Ireland rejects the Lisbon treaty (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 9:06 am

Ireland has voted No to the Lisbon Treaty, plunging the European Union into a new crisis. With results coming in from across the country, a final result of 52 per cent against and 48 per cent in favour of the treaty was rapidly hardening. A final declaration is not expected until after 4 pm. The Lisbon Treaty, the reworked successor to the formal constitutional pact dumped by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005, officially needs the approval of all 27 EU member states. But only in Ireland has it been put to a popular vote, meaning today's result may have far-reaching consequences for the entire bloc.

Barely two hours after the count began today, the No camp had already started celebrating, while senior Fianna Fail strategists privately and glumly conceded their defeat. Call it hubris,” said one senior figure, “people seem to have forgotten what Ireland was like before we received European funding. They seem to think that we created our success all by ourselves. They are wrong...”

Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty leaves the EU — whose leaders meet for a summit in Brussels next week — facing a new crisis like that which followed the 2005 rejection of the formal constitution. It also means that three million voters have effectively decided the fate of a bloc of almost 500 million people.

Well, true, but then, how many other EU nations gave their constituents the power to vote on this? And who made the incredible hubristic rules that promised to kill the Treaty if one nation turned it down? You can read a bit more about it here.

Your thoughts? A good thing? A bad thing? Please explain why, in either case.

Hill-Shatar · Post by **Hill-Shatar** » Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:04 pm

I'm not totally surprised that Ireland's people decided to reject it. From what I understand it was based on the QMV voting system, so Ireland would have very few votes when compared to the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and other more populous countries. 5 votes when compared to, say, 27, probably wouldn't appeal to the people of Ireland because of their loss of power.

Not to mention that I'm sure a few felt the Mutual Assistance was the basis for a military alliance at some level. I'm actually really surprised that no one but Ireland held a referendum on this. It seems that the other 497 million people might have had a bit of a say as well.

I'm also sure a few are worried about the loss of control about tax rates, since Ireland came out of it's economic problems by reducing corporate taxes and encouraging foreign investment. I have a feeling a few were worried about losing that financial stability.

When I read the line about what Ireland was like without European funding, and I found it a bit ironic that it clashed with the thought of moving forward with this new treaty rather than looking back. =/

A friend of mine mentioned that the No vote probably would have been higher if not for the support of a man named Sinn Fein.

The Irish are a strong people, so I can feel that they felt this was a bit too far in some ways. I'd like to say I support the choice of the Irish to decline this opportunity but I don't know enough either way.

Hiya Fable!

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:31 am

I was a bit surprised, I did find it ironic that the proposal was defeated by an unholy alliance of extremists. It does make one wonder when the most ardent anti-EU people are right and left wing extremists in alliance with religious extremists! On the basis that 'my enemies enemy is my friend', obviously the No result was a disaster, as all my 'enemies' were in the same 'No' camp.

Er, Sinn Fein is an extreme left wing political organisation (as well as being the pro United Ireland, political wing of the IRA), not a person.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:43 am

galraen wrote:Er, Sinn Fein is an extreme left wing political organisation (as well as being the pro United Ireland, political wing of the IRA), not a person.

I believe he was employing irony.

Hey, Hill-Shatar! Good to see you around.

I can't help but wonder why the protests of many people at the time of the first treaty's failure--that it didn't come from them, but was imposed upon them--wasn't considered in drafting Lisbon. For a series of supposedly democratic nations, it seems curious that such an important document would be conceived top-down, with no imput from the masses of people it will effect, and with no informational campaign reaching them, either.

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:53 am

Ah, the first time. I think we Dutch were the culprit, back in.. 2002? 2004? I don't entirely remember what it was about, but I remember constructively opposing the treaty myself. After Holland voted against it, there was really no point for the other countries to continue the voting. Consensus was needed, so it brought the whole system down.

Europe definitely has some kind of personality disorder. Kind of amusing really, in a sadistic/masochistic sort of way. It wasn't the people who united Europe. Politicians did that for us with the Maastricht Treaty, and years later they suddenly expect the people to support a separate constitution as well.

Maybe the US can draw a lesson out of our mess by the time their federal government collapses in 2013.

Hill-Shatar · Post by **Hill-Shatar** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:51 am

galraen wrote: Er, Sinn Fein is an extreme left wing political organisation (as well as being the pro United Ireland, political wing of the IRA), not a person.

I was poking fun at a friend.

I have problems with remembering to use smilies nowadays, I'll be sure to use them more often since "talking" via text isn't exactly the best way to be snide.

I haven't really been keeping track of this, so I've started checking up on the news. 70% of Irish citizens who voted no felt that a better treaty could have been negotiated, according to the folks [url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/2146169/Ireland-seeks-guarantees-before-second-EU-referendum.html"]here[/url].

From what I understand, a large number of political leaders are under pressure from both people within their governments and without, as lagging on the Lisbon Treaty would be considered holding the government back. The Portuguese political leader José Socrates held no referendum since his electoral promises only extending to asking the Portuguese people in relation to the idea of a European Constitution. From what I understand, and Xandax would have to fill everyone in on this, there were some debates over the legality of the government moving ahead without a referendum in Denmark. According to the government, they only have to ask the people if they have to give up some level of sovereignty of the country, and only then if less than 5/6 of the Danish parliament say "no". Instead to government is using a different approach which covers international treaties, making it easier to pass.

I agree that it still would have made more sense to hold a referendum, imo, but if a country's politics are being pressured to push something through I'm sure they would attempt to expedite it by trying to skip something that would "like to do".

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:36 pm

I wasn't certain Hill-Shatar, hence the hesitant lead 'Er'. Being an international forum though, I thought I'd clarify just in case anyone was mislead.

My take is fairly simple, if the politicos couldn't get a yes vote in Ireland, there was no chance in Hades of getting one anywhere, certainly not in the UK, which is why the government won't have a referendum on the issue, they know they'd lose.