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

Originally posted by Bar the Bull@Jun 20 2008, 07:28 AM
I personally think it is a joke that we have to have referenda on issues such as this one. There is absolutely no way that the public should be expected to understand the treaty.

It is a legal document for feck's sake.

Maybe some of you who voted 'no' did so for reasonable(!) reasons. But a fair chunk of those who voted 'no' did so for reasons that make absolutely no sense.

The whole idea of the referendum was a shambles from start to finish. Every crank came out from under every rock in Ireland to warn about why to vote no.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, Bar.

Whilst the document is admittedly a complex one, many people just couldn't be arsed to read the literature (not like they had to read the entire thing) and really had no interest in engaging in the issues or understanding the issues at hand. When the day rolls around, they then vote "no" on account of not being able to understand the issues, having made no effort to do so.

There's a reason why no other states are having a public referendum on this treaty.

People don't seem to have any comprehension of the consequences of voting "no" (and, no, this is not the same as telling someone how to vote) or how much the EU has meant to Ireland over the last quarter century.
 
There's a reason why no other states are having a public referendum on this treaty.
Click to expand...

Because they either a) don't have a constitution or b) don't require a referendum for it to be changed?
 
I would personally be in favour of instituting b) into the Irish constitution.

And I would not hold a public referendum before doing so. I don't give a ****. :P
 
How many people who voted 'yes' read the treaty and knew what they where voting for.Can you categorically say that you know what the consequences of a 'yes' vote would be ?!
Perhaps we need a dictator, that would be a lot more efficient and we wouldn't have to worry our little heads about voting for things. I'm not necessarily against dictators as long you get the right man for the job ! :)
What the E.U. has meant/ done for Ireland in the past is irrelevant i.e. voting for a treaty simply because we might feel we owe them is not smart.
 
Democracy is a two-way system, Sheikh. The people must trust the government they have elected. Scary thought at times, though!

I can't say I know every clause, no, but I think it would be a step forward for Ireland. I certainly know it would not compromise any of Ireland's "core" issues (neutrality, abortion, corporate tax rate etc.).

Call me mad (and I know Headstrong will :P ), but to be honest I'm willing to put my trust in the EU.
 
Originally posted by Sheikh@Jun 21 2008, 04:49 PM
How many people who voted 'yes' read the treaty and knew what they where voting for.Can you categorically say that you know what the consequences of a 'yes' vote would be ?!........

What the E.U. has meant/ done for Ireland in the past is irrelevant i.e. voting for a treaty simply because we might feel we owe them is not smart.
Click to expand...
Exactly - and may I point out that it was not the EU's money as such which was poured into Ireland - it all came from the two biggest-by-far net contributors to the EU coffers in that period - which were Germany and Britain

The EU distributed these funds according their own arcane rules, taking into account such diverse considerations as need for infracstructure in the poorer countries of the UE, and ESP horse-trading for support, which Ireland has often supplied politically.

But the main reason Ireland has done so well over the last several years has been its intelligent support of business, low corporation tax etc, and the consequent inward investment into the country - not by any means all from the EU; I believe a great deal has come from the US.

So for the EU to act like Ireland 'owes it' is disgraceful
 
Originally posted by trackside528@Jun 21 2008, 02:07 PM
There's a reason why no other states are having a public referendum on this treaty.

People don't seem to have any comprehension of the consequences of voting "no" (and, no, this is not the same as telling someone how to vote) or how much the EU has meant to Ireland over the last quarter century.
Click to expand...
FRance and the Netherlands already did - and they voted NO too
[and please don;t tell me that they voted on something different - they didn't in any important whatever, as the EU / Merkel and many others have admitted.

The simple fact is, that the reason no national govt inc the UK one is having a vote is because they know their elitist project does not have the support of their voters - who would vote NO.

Grey: the Lisbon Treaty does provide a few fig-leaves of democratic accountability - but it removes a good many more, inc by giving of power to the EU bureaucracy to veto political parties. How can that be right, or in the least democratic?
 
Bar, unless you wanted to vote for Sinn Fein there is no euro sceptic party on Europe. European politics are never in the debate at election time as there is no point scoring between candidates. None are elected/rejected on their European opinions. Arrogating on themselves the right to vote on their consistuencies behalf is wrong, and would have been proven to wrong if they were allowed to rubber stamp the treaty.

I dont agree that the political elites of the member states should automatically chose what way the European Project progresses without referring to the population.

I dont agree that a European Constitution which was rejected, rebadged to avoid going to the people again in France and the Netherlands is a completely benign creation. Im sure that it was deliberately obscure in an attempt to bore the population into apathetic vote as Yes.

Whether they would have any tangible effect or not, phases such as increasing military capabilities were included in the treaty, and while neutrality might not have been threatened, the Yes side saying refusing to believe that there were any "good" reasons to vote No are being as condescending now as they were before the referendum.

I voted Yes in the end but dismissing the No side as simply as loo-lahs was the problem that the Yes side from the get-go.
 
But the main reason Ireland has done so well over the last several years has been its intelligent support of business, low corporation tax etc, and the consequent inward investment into the country - not by any means all from the EU; I believe a great deal has come from the US.
Click to expand...

And none of those US companies would have come near Ireland had there not been so much EU investment in infrastructure; or had the EU not helped create a workforce of foreign nationals with varied language skills that said US companies could exploit.
 
Grey: the Lisbon Treaty does provide a few fig-leaves of democratic accountability - but it removes a good many more, inc by giving of power to the EU bureaucracy to veto political parties. How can that be right, or in the least democratic?
Click to expand...

Headstrong: The treaty would make/would have made (take your pick!) votes of the Council, hitherto secret, a matter of public record. European citizens would in future know what their own governments were up to. The treaty would also incorporate the European Charter of Human Rights into European law except in the UK and Poland, which obtained an opt-out, jealous guardians of civil liberties and human rights that they are.

Regarding political parties, I haven't heard of or found any reference to them in the treaty, so I would be grateful if you could point me in the right direction.
 
I personally think, like Grey, that the Lisbon Treaty does more to increase the democratic powers of the EU than it does damage them.

I would disagree that giving the EU more influence (which I am not opposed to) is undemocratic either. People sometimes forget that all major policy-makers within the EU are elected democratically (through the EU parliament, EC, or the council (or whatever it's called). Commissioners are appointed, yes,but they are acting as experts in a particular field of expertise, rather than merely representing the interests of their government. The notion that the EU is a lawless Federakist society ran by the undemocratic elites of Europe is one of the biggest crocks of ###### I have ever heard.

I also feel the move to remove the veto is a democratic step. Democracy is about the will of the majority, rather than that majority being held hostage by a marginal majority. If that was the case, the United States would never have been formed.

As for what the EU has brought to Ireland, no it shouldn't have any bearing on how people vote. But surely our position in Europe in the future should and I for one would very much be in the vanguard (as we have been up to this point) than get left behind.
 
Originally posted by trackside528@Jun 23 2008, 10:48 PM
Democracy is about the will of the majority, rather than that majority being held hostage by a marginal majority. If that was the case, the United States would never have been formed.

Click to expand...
Would you be in favour of a referendum in every country to see how true the overwhelming the support for the Lisbon Treaty is? The will of the majority and all that...

Seems those who are gung ho about all actions of the EU would prefer never to go to the public over anything.
 
No, Garney, I wouldn't be, as I fear a similar scenario to that which occurred in Ireland will occur elsewhere- i.e. people fail to try to understand the treaty and then end up voting against it due to a combination of lack of understanding or fear of something that's actually not in the treaty, rather than on the actual merits of the treaty.

If you're asking me whether I think a majority of the 29 EU countries would approve it, then yes, I do.
 
I did vote yes, a close run thing for me personally, but the attitude that all the intelligent people voted Yes and all the idiots voted no seems to be the attitude of those who voted Yes.

To me, the ignorant who couldn't be bothered to read or get to grips with what was being asked in the treaty are generally the ones who have no interest in political affairs high up or low down and were probably not aware that there was an referndum on at all. These account for the 40+% who didnt vote.

Yes, some people (a handful perhaps) voted because they were afraid their children would be conscripted into an EU army. The Yes side, even after a time when they should have learned not to patronise the public, still dismiss the No side as being off this view, without reference to the nebulous, deliberately obscure reference to an increase in military capacity that is black and white in the treaty.

Just like Enhanced Corporation seed was sown and its implications not thrashed out completely in 1992, the Lisbon treaty was deliberately open enough to allow scope for the Europe to follow whatever direction it wished - including the deliberately open self amending treaty element.

Why cant the Yes side see any fault in the document? I dont get that, suppose its easier to label everyone who doesnt think the same as an idiot.
 
Garney, 60% (if I remember correctly, it was somewhere around here) of those who voted no did so on the basis of not knowing enough about the treaty to vote otherwise.

I'm not calling them stupid (though, plenty of them, my own parents included never made any attempt to understand it) nor am I deliberately trying to patronize anyone (I'll leave that to Biffo and Enda).
 
Yes, some people (a handful perhaps) voted because they were afraid their children would be conscripted into an EU army. The Yes side, even after a time when they should have learned not to patronise the public, still dismiss the No side as being off this view, without reference to the nebulous, deliberately obscure reference to an increase in military capacity that is black and white in the treaty.
Click to expand...


Garney, you have a point, the no side should be taken seriously. But the reference to defence cannot be "nebulous, deliberately obscure" and "black and white" all at once. :what:

I think the Treaty, and especially the related protocol, are actually quite explicit. Here are some extracts:


...RECOGNISING that the strengthening of the security and defence policy will require efforts by Member States in the area of capabilities;

...CONSCIOUS that embarking on a new stage in the development of the European security and defence policy involves a determined effort by the Member States concerned;


...HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1
The permanent structured cooperation referred to in Article 28 A(6) of the Treaty on European Union shall be open to any Member State which undertakes, from the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, to:

(a) proceed more intensively to develop its defence capacities through the development of its national contributions and participation, where appropriate, in multinational forces, in the main European equipment programmes, and in the
activity of the Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (European Defence Agency), and

(b) have the capacity to supply by 2010 at the latest, either at national level or as a component of multinational force groups, targeted combat units for the missions planned, structured at a tactical level as a battle group, with support elements including transport and logistics, capable of carrying out the tasks referred to in Article 28 B of the Treaty on European Union, within a period of 5 to 30 days, in particular in response to requests from the United Nations Organisation, and which can be sustained for an initial period of 30 days and be extended up to at least 120 days.

Article 2
To achieve the objectives laid down in Article 1, Member States participating in permanent structured cooperation shall undertake to:

(a) cooperate, as from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, with a view to achieving approved objectives concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment, and regularly review these objectives, in the light of the security environment and of the Union's international responsibilities;

(b) bring their defence apparatus into line with each other as far as possible, particularly by harmonising the identification of their military needs, by pooling and, where appropriate, specialising their defence means and capabilities, and by
encouraging cooperation in the fields of training and logistics;

© take concrete measures to enhance the availability, interoperability, flexibility and deployability of their forces, in particular by identifying common objectives regarding the commitment of forces, including possibly reviewing their
national decision-making procedures;

(d) work together to ensure that they take the necessary measures to make good, including through multinational approaches, and without prejudice to undertakings in this regard within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the shortfalls perceived in the framework of the ‘Capability Development Mechanism’;

(e) take part, where appropriate, in the development of major joint or European equipment programmes in the framework of the European Defence Agency.
Click to expand...

There is plenty to debate about, but I honestly think the language used is pretty plain.
 
Originally posted by Grey@Jun 24 2008, 07:42 PM
Yes, some people (a handful perhaps) voted because they were afraid their children would be conscripted into an EU army. The Yes side, even after a time when they should have learned not to patronise the public, still dismiss the No side as being off this view, without reference to the nebulous, deliberately obscure reference to an increase in military capacity that is black and white in the treaty.
Click to expand...


Garney, you have a point, the no side should be taken seriously. But the reference to defence cannot be "nebulous, deliberately obscure" and "black and white" all at once. :what:

I think the Treaty, and especially the related protocol, are actually quite explicit. Here are some extracts:


...RECOGNISING that the strengthening of the security and defence policy will require efforts by Member States in the area of capabilities;

...CONSCIOUS that embarking on a new stage in the development of the European security and defence policy involves a determined effort by the Member States concerned;


...HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

Article 1
The permanent structured cooperation referred to in Article 28 A(6) of the Treaty on European Union shall be open to any Member State which undertakes, from the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, to:

(a) proceed more intensively to develop its defence capacities through the development of its national contributions and participation, where appropriate, in multinational forces, in the main European equipment programmes, and in the
activity of the Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (European Defence Agency), and

(b) have the capacity to supply by 2010 at the latest, either at national level or as a component of multinational force groups, targeted combat units for the missions planned, structured at a tactical level as a battle group, with support elements including transport and logistics, capable of carrying out the tasks referred to in Article 28 B of the Treaty on European Union, within a period of 5 to 30 days, in particular in response to requests from the United Nations Organisation, and which can be sustained for an initial period of 30 days and be extended up to at least 120 days.

Article 2
To achieve the objectives laid down in Article 1, Member States participating in permanent structured cooperation shall undertake to:

(a) cooperate, as from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, with a view to achieving approved objectives concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment, and regularly review these objectives, in the light of the security environment and of the Union's international responsibilities;

(b) bring their defence apparatus into line with each other as far as possible, particularly by harmonising the identification of their military needs, by pooling and, where appropriate, specialising their defence means and capabilities, and by
encouraging cooperation in the fields of training and logistics;

© take concrete measures to enhance the availability, interoperability, flexibility and deployability of their forces, in particular by identifying common objectives regarding the commitment of forces, including possibly reviewing their
national decision-making procedures;

(d) work together to ensure that they take the necessary measures to make good, including through multinational approaches, and without prejudice to undertakings in this regard within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the shortfalls perceived in the framework of the ‘Capability Development Mechanism’;

(e) take part, where appropriate, in the development of major joint or European equipment programmes in the framework of the European Defence Agency.
Click to expand...

There is plenty to debate about, but I honestly think the language used is pretty plain.
Click to expand...
Sorry Grey. I think what I was trying to say was that while some of the reasons why the Yes side seem to think Ireland voted No to the Lisbon treaty included the threats of Abortion, Euthanasia, Conscription, Loss of Neutrality, etc which had nothing to do with the Treaty - well so say the yes side.

However, the Yes side seem unwilling to break from their condescention tour to admit that there were protocols detailing increasing defence capacity. It is there in black and white. thanks for providing that. However, the wiggle room in which to argue is in the exact wording which isn't explicit enough to ask for an increase in military spending - eventhough it is virtually equivalent to saying it. This leads to no one being entirely sure what the consequences of the various articles/protocols are. For instance - Are there clear guidelines on what the main European equipment programs are? Its not right that people actually read the content (and its interminable clauses) and still have questions are treated as loons.

Do you have the protocol relating to the contentious neutrality issue - regarding coming to aid any member of the EU should it be attacked from an outside party. Maybe that wasnt in the treaty at all, and just more propagandising.
 
Originally posted by trackside528@Jun 24 2008, 06:50 PM
Garney, 60% (if I remember correctly, it was somewhere around here) of those who voted no did so on the basis of not knowing enough about the treaty to vote otherwise.

I'm not calling them stupid (though, plenty of them, my own parents included never made any attempt to understand it) nor am I deliberately trying to patronize anyone (I'll leave that to Biffo and Enda).
Click to expand...
And trackside, you think that was a fair poll? How many people voted yes because

a) they didnt understand it, but trust the politicians
b) Sure if Sinn Fein voted No, I must vote yes
c ) Eastern European women are great looking
d) We'll be fierce embarrassed if we vote No
e) we got loads of money off the EU in the past

Where are those polls?

There was an Irish Independent poll saying that over 75% of people who voted NO thought that the Lisbon treaty could be easily renegotiated. I dont know if that is the poll you are refering to.

Setting aside my skepticism of these polls (think they nearly had the headline and decided to work the poll around it) to me the easiest way around the crisis would be to re-present the Lisbon treaty to the Irish public in about a year with other protocols regarding whatever issues. These of course may be cosmetic but may be enough. However, they would represent a renegotiation of the Lisbon treaty to suit Irish needs - selfish as it seems - and would mean getting a better deal for Irish people than previously presented.

If issues like corporate tax base/ indirect tax harmonisation were so out of the question before the referendum why is the french finance minister shelving these plans as a result of the Irish vote? Regardless of its contents, why couldnt the irish ministers refute the claim that they asked to postpone the outing of a defence white paper until after the Irish vote? If there is nothing to hide, what's the issue. Two major trade unions split on the Lisbon treaty, one claiming that Lisbon treaty safeguarded workers rights, the other claiming that it protected the rights of the businessmen over the employees.

There is no outlet to question the whole way Europe is progressing. All major parties bar SF are staunchly pro-Europe, there is no Euroskepticism. If people are unhappy with the way it is going, they have every right to speak up. Just as every other country would have if the govts would put the Treaty to the public.
 
However, the Yes side seem unwilling to break from their condescention tour to admit that there were protocols detailing increasing defence capacity. It is there in black and white. thanks for providing that. However, the wiggle room in which to argue is in the exact wording which isn't explicit enough to ask for an increase in military spending - even though it is virtually equivalent to saying it. This leads to no one being entirely sure what the consequences of the various articles/protocols are. For instance - Are there clear guidelines on what the main European equipment programs are? Its not right that people actually read the content (and its interminable clauses) and still have questions are treated as loons.
Click to expand...

Being part of enhanced cooperation on defence and security would require Member States to make increased resources available for EU purposes, but it's not for the EU to say how Member States might go about achieving this. Some might decide to increase spending to cover their EU contribution while others might decide instead to divert resources from other heads within their defence and security budgets.

I too have plenty of questions. What should Ireland aspire to concerning defence and security? Would we ever be comfortable being part of an EU that was developing a common defence policy? On the other hand, why are we apparently happy to be part of the Iraq war by facilitating American troop movements through Shannon, not to mention the abhorrent rendition policy? Might a stronger EU have been able to persuade at least the UK if not the US to stay out of that illegal war?
 
Back
Top