The people have spoken..
Ian Dale called it early and, although RTÉ are still cautious, the early tallies indicate a ‘No’ vote. Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin has said “The trends are not what we would have preferred.” The BBC is reporting that Europe Minister Dick Roche is “keeping [his] fingers crossed” and that Dermot Ahern has apparently conceded that the Republic of Ireland has voted ‘No’ to the Lisbon Treaty. More coverage of results here Adds Reuters report these comments from France’s Secretary of State for European Affairs Jean-Pierre Jouyet,
“The most important thing is that ratification should continue in other countries (if Ireland has voted “no”) and I have good reasons to think that the process of ratification will continue. We would have to see with the Irish at the end of the ratification process how we could make it work and what legal arrangement we could come to.”
And Dermot Ahern, “We’re in uncharted waters.” Update RTÉ has the result – Yes 752,451 – No 862,415. And they point out “It is unclear exactly what course the EU and Ireland will follow.” More Taoiseach Brian Cowen
“We must not rush to conclusions. The Union has been in this situation before and each time has found an agreed way forward. I hope that we can do so again on this occasion.”
So now? We return to Brussels to renegeotiate under the cohesive voice of Sinn Féin/IRA, Libertas and Youth Defense??
The sad and sorry fact is that we had influence at Europe, now we are exposed as comprising less than 1% of the population. That fact will be repeated again and again in argument against the block of 26 renegeotiating with us. Eventually, we will get some sop by way of a multi-lateral protocol to allow the treaty to be passed here with a veneer of democracy, but the state has been crucially undermined on the international state.
After 80 years of campaigning by Sinn Féin/IRA to undermine the state, today they won. The motivation for “Libertas” (as their campaign was in essence a torrent of lie and misinformation, altruism can be ruled out) remains to be known.
You can stop spinning now George. The No crowd have had their thrill and manipulated and scared the electorate into the result they got today. It will take a while to sink in but it’s now time for the people will begin to realise how they were duped and what they have lost. However, unlike Nice, there will not be a second chance to put this right I fear.
“So now? We return to Brussels to renegeotiate under the cohesive voice of Sinn Féin/IRA, Libertas and Youth Defense??”
I for one don’t want a renegotiation and obviously neither does Barroso.
It seems this mythical “influence” of which you speak stretches only so far as rubber-stamping EU edicts.
If that is our only part on this “international stage of yours” I’d rather remain in the wings.
@Sean Fear
In truth most of them don’t even know what “it” is to want it or not want it. That’s the problem with a referendum like this. It turns into a vote on the question “Do you like the EU?”.
Should we be opening the champagne corks because we’ll have 27 commissioners instead of 18 and less codecision with the Parliament as well as the Council and we won’t have a Swiss still petition of a million citizens being able to put a law to the vote? Maybe we should, but I don’t think that that’s what the no voters will be thinking tonight. That’s the problem, and it cuts both ways. The yeses don’t know either.
It’s a bit like the the issue putting juries on trials of complex financial cases.
UlsterManIrelandFan,
I have always had a default Yes position towards Europe until this referendum because of the situation regarding the Dutch and French referenda and the insulting and arrogant nature of the Yes campaign.
Now we have a situation today where Barroso, Merkel and our friend the PM of France are quite happy to state that they want to ignore the democratic wishes of the Irish people and you think the Irish people were wrong not to hand over more power to these politicians.
If this is an indication of what our future would have been post Lisbon, I can only say thank God for Dev and Crotty.
PS – Perhaps you can tell me in clear terms what is the difference between the Lisbon Treaty and the EU Constitution? I’m still waiting for someone to tell me. Or is that too much to ask?
Oileafear: Point out the lies you accuse Libertas of spreading. If Biffo Cowen and the other paid local flunkeys could not do it, I doubt you can. Adams and his ilk were irrelevant to the outcome. Don’t demonize the God fearers who rejected the New World Order with this vote. Remember that is how the Orange death squads work. KAT and all that.
Oilifear,
“So now?”
How about drafting a constitution that everyone can understand and putting it to a vote in every state?
Bunreacht na hEireann would be a good place to start, although Brehon Law could provide some interesting precedent.
“The sad and sorry fact is that we had influence at Europe, now we are exposed as comprising less than 1% of the population.”
Why so glum? Despite the fact that many on both sides are not sure what, exactly, they have said, the people have spoken.
If blame is to be directed anywhere it is at those who created a maze of treaties for people to wade through without simply presenting an understandable constitution.
I suppose that didn’t really work out.
Raymond Crotty strikes again.
Come on George, you really think the French or Dutch outcomes had anything to do with the actual content of the constitutional treaty? Or indeed today’s result for that matter? The fact is that these rejections were due to voter concerns / motivations like:
I don’t like Chirac / I don’t think the EU is democratic / them ones in Brussels are just an elite and I don’t like being shut out of it / That guy Jose Bove has a point about McDonalds and globalisation / I don’t want my children conscripted into a European army / I don’t want the EU to impose abortion on us etc. etc.
What do all these have in common? That’s right, they have nothing to do with either treaty and you’re right, Lisbon and the constitutional treaty are largely the same. One of the main reasons they were written was to make the EU more democratic by giving national parliaments and directly elected MEPs more oversight and control of the EU legislative process. So the EU responds to concerns over the ‘democratic deficit’ and what do the voters of Ireland do? They say ‘ no thanks’. Surely in that case, the other countries in Europe are entitled to go ahead themselves.
And by the way, you’re very put out by the ‘arrogance’ of the yes campaign, but the manipulation and outright lies of the No campaign seem to be fine by you? Makes me wonder…
“Point out the lies you accuse Libertas of spreading.”
Dave O’Connell , let’s take was they say on their website:
“The Lisbon Treaty would drastically reduce Ireland’s voice at the table, undermine the role and power of the Oireachtas and copper fasten the democratic deficit which is so damaging to the European project.”
- Quite the contrary. The system of double-majority complicates this beyond Libertas simple divide-by-vote mathematics. The full maths, when taking account for the 55% of members states as well as the 65% of votes, meant our voting weight doubled. Either this was a poor understanding of mathematics by Libertas or a deliberate attempt the mislead the public by emplying wrong maths.
- On the matter of the Oireachtas being weakened, the Lisbon treaty took no new powers away from the Oireachtas and in fact strenghtened the roles of national parliaments in EU legistlation the most obvious point being that a national parliaments could block EU leglislations indefinately.
- The equalitising of the number of Commissioners is an obvious way in which Ireland’s voice would be increased. No longer would “big nations” have double the voice at the Commission table, we all, large and small, would have had the same voice.
“The lack of democracy, accountability and transparency in the European Union are not addressed by the Lisbon Treaty and its lack of legitimacy threatens the future of the EU.”
- Quite the contrary: the EU parliament strenghtened, Council meeting in pubilc, right to petition and have petition acted made a right, right to response from EU bodies to all queries from the public, double-majority voting at Council, etc. etc. The Treaty would have made enormous in-roads to fully democratising the EU, whereas a ‘no’ result leaves us exactly was were: with an unaccountable EU. Well done brainiac!
“The Lisbon Treaty hands foreign direct investment policy over to the EU, relegates the role of competition and provides back-doors to increased taxation powers.”
- All false. Foreign direct investment falls under the competecy of industry which lies with national parliaments, being only a “supporting competence” of the EU. The EU may only support or coordinate this role. The EU alreay “relegates the role of competition” and has done for donkies years. Arguments about taxation powers are the most insidious – as Libertas were forced to conceed in the end, Lisbon would not have changed ANYTHING to do with tax. The national veto remain in tact, unchanged and unthreatened.
—
“How about drafting a constitution that everyone can understand and putting it to a vote in every state?”
Wilde Rover, the would-be constition was impecibly readable. It would have been contained across two documents, which you may read here:
http://www.iiea.com/publicationx.php?publication_id=33
The first of these documents (Treaty on European Union), you may think of as the constitution per se. It is required reading.
The second of those documents (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) is the part in in a run-of-the-mill constitution would have been left to ordinaty statutes to legislate for. (e.g. Wheras the Bunreacht says a referendum must take place on any proposed change, how this referendum is actually carried out is left for ordinary legistation to lay-out in detail. In Lisbon, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union dealt with details such as these.)
Another two documents would have also been taken constitutional consequence:
* Charter of Fundamental Rights – in essence this would have been a bill of rights for the would-be ‘state’
* European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – the would-be guide for the principles of EU law
Anybody who says they read Lisbon itself is either lying or does not understand the things itself. This these points were not explained to the public has cost the referendum, IMHO.
Oilifear,
“Anybody who says they read Lisbon itself is either lying or does not understand the things itself.”
So who actually knows what lies in the treaty itself, outside of those who drafted it?
The ends don’t seem to meet.
Wilde Rover,
It’s an ammending text. Leave it to Peadar ó Broin to do the donkey work of replacing this word there and re-numbering that section to this that’s what we pay him to do!) then read the consolidated texts that are the end result. Those are crystal clear.
The disgraceful fact that no-one on the ‘yes’ camp seemed bothered to point this out to Joe and Josephine Soap, while Libertas were giving away free copies of unpenitrable legalese, is why this referendum was lost.
I’ve lost count of the number of people who went to the treaty with every intention of “finding out for themselves” only to be further bewildered by it. A minutae of effort on the part of the govt. and opposition parties would have sorted this confusion out (whether the failing lay in a lack of mental or physical will, I know know!).
UlsterManIrelandFan
The fact is that these rejections were due to voter concerns / motivations like:
I don’t like Chirac / I don’t think the EU is democratic / them ones in Brussels are just an elite and I don’t like being shut out of it / That guy Jose Bove has a point about McDonalds and globalisation / I don’t want my children conscripted into a European army / I don’t want the EU to impose abortion on us etc. etc.
I think it is fair to say that the French and Dutch electorate had a myriad of concerns about where the EU is going, what its goals are and what the objective of the EU Constitution was.
So were their concerns addressed after the no votes? They most certainly were not. Instead the EU Constitution was rebranded the Lisbon Treaty and the electorate were sidelined. Their decision to reject it in two referenda was simply bypassed.
One of the main reasons they were written was to make the EU more democratic by giving national parliaments and directly elected MEPs more oversight and control of the EU legislative process.
And how do you square this “more democratic” attitude with ignoring the genuine (despite the Yes side painting us as crackpots and provos) concerns of the electorate, however misguided they may or may not have been?
Surely in that case, the other countries in Europe are entitled to go ahead themselves.
Hardly democracy in action if a member’s views are ignored.
As I said earlier, and we are supposed to hand over more power to the very people who today are saying they will ignore our democratic decision?
Hardly the wisest of moves.
And by the way, you’re very put out by the ‘arrogance’ of the yes campaign, but the manipulation and outright lies of the No campaign seem to be fine by you? Makes me wonder…
I didn’t need to be convinced to vote no as voting no in reality was voting “status quo”. I needed to be convinced that voting for change was correct.
I haven’t been convinced and the treatment of the French and Dutch voters didn’t help. Neither did the comments by one of Ireland’s leading legal mind that our common law system could be under threat by this treaty.
Neither did being branded stupid, crazy, Provo, Youth Defence etc.
This treaty was not some minor tinkering, it was a major piece of legislation not something to vote in on a nod and a wink and then see how it goes.
Sad that it took almost 60 posts for people to stop patronising the unruly unwashed, and actually address the issue at hand. Thanks Olli, for your contribution – even if I don’t quite share your optimistic interpretation of the treaty.
For what it’s worth, I’m in favour of the EU, but against the treaty. It’s NOT a debate about membership of the EU, for me at least. It’s about what sort of EU we want.
While there were some welcome (and overdue) glimmers of democracy in the treaty provisions, on the whole it seems a little too centralising and federalist for my taste.
Hopefully I’ll have time later on for more debate
George,
This does have real legs because if they try any method of implementation either covert within Ireland or excluding Ireland from an EU solution the courts are going to have a really good workout.
This Treaty can only be implemented by unanimity and if Europe wants to implement without Ireland I assume they will need to do it with different institutions from the ones Ireland is involved in ie. they need to develop a parallel Parliament, Commission and Council as Ireland has decided the current ones stay the same and the rules say that is their right.
The only option I see for those seeking to continue with the project is to try for Lisbon II and given turnout that’d be a big ask.
I feel the brakes have been well and truly applied and it was the people when given the chance that did it.
George,
“Hardly democracy in action if a member’s views are ignored”
- hardly ignored. On the contrary Ireland’s position is accepted, even to the point where (I think) a second referendum will not be offered.
Re. the French electorate, after voting No to the constitutional treaty, they gave Sarkozy a very healthy majority and there was no illusions about the way he wanted to push EU project. We therefore shouldn’t read too much into the supposed scepticism of the French I would say.
“I didn’t need to be convinced to vote no as voting no in reality was voting “status quo”.”
- that remains to be seen, I think the outcome of this may turn out to be anything but the status quo.
I’m not calling you “stupid, crazy, Provo, Youth Defence etc.”. I do think you’re wrong though!
Mark,
There is nothing to stop a 2 speed Europe from emerging from this. Yes, it would have to be under a new / revised treaty of the 26 others, but there would be no need for new institutions. The Irish will just have to join the Brits outside the door when their ‘opted out’ issues are being discussed. Ergo we lose our influence at the table but we will be impacted by the decisions none the less. Never mind, I’m sure the right wing xenophobic British press and wingnuts the like of ‘Mr New World Order’ above will think we’re great lads.
Mark,
“the people” by and large exercised their right not to express an opinion on the matter, so the crackpots, headed up by Murdoch and the “Irish Sun” (it’s funny the bedfellows who are involved in this) and various other groups of people who people do not vote for and do not trust to actually take decisions on anything, won the day. Yes, it is a no vote, but hardly a convincing one.
I don’t regard this as an anti-Europe vote. The part that must be taken seriously is the part where European politicians effectively negotiate and wield power without consulting anybody.
UMIF,
Afraid not, the current structures are based on unanimity it needs a unanimous vote to change that. If others want to have a Treaty that doesn’t include Ireland they need to do that outside the current structures not within them.
So if 26 countries want to leave the EU and set up another organisation without Ireland fairplay.
Unanimity was what they wanted to change and tough shit they didn’t manage it. So it’s either stay in the EU endorsed by Ireland or set up a different one. That’d be a costly exercise.
They want scaremongering. They need to try it when their blood isn’t up and with people that will be intimidated.
CS,
Yes. And if my auntie had balls she’d be my uncle. The people voted and at a high level for a referendum. Of course those that don’t like the vote will try to claim the non-voters as somehow supporting their rejected position but that as in every election it is used is just pure bullshit.
Mark,
The No side are the last people who should be making the charge of scaremongering (pots and kettles and all that).
Unanimity is only required on something that will apply to all states, hence the idea of opt outs that various members particularly the UK have achieved in various areas. There is nothing to stop 26 agreeing something that will apply only to them e.g. largely rewite Lisbon and apply for 26 or maybe 25.
UlsterManIrelandFan
Re. the French electorate, after voting No to the constitutional treaty, they gave Sarkozy a very healthy majority and there was no illusions about the way he wanted to push EU project.
That is one view but not a hard fact. We don’t know what the electorate thought on this particular issue because they weren’t asked again.
Instead the French government decided to bypass the electorate second time around.
I don’t think it is bad thing that those in favour of a strengthened and more powerful EU have failed because rather than explaining their vision to the people of Europe they have tried to impose it.
Politicians are elected to represent our interests, not theirs.
Maybe now we will get a more transparent Europe. Maybe not, who knows. As for the argument that Lisbon would have made things more transparent, you can’t bring transparency through obfuscation.
The ever-growing feeling among the political elite that it is better not to involve the electorate in such decisions is the wrong one in my view.
We don’t know what this disconnect with people would have had for the European project further down the line if Lisbon had been passed.
“‘I didn’t need to be convinced to vote no as voting no in reality was voting status quo.’ – that remains to be seen, I think the outcome of this may turn out to be anything but the status quo.”
Bang on. Accusations of ‘scremongering’ effectively silenced any real discussion of this during the debate. The status quo is that the French couldn’t stop this by voting ‘no’ and neither can we. The difference is that without the French, there is no EU, whereas, without Ireland, there is. Stay tuned because by not voting in, we effectively voted out.
We have no moral right to hold 99.1% of the EU back, we have no rational argument to renegeotiate, no more consession that we require, no muscle to have our way. Unless we really want to be paraiahs, all we can do is step aside with dignity, negeotiate a good exit deal, maintain strong links, and keep friends on our side.
(And if a weak deal at WTO and a reduction in the CAP was an issue in the rural vote, I wonder how people will feel with f*** all voice at the WTO and no more CAP to speak off.)
Or maybe they could try a treaty with the added democracy and some streamlining, and without the federalising stuff? See what the voters of Europe think of that.
It would be nice if they could also deal with some of the endemic corruption, but that would be like expecting the Eurocrat turkeys to vote for Christmas.
They can indeed try to do that, it still needs unanimity even if Ireland isn’t party to any aspects. Amendments to European treaties require a referendum in Ireland since Crotty. For Ireland to permit a two tier Europe as is required by unanimity provisions it would require another referendum.
You reckon people would vote to permit the 26 county government to allow that?
Sorry. The people of Ireland have the Eurocrats by the balls and the scare tactics is just the anger of the defeated.
notmyopinion,
The rest of the EU will not spend another 7 years redoing this thing. It’s over, the moment has passed. Lisbon is kiled off for the Irish, but the settlement it represented will largely survive under another name and minus Ireland.
George,
I’m only saying, if the French were so anti the direction the EU was going they wouldn’t have given Sarkozy, an avowed EU integrationist, a mandate. They did, and as the head of their government, he has gone ahead and ratified Lisbon, that’s the way their democracy works. Do you want to change the constitution of the fifth republic now!?
Sarkozy’s position now will be interesting as he holds the EU presidency next. And as we’ve seen with him and Ms. Bruni, he doesn’t hang around!
notmyopinion, “streamling” – a constitution of 35 pages? And you want it *MORE* streamlined!?! You’re taking the piss, right? What do you want, a single sheet of A4???
Admitedly, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union was long at 150 pages for a constitutional document, but for a document outlining in detail every operation of a federation, you can’t get any more streamlined!! And for it to be copperfastned to requiring a plebesite in order to make a change to it – how more democratic and anti-federalist can you get!?
Instead, with a ‘no’ we’re left with a bewildering set of criss-crossing treaties and multi-lateral agreements, with nobody quite so sure what’s-what and no democracy of any great merit to speak of.
Mark McGregor, the Eurocrats we may have by the balls but it’s their 26 other pay-masters that I fear.
You may fancy playing chicken with the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden on this one, but those of us of sound mind know we’re get our heads kicked.
It’s put up or shut up, which in this case means stepping aside.
Mark,
I’m not angry or surprised. This is a result I have long expected because of the ease of the No position. It’s a whole lot easier to oppose something than to argue for change especially in the case of a complicated treaty of international law. Add that to the woeful performance of the Yes campaign and the result was a given.
But come on, you really think “The people of Ireland have the Eurocrats by the balls “? You think they’re going to unpick this and renegotiate and spend another 2/3/7 years thrashing it out holding back the other 26? No chance, they will find a way to push ahead. The writ of the Irish supreme court doesn’t run any further than our own borders.
Oilifear,
I agree. The EU is going to try a mixture of threats, intimidation, lies and bullying. They’ll prove the No campaign right on the nature of Europe not just in Ireland but across Europe. The truth always comes out and by god they started the threats almost within minutes of the result.
UMIF,
The Crotty judgement is simple, no changes to Treaties without a referendum. The EU can’t exclude Ireland without their own agreement – a referendum.
If they want to try the clever buggers stuff of going it alone they need to set up another organisation unless they get Irelands agreement or decide they are happy to face the courts on breaking treaty commitments.
By the balls they are held; despite the aggressive posturing. And it won’t be long until it starts filtering out that the threats are toothless snarling.
The threats – what threats? Other sovereign members of the EU saying they will proceed to act in their own best interests? Do you deny them that?
Even now you’ve won the referendum you still whine that these mythical ‘big boys’ are picking on poor little Ireland. Ireland has spoken and that’s the end of it. But she can only control and in this case constrain her own destiny. She has no right to put a brake on the progress of others. A speech by Parnell springs to mind. And yes, I’m sure he would have voted yes!
“In truth most of them don’t even know what “it” is to want it or not want it. That’s the problem with a referendum like this. It turns into a vote on the question “Do you like the EU?”. ”
A perfectly reasonable ground for voting No. If you don’t like the fact that significant transfers of power have already been made from accountable institutions (national legislatures) to unaccounrable institutions (the Commission, and the Council of Ministers) then you should vote against any further move to transfer such powers.
“It’s a bit like the the issue putting juries on trials of complex financial cases”
Juries are quite capable of ruling on guilt or innocence in complex cases.
UMIF,
You labour under the delusion that the rest of Europe’s inhabitants *want* this Treaty. Some may, but loads don’t.
“You may fancy playing chicken with the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden on this one, but those of us of sound mind know we’re get our heads kicked”
What are they going to do. Invade Ireland? When so many of Europe’s electorates would have voted the same way as the Irish, if they’d had the chance?
Mark Macgregor,
Absolutely right. Before long, we’ll have a change of governement in the UK, and the Conservatives aren’t going to bully the Irish into changing their minds. They’ll applaud them.
Sean,
“You labour under the delusion that the rest of Europe’s inhabitants *want* this Treaty. Some may, but loads don’t.”
Their govwernments do. That’s how representative democracy works. What’s your solution – let the people decide everything? Sounds like fun if you’re an anarchist, but if you want to live in a stable society it’s best avoided.
UMIF,
I pointing out the simple fact, if others want to ingore the unanimity agreement they can only do that external to the EU and the EU cannot support any of those agreements.
It’s simple. If others want to do things not agreed under the current Treaties they need to do them via another mechanisms. None of the current structures, buildings, support services, legislation etc would be available so it seems a very costly idea.
The voters in part of Ireland said no and according to the rules it is dead unless they change their minds. The two-tier Europe is just angry ill-thought posturing from the defeated.
Terrible but them’s the rules.
Mark,
You seem to be very focused on the anger for someone whose point of view won the day. Time will tell what the ramifications are but we agree on one thing, Lisbon is dead, at least as far as the Irish are concerned. An now to watch some (dare I say it) Tier 1 Euro countries, France and Holland, battle it out in a much more interesting way.
Their govwernments do. That’s how representative democracy works. What’s your solution – let the people decide everything? Sounds like fun if you’re an anarchist, but if you want to live in a stable society it’s best avoided.
Democratic governments are supposed to be responsible to their people. Perhaps this will teach them a bit of humility.
Even on your substantive point, I suspect that there are few governments who are actually enthusiastic about Lisbon.
UMIF/Mark McGregor,
‘Plan B’ has been under discussion in the European press for a few weeks now:
http://www.marianne2.fr/Traite-de-Lisbonne-bien-sur-qu-il-y-a-un-plan-B-!_a88132.html
It
It would involve ‘opt-outs’, such as already held by Britain and Denmark in particular, in this case abortion and defense are mentioned. The Nice analogy is drawn, if that gives any suggestion as to whether another referendum will be necessary, but that may have to be established in court.
It is certain that Nicolas Sarkozy is desperate for the January 2009 deadline to be met. And to oilifear and notinmyopinion who were discussing length, what’s remarkable is how much remains to be decided.
The Presidency, the defense arrangements, the sharing of DNA, these matters and a multitude of others will be under discussion under the chairmanship of Sarkozy. The results will form a series of protocols that will take the length of the Treaty back towards that of the Constitution. These discussions, along with the exceptions “in the interests of national security” allowed for in the current Treaty, represent to me the biggest and most unrepresented threats to me.
A good start, but Ireland needs to show that it is still pro-European and only wants what is better for everyone. Time should not be the guiding factor. And it will be interesting to see the roles other leaders, aware of the anti-Treaty feeling in their own countries, take in the process this will unfurl.
Mark,
Nobody can claim that those who didn’t vote were in support of the treaty. Nobody can spin this as anything other than a “no” vote.
But getting a shitty turnout, and in the face of that shitty turnout getting a marginal vote in your favour, is hardly a bold and dramatic assertion of opinion. It’s the Libertas bullshit “the gallant Irish people have courageously stood up and struck for their freedom, hurrah!” stuff which is what’s really bothering me. Most people didn’t give enough of a shit, and the nutters won the day, the weirdoes who never get any votes to start with when they actually run for office, lining themselves up with Murdoch. In many ways this result is an international embarassment.
Oilifear,
The status quo is that the French couldn’t stop this by voting ‘no’ and neither can we.
This sums up the yes position for me. We have no choice, this is a done deal, it will be a disaster if we vote no. Unstoppable train and all that.
No discussion of the merits of where we are going, merely simply stating that the destination has already been decided and we’ll be f*cked off the moving train if we don’t kow tow.
We must hand over more power because if we don’t there will be consequences. I have been a complete europhile all my life and thought long and hard before going with no.
I don’t fear the consequences because they can’t be worse than handing over power out of fear or self-interst on the part of the ruling elite. That’s a Scotland 1707 kind of move.
Comrade,
Most people didn’t give enough of a shit, and the nutters won the day, the weirdoes who never get any votes to start with when they actually run for office, lining themselves up with Murdoch. In many ways this result is an international embarassment.
Dismissing the votes of nearly a million people in two short sentences merely because you don’t want to understand why they voted as they did.
Apparently imports of French wines, German sausages, Dutch cheese, Italian pasta/lasange/spaghetti, have all been cancelled. We are absolutely hated. Our national football team will suffer consequences. We will be kicked out of europe. If we had any self -respect left, we would get down on our knees and beg forgiveness. We have only our selfish, greedy little selves to blame. The government should hand out vast amounts of knives so the NO brigade can all commit a mass hari-kari. We are a disgrace!
If being a disgrace in the eyes of un-democratic demi-gods within the european commission is so appalling, I for one thoroughly enjoyed being a fly in the ointment today.
Legally speaking, the lisbon treaty is totally DEAD. Any attempts to ignore the democratic wishes of the Irish people, will only reinforce the hostility towards a wider EEC. We are equals NOT subordinates. Take your nasty threats and piss off!
A victory for democracy.
Triumphalism on P.ie from the No side? Certainly not, simply the following friendly request:
“[i]Now we push on and eliminate your type from national politics before you do any more damage to the nation[/i]”
Thanks for the hint.
The people have forfeited the confidence of the government.
They can win it back only by redoubled efforts.
Would it not be easier in that case for EU to ignore the people and elect another?
Ha…ha…ha…ha..
A good day for democracy,whilst my party supports this treaty,I for one do not,not because I am anti European,but because the treaty can be further amended without any need for ratification.
No job for Blair as president of the EU,no superstate ,no further amendments to suit the people in favour of a European army which would jeopardise Irish neutrality.NO to any further amendments which would allow abortion or euthanasia.No need to abide by the anti family policies emanating from the EU.
I don’t get how slashing the areas where new EU rulings can be vetoed increases anyone’s voice in the EU – not even if the size of the country’s minority in the EU parliament is slightly reduced. Nor can I see how losing a commissioner increases a country’s voice – even if other countries are losing commissioners too.
I don’t see why a EU-wide bill of rights is required. I don’t think there is any need for a single EU foreign minister, or representative, be he never so high. Earlier stateist provisions such as an anthem are also utterly unnecessary. The tide of federalism and the moves towards a superstate need to be reversed – not increased.
But you’re right about the debate from the Yes camp – there has been a shameful lack of explanation of the sort of EU they want to take us into.
Whether or not I agree with them, I’d like some honesty about where they are trying to go. And if we’re being honest, it’s not just about streamlining things and increasing accountability, is it?
Barroso is even surpassing Unionists circa 1918 in tearing up democratic election results. Now that reallt takes some surpassing…
NO!!
Thank you George Bush! /sarc ;-0
Greenie
Try the hanging chad, rigged election gambit that the LOSERS tried over here when Bush WON!!
That’ll work………not
HA! The runny nosed eurowhiners are bleating so loud I can here them from my deck overlooking the free, USA, part of the Atlantic…..
Fresh Boston lobsters on the way to my no voting Conmhaicne Mara cousins!!!! WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!