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?

Is the Vicar going to tell us why the democratic deficit is overrated?

Does he disagree with Perry Anderson (cf that piece above)?

I'm just a bit nervous about inadvertently libeling a billionaire.

PF, I will read that Perry Anderson piece soon and comment on it here!

I'm just a bit nervous about inadvertently libeling a billionaire.

Who is also v v sue-happy!

Vicar, if we are using extended titles for organization, then surely you mean SINN FEIN IRA.

I'm talking about the organisation called Republic Sinn Féin. They are separate to the Sinn Féin of Gerry Adams et al. RSF (or the Freds as I like to call them) split from Sinn Féin in the late 1980s, when they began to suspect that Adams was heading towards a political rather than military strategy.

Oh!!

the b@stard

xposts

that's no way to talk about Perry Anderson

An example of the 'no' posters:

http://www.thechancer.ie/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/monkeysee.jpg

if proof were needed that the campaigners on both sides think we're all idiots, the electorate has now been replaced with chimpanzees.

great.

it's only the No side that have replaced the electorate with chimpanzees, though I have heard that there is a Yes poster showing a load of happy pandas putting a X beside YES on a ballot paper.

Ha ha you wish!

I want Arthur Daley to tell me which way I should vote, given that I am neither a differently-abled chimp nor a happy panda.

I checked with Arthur Daley and he said to stop being such a economic girly boy and vote. He then called you ugly. Insightful chap I thought...

who the fuck is arthur daley? was i thinking of the guy from spender? how bizarre.

well, i'm even considering registering for this one.

still thinking of voting 'No' simply because the govt should be treating us with a leetle more respect.

big debate this evening. don't expect much except blatant lies/misleading circumspection from both sides.

still thinking of voting 'No' simply because the govt should be treating us with a leetle more respect.

This is what I was thinking! Darraghmac? You're alright kid.

Too late to register.

well, then i'm abstaining due to disorganisation.

mirroring the govt almost exactly there, eh? you'd never spot me for a public sector administrator type.

well, what did anyone think of that last night?

didn't hear very much, tbh, but what i did catch leads me even further into the no camp.

the 'yes' side arguments seem to be it's happening, it won't get any better for us, and we'll be screwed very hard by europe if we don't go for it.

that's no reason to vote for anything, that's a press gang. i don't even care what the no argument is.

big swing in polls towards no, but those polls are three weeks old and farmers etc have rowed in since, so no way of knowing the effect of last night yet.

this whole thing is a farce...but I'm definitely voting yes, I don't see any value at all in us voting "no", and I don't see the negatives to voting yes or don't believe any of them. plus sinn féin are despicable.

I wish Ireland would bin forever this idea of our neutrality being compromised. It rears its head constantly but it's so utterly stupid, does anyone really think Saddam Hussein is thinking "oh no, I've lost the precious support of Ireland, now I will strike out at this world superpower".

Plus the idea that as proud western capitalists we're somehow standing apart proudly from other countries because everyone knows "Ireland is a neutral country" is so outdated and so Irish.

Last bid to change any no-voters minds:

Okay, the EU is exasperatingly undemocratic and non-transparent at times. Okay, the Irish and most other governments are lying when they claim the Treaty is significantly different to the Constitution, and the way in which it has been negotiated and ratified across Europe shows real contempt for the public. BUT if it is rejected, we are back to square one, or worse in fact: a directionless, moribund EU incapable of making significant progress on things that really matter -- climate change, food prices, energy security, poverty, humanitarian aid. And the sad fact of the matter is that no EU state can make any real difference to these issues by itself, or in a weak European alliance. With a powerful, united EU, we could have a hope of steering world politics in a far more progressive direction on these issues (and I know the EU record has been far from ideal in the past or even now -- that's why I say "a hope of steering"). Do the USA, China or Russia have anything like the commitment to sustainable development, human rights or humanitarian aid that the EU does, at its best? As I said before on this thread, it's very difficult to push this point because Europe is clearly marred by hypocrisy and inconsistency in its approach to sustainable development, human rights etc. But surely a progressive EU, perhaps in partnership with a Democratic-led USA and hopefully in strong co-operation with the developing world offers better prospects for 21st century history than one dominated by China, Russia and a USA untempered by the influence of a strong Europe...?

Oh dear, oh dear. Most difficult referendum question EVER.

I do not hold out much hope Cathy to be honest. Also I don't trust any of our parties. It looks like I'll have no choice but to abstain thanks to moving and the bloody polling card not getting to my new address in time :(

I wish Ireland would bin forever this idea of our neutrality being compromised. It rears its head constantly but it's so utterly stupid, does anyone really think Saddam Hussein is thinking "oh no, I've lost the precious support of Ireland, now I will strike out at this world superpower".

This is spot on. Also the posters saying "people died for you in 1916. Don't throw it away!" are just offensive and silly.

I hate it when politicians try to sway the populace into voting one way or the other in a referendum. They should totally stay silent on the issue. For one thing, it is totally self-defeating, human psychology being what it is. If a politician tells people to do something, then their hackles are raised and they think "how dare they tell me what I should do?", and consequently they do the reverse. I am sure that my alcohol consumption has increased since the govt has been telling me I should drink less.

does the Lisbon Treaty include the abolition of the totally pointless money wasting Starsbourg parliament?

i think voting 'yes' with that amount of idealism is way beyond me cathy.

the 'yes' side arguments seem to be it's happening, it won't get any better for us, and we'll be screwed very hard by europe if we don't go for it.

that's no reason to vote for anything, that's a press gang. i don't even care what the no argument is.

yes, the adverts and campaigns on both sides have been stupid and treated the entire electorate like idiots. but my opinion is still the above.

it's an idealism steeped in realism, though. the yes side have been to scared to make the case I've been making (and I can quite see why) in favour of a strong Europe, leading the world on climate change, poverty etc. and have instead tried to whitewash or bribe the electorate, which makes the No side look stronger.

I imagine the Strasbourg Parliament will go within the next few years, with or without Lisbon. But as far as I know there's no change to it in the Treaty.

that wasn't in any way a criticism, cathy- if the treaty was being sold to me the way you've been detailing it then i'd be much more likely to be in favour of it.

I imagine the Strasbourg Parliament will go within the next few years, with or without Lisbon.

what do you mean? That they will shut down the EU Parliament, or that it will just no longer sit in Strasbourg? I've not heard anyone suggesting that either of these things are even remotely likely.

The parliament is a good example of the heads-I-win,-tails-you-lose approach of Euroscepticism. If it exists, it is a pointless waste of money, if it is abolished it is another example of the EU moving in an undemocratic direction. Oh well.

that wasn't in any way a criticism, cathy- if the treaty was being sold to me the way you've been detailing it then i'd be much more likely to be in favour of it.

what about how it's being dismissed to you?

The parliament stays, but I think moving it to strasbourg every couple of months goes, along with the attendant costs.

i expected all of that from the no side ronan, and i absolutely take the point, which is why i won't be voting.

OK, having the parliament shuffle between two locations is a bit silly, and if the treaty gets rid of that I am all for it.

One of the things Sinn Féin go on about a lot is the thing about each country not having a commissioner from now on. I find it very hard to get worked up about this.

I just mean that the Parliament will probably reside full-time in Brussels. The Treaty strengthens the EP's powers but doesn't mention axing the ridiculous monthly Strasbourg jaunt.

There was a big petition going round about a year ago on axing the Strasbourg session of the EP, and it seems likely that it will go eventually -- no-one except France has any interest in keeping it going and I'm sure they'll back down if offered an exciting alternative use for the Strasbourg site (with lots of €€€ to back it up).

I liked the sound of plans to turn it into a Europe Institute of Technology to rival MIT, though not sure what the latest news on this is:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-may-abandon-strasbourg-parliament-471625.html
http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/france-build-european-institute-technology-paris/article-145671

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-may-abandon-strasbourg-parliament-471625.html

whoops, same link twice there.

also yes, each country having a Commissionner is pretty unimportant as they're not supposed to be representing national interests anyway.

I have decided that I am voting yes.

There are one or two things I'm hesitant about (the million people voting for something so it becomes law, hello fundamentalists) but I think it's a pretty good treaty.

Polling card arrived yesterday. Will have a bit of a trek out but so what, it's fun to vote kids!

DON'T BE BULLIED!

The Commissioner thing is really funny... I don't know why it has become such a big thing. I find the idea of Charlie McCreevey representing me somewhat distasteful.

On Strasbourg - I reckon the parliament could be permanently moved from there without a new treaty.

Vote No. Don't let Brussels tell you how to live your life, amirite?

Has anyone seen any of the ker-aaaaazzzy posters about how the Lisbon Treaty will lead to people being chipped and barcoded, with eyed-pyramids presiding over entrances to Festung Europa? I know they do not represent the mainstream of eurosceptic opinion, but they sure are funny.

No! Must google. Haven't seen them around though. Where did you see it?

I saw one on Nassau Street, with a URL: dees2.com

the real action comes if you follow the link to SATIRE.

I'll try to swing by Nassau st soon. That link, mon dieu. It's like the batshit right wing cartoonists thread except photoshop and the left. Mental.

The Commissionner thing is absurd. The idea is that two thirds of member states will have one on a rotating basis and further break the notion that Commissionners are somehow representing their country's interests.

also one thing that doesn't get emphasised enough is that the European parliament will now have a final say in nearly all legislative areas and on the all-important EU budget. A bit paradoxical to vote no because of democratic deficit and thus maintaining the current status quo.

"hyggeligt", it was actually Dame Street where I saw the barcode thing... near the old Athena kebaberie.

Gotcha "DV" will have a look for it on the bus home.

Have you ever eaten in that Athena? I have the fear. Also less than impressed with the way Ric's Burgers have gone downhill. I blame the 'no' camp.

"hyggeligt", the poster is not very big, you will probably only see it if you are walking along the street, being very observant.

Athena shut down ages ago... it went from doing the best falafel in the world (not including Lebanon), to being fairly average, to closing. Nice.

The best falafel in the world is now in the place on Kevin Street. mmm mmm, falafel. But there'll be none of that after the Lisbon Treaty is passed - we'll all be biting down on German sausage.

Waitaminute, what's the name of the place beside Nicos then?

I will perhaps walk down that street. Who knows. You're not the boss of me anyhow. Brussels is.

I wish to know more about this Kevin Street place. Just up in Rathmines (around the corner from Slatterys) there's a new place that does fantastic falafels. I believe that I have raved about them before.

So what's the verdict at this stage - really low participation is a bad sign for the 'yes' camp, isn't it?

Really low participation is the Irish way sadly. I've not seen any clear figures. Avoiding finding out to be honest!

Oh and I did vote. Yay me.

Turnout pretty high for European referendum, early very rough tallies suggest treaty going down. Which must be bad news for the bookmaker who for some reason decided to pay out to people who had bet for yes on the basis of the turnout.

turnout mid to low 40's?

I think they are saying mid to high 40s, but it is all a bit vague at the moment.

About that it appears. Looks like the "You don't understand it therefore it must be evil" group won. This means Mary Lou being all smiling oompah-loompah all over the tv again. Gad. She was woejus on Questions & Answers on Tuesday.

hmm, i'd still find it hard to argue a "you don't understand it therefore yes" case though?

OMG I HAVE BECOME A 'YES' BULLY :(

does europe hate me now? i'm feeling guilty already. damn that cowen, he's the new paisley.

I feel like it is the natural order of things for Lisbon to be rejected, as the people and things I vote for never win.

Great. So it's your fault? Also: Friday the 13th!

Darraghmac, it's not just Europe you need to watch out for. Asia said they'd eff you up something rotten behind the bike sheds. You've been warned...

I am sad that it didn't pass as it means we'll have to do it all over again. That or they'll try to pull a fast one like Nice II and we'll just keep voting over and over until FF get what they want.

Look, if we could just have a commissioner all the time then we'll pass it.

one of the 'yes' sides big threats was that we'd never get to do it again if we got this one wrong- as if.

From the Irish Times website:

Counting of votes in the Lisbon Treaty referendum began at 9am today, and early tallies from around the country are showing the vote leaning toward the No side.

In Mayo, the vote appears to be 60-40 per cent in favour of the No camp with the majority of boxes counted. There was a 52 per cent turnout. Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny and the party’s MEP Jim Higgins are conceding that the No campaign have won in Mayo.

Galway West with all boxes counted tallies indicate 53.95 per cent No to 46.05 per cent Yes. There was a significant No vote in rural areas, including 84 per cent voting No parts of Connemara, such as Carna and Cliften.

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs Éamon Ó Cuív is conceding defeat for the treaty in the constituency.

In Galway East constituency, the trend from tallies also appears to be against the treaty by a narrow margin with most of the 149 boxes opened. In Tuam, the heartland of Libertas founder Declan Ganley, the No votes were two to one ahead.

Finalised tallies in Cork North Central indicate a two to one vote against the treaty. Cork South Central also appears to be leaning towards a No vote but by a smaller margin. A strong No vote has been reported in Minister for Education Batt O’Keefe’s home town of Ballincollig.

In Dublin South-West, there is a report 60 per cent - 40 per cent split in favour of the No side, and this 60:40 tally is repeated in Dublin North-West, Dublin Central, and Dublin North-East.

Elsewhere in the country, tallies from Limerick West indicate a 59 per cent No vote and a 41 Yes vote.

Tipperary South tallies show 50.3 per cent Yes and 49.7 per cent No vote, while Tipperary North tallies indicate a 50:50 split.

Initial tally figures from Sligo-Leitrim suggest a 66 per cent No vote, Roscommon-South Leitrim indicates a 55 per cent No vote, while Donegal South-West (55 per cent No) and Donegal North-East (63 per cent No) are also showing an anti-Lisbon trend.

In Louth, the tally split was reported to be a 57 per cent - 43 per cent in favour of No. In Meath West and East, the split shows a 60-40 percentage advantage to the No side.

In Cork, the trend also appears to be in favour of the No vote. In Cork North-Central, for example, the tallies are running 65 per cent No, 35 per cent Yes. In neighbouring Kerry, tallies are pointing toward a substantial 60 per cent vote against the Treaty.

Both Kildare constituencies appear to be bucking the trend, however, with early tallies indicating a 57 per cent - 43 per cent vote in favour of Lisbon.

The tallies indicate there has been a strong No showing in rural areas and in working-class urban areas, while there appears to be less support for the treaty in middle-class urban areas than had been expected.

The tallies are early at the moment, however, and all boxes are not opened yet.

Polling stations closed at 10pm last night after 15 hours of voting in the referendum, the result of which will determine the future development of the European Union and its institutions.

Voting began at 7am, and stations in 43 constituencies were open until 10pm to encourage as many people as possible to vote.

Turnout was reported at about 40 per cent by 9pm, up from 20 per cent in some constituencies by mid-afternoon. In general, turnout was reported to be higher in city areas than in rural areas.

By the time polls closed at 10pm last night, around 50 per cent of the three million people registered to vote were understood to have cast their ballots.

Both the No and Yes sides of the treaty debate expressed confidence that the result will go in their favour, but the result may be tight with 17 per cent of voters still undecided in a poll last weekend.

There is concern in other EU countries about the impact of the decision by Irish voters, and the French and German governments are expected to make a joint statement later today once the Irish result is known.

Full coverage of the referendum results will be available on The Irish Times website (http://www.ireland.com/focus/thelisbontreaty), with reports and analysis along with audio commentary from the count centre at Dublin Castle. Results from the count centres will be updated live throughout the day.

Ireland was the only country to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

darraghmac, OTM. This wouldn't be the first time that the government has decided to overrule a referendum. I support Lisbon but I would be disgusted if they did try it again.

That said it's hard to see how things will go ahead now, what next for Europe etc?

yeah, what happens now?

people want EU reform but they don't want it reformed in this way. Trouble is, tho, there's too much politics on too many levels for busy people to keep up with all of it.

we'll do it again and again and again. apologies to willie mcbride.

i think there was just too much in this treaty, too many things that shouldn't have been lumped in together. and i think a large percentage of the no vote would have been general dissatisfaction with politics/politicians in the country right now.

people want EU reform but they don't want it reformed in this way.

I'm not sure if the sentiments of people voting for or against the treaty are that coherent. A lot of the arguments people made against the treaty are either amorphous or plainly untrue, while a lot of the arguments people made for it are equally amorphous.

One thing I am struck by is that apart from the pro-business rightwingers, broadly the same arguments were made against this EU treaty as against every previous one. So - why has this one been rejected, and in a relatively high turn out for EU referendums? One possible conclusion is that the influx of money from Libertas and their mysterious backers has galvanised the no campaign.

unpopular govt/disillusioned voter syndrome.

can it really be just the bertie factor, and his fried egg smile?

is the government that unpopular? I bet they would win an election if it were called. Though this might be to do with people not seeing an election as having anything to do with choosing the government of the country.

greens/pd/ff wouldn't be able to form a govt again if an election were called.

too many things that shouldn't have been lumped in together.

I agree with this and have been saying this to whoever I can. If the government had snuck this piece by piece it would have been fine. The huge scope left it open to abuse from the No camp and made the Yes camp look like total bullies. There was enough little things to trip up even the best debater for the Yes side.

The No Campaign had a lot more energy and tried to reach everyone (farmers, the youth, businesses) while the Yes side basically had "because we tell you too" as their call.

Every referendum is a test of the serving government darraghmac, always will be. It's rather a sad state of affairs but completely understandable tbh.

Everyone's posting too fast for me!

greens/pd/ff wouldn't be able to form a govt again if an election were called.

OTM!!

too many things that shouldn't have been lumped in together.

Yeah but considering how heavy and the number of parties involved, changing the treaties little by little would take ages and turn into total chaos. It's only by negotiating on a large scale that you can do all the necessary trade-offs between 27 countries.

maybe they should call an election, get SF into the government, and then have the referendum again? With Mary Lou McDonald in favour it would be bound to pass.

I like the rotating presidency, TBH, I just think that each country should get it for a whole year rather than just six months. There are few historical precedents for "lumping everything togther" in this way. In the original rejected Constitution, a couple of the things that were omitted from the subsequent Treaty were official recognition for the EU flag and anthem. What the people responsible for drafting it may not have realised is that many nation states don't have "official recognition" for their anthems and flags, they were adopted unofficially and gradually came to be accepted by the populace to the point when they achieved "official-ness" by default. Why is rejection of the Treaty a disaster? Why is necessary to redraft anything? Why not leave things be and let the EU develop in a laissez-faire way? The thing that got me was this, from the Guardian:

Earlier, the European commission president, José Manuel Barroso, said ratification by all states would allow the EU "to turn the institutional page and concentrate 100% on delivering on the expectations of Europe's peoples".

excuse me? what planet is this guy living on? what is "turning the instituional page"? what "expectations" do all those millions of people have that are shared collectively and why does he think the EU can deliver them, Treaty or no?

ugh hello mary lou, goodbye Garrett? quick description of the way we've gone maybe.

changing the treaties little by little wouldn't work either, but this really was too big. or maybe they'd just slipped in one too many dodgy/unpopular moves.

four posts an hour is too quick for hyggeligt? no wonder you couldn't get round to reading the treaty entiere

one thing that occurs to me is that the election results are very similar to the first divorce referendum in the 1980s.

four posts an hour is too quick for hyggeligt? no wonder you couldn't get round to reading the treaty entiere

I'm at work!

you think the rest of us get the day off for this place? keep up man.

;_; I try but is so hard

take your 'yes' vote no-keeping-up with postcount crocodile tears back to brussels, sonny. you're in cuddlestein ireland now, and all bets are off.

That's it Mayo boy, you crossed a line!

ya the pale line at tarmonbarry bridge.

Kenny-lover!

in other news, vote is becoming tighter (46.5/53.5) but still looks like a firm non

Don't you try defusing the situation!

Oh alright then.

COME ON THE YESSES

i liek kenny, but i prefer kris. i don't see what country/americana has to do with the treaty though.

france ministers already discussing how EU can move on without ireland.

Weak.

Dear Lord, we'll be cut off to fend for ourselves :(

alright!

yeah they might cut off the land bridge from rosslare now, apparently.

eu opinion ranges from -an irish 'no' finishes the treaty (portugal, i think) to fuk em, we'll go without them and they can copme crawling later (france)

The UK will be following France's lead it seems

funnily, the treaty also include(d) an exit clause. I am not sure whether it could be applied to ireland now

That's it baaderonixx, you're on the list.

yeah they might cut off the land bridge from rosslare now, apparently.

I lolled.

I suppose we could come crawling back but I thought if we rejected it the Treaty was finished?

The fact that none of the other countries allowed a referendum anymore proves it for me: this isn't about us, it's about them. Creating high paying jobs for politicians who aren't popular enough in their own countries anymore, who did something controversial that should have gotten them sacked but now they get promoted to a European job so they're not in the press' eye anymore, etc etc etc.

ah, people don't want to be bothering their arses voting for things all day, that's why we pay our governments to make all these decisions in our interest.

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