the Euro but did not stop the rest of the EU. The are countless agreements between sub groups of the EU which countries opt out of if they wish & has always been the case.

[shantykelly]

but is this not the point of the lisbon treaty? to harmonise the working of the eu? my impression was that it was to basically roll all previous treaties into one. i just didnt like the way they intended to go about it. i think the principle is sound, i just dont agree with the method.

[GavinZac]

but is this not the point of the lisbon treaty? to harmonise the working of the eu?By harmonisation, they're talking about harmonisation of taxation levels. One of the scare tactics the No campaign were spreading was that voting Yes meant the EU could up your tax rate, something which was categorically denied by the Yes side and the Referendum Commission, and grudgingly accepted by the No side; that didn't mean they took down the posters saying exactly that though. Indeed, some of them are still outside my window, one if these days Im going to have to borrow a ladder.


my impression was that it was to basically roll all previous treaties into one. i just didnt like the way they intended to go about it. i think the principle is sound, i just dont agree with the method.It didn't roll any previous treaties into one. Indeed, it did the very opposite; it didnt actually work as a legal document itself, but as a series of amendments to previous treaties so that they would remain standalone and valid.

[Macy]

Do you honestly believe tax harmonisation is possible? I am sure some politicians across Europe want it but it cannot work in practice. Every country decides to raise its taxes differently but ultimately they have find it somewhere.
I don't know but it was/ is clearly on the French agenda (consolidation probably more likely). It is clear we'd be relying on one of the larger states also having a problem with it though, as our (smaller countries) veto is proving to be worthless. It's probably off topic, as it isn't really about Lisbon, bar what the response says about the value of the veto.

[GavinZac]

I don't know but it was/ is clearly on the French agenda (consolidation probably more likely). It is clear we'd be relying on one of the larger states also having a problem with it though, as our (smaller countries) veto is proving to be worthless. It's probably off topic, as it isn't really about Lisbon, bar what the response says about the value of the veto.
Proving? A few politicians and a few media sources make some disgruntled noises and suddenly its proven our veto is worthless? Apart from the referendum not being a veto issue in the relevant sense, nobody has forced anything on us and I'd love to meet the lawyer who can make EU legislation go away, in terms of ignoring a veto. In fact, if he exists, put him in touch with the UK government as they'll love him.

[Macy]

Since the result, all we've heard is that the other 26 would progress. Unless that was blatant scaremongering from those who support the yes side, by the EU politicians and by the media?

[GavinZac]

Since the result, all we've heard is that the other 26 would progress. Unless that was blatant scaremongering from those who support the yes side, by the EU politicians and by the media?

Progress? What does that mean?

A couple of individuals of the ilk of Lucinda Creighton have made petulant noises. The media have their own priorities, printing outlandish things is one of them.

The leader of our country is in Brussels today today to tell the EU that we need time to sort out our own response to the situation. Other FF politicians have said that Ireland won't be bullied into doing anything.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbgbgbkfoj/
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhgbgbkfqlid/

Meanwhile, self-appointed victors in this, Sinn Fein, are unable to give a single reason for the success of the No campaign, and simply say that Cowen must negotiate a better deal, as if we've now got the EU by the nuts. Both extreme scenarios (yours, and Sinn Fein's) aren't realistic.

[dahamsta]

Did anyone actually respond to my comment about "No Plan B" I wonder?

Does nobody think it just a smidgeon odd that the politicans of Ireland and Europe claim to have absolutely no plans for the possibility we might vote No? Not one politician in Europe planned for this eventuality, apparently. Unless they're lying of course, which hardly seem better.

These are the people Yes voters want to hand more power to? Power to give themselves even more power on a regular basis?

I think I'll stick with the No for now, thanks all the same.

adam

[superfrank]

They're just unbelievably arrogant.

The Yes campaigning showed that in the run-up.

[GavinZac]

Did anyone actually respond to my comment about "No Plan B" I wonder?Who said "No Plan B"? I'd imagine they were referring to the total lack of a discernible, logical set of reasons for the No result.


Does nobody think it just a smidgeon odd that the politicans of Ireland and Europe claim to have absolutely no plans for the possibility we might vote No? Not one politician in Europe planned for this eventuality, apparently. Unless they're lying of course, which hardly seem better.

These are the people Yes voters want to hand more power to? Power to give themselves even more power on a regular basis?

I think I'll stick with the No for now, thanks all the same.

adam
I'd imagine Plan B is to sort out what we actually want, present that to the EU, and see if changes can be made that suit everyone.

We don't have agreement on what we actually want yet, so the Taoiseach is telling the EU we need time to reflect.


They're just unbelievably arrogant.

The Yes campaigning showed that in the run-up.
Blatant lying and demands that we milk the result for everything we can get isn't arrogance? If the reality were mypost's anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-everything views, or BohsPartisan's dreams of a vague socialist overthrow of the oligarchy, it almost wouldn't be too bad. Instead the reality is that the fallout of this is soundbites around europe of Gerry Adams recommending we hold the EU hostage like a gigantic Shergar or Ben Dunne.