Voters may approve new Lisbon Treaty, poll reveals

[his holiness nb]

Zap, there was widespread confusion as to what the treaty was about, full stop.

Since the referendum many reasons have been given for voting one way or another, a huge amount of these are actually lies. I dont see the harm in clarifying the position of these issues, then letting people vote again, without fearmongering being spread.

I know 4 different people who voted no because they believed it would lead to abortion as campaigners who called to their door suggested was the case.

[Zapatista]

I agree with most of that Zap, I thought the Yes side ran an almost comically inept campaign, as if it were going to be passed simply because Cowen had huge popularity at the time.

*But* if there is a new proposal, with significant changes in those areas which seem to be the most contentious, such as the Irish EU Comissioner being retained, then it's a worthwhile debate again.

Hopefully this time the Yes side will be able to deal with issues thrown up. If they aren't then it deserves to fail again, on it's own merits.

Fair enough but the Government are saying we voted no for reasons which are not effected by the treaty. How can we vote on a different treaty if what we want removed isn't even there?

[AZOffaly]

I agree with most of that Zap, I thought the Yes side ran an almost comically inept campaign, as if it were going to be passed simply because Cowen had huge popularity at the time.

*But* if there is a new proposal, with significant changes in those areas which seem to be the most contentious, such as the Irish EU Comissioner being retained, then it's a worthwhile debate again.

Hopefully this time the Yes side will be able to deal with issues thrown up. If they aren't then it deserves to fail again, on it's own merits.

Fair enough but the Government are saying we voted no for reasons which are not effected by the treaty. How can we vote on a different treaty if what we want removed isn't even there?

Then the Yes side have to deal with those issues, which were cited in studies after the referendum. The Yes side were always saying that things like abortion were a red herring. Now they might get a chance to address all of the issues raised by Libertas et al. After all, if these reasons are not actually affected by the referendum, then there is a reason why people thought they were, and that reason is Libertas.

So, the Yes side gets a chance to launch a proposal which deals, explicitly, with these concerns, relevant and irrelevant, and the people get a chance to see their concerns are catered for. The No side will raise other issues, and it's up to the Yes side to deal with them better, and with much more clarity.

Then the people can decide, again.

It's all good as far as I'm concerned.

[Canalman]

A rerun will probably get through this time. So many people worrying about their futures that the inevitable scaremongering by the Govt will have more receptive ears.

[Mentalman]

A rerun will probably get through this time. So many people worrying about their futures that the inevitable scaremongering by the Govt will have more receptive ears.

Countering that this is the most unpopular FF have been since 1929 - it all depends when they run it. The most convenient time is during the euro elections next summer, but you can bet your ass it won't be then, as FF, as things stand now, are in for a tonking, and a rerun referendum would suffer the same fate. Timing could be vital on this one. To be honest there is no way they could convince me that economically this treaty would benefit me - all the free market proposition and powers are in place already within the commuunity, what extra provisions are in this treaty?

[Lone Shark]

My understanding (admittedly cobbled together from various sources as it was very hard get a straight answer from anywhere I looked it up) was that the crux of the Lisbon treaty was that while it didn't alter any of the substantive issues right now, it did allow the Irish Government to push through any of those issues in the future by way of a Dáil vote without having to go to a constitutional referendum again. Put simply, it was a situation whereby "voting through the Lisbon treaty doesn't really change anything now, but when a big issue does come up, it'll be the Dáil who decides, rather than the public."

Now as I said, I'm not sure of that, but I even emailed the referendum commission looking for a straight answer on this and they couldn't give it to me. Yes campaigners said that it wasn't the case, but couldn't specify exactly the extra powers that Lisbon did confer, while no campaigners happily tried to enccourage my belief and said it was the case but couldn't flesh it out with any further detail - probably meaning that they didn't know.

This was the issue that really bugged me - even if you went out of your way to try and find out the detail of the treaty, you couldn't. Which is why I went with an "if in doubt, leave it out" policy. And I will do so again until people make the hard facts a lot more freely available. Saying that the text of the treaty is available to download is not much good unless someone can point you to the relevant sections, plus offer you a solicitor to help translate the legalese.

[Zapatista]

I think it is article 48you are refering to LS?

I thought this was a good piece -


http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/irelandbriefing.pdf

Fact: The latest poll showing Ireland would vote no revealed that the reasons for
their planned rejection of the Lisbon Treaty were primarily to "keep Ireland's power
and identity" and "to safeguard Ireland's neutrality". It was also clear that they voted
no because they "don't like being told what to do/forced into voting yes". Abortion did
not appear anywhere in the top ten reasons for voting no. (Irish Times/TNS mrbi poll
6 June 2008)


Tax did indeed feature in the campaign, driven by ongoing moves towards a common
corporate tax base. On 9 June, during the campaign, the Irish Independent had a
scoop on plans which will be presented by Taxation Commissioner Laszlo Kovacs on
2 July. Even the Irish business organisation IBEC, which was campaigning for the
Treaty, described the proposal as "a Trojan horse to bring in common tax rates." The
issue was linked to the Treaty because one proposal is to introduce the common tax
base under enhanced cooperation, which the treaty enabled. So tax did feature in
the campaign, and for good reason.

[magpie seanie]

Exactly LS. This Treaty is a trojan horse. Fair enough - there is nothing per se about losing powers over taxation, neutrality, European Army etc. we will retain a veto in these area but crucially our govt may decide not to exercise that veto. Obviously, with the brillaint decision making they have displayed over the years and most recently and their uncanny knack of resprenting the people so well we should have no issues....

That is the major problem and why this Treaty must be consigned to the bin. The opinion poll and subsequent media coverage was disingenuos at best. There's no way we will be guaranteed a commisioner - that has already been conceded in Nice (when we got it "right" the second time).

[Zapatista]

Exactly LS. This Treaty is a trojan horse. Fair enough - there is nothing per se about losing powers over taxation, neutrality, European Army etc. we will retain a veto in these area but crucially our govt may decide not to exercise that veto. Obviously, with the brillaint decision making they have displayed over the years and most recently and their uncanny knack of resprenting the people so well we should have no issues....

That is the major problem and why this Treaty must be consigned to the bin. The opinion poll and subsequent media coverage was disingenuos at best. There's no way we will be guaranteed a commisioner - that has already been conceded in Nice (when we got it "right" the second time).

Our veto on the Lisbon treaty isn't working out to well for the Government.

[Lone Shark]

Exactly LS. This Treaty is a trojan horse. Fair enough - there is nothing per se about losing powers over taxation, neutrality, European Army etc. we will retain a veto in these area but crucially our govt may decide not to exercise that veto. Obviously, with the brillaint decision making they have displayed over the years and most recently and their uncanny knack of resprenting the people so well we should have no issues....

Exactly. The theory of democracy is that you vote in the guys who represent your views - however with so few choices, many of which are ostensibly offering the same thing, it is impossible to get a political representative who shares anything more than 50% of your views. As such I would prefer to keep the power within the Irish people and the constitution. The fact that the country voted 49-51 on an issue where Dáil representatives were well over 90% in favour says it all about how reflective they are of the Irish people.  

Article 48 is indeed the section, but it's very difficult to get a clear answer about what would happen in the event that any revisions of existing EU treaties run counter to the Irish constitution. Until I get someone I trust saying that the Irish constitution wins out in that instance, it's a no all the way for me.

[Zapatista]

Article 48 is indeed the section, but it's very difficult to get a clear answer about what would happen in the event that any revisions of existing EU treaties run counter to the Irish constitution. Until I get someone I trust saying that the Irish constitution wins out in that instance, it's a no all the way for me.

48.5 - If, two years after the signature of a treaty amending the Treaties, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred to the European Council.

It could be -

If there are revisions or add ons and we have not ratified those either by Dail or referendum we will have given the power to the European Council to ratify for us.

[Billys Boots]

Hopefully this time the Yes side will be able to deal with issues thrown up. If they aren't then it deserves to fail again, on it's own merits.

Well, this time they'll have half of Brussels scrutinising every press release they write - maybe our European friends can make professionals (alright, alright competents) of our politicos.

[Zapatista]

Hopefully this time the Yes side will be able to deal with issues thrown up. If they aren't then it deserves to fail again, on it's own merits.

Well, this time they'll have half of Brussels scrutinising every press release they write - maybe our European friends can make professionals (alright, alright competents) of our politicos.

Do ye think they will ask Cowen to read it?

[Mentalman]

Hopefully this time the Yes side will be able to deal with issues thrown up. If they aren't then it deserves to fail again, on it's own merits.

Well, this time they'll have half of Brussels scrutinising every press release they write - maybe our European friends can make professionals (alright, alright competents) of our politicos.

Do ye think they will ask Cowen to read it?

Well at least say he read it anyway.

[magickingdom]

I'd vote no to unhold the democratic decision of the people. You can't keep re-running a referendum until you get the result you want.

course you can! otherwise we'd still have a ban on divorce