Comments on: Ireland says NO

By: The Irish Have Their Say, Perhaps Save Themselves in the Process | Just Thinkin'

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:33:32 +0000

[...] Ireland Says No–Head Rambles [...]

By: gabbagabbahey

gabbagabbahey — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:15:05 +0000

Anarchy/Grandad – I don’t think that’s cleared up at all. Glad someone read the booklet, however

first of all, why the ballot paper asked you about an amendment to the Constitution, was the whole point of the referendum, from day one. Ireland ratifying any EU treaty (since the Crotty judgement) requires an amendment to the constitution. Which has to be voted on by the general public.

As the booklet says on the second page, “You are being asked to decide whether or not to change the constitution of Ireland to: allow Ireland to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon…” That’s where that comes from.

Secondly (and I think you’re confusing two issues here) it also says to “allow Ireland to agree at the European Council to certain changes in the EU treaties; these changes may require a referendum or require the approval of the Dail and Seand”.

Such changes, as explained later in the booklet (the paragraph after the part that Inane Ramblings) would be the moving of issues from unanimity to QMV in the European Council, would require unanimity in themselves, and do “not extend to military and defence issues”.

If this was such a big deal, then why did the No campaign not mention it? Perhaps it would take too long to explain?

On which note, sorry for the long comments…

By: Anarchy OK

Anarchy OK — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:41:52 +0000

Thanks for clearing that up and thanks to Inane Ramblings for the research. No wonder we didn’t hear much about that one and just as well I voted ‘No’.

By: Grandad

Grandad — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:28:34 +0000

Hi Anarchy and welcome! I am by no means an expert. I think one of the main problems about the treaty is that no one is, including those who drafted it! I too was extremely concerned about the change in out constitution. This seems to have been carefully glossed over in the run up to the election From my understanding of it, and I may be wrong, but I think the change in the constitution was to allow our government to pass further changes in the treaty without recourse to a referendum. There was an excellent post about it over at Inane Ramblings.

By: Anarchy OK

Anarchy OK — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:01:52 +0000

Hi Grandad, first comment and a bit late on that but you seem to have some clue on what’ going on.
I read the treaty, several times, understood a fair portion of it and didn’t understand a fair portion of it, did a lot of research on it and I decided that it wasn’t a bad treaty, as treaties go, and I was willing to give Europe the benefit of the doubt.
But, what I was asked to vote on when I got to the polling station was not, ‘Do you accept the Lisbon Treaty?’, it was ‘ Do you agree to change the Irish Constitution so that the treaty can be ratified?’.
That, to me is a whole other question, one that was never explained anywhere I looked for information and one that was not dealt with by any of the campaigns. How come all of the emphasis/ explanations all centered around the barely understandable treaty and not on what we were actually asked to vote on? I would love to know how the treaty would change our constitution.
Faced with that question at the polling station, I voted ‘No’.

By: John O

John O — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:29:55 +0000

As one of your contributors from the States said, “I don’t have a dog in this fight”, but I feel that there is never anything wrong with “clear and concise”. Unfortunately here in the States with our myriad of issues as with the Lisbon treaty, the clear was definitely missing and when that goes so goes concise- they try to dazzle you with BS and smoke and mirrors. Then the general populace wrings their collective hands and figures the press and the politicians must know what they are talking about. I tried my best to wade through the Lisbon Treaty because I think that with the state of affairs here what happens in Europe and the EU will and can greatly affect us in the US. So I say to those who voted “no” congratulations, make the powers to be earn their stripes and really try their best to represent you the people, not the almighty $

By: Gerry

Gerry — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:05:01 +0000

Congrats from afar to all citizens who thought about the issue and went out to vote. Boo to all those lazy people who just shrugged their shoulders and asked: What’s it all about? I’d say alcohol abuse and mental sloth are two of the most shameful things in Ireland today. I back your view that people who voted No didn’t do it to blow a raspberry at the government. Likewise FG voters who went against their party leader’s advice won’t necessarily withold votes from their favoured candidates in the 2009 locals. A referendum is supposed to isolate a single issue so people can vote on it without being distracted by party rivalries. Fringe groups may pick up a score of seats in the local elections, but the mainstream parties and assorted independents will get the votes and seats they work for too. Irish voters can judge issues as they arise you know.

By: Grandad

Grandad — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:49:49 +0000

Chamed – You are always welcome to express yourself. What’s more you are spot on. We have voted. The deed is done. There is feck all point in raking over the ashes.

It’s up to the politicians now to try to work out who voted why, and to sort out the outcome.

By: Charmed

Charmed — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:19:22 +0000

This is probably not the right place to express myself on this one. I like this particular site and wouldn’t want it to turn into a political battleground. Anyway, what I want to say is this -
- I’m tired of the Yes voters criticising the choice of the No voters
- I’m tired of the No voters criticising the choice of the Yes voters
- I’m tired of both the Yes and No votes criticising the choice of the abstainers.
Whatever happened to mutual respect and appreciation for the other person’s perspective even if it doesn’t agree with our own? The thing is now done. Can we stop harping on about that has happened and focus on moving forward.
Ok, there now, I’ve said it, and the microwave has just pinged…..

By: gabbagabbahey

gabbagabbahey — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:03:49 +0000

if any of the other 862,414 want to tell me what they thought of it, I’m waiting. I thought the booklet was a clear, concise and relatively unambiguous summary of a complex legal treaty. A treaty designed to modify existing institutions and, literally, nothing else.

I think Kirk M has a very good argument, but it exactly hinges on my question – what of the attempts to accurately and simply outlay the treaty to the general public? I think it’s disingenuous to give people the right to vote no on doubt, without pressing the onus to find out about it. I’ll admit the consensus now is that it somehow was ‘not properly explained’, even if I – a politics student, admittedly – understood it pretty well without having read the actual thing. A prior understanding of European politics kinda helps.

See? I just want No voters to understand why people were able to vote Yes, quite simply and without having to rely on some ideal, perfect government campaign. Lisbon, in fact, being one of the more minor European treaties.

What if the people who didn’t understand it went along and spoiled their vote? There was a 2 to 1 majority in favour amongst those who did understand it, and a 10 to 1 against amongst those who didn’t (from Richard Sinnott’s article, Irish Times/MRBI pre-referendum poll). Then it would have passed with a large majority – based on the people who did understand it – and, this is the important bit, a substantial spoilt vote to indicate that a referendum on the issue was never really a good idea.