Irish ILXors: How are you voting in the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?

Voting yes.

Viewed as far as I can tell as a politicians battle against private interest lobbying groups.

Yes I do.

Are you voting yes because from what you've heard/read of the Treaty, you think it's a good thing for Ireland and Europe, or more from general pro-EU feeling?

General pro-EU feeling. I've not read the treaty, God knows life is too short. Anything that basically irritates L1b3rt4s is fine with me. Childish but true.

I'm voting Yes, because I'm generally pro-EU I suppose.

I think it's extremely difficult to assess how the changes will actually affect Ireland, hence the lack of interest in this.

Because the information about the treaty has to be presented in a neutral manner, there's no real sense of what the actual important arguments about one system of government over another are.

Living over here in London that's a bit more acute because I don't consume any Irish journalism anymore really.

I think these referenda are just hijacked as a chance to express dissatisfaction with the government or rehash some old fashioned Irish sovereignty enemy-at-the gates feelings.

I think these referenda are just hijacked as a chance to express dissatisfaction with the government or rehash some old fashioned Irish sovereignty enemy-at-the gates feelings.

Bingo! Lisbon is no longer about the Treaty, more about WTO, the economic recession, the new government.

I wonder when or if I'll receive my polling card.

Cathy: what is the significance of the Lisbon Treaty?

PLAY THE GAME CATHY

Do you think the interests L1b3rt4s represent are generally well known by Irish voters?

I am very uneasy about how much the UK government has been lying about what the Lisbon Treaty contains and represents. I'm broadly in favour of it in principle, although I think its dangerously vague in places and doesn't go far enough to democratise the institutions, but the way its been handled by most EU governments just shows complete contempt for their populations.

I'll post what I think the significance of the Treaty is in a minute, after I've had a think.

Okay, as far as I can tell, this is what I think the Treaty is about (I've read no more than a few bits of it):

Particularly since enlargement and the success of the Euro, Europe really has the potential to be a major player on the world stage, able to affect what the world is doing to prevent climate change, war and poverty. But in order to play that role, Europe needs institutional reform, particularly concerning its common foreign and security policy which is currently pretty constrained. So the Constitution was an attempt to do that, and the Lisbon Treaty basically does exactly the same thing but in a more vague and covert way.

The Treaty would create essentially an EU foreign minister and a foreign office, as well a 2-year Council President who may or may not be treated as the EU President- - someone the USA can call if they want to "call Europe" (as Kissinger famously asked). I think whether that role ends up being treated as the EU Presidency largely depends on who fills it. The potential is certainly there.

The original Constitution made it quite clear that the whole point is to make the EU a world power, but the Lisbon Treaty makes it sort of fuzzy and how it will play out is not clear.

In order for the EU to actually act as a world power it needs to have greater democratic legitimacy, and there is some effort to do that by giving a bit more power to the Parliament but it's fairly minimal. The attitude of the UK government at least seems to be that we have to resolve the institutional impasse first and work on the democratic deficit later. There's also a whole load of administrative shuffles, some of which appear to be just aimed at efficiency and some of which might have other implications that I can't altogether unpick.

It also enshrines a specific commitment to combat climate change, which is a very good thing.

As for what the Treaty signifies for any one particular state, it basically means less control over it's own laws, but that's balanced by more collective power in the world. Very hard thing to sell to any population, which is why most governments have chosen just to lie about it.

I think the biggest arguments against the Treaty are:

1) It gives more power to Europe without making it significantly more democratic.

2) It depends on the assumption that the EU acting as a world power is definitely a good thing, and that's debatable. Would the EU definitely be a more progressive force in the world than the USA? It's record has been fairly inconsistent. I haven't really heard anyone talking about point.

3) It limits the sovereignty of the nation-state. I don't care much about the nation-state but I think I'm in the minority there.

I'm sure if we had had a referendum in the UK all the arguments would basically have been drowned out by propaganda, xenophobia and anti-government sentiment. Especially with the government feeding it all by outright dishonesty. But also I think that even if you took away the tabloids and the interest groups, there'd still be a majority of the population that doesn't want to be part of a European superpower and just wants to be a nation. Do you think that's different in Ireland?

SIGN THE TREATY CATHY

Damn Cathy, well put.

I am not very well informed on the Treaty but have been paying a lot of attention to the political parties and groups involved.

I was fairly in agreement with the treaty but I do not, and will not, agree to a common defence force. We are a small, neutral nation only involved in peacekeeping and humanitarian. We should not get involved in the clean up after larger nations foul things up abroad.

Now I like the idea of a common foreign ministry, I like the idea that the council of Europe will have more power. I don't like individuals being in power to be honest. Especially not the individuals who are most interested (our disgraceful ex-prime minister for one, ditto the Tony B).

This:

In order for the EU to actually act as a world power it needs to have greater democratic legitimacy, and there is some effort to do that by giving a bit more power to the Parliament but it's fairly minimal.

Worries me and this:

work on the democratic deficit later

is just dangerous.

It also enshrines a specific commitment to combat climate change, which is a very good thing.

OTM. Let's see what it actually becomes if it's passed.

As for what the Treaty signifies for any one particular state, it basically means less control over it's own laws, but that's balanced by more collective power in the world. Very hard thing to sell to any population, which is why most governments have chosen just to lie about it.

Also taxes etc something the lobbying groups are working very hard against. See the politicians are working on the basis that it's good for the nation (i.e. them) while the lobbying groups are saying that it's bad for the individual (one poster from an unnamed group, of which there are a surprising number, says "It'll cost you").

Cathy I agree that Europe hasn't got the best rep for taking care of things abroad. I would go so far as to say that historically Europe's colonies were worse than what the US has become involved in the last century.

3) It limits the sovereignty of the nation-state. I don't care much about the nation-state but I think I'm in the minority there.

I would worry about this as well. Interestingly enough (other posters might disagree) I feel that the Irish population are actually quite happy to become more European. New money always wants to be with the right crowd that will lend it a touch of class...

Especially with the government feeding it all by outright dishonesty.

Really? Woah, scary stuff.

also I think that even if you took away the tabloids and the interest groups, there'd still be a majority of the population that doesn't want to be part of a European superpower and just wants to be a nation. Do you think that's different in Ireland?

I think I dealt with this above but to just add, the Irish have a strong national identity. We are also aware that our economic success was down to the largesse of Europe. Unlike the UK or Germany we have never paid for it or felt dictated to by it. As to whether we want to be part of a superpower? I really don't think Joe Soap sees it like that to be honest.

Pinefox, wrong Treaty! I don't think that Cathy's trying to de Valera this one.

??

You think I think it is to do with the ... "Treaty Ports"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Ports_%28Ireland%29

Ha ha no. I meant THE TREATY

*Cue dramatic roll of thunder*

Yes, OK ... the Treaty Ports are so called because of that Treaty, non? It's the same Treaty in both cases, I think.

So Cathy = Valera ... RJG = Collins

The Vicar = Lloyd George (West Briton)

Yes it is.

The Vicar would be more like Churchill I feel, his general online grouchiness would fit Churchill's 'enlightened' attitude towards the Irish.

I don't think Cathy or RJG are Dev/Collins!

It's true, the Vicar admires Churchill!

work on the democratic deficit later

I'm not sure I can imagine the outcome of a wholly democratic EU president. I imagine the same lowest-common gut-instinct forces that led to Bush in the US could very well give Europe its own disaster president, and I don't know if the world needs another powerful idiot. But ruling councils can be desperately enfeebled, which would miss the point.

I was fairly in agreement with the treaty but I do not, and will not, agree to a common defence force. We are a small, neutral nation only involved in peacekeeping and humanitarian. We should not get involved in the clean up after larger nations foul things up abroad.

Yes, quite understandable. I think from my UK perspective a European common defence seems marginally preferable to NATO, but not something I'm wildly enthusiastic about. I think the LT contains a commitment to increase defence spending, which is worrying.

I do think that Europe tends to be, these days, relatively more progressive on issues like international development, climate change, human rights etc. and a bit less belligerent than other potential superpowers. But then, you can find enough counter-examples that I don't want to make that point too strongly.

I am not up enough on my Irish history to know who I am in it.

I do think that Europe tends to be, these days, relatively more progressive on issues like international development, climate change, human rights etc. and a bit less belligerent than other potential superpowers. But then, you can find enough counter-examples that I don't want to make that point too strongly.

I agree with that, but worry that it's the very lack of democratic accountability that's allowed MEPs to get on with a lot of the more promising things. Too often the type of scrutiny politicians are put under is counter-productive. (Of course the lack of scrutiny also ends up in monster expense accounts, so this isn't any sort of argument for it!)

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n18/ande01_.html

I think having the Council President elected by citizens of the Member States could potentially be really exciting and mobilise people to care far more than they do about electing MEPs (ie not at all). Under the Lisbon Treaty it will be decided by EU heads of state, which is rubbish, and I don't think much of any of the people mentioned for it so far.

Oh dear, my temporary computer has now broken.

Yes, heads of state deciding is the worst possible outcome.

ruling councils can be desperately enfeebled, which would miss the point.

This is my fear!

Yes, heads of state deciding is the worst possible outcome.

OTM

Oh dear. Not so sure about my yes vote now!

i'll not be voting, i know that's a total cop out, but i have nothing but contempt for the way this is being presented by both sides, the gvt on one side patting our heads and saying 'sign up, there's a good lad' and the frothing scare mongerers on the other.

otoh, i may just vote for the option that would be most damaging to the farmers as a bloc- which is that?

is dana for or against? she was twittering on the radio today and my brain shut down for two hours. i got the lawn cut and the outside of the house painted before i even knew i had turned the radio off. i should keep a tape of her around or something.

I will vote in favour. The EU has been good for Ireland, so I think a general in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound attitude is called for. Obviously all the enforced abortions and drafting people into an EU army stuff in the Lisbon Treaty isn't so great, but we owe Brussels and it's too late to back out now.

I think having the Council President elected by citizens of the Member States could potentially be really exciting and mobilise people to care far more than they do about electing MEPs (ie not at all).

I'm against presidential political systems, so I must disagree with your directly elected council president wuv.

Hooray for the Vicar

he lays down the law

of God!!

I'll post what I think the significance of the Treaty is in a minute, after I've had a think.

I reckon it would be better if everyone posted what they think the significance of the Treaty is, after they have had a little drink.

I had no prior opinion on this subject but just wanted to chip in that this is a great and very informative thread.

what is the Vicar doing on line, late at night, annnnyway? I thought the Vicar was never online at home, or something.

no, no, that was that fake dirty vicar- this is the REAL dirty vicar. right there in the name field, see?

is dana for or against? she was twittering on the radio today and my brain shut down for two hours.

Ha ha me too. She started talking about Dustin AGAIN! Gad woman, give it up the Eurovision was years ago, somehow you managed to managed to get well known enought that you're an MEP, go away!

Obviously all the enforced abortions

LOLOLOLOL

I reckon it would be better if everyone posted what they think the significance of the Treaty is, after they have had a little drink.

Should have kept drinking with us DV. I am in tatters today ;_;

what is the Vicar doing on line, late at night, annnnyway? I thought the Vicar was never online at home, or something.

He has a tiny cable.

Just realised that you my sentence re. drinking makes no sense. I wish I had been sensible like you but you are posting about Lisbon after a drink when you should have had more and and and my brane = broek.

Nice to see you on here, DV.

I'm against presidential political systems, so I must disagree with your directly elected council president wuv.

Having a Council President wouldn't actually transform the EU into a presidential system, though - he wouldn't be President of the Commission or have a presidential veto or anything like that. I do think it would help Europe's influence in the world greatly if it had more of a face, but I might change my mind on that when I find out whose face it's going to be.

I didn't know about Dana being an MEP. But then, I don't know who my MEP is, maybe it's Lulu.

There's no I in DANA, people.

but if there was, she'd be our 'people's MEP'.

Hi Cathy!

I'm still against directly elected executive positions, even if they are not that powerful.

I don't think Dana is still an MEP... I think she lost her seat last time around.

coming soon: 1. My guide to Irish opponents of the Lisbon Treaty and 2. My reasons for asserting that the EU democratic deficit is grossly exagerated.

I have checked. Cathy's MEP is not Lulu.

Is it Joe Dolce?

Shaddap you face

Irish Eurosceptics...

bloc one: old school nationalists. They fought the Brits, now they are determined to hand no sovereignty to Europe.

bloc two: ultra leftists. The EU is run by and for big capital, therefore it must be opposed at every turn. Also, the EU is likely to turn into an adjunct to NATO (if it is not one already).

bloc three: Catholic conservatives: The EU is a godless institution designed primarily to foist abortion and divorce onto the Irish people.

bloc four: this exciting new bloc opposes the EU (or the latest round of integration) on the same kind of pro-business grounds that UK Tories do).

Blocs one and three overlap considerably... the main organisation here is some lot called Cóir, who are apparently a front for anti-abortion group Youth Defence, who are themselves apparently a front for Republican Sinn Féin.

From what I have read though, the mainstream Irish business community is in largely in favour of the treaty, and it's a minority (particularly Decl4n G4nley and Ul1ck McEv4ddy) with bizarrely high-up US military/neo-con connections and lots of money who are spearheading the No campaign.

The mainstream business community is very much in favour of the treaty. I think the mainstream everything is in favour of the treaty, but the antis are a bit more vocal. The Libertas lot do look fairly transparently like they are trying to advance US interests by wrecking the EU.

Decl4n G4nley in particular is quite far from your traditional Tory eurosceptic -- he's actually really pro-European, but wants to redirect it away from social democracy and towards being a kind of extreme free-market US ally.

There's an indymedia article on L1bert4s that probably goes a bit too far in pushing the CIA involvement angle but otherwise does a reasonable job of outlining their connections.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

They don't even represent US interests in Ireland though -- the US Chamber of Commerce in Ireland is pro-Treaty -- more just neocon/military interests in the world.

why are you google-guarding that lot? Bring them on, I say.

[the main organisation here is some lot called Cóir, who are apparently a front for anti-abortion group Youth Defence, who are themselves apparently a front for Republican Sinn Féin.]

Vicar, if we are using extended titles for organization, then surely you mean SINN FEIN IRA. Or maybe even their sister movement, IRA SINN FEIN.

Surprised anyway to learn that SF would be involved in an anti-abortion group: shows how little I know. I guess the Youth element fits as they are a Young people's party, aren't they?

Creating high paying jobs for politicians who aren't popular enough in their own countries anymore

Dude, get with the programme... a key element of the treaty was reducing the number of commissioners - less high paying jobs for former politicians.

And Darragh - < 50% turn out suggests that most people unironically agree with you.

yeah I think we'll need a spin-off thread "referendums: c/d?"

don't make it a poll- i won't bother voting.

we could elect some people to decide the thread for us.

sounds like a lot of trouble, i dunno. what does terry mcgeehan say in the star?

That he's glad his first name isn't Ulick?

he has a sister phil, mind you.

:)

jesus this is impressively off topic.

The Lisbon Treaty has been rejected by the Irish people as counting of votes cast during yesterday's referendum draws to an end around the country this evening.

With only Laois Offaly left to declare a result, the No side is leading by 53.7 per cent to 46.3 per cent. All but seven constituencies have rejected the treaty, with a national running total of 720,665 voting in favour of Lisbon and 837,452 votes against.

This has really put a dampener on my holiday.

Prediction: EU tries to forge ahead anyway through bullying and/or finding legal loopholes, public opinion turns even more against the EU project, European dreams of world-power status crumble, scarily nationalist Russia presses ahead with anti-Western alliance with Iran et al, world gets (even) worse.

If only the Eurovision voters had let Dustin into the final.

So true... Europe hated Dustin therefore we will hate Europe. It seems only fair.

europe will tkae it out of our government's incompetent hands, change nothing, explain it better and make the guarantees that were already there clear.

it will be passed next time.

Do you think that that is feasible though?

Also what the hell were you doing reading about Lisbon at one in the morning you mentalist?

Err, this sounds like an even worse scenario. "ain't no commission telling us how to vote" blablabla

otoh - just like the french referendum. The day after the "no" vote it has become obvious to all concerned that there is no real way of "improving" the treaty to make it more palatable.

It appears that L3 P3n and his lot were delighted with our 'NO' vote. Fantastic. Always good to have raving nazispolitically active friends abroad...

yes. Far-left groups in France were also pretty pleased with the NO vote: "the people all over europe has given the finger to those overpaid bureaucrats and to the europe of money and greed", etc.

Wow. The Irish really do get on with everyone!

Don't forget the UK Tories - they love us too.

I wonder could all of these people have been put on a poster with the caption "These people are against Lisbon. Vote Yes".

A kind of santorum.jpg for good as it were?

that's a fantastic idea DV.

unfortunately, you'd still have cowen, kenny et al on the other poster, and maybe that's just the type of dirty warfare they may be trying to avoid......

a real beaut of a letter from some tory mp or another the day after in the IT "God bless your strong and verdant celtic shores a thousand times" etc. wonder what he thought of us last month.

y'see, the thing about Cowen, Kenny et al is that people in Ireland have actually voted for the parties they lead, and in large numbers. But they seem to forget this when they go into referendum votes. I increasingly do not understand the voting habits of my fellow Irish. I used to just think I supported different people to them (in that I have only once ever voted for a party that ended up in government), but now I reckon that how they relate to the franchise bears no relation to any sensible model of how elections should work.

well, that's for sure.

maybe the referendum campaign doesn't involve making a lot of ridiculous promises, or maybe a referendum campaign comes too soon after people realise those ridiculous promises won't be kept.

maybe people think elections is serious bizness buddy and referenda is just a nice little crop to whip the government with without much in the way of consequence (certainly this time that appears to be the case).

also- in the election, you're given a choice between a collection of gombeens, inherited seats and local hucksters in wellies (west of ireland specific here). if there was a nice big box under those gobshites where you could merely tick 'NO' like in the referendum, maybe that would get 54% of the vote too.

i'm still unconvinced that there are these huge earth shattering consequences to this vote- i just think the YES side are still campaigning, and the NO side have all disappeared.

maybe people think elections is serious bizness buddy and referenda is just a nice little crop to whip the government with without much in the way of consequence (certainly this time that appears to be the case).

I'd agree with this.

I think darraghmac that spoiled votes are the closest we have to NO and there aren't as many of them as one would think (I suppose!)/

I am fairly convinced that there will be ramifications if not on a OMG WE'RE ALL SCREWED AND THEY'LL KICK US OUT OF YURRUP scale then definitely on a "we can't trust the Irish. Ignore their pleas at the negotiating table"

i can't see a thing changing in the treaty, certainly. i just think europe will be much more involved in promoting and explaining it next time, with maybe terms and definitions more explicitly outlined.

if cowen goes to europe apologising for the result, he'll take a real hit at home.

europe will tkae it out of our government's incompetent hands, change nothing, explain it better and make the guarantees that were already there clear.

it will be passed next time.

― darraghmac, 18 June 2008 00:04 (5 months ago) Bookmark

what are the news? I haven't followed lately what has been going on (apart from Czech Pres Klaus stirring up trouble when he was in Dublin)

all the indications are that the referendum will be reheated and served up in front of us again, in much the same way as Nice was 7 years ago.

i don't think that any of the major parties have suggested anything other than a rerun, which is depressing.

Vote yes or the sheep get it next.

^^^

this is the kind of heavy handed attitude we've come to expect when dealing with the brits, sadly

Don't do it darraghmac, he'll just be back with mates and mess you up. Leave it sure.

It seems a bit pointless at this point to even accept that the majority vote counts for much in Ireland anymore. Very depressing.

We are voting again today! Could this be the last day of democracy in Ireland and Europe? Who will protect our Spice Burgers?

red lemonade for the irish

gotta love the libertas 'mammy is ireland going to war?' posters. after much tumult, i've decided to vote yes.

you are taking Padraic Pearse's spice burger!

i'm not touching padraic pearse's spice burger, it's absolutely rank by now.

so, uh, how did this go?

Not well, Irish school pupils already being told to supply their own toilet roll
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/06/irish-pupils-loo-roll

It is a cost-cutting measure that could have come from the era of Frank McCourt's misery memoir of poverty and deprivation, Angela's Ashes

jesus, not slow in getting the cliches up and running

wow i must buy that film on DVD immediately

so, uh, how did this go?

we are now a mere province in a federal European death state.

that's certainly my information on it. noticeable lack of federal superarmy in the street, but i suppose it'll take a few weeks to get up and running.

WHAT A VICTORY FOR EUROPE...IT'S TIME TO CELEBRATE

THE PARTY WILL RUN LONG INTO THE NIGHT...THE GUINNESS WILL BE FLOWING

they'll be dancing in the streets of borris-in-ossory brian

i voted btw...i was home. i cracked a can of bavaria on my way out of the school hall as a tribute to prodi, barroso, delors, and all our european brothers and sisters.

how did you vote btw? the options were y or n

oh you had to vote? I just chatted to a guard...

voted YES