The arrogance and greed of Ireland summed up in one easy sentenceQuote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
Printable View
The arrogance and greed of Ireland summed up in one easy sentenceQuote:
Originally Posted by SMorgan
The right to use a veto shouldn't be confused with the consequences of using it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
I've no problem with most of the posts on here from an idealogical perspective, but unfortunately in terms of realpolitik the actuality is far different.
Also, I'm concerned that I'm agreeing with Jebus on a repeated basis.......!
Bollards! Who is being arrogant now? Its the EU heads who are saying yes, lets disregard Ireland's people and forge ahead with ratification even though our own laws say we can't!Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
They are creating the problem by refusing to do what should be done - I.E. scrap the treaty. If all states don't ratify its supposed to be out - 27 or nothing! This is real toys out of the pram stuff on their part.
I believe a Referendum may be required when Croatia joins in a few years so I expect many of the necessary changes (for example a decision has to be made on EU Commissioners) to re-emerge in that Treaty.
The EU are correct as it is Irelands problem. The simple fact is that it looks like the other 26 countries will ratify the Treaty (it does not matter that this done in Parliaments as has been the same for all EU Treatys) with Ireland rejecting. When France & Holland rejected the EU Constitution I presume their leaders told the EU what changes to make so they would pass it. The EU will assume Ireland did not reject all of the Lisbon Treaty so will ask Cowan/Martin why it was rejected & what changes required or sections to remove.
It must be very embarrassing for Cowan/Martin to go to the EU & give them excuses such as abortion, euthanasia & other fears as they will ask why unable to inform the voters why none of those included in the Treaty.
Well they'd be lying if they gave those reasons Pete.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
http://www.ireland.com/focus/thelisb...s/polls/no.jpg
Yes that is arrogant on their part and I don't agree with it now that I've had the weekend to see where the EU wants to go with this. That still doesn't make the Irish asking 'what's in it for me', from an organisation that has given them a lot, any less arrogant and greedy though does it? If the Treaty had been rejected by informed people saying, 'this isn't good enough, we want clarification on certain areas', then that would be all good, as it stands now, with Sinn Fein and Libertas handing over a list of demands, it looks like we are all greedy pigs and in a real world we won't be getting any favours from Brussels for quite some time nowQuote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
The majority of people didn't vote on a whats in it for me basis though. In fact if anything you could say it was the Yes side trying to bribe people with Candy before they replaced it with threats of burned toast and black tea.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
Then what did they vote on? If it wasn't the scare tactics of abortion, wasn't that they didn't know what it was about, and wasn't about about our tax rates and commisioner then what was it about? Because some French guy told them to?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
The reason it's going to be so hard to placate the people who voted No is because no one seems quite sure what they voted against (pie chart speculation aside). I'd wager that it's going to be hard to pin down why they voted No because quite a lot of them wouldn't be able to tell you themselves. It's a ridiculous situation to be in, having a bunch of no hopers from Sinn Fein and a shady group like Libertas taking advantage and trying to hijack this for their own benefit.
Back on the original point, I bet quite a lot of No voters believed Sinn Fein's argument that Ireland could send the Treaty back to Brussels and get even more benefits for ourselves.
In SF's defence (and its not often I'd do that) I think you are misrepresenting what they had in mind by re-negotiating (which I oppose anyway). I think they thought they could go back and get rid of the parts on militarism, common foreign policy, transfer of powers, etc. This won't happen. Best thing to do is scrap the treaty and the best thing we can do is get active in fighting for a different kind of Europe.
I agree, and I'll be at that meeting on Wednesday night to see what Joe Higgins has to say on the matterQuote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
As for Sinn Fein, well they published in the Times the list of demands and considering they want special concessions made for Ireland in a Treaty that is designed for the continent I would count that as us wanting more benefits from the EU
What if they throw out Lisbon and come back with a treaty (lets call it the Paris Treaty) that is 99,999% the same (ie the only change is a provision that Ireland is excluded from its provisions and stays under Nice provisions) that is agreeable to the other 26?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Regardless of vetoes or unanimous decision-making, even from an idealogical position, surely if 26 countries want to move forward and we don't, then we should withdraw from the EU if we can't ratify? At some stage our Government needs to take a view as to what the Irish people will ratify and if its at odds with the rest of the EU then we will be forced to withdraw.
Regardless of whether or not this is feasible, your idealogical position ignores the pain the EU can dish out to Ireland in other ways, through capital grants etc. Obviously not fair, but very real if you read some of the off the record quotes from senior EU bodes in the paper.
As an Irish citizen, I again also question the decision of the (unelected) Supreme Court to mandate Irish citizens to vote on issues that many citizens frankly cannot grasp.
How do vague concepts like this get translated into treaties?Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Particularly when 26 governments are happy with whats on the table.
They don't, and if you're aware of my politics and read any of the several thousand words I've written on this forum you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. I wasn't talking about the heads of state sitting down and negotiating a new treaty. I was talking about building a pan European movement to take power out of the hands of these people and instigate a really democratic Europe run on the basis of people's needs not the greed of the tiny few.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
What exactly were they after? Must admit I've paid little attention to what other parts of the no campaign were saying most of the time. Mary Lou was too cringeworthy to watch.
Some were reasonable like clauses protecting worker rights, right to keep Irish referendums and the retention of vetoes on tax, some were just there for the sake of it like promoting fair trade over free trade and the strengthening of member state's parliaments and citizens (all good ideas, but never going to be included), and then there's the Irish only opt out clause on expenditure on nuclear power, retention of Irish voting rights at Council, retention of Irish neutrality and the retention of a permanent Commissioner, none of which can be given in the interests of equality to all member statesQuote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Refer to my comments about idealogically sound but practically irrelevant positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
I'm sure even you'll agree the likelihood of what you suggest happening is slim to none.
Good article in the IT today outlining some of the changes the No side looking for & possible solutions if possible. Wacko Religious Right were not considered as even their claims discounted by the mainstream No side. For the top of my head the ones I remembered:
* Specific policy to exclude Ireland from all Common defence matters
* Protection for public services from blocking state subsidies.
* Specific clause to ensure veto on all tax matters.
* Keep our guaranteed EU Commissioner (seem very unlikely as previous suggestion was permanent one for big countries and small countries sharing the junior roles)
* Removal of EU President (not sure if this correct).
* Trim down the areas QMV is used (it was pointed out Patricia McKenna wanted to keep for Climate Change issues)
The fact of the matter is we effectively have the casting vote on Lisbon, regardless of what the other parliaments do. We have cast our vote. Leaving the European Union is a voluntary, not compulsory decision, and realistically our government is never going to entertain it. So France and Germany are going to have to like it or lump it. The other 26 cannot implement the treaty without us, and that's it. The Yes side seem confident of getting another referendum, but the No side will be ready in that eventuality to vote it down again.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
People become political in times of crisis. That is what has happened time and time again throughout history. People have a self preservation instinct. In normal times the chance of changing society is negated by fear of losing what they have if it goes wrong. When society itself goes pear shaped and people have less to lose they find courage that they never knew they had. This has been the case with every revolution in history.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Changing society is the only answer to the problems posed by the Lisbon Treaty. There are no half way houses.
That's the spirit, vote No before you even know what you're voting onQuote:
Originally Posted by mypost
Well a fair guess at this stage based on previous experience would be pretty much the same thing dressed up in different ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus