Lisbon Treaty

Reading of the comments from the No side I can't help feel opinions would be different if Brussels was hanging us out more cash then they are now. I get the impression some people feel we don't need the EU cash any more. Issues such as democratic deficit were not widespread problem when we were poor.

I find the democratic debate the funniest. Some say the EU is for all 500m citizens but does this mean 1 vote per person? Some don't like that we don't get to vote on EU President but again does this mean 1 person 1 vote? Is it one person one vote or one country one vote?

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

I find the democratic debate the funniest. Some say the EU is for all 500m citizens but does this mean 1 vote per person? Some don't like that we don't get to vote on EU President but again does this mean 1 person 1 vote? Is it one person one vote or one country one vote?

:confused:

---

Why is it funny? I actually don't see what you are getting at here. I for one made it perfectly clear that I am against the EU's undemocratic centralism and I am against the fact that other countries didn't get to vote on the treaty. I can not speak for everyone here but my idea of democracy is radically different from what the EU promotes as democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Why is it funny? I actually don't see what you are getting at here. I for one made it perfectly clear that I am against the EU's undemocratic centralism and I am against the fact that other countries didn't get to vote on the treaty. I can not speak for everyone here but my idea of democracy is radically different from what the EU promotes as democracy.

---

Do you or do you not believe in one man, one vote?

Following that, do you or do you not think a cabinet of 27 is too much?

Do you think a fair situation is to instead rotate equally the allocation of the 20 among different states so that every state is represented at least 2/3s of the time, whilst making provisions that no 3 large countries can form a majority or quorum?

I've read the posts since Friday, so I'll just give a generalised response...

GavinZac and others - people voted no on a wide range of issues, but I think the main ones that could be dealt with would be workers rights. This was the only reason that some of the largest trade unions in the country couldn't and didn't recommend a yes vote. There were also the liberalising of the public service provision, for which we could get an explicit opt out. Both these areas were focussed on by the shinners, as well as the socialists. Probably were issues enough to push the No side over the line.

imo the Yes side are focussing on the lunatic fringe elements of the no side to cover their own asses. They ran an appalling campaign from start to finish. They didn't get the message out about losing a commissioner from Nice until the last few days, and how this was arguably a good deal. (They probably left it too late to avoid the accusations of lying in Nice though, and being reminded what our then commissioner said).

In fact they didn't or couldn't sell any positives from the treaty, and had to focus on generalisations against specific attacks. Mary Lou McDonald, Joe Higgins, Declan Ganley were able to raise specific problems that the Government couldn't always refute convincingly, and they certainly couldn't respond with specific benefits.

However, when it comes down to it the Yes side failed for two main reasons.
1. The people don't trust politicians. And why would they considering the number of high profile politicians that have trailed in and out of tribunals, including the man that supposedly negotiated this treaty. Why would the people trust a man who can't give a straight answer under oath, or the politicians (especially Cowen) who stood steadfast behind him while all this was going on, or the opposition who failed to properly go after him?
2. They left the campaign too late. The Yes side actually closed the gap in the last week of the campaign. If FF had focused on this treaty rather than Aherns departure and then Cowen's election then I've no doubt it would've been a yes vote. If you then take into account that basically since the last election the whole focus of the media has been on Ahearns changing stories in the Tribunals, the message wasn't getting out there. I know Labour were campaigning on it since last year, I believe FG were too - what exactly were the Government doing?

Essentially the Yes side should stop focusing on generalised attacks on the No side, when it was their lack of action which actually resulted in the No vote. I believe it was the right result, without the movement on workers rights, but I've no doubt a full on FF machine would've got it through - any machine that can keep getting them elected with their record has to be good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

However, when it comes down to it the Yes side failed for two main reasons.
1. The people don't trust politicians. And why would they considering the number of high profile politicians that have trailed in and out of tribunals, including the man that supposedly negotiated this treaty. Why would the people trust a man who can't give a straight answer under oath, or the politicians (especially Cowen) who stood steadfast behind him while all this was going on, or the opposition who failed to properly go after him?
.

---

I agree with that assessment & probably does show up the stupidity of the Irish electorate. Everyone moans about FF & seems will vote against them in EU or local elections but at each General Election they keep voting them back in. Is there evidence it is different this time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Why is it funny? I actually don't see what you are getting at here. I for one made it perfectly clear that I am against the EU's undemocratic centralism and I am against the fact that other countries didn't get to vote on the treaty. I can not speak for everyone here but my idea of democracy is radically different from what the EU promotes as democracy.

---

This is untrue and a lie. All countries voted in their general elections and all these publically elected politicians are the ones that negotiated the treaty and are the ones that will no doubt ratify. That is the way democracy works. In our country we had the country vote and make a decision on something the vast majority had never read and didnt understand. If that is democracy as you imagine it - a collective expression of our ignorance - well God help us. Roughly 25 per cent of the people who were eligible to vote in this country rejected the treaty. Hardly a massive message of unhappiness with Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

This is untrue and a lie. All countries voted in their general elections and all these publically elected politicians are the ones that negotiated the treaty and are the ones that will no doubt ratify. That is the way democracy works. In our country we had the country vote and make a decision on something the vast majority had never read and didnt understand. If that is democracy as you imagine it - a collective expression of our ignorance - well God help us. Roughly 25 per cent of the people who were eligible to vote in this country rejected the treaty. Hardly a massive message of unhappiness with Europe.

---

well our brave political leaders should call a general election with the anti treaty parties as the opposition
By their own admission they do not know what to do.You would think that after nice one they would at least have considered the possibility of a no vote.They are failures and should step aside to let someone that has thought about the opportunities this vote brings take over

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanfhear

well our brave political leaders should call a general election with the anti treaty parties........

---

What opportunities? If they called a general election tomoro it would bring roughly the same result as the last 5 or 6. Possibly with the greens the only ones losing out :rolleyes: Anti Treaty parties? Who is that Sinn Fein? They havent a hope of becoming a major player in this country

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

All countries voted in their general elections and all these publically elected politicians are the ones that negotiated the treaty and are the ones that will no doubt ratify. That is the way democracy works.

---

Some of the countries Governments were elected on the basis they'd hold referenda, and then haven't. And lest we forget, the constitution was watered down to this treaty just so it wouldn't have to go back before the dutch or french.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

In our country we had the country vote and make a decision on something the vast majority had never read and didnt understand. If that is democracy as you imagine it - a collective expression of our ignorance - well God help us.

---

That's a problem of the Government not explaining it, but we could also have a referendum on whether we should have future referendums on EU Treaties. Good luck to the Yes side on that one....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

Roughly 25 per cent of the people who were eligible to vote in this country rejected the treaty. Hardly a massive message of unhappiness with Europe.

---

If we were basing mandates on the actual percentage of population that voted we'd always have grand coalitions. Governments are formed on under 50% of those that do actually vote!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

What opportunities? If they called a general election tomoro it would bring roughly the same result as the last 5 or 6. Possibly with the greens the only ones losing out :rolleyes: Anti Treaty parties? Who is that Sinn Fein? They havent a hope of becoming a major player in this country

---

dont write off sinn fein as easily as that.They are a very resilent party.They need some high profile leaders in the south and for the other political parties to make stupid mistakes and the economic downturn wont hurt opposition parties either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Some of the countries Governments were elected on the basis they'd hold referenda, and then haven't. And lest we forget, the constitution was watered down to this treaty just so it wouldn't have to go back before the dutch or french.

---

I doubt ANY party was elected on that issue alone or wether that was a major issue in any general election. Our own being a prime example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

That's a problem of the Government not explaining it, but we could also have a referendum on whether we should have future referendums on EU Treaties. Good luck to the Yes side on that one....
.

---

Are you serious? If you are going to vote on something make sure you familiarise yourself with it. We arent children. Personally I dont think we should be having referendums on things like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

If we were basing mandates on the actual percentage of population that voted we'd always have grand coalitions. Governments are formed on under 50% of those that do actually vote!

---

Agreed but the way this has been spun by the No campaign is that this is a massive vote of dissatisfaction with Europe. I dont think that is the case at all. How many TDs did we elect that were No camp as opposed to the Yes camp? You can count them on one hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanfhear

dont write off sinn fein as easily as that.They are a very resilent party.They need some high profile leaders in the south and for the other political parties to make stupid mistakes and the economic downturn wont hurt opposition parties either

---

Am not writing them off. They have a constituency and they are never going to have mass appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Some of the countries Governments were elected on the basis they'd hold referenda, and then haven't. And lest we forget, the constitution was watered down to this treaty just so it wouldn't have to go back before the dutch or french

---

Then I'd assume the people of these countries would kick the lying parties out of government in their next national elections. That's the way democracy works, or should work, not which side of a debate can get the most uninformed of us to side with them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

Are you serious? If you are going to vote on something make sure you familiarise yourself with it. We arent children. Personally I dont think we should be having referendums on things like that.

---

I agree to a degree, however Cowen coming out saying he hadn't bothered reading it, and the referendum commission being totally stumped at that press conference were surely factors? If they're going to present a unnecessarily complex treaty before us, they have a responsibility to explain it properly. They didn't, and instead focussed on generalisations - and then the people based on not trusting them, not being able to understand it, or from arguments from the no side (some of which were lies, some of which were valid), or a combination. That is perfectly valid imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

Agreed but the way this has been spun by the No campaign is that this is a massive vote of dissatisfaction with Europe. I dont think that is the case at all. How many TDs did we elect that were No camp as opposed to the Yes camp? You can count them on one hand.

---

It wasn't the single issue that we voted on, same as you said yourself earlier. If there was a referendum on co-location the Government would be defeated too, but FF were still the largest party despite this (and other issues that people don't agree with).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

I agree to a degree, however Cowen coming out saying he hadn't bothered reading it, and the referendum commission being totally stumped at that press conference were surely factors? If they're going to present a unnecessarily complex treaty before us, they have a responsibility to explain it properly. They didn't, and instead focussed on generalisations - and then the people based on not trusting them, not being able to understand it, or from arguments from the no side (some of which were lies, some of which were valid), or a combination. That is perfectly valid imo.

---

I think your arguing that in order to get a yes vote the governemtn should have explained/sold it better. Dont think anyone would disagree with that. Im arguing people shouldnt be voting unless they knew what they were voting on. i.e. making an informed decision. I didnt vote myself as hand on heart I didnt know one way or the other.

I think the rest of Europe has played a blinder over the weekend by calling our bluff.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, this mess is our problem, not Europe's. We have been reminded of our insignificance by our larger European colleagues and Libertas, Sinn Fein etc. core argument that a No vote would enable Ireland to "negotiate a better deal" has been exposed as an arrogant, self-centred, self-important pipedream. We were so consumed by our own self-importance with comments like "Ireland being at the centre of Europe" thrown around like confetti. Its almost like the Celtic Tiger made us invincible and by God did we drink the Cool Aid.

The only hope for Ireland is the Brits appeared to be out of step with France and Germany when they said they couldn't see Lisbon proceeding without Ireland. Unless another EU member of substantive size kicks up a fuss, it is likely the other 26 with ratify a slightly modified Lisbon which applies only to the 26 and we will be left on the outside.

A sobering lesson and a right kick in the hole. Given the hopeless campaign run by the Yes side we deserve what we got.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I think the rest of Europe has played a blinder over the weekend by calling our bluff.

---

Or proved the No sides point about committments given. Afterall, they're not respecting the veto on Lisbon, why would we take it they'd respect the veto of smaller nation in other areas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

Do you or do you not believe in one man, one vote?

Following that, do you or do you not think a cabinet of 27 is too much?

---

I believe in one person one vote but not in the way you are trying to get me to say I do. See the Europe I believe in doesn't have every little decision being made by the central body so its not a problem. If a cabinet of 27 isn't too big for Ireland why would it be too big for Europe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

The only hope for Ireland is the Brits appeared to be out of step with France and Germany when they said they couldn't see Lisbon proceeding without Ireland. Unless another EU member of substantive size kicks up a fuss, it is likely the other 26 with ratify a slightly modified Lisbon which applies only to the 26 and we will be left on the outside.

---

They can't and won't do that (or if they do then we're better off out of that type of arrangement). They're just trying to scare people (looks like its working). At this time they don't even know what they are doing.

Quote:

---

I think the rest of Europe has played a blinder over the weekend by calling our bluff.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, this mess is our problem, not Europe's.

---

Don't you believe that for one minute.

This is a EU problem and they are going have to address it and address it a way that accomodates Ireland. All this talk about Cowen will have to bring forward a soluation is showboating and drumming of the chest. The Czech Republic thinks Christmas has come early with the No vote, the No vote has Gordon Brown not knowing which way to turn and under considerable pressure. Its also likely than other small nations will not be happy to dance to the French and German ture. I've no doubt that Cowen and Martin will expect the EU to accomodate Ireland in the exact same way that France and the Netherlands were accomodated in 2005. After all did the Yes side not admit that the Lisbon Treaty was Plan B?

You'd understand Germany's frustration in all this. But the French position is laughable. This is a nation that rejected the last Treaty and had it redrafted in order to avoid having to put it to a referendum in their country.

Also, during the debate there was much discussion on the power of a veto. There is meant to be a veto in relation to the implimentation of the Lisbon Treaty. If that is side-stepped in anyway then the Irish people (No side) would have got it spot on. Why should a veto in relation to corporation tax be anymore secure?