Ireland Votes 'no' To The New E.u. Treaty

Sheikh

At the Start
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
4,284
Location
The Garden
Does this mean we'll have to keep on voting until they get the answer they want.
Thinly veiled threats by some European leaders didn't help. A big two fingered salute to the the establishment I feel.
 
There was very little discussion about what would happen if we voted "No". Surely this should have been a key factor in the decision process. You vote yes you go one way, you vote no you go another way. Nobody seems to have a clue what happens now.

From RTE ...

Scenario one: If Ireland votes No...

The Treaties currently in operation in the EU, last amended by the Nice Treaty, will remain standing as they are now.

The European reaction to Ireland's result is open to conjecture and has been predicted to range from EU-wide chaos to virtually no reaction at all. Commission President José Manuel Barroso has re-iterated that there is no 'Plan B' if Ireland rejects the ratification of Lisbon.

It is possible that Ireland would hold another referendum later in the year, perhaps after further negotiations, to keep the door open for Ireland to get on board with the Treaty. There is also the possibility that the other 26 countries will continue with the ratification process and all Member States, bar Ireland, will move forward with the Lisbon Treaty. In this situation, Ireland would have to negotiate how it would engage with this group.

The Yes side says that if Ireland rejects it, the Treaty will collapse and Member States will come together in groups to move forward on areas where they have been frustrated by the Irish vote.

The No side says that a 'no' vote opens up an opportunity for re-negotiation for a more favourable Treaty for Ireland.
 
I don't think it will make any difference, the other E.U. governments will press on.
The government might actually try and address the concerns of the people rather than try and scare the 'bejayus' out of them into voting yes and than we'll get back on board.
 
Bless you Irish - a blow for DEMOCRACY

From my June 12th newsfeed from Open Europe:


Constitution will still be passed even if Ireland votes no, say EU officials;
Irish officials cover up consequences of Lisbon

Voting has begun in Ireland, the only EU state to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The FT Brussels blog says that the Yes campaign are confident of winning. Irish Europe Minister Dick Roche told El Pais: "We think that certainly within the last 72 hours there has been a big swing towards the Yes", citing private polling carried out by the government. The FT notes that a second Irish referendum would be difficult, because there are several reasons why people are voting no.

The Telegraph reports that officials in Brussels are working on plans to ensure that Lisbon is still implemented elsewhere if Ireland votes against it in the referendum. One diplomat said a "bridging mechanism" was being discussed. If Ireland rejects the treaty, it may simply be removed from the list of signatories and will not be legally obliged to abide by it. By late 2009 or early 2010, when Croatia joins the EU, an amending "Accession Treaty" (with a new protocol giving opt-outs to Dublin) will be signed by all members including Dublin. Since Ireland, like the rest of the Europe, does not hold referendums on EU enlargement treaties, the measure could be put though the Irish parliament without a popular vote.

One official told the newspaper, "This mechanism would be no more incomprehensible or legalistic than the Treaty itself. It is probably no more difficult than the legal footwork necessary to turn the Constitutional Treaty into [the] Lisbon [Treaty] after the French and Dutch rejected it."

Secret minutes seen by the Telegraph show that Ireland's EU Ambassador, Bobby McDonagh, pleaded with his colleagues to keep the talks and Dublin's position confidential. Before setting out Dublin's detailed and decided position on both the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the role of the foreign minister, now called a High Representative (HR) for foreign affairs, Bobby McDonagh urged secrecy: "[We] have to remain cautious in presenting these issues [referendum]!," the minutes record.

Seamus Milne argues in the Guardian that "subordination to the US or an undemocratic neoliberal superstate is no choice at all. Instead, political alliances need to be constructed for a different kind of Europe. If Irish voters are intimidated into backing the treaty today, public alienation from the EU will continue to grow, along with rightwing nationalism. But if they manage to boot it out, they could help kickstart the essential process of change and give a voice to millions across the continent."

A leader in the Mail argues "Don't hold your breath. But if the Irish vote No today, all freedom-loving Europeans will have cause to raise a grateful glass of the black stuff in their honour." Irish voter and blogger Guido Fawkes argues "Ireland was Europe's first colony, we are now the last sovereign democracy. For ourselves and all those who have no voice, the Irish must say 'No'." The Politics Home poll of political insiders suggests that there would be pressure for a referendum in the UK if the Irish vote no.

Yesterday Open Europe's Lorraine Mullally appeared on French radio station BFM to discuss the Irish referendum. Neil O'Brien appeared on the BBC World Service.

Links were provided to:
Politics Home BBC Times Maddox Times Times Guardian Guardian Milne Sun Mail Dudley Edwards Mail leader IHT Bloomberg WSJ Telegraph Hannan Guido Telegraph Waterfield BBC Mardell EUobserver Telegraph Telegraph-leader Telegraph-Waterfield BBC-Mardell DW FT blog FT FT tax El Pais
 
Lot of misinformation going around in the last few days. Declan Ganley will be absolutely delighted.

I, for one, am very dissapointed.
 
It shows just how Democratic these 'Leaders' are anyway when they don't give their citizens a vote on it and then they talk about proceeding without us anyway.
 
By that, I'm assuming you assume a second referendum will be accepted as people start to see the consequences?

I'm not sure that will happen. The "No" Campaign only really started gaining momentum when Barosa came out with his "pay the price" remarks (in addition to Mary Lou MacDonald concentrating her massive intellect into the debate at a similar stage). The "No" vote came from all over the place reason-wise but a huge factor was that we were not prepared to be dictated to on how to vote. It could turn out that the more the squeeze is put on the more support there will be for a rejection.

I would be disappointed if this were the case, but time and time again the Irish public have shown they shouldn't be let anywhere near a ballot box (Michael Lowry springs most prominently to mind).
 
I did my best to get to grips with the Treaty but there is so much stuff in it ,that like our constitution it is open to interpretation and court challenges. I think a better indication of what might happen if we were to be locked in even further would be to look at the Countries that we would be getting in with and their attitudes towards things that would be completely different to our own.

I am a bit worried about what may happen economically but I think you touched on it when you suggested that we don't like being told what to do by outside forces and we treasure our right to self determination.Probably due to our history.Rightly or wrongly this probably swung it for the 'No' side.

I believe there will be some tinkering with the Treaty and we'll be asked to vote again. The next time we'll probably have 65-70% of the electorate voting and it will be passed. Like trackside I wouldn't mind if they passed it without us anyway (probably for different reasons though trackside ?)
 
I would be disappointed if this were the case, but time and time again the Irish public have shown they shouldn't be let anywhere near a ballot box (Michael Lowry springs most prominently to mind).

The Bisto Country, just add water for instant thickness (as in don't tell me what to do)
 
Its a 'f*ck you' vote.

The No campaign were winning votes while the sleeveen Bertie was on a six week lap of honour and Brian was singing from the back of a lorry. By the time they woke up the horse had bolted. Don't underestimate the effect of the revelations from Mahon and a pent up desire to punish the elite. As usual Aherne saw what was coming a slithered off the hook and left Biffo to pick up the pieces.

I voted Yes, despite my anger at being patted on the head by numpties like Dick Roche and Gay Mitchell and being told "Don't worry yer little head. We know best. Do what we tell you." It seems most others didn't.
 
Changed my mind about 10 times before I voted, the fxuk you factor had a lot to do with it balanced by my desire to grow up some day and make a mature decision, in the end I decided I could say fxck you and be mature at the same time.
 
There will always be a bigger anti-whatever-the-government-says portion of the vote than a pro-whatever-the-government-says. I would guess the size of this differential has more to do with the percieved state of the economy than anything else, which was never going to be helpful to accepting the Treaty here.

Much as I would like to blame Bertie, I'm not sure this had much to do with him and the goings on at the Tribunal. I think the "you have to vote for the treaty because you just do" attitude shown by all the political parties allowed the issue to become so confused by those that were saying it was pro abortion and pro euthanisation and pro war etc that many never got to grips what it was all about. And the fact that the likes of Cowen and the MEPs admitted not reading the treaty maybe gave an impression that it must be too complicated for an ordinary Joe Soap to get to grips with.
 
Is your Europe Minister really called Dick Roche? Do his friends call him Cock?

...sorry I know this was a sensible topic.
 
He was one of my lecturers when I was at university. He missed, conservatively, two-thirds of the lectures he was supposed to have given and managed to give advance warning that he would miss exactly none. We would just arrive at the lecture theatre and find a note on the door saying he wasn't coming in. The lectures he did attend were shite.

Sadly nobody ever noticed the cock frivolity back then. Amazing really now that you mention it.

The man was an asshole of monumental proportions and has more than proven his ability to excel to even greater heights of arseholiness since becoming a minister.
 
I am proposing that the terms 'cock frivolity' and 'arseholiness' are included in the first edition of the Taking Horses dictionary. :D
 
Originally posted by Melendez@Jun 13 2008, 01:22 PM
I would be disappointed if this were the case, but time and time again the Irish public have shown they shouldn't be let anywhere near a ballot box (Michael Lowry springs most prominently to mind).
Totally agree, Mel.

I would certainly agree with what An Capall about it being a reaction to the goings on at the Mahon tribunal as well as to being babied by Biffo and his numpties, as well as Enda Kenny.

Despite all of that, I was very dissapointed with the way the whole campaign was run. The Irish electorate were treated like a bunch of children who wern't capable of making their own decisions.

That said, it is still slightly dissapointing that they have once again proved that very point.
 
It is revenge for Europe's rejection of Dustin.

Seriously, though, referenda are an open invitation to every crank and clown going to get up a scare campaign. People's default reaction is to vote against change unless they have a clear opinion in favour.
 
I think people are entitled/obliged to vote against something if they feel it has not been explained to them properly.When we're in, we're in, that's it,there won't be an options to leave. We deserve proper explanations and assurances which may have been given by Europe but have not been adequately explained by our politicians
Trackside perhaps people have shown maturity by not voting for something just because they have been told the sky will fall on their heads if they don't.
 
I agree that Europe lacks a clear sense of direction at present, that nobody is yet sure how a 30-strong EU will work out, but the unfortunate thing is that shooting down proposals intended to give it a chance of success don't help.

The Irish people agreed to enlargement (eventually) but decision-making procedures designed for a smaller EU need to be changed in order to make it work. The essential features of these changes were already known when the Irish people voted on Nice.

Referenda, though, are a very hard sell when you have nutters telling people that the EU will force abortion, world wars and nuclear power on them.
 
Grey , People have very real concerns like, militarism, social issues, and other things you have mentioned.Dismissing those concerns when voiced by certain parties as being scare tactics and the ramblings of 'nutters' doesn't help.The 'yes' people needed to prove that those concerns where unfounded but they didn't.
 
Originally posted by Sheikh@Jun 13 2008, 03:39 PM
I think people are entitled/obliged to vote against something if they feel it has not been explained to them properly.When we're in, we're in, that's it,there won't be an options to leave. We deserve proper explanations and assurances which may have been given by Europe but have not been adequately explained by our politicians
Trackside perhaps people have shown maturity by not voting for something just because they have been told the sky will fall on their heads if they don't.
I totally agree people are entitled to vote against something they feel they do not sufficiently understand to accept.

As for the last comment, perhpas the reason people voted "no" had something to do with the misinformation (and, yes, it was misinformation) perpetuated by some elements of the "no" campaign that was designed to make people feel exactly as you describe were they to ratify the treaty (European army, legalized abortion, loss of control over corporate tax rate, "the last nail in the coffin for Irish neutrality"), none of which was actually stipulated in the treaty.

As for my original point about going on without Ireland. I personally believe it would be a disservice to the union for the entire treaty to be scuppered due to a referendum that was primarily decided, IMO at least, by reaction to the domestic political climate (Mahon tribunal) and the patronising attitude of the "yes" campaign, which led to an inability to fully explain the treaty in an accurate light (coupled with at times blatant misinformation from the opposite side), rather than anything in the treaty itself.
 
If the 'No' side was spreading misinformation that needs to be proven. Concerns where aired and rubbished by the 'yes' camp but the treaty was never referred to as to where it stipulated that Irish interests and concerns where protected.
If the Treaty offered protections, point to the relevant paragraph, simple as that.

I do not accept people voted 'no' for domestic reasons.I don't think anyone gives a flying f*ck about the Mahon tribunal.It has been commonly accepted for years that our poiliticians are bent ,it's not a news flash.

I too hope they go ahead with the Treaty. The Irish are pro-Europe, they just want to know what they're voting for. If there is protection for Irish interests in the Treaty they need to be spelt out...literally.
 
This NO is fantastic news

European Union is a pathetic entity just crated for a elite of politicians to live like kings being lazy people,
this Union does not solve the problems of the people and is a brutal waste of money in stupid things, lacking a foerign policy or army.

The Lisbon treat is simply pathetic and very negative especially for countries like Spain.

I wish this is the beginning of the end of the UE
 
Back
Top