Lisbon defeated what happens next ?

ubiquitous said:
A majority voted on Thursday. It has been widely lauded, by all sides, as a high turnout.
Click to expand...

Granted, 53% did turnout. I still have a problem with the 'the Irish people' being represented by 29% of the electorate.

starlite68
...by the time you get them kicked-out,the damage is already done.
Click to expand...

Well, the debate is about whether or not there is any 'damage'.
 

I agree with you and would have no intention of telling Germany and France to stuff their EU. I am sure alot of people who voted 'No' are actually very happy to be in Europe. The fact remains though that while they might be happy with the current Europe, they are not happy with the road it was going down just like the Dutch and Fench who rejected the Constitution. People should not be afraid to voice that view and reject the the Treaty because of fear of reprisal from the powerful Countries. Just like it doesn't make sense to vote for a treaty just to please our big neighbours and keep them happy. The EU might not like it but they have to respect our decision and stop trying to make it seem like we have no right to block this treaty and are being selfish ungrateful morons.
 
redstar said:
Granted, 53% did turnout. I still have a problem with the 'the Irish people' being represented by 29% of the electorate.
Click to expand...
Fair enough if you feel that way. I don't have a problem with this. If some people choose to exclude themselves from the voting process by opting not to vote or by not bothering to vote, that's their problem, not mine. And there will always be a certain percentage of people on the register who cannot vote because they are dead, incapacitated, emigrated or on holidays. A 100% or near-100% turnout is a sign of a rigged vote, not a sign of a healthy democratic process.
 
i fully agree with you sunny, we should not vote for something we are not happy with just to please our big neighbours.....taking that stance would only lead to a lot more problems down the road.
 
redstar said:
Granted, 53% did turnout. I still have a problem with the 'the Irish people' being represented by 29% of the electorate.
Click to expand...

Was this not a higher % turnout than either of the Nice referendums? One wonders if you had a problem back then 'with the 'the Irish people' being represented by' 31% of the electorate?
 
ubiquitous said:
A majority voted on Thursday. It has been widely lauded, by all sides, as a high turnout.
Click to expand...

Make no mistake. This was a massive, massive No vote. Why do I say that? Ask yourself is Grisly a vote winner? Is Dana? Is Joe Higgins? Is Dunphy etc. etc.? This No vote came despite the looney bandwagon asking for it and despite the Yes support of the vast majority of our political, economic and social leaders.

My guess is that the Sinn Fein endorsement in particular was probably good for about half of the Yes vote - how many on this very thread stated that they were voting Yes simply because SF were supporting No?
 
rmelly said:
Was this not a higher % turnout than either of the Nice referendums? One wonders if you had a problem back then 'with the 'the Irish people' being represented by' 31% of the electorate?
Click to expand...

Yes to both questions. We have a system of democracy where largest 'minority rules'. I prefer the alternative 'representative democracy' of Govt who were chosen by PR, not a first-past-the-post system where 50% + 1 'winner-takes-all'.
(Maybe this is a topic for a different thread ?)
 

Good point.
 

But no government in at least a generation has been elected to power with the support of 50% of the electorate, or anything near it.
 
Harchibald said:
My guess is that the Sinn Fein endorsement in particular was probably good for about half of the Yes vote - how many on this very thread stated that they were voting Yes simply because SF were supporting No?
Click to expand...

if thats the case,then it really dose show how weak the yes vote was in the first place!
 

But people voted no as a protest vote aganist the health system, abortion, prostitution, etc.

This had nothing to do with the treaty.

Don't Know - Vote No stratergy was also crap.

People were too lazy to educate themselves on the treaty but they voted aganist it.

The no vote will cost this country foriegn direct investment.

Our competitors for FDI must be trilled.
 

But nothing stays the same forever. We might very well like the current arrangements but we can't expect everyone else to just stand still, continually postponing structural reform. There are other states queuing up to join the EU. Many of them have no problems with the proposed rules. States like Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro etc. They have bitter experience of what nationalistic and truly undemocratic regimes can lead to and do not view the EU with the fear and suspicion that is so evident here. It is essential that their path to membership is not blocked as it will help to further stabilise that region after the terrible ethnic wars of the 1990s. The prospect of membership has helped to foster the growth of a more progressive political climate there which continues to evolve. Europe has to think about the wishes and aspirations of these people too.

Much is made of the French and Dutch votes but many of the reasons for the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty were not so noble. There was element of 'kick Chirac' at the time, objections to Turkey's membership or that of other states with substantial Muslim populations (Bosnia, Albania, and now Kosovo), resentment at France's diminishing influence within an enlarged Europe etc. In the Netherlands, anti-immigration figured large and fears of Eastern Europeans coming to the country. (In fact, it's arguable that had the decision to expand eastwards been put to a public vote in the 15 member states there would have been a No in more than one country. Yet this expansion has been a great success in stabilising and democratising the region). I'm not saying these reasons make the No vote somehow invalid but sometimes No campaigners get all idealistic about standing up for the rights of the French and Dutch. As I've said before, they're more than capable of standing up for their own rights and if they're really being oppressed why haven't parties been able to tune into this and get elected? Why no street protests? strikes? It simply doesn't matter that much to them. It's irritation not oppression - resentment at the project of the elites. Well, all through the centuries, the elites of Europe had very different projects and I'd much prefer them spend their time on this project than the religious wars or grand imperialistic adventures of their forebears.

Honestly, some on the No side appear to have lost all perspective on this. A trip to the Uzbekistans of this world could open a few eyes. I've heard some No campaigners try to equate Mugabe's disregard for the voters wishes there with what's going on in the EU. In this thread, it is casually stated that Russia might be a bit more democratic than the EU. I am truly gob smacked when I read comments like these. Talk to some of the new members of the EU from the East such as Estonia or Latvia about what things were like under the Soviet Union and what they think of EU membership and you'll hear a different story. Try going to Russia and complaining about the FSB connected bureaucrats and see what happens. The EU isn't even remotely like these cases.
 
Nemesis, I think you have touched on the real reason we voted No not just to Lisbon but earlier to Nice. We simply do not like all this expansion stuff and you scare even me when I hear talk of Croatia, Montenegro, Kosovo etc. I would say most people, especially in working class areas, have mixed feelings at best about the immigration to Ireland from Eastern Europe.
 
I understand but we can't stop this change. Voting No to Lisbon will not keep the EU the way we might prefer. We have to adapt and learn how to deal with it. Of course the other alternative is to isolate ourselves, wall ourselves off from the EU but that's not likely to help us in the long run either. There are no easy answers.
 

But personally I think the lack of reaction among ordinary people in Europe is a sign of the dislocation between what the EU and the man on the street. Just like you say the Dutch and French aren't on the streets campaigning for their say on Lisbon, there is hardly a uproar outside political circles for expansion of European activities. Do ordinary Europeans care enough about what the EU is trying to become? Why should we vote for something to expand and give more powers to if ordinary people have just lost interest in what they are trying to achieve. Like I said, i voted Yes but I think there are questions that now need to be answered by the EU. Bullying Ireland or any other country into ratifying the treaty is not the answer.
 
I honestly think the EU will not acquire much more power beyond that envisaged under Lisbon. The sheer number of countries within the Union now makes it incredibly difficult to reach agreement on transferring more and more powers. It was hard enough to reach agreement on the Constitution/Lisbon changes. The more states that join the more difficult it is to create the superstate. The UK was one of the keenest supporters of expansion because of this. I know No voters would probably disagree with me, but I really believe the dream of the superstate died with the decision to admit the countries of Eastern Europe. Of course, it has also caused other issues such as immigration to feature in the debate as Harchibald pointed out above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register