Irish vote on a knife edge
It's all about getting the vote out now. I was on the Yes battle bus for the last day of campaigning as the new Irish prime minister spent a day shaking hands on home ground in the Irish Midlands. 
In the succession of rather dull high streets and shopping centres there wasn't much political chatter. A seemingly very relaxed Brian Cowen met people and asked them to vote. He didn't even tell them what to vote for.
Young Yes campaigners in yellow T-shirts hovered around the edge of the crowd offering reassurance. And a lot of it was needed. I wouldn't say most voters were hostile, but they were concerned and not a little bewildered.
One elderly woman had heard that Lisbon would mean the European Union was going to stop people having more than two children, so she was going to vote No.What about the poster suggesting the EU will microchip children? Won't it mean Ireland has less power in the EU? "No, there's no change there," replied the campaigner - a reply that one might describe generously as broad-brush, given changing voting weights and the loss of commissioners on a regular basis.
But there is a great deal of anger with the No campaign. Mr Cowen says
"I think tomorrow is really about whether we want to be in Europe or not".
I asked him directly if he would ask Ireland to vote again, if it voted No this time. He told me: "The problem is if I go to next week's European Council with a No vote preliminary discussions would have to begin on what happens. There'd be great disappointment and a great sense of uncertainty about where we go from here."
In the countryside it seems there is less support for a No than in Dublin. In Grafton Street, by St Stephens Green, No campaigners have been working the crowd hard. People eagerly take stickers and one man offers the campaigners some leaflets of his own. He tells me: "Europe is a great idea but I don't think the treaty is going to serve the people of Europe, and I think it is really bad that out of 500 million people only we get a vote. The last time we said No to Nice they made us vote again. If we say No to Lisbon they'll make us vote again. So who's running the show and for whom?"
While people are actually voting journalists often talk about turnout and the weather, and I often think it's because there is no other hard information around. But this time it is pretty important. Based on the two referendums on the Nice Treaty the assumption is that a turnout over 50% means a Yes victory, under 40% hands it to the Noes. That makes a big assumption that public opinion has not changed much since then, but it gives us something to go on when polls close at one minute past ten tonight.
If it is a No all eyes will be on Cowen to see what he does. But they will also flicker across to Westminster, to see if Brown carries on with British ratification. I'm told he intends to, but I am not certain that will hold. We will see. Or then again, we may never know.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~25~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"The last time we said No to Nice they made us vote again. If we say No to Lisbon they'll make us vote again. So who's running the show and for whom?"
Let me guess:
For whom the bell tolls?
Because I don't think that there's any part of 'NO' they could ever understand.
Complain about this comment
The similarities being made between Lisbon and Ulysses don't induce me to rush out and get a copy of the treaty. Having found Ulysses almost impenetrable at university, I would suspect you'd need a masters degree in high density eurospeak to get to grips with the treaty. Which is a great pity, as I'm pretty much pro-europe and would love to know definitively what it would mean to our daily lives.
I suspect most of the folk in the Republic today would like to know the same. But could anyone really tell us?
Complain about this comment
"Having found Ulysses almost impenetrable at university, I would suspect you'd need a masters degree in high density eurospeak to get to grips with the treaty. "
Read "Finnegan's Wake" - than you'll understand what it is all about.
Complain about this comment
florencefirst @2
You're quite right. Would anybody sign a contract to buy a car or a house - let alone cede one's sovereignty - that was deliberately written to confuse? Furthermore, would any impartial person recommend that you did so?
Methinks the legal term is "mis-selling". I call it "buying a pig in a poke".
Vote No.
If the Treaty is so 'important' then let it - and it's implications - be redrafted and made clear to all.
Complain about this comment
To answer #2 (florencefirst):
This story about the treaty being “as bad as Ulysses”, or “written in high density eurospeak” is all but another twist put forward by the Europhobes, that would have voted “No” either way.
The treaty is indeed long, and legal in nature. This is because it’s the product of negotiations between 27 countries, each trying to make sure it’s interests are protected Naturally, this means a long and legal contract.
However, the actual meaning of the treaty is easily available to anyone willing to do a little reading, in plain English. For instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Amendments
Now, if I can read it, anyone can. Just read, and see exactly what the treaty would mean. An intelligent vote, in my opinion, is a “Yes” vote.
Complain about this comment
The idea of europe to help smaller economic countries can be a good idea. But for some reason the EU has a flag, anthem, central bank, laws, president, courts and currency. It is also trying to create its own armed forces and have foriegn embassies while all the time trying to say that it is not creating a superstate. The EU will not make any changes or profound statements until after the Irish Referendum. I would be inclined to wonder why.
Complain about this comment
I think that the complexity of what is being voted upon has facilitated a small number of people to spread a great deal of negativity about what the referendum will result in. This could never have happened in a more straightforward vote and the development of a viable No campaign has been allowed to develop where it should never have had legs even to kick off. Add to that is the not inconsiderable backlash against a personality led Yes campaign which has backfired - many people are disgusted by the destruction of the credibility of the incumbent government parties and this is a serious distraction from deciding the issues of the future of the EU which are really at stake.
Complain about this comment
On the first page of the preamble the treaty states:
"DESIRING to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam and by the Treaty of Nice with a
view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the
coherence of its action,"
Enhancing the efficiency and DEMCORATIC LEGITIMACY of the Union??? Democratic legitimacy "proved" by reluctantly allowing only 1% of the people of the EU get to vote on it?
When the treaty starts with a HUGE lie at the beginning like that, how can you trust it to be a basis for democratic or honest government? VOTE NO!
Complain about this comment
Well, of course you were on the "Yes" bus. Of course you represent "No" supporters as being ignorant and stupid. I don't mind this being a partisan pro-EU blog, but as a matter of journalistic ethics you should openly label it as being that.
Complain about this comment
If the EU needs a constitution, then America has a very fine and honourable constitution, it is short and easily understood. Also they are not using it anymore, so I would be in favour of adopting theirs instead of this 272 page long, contradictory, ambiguous, technocratic bundle of bureaucratic legalese of this so-called "reform treaty"
Vote NO!
If anyone reading this, that has a vote, and who does not fully understand this treaty, but wants to support the EU, vote NO and get them to create a better treaty. Vote no and KEEP voting no until they give you a treaty that makes sense!
Complain about this comment
Mr Cowen says the vote is "really about whether we want to be in Europe or not". It's not! But we've heard similar disingenuous comments over here, especially from the Liberals.
I don't want to come out of the EU, I like our neighbours and I value our cooperation very much; but I am very concerned that Europe is trying to acquire the trappings of statehood, and I really do not want the Lisbon treaty. This snarling "you are with us or against us" attitude from the political class is pushing me towards the anti-EU camp, and I bet some Irish voters feel the same way, even though they're probably more pro-Europe than we are.
Just drop this wretched constitution and anti-European paranoia will decline swiftly, just as it did after the original was rejected. Keep trying to shove it down our throats and, yes, it might indeed threaten the future of the EU.
Complain about this comment
This is the same as the constitution only the name has changed, thats what Angela Merkel ( German head of state ) said and it was rejected by France and Holland in polls. So they changed the name and pushed it through anyway. Only Ireland gets to vote on it , Why ? Brian Cowen the Irish P.M. says he hasn't read it , yet he tells his people to vote for yes ! Thats mad who would sign a document that gives away your sovereignty when you haven't even read it . Other countries ( UK ) were promised a referendum too but the Goverment reneged on this election promise, Why ? What are they all afraid of ? You fought for hundreds of years for your freedom don't give it away for a few euros .All the eyes of the democratic world are now on Ireland .
Complain about this comment
“If you can't convince them, confuse them.”
Harry Truman
US President
Complain about this comment
@ 5... Wikipedia? come on. This is merely their interpretation of the treaty. and that is the point, it can be interpreted any number of ways, but how will the judges interpret it, when they will inevitable be asked to rule on decisions effecting all our lives?
This document, (and yes I have downloaded and read it) is a slef contradictory, ambiguous mess. The politicians cannot make head nor tail of it and so they are begging us to "trust" them.
That alone MUST be a reason to vote no. Should we trust politicians to implement something that they do not understand? Crazy!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What's going on here?
Has someone been referring all 'No' campaigners' posts to the moderator?
My previous post @5 was removed though it contained nothing that could be interpreted at infringing 'house rules'.
I demand an explanation.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
in response to #5, and agreement with #14 -
The information that Irish people have been given about the Treaty is completely ambiguous. The referendum commission gives a brief outline of 'facts' which are all, strangely enough, quite positive. Available for download are the ammendments proposed, which are a list of changes to article numbers - meaningless unless you have the full text. The full Treaty is available for download, the first part 175 pages long, the next 87 pages long, and the annex a further 22 pages long, in language which could be interpreted by anyone in different ways. The Yes side and the No side have been able to take a single point and justify it completely, each in the opposite way. How can this be possible if the the text wasn't so unclear and ambiguous? Those of us who truly want to make an informed decision are left without unbiased advice.
Complain about this comment
reply to ScepticMax
I heard in passing comment that the BBC stands for Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.
Complain about this comment
Where is the democracy when a few thousand irish voters could concievably thwart the wishes of the majority of the people of Europe.
Many countries have already ratified the treaty of Lisbon. I do not see any signs of riots of protest in the streets of those countries.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Post # 20
I agree - I posted on this blog - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/06/irish_pm_no_would_kill_lisbon.html
and it didn't appear either.
Complain about this comment
This thread is pointless while so many postings are being reviewed by the moderators.
The suspicion is that individuals are abusing the moderating process.
If this is the case, then I hope that they will take sanctions agaisnt those people concerned and also post a note telling us what is going on.
Complain about this comment
25 - you don't see any riots because only the politicians want this constitution, not the voters (who would do the actual rioting).
If you really are concerned about democracy, you would be asking for all the people of Europe have a say, not none. That's real democracy and it is being denied to European citizens on an unbelievable scale.
Complain about this comment
@25
If protesting would be of any use, you can bet there would be protests.
This is not a matter of a few million Irish voters going against the will of 400 million + other Europeans.
This is a matter of a few million Irish voters getting a voice, where the voices of 400 million + Europeans have already been silenced because the powers that be don't like what they might hear from them.
Its pretty obvious that this socalled treaty is exactly the same as the previous, rejected constitution. If the people in France and Holland had a referendum, why would the result be any different from the first time?
Complain about this comment
Pencils @25 wrote:
"Where is the democracy when a few thousand irish voters could concievably thwart the wishes of the majority of the people of Europe. "
Firstly, there is - at this time - no 'European people'. There are sovereign nation states, and it is the peoples of those states who should determine their own destinies.
What the peoples of, say, Luxembourg, Spain and Bulgaria - not to mention the UK- want or vote for should have no bearing on what the Irish decide for themselves.
Secondly, "the majority of the people of Europe" - even when considered as individual states - were not even consulted, let alone have given their consent. (And some of those that were consulted had their rejection steamrollered).
Complain about this comment
Number 25
How can you say that the Irish will be thwarting the wishes of the others. They are the only country that was asked.
Please don't give the the good stuff about the treaty being passed by representatives of other countries.
In Britain, we were promised a vote on the matter and then denied it. The government has NO mandate to pass this treaty. There are 65million of us here, and I am sure that the margin against would have been substantial. Do you really think the French, Dutch etc are for it?
Complain about this comment
Well me comment was encouraging a Yes vote and they are moderating me too!
Complain about this comment
Who watches the watchers?
Complain about this comment
I think its only fair to point out that all Treaties, Laws and indeed scriptures are open to interpretation and this makes them difficult to understand in the begining. If ratified, this treaty will face the same challenges in the future that all of the above do on a regular basis.
I mean, even " thou shalt not kill" is open to interpretation it seems .. so expecting a political treaty to be crystal clear is niave at best and playing on fear mongering at worst.
I would say that it is simply a case of placing our trust in the EU courts. Anything in the treaty can be challenged later through these courts and the real yes/no question is ... Do you trust the EU courts system to deal with any challenge fairly?
Complain about this comment
If the Irish vote yes, then it will be one step closer to a police federal state with complete diplomatic immunity. The real agenda here is the long-term goals of the internationalists to vanquish national sovereignty and replace it with centralized systems, and ultimately world federalism.
The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament. Anyone who disagrees with the EU will be deemed politically incorrect as racist, meaning imprisonment . We will lose our freedom. People need to wake up to the real agenda of world government, with the EU as a stepping stone to that goal.
Complain about this comment
Posts 20. 27, 28 - What do you expect - this is the BBC after all - the most avidly pro-European broadcaster in the British Isles.
It would be totally out of character if the "moderators" did not edit out contrary views.
They seem to dislike the ones which present a logical well thought out argument the most. The idiot fringe are allowed in as this tends to discredit the contrary view.
They have practised this technique for years on the HYS site.
Complain about this comment
Why didn't Mark Mardell report that the Irsh PM deliberatley lied to a voter when he said the Lisbon Treaty won't mean that Ireland has less power in the EU?
Mark described the reply of the Irish PM "as generously broad-brush, given changing voting weights and the loss of commissioners on a regular basis". It was Mark who was being generous: the Irish PM deliberatley lied and Mark knew that he lied.
The YES campaign is based on lies and I hope that the Irish voters will not be taken in and will vote NO.
Complain about this comment
The Irish bookies usually know which way things are going. They are offering odds of 1/3 for YES and 2/1 for a NO which for those (like me) that don’t understand betting is a prediction that YES will win. :-(
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Number 35
Your first paragraph is correct, but I think that there is a clear difference between the differences in interpretation as a result of complexity, and the deliberate use of complexity to allow differences in interpretation.
This method is most effective if you control the process by which definitive interpretations can be made....such as the European Court.
I don't trust the Eurocrats because they have given me no reason to trust them and many reasons not to trust them.
Every opportunity is taken to accumulate powers while obscuring their intentions.
For goodness sake, they can't even get their accounts approved by their own auditors and chase whistle blowers through the courts trampling over the so called rights and protections they claim to hold so dear.
The issue is the fundemental lack of democracy at the heart of the European institutions.
Complain about this comment
"Pencils wrote:
Where is the democracy when a few thousand irish voters could concievably thwart the wishes of the majority of the people of Europe. "
How do you know the will of the majority? We've all been denied a vote
So, where is the democracy when the wishes of a few hunderd politicians try to thwart the wishes of the majority of the people of Europe?
Complain about this comment
I had a look at the BBC's site on moderation. It says that pre-moderation is used on children's sites.
Post moderation is used on other sites and reactive moderation on adult sites.
Anyone any idea why this site is being treated as a children's site?
Are we not to be allowed to discuss Europe without supervision? It would be entirely appropriate if that were the case
:-)
Complain about this comment
It is great thanks to the Irish constitution to be given an opportunity to vote on a major European decision.
This vote can change the European bureaucracy structure and have an influence on all members and associated members of the E.U. This is perhaps the first time ever that Ireland is punching way above its belt. The major dilemma for Irish voters is simply losing this kind of power.
The European community will never work efficiently unless compromises are made. The QMV voting system can work effectively and most citizens in Ireland and Europe do have the same ideas to what they believe this community should be!
Complain about this comment
As many contributors have already pointed out, democracy does seem to be losing out.
If the Lisbon Treaty (and presumably all similar documents that have preceded it or will succeed it) really is a document boasting "European" resonance, why is the "European" electorate denied the capacity to express a collective verdict on its efficacy (or lack thereof)?
Seems simple really but the concept of a "European" electorate acting is unison seems to frighten the hell out of individual member state political elites - now I wonder why?
So if we (as Europeans) have learned anything in the last four years (from Laeken to Lisbon and back again) it should be that processes of this type should be dealt with on an exclusively "European" basis, not the dogs dinner provided by an individual member state approach.
Finally, I managed to locate this hilarious guide to the Lisbon Treaty, which is written by someone in favour of the Treaty but nevertheless provides a useful dissection of the principles underpinning the entire process.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Have fun!
Complain about this comment
The Taoiseach's repsonse to a valid question is blatantly untrue as rightly pointed out by Busby2. Wikipedia is hardly a suitable source of information on something so devisive. I've long been interested int the EU and studied it a university. I've read the Treaty, and to be frank ahershko, I came to the opposite conclusion. An informed vote in my opinion is 'No'.
However I know from experience that if there is a No vote the referendum will be re-run untill voter fatigue sets in and the Yes side win the day. A test and proven strategy. Same as the Nice Treaty.
That reminds me more of a certain troubled African country than a European Democracy.
Complain about this comment
WeI rish should be proud that we have a chance to register our vote on the treaty. Although I am sure it will go the way of the Nice treaty if it is not passed. The Government say that there is no "plan B', I have a feeling that one will appear very quickly !
Complain about this comment
At this point in time I believe that both sides of the Lisbon treaty argument need to study the framing of the American Constitution. The preamble reads as follows."We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". If you delete all references to America and replace them with the word Europe, one has the foundation of what the Lisbon Treaty should be, but is not. The Constitution of the United States has survived, more or less in tact for 400 plus years, and is as viable now as when it firt written.
Complain about this comment
Based on my experience elsewhere I think pre-moderation is very important when discussing EU issues. My goal is to make strong points using moderate language, but my experience elsewhere is that without moderation I quickly get called a neonazi, fascist maggot, etc. by those who are unable to defend the EU project. The BBC moderators seem to do pretty well. If anything I think the moderation could be a little stricter.
Complain about this comment
#41,
I think you have a valid point about the lack of Democracy in the EU .. especially as it is seen from a small island of 4 million people on the fringes of europe. After all europe hasnt ever given Ireland the benefit of the doubt or bailed us out or given us multi billion pound gifts ... In fact the have been quite awful to us really.
Or maybe not, you see I live in france and I get paid in Ireland. I live better than anyone else I know here because of the lack of democracy in europe. I make double what the rest of my workmates make because of the lack of democracy. I see, all around me, how they could have justifiably spent the billions of euros on themselves and left us rot off the coast.
You and I benefited greatly from that lack of democracy in the EU and oddly we didnt complain about it when it was doing us a favor. Without that lack of democracy I would probably be in Ireland right now picking spuds (not
Complain about this comment
I decided to ask each of the 3 sitting members of the Dail for my Dublin North West constituency 2 questions. "(a) Have you read the treaty in its entirety and (b) do you understand each and every provision ?
Only 2 out of the 3 replied. Both of these were campaigning for a yes vote but one admitted they hadn't read the entire document and the other says they read it but did not understand all of the provisions.
Each of these people has posters up exhorting us to vote Yes. If you are gullible enough to take advice from Public Representatives who do not understand the implications of this document then I have bottles of elbow grease and cans of stripey paint which you might wish to purchase
Complain about this comment
Irish voters take note. When we in the UK voted for a common trading arrangement,we weren't told that there would be a Euro parliament, MEPS, laws that supercede ours, unelected commisioners and officials, central bank,armed services, and much more.
We've were conned.If you want to preserve your indepenant identity and control vote no.
Millions of us who oppose this nonesense are depending on you
Complain about this comment
Number 50
What is your point?
Are you saying that democracy doesn't matter as long as we are benefiting?
Or is it that the Irish must accept the Treaty because of previous largesse from other European nations funnelled through the EU?
Or is it something else?
Complain about this comment
number 49
I accept that your feelings on abusive language such as you have cited are valid, but I would add that removing the posts prevents us from forming our own opinions.
If someone responds to a clear, rational and reasonably argued case with abuse, then it only reflects on them - and gives crediblity to your arguement.
Censorship should be reserved for the most serious of abuses, not to protect us from the equivalent of schoolyard name calling.
Maybe the BBC should allow us to view the postings they believe are offensive elsewhere, so as to give us some idea of what they are filtering on our behalf.
Complain about this comment
Anglosphile8 (48): The first three words of the American constitution could never apply to Europe because there is no we “We the people” in Europe. No country agrees to live under law that a majority of its population do not like, simply because there are majorities in other countries that would like them to. Would Americans agree to live under decisions decided by a combined majority of Americans and Indians in which they were often outvoted by 1 billion people on the subcontinent? The people of Pakistan and Bangladesh refused to do that. The Irish people refused to live under a British government dominated by others. Similarly I refuse to live under a European government where the people I elect hold minimal voting weight and will regularly be outvoted.
A nation-state like the USA or Germany should never be confused with a multi-national federation like the USSR, Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia all of which were undemocratic states dominated by their largest member (Russia, Serbia, the Czechs) and all of which broke up to create democratic nation states. So please, lets not have this simplistic talk of applying the US Constitution to Europe.
Complain about this comment
There seems to be a bit of comment about the audacity of a small country possibly voting down an agreement favoured by the rest of Europe. Well, we reallly have no idea if the rest of Europe agrees with it. Their peoples haven't been allowed to say.
Complain about this comment
"I quickly get called a neonazi, fascist maggot, etc. by those who are unable to defend the EU project. " [#49]
Only that? Thank got that pretty soon nobody will be able to call you even 'pikey',
because I've just read in this portal that the word is considered offensive.
NB if you drive too slow on New Jersey Pike they don't call you 'pikey' but refer to sexual relationship they think you might have had with your mother or father.
BTW I noticed that socialist cons think that 'neocon' has a pejorative connotation.
And, to make you feel better, they call Sarkozy and Berlusconi fascists as well.
Obviously unaware that 'fascist' = national socialist. :-)
Complain about this comment
53 .. I am only saying that people who rejoice while benefitting from an imperfect situation should hold their tounge a bit more when they are called on to sacrifice for it.
Dont get me wrong, vote yes or no as your head and heart tells you to do but do not put forward such awful excuses. The simple fact is that the Lisbon Treaty is not good for Ireland. Its not supposed to be. Its not good for anyone in roughly equal proportions.
To expect democracy at such a huge level at this point is silly and to lament its non existance ONLY when it is adversly affecting your own cushy existance (which is a direct result of it to begin with) is sad at best. Anyone who really cares about the lack of democracy in the EU would be shouting about it when times are good as well. No one in Ireland, not Sinn Fein, not anyone complained when the EU helped fund Irelands growth in the 90's and I gaurantee that money would not have been sent our way in a real democracy.
To me a NO vote from Ireland would be akin to an ungrateful child coming of age and on their way out the door giving a none to friendly gesture to their parents.
The EU isnt perfect but nothing in the world is and to waste the opertunity to move forward and spread prosperity out even further into the world while prospering ourselfs at the same time would be unfortunate/greedy to say the least.
But like I said vote yes or no as you see fit.. As Buddha said;
"Believe (or in this case Do) nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
Thankfully (in no small part to the EU) we in Ireland live in a stable and peaceful part of the world where such wishful sentement can actually be acted upon and unlike many places in the world we wont face persecution for it.
--Just a little side note as well .. Ireland has never been neutral.. ever. We are always on one side or another. In WWI and II we my not have officially fought but plenty of Irish folk did fight and die in those wars. In Iraq, both times, we strongly supported only one side. Like I said.. just a side note in case anyone wanted to revisit the treaties impact on that issue.
Complain about this comment
56 .. you are correct.. but I can tell you that all of my friends here in france (seriously all) support it and although thats only a small snap shot of things I think that it is likely that they do support it here on the continent itself. Only an opinion I know.. but I just thought it should be given.
Complain about this comment
R 17
Am I allowed to say that I fully support the positive vote in Ireland? That's all. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
crypty @ #50, I echo your sentiments exactly. Having just returned from Spain where many British immigrants, sorry expats have relocated, it amazes me how they still whine how that had to leave the country because it is being taken over by Poles who can't speak a word of English, taking jobs, draining resources, etc and it is absolutely terrible that the UK is in the EU, whilst they are ordering yet another lager in ENGLISH. They still, even after exploiting the benefits of being in the EU, don't correlate that being in the EU means they have the priviledge to live in Spain!
If people cannot really understand this very easy and basic fact about being the EU, then why should they be given the opportunity to jepordise this entire political system which has given us, ultimately, peace in the once constantly war torn continent over a document that maybe only top European lawyers can fully understand. I for one enjoy the benefits of living and working around the EU and vehemently support it. If I was given the chance to vote in this, I wouldn't do it.
Of course I don't want to live in an undemocratic society but I feel that individual countries are already attempting to achieve this goal themselves whether in the EU or not. Look at the US for example, it's not in the EU yet it's "democracy" can be whittled down to a comical farce.
Yes, The Netherlands voted no in their referendum but hardly any of that had anything to do with the EU in fact most of the yes/no debates on the television were more directed at the failings of the national government as was the sentiment in France. Most political analysts know this.
Complain about this comment
With regard to comments about the apparent largesse of the EU towards Ireland over the years. Remember this was done (for among other reasons) to allow Ireland to build an economy that would be rich enough to buy other member states goods. It wasn't a gift.
Complain about this comment
The myth that a majority in Europe are in favour of this constitutional reform is ludicrous in the extreme. The Rep. Ireland voting no to ratification is not 'thwarting the wishes' of Europe. It may however grant an opportunity for other European peoples to demand they get their own say in this deal.
In short, they would be doing the 500 million a great service.
The fact that the EU dogma does not allow for the opinions of Europeans to be expressed; and that on the rare occasion when they do it decides to ignore them, speaks volumes about the state of democracy within the EU structures and gives a great weight to the view that their plans should not be trusted.
I beg anybody in Ireland who is unsure about the treaty, or has concerns at all as to its meaning, please do not abstain:
Do the majority in Europe this favour and vote No.
Complain about this comment
I dont think Freeborn-John should be called... and...
[expletives deleted] here with impunity.
Nor do I believe that Chancellor Angela Merkel, president Nicolas Sarkozy or premier Berlusconi should be called [expletives deleted] and [references to a political party which ruled Germany between 1933-1945 deleted] just because they dont call United States [references to 1933-45 Germany' political system deleted] and its current president [comparisons to certain primitive forms of animal life and persons affected with certain forms of mental illness deleted], unlike some posters [IPs known but not published in order not to brake House Rules] whose posts are not being deleted.
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Complain about this comment
48
The only reason I can think of that I was "moderated" was because I suggested that maybe Irish People should read the information surrounding the treaty and not rely on hear say as the elderly woman in the original article did, or to rely on page three of the "Irish" Sun which advocates a no vote.
I certainly didn't use abusive language to make my point. Which is something I have asked the BBC to explain to me.
Complain about this comment
Wow... I started looking at this blog to try to get some insight into the views of people from other countries about the Lisbon Treaty before I go home and vote! In the last few days, I have unfortunately been influenced by the pleas of our politicians not to vote no as we will become the blacksheep of Europe otherwise, so had planned to vote yes. But it looks like other 'Europeans' might not want the Treaty either...
I agree that Ireland should not be the only country to have a referendum on this issue. I'm not convinced that a more tightly unified Eu would have many benefits for the individual member states, given the vast differences in culture etc.
Having said that, I am pro-Europe and hope (maybe naively) that the weaknesses in the Treaty in terms of the lack of democracy etc can be ironed out in the future, rather than having to go back to the drawing board.
Complain about this comment
...many sensible comments are being sent to moderators, to delay their printing.
The complaints function is being used for political ends.
This is a sad day for democracy.
Complain about this comment
I have more hope today then yesterday that the Irish will vote in favour of Lisbon. The weather in Ireland was good which probably means a high turnout. A high turnout will benefit the 'Yes' vote. The Irish Bishops and the Pope have urged indirectly to vote 'Yes'. Their opinion is very important in a religious country like Ireland were Conservative Catholics form a vast amount of the population. However, I still think the result of the referendum will be extremely close.
Greetings,
DutchNemo
Complain about this comment
@61 Actually, as a Dutchman I don't agree with your assessment that it was over the failings of the Dutch government in general that the treaty was rejected. It was rejected more over the scaremongering comments of certain Dutch politicians who threatened that Europe would return to the brink of war, or that the 'lights would go out' to pressure people to vote yes.
A solid majority of people voted no instead, and for me and everyone I know that voted no, it was not about the national policies (which we generally agreed with at the time), but very clearly about the failings of Europe and the negative impact of the new constitution.
Complain about this comment
If in doubt vote no.
I beg the Irish to not abstain.
A no vote is a favour for those in Europe not allowed to vote. It may give them the opportunity to get one.
No to Lisbon: yes to democracy.
Complain about this comment
"To expect democracy at such a huge level at this point is silly and to lament its non existance ONLY when it is adversly affecting your own cushy existance (which is a direct result of it to begin with) is sad at best. Anyone who really cares about the lack of democracy in the EU would be shouting about it when times are good as well."
I think it IS important to expect some degree of democracy even at a level as huge as this! Also, I do not think acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty will adversely affect the 'cushy' existence of anyone Ireland. Complaints about a lack of democracy are arising now because finally there is a chance for some debate on issues such as accountability and democracy in the EU. These issues were also raised during the Nice Treaty (certainly 'good' times in Ireland) referendum and the constitutional referenda in France and the Netherlands. I am extremely glad that another referendum has been held in Ireland -- it has once again provoked debate on the future direction of the EU which should be a concern to every European.
Finally, I wish people would stop with the ungrateful child analogy....I can think of another so-called ungrateful child which received massive amounts of aid and now doesn't follow the exact wishes of the donor. Without Marshall Aid from the US, Europe wouldn't be as prosperous as it is today. But that doesn't mean the EU has to follow every US proposal or policy. So Ireland shouldn't be expected to accept every EU proposal without first debating its merits. And it shouldn't just be the politicians who debate Treaties - the people should be involved too.
Complain about this comment
Please accept this in the spirit in which it is intended.
The EU should consider a Constitution similar to the U.S.A.'s which would:
1) be in simple language only 20+ pages long;
2) provide representation for each country equally in a Senate;
3) provide representation for each country on the basis of population in a House of Representatives; and
4) allow each country to have its own laws, regulations, taxes outside of certain basic areas involving the rights of citizenship, commerce, defense, etc.
Complain about this comment
I was going through the bbc pictures section showing peoples views on this treaty and i came across a woman from galway who said she's voting yes because she does'nt agree with sinn feins politics.On what part of politics of sinn fein doe's she not agree with!!'If sinn fein is against child poverty,then is this this lady and others for it then?!!uumm make's you wonder
Complain about this comment
To americanvisitor (72):
Yes, it would be a good idea to have a constitution similar to the USA... but...
1) If it's in simple language and if it can't be long, it can't be precise and comprehensive. If you want the constitution be precise and comprehensive it must be in legal language and it will be long. Just in example compare US constitution to Basic Law of Germany.
2) That would be Council of Ministers. Each member country sends a minister to the council and either unanimous vote is required or a majority of votes. Each minister has votes relative to their country's population thought larger countries have less votes and smaller more relative to their populations.
If the Lisbon Treaty comes to an effect, a decision needs, where unanimous decision is not required, double majority of 55% of council members (countries) must favor it and their total populations must represent 65% of EU citizens.
It's quite close what the US senate is thought representatives are chosen and their negation power given and dictated by their countries goverment.
3) That would be the EU parliament. There are 732 members in the parliament and countries get positions based on their population, thought smaller countries get more seats in relative to their population.
4) Well... Interstate commerce... In these days one could ask what doesn't have an economical or business function in it... in example Bologna process defined common academic standards and quality assurances to create European higher education area.
...and well... the current EU I think is in a mess because its slowly transitioning to an federation, it's just not a club of countries anymore but it's not a full blown federation yet.
Complain about this comment
On tonight's news Mark reports Irish electors going in to the voting booths saying that they didn't know what the Lisbon Treaty is about.
Well, they knew this was coming so they had time to find out.
Democracy in action! Referenda are fine when you have an informed electorate. If not .....
What do the electorate put people into Parliament to do? To take the hard decisions for them.
Complain about this comment
#61 Ilah2001 ,
I hope you were able to speak fluent Spanish when you visited there recently, or maybe you hacked along in a foreign country as most visitors do. Whatever, don't try and post anything on this site in a non-English language as it will be rejected by the moderators as my post #40 which contained words from that strange unknown language called French broke house rules. All it did was voice the fact that even in Belgium, the home of the EU, an awful lot of people are fed up with the direction of the EU and the politicians who claim to represent everybody.
Complain about this comment
"Well, they knew this was coming so they had time to find out."
And yet when the people ask for clarifications they are denied them.
...when they ask for the details they are referred to a myriad of documents they are unfamiliar with.
...when they look to their politicians for guidance, they say they haven't read it but that the people should still vote for it.
If the vote comes in as yes, they will never have to ask our opinions again.
Complain about this comment
72. americanvisitor wrote:
"Please accept this in the spirit in which it is intended.
The EU should consider a Constitution similar to the U.S.A.'s"
Thank you. Please accept this in the same (I hope) well-intentioned spirit.
Good as it is the US Constitution was drawn up for only 13 States with a small population. (We have 27 with about 500 million people)
Congress intended to accept it if only 9 of the 13 States accepted it but, happily, it was unanimous in the end. (We have to go for unanimity from the start)
577 delegates voted against it in the face 1071 who voted for it. (one-third against, you'll note)
Unless you count the Civil War, there was no referendum on the US Constitution. (We have many people who want a referendum but have never bothered to read what's on offer. Sadly, our text has been written in bureaucratic style and full of legal jargon incomprehensible to most even if they try - and that's its essential weakness)
The US Constitution didn't prohibit slavery. That came later in one of 27 Amendments. (So the US didn't quite get it right first time around. Sadly, everyone here seems to aiming at perfection from the outset - which is really rather ambitious).
Complain about this comment
All the comments so far have seemed to accept the idea that a constitution is needed. What's wrong with the idea of some form of common law? It's worked well in England for the last millennia and it would mean that all aspects of legislation would be debated individually, meaning that any specific problems could be sorted out without having to continue altering the wording of any overarching documents.
Complain about this comment
I think that the E.U. Constitution should be passed already....
Complain about this comment
why have so many notes have been referred to the moderators and or been removed?
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark.,
I know that you're a busy man and the last thing you want to do is work late into the night but I would have really enjoyed reading your analysis of the polling data after the polls closed at 10pm.
David
Complain about this comment
The big difference between the Eu and the US is that the US is one country and its citizen feel US citizens first and citizens of their state second. In the EU it is vice versa.
So, while in the US it is unthinkable that
the federal government would take a decision
against the interests of a state-especially in regard to foreign affairs-, in the EU this is by no means certain and indeed has happened many times in the past. Therefore
I really see no reason for a treaty
or moves towards a common foreign policy
for that matter if that will be against the interests of some member states. If we really want to move towards a single state, then the prime objective would be to make people feel
as citizens of that single state first, and of their country second. We are very far from this goal, and I do not think we are going in that direction. Hence many people perceive
the EU as an unelected, unaccountable bunch of blue-blooded politicians who
are not realy looking out for their interests, and in many cases are working against those interests. Until this picture is reversed, I see no point in the Lisbon treaty.
Complain about this comment
It is thought that if 26 countries ratify the Lisbon treaty by government decision , without a referendun ; then the people of those countries support it .
There are many , many people across Europe who would like a democratic vote . If 3 million Irish vote and the result is NO , they are not spoiling it for 487 million Eropeans . Who Knows , they too might have voted NO , or at least half of them . If the Irish vote NO , they will represent millions of people across Europe , who would like to have voted NO .
Less and less the people are asked in case they say NO . We of many sovereign states are being steamrollered by the EU commission into something we don't want to be .
The European parliament is just there for show , token democracy .
There is need for a European Army to protect the body of the EU against its enemies , we the people of countries that make up Europe .
Go for it ireland , please say NO !
Complain about this comment
Well, I went out yesterday and voted NO.
My reasons were simple:
-I was not allowed to be represented by my Union in recent contract negotiations with our government due to "Competition law" issues - this treaty is strengthening these competition laws.
-I didn't understand what I was voting on.
-I don't see why I should hand more power to faceless beaurocrats as to the laws and economic policies of my country.
The YES side made no convincing arguments. They didn't seem to be able to give clear cut facts on what were the benefits. We were also told that we we're being "Good Europeans" if we voted YES, that NO would have "Serious consequences for Ireland". This I found very patronising. If the only answer Irish Politicians and EU Parlament wanted is YES - Why ask us to vote at all??
Complain about this comment
Because the Irish Vote was on a knife edge---because people [most of them] didn't like the results of it, could bring to the country of Ireland and to the Government in Brussels.
~~@ 43 : @ 1.22pm on 6/12/2008....i also, read the same moderations requirements on the bbc website and they have rejected couple of mine items [not on the blogs, but on have your say]....
children sites should be FULLY moderated, and limited on ADULTS proxies.
thanks!
Complain about this comment
24 ScepticMax
I have read that unless the BBC reports favourably of the EU and European Parliament ; their correspondents will not be allowed to report on EU affairs .
I believe it was a news report and not just speculation .
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS