EU treaty passes Irish referendum

[Captain Seafort]

That's what kills me, they already voted no.

If you go back over the relevant threads you'll probably find me and Foxy predicting that this would happen - the EU has a track record of making the Irish vote again when they tell Brussels where to shove its treaty.

[Sionnach Glic]

So who stopped you from saying NO again? No one had a gun to your head and obviously the majority of Irish people don't agree wit you.

Nothing stopped us. I, and quite a lot of other people, voted no a second time. But it says a hell of a lot that we had to vote no a second time.

And the reason that this treaty passed is because the government has for the past two months been promoting a campaign saying how accepting the Lisbon treaty will create jobs, fix the economy, etc, etc. People didn't vote because they thought Lisbon was a good idea, they voted because they bought the story that it'd help if we said yes. It probably didn't help that three of the main political parties in the country (Fianna Faíl, Finne Gael and Labour) were promoting it in an attempt to score political points, while only two (Sinn Féin and the Socialist Party) tried to oppose it with any real effort.

So, no, a gun wasn't held to our heads. Instead we were fed misinformation and lies. I don't see how this is much better.

And with all due respect to the Irish voters I am quite confident that most people don't know what they even voted for or against since this "treaty" is so mindboogling complex that the chances are that if you are not passionatly interested into such things or a lawyer you probably haven't read or understood it.

I daresay you're right. While I imagine that most of the people who voted against it had some sort of reason (even if it's just something like not wanting the EU to get any more power), most of the people who voted in favour of it would have done so in the belief that it'll help the country get back on its feet. Quite simply, very few people in the country have actualy read the full treaty. At best, they'd have read a very simplified summary of what it would mean.

[colmquinn]

At least I can take some sollace in the knowledge that Fianna Faíl are going to virtualy cease to exist the next time to elections come around.

I wouldn't bet on it, they'll get a solid 25% at least that will always vote for them. These are the hard line FF people who made their decision on who to vote for cause their parents did and they made their decision back around the time of the civil war. So brains doesn't come into it frankly when it comes to politics in this country.

[Tyyr]

So brains doesn't come into it frankly when it comes to politics in this country.

See, we're not so different after all.

[sunnyside]

What leverage? The way things are going, especially with the constitution likely to come into force, even the former great powers of Europe (Britain, France and Germany) will be subordinated to Brussels.

Part of the reason for doing all of this is to gain leverage. Size and solidarity make for barganing power in both the world markets and the world political stage.

As for the tax-haven status, it's their country.

The deal here is that normally there are a range of barriers to trade between countries. Or at least there is always the option to add some. However Ireland is now "inside" the EU. So, business wise, it's a bit like if you had a town where all the stores have to pay a 15% sales tax, expect for, say, Wal Mart, which doesn't. That's a good deal for Wal Mart but a bad deal for everyone else.

As for the Brussels comments. What is the real worry here? I'm seriously asking as I haven't analyzed the treaties involved. What exactly can be done to Ireland by one of the EU bodies that is so bad?

[Mikey]

I think what's at issue is the loss of national identity. The EU was originally intended to be an economic confederacy, and is becoming in effect a political hegemony.

[Atekimogus]

I think what's at issue is the loss of national identity. The EU was originally intended to be an economic confederacy, and is becoming in effect a political hegemony.

And as an economic confederacy it arguable did a very good job imho but for some reason they want to turn the continent into a big united states of europe just so that some politicians have a chance to play with the big guys. Since economically we are already about as united as possible I wonder what reason there could possibly be trying to turn the whole thing into one super-state-moloch other than comparing d***s with China, US and Russia?

[Tyyr]

other than comparing d***s with China, US and Russia?

Even united they still lose that contest.

[sunnyside]

I think what's at issue is the loss of national identity. The EU was originally intended to be an economic confederacy, and is becoming in effect a political hegemony.

And as an economic confederacy it arguable did a very good job imho but for some reason they want to turn the continent into a big united states of europe just so that some politicians have a chance to play with the big guys. Since economically we are already about as united as possible I wonder what reason there could possibly be trying to turn the whole thing into one super-state-moloch other than comparing d***s with China, US and Russia?

Trade was greased pretty well. But when it comes to affecting how the member states interact with other markets size and solidarity matters. For example if you're trying to get another country to quit using protectionism to keep EU goods out of their markets, or if one wants to shield a market from their underpriced goods.

Also currently most EU countries are Russias bitch because Russia knows that the threat of messing with their oil/gas supplies means EU coutries will bend over for them most of the time. A solid bloc could stand up to that kind of bullying.

On a different note I believe there are provisions in there about helping each other out in the face of a disaster that might overwhelm a single country.

On the geopolitical stage acting in concert could help with things like the impending fight over the oil resources in the north pole and other bits of contested land. One little country whinging that Canada, Russia, or the US is claiming more than it should might carry little weight. An EU bloc would. Ditto for other things like that.

[Captain Seafort]

Trade was greased pretty well. But when it comes to affecting how the member states interact with other markets size and solidarity matters. For example if you're trying to get another country to quit using protectionism to keep EU goods out of their markets, or if one wants to shield a market from their underpriced goods.

Economic cooperation does not require handing over sovereignty to Brussels

Also currently most EU countries are Russias bitch because Russia knows that the threat of messing with their oil/gas supplies means EU coutries will bend over for them most of the time. A solid bloc could stand up to that kind of bullying.

Whether as individual countries or as the United States of Europe, we'd still be just as dependant on Russian pipelines.

On a different note I believe there are provisions in there about helping each other out in the face of a disaster that might overwhelm a single country.

Again, this does not require a unitary state any more than Nato.

On the geopolitical stage acting in concert could help with things like the impending fight over the oil resources in the north pole and other bits of contested land. One little country whinging that Canada, Russia, or the US is claiming more than it should might carry little weight. An EU bloc would. Ditto for other things like that.

Again, why does this require a unitary block any more than Nato?

[Sionnach Glic]

Also currently most EU countries are Russias bitch because Russia knows that the threat of messing with their oil/gas supplies means EU coutries will bend over for them most of the time. A solid bloc could stand up to that kind of bullying.

Exactly how could an EU nation prevent Russia from saying "no more oil for you!"? Short of all of Europe switching to nuclear power, we're going to be dependent on Russia's generosity for a long time.

[Atekimogus]

other than comparing d***s with China, US and Russia?

Even united they still lose that contest.

Depends on what you are comparing. Sheer economical power you might be surprised.

Exactly how could an EU nation prevent Russia from saying "no more oil for you!"? Short of all of Europe switching to nuclear power, we're going to be dependent on Russia's generosity for a long time.

Well it is a deal and a deal works both ways. I am quite sure that they are as dependend on EU-money as we are on their oil and that is why everyone is playing relatively nice.

Apart from that I agree with all Seafort wrote in his above post.

[sunnyside]

Whether as individual countries or as the United States of Europe, we'd still be just as dependant on Russian pipelines.

As Atekimogus aluded to, if Russia cuts off gas/oil to one Euro country that country has a big problem, if Russia doesn't sell any gas/oil in the EU than Russia has a big problem. Granted the EU countries would be hurting too, but the point is Russia knows they can't actually do it without devestating their economy.

Again, this does not require a unitary state any more than Nato.
Again, why does this require a unitary block any more than Nato?

I'm not sure about requiring in theory. But in practice nations look out for their self interest(or the self interest of those running the show). Without some structure making them act in concert they likely won't. Which means they all lose. Do you really feel confident that, acting independently, all the nations of the EU would go to bat for Norway and Denmark while Russia, Canada, and the US are dangling carrots but carrying big sticks?

Anyway is it correct that the issue here isn't so much that there is a specific concern, but that the principle of the thing is that Ireland and various EU countries want to be kings of their anthills instead of being more like autonomous provinces.

[Atekimogus]

Anyway is it correct that the issue here isn't so much that there is a specific concern, but that the principle of the thing is that Ireland and various EU countries want to be kings of their anthills instead of being more like autonomous provinces.

It has not necessarily to do with wanting to be kings of their own anthills I guess but more that most people think that to achieve the effects you describe - working together economically for instance - some sort of super-nation is not required, merley cooperation in those fields like it was working until now. The euro-zone for example (countries with the Euro as currency) works resonably well just with the countries involved working together saying we want to do that.

Europe is a very old continent with a deep history and every nation is a more or less liked member of the family one would fiercly defend against any outsider, nevertheless you do not marry within the family. If that means beeing king of an anthill, so be it.

[Mikey]

Anyway is it correct that the issue here isn't so much that there is a specific concern, but that the principle of the thing is that Ireland and various EU countries want to be kings of their anthills instead of being more like autonomous provinces.

I think what's at issue is the fear that if the EU continues on its current course, the member nations won't be as autonomous as one would hope. Depending on your particular view, the Lisbon Treaty can be viewed as a step towards anything from a cross-border loose confederacy up to the First Sarkozian Empire.