Irish rejection of New Europe

[nbs2]

Lost in the discussion of the goings-on in American politics is an astounding victory for those who will not be bullied into decisions, who believe that the will of the people is not always reflected in the will of the politicians, and who believe that the common man does understand more than he is given credit for.

As the Irish vote (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/06/ireland_snubs_the_eu.html) on the Lisbon treaty resulted in a massive setback for European integration, one has to wonder if the ruling classes throughout the rest of Europe would face the same backlash if they were to open their ratifications to public vote. Sure the people voted for their representatives, but to presume that the Lisbon treaty as it is being presented was a campaign would be, well, presumptuous.

As an aside, I am surprised that more countries did not open this to a vote. This isn't just a treaty, it is further consolidation of Europe. It has the power to fundamentally alter national institutions, something that everybody has a vested interest in. That Gordon Brown does not credit his people with the savvy to deserve input on this issue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7453084.stm) is disappointing.

While I am pleased with the result (I think that the forced integration of so many nations runs the risk of homogenizing Europe, turning it into a Franco-German blend, crushing the many other nations that make Europe what it is), I am more pleased that the people have been given an opportunity to make their will known. I fear that parliament will try to force a constitutional amendment, but something tells me that it would be soundly defeated.

[paddy]

"Ireland will pay" said Barrosso and I think that's true, Europe will come down on us next time we need something.

But you bring up an interesting point, would the French, British, Dutch, German, Spanish voters etc. have voted it through? I some how doubt it.

It'll be pushed through anyway at our expense.

[nbs2]

"Ireland will pay" said Barrosso and I think that's true, Europe will come down on us next time we need something.

That's what bothers me the most. How is this bullying going to ever going to build support rather than resentment? Trying to force Ireland (more specifically, the 53.4% nays of Ireland) into adopting these changes, I expect, will lead to a flushing of domestic leadership and an eventual attempt to pull farther away.

[arkitect]

As an aside, I am surprised that more countries did not open this to a vote. This isn't just a treaty, it is further consolidation of Europe. It has the power to fundamentally alter national institutions, something that everybody has a vested interest in. That Gordon Brown does not credit his people with the savvy to deserve input on this issue (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7453084.stm) is disappointing.


Especially since a Referendum was promised by all 3 major political parties in the UK during the 2005 general election…

And now Labour (as ruling party) have reneged on that promise… And we all know why: The vote would be the same as it was in Ireland (and indeed in France in 2005) — No.

[paddy]

That's what bothers me the most. How is this bullying going to ever going to build support rather than resentment? Trying to force Ireland (more specifically, the 53.4% nays of Ireland) into adopting these changes, I expect, will lead to a flushing of domestic leadership and an eventual attempt to pull farther away.

I'd say our PM will be kissing the feet of the Europeans now for the next while! The French and Spanish were saying certain things as well indicating we're going to suffer from this decision.

Still though, it should have gone through. All that rubbish from the No side about an E.U. army, no sovereignty, abortion etc. That's partly why working class areas rejected it 3 to 1 and many midde class areas voted for it in a 3 to 1 ratio

[gkarris]

That whole EU thing is looking like the US more and more - each country turning into a "State"... it is the "Euro DOLLAR"! :eek:

[skunk]

"Ireland will pay" said Barrosso and I think that's true, Europe will come down on us next time we need something.Punishment for expressing your will in a popular vote? Where have we heard of that tactic before? Democracy is only acceptable these days if people obey their voting instructions, it seems.
That whole EU thing is looking like the US more and more - each country turning into a "State"...Without any of the safeguards built into your Constitution. Our "Constitution" is becoming more and more a negotiation stitch-up behind closed doors.

[j26]

http://www.biker.ie/forum/images/smilies/clap.gifhttp://www.biker.ie/forum/images/smilies/clap.gifhttp://www.biker.ie/forum/images/smilies/clap.gif

It's so lucky that Ireland has a constitution to protect us from our government. If we didn't have this protection, the treaty would have been ratified by the political establishment as all of the main parties supported it.

I'm concerned about the direction Europe is heading, and have been for a while. It's becoming fundamentally undemocratic. This time only 3 million people even had a say in how they are governed, not to mention that this is essentially a reworking of the Constitution which has already been rejected in 2 popular votes (France and Denmark). Give us an accountable form of government and we'll vote for it in droves.


Barroso's threat reminded me of the threat to the Palestinians not to vote for Hamas - democracy indeed!

[scotthayes]

I love the irony of it all. Part of the Lisbon treaty was to prevent the situation where one country could vote NO and kill off a future treaty :D

[j26]

I love the irony of it all. Part of the Lisbon treaty was to prevent the situation where one country could vote NO and kill off a future treaty :D

:D:D:D:D:D Great, innit? How can you compel someone to sign a treaty?

[skunk]

Barroso's threat reminded me of the threat to the Palestinians not to vote for Hamas - democracy indeed!That was my reference above.

[nbs2]

This votes seems to have done a fair bit of good in pulling the facade (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1411506.php/EU_ministers_ask_Ireland_to_explain_Lisbon_Treaty_no__1st_Lead_) off of the EU.

It seems that the French and Danish are demanding that the Irish "explain themselves," while the Irish minister refuses to throw his people under the bus. The Austrians seems to be a symbol of moderation, while the Germans are lost and the Finns are intent on world domination (or maybe just EU expansion). Oh, and Luxemborg thinks that dealing with the symptoms will cure the illness.

Good times all around! :D

I wish all of you in Ireland the best of luck in dealing with the rest of Europe. Whatever you decide, and whenever you are satisfied, it will be good to know that there is a defender of democracy somewhere in the world.

[paddy]

I do think though that we do deserve some blame for voting no. Yes it was at least a democratic election, but it was mainly voted no because of fear mongering tactics from Sinn Féin and the Socialists. Stuff like "E.U. Army" or "Abortion" or "Say goodbye to sovereignty" was on their posters, this which were inflammatory and wrong. Speaking as an Irishman who voted yes, I think we deserve a right bollocking, not for exercising our democratic right, but for allowing ourselves to be led like sheep, which we were.

If the Government had gotten their act together, this treaty would have gone through.

[Much Ado]

Forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject, but is Ireland not a massive beneficiary of the EU?

[nbs2]

If the Government had gotten their act together, this treaty would have gone through.

But they didn't (some might say couldn't). The chance of "no" was pretty high going into the vote. If Europe really wanted a "yes" from the Irish, they may have considered spending more time alleviating concerns instead of posturing and threatening.

Forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject, but is Ireland not a massive beneficiary of the EU?

From my understanding, they have been, but need not be. As they have built and strengthened their economy, they may be placed strongly enough to be the Canada to the UK's US, even if they leave the EU.

However, why should it matter that they have been beneficiaries? The help they have gotten from Europe does not bind them to following lock-step with their benefactors. Rather, the Irish should be concerned with how the EU and changes to it's structure will affect them as a nation - both individually and collectively. If they believe that the changes are bad mojo, there is no reason they should choose to accept them nor be compelled to do so. Rather, there should be an effort to educate, if that is all that is missing.

I have no real stake in this mess, except as far as the US might be affected, but the more the continent postures, the more I believe that Sinn Fein is right. Big Europe isn't looking for equality, it is looking for obedience.

[paddy]

Forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject, but is Ireland not a massive beneficiary of the EU?

Yes we are. Massive beneficiaries.

But they didn't (some might say couldn't). The chance of "no" was pretty high going into the vote. If Europe really wanted a "yes" from the Irish, they may have considered spending more time alleviating concerns instead of posturing and threatening.

But the thing is, they did. And anyway, isn't that just bribery rather than blackmail? The lesser of two evils? They actually were quite good about the whole thing, bar one or two slip ups. I read that the last few months of the E.U. have been some of the most unproductive ever, thanks to the anticipation of the Irish vote.

From my understanding, they have been, but need not be. As they have built and strengthened their economy, they may be placed strongly enough to be the Canada to the UK's US, even if they leave the EU.

Oh good God no. We would die without the E.U. We were trading (almost) solely with the U.K., but we were dirt poor. The "poorest rich country in the world". Ireland was not a pretty place before the E.U. Wasn't for quite a while afterwards of course, but it's thanks to the E.U we're one of the richest countries in the world now.

However, why should it matter that they have been beneficiaries? The help they have gotten from Europe does not bind them to following lock-step with their benefactors. Rather, the Irish should be concerned with how the EU and changes to it's structure will affect them as a nation - both individually and collectively. If they believe that the changes are bad mojo, there is no reason they should choose to accept them nor be compelled to do so. Rather, there should be an effort to educate, if that is all that is missing.

I have no real stake in this mess, except as far as the US might be affected, but the more the continent postures, the more I believe that Sinn Fein is right. Big Europe isn't looking for equality, it is looking for obedience.

Well first off, I do think we owe Europe, but you have a point. We should have looked at what it meant, but we didn't. Most eejits believed Sinn Féin, who weren't debating on the issues, if they were I'd have no problem. They were using the same scare tactic they use for every E.U. treaty: "E.U. army" or "No more sovereignty" or "more tax, less power"

I dunno. I respect the decision, but hate the fact that it was a vote arrived at through fear and ignorance.

[paddy]

Just wanted to add in a little snippet of what I read on another forum which sums up my feelings, to a certain extent.


A misguided 53% of 0.8% of the population of Europe can't be allowed to hold the treaty up. Protest votes, xenophobic voters and just basic bullying by the No side are responsible for this shambles. Understand the treaty before you make your point. Nice work Ireland.
James Switzerland

[Much Ado]

^ Much as James might be right there, it is ironic seeing as though he comes from Switzerland.

[paddy]

^ Much as James might be right there, it is ironic seeing as though he comes from Switzerland.

Lol, I know. That says it all though; the Swiss knew more about this treaty that we did.

[Queso]

I like that this came from Ireland. The politicians seem to think they can get away with foisting this thing on us. Not one member of our Government has bothered to take the time to actually explain the Lisbon Treaty and its differences to the failed EU Constitution to the British public, then they try and tell us we don't know enough about it to be trusted with a referendum.

I believe the EU is a force for good, but right now it is at odds with the people that live there.

[j26]

I do think though that we do deserve some blame for voting no. Yes it was at least a democratic election, but it was mainly voted no because of fear mongering tactics from Sinn Féin and the Socialists. Stuff like "E.U. Army" or "Abortion" or "Say goodbye to sovereignty" was on their posters, this which were inflammatory and wrong. Speaking as an Irishman who voted yes, I think we deserve a right bollocking, not for exercising our democratic right, but for allowing ourselves to be led like sheep, which we were.

If the Government had gotten their act together, this treaty would have gone through.

In fairness, many people who voted yes merely did so because Biffo said it was good for the country, and didn't engage in their own critical evaluation of the treaty. Posters on both sides were meaningless, and please forget about the mad religious right (unfortunately they're not unique to the USA, but at least they have bugger all power here :p)

What were the selling points of the treaty that inspired you to vote yes?


And a further question - what about the German foreign ministers response to the rejection - is that an acceptable way to do business with partners you regard as equals.

[paddy]

In fairness, many people who voted yes merely did so because Biffo said it was good for the country, and didn't engage in their own critical evaluation of the treaty. Posters on both sides were meaningless, and please forget about the mad religious right (unfortunately they're not unique to the USA, but at least they have bugger all power here :p)

What were the selling points of the treaty that inspired you to vote yes?


And a further question - what about the German foreign ministers response to the rejection - is that an acceptable way to do business with partners you regard as equals.

Honestly, I read all that Referendum Committee crap that was sent out to everyone, but only understood bits here and there (I'm no lawyer thank God ;)).

I voted yes for a few reasons: a) next time we need something from the E.U., which we will soon no doubt ("cough" CAP talks "cough") we'll be in a far better bargaining position b) Europe has done an incredible amount for us, a fact we're only too willing to ignore these days, c) every major political party said yes to this. Only Sinn Féin (who've rejected every European treaty since the history of the State said no). Most of the trade unions said yes. Most of the business groups said yes. And who the ******* are Libertas???
d) we negotiated this treaty back in '04 (it's just been re-packaged since) and I felt it would be extremely hypocritical to reject it. Finally I did it to piss off those uber-conservative Catholic fools I know harping on about abortions and militarisation.

We're not equal to the Germans. You've got to look at it objectively; why should countries like Malta or Ireland have the same voting power as a country as big as Germany? I mean in the real world I think that's completely undemocratic.

[nbs2]

We're not equal to the Germans. You've got to look at it objectively; why should countries like Malta or Ireland have the same voting power as a country as big as Germany? I mean in the real world I think that's completely undemocratic.

Because the needs of an Irishman are no less important than the needs of a German.

Without venturing too far afield, the requirement to balance the needs of the majority while not ignoring the needs of the smaller groups is what led to the electoral college in the US. If you note, it would not be too difficult for an American candidate to build a popular majority by appealing to Texas, California, and New York. The electoral college is what keeps everybody else relevant. In the same way, appealing to the UK, France, and Germany would net you almost 50% of the population. Is policy that benefits just those three in keeping with the goal of European unity?

Sure, maintaining the voice of the minority is undemocratic, but a true democracy is impossible to manage unless all other political allegiances (complimentary or competative) are fully abandoned.

[paddy]

Sure, maintaining the voice of the minority is undemocratic, but a true democracy is impossible to manage unless all other political allegiances (complimentary or competative) are fully abandoned.

No, I'm not being as black-and-white as that. Of course there should be a degree of fairness, neither Germany, France of the U.K. should have the right to dictate all of E.U. policy. But at the same time, why should Ireland or Malta have the exact same voting rights as Germany? There should be some staggered system which takes these things into account.

[zap2]

[QUOTE=paddy;5608015]why should countries like Malta or Ireland have the same voting power as a country as big as Germany?/QUOTE]

Hey hey, we had that fight in the US about Congress and voting power of each state!
:p

[j26]

Honestly, I read all that Referendum Committee crap that was sent out to everyone, but only understood bits here and there (I'm no lawyer thank God ;)).

I voted yes for a few reasons: a) next time we need something from the E.U., which we will soon no doubt ("cough" CAP talks "cough") we'll be in a far better bargaining position b) Europe has done an incredible amount for us, a fact we're only too willing to ignore these days, c) every major political party said yes to this. Only Sinn Féin (who've rejected every European treaty since the history of the State said no). Most of the trade unions said yes. Most of the business groups said yes. And who the ******* are Libertas???
d) we negotiated this treaty back in '04 (it's just been re-packaged since) and I felt it would be extremely hypocritical to reject it. Finally I did it to piss off those uber-conservative Catholic fools I know harping on about abortions and militarisation.

We're not equal to the Germans. You've got to look at it objectively; why should countries like Malta or Ireland have the same voting power as a country as big as Germany? I mean in the real world I think that's completely undemocratic.

(a) & (b) - I hate the "Oh the ingratitude" argument. We owe it to nobody to rubberstamp a bad treaty just because we got money in the past. That's a very poor view of what democracy means.
(c) indicates how out of touch Irish politicians are with their constituents. At the end of the day, they are elected to represent us and our concerns, not dictate what we should do.
(d) This treaty (before it was repackaged) has been rejected twice before (France and the Netherlands). Politicians said yes, the unions said yes, IBEC said yes, but the people said No, and it's the people that count.
(e) :D;) I'll give you that one

My concern is that we have an unelected body making decisions of great importance, and the treaty extends its powers, while leaving us unrepresented for a considerable period of time. Create a directly elected executive, and my concerns would be allayed. However, we are being presented with this defective (imo) treaty as the only way forward. There are other ways forward, and ways that can engage people and give them something to believe in, but it seems that the elites are insistent on pushing this through, no matter what, and willing to trample on the basic concepts of democracy to achieve it.

[paddy]

(a) & (b) - I hate the "Oh the ingratitude" argument. We owe it to nobody to rubberstamp a bad treaty just because we got money in the past. That's a very poor view of what democracy means.
(c) indicates how out of touch Irish politicians are with their constituents. At the end of the day, they are elected to represent us and our concerns, not dictate what we should do.
(d) This treaty (before it was repackaged) has been rejected twice before (France and the Netherlands). Politicians said yes, the unions said yes, IBEC said yes, but the people said No, and it's the people that count.
(e) :D;) I'll give you that one

a)+b) But we do owe a lot to Europe, an incredible amount. In the real world you can't forget that. If we were playing smart, we would've have voted yes. It's fine to be idealistic, but what about next time when we need a few billion from the E.U.? Who's going to end up paying our social welfare bills over the next decade (which are already beginning to get pretty big)? You can talk about democracy and all it's ideals, but we voted no on because of propaganda, and what good will it do us? We voted no because we were afraid of the unknown, not because we were standing up to the big bad wolf.

c) Yes it's largely the fault of our elected officials but we're not blameless. We allowed ourselves to be led by slogans, not logic.

d) But it's important to investigate why they voted no. Was in an anti-E.U. vote or a vote of ignorance, or a vote of fear?

e) Well the langers got their way again! :p

[j26]

a)+b) But we do owe a lot to Europe, an incredible amount. In the real world you can't forget that. If we were playing smart, we would've have voted yes. It's fine to be idealistic, but what about next time when we need a few billion from the E.U.? Who's going to end up paying our social welfare bills over the next decade (which are already beginning to get pretty big)? You can talk about democracy and all it's ideals, but we voted no on because of propaganda, and what good will it do us? We voted no because we were afraid of the unknown, not because we were standing up to the big bad wolf.

c) Yes it's largely the fault of our elected officials but we're not blameless. We allowed ourselves to be led by slogans, not logic.

d) But it's important to investigate why they voted no. Was in an anti-E.U. vote or a vote of ignorance, or a vote of fear?

e) Well the langers got their way again! :p

(a) Ah, this is nothing compared to the eighties :p. TBH I would prefer to be out of the EU than to have to go along with the system where everyone is so anxious not to step out of line for fear of being called names, because effectively that's what's happening. The new members are afraid of being labelled Euro Sceptic. The small states are afraid of the larger ones. Is that democracy in action? And the dependency cluture thing of looking at the handouts? Come on, aren't we the pinnacle of capitalism in Europe :rolleyes:
(c) Did the Yes campaign not try to use slogans (albeit poor ones)? That's the part process of electioneering - try to boil complex arguments down to a slogan that encapsulates them.
(d) You missed the option of for the EU, but not in this form. People are making the assumption that everyone voted no for silly or fear driven reasons, as you have done. People are far more sophisticated than you think. Even a simple person can see that if they have a say in how things are done, and give it up then it's lost. Howeve, I fully agree that it is important to know why we voted no, but probably for different reasons than you.
(e) :D:D


Again, for the record, I am in favour of integration in Europe, just not this model. People who voted no did so for diverse reasons. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you can dismiss them as ignorant or fearful. I can equally argue that the people who voted yes did so out of fear of the threats that were emanating from our the EU President, or that people who voted yes were ignorant and only voted yes because Biffo said so. But mudslinging will get us nowhere.

[paddy]

(a) Ah, this is nothing compared to the eighties :p. TBH I would prefer to be out of the EU than to have to go along with the system where everyone is so anxious not to step out of line for fear of being called names, because effectively that's what's happening. The new members are afraid of being labelled Euro Sceptic. The small states are afraid of the larger ones. Is that democracy in action? And the dependency cluture thing of looking at the handouts? Come on, aren't we the pinnacle of capitalism in Europe :rolleyes:
(c) Did the Yes campaign not try to use slogans (albeit poor ones)? That's the part process of electioneering - try to boil complex arguments down to a slogan that encapsulates them.
(d) You missed the option of for the EU, but not in this form. People are making the assumption that everyone voted no for silly or fear driven reasons, as you have done. People are far more sophisticated than you think. Even a simple person can see that if they have a say in how things are done, and give it up then it's lost. Howeve, I fully agree that it is important to know why we voted no, but probably for different reasons than you.
(e) :D:D


Again, for the record, I am in favour of integration in Europe, just not this model. People who voted no did so for diverse reasons. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you can dismiss them as ignorant or fearful. I can equally argue that the people who voted yes did so out of fear of the threats that were emanating from our the EU President, or that people who voted yes were ignorant and only voted yes because Biffo said so. But mudslinging will get us nowhere.

A) Madness. We pull out of the E.U. and we are **********, no two ways about it. In an ideal world what you are saying would be true but we tried being that prior to the E.U. and look where we were? Democracy is wonderful and all that but we have to be realistic, and play the political game.
C)They did use slogans, but there's a massive difference with the kind of disgraceful slogans the no campaign used and those of the yes campaign, you know the ones I mean
D) For the record, I fully respect the no decision. I just don't respect how it was arrived at. There are many people on the no, and yes, side who were informed going into vote. But there were so many who weren't. And you can't ignore the fear factor either, we've seen how people vote under it. If there's a disconnect between the people and the E.U. as an institution, certainly our first priority should be to deal with that.

I just want to say too that I don't agree with the E.U.'s reaction to the referendum. This treaty should have been about democracy, at least that's what's claimed. Now however, we are being bullied into something. But in the end it all comes down to economics. We cannot survive without Europe. We just don't have the population. So we can talk about how brave we were and all that but at the end of the day, we're quite dependent on Europe and it's time we started to take that into consideration.

[j26]

A) Madness. We pull out of the E.U. and we are **********, no two ways about it. In an ideal world what you are saying would be true but we tried being that prior to the E.U. and look where we were? Democracy is wonderful and all that but we have to be realistic, and play the political game.
C)They did use slogans, but there's a massive difference with the kind of disgraceful slogans the no campaign used and those of the yes campaign, you know the ones I mean
D) For the record, I fully respect the no decision. I just don't respect how it was arrived at. There are many people on the no, and yes, side who were informed going into vote. But there were so many who weren't. And you can't ignore the fear factor either, we've seen how people vote under it. If there's a disconnect between the people and the E.U. as an institution, certainly our first priority should be to deal with that.

I just want to say too that I don't agree with the E.U.'s reaction to the referendum. This treaty should have been about democracy, at least that's what's claimed. Now however, we are being bullied into something. But in the end it all comes down to economics. We cannot survive without Europe. We just don't have the population. So we can talk about how brave we were and all that but at the end of the day, we're quite dependent on Europe and it's time we started to take that into consideration.

(a) I'm not suggesting we leave, but something has to change. There is no popular support for the EU, and there never will be if it continues along this path. I value my right to determine my destiny. Do you realise that this would have been our last opportunity to have a say in the shape of Europe?
(c) I seem to remember Bertie calling anyone against the treaty "loonies". That's pretty inflammatory. I do concede that some of the posters were inaccurate, but some of the things said in favour of the treaty were inaccurate too.

Democracy is wonderful and all that but we have to be realistic, and play the political game.

This is worthy of particular attention. Democracy is fine, but screw it when it become inconvenient? Are you actually a Blueshirt?

Democracy is an end in itself - it has an inherent value whereby it engages people in the political process and is ultimately the source of legitimacy. Imposed decisions are not legitimate, and are only kept in place by force or the threat of force. As is we only really have the gloss of democracy, but the treaty (and the reactions of our partners to it) would have the effect of taking away more of the little we have.

[aLoC]

People who want political power (or any kind of power) don't always want it for the right reasons. If I was an Irish politician I would try to get free trade for my people (for the economy) without giving up any sovereignty.

[paddy]

This is worthy of particular attention. Democracy is fine, but screw it when it become inconvenient? Are you actually a Blueshirt?

Democracy is an end in itself - it has an inherent value whereby it engages people in the political process and is ultimately the source of legitimacy. Imposed decisions are not legitimate, and are only kept in place by force or the threat of force. As is we only really have the gloss of democracy, but the treaty (and the reactions of our partners to it) would have the effect of taking away more of the little we have.

Nope, I actually vote Green! :D Well, I'll give an example of what I mean. The CAP talks are coming up soon no? Why the hell didn't the farmers swing behind this treaty to boost their bargaining position? That's what I mean by playing smart politics.

The yes side made a right mess of this treaty, and Cowen deserves a good kick up the arse for it.

Just interested, why do you think we have only the gloss of democracy at the moment?

[paddy]

People who want political power (or any kind of power) don't always want it for the right reasons. If I was an Irish politician I would try to get free trade for my people (for the economy) without giving up any sovereignty.

We have free trade as is. We do have to give up some degree of sovereignty for the E.U. to work properly though.