NationStates Jolt Archive

Irish EU vote lost, officials say
Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern says substantial vote tallies across the country show the European Union Lisbon reform treaty has been rejected.

European Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso said all indications were that Ireland had indeed rejected the treaty.

He called for other states to continue their ratification processes and said a solution should be sought.

The treaty must be ratified by all 27 members. Only Ireland has held a public vote on it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7452171.stm

What next for the EU and reform of European institutions? There's, from what I can tell, a general agreement that the EU needs to change, whether it be by Eurosceptics wanting reform to reduce its power or other countries wanting a stronger Europe. I worry that this will scupper any change of EU institutions for the next decade, but this would have happened by ratifying the treaty as well. In some ways, though, I'm happy with the result. I didn't want the treaty ratified, but I didn't have to vote against it in a referendum and have the media interpret it as a eurosceptic hatred of everything European.

Watcha think?

Ach, that would have been quite useful. A federal Europe is a powerful Europe, after all.

I wonder what the voter turnout was myself though my opinion of the treaty was that it really didn't add anything new

it looks its just going to end up as a voluntary treaty then :confused:

Voter turnout about 45%

UK gov going ahead anyway. Irish'll do what they did with Nice, keep asking until they get a yes.

Ugh.

The country was split pretty much along rural/urban and middle/working class cleavages.

Those in the rural areas pretty much voted No.

Those in the urban areas tended to vote Yes.

Those defined as middle class voted Yes.

Those defined as working class tended to vote No.

As the French and Dutch already rejected the original Constitution, and the Irish have rejected the amended version, I doubt we'll see a plan C.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0613/eulisbon.html

Good for the Irish. While I'm not opposed to many of the changes in the constitution, the dishonest way in which it's been rebranded as a minor treaty to avoid democratic referendums is reason enough to reject it: european politicians need to be reminded that they're elected officials, and ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.

Ach, that would have been quite useful. A federal Europe is a powerful Europe, after all.
What if we don't want to be part of a federal Europe, surely we should get a say on something as big as that? How does it benefit us anyway? Trade works well, but I don't see how federalism benefits us in any way.

Good for the Irish. While I'm not opposed to many of the changes in the constitution, the dishonest way in which it's been rebranded as a minor treaty to avoid democratic referendums is reason enough to reject it: european politicians need to be reminded that they're elected officials, and ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.
Well, isn't that why we elect them? To make these types of choices, so we don't have to run to the polls every 5 minutes.

What if we don't want to be part of a federal Europe, surely we should get a say on something as big as that? How does it benefit us anyway? Trade works well, but I don't see how federalism benefits us in any way.

Strength in numbers - particularly with Russia and China flexing their muscles.

What if we don't want to be part of a federal Europe, surely we should get a say on something as big as that?
Seeing as most people probably won't know what difference it'll actually make, and will just take the press' views on the matter, no thanks. I'd happily have Europe as a proper world player again, rather than having Brown and Sarkozy trying to portray their countries as credible powers when they're nothing of the sort.
How does it benefit us anyway? Trade works well, but I don't see how federalism benefits us in any way.
OK here's a small list -

1) A much more united voice in terms of foreign policy.

2) Eventually we'll have a pan-European military force, which will cause the dissolution of NATO. This is a Good Thing, as NATO has long since passed its original remit.

3) We'll eventually have one set of laws all over Europe, again this can only be a good thing as it would take a lot of uncertainty out of travel in Europe regarding what chemicals you are allowed to take with you (for example, some painkillers legal in the UK aren't in Greece at the moment, I'd be happier with one set of rules to be quite honest)

4) Genuine economic and political power to deal with whatever problems may come up. There are, at the moment, vast problems regarding oil and gas pipelines and what the EU wants compared to what member states want (see the Nord Stream vs. the pipeline through Turkey, then Greece issue). Not to mention more effective pan-European disaster relief, which is, at the moment, a bit of a joke.

Well, isn't that why we elect them? To make these types of choices, so we don't have to run to the polls every 5 minutes.

A commitment to a referendum on the Constitution was a central part of Labour's election manifesto (and the Lib Dem's too I think, but I'm not too sure there). When the government does the exact opposite of what it expressly promised to do if elected then that rather defeats the point of representative democracy, no? If a party was elected on a platform of racial equality and then proceeded to implement a highly unpopular policy of segregation then I don't imagine anyone would be defending them on the grounds of parliamentary prerogative.

A commitment to a referendum on the Constitution was a central part of Labour's election manifesto (and the Lib Dem's too I think, but I'm not too sure there). When the government does the exact opposite of what it expressly promised to do if elected then that rather defeats the point of representative democracy, no? If a party was elected on a platform of racial equality and then proceeded to implement a highly unpopular policy of segregation then I don't imagine anyone would be defending them on the grounds of parliamentary prerogative.

Oh well, from the UK perspective fair enough - but from the Irish one, I
(and I know I'm not the only one) am a little 'irked' at having to vote every 5 minutes on another European amendment to our Constitution. I wish the Dail would just make the bloody decision sometimes.

I heard two interesting things on the radio news about this. One was the suggestion that some people are wondering if Ireland should remain in the EU. Hopefully that'll amount to nothing but rumours. The other was that a French minister(Foreign Minister, I think) suggested some kind of legal agreement with Ireland that allows the treaty to be ratified in the other EU states, but not Ireland, which also sounds pretty shit.

Bah, couldn't the dumbasses have just voted yes?

OK here's a small list -

1) A much more united voice in terms of foreign policy.


There's quite a range of views among European governments, this could lead to lasting disdain for the EU from numerous member states.


2) Eventually we'll have a pan-European military force, which will cause the dissolution of NATO. This is a Good Thing, as NATO has long since passed its original remit.


That'll go over well in Washington. I guess it's fine to forget that the US is a major player in NATO as well.


3) We'll eventually have one set of laws all over Europe, again this can only be a good thing as it would take a lot of uncertainty out of travel in Europe regarding what chemicals you are allowed to take with you (for example, some painkillers legal in the UK aren't in Greece at the moment, I'd be happier with one set of rules to be quite honest)


See #1.

Oh well, from the UK perspective fair enough - but from the Irish one, I
(and I know I'm not the only one) am a little 'irked' at having to vote every 5 minutes on another European amendment to our Constitution. I wish the Dail would just make the bloody decision sometimes.

Heh, I see what you mean. Obviously you can't hold too many referendums or most people won't attend and a noisy minority will exert disproportionate influence, making the system less representative than representative democracy.

Personally I like the Swiss system: anyone can force a referendum by collecting a certain amount of signatures. The new EU constitution has something similar, but all a million signatures will get you is the chance to talk the Commission IIRC, not the chance to actually change anything.

2) Eventually we'll have a pan-European military force, which will cause the dissolution of NATO. This is a Good Thing, as NATO has long since passed its original remit.

Don't count on it. Ireland isn't going to give up its policy of neutrality any time soon. The No campaigners used the common defence and solidarity clauses of the Lisbon treaty to make people think Ireland could be forced to going to war. Worked pretty well.

Heh, I see what you mean. Obviously you can't hold too many referendums or most people won't attend and a noisy minority will exert disproportionate influence, making the system less representative than representative democracy.
Which is exactly what has happened. There's a hardcore 500,000 that will consistently vote No to Europe - the lower the turnout, the more of a chance they'll win out.


"I've said it before, and I'll say it again - democracy.... doesn't ... work"
- Kent Brockman

Bravo Ireland! Bravo for rejecting what the people of Europe have already rejected in two referenda! :)

Of course, for the undemocratic behemoth that is the EU, this won't matter - they'll just ignore it like they did with the treaty of Nice and like they ignored France and the Netherlands and will just push again and again until they pass it. Ireland will be forced to revote until it votes like the eurocrats want it to vote. In the EU it doesn't matter what the governed want - only what the governors do. It isn't a union for the people of Europe, but for those who hate democracy in Europe.

When the government does the exact opposite of what it expressly promised to do if elected then that rather defeats the point of representative democracy, no?

Ironically, when Bush ran in 2000, he preached non-interventionalist policies and was specifically against "nation building."

Ach, that would have been quite useful. A federal Europe is a powerful Europe, after all.

And a powerful Europe is a monstrosity.

Don't count on it. Ireland isn't going to give up its policy of neutrality any time soon. The No campaigners used the common defence and solidarity clauses of the Lisbon treaty to make people think Ireland could be forced to going to war. Worked pretty well.
That's also one of the reasons I don't like it. I don't like the way Britain gets dragged into America's wars one bit, it needs to stop. But not by exchanging getting dragged into America's wars for getting dragged into Europe's. I'd sooner see us take the course of neutrality, backed up with a nuclear deterrent.

That's also one of the reasons I don't like it. I don't like the way Britain gets dragged into America's wars one bit, it needs to stop. But not by exchanging getting dragged into America's wars for getting dragged into Europe's. I'd sooner see us take the course of neutrality, backed up with a nuclear deterrent.

Except that wouldn't have happened. Any actions would have to have been approved unanimously.

Except that wouldn't have happened. Any actions would have to have been approved unanimously.
At the moment.

Bravo Ireland! Bravo for rejecting what the people of Europe have already rejected in two referenda! :)

Of course, for the undemocratic behemoth that is the EU, this won't matter - they'll just ignore it like they did with the treaty of Nice and like they ignored France and the Netherlands and will just push again and again until they pass it. Ireland will be forced to revote until it votes like the eurocrats want it to vote. In the EU it doesn't matter what the governed want - only what the governors do. It isn't a union for the people of Europe, but for those who hate democracy in Europe.
Nah, they won't run it again - not in it's current form.


At the moment.

They would have to unanimously decide to get rid of the unanimous decision making process.

At the moment.

They would have to unanimously decide to get rid of the unanimous decision making process.

Indeed.

Nah, they won't run it again - not in it's current form.

They did with Nice. They did with this constitution - "Treaty of Lisbon" my ass, it's the same thing already thrice rejected. They'll run it again. And again. And again. As many times as it takes.

I'm very disappointed that there was a No vote.
From what I can tell from the media, the biggest concerns/reasons for the no voters were issues that weren't even changed by the Lisbon Treaty (abortion, neutrality and corporation tax) but the point of people not really knowing what the Treaty is about (and so voting no) is a big point I think (although I think it can be argued that if you don't know what you're voting on, you should abstain).

The Yes side spent far too long trying to show that the No side's arguments were fear-mongering, and not giving voters the reasons why they SHOULD vote FOR the Treaty (national parliaments getting extra say/power over EU legislation, EU Parliament getting more powers and electing the Commission President, QMV in more areas - but the veto retained in sensitive areas - and the reduction of the Commission (who wants to pay MORE bureaucracts when less can do the job - though to be fair, the Commission has a tiny civil service compared to that of some major cities, and the member states spend/administer most of the EU's budget) and the selection of Commissioners on an equal basis, and, finally, the post of High Rep....for Foreign Affairs - 1 job no longer done by 2 men (or women).

It may be boring and technical, but you need to have this done before you can talk about and work on the actual politics issues.

So I hope this gets worked out soon. I don't want to wait ANOTHER 4 years before what needs to be done gets done. The Treaty democractizes the Union (not fully, but even if you use the tired line that the Union doesn't fulfill its own admission rules because it's not democratic - remember - IT WOULDN'T FULFILL THEM BECAUSE IT'S NOT A STATE!!! - more democractization means more intergration, to a degree, and, it seems to me, that a failure on one side shouldn't prevent the furtherance of the other. Thaty said, the referendum result needs to be respected; but I am disappointed...). Surely you'd agree that democratizing (sorry for the spelling) is a good thing if you support referendums (and of course, that such changes are passed via referendum).

So it's up to the Pro-Europe side to sell its case, but in the end, it's the people's decision that counts, of course.

Thanks for taking the time to read this if you did. Sorry that I'm not an inspiring writer or anything.

They would have to unanimously decide to get rid of the unanimous decision making process.
Which would be their next step in the project. It might not happen immediately but you can guarantee that they would be trying for it further down the line, and our own government would be too gutless to either say no or give the people a vote.

They did with Nice. They did with this constitution - "Treaty of Lisbon" my ass, it's the same thing already thrice rejected. They'll run it again. And again. And again. As many times as it takes.

They won't in it's current form.

The reason Nice was run a second time was because the Irish leaders were forced to go back to get guarantees on certain areas (opt outs, defence, taxation), areas that weren't referenced in Nice for Ireland originally. I'm not happy it was run again, I thought it was a mockery of the whole idea of a referendum.

Our current leader would have to go back to Brussels to get assurances on similar areas before putting it to another referendum. The thing is, there's no more areas to get assurances on - defence, neutrality, veto, Commissioner etc etc - were all accounted for this time. There's nothing mor to negotiate for! Plus, the current leader has just come to power so he doesn't want to be weakened again so soon at home.

That's why it won't be run again in Ireland - unless some sweeping changes were made, and I mean sweeping.

Bah, couldn't the dumbasses have just voted yes?


The main problem was that there wasn't a 'Maybe' option on the ballot. However it should be said that the reason no other country had a Referedum on the subject was because in a great many of them, there'd be a chance the same would happen and it would be rejected. Thus, over Europe, in many languages, Politicians are now watching the Irish political class and saying the equivalent of 'Thank the Jaysus thats not us'

They won't in it's current form.

Watch them. Already they're talking about continuing the ratification process in other countries like nothing happened, because to them nothing has happened.