Lisbon defeated what happens next ?

[rmelly]

Lets give the dust some time to settle - they came out with the same pronouncements after the Constitution was rejected in France, and we know what happened then...

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

And another thing. It is absolutely ridiculous that the No promoters got equal air time on RTE as the Yes. Who is this Ganley guy anyway? How does he deserve the same air time as the Taoiseach? What if I, Harchibald, put up a few No posters, would I get equal air time with, say, Enda?

I read the BBC website. They describe RTE as the State television station, a bit like Pravda. If I was Merky or Sarky I would be asking Rubber Lips "how come you say you support Yes and then let the looneys equal air time on your State television station? How naive are you Irish anyway?"

 

[Nemesis]

Please expand on that, because I haven't a clue whats that all about or how it relates to the treaty.

Russia has moved far away from democracy under Putin's leadership. Yes there are elections, but the result is never really in doubt, the media is almost completely controlled by the authorities. A few small outlets are tolerated of course, just to give the appearance of a free press. The government and much of the business elite are connected in some way to the FSB (old KGB). A majority of Russians do support Putin but they're never really given the chance to hear opposing views. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was thrown in jail and his company Yukos taken over by the state. Why? Because he sought to challenge Putin politically. Had he played along, the Kremlin would have been quite happy to let him keep his millions regardless of how he may have acquired them. The message goes out that you can make money but do not challenge the authorities in the political arena. There would certainly be no tolerance for a Declan Ganley to come along and upset the carefully laid plans of the government. It's a completely different political culture to that found in the member states of the EU. The power brokers in the Kremlin must be much amused at gentle noble democratic Europe bending over backwards to listen to the wishes of small states when historically the tradition of the great powers has been to swallow up small countries as they see fit.

My point is that the powers of Europe would appear weak and frankly ridiculous if they said we can't proceed because a little state on the edge of Europe with no real strategic significance won't let us. At the same time nationalist sentiment is rising in Russia, there is a bitterness towards the West about how Russia was treated after the fall of Communism. A feeling that Western states took advantage of its weakness and encroached on its traditional sphere of influence. Also the chaotic handling of the economy during the change from state-control to a market economy in the 90s when more liberal and democratic forces were in power has led to a deep disillusionment with our style of democracy. Russians want strong leadership, a strong economy and a strong military and aren't much minded about the niceties of free speech and political dissent right now. Add to that Russia's huge oil and gas reserves and the fact that Europe is so dependent on them for its energy needs and you have a position where the EU really must appear strong and credible as a power. I'm not saying Russia is going to invade Europe or anything like that. But I would prefer a strong Europe in the event that more nationalistic forces come to power in the years ahead.

 

[cole]

And another thing. It is absolutely ridiculous that the No promoters got equal air time on RTE as the Yes. Who is this Ganley guy anyway? How does he deserve the same air time as the Taoiseach? What if I, Harchibald, put up a few No posters, would I get equal air time with, say, Enda?

The cheek of the broadcasters affording equal air time! That might lead to an informed debate.

I read the BBC website. They describe RTE as the State television station, a bit like Pravda. If I was Merky or Sarky I would be asking Rubber Lips "how come you say you support Yes and then let the looneys equal air time on your State television station? How naive are you Irish anyway?"

I don't think calling the taoiseach or the No voters names adds to the debate.

 

[cole]

My point is that the powers of Europe would appear weak and frankly ridiculous if they said we can't proceed because a little state on the edge of Europe with no real strategic significance won't let us.

This keeps coming up. All 27 countries agreed that there had to be a unanimous decision. If they don't like the fact that one country won't ratify the treaty then they shouldn't have agreed to a unanimous decision in the first place. Granted it was an unexpected decision. Anyway, it looks like they're ploughing ahead regardless.

 

[Nemesis]

And another thing. It is absolutely ridiculous that the No promoters got equal air time on RTE as the Yes. Who is this Ganley guy anyway? How does he deserve the same air time as the Taoiseach? What if I, Harchibald, put up a few No posters, would I get equal air time with, say, Enda?

I read the BBC website. They describe RTE as the State television station, a bit like Pravda. If I was Merky or Sarky I would be asking Rubber Lips "how come you say you support Yes and then let the looneys equal air time on your State television station? How naive are you Irish anyway?"

Exactly. Why did the media fawn over Ganley so much and give him so much airtime? Ok, they needed people to represent the case for a No. But why was Ganley on all the time? Jim Corr or Sinead O'Connor had as much right to represent the No side as him. Just because he spent a million or two to swing the vote didn't mean he had to be given such a prominent position in debates on radio and Tv.

 

[television]

Exactly. Why did the media fawn over Ganley so much and give him so much airtime? Ok, they needed people to represent the case for a No. But why was Ganley on all the time? Jim Corr or Sinead O'Connor had as much right to represent the No side as him. Just because he spent a million or two to swing the vote didn't mean he had to be given such a prominent position in debates on radio and Tv.

The unions all political parties the majority of newspapers were telling Irish people to vote yes to this. A rag bag allience of devients were telling people to vote no. When will the yes side get it. People voted no not because of the devients but because they felt that the wool was being pulled over their eyes that the establishment was telling them "vote for this its good for you, Im not going to bother explaining it to you because your not going tounderstand it anyway".

For something so important as changing our constitution we need tohave a full open debate teasing out the yes and no positions.If the yes position was so obviously stronger they had plenty of oppurtunity to cnvince the irish people. They failed. The yes side should analyise the real resons for thier failure not bemone 50/50 coverage.

 

[room305]

history will merely repeat itself..

we will be forced to vote again, and again, and again....


until we say yes....

democracy? i don't think so!

It's representative democracy not direct democracy. If you your elected representatives come back with another Lisbon Treaty referendum then vote for someone else. Like Sinn Fein, Declan Ganley or Youth Defence.

have added in a clause protecting our low corporation tax rate and/or our tax rate in general ?

Ireland maintains a veto on direct taxation. That said, we could have added a clause to treaty to counteract the rumours being spread by Ganley/SF et al. The means to attack our low corporation tax already exist post-Nice but I reckon the No vote will encourage elements in France to do exactly so as it has always been a sore-point for them.

The Treaty is deliberately obtuse. Which is reason enough to tell them to take a hike.

I'm not sure how you can infer any obtuseness is deliberate. Also it is a legal document and quite a deal clearer than many that have been passed by the Dail.

The fact that it doesn't feature as an issue says to me that for all the moaning and complaints the EU isn't that bad. If it was it would be a major election issue.

Excellent point. Much was made by the No campaign that we were voting on behalf of the people of France who didn't get the opportunity to vote on the treaty. Yet the French people didn't seem much bothered about the fact.

Have you forgotten the French & Dutch No votes? Did the world fall apart? There WILL be a Plan 'C'. And maybe it will be a democratic one.

"where this leaves us" is exactly where we were a few days ago,except now the EU will have to come back to us with a better deal. there is noting at all worry about......i think you will find there is always a plan B...thats how the world works!

Lets give the dust some time to settle - they came out with the same pronouncements after the Constitution was rejected in France, and we know what happened then...

We are not France. We do not have a population of sixty million. We are not a net contributor to EU funds. Is it hard for people to grasp that it might be easier for the rest of the EU to press ahead without us?

We need the EU more than the EU needs us. How can we be in a position to renegotiate a better deal?

Exactly. Why did the media fawn over Ganley so much and give him so much airtime? Ok, they needed people to represent the case for a No. But why was Ganley on all the time? Jim Corr or Sinead O'Connor had as much right to represent the No side as him. Just because he spent a million or two to swing the vote didn't mean he had to be given such a prominent position in debates on radio and Tv.

Well have no fear you won't see much of Declan Ganley again. He's already said as much. Back off to the US to work on some of the very lucrative communications contracts his company has secured.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Room305, you have summed it up better than I could ever have. And I am going to scream if I hear again the platitude "we must respect the will of the people". Sarky for one shows no signs of such respect , and can you blame him.

 

[rmelly]

We need the EU more than the EU needs us. How can we be in a position to renegotiate a better deal?

I don't want or expect a 'better deal'. I have made clear I think this project/experiment whatever you want to call it, is heading in the wrong direction and needs to be reigned in.

Also, as of next year we will be net contributors.

 

[Nemesis]

I don't want or expect a 'better deal'. I have made clear I think this project/experiment whatever you want to call it, is heading in the wrong direction and needs to be reigned in.

When you say it needs to be 'reigned in' what exactly do you mean by that? and what would be the right direction? If the other 26 states decide to proceed with the changes in the Lisbon treaty, are you prepared to accept Ireland's isolation and possible exit from the Union (or exclusion from any new Union which would replace it) as a result?

 

[rmelly]

When you say it needs to be 'reigned in' what exactly do you mean by that? and what would be the right direction? If the other 26 states decide to proceed with the changes in the Lisbon treaty, are you prepared to accept Ireland's isolation and possible exit from the Union (or exclusion from any new Union which would replace it) as a result?

Well for a start, as has been pointed out, proceeding with ratification where one country has rejected it is against the terms of the Treaty, although it wouldn't be the first time the eurocrats deceived us.

This talk of exclusion is pure scaremongering and again has been repeated numerous times - lets see what happens. Clearly you don't have much faith in our european brethren.

Again as I have said, this was conceived as an economic union - I see no need for a Foreign Minister, a national anthem, an army etc. This is clearly heading towards a U.S.E., each Treaty is a step closer.

 

[cole]

Well for a start, as has been pointed out, proceeding with ratification where one country has rejected it is against the terms of the Treaty, although it wouldn't be the first time the eurocrats deceived us.

This talk of exclusion is pure scaremongering and again has been repeated numerous times - lets see what happens. Clearly you don't have much faith in our european brethren.

Again as I have said, this was conceived as an economic union - I see no need for a Foreign Minister, a national anthem, an army etc. This is clearly heading towards a U.S.E., each Treaty is a step closer.

Agreed.

 

[Nemesis]

Well for a start, as has been pointed out, proceeding with ratification where one country has rejected it is against the terms of the Treaty, although it wouldn't be the first time the eurocrats deceived us.

This talk of exclusion is pure scaremongering and again has been repeated numerous times - lets see what happens. Clearly you don't have much faith in our european brethren.

It's not about faith. It's about the hard realities of politics and the relationships between powerful states and those with relatively little power.

Again as I have said, this was conceived as an economic union - I see no need for a Foreign Minister, a national anthem, an army etc. This is clearly heading towards a U.S.E., each Treaty is a step closer.

Just as a matter of interest, if you could be sure that this treaty was the final treaty and no further changes could take place without broad support among the peoples of each member state, would you have been prepared to accept it? I know you might say there's no way you could be sure, but just for the sake of argument. I suppose what I'm getting at is whether your objection is mainly to the prospect of further integration beyond Lisbon or to the changes proposed in the Lisbon treaty itself which I regard as modest and not in themselves bringing about a superstate.

I ask this as my own position is that if I was asked to vote on another treaty in a couple of years requiring further integration beyond what is proposed in Lisbon I would probably vote No. This is not because I am against further integration but because I recognise that there is little appetite for this among the peoples of Europe. However I do believe the streamlining and reforms contained in Lisbon are necessary for an enlarged Union to function and to enable new states, particularly those of the former Yugoslavia to join the EU. I also believe the other member state governments would not be able to agree any further changes granting yet more powers to the EU anyway.

I really feel we would have been better served to vote to ratify this treaty. This has created a mess that we have to deal with. I believe this was the wrong battle to fight and I genuinely can't see how we're going to come out of it without negative consequences. As I said before, it's all very well to talk about standing up for the rights of French and Dutch voters but they will not be affected by this. Regardless of what they say, it is simply not an issue for them. There are no protests on the streets, no strikes, no political parties contesting elections on the issue. That in itself speaks volumes. It is an irritation for them, something to grumble about, nothing more. If we think they're going to pressure their governments not to isolate us and to stand up for our interests we are sadly deluding ourselves.

 

[rmelly]

Hi Nemesis. There is at least one specific issue to the Lisbon Treaty that makes it unacceptable to me - the appointment of a Foreign Minister.

We have no need for a foreign minister - we are 27 seperate soverign member states each with its own foreign affairs apparatus. When the EU is divided over an issue such as Iraq, Iran's nuclear weapons programme, Israel/Palestine etc, who has final call? Majority voting, qualified majority voting? I can envisage many situations where I will find a Foreign Ministers position on issues unacceptable.

One final point. I consider myself to be Irish (nothing to do with North/South etc), i dont consider myself to be 'a European' and don't aspire to be. I live in a country that happens to be part of the (extended) continent of Europe.

 

[Sn@kebite]

Some of the posts in here are so lame. Sounds like the 'yes' side is bitter they didn't get their beliefs to win over the 'no' side.

I think most of the 'no' votes were to do with uncertainty and paranoia at such an ambiguous explanation of the treaty, not really because the 'no' voters genuinely believed it should be a no. Most of Ireland (and me, for the most part) don't understand every bit of it. It appeared to me that the wording was encrypting certain aspects of it, sort of like those picture puzzles in newspapers where you need to stare at it so the image in the background emerges slowly from the background. There was something spurious about the Treaty if you ask me. Not all of us are good readers and it serves them right that we voted 'no' because it seems they did a cowboy job on the campaign to deliberately keep a lot of us in the dark so we would blindly vote 'yes'...

...Paranoid, I know, but it's my €0.02.

 

[starlite68]

And another thing. It is absolutely ridiculous that the No promoters got equal air time on RTE as the Yes. Who is this Ganley guy anyway? How does he deserve the same air time as the Taoiseach?
so you think the bigger the party the more air time the should get to get there point across?...... yea that really sounds fair!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

so you think the bigger the party the more air time the should get to get there point across?...... yea that really sounds fair!

All but 6 of our elected TDs were for Yes. IBEC, most trade unions, the farmers etc. were for Yes. I think that entitled the Yes side to more air time than No. Imagine that Ganly was the only person in the whole country for No. RTE would still work on the principle that he should get as much air time as all the rest put together.

Or to pose another hypothetical example. Say we had a referendum banning murder, just to be sure. We would probably have Grisly Adams against it and everybody else for, including Mr Ganly. Would RTE still feel bound to give 50% of their coverage over to Grisly?

I

 

[television]

The point is that its not the people on the various sides that get the air time. Equal time is given to the yes or no argument.

 

[starlite68]

thats exactly right....the argument is yes vs no....so it dose not matter how many people are on what side.......there has to be an equal 50/50 balance