Private polling and focus groups indicate Lisbon 2 may be lost: Sunday Times

[McDave]

Well now McDave that's all very well and good but some of us are voting no to Lisbon (and have been since Maastricht) because we would would rather that Ireland was closer to Boston than Berlin.

The alternative is to ally with the right and push from within for Friedrich Hayek's vision of a small govt federal Europe. But the 'anglo saxon' tradition is heavily outnumbered by the Rhineland economic model. ps I am an ordinary 5th generation Irishman - no connections to the UK.

That's fine by me. Live long and prosper (on P.ie too!)

There are clearly strong connections between Ireland and the US. And if you take it to the level of average Irish citizens, they live in an English-speaking culture where practically all their information and cultural references are Irish, British and American. When it comes down to real understanding based on what you can verify for yourself, then that's perfectly OK.

I'm personally less enamoured with the Anglo-Saxon world-view, and for a lot of reasons. But rather than trudge through lists of 'Exhibits A-Z', I'll just say that I can read up in a few foreign languages and feel comfortable with the culture of quite a few of the continental European countries. From my experience of continental Europe, it's my feeling that Ireland is closer to many of them than it is to the US and England. That's just my view. I'm not forcing it down anybody's neck, although I will admit that I'm prepared to put the boot into jingoists who go on about Frogs, Nazis, etc.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

That has to come into effect on 01st November if Lisbon isn't ratified. Giving the Council around 3 weeks to finalise how it will be done. That's nowhere near enough time to start from scratch on negotiations, especially given that all Member States Governments have already agreed to the 2/3 proposal in the Lisbon negotitations. You are fooling yourself if you think it will be anything other than the 2/3 proposal.

Fooling myself?!?! How?!?!

If Ireland choose to reduce the numbers to 26, that is their prerogative! Part of being 1 in 27 i suppose. I think Ireland should give up it's commissioner. There are simply too many of them.

If an agreement could not be reached within 3 weeks, then an interim commission is nominated (as Mr. Barrosso has already signalled!!) but the legitimacy of that commission would be in doubt as Ibis points out.

I honestly don't know what would happen, but i'll take a stab at a guess that the heads of member states would not allow an illegitimate commission to remain in office for long. It would have to be sorted out pretty quickly, or the commission comes to a standstill.

Ergo, it is likely that a decision would be made post-haste (some member states have plans already outlined) but it is also likely that an interim commission will be appointed for a short time while we await that decision.

You must also remember that Ireland is not the only country to not ratify the Lisbon Treaty. It looks extrememly likely that, even without Ireland, an interim commission will be appointed anyway untill all of the ratifications are through.

[ibis]

If Ireland choose to reduce the numbers to 26, that is their prerogative! Part of being 1 in 27 i suppose. I think Ireland should give up it's commissioner. There are simply too many of them.

It's definitely not our prerogative! As molloyjh says, it will require negotiation, and as you say, they won't allow an interim Commission to persist for long - which means that the two-thirds setup already agreed is what will come into effect, because the member states know they can agree that. If we say Yes, then the other "hold-outs" will go down pretty much immediately.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

It's definitely not our prerogative! As molloyjh says, it will require negotiation, and as you say, they won't allow an interim Commission to persist for long - which means that the two-thirds setup already agreed is what will come into effect, because the member states know they can agree that. If we say Yes, then the other "hold-outs" will go down pretty much immediately.

I meant our decision to vote for a 26 member commission would be our prerogative. Not the demand to have it so. I know negotiation would be needed and i should have been clearer. Apologies

Lisbon explicitly states that the commission will be reduced to 2/3 from 2014 (with a further clause, being invoked by the Irish NO, regarding it's size). Nice has no such clause, except that it must be reduced to less than the number of member states when that number reaches 27, by a process of unanimity. If Lisbon falls, we go by Nice.

Whether we like it or not, i think there will be an interim commission. Mr. Barrosso has signalled that the commissioners from 2004-2009 may have to stay in office longer until all ratifications are solved and the problem of the college size (and which text it works from) is sorted. Germany, Ireland and the Czech Republic have still to ratify Lisbon.

[CookieMonster]

Aesthetics. Don't know which is worse, the 'death-star core' or the glass barn.

I'd go with Death Star given it's previous occupants.

[hiding behind a poster]

Baroness Kinnock has made it quite clear that the Lisbon Treaty is completely unaltered by the Irish 'guarantees'.

We all know that, blacbloc. The guarantees exist to confirm what the Treaty already says. Obviously they don't change it, in that case.

[MrFunkyBoogaloo]

The guarantees exist to confirm what the Treaty already says. Obviously they don't change it, in that case.

Which is another reason to vote NO.

We didn't get a guarantee on Worker's Rights, ergo, they'll still take second place to the market. And when you take into account the solidarity clause, Ireland's 'neutrality' is clearly affected, for we cease to be 'neutral', so in my view, that guarantee is worthless.

The idea that a neutral country can be aligned to others and remain neutral is nonsense.

http://eutreaty.wordpress.com/2008/0...nd-neutrality/

[molloyjh]

Which is another reason to vote NO.

We didn't get a guarantee on Worker's Rights, ergo, they'll still take second place to the market. And when you take into account the solidarity clause, Ireland's 'neutrality' is clearly affected, for we cease to be 'neutral', so in my view, that guarantee is worthless.

The idea that a neutral country can be aligned to others and remain neutral is nonsense.

The Lisbon Treaty and “Neutrality” The Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty

Workers Rights are advanced in this Treaty. The common complaint is that they are not being advanced enough. I have to laugh at that being a reason to vote No though. The thought of preferring to stand still rather than advance a small bit is a little bizarre in my book.

And we are not a neutral country by default. We are traditionally so but there is nothing to stop our Government aligning us in any conflict. Unlike other countries we do not have neutrality enshrined in law anywhere. Sure it's debatable that we are seen as neutral as we stand anyway with our membership of the EU and our relationaship with the US (Shannon airport being the obvious example). Nevermind the policy of "friendly neutrality" that we have always adopted.

[constitutionus]

Who are "the big three"? What lies did they tell about the commissioner? I've read all this thread and I can't remember any such thing being established.

FF/FG/LAB.

they ALL said our comissioner was perfectly safe and there was no chance of losing it.

turned out to be lying bollocks and now dick roche, who campaigned TWICE on NICE with this stance, has reveresed his position completly and is now banging the lisbon drum on the basis we will lose our comissioner under NICE.

incidently he's not saying a fecking thing about the 2/3d size comission so you can bet your arse if we vote in lisbon when we DO lose our comissioner he'll come out with some bollocks about how "shure didnt we all know that? its in the treaty !"

[Earnest]

FF/FG/LAB.

they ALL said our comissioner was perfectly safe and there was no chance of losing it.

turned out to be lying bollocks and now dick roche, who campaigned TWICE on NICE with this stance, has reveresed his position completly and is now banging the lisbon drum on the basis we will lose our comissioner under NICE.

incidently he's not saying a fecking thing about the 2/3d size comission so you can bet your arse if we vote in lisbon when we DO lose our comissioner he'll come out with some bollocks about how "shure didnt we all know that? its in the treaty !"

You're going a long way back if you're talking of what FF/FG/LAB said in regard to Nice.

But it's quite clear that under Nice we will lose a commissioner for some of the time, whereas under Lisbon we will keep a commissioner (since the European Council has already decided to overturn the 2/3 rule if Lisbon is accepted).